Limericks have our affection,
So let's have a creative injection.
The desire is strong
But it's been far to long,
And I'm starting a limerick section.

Here give free reign to your Muse
And write on whatever you choose.
Though non-definitional
Your composition'll
Titillate, charm and amuse.

I love to write poems diversial
not in pairs but to be universial
though you may not agree
please just don't tell me
and we'll all be uncontra-versial

(ok, I know it's pathetic, but it's a start)

Well, those with a workshopping bent
Might look at your rhyme with intent
And say that the stress
Lacks a little finesse
And in line 5 it's too long you meant.

Now your second submission - that's better
The spelling is right - to the letter.
Though line one's quite cracking,
It's a syllable lacking
It's a hard task, the limerick setter.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Richard English,

Having studied the standards in here,
I cannot do that well I fear.
Please let me down gently
I'll practice intently
and I might do much better next year!

quote:

Though line one's quite cracking,
It's a syllable lacking

The second-above verse submitted
Begins with a stress – I admit it.
But what do I care?
Such a structure, though rare,
Is sanctioned, allowed and permitted.¹

It's easy to be hypercritical
And overly much analytical,
But rules artificial
Are not beneficial.
This board is more cosmopolitical.

(You will note I used homonym rhymes.
The best authors do so, at times.²
For that reason, you see
That I must disagree
With the folks who consider them crimes.)

---

---

Classic examples – the first one them expurgated:
¹Nymphomanical Jill
Used a dynamite stick for a thrill.
[I could continue
But the rest's rather blue.
I should stop here, I'd think, so I will.]

²A fly and a flea, in a flue
Were imprisoned, so what could they do?
Said the fly, "Let us flee."
"Let us fly!" said the flea,
So they flew through a flaw in the flue.

I've found an interesting article about limericks. For some reason, the link there is self-referential.

Oh, my gosh! Am I ever happy to see this thread because I am limerick deprived right now. I am not submitting any more limericks on OEDILF for awhile, and I need an outlet. I had fun with this one:

Why can't I just write a few floppers?
I really don't like those workshoppers!
"A syllable here." ("NO!")
"No homonyms, dear." ("Yes!")
I'm throwing them all in those hoppers!



Now...that felt good!

Here is a funny one that Hugh from OEDILF wrote. They had suggested that he didn't have enough RFAs (approvals) because he wasn't editing his limericks as much as he should be:

I may be in need of attention,
But perhaps you'll permit me to mention
That my knowledge of rhyme
Is perfectly fine,
And my meter really shouldn't provoke any contention.

If that limerick doesn't perfectly define the word "meter", then I don't know what does. Is there a word for definition by negative example? The sheer look of frustration of my face while I attempted to cram the last line into 9 beats was worth it when I got the joke.

Sean, I am confused. Are you Hugh?

K. I think Sean means when he tried to read it.

quote:

Sean, I am confused. Are you Hugh?

Maybe Hugh is reading this and would chime in if we issue an invitation.

C'mon join us! We could use you, Hugh.

[He said, in three different hues.]

You know, sometimes I just can't believe my inane replies. Of course, Sean's post is so clear when I read it now. I don't know what I was thinking!

Now, how about some limericks or double dactyls or poems, people? Wasn't it Froeschlein who asked if we write limericks here? Where is yours, Froeschlein? Please???

quote:

I am not submitting any more limericks on OEDILF for awhile

Why not?


On a different note:

Have I told you I've taken up knitting?
making socks that I hope will be fitting
my feet or my son's
hubby's got the first ones
I'm still learning and quite far from quitting.

quote:

Why not?

Well, it gets a bit complicated unless you write limericks over there. You need 4 workshoppers to approve each limerick you write (called an RFA) in order to get the entire limerick approved, the goal of course for writing limericks there. [As an aside, each workshopper (whom they abbreviate as WE) often has very different views. While one will say, "this one is ready as is," another will object to an homonymous rhyme (which the first WE doesn't mind), while still another will worry about how many unstressed syllables are at the beginning of your lines (which the other 2 don't mind), and on and on. Still another will object because your definition is merely using the word (often my own objection), while the other 3 don't mind that! So you can see, that in itself is an arduous process.] Anyway, a recent discussion on OEDILF is that if you have limericks with 0-RFAs, they are most definitely subpar because no one has liked them. I think that is balderdash, as the real reason is probably that no one has looked at them. For example, many of us who started over there were so busy helping to approve others' limericks so that they could become WEs that we didn't have anyone to look at our old limericks. However, the big-wigs over there don't agree with me on that. I had some limericks with no RFAs, and, in the spirit of being a good team-player, I had decided to look at those 0-RFA'd limericks and try to get them RFA'd before writing new limericks.

However, now all of that is a moot point, and I can once again write limericks for OEDILF. Last night I found a flaw in their system. In the early days (this might be confusing if you don't post over there) the workshoppers merely posted a note that said, "This is ready for approval," rather than to click an RFA button as they do now. I had a lot of limericks from that time period that were approved by that earlier system (manually, so to speak). Therefore, those very early, already-approved limericks come up as 0-RFAs because apparently their search mechanism only started after the RFA buttons were instituted. So...I now find that all my limericks have at least one RFA.

Now, aren't you glad you asked, CW?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

Thanks to Hic for lines 3 & 4 in this limerick; he used them in an earlier limerick that he wrote here:

I can't wait 'til we limerick on zoo,
Or Schadenfreude, moot point, and Who.
Someday we may see
Epicaricacy.
[Though, I won't hold my breath 'til we do!)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

Workshopping on the OEDILF site can be an arduous process, yes, but the results are twofold:

1.) Some of the finest limericks being written today are OEDILF pieces. (I would even go so far as to say most of the finest, but that could just be fatherly pride.)

2.) Almost every single OEDILFer who has been with us for any length of time says that his or her writing skills have improved. I say this without exaggeration--pretty much everyone says this.

And ref the zero-RFAed (Ready for Final Approval) pieces, no one says that they're all bad, just that they tend to be the ones (let's be diplomatic here) most in need of assistance. I've got over 1,200 limericks in the database so far myself and 74 of them don't have a single RFA yet. Some of them, I'm a bit embarrassed to admit, are more than a year old. Some are clinkers, yes, I suppose, but others suffer from what Kalleh notes, an unfortunate lack of attention, including many favorites. F'rinstance, defining "bad blood":

I accused him of theft in Salinas.
He claimed that I had a small penis.
I stabbed him repeatedly,
He shot me most heatedly.
Now clearly there's bad blood between us!

Nothing wrong with that, I'd say. A little graphic, maybe. Others are RFAless for reasons other than quality. This one defines "ashamed":

The day I was publicly named
As a pedophile priest, I exclaimed,
"Don't judge me unduly.
I'm penitent, truly!
And remorseful and wholly ashamed!"

This one's been in the system over 15 months without a single RFA largely because people (Chris Doyle, a limerick diety to many, in particular) say it's offensive and ignores the victims of these horrible crimes. I argue that this piece takes an unusual point of view, that maybe the priest in question truly is being destroyed by feelings of self-loathing and truly is remorseful. Others say he's playing to the cameras. Although I didn't write it that way, that could be as well. If nothing else, the controversy generated makes this one work, IMO.

Later this month we are going to have a push period in which we will workshop nothing but those zero-RFAed limericks written by active authors (meaning those who have signed on to the site at least once in the past month) so we'll see if we can't get that total down. At present, there are a full 1,871 of them to deal with and they all definitely are not losers.

This thread had provided catalysis,
But discussion can lead to paralysis.
I was inviting
Your limirick-writing
For fun, not for endless analysis.

Can we get back to doing limericks, instead of talking about them?

CW says, "Have I told you I've taken up knitting?"

"Knitting's a fine thing," quoth shu,
"A wonderful thing that you do
For your own family,
But I wonder: for me
Could you knit one, and maybe purl too?"

quote:

Originally posted by Hic et ubique:Can we get back to doing limericks, instead of talking about them?

Sorry, Hic. Certainly didn't intend to bore you. I was only responding to some previous analysis of our project in a way that I thought would be of interest. If Wordcrafters don't want to hear from OEDILFers, this one anyway, all you have to do is not talk about them.

Not at all, CJ. For one thing, you're right that you didn't start it. More important, you're welcome here, and in this thread all limericists welcome. I just enjoy reading limericks, and hope you'll grace us with a few new efforts. I was hoping to get the thread back to that.

(Couldn't put all that into a limerick. Sorry.)

There's no feast that is quite so delicious
As a good fun-filled fest limericious.
If you're not too effete
We will fête your fine feat;
If your feet* face defeat, we're not vicious.


*Metrical feet, that is.

quote:

If Wordcrafters don't want to hear from OEDILFers, this one anyway, all you have to do is not talk about them.

First, of course we want to hear from OEDILFers. Heck, several of us are part of them! Second, it was I who erred here, and I apologize to Hic, CJ, Shu, CW, and whomever. I didn't need to answer is such detail.

Now...I must write a limerick!

Now...CJ and Hic: Get along!
Neither is right or is wrong.
You're both such good writers
So quit being fighers,
And gather together in song!

[That may be asking too much. ]

For Kallah, a gal of great beauty
I'll do as she asks; it's my duty.
Though my voice is odious
(Most un-melodious)
Who could say 'no' to that cutie?

Please pardon my little flirtation.
CJ, in tone of placation,
I give you a toast,
For you boast the most
Limericks, and that's worth a libation!

You're prolific; you have no compeer
In productiveness; no one is near.
We raise a cheer to you.
Though your board is dear to you,
Could you put in a few here?