View RSS Feed

sherapop

Perfumes, Persons, and Poems. Perfumes as Poems, Part I: Platitudes Aplenty!

Rate this Entry
[B][SIZE="4"]Proof of (Perfumes = Poems)[/SIZE][/B]

Looking back at my rather modest and very inchoate “theory” of perfumic and poetic identity, I must say that today (a decade later—gasp!) I find it rather [I]quaint[/I] (a word which I hesitate to use in the wake of Alberto Gonzales's notorious dismissal of the Geneva conventions through the use of the same, but it really is the best choice in this case, as the reader will shortly see). The subtitle of my presentation, “[I][COLOR="seagreen"][B]A perfume is a poem[/B][/COLOR][/I]” was “[COLOR="seagreen"][B]What we can learn about poetry from perfumery?[/B][/COLOR]” (see intro, [url]http://www.basenotes.net/blog_callback.php?b=2327[/url], if you are new to this blog series...)

Although I had initially planned to post my little “theory” directly translated and unedited, I decided instead simply to concede without protest that what I really came up with was a list of platitudes. This frank admission is obviously intended to preempt criticisms to the effect that “[B][I]This is not a theory![/I][/B]” so I'll just go right ahead and admit that too! Hopefully, as a felicitous consequence of this selfless expression of abject humility, we'll be able to move swiftly to more substantive and edifying discussions rather than squandering our precious time quibbling over the proper use of the word 'theory'.

So, in what follows, I offer two sets of platitudes: one about perfumes; the other about poems. Bear in mind that the basic idea here is that [B]the word 'poem' can be read in the place of the word 'perfume', and [I]vice versa[/I], throughout the text ([I]mutatis mutandis[/I])—thus establishing the identity of the two![/B]

[B][COLOR="darkorchid"][SIZE="4"]Ten Platitudes about Perfumes[/SIZE][/COLOR][/B]

[B]1.[/B] Perfumes can be bad in many different ways and for a variety of different reasons.
—Everything must be just right for a perfume to be great.
—Even a small flaw can prevent a perfume from being good and can even make it bad.

[B]2.[/B] Perfumes can be complex or simple.

[B]3.[/B] Complex perfumes have distinct parts (stages).

[B]4.[/B] Each part of a complex perfume can be simple or complex.

[B]5.[/B] Great perfumes have structural coherence (although that is not sufficient—see #7).

[B]6.[/B] The form of a perfume (simple or complex) does not determine its quality.
—Some simple perfumes are very good; some complex perfumes are very bad.
—Some simple perfumes are very bad; some complex perfumes are very good.

[B]7.[/B] Great perfumes comprise quality components (although that is not sufficient—see #5).
—Some brilliantly composed perfumes are disasters because of poor-quality components.
—Incoherently composed perfumes are disasters even if they cost a fortune to produce because of their high-quality and sometimes rare components.

[B]8.[/B] A huge amount of knowledge must be acquired before even having a chance at creating a good perfume. But knowledge alone is not sufficient.

[B]9.[/B] It would probably be impossible to produce a great perfume as a first trial.
—Great perfumes must be edited and re-edited, revisited and tweaked over a period which may span a number of years.

[B]10.[/B] Perfumes can be over-edited (reformulated) to the point where the beauty of the original is completely destroyed.


[B][COLOR="darkorchid"][SIZE="4"]Ten Platitudes about Poems[/SIZE][/COLOR][/B] (continuing the sequence of numbers, to avoid confusion)

[B]11.[/B] Great poems are not composed by committee (counterexamples are most welcome!!!)
—Committees create marketing jingles, not poems deserving of our critical attention.

[B]12.[/B] All poems are multiply interpretable.

[B]13.[/B] Even seasoned critics can disagree vehemently about the meaning of a poem.

[B]14.[/B] Critics may also disagree with the author about the meaning of a poem.
—Socrates once observed that if you want to understand the meaning of a poem, don't ask the poet to explain it to you.
—To commit the “Intentional Fallacy” is to erroneously constrain or determine the interpretation of a text by appeal to the author's professed (or inferred) intentions.

[B]15.[/B] Although anyone is at liberty to call a text a “poem”, critics tend to focus on a small subset of the many texts claimed to be poems, the ones rich enough to be susceptible of complex and subtle interpretation.

[B]16.[/B] Interpretations of poems can be good (insightful) or bad (shallow).
—“[B][I][COLOR="red"]This sucks[/COLOR][/I][/B]” is not a fruitful interpretation of a poem—which is not to deny, however, that it might be true.
—“This sucks” is no more and no less than a negative emotive response which conveys only the reader's disapproval, with no indication of why.

[B]17.[/B] Some people hate all poems and even the very idea of poetry.
—They obviously are not good critics of the genre and tend to avoid poetry altogether.

[B]18.[/B] The fact that millions of people may have incorporated a “poetic” text (often rhyming) into their psyche through massive exposure (AM radio, etc.) does not mean that the text is good.

[B]19.[/B] The beauty of a poem may lie in the mind of a reader, but that does not mean that there is no such thing as doggerel!

[B]20.[/B] Great poems are not composed by computer program.
—Even the best vocabulary, and complete knowledge of every innovation of the entire history of poetry would not suffice to produce a great poem.
—The missing ingredient in such as a case would always be: [B][COLOR="purple"][SIZE="3"]inspiration[/SIZE][/COLOR][/B].

[CENTER][B]****************end of proof****************[/B]

[SIZE="4"][B][COLOR="red"]????QED????[/COLOR][/B][/SIZE][/CENTER]


Now, if it is true, as I maintain, that perfumes are poems, then all of the above platitudes about poems should apply equally well to perfumes, and all of the above platitudes about perfumes should apply equally well to poems ([I]mutatis mutandis[/I]). In other words, according to me, I have now presented [B][COLOR="darkorchid"]Twenty Platitudes about Perfumes and Poems[/COLOR][/B]. Are all of these statements true of both poems and perfumes? If not, where are the disparities between the two cases? To refute any of my claims, it will suffice to produce a single counterexample.

I anxiously await your contributions to this debate, which has lain fallow for far too long in a quasi-solipsistic state, [B][COLOR="teal"][SIZE="5"][/SIZE]O fellow fragrance travelers![/COLOR][/B]
Categories
Uncategorized

Comments

  1. Birdboy48's Avatar
    Well.....I was wondering about #18. We "know" a lot of jingles are bad, but at the same time, they have a "hook" that causes them to stick in our minds.

    Is the simple fact that something has the ability to stick in our minds enough to qualify it as "good" in some basic sense.....or what ? Obviously something is going on. And perhaps it's based on something other than our being exposed to simple repetition.

    Or else why would I remember this, from my long-past childhood :

    "Give 'em Dr. Ross dog food, and do him a favor,
    It's got more meat and it's got more flavor.
    It's got more meat to make him feel the way he should:
    Dr Ross dog food is dog-gone good ! ( Woof ! ! ) "

    Is it possible we have perfumes like this ?
    Updated 14th October 2011 at 08:08 PM by Birdboy48
  2. ts brock's Avatar
    I think your proof may be missing a few steps, but I'll have to think about it some more. If this were true, there would be a bunch of implications... Or are you being facetious?
  3. sherapop's Avatar
    [QUOTE=Birdboy48;bt5938]Well.....I was wondering about #18. We "know" a lot of jingles are bad, but at the same time, they have a "hook" that causes them to stick in our minds.

    Is the simple fact that something has the ability to stick in our minds enough to qualify it as "good" in some basic sense.....or what ? Obviously something is going on. And perhaps it's based on something other than our being exposed to simple repetition.

    Or else why would I remember this, from my long-past childhood :

    "Give 'em Dr. Ross dog food, and do him a favor,
    It's got more meat and it's got more flavor.
    It's got more meat to make him feel the way he should:
    Dr Ross dog food is dog-gone good ! ( Woof ! ! ) "

    Is it possible we have perfumes like this ?[/QUOTE]

    Thanks for stopping by, [B][COLOR="blue"]Birdboy48[/COLOR][/B]! My hunch is that there is something hardwired in us human beings (and animals, more generally), which causes us to feel some sense of comfort and security in the face of the familiar. So we find ourselves drawn again and again to the same jingles or rhymes in the same way that we find ourselves drawn to the same comfort foods, for example. They may not be great, but they make us feel as though we are somehow masters of our destiny. Well, that might be a slight exaggeration, but such things do make us feel more secure, don't they? I don't think that the fact that they are easy to incorporate in our psyche or to become a part of our habits (in the case of comfort food or some scent that immediately evokes a rush of memories and feelings) implies that they are necessarily good. They are available and accessible, and that's the real reason why we become so attached to them.

