Which is more important?

[Simatong]

Pardon the length but -

The Rules (by Dennis Hammes)

The Rules.

1. Make certain your readers understand that, with five billion
people on the planet, your feeling is perfectly unique. If your
poem does not say this, your explanatory prelude must.

2. Make certain your readers understand that, while the species
has been making arts for 27,000 years (that we know of), your
feeling has never before been experienced. If your poem does not
say this, your explanatory prelude must.

3. Make certain your readers understand that your feeling is both
too unique and too novel to be couched in the standard language of
any country or people. If your poem does not say this, your
explanatory prelude must.

4. Make certain your readers understand that, while you may
condescend to use their pathetic attempt at a language, you must
alter its spelling and punctuation according to the dictates of your
most-novel and -unique feeling. If your poem does not say this,
your explanatory prelude must.

5. Make certain your readers understand that their pathetic rules
concerning sound and form, and their effect on rhetorical period,
have nothing to do with the expression of your feeling, since your
feeling is so unique and novel as to be utterly unaffected by the
manner of delivery. If your poem does not say this, your
explanatory prelude must.

6. Make certain your readers understand that any who do not
understand the finer points of your feeling, including especially
that it unique and novel, is a troll. If your poem does not say
this, your explanatory prelude must.

7. Make certain your readers understand that your feeling is so
pure that any rules of language or techniques of poetry would only
sully it. If your poem does not say this, your explanatory prelude
must.

8. Make certain your readers understand that you, yourself, are
so unique and novel, but especially so pure, as to have no need of
any technique discovered by lesser masters. If your poem does not
say this, your explanatory prelude must.

9. Make certain your readers understand that nobody can read your
poem, or understand your unique and novel feeling, nor especially
its purity, without your personal intervention and help given in
several sessions to their pathetic inabilities to read their own
language. If your poem does not say this, your explanatory prelude
must.

10. Make certain your readers understand that your pure spirit
will be available eternally to help those pathetic trolls understand
your unique and novel feeling, and personally chastise those who
just don't get it. If your poem does not say this, you have endless
space on the internet to explain this at length, especially if your poem
can't.

I find it interesting that some people read nuances in my statements that aren't there. Never once did I even imply that I have something so unique as to be unquestionable. I merely stated that I analyze the critiques I receive and move on, either taking or leaving the suggestions given. Some of them have been inspiring and have led me to want to change some things. Others don't do that and I simply move forward. In both cases, I read what is written to me, absorb it, analyze it, and move on, regardless of how inspired or uninspired I am by the critiques. I am sorry if you take offense to this, and I am sorry if that somehow leads you to believe that I am some egotist. However, if you feel the way you do~~~then feel that way. I have explained myself several times in ways I can't help but feel are rather clear, but I tire of having to defend myself when I simply gave a simple input.

---

You think the great Dennis Hammes wrote the rules.for you?

Wow, super narcissist alert!

Now think these rules were written for me; Admittedly, I had thought you yourself had written these rules as a response to one of my posts. But whether it was written by you or by Mr. Hammes (who I didn't know existed until you mentioned him), given that there is clearly a caveat in the tone, one can logically deduce what the post was aiming at. My comment was a response to the implied commentary as made by the poster of these rules (you), not as a show of narcissism. As I said, there was a caveat in your tone, aimed at me; I responded to the caveat and gave my opinion. It is very disconcerting to see an individual comparing an obvious response to an extreme form of narcissism~~