 |
 |
Who's denying its truth? Humorous or not (and trying to explain a joke is never much fun) it's just a summary, and I see nothing to disagree with. But where is the definition? -----Original Message----- From: David Lace Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 7:21 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: a bit much I fail to see the humour in this. It opens with the question “How about this?” in response to the question about the status of poems v songs. He seems to be taking the question seriously enough to be offering an answer. I don’t see the humour in this part of it. His next statement: “In some times and places people sang poems, in others they didn't”, is a statement of fact, as is “Some poems are more amenable to being sung than others, but sometimes people sang the less amenable ones anyway”. Again I don’t see any humor in this. The last sentence (“And the Nobel Committee didn't care about any of this, because they weren't awarding a prize for poetry or song”) I can see as humerous. But even assuming it is humorous, does that deny its truth? Some of the greatest truths are conveyed using satire, for instance. ---------------------Original Message-------------------- Jamie McKendrick wrote: For the edification of all concerned, here is Mark's post: "How about this? In some times and places people sang poems, in others they didn't. Some poems are more amenable to being sung than others, but sometimes people sang the less amenable ones anyway. And the Nobel Committee didn't care about any of this, because they weren't awarding a prize for poetry or song. " Honestly, it seems to me a potted history (alluding to some of the earlier instances where song and poetry coincided). The list is comic in effect and in its detail "but sometimes people sang the less amenable ones anyway". Hard to explain jokes, but I think this conjures up a hapless choir that have chosen the wrong hymn sheet. Nice one, Mark.