Hill Climb Racing 2 Industrial Deals Beauty Best Books of the Month Shop new men's suiting nav_sap_hiltonhonors_launch Learn more about Amazon Music Unlimited PCB for Musical Instruments Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Tote Bags Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon Transparent Transparent Transparent  Introducing Echo Show Introducing All-New Fire HD 10 with Alexa hands-free $149.99 Kindle Oasis, unlike any Kindle you've ever held GNO Shop Now STEMClubToys17_gno
Customer Discussions > Poetry forum

where are the poets?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-175 of 615 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 28, 2012, 1:55:13 PM PDT
vivienne, without influencing u in any way,all i can PROMISE is i'll download it,even a paid download, and then review it.how i review it depends on a lot of things.how i'll review it,in a way as to make you improve as well as without compromising on honesty, i can't give u a verdict of that...but i hope u forgive me as well...i will do as i promised

Posted on Apr 28, 2012, 4:26:01 PM PDT
gizmophile says:
Suzanne,

You say,

"Personally, I think the biggest thing missing in modern poetry is an engagement with a mass audience. I'm not necessarily talking about a pandering type of engagement the likes of which reality TV sets out to fulfill, but rather art that takes up the challenge of being intelligent, challenging, while also offering something like superficial entertainment."

I find this unsatisfying.

I prefer that the writer present the best material he can create in the most effective way he can.

If this narrows his appeal to the zero extreme, that's not such a terrible fate.

Imagine painter Egon Schiele toning down his work to make it more appealing to the middlebrows of his day.

Of the mass market, its denizens at the low end must be allowed their pleasures. When you were much younger, perhaps you too enjoyed such entertainments.

We might consider ourselves fortunate to live in a time and place in which we don't have to sell our works to feed and house ourselves.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 29, 2012, 8:57:00 AM PDT
M. Thornburg says:
"Personally, I think the biggest thing missing in modern poetry is an engagement with a mass audience. I'm not necessarily talking about a pandering type of engagement the likes of which reality TV sets out to fulfill, but rather art that takes up the challenge of being intelligent, challenging, while also offering something like superficial entertainment."

"I prefer that the writer present the best material he can create in the most effective way he can."

gizmophile, are these two views really opposed? If a writer's best material and most effective presentation happen to be accessible and entertaining enough to engage a wide audience, then he or she is lucky (assuming that engaging a wide audience doesn't then sway the writer into detrimental self-imitation for the sake of holding or enlarging that audience). Shakespeare naturally wanted to appeal to and entertain an audience - maybe that was even his first concern, since writing was the basis of his livelihood - but surely his accessibility and capability of entertaining were his most effective way of presenting his best material. The same can be said of modern poets like Frost; his writing was accessible and entertaining because that was who he was as a poet. It took him a while to find his voice and his audience, but I think he seldom if ever pandered to his audience. Emily Dickinson occurs to me as someone who wrote her best material as effectively as she knew how and did not write in order to find and hold an audience but because she had things to say and her own way of saying them.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 29, 2012, 10:44:21 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on May 21, 2012, 8:03:39 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 29, 2012, 12:27:11 PM PDT
Seeing into one's time using poetry, I think there is plenty of evidence to show, means using perceptions actively to test the workability of conceptions, and conceptions are built into reality as 'represented' in our use of symbols, most notably language. "The conversation" imposes upon us growing up an entire cultural adapatation, completely 'represented' in the ways we talk to each other, and about the world; we don't invent the conventions of a shared reality, but we are always morally responsible for whatever beliefs we allow ourselved to be persuaded to defend. Poety, being language, and very pointedly a special way of conversing, or communicating, it is about the use of power and a taking on of moral authority, or maybe just pretending to do so for experimental purposes.

I think taking over ones creative resources, with poetry, or other ways of getting a brain are satisfying in and of themselves, never mind who appreciates us, or not, now or a hundred years from now. Empowering myself by way of beefing up my critical abilities to know what I want to think, and act upon my own convictions (Yeates' "Second Coming) is the easiest way to 'be' in one's epoque; it's futile, if not fatal to refuse to budge until the world changes to suit your thiking, but far be it from me to discourage perfectly legiitmate ways of learning by trial and error.

