The whys and wherefores of…

…the fact that I’m not ‘following,’ and indeed quite literally, not ‘liking’ the poetry site in question below:

However quite a lot of writing and thinking, among other edifying activities went into this whole exchange, so I’m snipping the whole thing here, along with a part of the article under which  my original comment was posted.

When Poetry Was an Olympic Event: Great Article from The
New York Times

The torrent of sports poetry inspired by the London Olympics continues unabated: NPR even hosted Poetry Games, in which listeners voted on a selection of verse with an athletic theme by celebrated poets from various countries.  But few people today recall that poetry, just like the 100 meters, was an official Olympic competition from 1912 to 1948. Sadly, the names of the medal winners are not listed on the International Olympic Committee’s rosters. And many of the winning poems in the so-called Pentathlon of the Muses — which had to be “inspired by the idea of sport” — have mysteriously vanished as well, perhaps, as critics have suggested, because of their dubious literary quality[…]

Poetry like this, and the very fact of its existence, is “disappeared” by those of the ilk of the New York Times.  Writing an article about it, after they had much more than a casual hand in the affair will never atone for the last 100 years of literary ugliness they have helped to foster.  here: is my statement upon the very subject.

I’m afraid I’ll have to think long and hard before following your blog. I don’t have the time to research your funding, support, and the types of winners your site picks for its contests. When I do, I’ll decide if I will or not…

I’d sooner follow a porn actress’s blog than one that denigrates literature in the way the times and those of its ilk have done over the last century–plus a few decades.  They’ll receive no absolution from me.

[Your comment is awaiting moderation.]
Having fully investigated your site, I’m afraid I have determined that I cannot support it in any way. I do thank you for dropping in at my site; though, now that I have examined yours, I can’t guess what brought you there, unless perhaps some kind of automation.

I’m very sorry about this because it seems clear to me that some of your ancillary services are functional and very well intentioned; however I am not able to follow a site or a blog such as yours.

[Your comment is awaiting moderation.]


thepoetsbillow says:
October 7, 2012 at 2:55 pm Edit

Rate This


so sorry, you are upset with The Poets Billow Website. We would be happy to answer any questions you have about our funding, judging, or services.


Thank you very much for your reply.

On the lighter side, at least I now have some idea what it takes to actually get someone to comment on ones own site : )  (One also muses regarding how long ones comments will remain in moderation before they are “disappeared.” I assure you I’ll do no such thing on my own site and will, in fact, reproduce all of this content there.  I will, however, move your comment to another section as it has nothing to do with the work in question.

[I see now that, in a way, there is some relevance to this comment. I had intended to move it elsewhere, however I see that at least the billow followed my link and placed their extra topical post in a most topical place.]

One wonders why you didn’t choose to commit your reply here in limbo-land rather than on a random sonnet.  In any case, I think you misunderstand me. I’m not upset at all, I am simply unable to follow your site for the reasons I mentioned above.

I did, however, feel some emotion as I commented on the post above regarding the New York Times article.  The fact that the article contains a few glaring factual errors is proof of that to which I referred. The times reporter–no doubt blissfully unaware of any of this, and thinking he was merely writing a “puff piece”–should have simply used a research department other than the one at the Times and he would have found that all the prizes and poems, medalists, etc, are indeed quite well documented.  And are not “disappeared,” despite the Times’ best efforts.

The Times’ research department surely indicates this erroneous fact because it had doubtless been the Times’ intention to “disappear” the work, (Which, by the way, is quite far from being of “dubious literary quality”–another absurd statement when one understands the rarefied nature of the participants in Olympic events)

Wiki, and Google, and Bing, etc., yielded up plenty of information regarding the history, content, and participants of the event. Some of which is recorded by foundations specifically formed to combat the kind of “disappearing” to which the Times, among dubious others, has long been known to have been a willing part.

It is very telling that a Times reporter isn’t able to determine truth using the Times’ own research department, due to the fact that the times has, for much of its history, been engaged in its manufacture.

If you are not some kind of operative or dupe, I would task you with researching what I state regarding the article in question. You’ll find I am quite correct, and if you’re not as described, you should be very disturbed by what you find regarding the disparity between what is claimed in the Times article and the easily obtainable facts.

On the other hand, if you are as described, you should head over to Wiki and delete all the information on the contest contained there, in hopes that no one maintaining it will notice and put it all back the way it was.

On the other other hand, all this provided me with the subject for tomorrow’s sonnet.

Insults Make Me Happy:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s