{The reason this 'cut-and-paste' begins, in what appears to be the middle of some article; Is because that's where it started to get interesting!} 'wL'
 
 
An additional touch in the puzzle were four LEWIS CARROLL-inspired clues with “Curiouser and Curiouser!,” Wonderland CAKE, the MAD Hatter and a dodo clue that has the makings of a second-rate insult: “Hey, buddy, why don’t you emulate the dodo and DIE OUT!”
 
A Vorpal Thought: I hadn’t actually read Jabberwocky since grade school, and it’s interesting how age changes it. Back then, I thought it was nothing more than doubletalk. I think a big part of that was not being able to get past what that first stanza meant. And the one image I took from it? Not the Jabberwock or Bandersnatch, but two men, Gyre and Gimble, standing in a swamplike wabe.
A question for today’s constructor, Matt Ginsberg:
 
Knowing of Mr. Ginsberg’s expertise in artificial intelligence, I asked him about the difficulties that would be involved in creating meaningful computer-generated poetry, and in particular, something like Jabberwocky. While admitting he probably wasn’t the right person to ask — “My skills are very narrow; I’m good at search and search-related algorithms” — he did have some interesting insights.
 
“Writing poetry is probably what’s been called A.I.-complete in the sense that if you can do it, you can also solve every other problem in artificial intelligence. A.I. ‘bots’ these days are very good at very vertical tasks — playing chess, or scheduling construction. But they really don’t know what they’re doing, and they generally solve problems in very inhuman ways.”
 
As an example, he spoke about the chess champion Garry Kasparov and his famous computer opponent Deep Blue. “Kasparov, in picking a chess move, will look at a few tens of possible subsequent positions. Deep Blue looks at billions. We are good at pattern matching (Kasparov knows which 20 positions are the interesting ones); computers are good at search (Deep Blue can consider billions of positions).”
 
He added that “writing poetry seems to me more a pattern-matching process than a search process. So it’s going to be hard for computers.” As to the issue of whether Jabberwocky might pose more or less of a challenge, he said, “Will it be easier to imitate Jackson Pollack, or Picasso? They’re probably both hard. Jabberwocky only appears to be nonsense; it’s hardly random and somehow resonates with us in a way that is difficult to describe.”
 
So what would be involved in programming a computer to write poetry? It strikes me as a two-step task, the first of which would be to define the compositional mechanics: syllable recognition, parts of speech, grammar, word definitions, accents, cadence, poetic structures and so on. That part seems arduous, yet manageable to some degree. But then comes the monumental challenge: inputting concepts such as creativity, imagination, interpretation, philosophy, humor, inference and the like. That seems an almost impossible task, but perhaps the biggest part of that challenge is first trying to understand those concepts ourselves.