Comment 3 of 462, added on November 7th, 2005 at 11:58 PM.
Seattle.Monday.7November.2005 11pm or so, P.S.T.,
If you read the poem as I did, as having the title: "Love Without Sex",
instead of how it should be, which is: "Sex Without Love", then you misread
the entire meaning of the poem, and the consequence is that your
commentary, that is, MY commentary, is totally wrong... and mine certainly
is, in the Commentary #2, dated 11.07.2005, at about 9:55pm.
Due to my accidental reversal, I assumed the poet's voice, Ms. Olds, to be
an advocate of the words, rather than it's opposite-- the ironic voice
showing how absurd and gross those persons are, who indulge in sex, with
love, without caring about anyone except themselves, and who are, "like
So this commentary, #3, also dated 11.07.2005, is not directed toward the
poem--I shall need to do that soon, in order to correct my mistake-- but
rather is written in apology to Ms. Olds, for my having jumped to a
conclusion, based upon my careless reversal of the title of the poem. So
apologies all around... I must needs make amends... and consider this a
start on that duty and obligation.
The poem, Sex Without Love, IS indeed a poem, and even though it is not my
emotional favorite, as I am fond of saying.... it still does not deserve my
diatribe, as presented in Commentary # 2. So I rescind my remarks from
Commentary #2, having "slapped myself up- side the head" and, with
embarrassment, I say, as Admiral Haig once did: Everything's fine here... I
am in control"... It's too bad too, 'cuz I was really on a roll, there.
Alas. Say "Goodnight", Gracie. Hmmm, ok, George. "Goodnight, Gracie"...
Richard Battersea, artist
from United States