Truly inspired insights dropped into the conversation as bomb-poems are rarely appreciated on the first bite because they offend habit, routine, the plodding on of the conversation. But, new ways of talking that improve the fit between thinking and experience are eventually appreciated, whereas poetic 'making it strange' just to focus attention on the poet is antithetical to good faith. Nihilism is always tempting to the poet feeling a desire to will him/herself to power, if you will, but it is perverse because it undermines the purpose of poetry- to live in creative consciousness. The lyrics of the group "The Doors" feeds on a crowds desire to be given permission to blow reality to bits. That's not good poetry, but it is good business. Bob Dylan has let himself be the pied-piper without letting himself to be a creation of the crowds. In other words, poetry is a hard-hat area- dangerous business. Plato wanted the poets exiled from the ideal Republic, but he was making a theoretical point, not a practical plan.

Much of Modern poetry sets out to defy the police of convention, and makes many people nervous because it's a threat to order, which they've been taught is naughty and may send away mating candidates and even many very nice people who are perfectly happy living within conventional structures. I do not poo-poo convention for being so routine and mechanical; civilization would not survive without harmonizing, cultivated processes. But, for their health, conventions need up-dating, or tweeking, and poets are the engineers who help with that. For example, going goofy with language is healthy if you're David armed with just a clever tongue, facing Goliath and the whole Roman army reciting poetic brain-killers like "Winson tastes good like (sic) a cigarette should", or "See the USA, buy a Chevrolet", or "We only want a few good men", or "Put a Tiger in Your Tank": poets fight fire with fire, but that doesn't mean burning the house down.
When my poetry stays near the tracks, I'd describe the experience as more like a controlled burn.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 29, 2012, 12:50:10 PM PDT
Rick, what is exceptional about E.D. is her prescience. In a reality ordered completely by Amherst conventionality, Emily was finding it more reasonable as a moral person, and as a women, to have a brain of her own, even if she didn't shout it from the rooftops. Emily was an early "Modern". The Civil War was a traumatic signal that the power of the masses was real, and its destructive powers too obvious to miss. The US was no longer an infant Pilgim child.

Regarding Shakespeare, he had wealthy supporters backing him who very much appreciated his giving an intelligent form to rising popular expectations in Elizabethan England. Subliminal messaging since has hardly come close to the Bard's level of artfulness. Shakespeare was "Walking down the razor-blade of life", as the saying goes; what one said was very serious business, and many a tongue was stopped from wagging by cutting off its owner's thinking end.

Posted on Apr 29, 2012, 1:47:47 PM PDT
gizmophile says:
Suzanne,

I don't think of Hitchcock, for one, as representative of high culture. When I was a boy, I loved his half-hour weekly tv show, "Alfred Hitchcock Presents". But I also loved "Leave it to Beaver" and "The Twilight Zone", which aired about the same time. These shows were truly excellent, in their way. That doesn't elevate their creators to the level of Gauss and Bach.

Can popular art also rise to the heights? Perhaps so, but I would prefer that high art not be altered just to broaden its appeal.

You will make your own decisions. The risk is that you will gain a few marginal readers only at the cost of damaging the enjoyment of your natural reader.

Posted on Apr 29, 2012, 1:57:51 PM PDT
gizmophile says:
Ms. Thornburg,

"If a writer's best material and most effective presentation happen to be accessible and entertaining enough to engage a wide audience, then he or she is lucky...."

Yes, exactly: lucky.

Mozart's later piano concertos have fairly broad appeal to lovers of classical music. Bach's "Art of the Fugue", rather narrow, I think.

That's just the way it had to be.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 29, 2012, 4:18:58 PM PDT
how do we set up our own site

Posted on Apr 29, 2012, 5:56:55 PM PDT
F Mundo says:
I think it's up to us to write accessible poetry and present it in a way that readers will find it interesting. Today is the 20th anniversary of the 1992 LA Riots. Yesterday, I was on Verses In Motion on GetYourz Radio at http://bit.ly/JR0PD9 discussing The Brubury Tales my novel-in-verse, which is based on Chaucer's Canterbury Tales set in Los Angeles just after the LA riots. I read an excerpt and discussed the book. It's not a huge audience, but it's a start.

