Dogs as poems

[rayheinrich]

Dale: I'm impressed, when you miss the point, you do it so intelligently
as to be beguiling. But... just because I think it doesn't matter
a whole lot what a piece of writing is called, you jump to the
conclusion I have no criteria for the quality of the writing. Not true.
I can assure you that my standards are so needlessly severe and cryptic
that even you would be impressed. But basically, they have more to do
with how content is communicated than with how it is categorized.

As Juliet said: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other
name would smell as sweet..."

So, yeah, if somebody wants to call their dog a poem, sure, fine with me.
I may not like their dog, but I'll tolerate it as long as it licks my hand,
wags its tail, and doesn't piss on the carpet.

Ray


P.S. Not that I don't think debating about the true nature of a Madeleine
wouldn't be fun. Is it a sponge cake, or is it a cookie? (I'd argue sponge
cake.) I just don't want that debate to interfere with the Madeleine's
delicious fragrance while it's baking. (Or for the words that its fragrance
might inspire afterwards.)

P.P.S. abu nuwas: I think the number of angels depends heavily on the type
of dance they are doing. Ballet = fewer angels. Tap dance = more.

P.P.P.S. Gotta have a definition? Here's one by George Oppen:

   "Surely, there is is-ness. The mind operating in a marvel
    which contains the mind. Of that marvel, it can really
    not be thought about because it contains the thought.
    But it can be felt. It is what all art is about."