All Comments on 'mathematic variations with cat'

.....I'm blown away by your use of words. This is wonderful and certainly deserving of the "E". It was a joy to find it here, thanks,

Tess

of a cat, dead or not, black and on a vector intersecting my path. Very very good.

The Empress has no clothes.You have taken intellectual pretentiousness to new heights. It is a poetic nothing.

Is it Gelid? Or perhaps Gödel?

In fact, it could have been quite funny, had I not been laboring the last half an hour, increasingly irradiated, searching - with no results, for the elusive source of the “gelid theorem” reference mentioned in the poem. Finally, I did the obvious. I Googgled with the exact phrase: “gelid theorem” and Bingo! I got one positive result. You guessed it, the single result pointed me back to Literotica’s own new poem; the very one I was searching. How about that for coming full circle? (I should mention that I had tried numerous other methods with zero results earlier). So, short of concluding that I have discovered Lit’s own home Mathematician, It looked like I was at a dead end. By no stretch of the imagination I am not a mathematician, but something rose my suspicion, and I suspect that there is a good chance that maybe ‘GELID’ is actually GOEDEL, who developed some important (if hard to follow for a lay person) theorems.

Now, here is a broader point. I could be right and I could be wrong. But just before a writer sends his/her readers to search for the references made in the poem (it’s not a two volumes five hundred pages each of epic work after all…), is it too much to expect that a basic QA, as in Quality Assurance, would be made? If not for your readers, isn’t it important to you author, to see that what you are sending with your name on it is what you really wanted to say? (Assuming that you have clarified that part for yourself by then).

Gödel theorems (BTW, which of them?) may have lost the chance to appear in your poem because of unchecked typo, and the poem (as well as the readers) have lost the chance to be enriched by potentially better poem.

Had it been the one and only mistake that happened, I would have sighed –mistakes happen, and assuming that the rest is written carefully, the poem could have clarified itself at the end. But as it happens, poor Gödel is just the most dramatic mistake in what sadly amounts to a consistently sloppy work, the equivalent to which I have not read for quite some time. I will not get into all of the examples, but you could find a particularly crude grammatical mistake (apparently, single cats get a ‘grammatical waiver’ when in third person at present tense, thus:” the cat go by”; mixed metaphors and the awkward language (“the war thinkers” (?) akin to: “I am the decider”. And don’t get me started on “the book of brumes”…. Sad thing is, THERE ARE promising lines which could have grown with much more discipline and much less presumptuousness to a potentially interesting and truly challenging poem. But if the author refuses to truly challenge herself first (and I say all that not out of spite, but because I wish you did invest more in what you do), then how could WE be truly challenged by you? BTW, I said challenged not being ready to clear the BRUMES you seem to be spreading in the poem. With ONE well developed image you could have a great poem; with a mish- mash of mixed images you could impress those who believe that every thing which is opaque must be gold; is that what you wish to achieve?

At last, I feel that the lack of your attention to your final product shows lack of respect to your readers. In that respect I feel that you let readers down (especially compared with some of your previous work). The second let down is not your doing. I always look forward for the editors’ choice; enjoy reading the chosen works, and add my congratulations to the author. I feel that this choice did a disservice to you. I am afraid that it could encourage this type of off hand sloppy work. Rather, the honorable editors should have waited for a while and give you that award for a truly deserving work, which I believe you are capable of writing.

I will be watching for your great upcoming poem, I am sorry that this could not be the one.

with ever polarizing philtre

as eyes iris in full bore bloom

wandering if love is truely a wave

or random comedic particle

I note in foot notes and side bars

that all Shroedinger's cats truly craved

was to be loved and not put in a box

to leave a prose response... this has more to do with the comments on the poem itself.... I am blown away by the amount of time Kolkore is willing to spend being angry at a poem. wow. and then the previous comment "the empress has no clothes", both of these comments seem frivilous, mean and baseless.

I am sorry for those who spent hours and hours of time fact checking a poem on literotica. I don't appreciate commentary that is mean spirited. assuming we are all adults to read poems on an adult site it hardly seems too much to ask that we act like adults.

I am a big fan of your work Lauren, and those who would leave malicious criticism of a perfectly wonderful poem such as this would better serve their time by googling the definition of "constructive" and perhaps going to therapy.

my detractors may rise to the points of kolkore makes. I myself have often made dyslexic slips in my work, but because this is POETRY and not a master's thesis, I opted to keep them in. sometimes for sound, sometimes for interest, sometimes because my cat and the voices in my head told me to... please see "dyslexic mirror"... I think we must assume that when an author posts, they are responsible for all the words contained therein.

nuff said.

There are no typos and/or grammatical mistakes in this poem. All is exactly as it is supposed to be. Nothing is random.

"Gelid" is a word of the English language and can be found easily in any dictionary: adjective: Extremely cold; icy; as in "gelid steel". Theorem is also a word of the English language.

