[R. Nemo Hill]

"So, is anyone still concerned about the state of the Sphere?"

More so than ever.

Nemo

[Jayne Osborn]

Lighten up, Nemo.

Alex is asking for donations, as he has to do from time to time, and people wouldn't be helping him to maintain this site if they didn't get any benefit from it.

[R. Nemo Hill]

Seek some heft, Jayne.

Nemo

[Jayne Osborn]

I don't know what that means (in this context), sorry.

But as people are fond of saying here... Never mind.

[Allen Tice]

Nemo's concern is as genuine as it appears. He is a serious person when it comes to art, as I know perfectly from our mutual interest in Robert Desnos.

[Andrew Frisardi]

So, is anyone still concerned about the state of the Sphere?

I never was, and still aren't, because clearly it's in the safe hands of a load of comedians, so what is there to worry about?

--Jayne, post #150

Comedians and fun are fine, Jayne, and I meant it earlier when I said that you and others were right that there is still good on the Sphere, good people, good writers.

But philosophical gravitas is, to say the least, a dimension of poetry too. In many times and places the ability to express it has been considered the truest sign of greatness or stature in the art.

I have often considered starting a thread here called “Why is formalist poetry so philosophically lightweight?” But then I realized nearly no one would be interested.

[W.F. Lantry]

Originally Posted by Andrew Frisardi

I have often considered starting a thread here called “Why is formalist poetry so philosophically lightweight?” But then I realized nearly no one would be interested.

That might actually be an interesting thread. I wonder what might happen?

Best,

Bill

[Ann Drysdale]

I'm sorry the thread went silly. I emailed John privately with my concerns. The only definition I could find online for "whock" was:

Used as an rude, nasty, and extremely offensive and racist term to describe a person of Caucasian descent. It's literal meaning is an ignorant, low-grade, White person. "you ain't nothing but a Whock to me."

Even though I think it might have been posted by a solitary troll, 'avin' a larf (as we say here) I assumed anyone else with any curiosity would find it too, and we'd be off in a direction of sickening flagwaving and tub-thumping and hurt and misery. I assumed that others were wittily attempting to avert such a situation and I blessed them for it.

As so often, I have misunderstood and I apologise.

I'll get me coat...

[Siham Karami]

I have often considered starting a thread here called “Why is formalist poetry so philosophically lightweight?” But then I realized nearly no one would be interested.

Andrew, I think you might be surprised. (Or maybe, then again, I would be surprised.) But it sounds like the sort of question that could inspire either defensiveness, open debate, or at least lament. And because it doesn't directly address the issues of poetry, workshop manners, and verbal barroom brawls, you might get some interesting feedback.

[John Whitworth]

Because poetry is not philiosophy, just as it is not religion. BAD poetry is often one or both of these things.

Pope aimed at rhymed philosophy. He achieved splendid rhyme but fell down rather on the philosophy.

We are second-rate sensitive minds, as Tennyson remarked. But then we do not expect Don Bradman (a cricketer) to be a first-rate mind either.

I had thought whock was a past tense of whack in American usage.