Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mpsilvertone@yahoo.com (HarryLime)
Newsgroups: alt.arts.poetry.comments,rec.arts.poems
Subject: Re: NastyGoon lifts a line
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 20:27:58 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <cc69355e6f07dcc8682f1e1bda353de0@www.novabbs.com>
References: <c120480a19034181aef31ea4a03df8d8@www.novabbs.com> <2a4af4ec834eef3f54981b740292339e@www.novabbs.com> <43d39b4a1c89d7225266eba011c12000@www.novabbs.com> <07ab66c1c01e208a4fc1ab071e658db5@www.novabbs.com> <9311088ba61ebc6586521a7b24f47801@www.novabbs.com> <36c080c524f1293340f607e197eddacf@www.novabbs.com> <912c53b9143f2a3aca65c832a9a70fb5@www.novabbs.com> <47fe3e01d087339598a76abfd6cc7059@www.novabbs.com> <d914a2888a252b0db03798f7a8147ae9@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4093478"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="9yNNWN6S3jCL2bQghupeZ7yt9QQF3aIiWb2guQimaIw";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$ewniIMuvu0Ysq.G0KHzAKuMyMcNcgVoJehvr0EE4HzaeF14Pzjiyq
X-Rslight-Posting-User: e04a750cbe04de725ce24a46bcc3953c76236e3b

On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 18:51:48 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 15:51:41 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 13:37:42 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 4:00:34 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 23:55:05 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:44:20 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 5:38:14 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 1:38:39 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
>
>>>> Since you refuse to reprint the poem, or provide a link to it, you can't
>>>> fault me for basing my reading on a single, out of context line.
>>>
>>> Actually, HarryLiar, we're now talking about my reading of the line -
>>> "the unread newspapers represent all the things one doesn't get to do in
>>> a day, all the unfinished business that just keeps piling up and piling
>>> up" and your response" which I called a "great metaphor" and your
>>> response: "Yes, George, that's Creeley's simile.  [Please note the
>>> difference
>>> between "simile" and "metaphor."]
>>>
>>> Using "the days" to represent "unfinished business" is not a simile.
>>> It's symbolism, or (if you'd like to quibble) metonymy.
>>
>> I believe that I first learned about similes in the 3rd Grade.  A simile
>> was defined as a comparison between two seemingly different things (A is
>> like B).
>
>> I've never had any interest in labeling the various forms, styles,
>> components, etc., of poetry.
>
>> I know that PJR and Horatio used to do
>> that quite a bit, and that you were always eager to join in -- only to
>> be ignored.  It always struck me as an exercise in pointlessness.
>> Poetry isn't about the labels one can attach to it, or the categories
>> one can pigeonhole it into.
>
> So, unless you're just trolling again, why did you bring it up here?

In response to your having fussed over whether my calling the lines
"similes" was incorrect.

You have always been eager to show off your knowledge of poet-related
jargon... and, as you are usually dead wrong in your attempted usage of
the same, you were consequently ignored.

>> NancyGene's line is great regardless of whether it's a simile, metaphor,
>> or an example of symbolism.
>
>>>>>> As I previously explained to you, the newspapers in NancyGene's simile
>>>>>> represent "Yesterdays," or *Memories.*
>>>>>
>>>>> That is also not a simile. If NastyGoon had said in the poem "Yesterdays
>>>>> are like memories" that would be have been a simile, but they did not.
>>>>> In your reading, they are also using a different literary device.
>>>>
>>>> And just what literary device is that?
>>>
>>> "Symbolism" sounds good to me.
>>
>> It doesn't to me.
>
> Well, I did offer you another option: "metonymy".

Which is even less applicable.

My only hesitance with labeling them as similes, is that a simile
usually compares two nouns, whereas both sentences are comparing a verb
(pile) to a noun (stacks of newspapers).

I strongly suspect that there is a special term for similes comparing a
verb to a noun that I am unfamiliar with.  And, until such term is
brought to my attention, I'm afraid that "simile" will have to suffice.

