leonardcohenforum.com

Dear Andrew,

No, Geoffrey doesn't fancy me (far as I know), and I don't fancy him. But I do appreciate the fact he makes me laugh. He is a tricky one, and from what he says, his attention to your poem was sparked by a devastating episode in his own life. That of course is very unfunny, but I don't seriously think he can't tell fantasy from reality. I do see why you don't quite know how to take him, particularly as it is your poem he is referring to. But, overall, he is on a wind up (if he isn't, I'll eat my bicycle tyre), even though I am pretty sure he will come back and deny it, whilst being further provocative and amusing.

Diane, are you serious?

Usually I am serious, writing on the board. When I am (trying to be) funny, sometimes I realise people have taken me seriously. I am just a soul whose intentions are good. Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood.

Please do post more of your poems sometime, in new threads or old.

Diane

I like to think that I, in the role of provocateur, have been 'primus motor' in this thread - although any nourishment has been reaped from Andrew's work.

Geoffrey.

That makes it pretty obvious that Geoffrey is a fan of yours, Andrew.
As they say, "fact is sometimes stranger than fiction" !
He had me fooled

Matj

I don't know if it's right to call a person 'tricky' if they ask awkward questions. A poem that creates debate is a successful one. I don't think Andrew was deliberately controversial - he seemed to be genuinely laying bare the 'Walter Mitty' within all gifted writers. I'm sorry if I caused any trouble, but if there is any positivity in all of this it must be that he might now feel 'primed' enough to go out into the world and face the harshest of his critics with a certain amount of confidence. Well, OK - that's it from me for this time - because I guess it really is time to close this thread now. I still have a lot to say about the matter, but that will have to remain unsaid. I am old, and tired. Leonard's grandson is eight days old today - so there will be a ceremony with the rabbi - and naming. It's a big and important day. You know, when Mary took her infant into the temple for the ceremony on the eighth day there came a man up and spoke to her. His name was Simeon. He was happy that he had seen the baby, because he felt that he could die in peace - knowing that the Old Testament prophecies had been fulfilled. But he also told Mary that one day her son would cause a sword to pierce her soul. Anyway, the new generation is here - time to wrap up. Goodbye everybody - and thank you for having me. I enjoyed it immensely.
Signing off:
Geoffrey

I am old, and tired.

Geoffrey.

Maybe so Geoffrey.
And your attitude is evergreen, also.
Matj.

Andrew McGeever wrote:Before You're Sixty-Four

I'd like to take you to a bed-
and- breakfast place not far from town,
and sign us in as Smith or Jones:
no clues for partners, mum's the word.

We'd lock the door, swap compliments
about our looks, then gently
unbutton each other; shed
decades of separation.

The hours would fly, and when it's late
we'd share more tales about the boys,
our bodies spoons for Sailing By.

We'd be awake for breakfast:
you, fresh fruit with bran flakes, me
fried heart attack. Then kiss and go,
but not before I whispered you

were nearer and dearer to me
than breakers crashing on the shore.

i don't like this one

Thanks for bringing this to the top Geoffrey.

Andrew,
I really enjoyed this - very beautiful.

Cate

Geoffrey! So good to see you here . So, time hasn't changed a thing... you still don't like this one .


~ Lizzy

Geoffrey wrote "i don't like this one".
Then why resurrect it from the bowels of cyberspace?
It's been over a year since the last posting on the "64" thread: a long time in a rapidly changing world.....some people will have forgotten what they thought, nevermind written.
Yet Geoffrey, to his credit, has escaped the time-trap, and stuck to his (long standing) guns
Me too

Andrew.

Great to see that Jarkko has lifted the ban on you, Geoffrey.

hello cate, lizzy and diane. someone created what i 'resurrected' from the bowels - and audaciously points a finger at me. i see this wicked poem as claiming extra territory for satan's kingdom on god's real estate. i request it be deleted. -geo

Dear Geoffrey,
An assemble of words can constitute verse...perchance a poem?
Is it a good poem or a bad poem?.....some may say, and usually do.
For me, I ask does it work?...in this case yes.
I wrote a poem.
It works.
It is not "wicked" (sic)
Neither am I, nor you.


Andrew.

P.S. I sense a dangerous delight in your rants.

I liked it.

>An assemble of words can constitute verse, perchance a poem? Is it a good poem or a bad poem? .....some may say, and usually do. For me, I ask does it work?...in this case yes. I wrote a poem. It works. It is not "wicked" (sic) Neither am I, nor you.

It is a reasonable attempt at a minor poem, but as literature it fails to the learned scholar, mostly due to the use of cliche or near-cliche ('mum's the word', 'hours fly', 'swapping compliments', 'waves crashing on shore' etc., etc.). Yet nothing of this concerns me. Leonard Cohen does not wear a tattoo for the simple reason that to do so would announce a low I.Q. - he is an educated and intelligent man. When I see this verse of yours I see it as a sort of tattoo - the writer unwittingly advertising a lack of worldly knowledge. You see, Andrew, it is primarily the described scenario to which my criticism relates, coupled with a need to nudge your unwholesome spirit over onto territory more befitting the gentleman subdued beneath your work. Set him free, I implore you. Do not cater for immature vegetables, inexperienced nitwits who applaud immoral filth simple because they know nothing of the irreparable damage the loss of trust does to a relationship. Ask yourself in all honesty, would these same people still say they liked your work, or call it 'beautiful', if they were the ones waiting at home while their partners betrayed them? No, they wouldn't, you know. Once trust is lost in a relationship it can never, never, never be regained. An unfaithful partner can be forgiven, but love is permanently damaged. Your little piece, Andrew, promotes the destruction of love and trust. Get rid of it, there's a good lad. Now.

Geoffrey wrote: Get rid of it, there's a good lad. Now.

hummm....?

Geoffrey you don't by any chance own a whip.

Geoffrey wrote: hiding like the guilty lowlife fornicators that they are behind locked doors and under false names, whispering and indulging in debauchery while spending good housekeeping money on overnight lodgings where they can engage in filthy copulation instead of using it on their respective familys' welfare - and such a union makes me shudder. Rightly enough, the path to heaven goes through the graveyard - but loose and unscrupulous liars who favour licentious whoring and commandment-breaking before honesty and wholesome conduct, who shun scriptures like the plague and wallow in the lecherous gratification of Satan's repugnant cesspit of falsity - their black diseased heathen souls are unredeemably shovelled down into the unending inferno, into the eternal fiery pit of hell to suffer the agonising torture of burning for ever and ever. Amen.

I love this quote - I can almost hear a snap at the end of it.

I'm not entirely sure, but I think there's a chance that you and William could become very good friends! It's possible that you might have a few things in common.

Cate wrote:

Geoffrey wrote: unredeemably

That should be 'irredeemably'. Please correct it Geoffrey; it makes you appear uneducated.