    I'm actually beginning to revise my "theory". I'm starting to think that perfume is more like food. It is, after all, consumable, which poems are not. Poems also do not make anyone physically ill. Another realization I had recently, while glancing at the threads, is that people generally emote about perfume. They do not offer reasons for their like or dislike. They seem to focus much more on the effect of the perfume on themselves than on the perfume itself. So maybe my dream of elevating perfume criticism to that of literary criticism has no hope of realization after all!

    Perhaps perfume criticism is much better compared to food and wine criticism? That's what I'm thinking today, having just finished my morning coffee...:rolleyesold:
  4. sherapop's Avatar
    [QUOTE=ts brock;bt5939]I think your proof may be missing a few steps, but I'll have to think about it some more. If this were true, there would be a bunch of implications... Or are you being facetious?[/QUOTE]

    Welcome, [COLOR="darkorchid"][B]ts brock[/B][/COLOR], and thanks for your thoughts! I am currently rethinking my "theory" (see the above response to [B][COLOR="blue"]Birdboy48[/COLOR][/B]). I'll probably offer a list of counter-platitudes soon. :happy:

    I do think that you are on to something: if all of the above platitudes about perfumes applied to poems, and all of the above platitudes about poems applied to perfumes, that would still not establish their identity, since there may be other statements (indeed, infinitely many!) not listed above which do not apply to both. One example, as I indicated to Birdboy48, is that [B][COLOR="red"]we consume perfume[/COLOR][/B], which is therefore exhaustible and also directly affects us physiologically. Then there's the fact that consumable products are marketable, which opens up a huge list of disanalogies. People get rich from perfume. Is the same true of poetry? I cannot think of any examples, actually...

    I am reminded of [B][COLOR="green"]JaimeB[/COLOR][/B]'s recent post ([url]http://www.basenotes.net/blog_callback.php?b=2323[/url]) about how more [COLOR="green"][B]money[/B][/COLOR] is put into marketing than in the production of perfumes these days. So the whole enterprise has become just that--a big, fat, super-profitable enterprise--and that fact alone may severely constrain (and even undermine) the artistic potential for perfumery much more than it does in the other, more established arts. Well, that's what I'm thinking right now, anyway! :cool:
    Updated 15th October 2011 at 03:38 PM by sherapop
  5. Kevin Guyer's Avatar
    Interesting read.
    Some great fragrances have been authored by more than one nose. Acqua di Parma Colonia Assoluta for example, a wonderfully successful update of the Acqua di Parma classic, was done as a collaboration between Duchaufour and Elléna. Of course there are many other examples. Since I'm not such an astute student of poetry, I ask you, are there any truly great collaborative poems?
    Another question: perfumery involves a maceration step before the formula is dilluted, and becomes an actual perfume. Would collaborative poetry involve a metaphoric equivalent to this process, where the different contributions intermingle?
    Just asking...
  6. Hillaire's Avatar
    Coldridge and Wordsworth collaborated on many poems, one of which is rumored to be[I] The Rime of the Ancient Mariner.[/I]
  7. Redneck Perfumisto's Avatar
    Enjoyed reading this! Thanks!

    (My only real point of contention is the idea that computer programs can't write great poetry, since I regard people as wonderful computer programs on biological hardware. But I do understand and concur with your point beyond that.)
  8. Birdboy48's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Redneck Perfumisto

    ....since I regard people as wonderful computer programs on biological hardware.
    Ah : The "Humans-as-Wet-Computers" conceptualization.

    It's fashionable and theoretically useful in neurobiology these days, and sure to remain increasingly so for a while to come.

    But every mechanistic theory of human behavior seems to produce a humanistic backlash sooner or later...until the next one comes along.
  9. Birdboy48's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by sherapop
    Thanks for stopping by, Birdboy48! My hunch is that there is something hardwired in us human beings (and animals, more generally), which causes us to feel some sense of comfort and security in the face of the familiar. So we find ourselves drawn again and again to the same jingles or rhymes in the same way that we find ourselves drawn to the same comfort foods, for example. They may not be great, but they make us feel as though we are somehow masters of our destiny.
    Hum, I think I was referring more to what musicians call "the hook"....that certain lilt that something has which seems to grab onto something in our mind, like an unfamiliar song, which (often disturbingly) once first heard, we can't shake from our minds. Is it their connection to something familiar, or simply something in their rhythm and changes that fits like a key into some preexisting lock in our minds ?

