Mitch

This fully 3D Pokemon game sounds awesome. I've always loved the portable gameboy games, so it's cool to see Nintendo working on something a lot of people are for. The only problem is I don't own a Gamecube nor do I plan on buying one until the next gen consoles come and the Cube is really cheap, perhaps. I also want a DS but want a PSP but I can only get one at this point. I'd love to see more portable Pokemon games, as well.

I'd agree with Earthbound being remade, or even straight-out ported to a handheld. I have an emulator of the game but I've really never gotten to playing it. . .I was at that one part, at the beginning, in the cave, and I'd just beaten the boss in there and gone to the next town when I quit and for whatever reason (I don't quite remember) I forgot to save my progress. Haven't played it since then. From what I played, it was exceptional. I would love to see a sequel to Starcraft, although only if it's as good as Starcraft is. I absolutely love Starcraft, it's one of the finest RTSes ever made. I can understand Blizzard not making a sequel yet: that's a lot to live up to. But, if they were in fact able to live up to it, or even make a better game than Starcraft was, that would rule. I'd like to see a straight port or remake of Parasite Eve for either of the next-gen handhellds that just came out. I'd also like to see a [i]true[/i] sequel to Parasite Eve - one that actually works on the game mechanics and improves them, and adds new and original things to the game, but yet still is PE. I say this because PE II was basically a Resident Evil rip-off. It wasn't completely but it was sure lackluster for all it took from RE. PE was far more enjoyable, original, creative, and I'd just love to see a game that's more in the vein of PE again. I fell in love with PE, and it's one of the few games that constantly keeps coming back to me.

It was good, but you've written better I think. The main point of it seemed to be that in this day and age, there's little time to do what someone really wants to do, because there's all this other garbage you've got to do - work, school, take care of kids, etc. I found no grammatical errors, and I usually seem to have a pretty sharp eye at those (or so I think, anyway). The story honestly didn't interest me much as a reader, but I read it anyway, for your sake, since you rock. The ending was the highlight for me. I really have nothing else to say.

[QUOTE=DerelictDestiny][COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=1] That and I feel that schools do not place enough emphasis on learning grammar, assuming they teach grammar. Take my brother for example, he doesn't know where you would put he apostrophe in "Childrens wear" and nor does he know how to properly conjugate singular adjectives into plural form, 'half' into 'halves. To him you would simply add the 's' and you have a plural. He doesn't recall ever being formally taught how to use those basic aspects of the language.[/quote] I know the basic parts of speech, and so on, but I'm able to make complex grammatical structures in English I don't understand. It just comes to me naturally, as it does anyone else who has English as their main language. I didn't learn the English language, instead I just started using it as I heard others speak it. While I did learn about English grammar in school and was taught spelling, it still more or less comes naturally to me, and the grammar I learned was very basic. I like being able to use this language and not even know how it works fully, it gives it a sense of wonderment, it gives you a sense of ignorance, but it isn't necessarily ignorance. It's interesting. Eventually I hope to better understand the more complex things in the English language, though. Language and I have a connection. Neither of us fully understand the other. We have an intrinsic sense about each other. We just know when we're being ourselves or we're not. The English language is just in my head. It's become how I think. It's made me who I am and I've made it who it is. Language lets me express. Without it I'd be looking at everyone and I'd not be able to tell them what's going on inside me, how I feel. Without it I'd not even be able to understand I was feeling anything in the first place. I breathe this language, it's what gives me life: real life. It makes me feel alive. It makes me who I am. It's another part of my individuality. It's entirely flexible and its complexities make it a powerful tool to be the master of. This creation, called language, is truly the work of genius. Without it I'd feel I have no purpose. [quote][COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=1]Experiment, yes. Just not to that extreme though and only in creative writing. My teacher can be a bit of a language Nazi since we are her class and we reflect her teachings and therefore we must reflect her positively with our perfect use of the English language. In her opinion she also thinks that we would understand grammar better had we learn Latin. I don't know if it's true. I've never had the opportunity to learn Latin.[/SIZE][/COLOR][/QUOTE] I'm in Latin II and it's already taught me some things, grammatically, about langauge I never knew. Before Latin, I knew of the passive voice, but I really didn't [i]know[/i] what it was. Now I more concretely do - it's a sentence where the direct object is the subject, and so in Latin this causes the subject to become ablative. The English equivalent would be to use a prepositional phrase. So, for example: "The dog ate the bone" would be "The bone was ate by the dog." The bone becomes the subject, and the dog becomes a prepositional phrase. That's mainly what I've learned so far from Latin, but I've also become more familiar with the correct way to use "whom" - it's supposed to be used for the direct object. As for punctuation, the main thing I have to say is I don't particularily like the semi-colon. I have this bias because of all the things I've read,the semi-colon is used very sparingly. At this point it's just a quirk I sometimes use if I'm in the mood to use it. More often than not, though, I don't use it, even if the sentence I write requires one: it just doesn't feel natural to use it for me, so I don't use it. I seem to use a lot of commas, though, which I think is a problem that plagues a lot of writers. I've gotten to using the dash more often, though. As for "cannot" or "can not": "cannot" is more preferable, but you can use "can not" to be emphatic: You can [i]not[/i] leave, etc.

