Tuesday, 9 November 2010

On the Subject of Romance...

Kissing the top of a scotch bottle doesn’t have quite the same appeal as kissing the sweet cherry lips of a voluptuous young woman, fresh-blooming into the prime of womanhood.

Tastes better, though. Pros and cons.

Romantic, eh?

15 comments:

Maria Sondule said...

Nah, I think lips taste better.

JJ said...

You're just prejudiced.

Anonymous said...

Not really romantic at all. You used the phrase "prime of womanhood." You sound like a writer of cheap and horrible romance novels.

Anonymous said...

^ Oh anon number one, how you make me laugh.

JJ said...

Well actually, Anon 1, that was the point. It was intentionally ironic. The style was deliberate. It was a joke. I don't use phrases like 'sweet cherry lips' or words like 'voluptuous' when Im being serious. I am, however, flattered by your continued attention. Thank you.

Anon 2: Brace yourself, Sheila?

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr Beazley,

Why is it that when you are criticised for your prose, you immediately turn to defending yourself under the mysterious cover of irony? Pardon me, but it truly does seem rather unbelievable at times.

Also, you have the anons mixed up again, ha

JJ said...

Dear Anonymous

I wasn't defending criticism of my prose. My prose wasn't criticised. Rather, the intention was misunderstood (apparently.) And I can't be held responsible for your finding irony 'mysterious.' Neither can I be blamed for being in the dark over which Anonymous is which.

This is fun, though.

Zz... said...

i totally agree re tastes better, lol...old man inside here i tell you! p.s glad to see you managed to make yet another ardent FAN lol what is this- you wanna compete for who is better at not making friends? lol maybe YOU need that HTWF&IP book too! hehe

it's actually okay reading...so far. if i end up inspired to put into practice will be another story....i doubt it i like the peace that comes with being a hermit- young people are too full of DRAMA which for this old fogey = STRESS...

JJ said...

I quite like a bit of drama now and then - as long as it's the right sort. Theatrical Saggie, I suppose. Naturally Byronic, but in smaller doses.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr Beazley,

One of the most irksome things I have come across as a reader is a writer trying to defend their prose and explain it. Shall I throw in some philosophy to boot?

Under the Derridean postal metaphor, despite whatever the author might intend within their works, they have no control over how the reader interprets it. You as a writer have very limited authority as to how your writing may get construed. If you wanted to establish irony, then you should have done so in a more obvious fashion. But you cannot defend your prose by saying the reader misunderstood - next time, you should perhaps work better at not being so enigmatic, but being understandable.

Ergo, you were indeed criticised for your choice of euphemisms by anon 1 and this is criticism you must accept as a writer, should you be humble. You can deny it all you wish through your comments, but that only depletes you of your overall honesty and true commitment to yourself and your works.

Criticism is a part of who we are. You best start accepting it, Mr Beazley.

Sincerely,

Anon 2.

Anonymous said...

Hear, hear.

JJ said...

Anon 2: Firstly, I continue to be flattered by such serious attention to me and my words. I really don't know why I deserve such interest. Secondly, I don't need to either accept or reject criticism. I write for my own sake - to say what I want to say. People are equally entitled to take it or leave it. Thirdly, the point about irony is that being explicit destroys it. If a writer is forced to explain it, there would be no point in using it in the first place. People either get it, or they don't. I do agree that being understood is desirable, but that doesn't mean I have to dispense with all the tools. Those who understand irony understand the meaning it conveys.

2nd Anon: It's interesting that you use the less common, though supposedly more correct, spelling. I wonder who you are.

Anonymous said...

If you claim to only "write for yourself" then what is the logical reasoning for these blog entries? Why not perhaps purchase a personal diary - why establish a medium that beseeches connections from all around the world?

It is because the writer does not exist without the reader. Your writerly persona is validated through whatever comments [we] make. No, we don't have to accept it or reject it. We just have to read it and come to our own conclusions about it. Once you use this blog, you have no control over your entries. To deny what essentially comes with the package (the comments and opinions of others) is foolish and narrow minded.

Secondly, the irony point - well obviously (and here I feel inclined to add the obligatory *eyeroll*). I'm not even close to suggesting that your irony needs a neon flashing sign for anyone short of grey matter. However, what I am insinuating is that your irony was poorly constructed and therefore open to undesirable interpretation... perhaps your Achilles heel?

I'm a traditionalist.

JJ said...

OK, bottom line. This post is a mere nothing that I threw off the top of my head late one night to amuse myself. Admittedly, I did think it might also amuse the odd person here and there who got the joke, but that’s all there is to it. Why it should have stirred the need for such lengthy and considered criticism is beyond me. So why don’t I just accept that you regard me as foolish, narrow minded, lacking in intelligence and a poor writer? You’re welcome to your opinion.

Anonymous said...

Anything and everything is inevitably open to criticism, regardless of intention.