In the phrase "we see a cat go by", the single cat needs no grammatical waiver. The war thinkers agreed on this issue during a short intermission from their usual business of thinking about war.

Following my feedback, but first, Congratulations poster for breaking with tradition! It’s good to reexamine one’s ways once in a while. But what is wrong with leaving a response in prose? Are we in some sort of a “cultish” or a club routine where people “annoy” people if they dare speak their mind, and in prose!

I don’t agree of course that I have been “mean spirited” or providing “malicious criticism”. At the same time you had no problems sending me to therapy etc. but that is all in par with what you request from others, such as using non malicious language.

I communicated back to the author the nature of my feelings and thoughts, related to her poem, and unlike others, gave examples from the poem to demonstrate my points. There is NOTHING personal about it. It’s about the POEM only. If tomorrow the author will write as I believe she would (and I mentioned it in my terrible posting) I will be thrilled to congratulate her on that. I do not believe that poem writers are children who need special protection from their readers and their opinions for as long as they invite them. Moreover, I gave the author a very CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. I specified what in my opinion did not work and what could work differently, then wished her luck in the future. Only singing the praise of a story or a poem creates exclusive fan clubs where you can learn nothing about what all the rest think.

To the author: I appreciate your response. I can’t say that it resolved much of my problems with the poem this time. But it does give me a better understanding of the way you work with language. In addition, your clarifications brought a new set of questions… but seeing the other comments I will not present them, at least not in the public forum (which is a shame IMO)

p.s. I do appreciate any author who agrees to host any kind of exchange of opinions beyond the one time liners. If I post for a second time I post the top rating, as the reference is to the process of discussion itself.

Please feel free to post any further comment or questions that arise from my clarification or from your re-examination of the poem. I encourage and appreciate it.

Call me cryptic, call me pretentious, it's all good. The only thing I took exception with in your original comment was the implication that I had shown no respect for my readers by being sloppy with my research or edition. That is simply not true. There are no mistakes here, and no slips. Everything has been checked several times. I have the highest respect for my readers, and with that high respect comes the natural expectation that my readers know the English language and are capable of following the natural flow of words and images. I didn't use a dictionary or a thesaurus while writing the poem - although I did while spell-checking -, so I don't expect my readers to have to run to grab one just to understand what's going on.

I would not call it pretentious....odd is more like it. Consider the following:

How can you draw a circle around ANYTHING that is invisible?

Pretentions are not matter per se, e.g. a soap dish. Therefore, they cannot take on a given color and have meaning.

A hand cannot have intelligence, unless you want to implant some brain cells into a thumb.

The easy answer to this is "But Sack, it's a poem and I can put in anything I darn well please."

Sorry, don't agree. The natural extension of that would be a mere collection of words without rhyme or reason. This is hardly random, it's basically wordplay with very little relation to "real life".

Kolkore gave you some very reasonable, intelligent suggestions. I would listen to him....

"How can you draw a circle around ANYTHING that is invisible?"

Indeed, that is a conundrum. Perhaps that was the point? It may require a little abstraction from the reader, to consider that "drawing a circle around something" can mean signalling that thing, or isolating it, or defining it; and that if that thing is invisible, it may be an idea, a concept, a theorem.

"A hand cannot have intelligence", you say. That is very true, but by the same reasoning, a hand cannot draw either, so that problem wouldn't have presented itself in the first place. In order to draw, this hand cannot be severed from a body, complete with a working brain, and its movements must obey brain.

As I said in response to KOLKORE, I have the utmost respect for my readers. I expect them to be able to make simple abstractions like those. I understand that some readers prefer not having to do that work. That's cool. I also write prose. But I also respect my prose readers, so I don't know what to tell you.

Fascinating

And it sounds so different

From your words on the π thread;

Must be an effect from Wednesday's reviews

As I read, every week, all that's posted to the very end;

But here even better

With comments most learned

{but one}...

not that it matters much, but I liked the last three stanzas better than the first two.

feel that lines like these could be better broken

disproves the thesis enounced

by the high priests

I keep thinking of Schrödinger

The following is my effort to follow up on your invitation and provide you with my new comments. As I was sitting in the Metro, I found myself responding in a semi-rhythmic way (think Hip Hop…) and certainly with an intention to add some humor (I hope that it does come across as such). Upon reflection, I do not see it so much as a question, but rather as a new comment, informed by the previous exchanges. Finally, I wish to express my appreciation to your open mindedness as you have demonstrated that you encourage all feedbacks not just exuberant one liners.

