Hi Andy, I apologize if I sounded rude, but what I did say explicitly is that I thought the poems were "roughly equivalent", or P1 ~ P2. Gareth used the phrase "much better", which I took to mean P1>>P2. P1>>P2 is stronger than P1>P2, and much stronger than P1~P2. I still believe the two versions are comparable to one another, and that either could be "a good start", but would need more development to become poetry.
From a diversity perspective, I don't see why it would hurt to have multiple alternatives and then argue their relative merits. This does not have to be done with an absolutist voice saying that one is better or much better than the other.
If the poet is willing to go through subsequent iterations, then there will likely be a sequence P1, P2, ...PN, in which finally PN>PM for any M<N, and then PN is the final draft. It's up to Alan if he wants to develop the idea, perhaps add some literary devices, and a few more stanzas. Personally I'm more interested in insects as a subject matter. Thanks for your comments, --Brad On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 8:20 PM Andy Latto <andy.latto@pobox.com> wrote:
On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 12:00 PM Brad Klee <bradklee@gmail.com> wrote:
Please also notice that I did not say “my poem >> Alan’s”,
You didn't say it explicitly. but it's certainly implied by your actions. After all, would anyone respond to a poem by saying "If you just change a few words here and there, you can come up with a similar, but worse, poem."? Or even "You can change some words in this poem, and it doesn't make it any worse"? The only reason to post a modified version is if you think that in your view, it is better.
because first of all, it is rude to say such a thing, and even then it isn’t provably true.
No-one here thinks that aesthetic judgements are provable like mathematical theorems. You posted your version because you think it has greater aesthetic appeal, and someone else commented that their aesthetic judgement differed from yours.
If someone else's stated opinion that they prefer the original is rude, then so is your clearly implied statement of the opposite is equally rude.
Andy
-- Andy.Latto@pobox.com
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun