"Stud Poetry" Critique

On the surface, Stud Poetry by Marko Niemi is a fun and interesting of presenting literature in the electronic medium. The idea of competing in a word based poker game against some of the world's most famous poets seems like a compelling challenge but ultimately the game makes little use of the words used but rather simply substitutes them for the numbers in the deck.



The way the game is played is simple. There are five players each of whom is initially dealt two cards. The players then bet or raise until each player has five cards, also, the players may fold at any point. Each of the cards has a word on it, as well as a suit of some kind. The goal is to have more matching words than the other players and then you win their money. I would also assume that it is possible to have a flush though it is not stated anywhere and it never happened in the multiple hand which I played. As far as I could tell there is no way that you could have a straight in this game.

As I have previously stated, the idea of this game is much more intriguing than the execution. One of the biggest problems I found was the lack of words. In total, there were eight words that I counted in the five hands I played. For a work that claims to be all about the power of words it doesn't seem to have a whole lot of variety, granted not every piece of work needs a great number of words but it seems to make the game feel repetitive. Even if there were 14 words to represent the 14 numbers/face cards in an actual deck it still would not seem enough.

Another gripe I had was with the ultimate goal of the game. The best hands you can get are hands comprised of the same word multiple times. While repeating the same word over and over again can be poetry it just felt like there should have been a different way to garner points that would be more in the spirit of the game. For example, maybe the goal would be to match types of words such as nouns, verbs or propositions and the rarity of said words could make it worth more in the deck. You could even have it so that the ultimate goal would be for the line to form a coherent thought, but that is just a suggestion.

Overeall, I really did like the idea of this particular piece of work and the introduction by the author really got me interested in playing around with it. I think it was that initial interest that caused me to be so dissapointed when I actually played.

Manifesto

I am a journalist. In my professional world I am barred from making claims that are outrageous or extravagant. Nothing in my world is elaborate or grandiose, things are only large or big. There must be no superfluous language, everything must be to the point and every word must be essential. Words cost money and in a dying field such as journalism there is no budget for verbosity. In my journalism classes I am told that at best I will get a job writing at a fifth grade level (The New York Times) and at worst writing at a pre-kindergarten level (Fox News). But it is for these reasons that I am here. In this class, at this time, I will throw off the bonds of journalistic oppression, I will use three and even four syllable words that will make my journalism professors weep and make Paris Hilton confused. I will do all of these things and it will be glorious.

I will only make demands of myself. It would be easy for me to fall back on the simplistic style which I have developed over the past several years, but there would be no point. I have taken every writing-centric Journalism class that Mason offers. I would learn nothing if I approached this class with the same style that I have used in previous classes. Not only will I strive to use more complex language but I will also bask in the first person. Words such as "I" and "me" which have not been a part of my academic vocabulary for years will be used to great excess and even to a point which is completely unnecessary. It is time for something new, a new beginning which most likely will come to an abrupt end at the twilight of this semester.

Redefining myself will not be easy. I will have to write and rewrite more than I ever have in the past and I will do so until I am satisfied. But my satisfaction alone will not be enough. I have always been very sure of myself as a writer but that is already changing. In order to be sure that my path is still true I must show the contents of this blog to Steve Klein and if he approves then I must pound the delete with great force and begin anew. If I have to obliterate entire entries so that my goals are reached then so be it.

I do not condemn my previous style or those who write in similar styles. It took enormous effort to learn to write in a way that was so simplistic and I have taken wonderful satisfaction in many of the accomplishments in the field and I will most likely revert back to my old ways, as a matter of fact I am certain I will. But not this semester and most assuredly not in this blog. That said, I do condemn those who would call themselves journalists but who would write in a style as I do now but my gripes toward these miscreants can be saved for their own special entry.

Anyone who is reading this manifesto should take it as a warning, because this is only the beginning. What I have written here acts as only a taste what is to come. As I continue I will become bolder and braver and this will lead to greater and greater feats as I move toward my artful mastery of the English language and the products of this mastery will be infinitely amazing.