<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"></div><div dir="ltr">On Jan 17, 2022, at 9:48 AM, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org> wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:large;color:#000000">I liked the poem because of the content.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This is like saying you liked not because of the poetry. Also, that poem was repetitive regarding meaning too. Most stanza repeated the same meaning throughout. This and all too regular meter made it hard to get through, especially given its length. (Sure, I’ve read longer poems, but this one tested the limits of how long one could continue a regular beat and repeat the same meaning.)</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:large;color:#000000"> In fantasy and scifi there are several writers who can write as well as anyone - Card and Bujold for two.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I didn’t want to go into specific examples. My point was you seem to be doing the same thing with regard to non-classical music as certain literary critics do with regard to science fiction (and other genre fiction).</div><div><br></div><div><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif" size="4">Clipping the rest.</font></div><div><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif" size="4"><br></font></div><div><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif" size="4">Regards,</font></div><div><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif" size="4"><br></font></div><div><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif" size="4">Dan</font></div></body></html>