[John Riley]

Woody Allen ran off with his long-time partner’s daughter. That wouldn’t fly in hillbilly country. His daughter says he put his fingers in her vagina when she was a small child. I guess because I went through the same sort of experience as a child, and people chose to not believe me because it was too much hassle, I tend to believe the children. His son changed his name and cut ties. But the most convincing evidence of Allen’s attraction for underage girls is “Manhattan.” It’s a confession on film. I‘ve admired his films for years but have no doubt he’s a sexual predator. All predators aren’t alike. Some use power, others a sick charm, others humor.

[Mark McDonnell]

Also, Roger, as far as this goes "there's also the matter of his sleeping with the teenage daughter of his then lover, a daughter he had known since birth and played with since her infancy", it just isn't true. Firstly, Allen and Mia Farrow never lived together and Soon-Yi was already 10 when Allen and Mia Farrow first met in 1980. And according to Wikipedia

"Previn has said that Allen "was never any kind of father figure [to her]" and that she "never had any dealings with him" during her childhood. The findings of the judicial investigation carried out during the custody trial between Farrow and Allen determined that before 1990 (when she was 20), Previn and Allen had rarely spoken to each other".

Again, not saying it isn't a peculiar and disturbing set-up but facts are important.

I think Moses Farrow's statement is worth reading.
http://mosesfarrow.blogspot.com/2018...arrow.html?m=1

[Roger Slater]

I'm agnostic on his guilt. On the one hand, there's only the one accusation. On the other hand, you and I may disagree on this, but even with your correction, it seems a bit suspect when a 45 year old man meets a 10 year old girl who happens to be the daughter of his lover, and a few years later (she says she was 21, but few people take that at face value) he is carrying on a secret affair with his lover's daughter behind her back.

Sun Yi has reason to insist she never looked at him as a father. But he was a frequent presence in her life when she was still a child, and he was presented to her as her mother's sexual partner, so I think Freud would have a different view. And Woody was a grown-up and knew that he was choosing the one near-child that would cause Mia the most hurt.

[James Brancheau]

I disagree with that too, Julie. For me, down time has been, more often than not, a period of growth. Not quite the same as a mechanic (or plumber), where constant hands-on sharpens your skills. There are mechanics as poets. But that's not what I'm in it for. If you're constantly churning out poems, I think you narrow your vision.

[Julie Steiner]

I dunno, Roger and James. Arthur Rimbaud stopped producing poetry at age 20. When answering the question "Who was Arthur Rimbaud?" we certainly round up based on what he did in his youth, and say, "A poet," because that is what he is best known for. But I think it's fair to say that there was a period in Rimbaud's life when he was a poet, and another period in his life when wasn't.

It's fair to say the same about the many of us here who came to poetry-writing late in life, so why isn't it fair when the periods of non-activity come after productive periods, instead of before?

I concede that it's a lot fuzzier when those productive periods come in between non-productive periods. Personally, I think that those of us like myself who produce poetry in fitful little blips of activity, with long, long dry spells between them, are poets when we are engaging with the world in a poetic way (whether or not anything actually gets written then), but are not poets anymore when we aren't. But I don't have a problem with people who feel otherwise.

And I actually do wholeheartedly agree with James that the fallow periods are part of the poetry-producing process.

Does it matter? Probably not. It's just a thought exercise.

[Michael Cantor]

Originally Posted by Julie Steiner

Does it matter? Probably not. It's just a thought exercise.

I believe that sums it up perfectly. And it only took us 81 posts to get there.

[James Brancheau]

C'mon Michael, engage.

[Michael Cantor]

Engage? I'm having enough trouble now finishing a decent poem - my desk and mind are littered with so-so half-poems - to spend time writing about writing about writing.

[James Brancheau]

It doesn't always have to be a terzanelle, Michael. Just giving you shit. Good to see you around.

[Roger Slater]

"Personally, I think that those of us like myself who produce poetry in fitful little blips of activity, with long, long dry spells between them, are poets when we are engaging with the world in a poetic way (whether or not anything actually gets written then), but are not poets anymore when we aren't."

What other title can you think of that only applies when you're doing the activity that the title implies? Are you only a teacher while teaching? Only a librarian when shelving books and shooshing noisy patrons? Only a doctor while seeing patients?

I know this isn't really important, but I think the reason I insist on allowing a freer use of the word "poet" is that I object to treating the word as a special word that exalts and compliments the person it is applied to. I think you can be a poet and never write a poem that is actually any good. If writing poetry is, as Susan put it, a way you define yourself, then I can't think of a reason to begrudge a person that title.

Also, do we really need such a restrictive definition of "poet"? Why? So we can shame and criticize those who adopt it without meeting our standards? So we can deny the title to those whose success bothers us? So we can beat ourselves up during a dry period by saying that we're not even poets? When we get too finicky about whom to call a poet, we are perhaps taking ourselves too seriously.

You don't need to be good at it or do it all the time to be a "poet."