    I do think that through their very originality, all arts strive for that sort of connection.

    Poems also do not make anyone physically ill.
    But I believe that's because no one would read ones that did, and not because it it would be impossible to write poems that had that ability. I recently came a cross some song lyrics in which the writer (a multi-award winning musician) had obviously set himself that very same task, apparently as an intellectual exercise. And trust me; I'm not going to refer anyone to them here.

    Another realization I had recently, while glancing at the threads, is that people generally emote about perfume. They do not offer reasons for their like or dislike. They seem to focus much more on the effect of the perfume on themselves than on the perfume itself.
    Indeed many do take this path, and I suspect it's the response which is most rewarding to both perfumers, cooks and poets, rather than reactions (which I do believe are equally useful) which try and tease out notes, ingredients or style.

    So yeah, I think the idea of intention and effect certainly needs to fit in here somewhere, as it does in all areas of art.
  10. sherapop's Avatar
    [QUOTE=Kevin Guyer;bt5944]Interesting read.
    Some great fragrances have been authored by more than one nose. Acqua di Parma Colonia Assoluta for example, a wonderfully successful update of the Acqua di Parma classic, was done as a collaboration between Duchaufour and Elléna. Of course there are many other examples. Since I'm not such an astute student of poetry, I ask you, are there any truly great collaborative poems?
    Another question: perfumery involves a maceration step before the formula is dilluted, and becomes an actual perfume. Would [I]collaborative poetry [/I]involve a metaphoric equivalent to this process, where the different contributions intermingle?
    Just asking...[/QUOTE]

    Greetings, [B][COLOR="darkorange"]Kevin Guyer[/COLOR][/B], and thanks for stopping by! I was hoping that someone would come up with some good examples of what they regard as masterpiece perfumes composed "by committee", so to speak. Would you mind sharing some of your other examples? I've noticed that my favorite perfumers tend to produce less compelling compositions in collaboration with other perfumers--even others among my favorites!

    This leads me to believe that the really original and unique features of a new perfume may sometimes be edited out by a team through what is analogous to a political process of negotiation. On the other hand, as you point out, producing perfumes is a very complex process to begin with. So maybe perfume production bears some similarities to film production? Film directors may get the last word on their works (of course, they often do not, because of industry/producer pressure...), but they are literally at the mercy of lots of other people in putting together a brilliant final product. I think that when outsiders influence a director too much then, again, the quality of the final film ends up suffering.

    I do not know of any case of equal collaboration in producing poems considered to be masterpieces, however, [B][COLOR="darkorchid"]Hilaire[/COLOR][/B] has kindly arrived on the scene to produce such an example. I'll address that point shortly. But your example of [B]Colonia Assoluta[/B] raises the following question in my mind: are the two "authors" of the perfume [I]equal [/I]authors? Or is it perhaps the case that one is serving in more of an editorial capacity?

    I suppose that one might want to say that it doesn't matter, since a person can edit his or her own work [I]ad infinitum[/I], to the point where it's nothing like it was when originally produced as a first draft. But overediting by outsiders is a huge problem in perfumery, I think. That is what I regard as the crux of the problem with most reformulations. The magic of the original can be utterly destroyed even when the reformulator/editor has the best of intentions.

    So what do you think? Were the two perfumers who collaborated to produce [B]Colonia Assoluta[/B] equal partners? Or was one more of an editor? Or does it matter?

    Thanks again for stopping by!:coolold:
  11. sherapop's Avatar
    [QUOTE=Hillaire;bt5946]Coldridge and Wordsworth collaborated on many poems, one of which is rumored to be[I] The Rime of the Ancient Mariner.[/I][/QUOTE]

    Hello, [B][COLOR="darkorchid"]Hillaire[/COLOR][/B], and thanks so much for producing this counterexample to my alleged platitude to the effect that great poems are not composed by committee! I am very curious as to whether you believe that in your example one of the two co-authors was dominant and the other was more of an editor? Or do you believe that they were equal partners in the composition? I'm curious because it seems to me as though there would have to be a "first text" which issued from the mind of one or the other of the collaborators. What do you think?