This is an excellent, yet flawed, movie. Any movie is usually not without its flaws, however, and what's good about [i]Sin City[/i] far overwhelms what's bad. [spoiler]The reason I say it is flawed is because it suffers from some pacing problems. The second story arc, about the guy who accidently kills the cop, and then has to try to rid of the body, wasn't executed as well as the rest of the movie was. The person who acted as the guy who accidently kills the cop did a terrible job in comparison to all the other actors, and the entire story of this part was rather far-fetched, I thought, in comparison to the other two parts, which were much better.[/spoiler] My favorite "part" [spoiler]was the one with the tough bad-*** guy who had that night with Goldie and found her dead, so he vowed to avenge her. The actor who played him did an excellent job, and the story arc itself was done nearly flawlessly and had a lot of interesting twists and turns and was just interesting in general.[/spoiler] I liked how there was a lot of introspection with the characters: just a lot of inner monologues. It made it have that film noir feeling which I just can't get enough of and love. It also really fleshed out the characters. Also, the use of color reminded me vaguely of [i]Schindler's List[/i] and I thought it made this movie seem more real, as if it were its own world. It made it a lot more cohesive and somewhat original, as well as creative. I also liked how all the stories were tied together. Not going in chronological order with the "parts" was nice as well, it gave it variety and left the viewer always wondering what this had to do with everything, and kept them on the edge of the seat. This movie reminded me a lot of [i]Kill Bill[/i], which wasn't altogether surprising. It was an enjoyable ride, even if it got long with the rather badly executed part I spoke about (even if it was badly executed it wasn't bad, it's just that in comparison to the rest of the "parts" it is very weak). Other than that, I'd recommend anyone who's old enough (it's rated R) to go see this movie. It's worth seeing in theatre.

[quote=Justin] Is this a reflection of a change in character, or just a step into a new arena?[/quote] Both, I supppose. [QUOTE=Justin] As far as the analysis goes, I may come back with a full one (in fact, I could use that for my AP class, if you approve) -Justin[/QUOTE] Yeah, go right ahead. Nice to see you around here again, Justin.

I recently bought a $100 Ignition pad, and I'm very satisfied with it - it's a lot better than the flimsy pads I used before. I finally played DDR in an arcade for the first time a few days ago. The metal pad is hard for me to get used to, since I'm so used to my soft pad I use. It makes it so I can't do as well on Heavy as I could were I using my Ignition pad. I've gotten B's on a lot of hard songs on Heavy lately, I'm pretty proud of my progress.

I'm addicted to DDR. I cannot go a day without playing it for at least an hour, and if I do I feel like my day was missing something.

[i]Their Eyes Were Watching God[/i] by Zora Neale Hurston. It's an excellent book. I didn't think I would like it when I read it, but I love it. It's got poetic narration and a good meat of it is colloquial dialogue that's well-done.

None of these scriptures are the word of God. They're simply the words of nut-jobs who got high on drugs and wrote in a frenzy, thinking God was using them as His template to write with. Heck, I could sit down today and decide I was going to write the next word of God book. I'm sure I could start my own religion based upon this 1,000-page word of God document. I'm sure people would fall for it and get meaning in their lives from it, and be happy because of it. Think for yourself. Be your own individual. Don't let hoo-hah like this net you in and make you live such a lie of a life.