>> A symbol is the substitution of one thing for another.  Using
>> "Yesterdays" to represent "Memories" is closer to being a symbol (it's
>> actually a metaphor) than "Yesterdays... (are) like ... read newspapers"
>> (which I still think is a simile).
>
> Now this is cute; you began by denying that Creeley's use (in my
> interpretation) of "The Days" that are piling up to "unfinished
> business" that piles up was a "metaphor" (and claimed it was a simile.
> Now you're insisting that NG's use of
> "Yesterdays" (in your interpretation) to represent "memories" *is* a
> 'metaphor. You're doing exactly the same thing you accused me of.

You're confused, George.

The comparison between the action (pile) and the stacked newspapers is a
simile.

The word "Yesterdays," otoh is a metaphor for memories.

The difference hinges upon the world "like."  "Like" denotes a simile: x
piles up Y.

There is no "like" (or any other word/s) linking "Yesterdays" to
"memories."  The former is merely a metaphor for the latter.



>>>>> So you're saying that using "Yesterdays" to mean "memories" makes sense;
>>>>> but we're discussing their simile, not that literary device.
>>>>
>>>> Are you now going to prattle on about some unnamed literary device
>>>> (which you have no intention of identifying)?
>>>
>>> I just identified it, in both poems, HarryLiar.
>>
>> How can you accuse me of lying it my previous post, when you just
>> identified it (incorrectly, IMHO) in this one?
>
> I didn't accuse you of "lying it" in your previous post. "HarryLiar" is
> just your new nickname (since you didn't like "Lime sock"). If I accuse
> you of lying, I'll call you Lying Michael (since that's the search term
> for your lies that I'm now using so those can be found.

When you address someone as "HarryLiar," the implication is that you are
doing so in direct response to a lie they have allegedly made.  The same
holds true for "lying Michael."

You know this, and admit to doing so, when you explain that you use
"Lying Michael" as a "search term" for posts I've made wherein you
consider me to have lied.

So stop dancing around the question that I asked?  How can you accuse me
of lying it my previous post, when you justidentified it (incorrectly,
IMHO) in this one?


>>> Now, as for their
>>> similes, both are virtually identical: both compare days ("The days" in
>>> one, "Yesterdays" in the other) to newspapers {"unread" in one, "read"
>>> in the other).
>>
>> But the days are used to represent *different things* in each.
>>
>> Yesterdays = Memories vs Days = Increments of Time.
>
>> Are you really so dense as to be incapable of seeing past the specific
>> words to recognize their metaphorical (or, if you must, symbolic)
>> meanings?
>
> HarryLIar, judging by what you think Creeley meant by "The days", you
> seem to be the one incapable of recognizing that he was using it had a
> metaphorical meaning. (I can now call it "metaphor" even though you
> continue to insist that "not a metaphor.")

Based on the only line of his mysterious poem that you have deigned to
post, his use of "Days" is intended to be an increment of time.  As
such, it is literal rather than metaphoric.


>>>>>> The speaker in
>>>>>> NancyGene's poem feels as if they are unable to escape from their
>>>>>> memories, so the *read* newspapers keep piling up -- becoming more
>>>>>> oppressive with each passing day.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is not a good simile, as I said, because "read newspapers" do not
>>>>> normally stack up that way.
>>>>
>>>> Technically, newspapers don't stack up stack up any way by themselves;
>>>> they are stacked up by others.
>>>
>>> That's a stupid quibble; of course stacks of newspapers are made by
>>> people. Normally, people do not stack up the newspapers they've already
>>> read.
>>
>> It is neither stupid, nor quibbling, George. I was demonstrating how one
>> can change the meaning of a sentence by examining it out of context
>> (something which you do in practically every post).
>
>> According to your
>> sentence, the newspapers have taken on a life of their own and are
>> capable of movement (piling themselves in stacks).
>
> No, that's simply your interpretation of the sentence. It actually says
> nothing about the newspapers taking on a life of their own and moving
> anywhere.

Wrong again, George.  Taken out of context that's exactly what it says.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========