Gee...I feel my brain is getting smaller and smaller when it comes to this debate. I like Scott's idea of poets' buying drinks for each other and debate on work & I appreciate the no-gun proposal. I like Jessica joke (which I don't think it's a joke), the unless-they-stop-talking-in-sentences proposal. Heated here! Whoa. Whoa. Quick question, though, if we really did come to a conclusion for this debate, would the conclusion really change the way you're going to write extremely radically? It wouldn't change the way I wanna write. I wouldn't decide on it, at the least. I wanna be me (can I be me?) and better me. I feel like the debate itself is becoming generic; the conflicting arena becomes expectable and there's conflict in everyone (well, maybe not Scott). Thus, somehow, I feel like the conclusion, if we ever arrived at it, would be something like "Yeah Yeah Sure" kinna outcome and everyone goes on writing the way s/he believes in, thinking "they just don't get it." So, can anyone help my brain and list why this bears such incredible significance?? I still think the world (of poetry, in general, and the intersecting of both)is too wide to be absolute; we all function part(s) of it so do your best. If the world (of p., of g., of p&g)) is not what you've imagined as best yet, then you (and I) are not good enough...the so-called narrative poetry is not good enough, the so-called innovative poetry is not good enough...so both have work to do. Sorry if this sounds grumpy...I'm not quite the diplomatic self in this post, hah?

Jessea: why don't you save a copy of your sonnet series in a drawer and try the thing out? See what happens. You might hate the new copy and love the original one completely; it might bring something good. Try it!