|
|
|
There's a lot I would like to see Mr Rawat brought to account for. Pretending to be the Lord of the Universe, the Jagdeo business, the money... but frankly, I would best like to see him brought down by his Vogon poetry, if that were possible.
He has done a lot of stuff that wasn't very nice, which he might be one day brought to account for. But I believe he thinks his poetry really is nice, so I would rather see him hung to dry for something he is proud of than one of those issues he has swept under the carpet.
On the other hand, it was his poetry that confirmed to me that Mr Rawat was clearly not the Lord of the Universe. Maybe I should be grateful for his literary efforts!
|
|
|
|
Thanks 13, I've often thought that Rawat's poetic pretensions are something of a giveaway myself.
Here's a few handy links to threads in the usenet groups I mentioned in the root post. Lovers of truth who want clarity on the issue of Rawat's poetical feeling and ability (or his lack of feeling and vogonity) may wish to have a careful read.
As indeed should the hapless fool who wrote Amazon.com's "Editorial Review" of the work ...
rec.arts.poems
alt.arts.poetry.comments
us.arts.poetry
I feel I should mention that readers of a delicate and exitable disposition should not venture into these threads!
Jonti
--never a premie
Modified by jonti at Thu, Jan 26, 2006, 01:54:51
|
|
|
|
Phew! Followed those links! I don't dare add to them! Sorry.
|
|
|
|
I find it sad that such a wonderful resource as Usenet is ruined by a few foul-mouthed and prolific posters. The poetry newsgroups are among the worst for this.
However one critic did take the time to respond seriously and sensitively to the poem. Leisha must be some kind of saint. You can read her comments directly after the poem under discussion in the alt.arts.poetry.comments newsgroup.
For convenience, here's that serious appraisal of the title-piece of Prem Rawat's "Clarity".
>>>
This poem has problems that we often see in work that is posted here. First, and most importantly, is the problem of writing poetry that speaks frankly about abstract ideas. I've been called out on this criticism before and reminded that there are poets who can write successfully about abstract concepts without metaphor or imagery, but if that is true, I believe that there are very few examples of it and that those examples would come from clerics and philosophers more than from the masters of our craft who use all the tools available in their creation of this art called poetry.
Here is a prose list of bits of wisdom that have been shared and expressed by most religions, by philosophers, and by Oprah. There is nothing to recommend it as poetry that I can see. There is no discernible rhythm, no assonance or alliteration, no rhyme, no imagery, no appeal to any of my senses, no metaphor. Yes, I'm a big advocate of metaphor in poetry. It's a way to share thoughts, feelings, revelations, epiphanies without bashing someone over the head with them, without preaching.
I grant there is some repetition in the piece, but it is annoying and redundant, rather than poetic.
Our greatest poets can make lofty statements in their poetry and it's all good. Why? Read Keats, for example. Yes, I always bring up Keats because he's my favorite. In Ode On a Grecian Urn, he blurts out "Beauty is truth, truth beauty. That is all ye know and all ye need to know." Preachy. Blunt. But read the whole poem & you'll have respect for the intense observation of a single beautiful object that inspired these words. These words weren't thrust at the world without a thoughtful, focused, musical, eloquent preface that drove us, finally and naturally, to such a bald statement. And these words are not a flat declaration of the poet's beliefs about life, the universe, and everything. They were inspired by a humble object. The poet's ability to focus on this common thing & elevate it with his soul expression reflects his own humility, his lack of ego, his pure desire to celebrate beauty, and his passionate will to take part in it. Thus, through his art, we can experience his joy and gain some Knowledge.
Are you so much better than Keats that you should abandon every poetic device and launch your naked words at us like so many painful darts? Time will tell, since Keats' work has lasted 200 years and yours, so far, has lasted less than two hours--and not without harsh criticism.
<<<
|
|
|
|
Tom Bishop is one of the most foul-mouthed and prolific posters on the Usenet poetry forums. He uses a wide range of aliases. It seems it was Mr Bishop, using the name of "Semaphoe", who reacted angrily, and with death threats, to the appearance of "Clarity" on Usenet.
I won't quote the guy here -- you can follow the links I provided in an earlier post if you have an interest in (what looks a lot like) his hate crazed, psychotic state of mind.
I'd like to learn a little about this guy. Anyone?
|
|
|
|
Nice, 13! On the other hand, it was his poetry that confirmed to me that Mr Rawat was clearly not the Lord of the Universe. Maybe I should be grateful for his literary efforts!
I was teaching English, including creative writing and poetry at the same time as being a premie, going to programs and anticipating bliss when he stood up to read from his book of "poems". And STILL wincing, somewhere inside me, at the appalling badness of the stuff. No specifics, no details, no scenes from real life, no real experiences, no rubber hitting the road whatsoever! Why this wasn't a major drip for me, I'll never know! But I was a devotee, right? And Rumi and Kabir and Hafiz and all those devotional poets somehow made it all right for me to spend time listening to this-- attempting to listen, at least, and "get" something from it that literary deconstruction wasn't going to achieve, I thought. Poetry that works has a way of earning our suspension of disbelief, and of earning those big abstractions that you want to be very careful not to throw around. That's why Yeats, Frost, Gerard Manley Hopkins, Emily Dickinson, Stanley Kunitz, T.S. Eliot, and many others will be remembered and read and savored, where Rawat's word-balloons will just float away. ~Shelagh
|
|
|
|
>Amazon boast an "Editorial Review" feature, which in the case of a book called Clarity, by the fraudulent cult leader Prem Pal Rawat, surely transgresses the UK Sale of Goods Act. False and misleading advertising is not something that is legal in Britain.<
Wrong Act - it's the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 which Amazon should be taking more careful note of - though I suppose the 'fitness for purpose' provisions of the Sale of Goods Act might apply if Rawat's pulp poetry doesn't make it as a door stop. In either case UK residents can make an initial enquiry to their local Trading Standards office. Nik: Boy Scout Pedantry Badge 1967
|
|
|
|
In wonder if the UK Trade Descriptions Act covers UK citizens buying a book from USA (amazon.com). The Clarity book is not mentioned on the amazon.co.uk site. However if one searches on 'rawat' within the UK amazon site the first two hits are: The 18 Challenges of Leadership: A Practical, Structured Way to Develop Your Leadership Talent and Thought Crimes [2003] 
T
|
|
|
|
Hi Nik! You are amazingly diligent about research into laws, legalities and details, which I am not! I think they call this the difference between the Aristotelian and the Platonic way of seeing things. I'm definitely a "big picture" person (Platonic)which means I find details very tiresome! You've seen that already on this forum! But we need each other! Personally, I'm VERY glad you investigate and know and share the information you do! Keep it coming! ~Shelagh
|
|
|