Posted on Apr 29, 2012, 6:46:20 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on May 21, 2012, 8:03:55 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 29, 2012, 6:58:00 PM PDT
F Mundo says:
Thanks, Rick. I really appreciate it. That was the goal. To write something engaging for readers, even if they'd never heard of the Canterbury Tales. And you're right. I'll never forget the riots. I had just graduated from high school and, like you said, it was horrible and disgusting.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 29, 2012, 11:11:18 PM PDT
Suzanne says:
Rick,

[[[...at 68, with limited schooling, and no money, scraping by on S.S. -- there is no way I will acquire the "poetic" knowledge/education so profoundly exercised within these discussions.]]]

I've often stated that there is a chasm that separates artists from critics, and the rarest of breeds is an artist/critic that's equally great at both of these disciplines (like a TS Eliot or Samuel Johnson). Much of what you've read in this thread resides in the realm of criticism, not in the realm of a poet's discourse. As much as I would like to consider myself a poet, I know in my heart I was a critic first, and will likely always be more of a critic than a poet. They are such completely different arts, both underappreciated in their own ways, both with only a handful of masters that deserve our attention. But if your only goal is to be a poet, ignoring critics isn't the worst thing you can do. I read criticism and that alters how I think about my poetry, and I wonder if I'm losing a part of my unique self within the sea of critical thought. On the other hand, it's hard for me to ever view new knowledge or new ways of seeing and thinking as a bad thing, so I try to absorb what I can, utilize what I find interesting, and discard what I don't. But allow me to reiterate this in a different way: most artists do not begin with a theoretical understanding and develop their work from that; they start with intuition and develop their work from that, and the best artists are usually those that can refine that intuition over time either with conscious craftsmanship or just a further intuitive understanding of what works and what doesn't.

However, I do want to stress that your bank account shouldn't be a hindrance to your poetic education. My education started online at free websites like Wikipedia, or Patrick Gillespie's blog called Poemshape, or Poetry Magazine. There is no lack of free educational material online, and you could probably find a lot at your library as well. There are many cheap books that cover the basics of poetry like those by Mary Oliver, Stephen Fry, and Kim Addonazio. You don't have to invest in the expensive textbooks to get a good poetry education.

[[[ My philosophy is you must be understood... or why write? ...to make it worthwhile... alot of others are going to have to be "enchanted" by it, too. If not, keep it to yourself...]]]

I think it was David Lynch who said, when asked why he didn't make "normal" films to appeal to the masses that they could understand (paraphrased): "I figured if I made films I wanted to see that other people would want to see them too." My philosophy is similar; I write poems that I'm interested in reading, and sometimes they're as simple as a Robert Burns lyric or a jokey limmerick, and sometimes they're as obscure as John Ashbery-it just depends on what I'm feeling at the moment. I enjoy obscurity because it presents an intellectual and aesthetic challenge. A lot of my favorite works in all mediums are those that are difficult: 2001: A Space Odyssey, the late poetry of William Blake, John Ashbery's surrealism, Neon Genesis Evangelion, Goethe's Faust pt. II, the music of Mahler, Messiaen, Radiohead, or King Crimson. The reward of "working through" such art is immense, and I'm a believer in that the more work you put into something the more you get out of it. There is certainly a virtue in simplicity, but, for me, to last, such simplicity has to have something going for it than meets the eye, such as in the work of Robert Burns or, in film, Yasujiro Ozu and Robert Bresson.

[[[I've often wondered, though, how Shakespeare could have at all been popular in his day, when his audience was mostly poor and uneducated, and his language I still have difficulty with today -- ?]]]

Your difficult with Shakespearean language has to do primarily with how much the language itself has changed in 400 years. Most of Shakespeare's audiences understood (most of) his language. It's a bit of a misconception about exactly what audiences wrote for; Shakespeare was diverse and had experience writing for the poor and uneducated as well as for the King's court, and even for intellectuals and academics. An early play like Love's Labour's Lost was most likely written for a college graduating class so Shakespeare went out of his way to be as flamboyant and erudite with his language as possible (indeed, it's probably his most difficult play linguistically). But many of his late tragedies are a superb mix of what he learned from writing for both audiences; Hamlet, King Lear, Othello, and Macbeth all have a unique combination of a simplicity of plot and high melodrama to appeal to the masses, but also a lot of underlying themes that were popular amongst intellectuals. It's a bit like Hitchcock who could make a slasher film like Psycho where the terror/horror aspect appealed to the masses, but there's also the underlying Freudian psychology that was so popular at the time.

[[[Only rarely do I "labor" over a poem - I don't have the desire to do so]]]

There are poems I write within the span of minutes, and then there are some I work on for months and months, endlessly tweaking and rewriting, utilizing every dictionary and thesaurus known to man... again, it just completely depends on the work and my proclivities. Some works seem personally significant enough to put more time and effort in, and sometimes after I've written something I get an idea of how something can be rendered better and that one idea radically alters everything else in the piece.

[[[But frankly, the more I learn about poetry, hear about poetry, pay attention to poetry (particularly of the present), write poetry, dabble with poetry, and check out the magazines and journals, etc. etc. etc.... the more I am convinced I am pouring myself down a black hole that doesn't matter and never will... and I am totally wasting my time and life.]]]

I'm only 26, but one thing I learned a long time ago is the existentialist maxim that we make our meaning. If what you're doing is meaningful and significant to you then forget everyone else. You know, I posted one of my poems on Eratosphere, which is kind of a hub for formalist poets who are frequently published in those magazines you refer to and my piece was positively ripped to shreds (and me along with it). Of course it was devastating, and it reminded me of Shelley thinking that it was a bad review that had killed Keats (in his Adonais elegy)! I always laughed at that notion until I experienced. I even contemplated giving up for a while... but then I had to stop and think about whether I was really writing for THOSE people or whether I was writing for myself. Would the fact (if indeed it was a fact) that I sucked at poetry, that nobody does or ever will care about my hours of work, really deter me from writing? The answer is simply no, because if what you do is a genuine passion and not just a cry for attention then what others say and think will not stop you.

I can't lie and say that critical appreciation wouldn't be nice, or even something as simple as another person taking the time to say "hey, your poetry means something to me," but at the same time I can't make that my raison d'etre, and neither can you or anyone else.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 29, 2012, 11:41:08 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 29, 2012, 11:45:49 PM PDT
Suzanne says:
gizmophile,

[[[I don't think of Hitchcock, for one, as representative of high culture. When I was a boy, I loved his half-hour weekly tv show, "Alfred Hitchcock Presents". ]]]

When I speak of Hitchcock, I'm not referring to his weekly TV show (which he mainly just produced/hosted, only directing less than 20 of the 250apprx. episodes), but rather to his films. Hitchcock's impact on cinema is incalculable, and I don't think it's stretching it to proclaim him the most important cinematic artist of the 20th century. He practically invented modern cinema, and had a technical mastery that is unparallelled and is still copied relentlessly today. There has certainly been more books written studies done about him and his work than any other film director, and the reason is simply that he had an amazingly high cinematic intelligence of knowing how to suggest so much in such superficially limiting frameworks. Vertigo is often considered to be one of the 4-or-5 best films ever made along with Citizen Kane, Rules of the Game, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and The Seven Samurai; a film like Rear Window is probably the most profound study on the allegorical voyeurism that all cinema promotes; Psycho is as brilliantly constructed as it is shocking and chilling; North by Northwest was very much the first modern thriller that paved the way for all modern action/adventure films; Notorious is one of the handful of perfect noirs, with so much sexual and pschological tension bubbling under the surface it's almost palpable--and that's just a small sampling of his immense and consistently excellent oevre. Anyone who thinks Hitchcock doesn't deserve a place alongside TS Eliot, James Joyce, Picasso, and Stravinsky as the greatest artists of the 20th century should read Robin Wood's, Truffaut's, Sterritt's, Deutelbaum & Poague's, and Walker's books on him.

[[[These shows were truly excellent, in their way. That doesn't elevate their creators to the level of Gauss and Bach.]]]

Bach himself was just a musician composing on commission from the church; it's not as if he was consciously trying to create high art, he was just working for a paycheck. A lot of composers were like that. We may consider the likes of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert, Wagner, et al. "high art," but what about all of their contemporaries that are forgotten? To me, to say that something is high art because of context it was produced in or reasons it was produced for is to take a very myopic view on the subject. A lot of postmodernism was about collapsing the distinction between popular and high art; Warhol even went as far as creating "pop art" and trying to create art about popular culture that appealed to connoisseurs. I personally have no problem putting the likes of Hitchcock, The Beatles, Bob Dylan, or works like Neon Genesis Evangelion (a sci-fi anime mini-series), The Sandman (Neil Gaiman's graphic novel series), etc. up there with the best artists and best works of art ever created. I feel I've spent enough time with most of the arts to recognize greatness when I see it, hear it, or read it, and when I do I don't care what medium it was produced in, why it was made, who it appeals to, who it was made for, etc. Hitchcock is high art and popular art, the same way Shakespeare or Chaucer or Dickens or Mozart was.

You have to understand that when I say that modern poetry is missing the tensions created by mass appeal, you have to understand that I'm not desiring that all poets start trying to appeal to mass audiences. I wouldn't desire that any more than I would desire that every filmmaker try to make films that appeal to the masses. Without the fringe filmmakers we wouldn't have, say, Stan Brakhage, whom is filmmaker I adore almost as much as Hitchcock, but who couldn't be less appealing to mass audiences. It's not that poetry needs mass audiences so poets can start writing for that audience, rather I just think art is interesting when there's a dynamic and tension between mass popularity and niche, esoteric appeal. And poetry is missing the artists that can straddle that divide because, right now, there is no divide to straddle. Perhaps poetry can produce its John Ashbery's within the current mass-less milieu, but it cannot produce a Shakespeare or Chaucer.

Posted on Apr 30, 2012, 11:56:36 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Apr 30, 2012, 12:00:49 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 30, 2012, 1:16:21 PM PDT
bobpaycheck says:
The Trolleyman. The review kicks ass.

The Trolleyman

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 30, 2012, 1:45:25 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on May 21, 2012, 8:04:20 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 30, 2012, 3:37:59 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Apr 30, 2012, 4:34:05 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 30, 2012, 10:21:41 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on May 21, 2012, 8:04:30 PM PDT]

Posted on Apr 30, 2012, 11:03:31 PM PDT
gizmophile says:
Suzanne,

"Bach himself was just a musician composing on commission from the church; it's not as if he was consciously trying to create high art, he was just working for a paycheck."

and...

"Hitchcock is high art and popular art, the same way Shakespeare or Chaucer or Dickens or Mozart was."

Wow.

Your understanding of the world is very different from my own.

I see no point in trying to bridge a gap this large.

Anything I say will just result in unpleasant argument.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012, 12:04:31 AM PDT
Suzanne says:
Rick,

Much in your post resonates with my own experience, especially regarding the "living in isolation" part, though mine is more by choice than anything. You're right that this area of the country isn't crawling with intellectuals and aesthetes, and part of my isolated retreat is due to the dearth of such like-minded individuals. In that respect, the internet has been a real haven, because so many people passionate about film and music and poetry/literature and philosophy etc. are just a mouse-click away. I've met more interesting people and better friends online than I ever had in real life, and I do feel blessed to have grown up in the age where there's a device that makes such connections an everyday occurrence.

As for myself, I am very far away from a university academic. In fact, I never even attended high school because of medical problems. But, as Mark Twain said, I didn't let schooling interfere with my education and, indeed, in the near decade that I've been out of school I've studied and learned more than I ever did while in school, mostly through the internet and the library. My "erudition" is completely due to my autodidacticism and just general passion for... well, whatever is striking my fancy at the moment. I'm not exactly rich myself, and while lack of money can inhibit, it can also liberate in certain respects. I do have family members who have money, and they seem more consistently burdened by problems brought about by that money. It's a well-known fact that people who win the lottery often live cursed lives afterwards. Mo Money, Mo Problems, as Biggie Smalls said.

Consider that poets like Robert Burns and George Herbert lived their lives in isolation and poverty; Burns worked as a farmer, Herbert as the priest of a small parish. Burns became the voice of an entire country, and Herbert is frequently considered the greatest devotional poet ever. It's proof that great artistry is not limited to the academics and intellectuals. If you don't want to submit your poetry to journals and contests, try websites like online-literature.com. Right now, that's the only place I've posted my poetry, and there are some very good people there.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012, 12:08:01 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 1, 2012, 12:08:14 AM PDT
Suzanne says:
gizmophile,

[[[Your understanding of the world is very different from my own. I see no point in trying to bridge a gap this large. Anything I say will just result in unpleasant argument.]]]

It doesn't have to be an unpleasant argument! I never understood the idea that argument and debate was supposed to be unpleasant anyway. Isn't disagreement and difference the spice of life and all that jazz? What is the "large gap" you see? I'm not entirely sure what you see is wrong about those particular quotes of mine. I mean, it's indisputable that someone like Dickens was writing for popular audiences, yet he's considered "high art" insomuch as he's considered one of the greatest novelists that ever lived. And it is a fact that Bach and Mozart composed primarily on commission. For Bach and Handel it was even common practice to recycle their old works and use them in parts of their new works (indeed, Bach's B Minor Mass, which many consider the greatest choral work ever, is a piece culled almost entirely from Bach's older works, many of which were originally secular!).

Posted on May 1, 2012, 1:19:14 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 1, 2012, 1:20:24 AM PDT
gizmophile says:
Suzanne

In Heaven, the angels play only Bach.

But in His private quarters, God listens to Mozart.

And from time to time, He has been observed chatting with Richard Feynman.

Though associated with fact, I feel that your sense of Bach and Mozart is terribly misconstrued.

Your talk of "4-5 best films ever made" jangles my nerves.

Thanks for taking the time to reply at length. Perhaps I'll reread what you've said, later. You seem to have a lot to say. Some of it offends my sensibility.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012, 1:45:10 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 1, 2012, 1:45:50 AM PDT
Suzanne says:
Well, if I believed in angels and God I'd agree with you that they listen to Bach and Mozart (though I could also see them head-banging to Opeth!), but I can also see my (fictionalized concept of) God sitting down to watch Vertigo and pondering why he made humans to be so obsessive!

[[[I feel that your sense of Bach and Mozart is terribly misconstrued.]]]

How so? I'm genuinely curious here...

[[[Your talk of "4-5 best films ever made" jangles my nerves. ]]]

Well, I meant it's considered by critics and academics to be one of the best films... you know, the types that actually make lists and care about canons and whatnot. Theyshootpictures have compiled over 1000 critics lists, calculated the results, and they have Citizen Kane as the best film ever, followed by Vertigo. So if the best films ever made can't be high art, then you're basically saying no films can be high art, and that offends my sensibility! :D

Posted on May 1, 2012, 6:36:15 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on May 21, 2012, 8:04:45 PM PDT]
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Poetry forum (343 discussions)

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
New Fresh Poetry 94 Aug 23, 2017
I have perhaps loved overmuch 22 Aug 23, 2017
visionary poetry 10 Feb 21, 2017
A new poetry book 73 Feb 21, 2017
Contemporary epic poems 65 Feb 21, 2017
Post Your Poetry Website! 217 Feb 21, 2017
Post Your Romantic Poems 159 Feb 21, 2017
Found a gem of a newly published poet?? 592 Feb 21, 2017
Profound Penus Poetry 0 Sep 23, 2015
New Poetry Book For Sale 0 Aug 21, 2015
where are the poets? 614 Apr 21, 2015
Looking for a love poem thats also about death 0 Jan 26, 2014
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Poetry forum
Participants:  127
Total posts:  615
Initial post:  Mar 18, 2012
Latest post:  Apr 21, 2015

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 32 customers