You mentioned to my fellow reader Sack / the terms idea; concept; theorem /

In an exchangeable way, it seemed to me / But when I took them and examined / I found them quite distinct! / Each carries different meaning / its own semantic field / That’s it! I cried internally / (There were some people not too far) / It’s not unlike the poem / where terms seemed to appear / but never to show why or how / their author chose them / and not some other in their place! / I wish, I thought, I had a chance / to learn what was it / that gave this poet the impetus/ to put a theorem in there / and not, lets say a lotus. / What was it in that word / which she alluded to / then asking to combine it, with icy entities? / I guess I’ll never find, because / she just have said to me / that I should not be rushing / to the aid of any dictionary / thesaurus or god forgive me / reference book / so no more to it in her poems / but just the terms names/ And - that’s it? / And that should be enough for me? /

And then I also had to dwell with dizzying array / of other terms and names / whose function I should never find / for the same reason you have read / just two three lines above here. / I wish, I said so to myself / that just with one of all those terms / this poet could have settled for a while / there’s so much to dwell on each one / especially with the abstract once / which all depend on definitions / and then some on theories as well / to make sure you’ve managed to explain / to us / or to yourself / what did you really mean!

That’s why, I thought / she needs to minimally stay/ and demonstrate at least / to which part, say, of a theorem / were she referring here. /

I have to go / I hope she takes it right / and not as an insult / before she rushes to defend / to just absorb / then take whatever part / she thinks makes sense to her./ That’s all I had to say/ and now, I have to leave / this train is getting too condensed / not even standing room remained / for theorems and me.

"You mentioned to my fellow reader Sack / the terms idea; concept; theorem / In an exchangeable way, it seemed to me / But when I took them and examined / I found them quite distinct! / Each carries different meaning / its own semantic field / That’s it!"

I'm sorry, that's not. I mentioned those terms to sack in an effort to demonstrate in abstract how easily one can draw a circle around something - anything, not the something in this poem - that is invisible, in an effort to explain to him, with examples, the concept of metaphor. Those terms are certainly not exchangeable, and certainly not when it comes to this poem. The "fable's invisible avenue" is not an idea, a concept, or a theorem. When I mentioned them, I wasn't trying to offer any clues to explain my poem. Only on how to poetry is read.

I didn't see any gunplay. Sorry, I found it slightly pretentious and overly intellectual, but I like a challedge.

enounced by the high priests

some questions? enounced plays tricks, I like that, but why "by the high"

why are the premonitions white?

I can't say it has no pretense, that's for sure. :)

With regard to your questions:

"enounced by the high priests [...] why 'by the high'"

- It's "by the high priests", not simply "by the high" - although that would be some funny shit. "high priests" has a completely different meaning from simply "priests", and it's that different meaning that I was aiming at. There is nothing religious (in the common sense) in here.

"why are the premonitions white?"

- these premonitions are light, innocent, auspicious, and also a little undefined, blank.

Lauren,

Afraid I'll have to react a little against your earlier comments here about respect, preciseness of semeantics and all that. (They don't show the other comments when you write a comment, so I can't give you an exact quote, I hope you get what I'm referring to.) I don't doubt that every word, phrase and passage is carefully chosen to mean exactly what you want it to mean.

But I really have to ask you...who is your presumed reader here? You mention you respect your reader and expect him/her to, basically, get what the poem is all about without further help.

I can only speak from my own point of view, a fairly educated guy at grips with at least basic science, philosophy, history and cultural references. And those I don't have stored I can usually look up. I had to look up a lot for this one, but I found what I was looking for, and set out to try to comprehend what you wrote.

And believe me when I say that there are many ways to creatively connect the dots. But none that seems natural and so bleedingly obvious as you're implying. Poetry is text and text is nothing but communication. And frankly, despite a well rested head and a solid effort, I can't get your poem to talk to me. All I manage to see is thematic mish-mash and non-sequitir notions in a fancy wrapping.

From this I draw the conclusion that it's either not written to talk to somebody like me, or it failed in it's communication.

So I have to ask: What's the thesis here? Can you realte it in a more stringent and maybe less poetic way? Maybe then I can understand the structure by means of "reverse engineer" reading.

What I see and can appreciate though, is a competent and confident display in prosodics. (and that along is worth a high vote in my book) A few beats I would have done differently perhaps, but thank god we're not all alike in voice and deliverance. How dull wouldn't that be, eh? :)

...mentionen in the previous comment...

If you wish to indulge me, maybe a PM would be better than here. It might disturb the experience for other readers. :)

/Liar again

Thanks, Liar. Perhaps I didn't express myself correctly in that comment about respect for the reader. What I mean is that when I write, I neither dumb down nor intentionally make things more difficult than what they come to me. I think that's the highest form of respect one can have for one's readers. I don't, obviously, except them to instantly get every reference without looking - I sometimes have to look up even the most basic words, and I know you understand that, being in a situation similar to mine - nor did I mean to imply everything here is so bleeding obvious. I can and have done bleeding obvious too, but this isn't it. If it were, though, in this particular poem, I don't think it would have been half as fun to write or (eventually) read, don't you agree? :)

And the PM will follow.

I suck at math, but I do like this poem.

This poem was mentioned in the Archival Review thread, in a picking through Lit's archive of over 36,000 poems.

----------