    If you are right, and my so-called platitude is not even true, then this would be helpful in defusing [B][COLOR="orange"]Kevin Guyer's[/COLOR][/B] refutation of my "perfumes are poems" proof through his counterexample of a collaborative perfumic masterpiece. Your example would demonstrate that, contrary to my assumption, great poems are not only produced by solitary poets, but sometimes also by teams or "committees".

    Thanks so much for your input--my triangular investigation continues!!!!:D
  12. sherapop's Avatar
    [QUOTE=Redneck Perfumisto;bt5948]Enjoyed reading this! Thanks! :smiley:

    (My only real point of contention is the idea that computer programs can't write great poetry, since I regard people as wonderful computer programs on biological hardware. But I do understand and concur with your point beyond that.)[/QUOTE]

    Interesting and perhaps even radical point, [B][COLOR="red"]Redneck Perfumisto[/COLOR][/B]! Is it safe to assume, then, that you are not a mind-body dualist à la Descartes? :shocked:

    What say you about the notion of the [B][COLOR="blue"]soul[/COLOR][/B]? Is it mere balderdash, in your view? Pray tell! (No worries: I'm religiously agnostic, so your answer will not offend me--no matter what you say!) :evil:
  13. Hillaire's Avatar
    [QUOTE=sherapop;bt5954]Hello, [B][COLOR="darkorchid"]Hillaire[/COLOR][/B], and thanks so much for producing this counterexample to my alleged platitude to the effect that great poems are not composed by committee! I am very curious as to whether you believe that in your example one of the two co-authors was dominant and the other was more of an editor? Or do you believe that they were equal partners in the composition? I'm curious because it seems to me as though there would have to be a "first text" which issued from the mind of one or the other of the collaborators. What do you think?

    If you are right, and my so-called platitude is not even true, then this would be helpful in defusing [B][COLOR="orange"]Kevin Guyer's[/COLOR][/B] refutation of my "perfumes are poems" proof through his counterexample of a collaborative perfumic masterpiece. Your example would demonstrate that, contrary to my assumption, great poems are not only produced by solitary poets, but sometimes also by teams or "committees".

    Thanks so much for your input--my triangular investigation continues!!!!:D[/QUOTE]

    Gosh, I wish I knew more. I recalled I owned a book called [I]Lyrical Ballads[/I], which was compiled by Wordsworth and Coleridge as a joint foray into a 'new' genre they felt they both helped to define (Romanticism).
    I cannot find the darn thing (wouldn't[I] that [/I]be nice? [it's REAL!]), but I do recall that the modern publication's preface offered the information that such a 'true' collaboration was both unusual and exciting in the art form. The preface-author went on (if memory serves) to cite additional examples found in their correspondences -- with each other and each with Wordsworth's sister (they all lived together, jolly enough ... [I]in a den of heathen inequity[/I]) -- that made even the attribution of some of the 'larger' poems by 'Coleridge' specifically, e.g. [I]Koubla Khan[/I] and [I]The Rime of The Ancient Mariner[/I], difficult, since seeds of the [I]very concepts[/I] could be traced away from him.

    Again, I wish I was [I]much more informed,[/I] so I could offer smart and sassy applications of my poetic knowledge to your system of comparison. But I dare not even speculate. I simply had an, "OH!-I-KNOW-THIS-ONE!" moment, having read Kevin's query, and felt compelled to reply.

    Cheers
    Updated 17th October 2011 at 04:18 AM by Hillaire
  14. Kevin Guyer's Avatar
    Hey Sherapop, here's a random list of a few important works that were done as collaborations, and in Azzaro PH's case, by committee. Of course, it would require a lot of research to discern who actually did what on these.
    Narciso Rodriguez For Her: Francis Kurkdjian & Christine Nagel
    Eau des Merveilles: Ralf Schwieger & Nathalie Feisthauer
    M7 and Aqua di Gió pour Homme: Alberto Morillas & Jacques Cavallier
    Fahrenheit: Jean-Louis Sieuzac & Maurice Roger
    Azzaro Pour Homme: Gérard Anthony, Martin Heiddenreich & Richard Wirtz
    Miss Dior: Jean Carles & Paul Vacher
    Arpège: André Fraysse & Paul Vacher
    Updated 21st October 2011 at 03:40 AM by Kevin Guyer
  15. Forlorn's Avatar
    Re: Coleridge and Wordsworth

    Although they did collaborate on the Lyrical Ballads, both poets explored different areas. Coleridge, as was his bent, explored the supernatural. Wordsworth, however, chose to write in the language of the common man. How successful he did so is worthy of study (although I do like his ballad poems such as "We Are Seven"). So, while the volume that ushers in the Romantic Age was written by two poets, they did separate work.

