Do not be cross with poetry

[shemthepenman]

This discussion (disregarding ill-regarded emotions and regardless of irregardless's existence) reminded me of this:

My library used to have a book club that featured local writers.  The writer was present at the meeting and it went like this:  
The book's writer answered general questions about writing in a short talk at the beginning, but did not discuss any of the
specifics of the book.  Then we had a discussion in which the writer didn't participate.  Then, at the end, the writer joined the
 discussion.

There were always questions about how the story should be interpreted. This one stuck with me:
 
Club member:  "X's and Y's accounts of the drowning are contradictory.  I'm pretty sure this was your intention and I expected
to find out later just who was telling the truth, but I never did. Was this your intention or did I just miss something?"

Author: "You didn't miss anything."

Club member: "So you left it up to us to decide which account was true."

Author: "Why settle for one when you can have both?" *




*When you open the box to find out if the cat's alive or dead, you find there is no cat!
Was it all in your head or was it Cheshire?

why don't you have any stars?! it's not natural, i tell's ya!