[QUOTE=The Vampire: Ed][CENTER][IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/TheVampireEd/ShutYourMouth.gif[/IMG][/CENTER] [COLOR=Red][FONT=Comic Sans MS]Mitch, I'm going to put this as nicely as possibly--shut up! LOL, sorry but you're killing the mood and ruining all the fun of Charles' Ode. It's meant to be funny, and it's meant to be full of double meanings and sexual innuendo. This can't possibly be the first poem you've read from Charles because this is something he does quite often in his poems. Why do you have to read too much into to things, and why do you think you should be giving Charles advice or pointers? No offense, but he has been doing fantastic without your help before, and he'll probably keep doing better without it. He's a superb writer as it is. Anyway, Charles, it was quite hilarious and your descriptions made it hard to read without laughing almost every line. Awesome work, and definitely post some more for everyone to read.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] I was just trying to say something more than just what you did: just saying he did a good job and blah blah blah. Oh well. I may not be as good a writer as he is, he may be a superb writer, but there is always room for more improvement, and I'm certain he didn't post this up here just for people to say, "pussies and stuffz!111! omg lolz!111 liek its about sex!1111111 lolz111111111111111111111!!1" I was simply trying to give him more than that, because he deserved it. But I guess he'll probably be better off without me saying anything. Apparently that's your take on it. Vampire: Ed, I'm going to try and put this as nicely as possible -- the only way I'll shut up is if you put a silencer on this gun called my mouth!

I saw this game was coming out soon when I went to Gamestop, and I suppose I will probably buy it. Although I'm not all too into DBZ anymore, I watched it when I was a bit younger and I have a kind of love for it. The show itself was flawed in some ways, but what isn't flawed. Anyway, about the game: I think it looks interesting, far more interesting than a fighter is to me. I did enjoy DBZ: Boudaki though, disliked 2, and I only played 3 a tad I believe - it seemed like the same thing all over again nearly. I'm wondering how repetitive this game will feel, since the Boudakis all had story modes. It might be the same thing all over again only in RPG format. I'm not sure if I'm excited about this game or not, we'll just have to wait and see what the reviewers say. If it looks good then I'll buy it, if not, I won't.

This thread is fine, so long as you put [i]why[/i] it's your favorite Square-Enix game in the post. Mine would undoubtably be [i]Chrono Trigger[/i]. I also rate it as the best RPG of all time, as well, and I doubt it shall be replaced by any other game soon. What can I say about the game? If you haven't played it then you must. I loved the music, I loved the characters, I loved the story, I loved the EX mode, it had good graphics for being only a SNES game, a good battle system - it's just such a good game, and you have to play it to find out or else you're missing out.

I really have no cover songs to contribute (Tony took most any I'd mention), but I'd like to mention that a lot of covers are piss-poor, because they sound like the same song all over again: a great example of this is Limp Bizkit's cover of The Who's "Behind Blue Eyes" - the song sounds almost exactly like The Who's version, and is a major rip-off in this sense. I've had people tell me they prefer Limp Bizkit's version to it, and I found the whole general acceptance of this song to be sickening. People who say they prefer the song over The Who's [i]original[/i] version just heard Limp Bizkit's version first and therefore prefer it it is more than likely. A good cover takes an existing song and makes it different than it is in a way which works and a way which makes the song sound as good as, if not better, than the cover. Limp Bizkit's cover did none of this - it's basically the same song all over again, and therefore the cover seems indulgent and done just because The Who's song had a tried-and-true formula.

I noticed a lot of errors peppered throughout it, as well as using quotation marks incorrectly here and there, and other mistakes. The story's too big for me to point them all out, but it's not anything to worry about. There's also your misuse of "its," as well. But don't worry about it. The strongest point of this story is the dialogue. You have a phenomenal talent when it comes to dialogue, and in this story you show that. It's some of the best dialogue I've ever read, and it takes up the largest chunk of the story. It is a little off at times, however, but most of the time it's top-notch. By your use of dialogue, you're able to sell the characters of this story, to flesh them out. I'm very impressed with how quirky the characters are and how well you make them seem real. I know that you based each character off of someone you know, and I can tell Derek was modelled after you. The biggest con to the story is the ending. . .I expected the fourth part to be longer: the past three chapters of it had been well-drawn out and wholesome. The last part feels anorexic in comparison to the meaty, filling rest of it. The ending also came too abruptly, and it definitely needs to be fleshed out as much as the rest of the story is. The ending was unexpected, though, and surprising. You had hinted subtlely at what happened. I don't think you need to hint at it better, though: that doesn't matter to me as a reader to be able to guess correctly how it would end. This is really an amazing story, and I really enjoyed it, Shy. You have a lot of talent as a writer, especially when it comes to dialogue: you're very versatile with it, and I'm envious. Thank you for this story. If you ever want me to help you fix all the errors throughout it, I'll be your guest, or if you just need help making it better in general.

Very good stuff, Shin. There were a few hiccups in your writing here and there, but it's nothing to worry about. I'm sure if you ever finalize this short story you'll proofread and all that jazz. I'm wondering if you've even wrote the third part? I'd like to read it. Above all, keep writing!

I won't let this thread die! [b]blow-up[/b][E] Darla and I sat at the table. She was a blow-up doll. People gave us odd glances. I smiled, kissing her hand. When the waiter came, we ordered our usual. I talked to Darla while we waited. I ate when dinner came. She didn't eat anything. I ate it for her. She was anorexic.

Well, I finished this book quite a bit ago. I forgot to mention it. I also don't want this thread to die. Who gets to choose the next novel we read? I have one in mind, but I'd be up to read anything. Any ideas?

I found Raiden annoying. I just wanted to play as Snake, yet for whatever reason we're forced to play as "Jack the Ripper." Too bad you couldn't make Raiden shoot himself in the game, that would have been quite an innovation. We should've just been able to play as Pilskin instead of Raiden.

III life is the funniest sitcom the saddest tragedy the scariest horror the most passionate romance life is the best game show the craziest cartoon the deepest movie the most seducing porn the deadest eulogy the most action-packed flick IV kill your tvs life's our channels wouldn't you tune in? break the glass screen break that plastic remote touch some real buttons open your eyes, ears mouth, hands, heart wide as they can go and feel this

[QUOTE=Charles]That would remove the fun from it. I like it when people think of dirty things only to realize at the very end that what they were reading isn't actually the naughty subject matter they were initially picturing, but instead something quite innocent. I want an "oh!" reaction when they realize that there's absolutely no dirty language here. They can then go back and read it another way. I'm intentionally manipulating people in a way--and because of that, I think it's necessary to be absolutely clear in the end regarding what I'm talking about. That's not to say that I hate your initial suggestion or don't find it valuable though. I can definitely see what you're saying and I would apply it to the poem if I didn't have a specific agenda in mind. If I did follow through with your idea though, I'd be willing to gamble that most people wouldn't have cats in mind at all, however. lol[/QUOTE] Well, I took your last post in a different way than I should have. It's obvious you purposely put in the sexual meaning to make it more fun, but your last post made it sound as if you didn't intend to have a sexual meaning at all: that you wanted the poem to clearly state it was about cats, which the poem doesn't do except for the last stanza. But anyway I really like the poem the way it is now. Its double meaning is what makes it so good to me: how you can look at each line and see them in different ways.

[QUOTE=Charles]Thanks. I just thought I should clarify one point though. I'd have to disagree that the last stanza ruins anything because this poem isn't about sex. It's about cats. When I read this poem, I'm reading a poem strictly pertaining to cats. If the reader conjures up any other meaning, well, then that's because they're choosing to do so. lol So, I don't want there to be a double meaning that's up for interpretation. I want it to be very clear to readers what this poem is about.[/QUOTE] Well, the way the poem is written makes the reader think of other things if the reader chooses to. Take this for example: [quote]Some pussies are unclean, like strays These should be treated with much alarm! What looks inviting is mean--what deceptive ways! Don?t nuzzle a dirty pussy, they can do only harm! But, to see milk drip from thine supple lips is sweet rapture A world without you rubbing against my leg Is one that cannot keep my attention erect You gild mischief--evidenced by the balls you capture! Unlike my other pets, you refuse to beg You are quite regal, I your loyal subject.[/quote] "But to see milk drip from thine supple lips is sweet rapture." "You gilld mischief--evidenced by the balls you capture." "Is one that cannot keep my attention erect." It goes on in the whole poem. It's there if you look. It's unavoidable, actually, unless it were a child reading this. Although you've stated your intentions with this poem were for it to be about cats, and cats only, a reader will make a poem their own. Therefore they'll conclude its sexual meaning. It's there and if you wanted it to be only about cats, you should try to avoid that sexual meaning. If you want it to be very clear to a reader what this poem is about, then take the measures necessary to do so: use a different word other than "pussy," get rid of lines, or rework lines, like I showed above (they're all over the poem if you just look). Otherwise you're powerless to stop it - the reader will make the poem their own despite your intentions. It's your job as a writer to make the meaning as clear as you want to; and with this poem you haven't, except for in the last stanza.

[QUOTE=Siren]A subjective research paper? ...ew. lol You mean in the final paper, you're not telling how Cummings' uses of language and typography matter? Or in this rough draft? Because usage of language and typography are definitely related to technical technique...and you focus very heavily on technical technique as opposed to content technique.[/QUOTE] No, no, lol. I meant the content - what I have of the paper - is good, she said, but I just need to explain why it matters, etc.

Thanks for your comments, Lady A, and thank you, too, Alex. I spoke with my teacher today and she said it's supposed to be subjective. I also had her read my thesis and she then showed me how to write a thesis that works. Then she went through a bit of the paper and pointed out what I was doing wrong. I have the content, but I'm not telling how Cummings' particular uses of language and typography matter. I also need to tell what Cummings' use of something does in the examples I gave. I also need to revamp my opening paragraph, and it needs to be a lot longer than it is. I should give interesting things about Cummings to draw the reader into the paper. Alex pointed out a lot of things I was myself questioning. The paper is actually quite rushed. I'm pretty busy (and lazy), so the paper isn't as good as it could be at all. I just got off closing at work, and the paper is due tomorrow, so I've got some work to do. Your guys' comments will help a lot.

Any comments will help. I have yet to make my works cited page and although the paper is somewhat close to finalization, it isn't yet. I can still tighten up the language, among other things. E.E. Cummings was a poet, painter, and man. His use of style and technique has been ridiculed, as well as praised, by critics. Cummings was always about the individual. He began with a traditional poetic style, as of that of Keats and others. From there, he began using his emerging style. At first this new style was very compressed, even foreign, but in his later poems it is refined and near wholeness. To further understand Cummings' poetry, a deep analysis of his various uses of language and typography will enrich understanding and let one see the beauty of his poems. Cummings used language in many ways. One was by juxtaposition. By juxtaposing two terms together, he was able to form a new word. Although mainly lingustic, it is also typographical: words such as greentwittering have a certain aesthetic quality to them that makes them interesting to eye (Maurer). Most often, though, juxtaposition is used to speed up the tempo. An example of this is in the well-known poem, "in Just-": and eddieandbill come running from marbles and piracies and it's spring Another way it is used is to produce telescoped (two or more images uniquely compressed together to make them seem as one) imagery: (past now float he--shes chiselled from darkness, slicesofnight with greyrockfaces-also)once, a spoolhat priest with a bellhat(all got up fit to, why it's. . .with redder than orange than redorange petticoats)bride "Slicesofnight," "greyrockfaces," "spoolhat," "bellhat," and "redorange" all juxtapose two words together and make interesting, telescoped imagery. Also, by juxtaposition, Cummings may create a new concept by two unlike descriptives, such as timeshaped or flowerterrible (Maurer). Other times, he telescopes two images together so tightly as to create a portmanteau (a word made by combining two words together - brunch is a good example) word, such as unknowndulous, a combination of undulous and unknown (Baum). Metonymy is perhaps one of the most interesting devices cummings uses. Metonymy is a figure of speech. It substitutes a different word for another, such as "wheels" to refer to a car, or "Washington" to refer to the United States Government. But Cummings doesn't use metonymy in quite the same way. Cummings' early books are full of favorite words. Thrilling, flowers, utter, skillful, groping, crisp, keen, actual, stars. These early words are often used as metonymies. Flower and other words are metaphorical shorthand for concepts Cummings finds worthy. Flowers mean growth, existing. Stars stand for the fixed beauty of nature. As he progressed in his style, Cummings began using more abstract words as this "metaphorical shorthand." Yes is used as a noun. It is everything positive. If is something hesitant, not certain, not complete: yes is a pleasant country: if's wintry (my lovely) let's open the year both is the very weather (not either) my treasure, when violets appear love is a deeper season than reason; my sweet one (and april's where we're) Metonymy is based on reduction. Cummings was heavy on compression of language: using as little words as possible to say the most. Therfore, he uses metonymy. It creates a certain thrill when read. It has a type of novelty. It says much in a few words. This peculiar use of language is just like an author's use of symbols, adding meaning with each use (Baum). Perhaps most worth mentioning is Cumming's use of compression. His use of compression daunts some of his poems and makes them nearly unaccessible to the reader unless they read closely. His earlier work deliberately violated a reader's traditional expectations. Instead, he chose to write individualistically. His 1952 "nonlecture two" exemplifies this: "so far as i am concerned, poetry and every other art is and forever will be strictly and distinctly a question of individuality." When readers would write for explanations of his poems, he would answer them, but harshly (Thompson). Eventually Cummings' attitudes towards his reading audience changed, and his style became more reader-accessible. With the poem "listen," first published in 1923, it is written in a way as to show something as it is happening. To Cummings, the use of language is not faithful, conventional syntax is historical, and is written as if the thoughts, feelings, and sensations have already happened (Baum). But in reality, there's no order to it. It's just an explosion where the senses are attacked all at once. This was Cummings' aim with the compression of language - he tried to recreate an experience from the ground up, without falsifying temporal order, but by writing something as if it were happening right in the poem (the numbers indicate the line spacing): 1listenthis a dog barks andthis crowd of people and are these steeplesglitter O why eyes houses the smiles5cried gestures buttered with sunlightO, listenleaves in are move push leaves green are crisply writhea new spikes of the by river chuckles see clean whymirrors cries people bark gestures10come O you if come who with listen runme with I quickListen13irrevocably14 (something arrives)15noiselessly in things lives treesat its own pace, certainly silently17comes1819yes20you cannot hurry it with a thousand poems2122you cannot stop it with all the policement in the world When reading this, we feel just as disoriented as we would if the events were happening to us. But it is nearly unreadable, and those who haven't read a lot of Cummings probably won't be able to swallow it. In its final 1967 version, "(listen)," Cummings carefully rewrote the poem. It is much more reader-friendly, and asks the reader to participate rather than demands (Thompson). (listen) this a dog barks and how crazily houses eyes people smiles faces streets steeples and eagerly tumbl ing through wonder ful sunlight --look-- selves, stir:writhe o-p-e-n-i-n-g are (leaves;flowers) dreams ,come quickly come run run with me now jump shout (laugh dance cry sing) for it's Spring --irrevocably; and in earth sky trees :every where a miracle arrives (yes) you and i may not hurry it with a thousand poems my darling but nobody will stop it With All The Policemen In The World Cummings' later style considers the reader in mind. The poetry is conventional yet screams Cummings at the same time. The poem retains its feeling of everything happening at the very moment, but is much more focused. Cummings was also a painter, and tried to bring the aesthetics of the painters to his poetry. His way of doing so was mainly through typography. The most remedial among these is his use of capitalization. Like Emily Dickinson, he capitalized important nouns for emphasis. However, unlike Dickinson, he did not capitalize the beginning letter of every line in his poems. The reason for this is he didn't want to give unnecessary emphasis. He also didn't capitalize the pronoun "I" as it is traditionally. His use of "i" showed his individualism, and segregates the author from the speaker of the poem. This leaves him free to put emphasis where it truly belongs. Cummings also employs spacing as a typographical tool. Cumming's use of spacing is often to slow down the tempo. Its other uses were to squeeze more meaning out of a poem, and to put extreme emphasis on a particular word by alienating it from parts of the poem. Below is a poem showing how spacing may be used to strain more meaning from a poem: l(a le af fa ll s) one l iness There are many layers of meaning to this poem, but our concern is with spacing. The very look of this poem because of the spacing is like a leaf falling in a spiral pattern, then lying on the ground. Also, the letter "l" looks like the numerical "1" on a keyboard. That is one of the main points of this poem: when a leaf falls to death, it falls alone. Also there is "l(a," the french pronoun for "the," which shows even more oneness. Then there is "one," which immediately catches the eye. If Cummings would have just written the poem regularily, it would just read "a leaf falls/ loneliness," but instead he brings the spatial and aesthetic qualities of the painters and crafts something wholly beautiful, short, and full of meaning (Semansky). Another typographical tool Cummings used was punctuation. Cummings' use of punctuation is tied into spacing in the sense that they slow down the tempo. Some critics proclaim Cummings dots his poetry with too much punctuation, but the punctuation serves as a minor time control. His use of parentheses is also very important. It's another technique of immediacy he uses, which helps to show something instantaneously happening. He usually uses them in pairs, but will often put down only one parenthesis as an opening or closing mark. This shows that the poem is only a fragment of something larger, as if hinting at something unsaid (Baum). Cummings brought the aesthetics of the painters to poetry. He himself was a painter as well, and followed in the footsteps of the cubists. His techniques of immediacy take apart a moment and put it back together, just as the cubists (only they used an actual image), and try to make others see it as he saw it. His early poems were somewhat romantic and traditional, but his later poems show him to be a transcendentalist like Walt Whitman or Ralph Waldo Emerson, and his style to be anything but traditional. His other techniques and his developed style showed him to be a unique, original poet.