Re: Poetry Vandalism, Restored

Daniel,

Regarding the "final audit" lines: I was only quoting from a film that you
mentioned in a previous post.

Now, once again, I am at a loss with your prose.

Let's just do a little grammar, shall we?

You write:

"Evidence, political, powerful, desired evidence; without it, it is all
howling wind through the branches.  Yes, the grave knows nothing of it but it does
make an accounting."

Now then, what are the two appearances of "it" doing in the second sentence?
To what does each of them refer? Is the first "it" the "evidence?" Or is it a
reference to the second "it" of the previous sentence, the one following the
comma, which seems to have no referent whatsoever. What does the "it" which
makes the accounting refer to? Is that the same as the first "it" in that
sentence, or does that word refer to another subject to be found elsewhere in the
two sentences?

You see, this is what I mean by incoherence. Without any hint as to
referents for those four "its," the sentences are simply unreadable. I understand
you're not a big fan of classrooms and writing courses, but they do have some
advantages.

For instance, you then write:

"Interesting when all the numbers are based on the grave and its incredible
summing power of zero, is that what it means to create?"

Now see, in addition to not making much sense, this sentence is a grammatical
disaster. Is what "what it means to create?" What is interesting? What
numbers are you talking about? Who said anything about numbers anyway? There's a
reason why this is confusing, Daniel. You are writing incoherent sentences.

The rest of your paragraph goes off on another strange set of ramblings that
have similar structural problems. I have neither the patience nor the
inclination to go through each sentence to show exactly where I get lost, but by the
time you are talking about Zombies and "attended evidence" (a malapropism, I
suspect), any coherent response is simply impossible. Every now and than you
throw in a vague mention of "Before the Law," but never say anything about it,
and then go on to other stuff.

You might think you are being clever somehow, or "literary" or
impressionistic or somehow performing or being modern or post-modern or something. But
really, as far as I can tell, you're just being incoherent. And I have no idea at
all what you are saying. And frankly, given the prose, I don't see any
compelling reason to care.

Sorry,

--John

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Mon Jul 14 21:03:24 2003