    Perhps, though, another example will work. Ezra Pound severely edited T.S. Eliot's The Wasteland, and in recognition of his help, Eliot acknowledges Pound's contributions with this dedication: "For Ezra Pound 'Il miglior fabbro,'" which translates to "the better craftsman."

    Still, I'm not sure that I'd want to stretch the meaning of "committee" to encompass the work of author and editor.
  16. sherapop's Avatar
    [QUOTE=Kevin Guyer;bt5972]Hey Sherapop, here's a random list of a few important works that were done as collaborations, and in Azzaro PH's case, by committee. Of course, it would require a lot of research to discern who actually did what on these.
    Narciso Rodriguez For Her: Francis Kurkdjian & Christine Nagel
    Eau des Merveilles: Ralf Schwieger & Nathalie Feisthauer
    M7 and Aqua di Gió pour Homme: Alberto Morillas & Jacques Cavallier
    Fahrenheit: Jean-Louis Sieuzac & Maurice Roger
    Azzaro Pour Homme: Gérard Anthony, Martin Heiddenreich & Richard Wirtz
    Miss Dior: Jean Carles & Paul Vacher
    Arpège: André Fraysse & Paul Vacher[/QUOTE]

    I am truly impressed by the results of your fact-finding mission, [B][COLOR="blue"]Kevin Guyer[/COLOR][/B]! :thumbsup: Wow!

    I am not familiar with all of the perfumes you list, and I would disagree about the classification of at least one of them as a masterpiece. Nonetheless, ARPEGE suffices to make the general point. I think that I must, in the light of this news revise my list of platitudes! Thank you so much for setting me straight!

    Although in the light of your revelations I might have been forced to accept that my proof was a failure, fortunately a couple of other fellow fragrance travellers have come, as it were, to my rescue: it appears that there are counterexamples to the claim that "great poems/perfumes are not composed by committee" in the case of poetry as well, so I'm not yet forced to renounce my claim that perfumes are poems...:coolold:

    However, in the meantime, I have begun to reflect upon a list of counterplatitudes...:undecided: Which I suppose just goes to show once again that I'm my own worst enemy:embarassed:!
  17. Forlorn's Avatar
    It is, after all, consumable, which poems are not. Poems also do not make anyone physically ill.
    I can only comment on the poetry aspect. A Marxist would claim poems, like any other production, are consumable, and I can see you have never had the "honor" of judging an amateur poetry contest.
  18. sherapop's Avatar
    [QUOTE=Forlorn;bt5998]I can only comment on the poetry aspect. A Marxist would claim poems, like any other production, are consumable[/QUOTE]

    Hello, [B][COLOR="teal"]Forlorn[/COLOR][/B], and thanks so much for your comments! I am definitely a subscriber to the classical idea (I myself find it in Aristotle's [I]Nicomachean Ethics[/I]) that "You are what you eat"--in the broadest sense of those terms, so I must concede that, yes, we "digest" poems as well. We become who we are as a result of all of the things we do, including the poems which we choose to read.

    Maybe the distinction to draw between the two cases relates to exhaustibility: poems are inexhaustible, while perfumes are not. One consequence of this distinction is that marketing becomes very important in the case of perfumes, since the more bottles emptied, the more profit the manufacturer reaps. In contrast, poems exist forever, and those which are no longer protected by copyright (composed I believe it is 75 years or more ago?) are available free now on the web.

    It seems to me that the entire flanker phenomenon has arisen precisely because of the profitability of launching perfumes which are successfully promoted in part by the past marketing campaigns for their namesake--a form of preemptive marketing, if you will. The cost of flanker launches may also be kept even further down when the same bottle is recycled. Thus a company may profit maximally from a flanker though it may be (and often is) a quickly composed perfume vastly inferior to its namesake.

    [QUOTE=Forlorn;bt5998]... I can see you have never had the "honor" of judging an amateur poetry contest. :laugh:[/QUOTE]

    Regarding this point: I'm not so sure that judging an amateur poetry contest would make me sick so much as sad...:cry:



Loving perfume on the Internet since 2000