How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Battlestar Galactica-- the end   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Transferred from Philosophy 101 Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Battlestar Galactica-- the end

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


25 posted 03-23-2009 05:04 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

LR,

Yes. You're the only one so far who has pointed out the connection I was making.  

Watchtoweranalysis

I wish I agreed with this more than I do but I have a hard time seeing the two riders as the joker and the thief.

M.,

Yes.

Pete,

Yes.

Ron,

Yes.

Everybody's right. And I don't see anything contradictory there. As usual, the right way to go comes down to the nitty gritty details.

PS One of the most interesting subtexts in BSG was Galen's (the Chief's) relationship with women. Boomer, Cally, and Tory are all murderers. It is at least implied that Cally and Tory murdered because they loved Galen.

I feel for the guy, I really do.
Dark Star
Member
since 02-20-2008
Posts 394
Lost in your eyes


26 posted 03-23-2009 05:06 PM       View Profile for Dark Star   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Dark Star

Laura's death was shocking
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


27 posted 03-23-2009 11:26 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Lana... I don't think it was shocking -- we all expected it.  Still -- that doesn't make it less painful when it happens for real.  But it's our job to live.

Brad -- I don't think it matters whether or not we see them as the riders -- the riders could just as easily be the riders of the apocalypse and the joker could be Jesus talking to the thief on the cross as some have interpreted it.

The theme is the same either way.

We know that things are going to change.

Maybe it's time to build that cabin and bury the dead.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


28 posted 03-23-2009 11:40 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Okay.

Thanks to every one.

I have to start building a cabin.
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


29 posted 03-24-2009 04:04 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

Exactly what dead are we burying though Rebel?
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


30 posted 03-24-2009 05:40 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
The long and short of it is that the Poetry Workshop was designed to work in a way that worked and CA was "designed" to work in a way that didn't work, because that's the way you wanted it.

The Poetry Workshop was conceived and implemented as a classroom environment, Rob. It was very much teacher-centric, and structured to protect the control of the teacher. Nan (and for the last year, Mike) was the only person who could "start" a lesson. For most of that time, until Mike asked that it be changed, posters had to ASK to be admitted to a class. Only then could they post a poem in direct response to a lesson. When the lesson was deemed over by the instructor, all resulting threads were closed and locked. And they moved on to the next lesson.

Mike handles it a little differently, which is only to be expected, but the emphasis is still the same. The teacher is the source, the fountainhead, the wellspring, from which all forum activity flows. The teacher sets the agenda.

Compare that with Critical Analysis. There is no teacher, no fountainhead, no source of authoritative control. The wellspring from which all forum activity flows is the individual poet. Until a poem is posted, there's nothing to do. The writer, not the teacher, is in control.

I don't think CA was designed to work in a way that didn't work. I think it was designed to work for a much wider spectrum of visitor. Participate where it pleased and ignore where it didn't. The structure only failed where someone wanted it to work their way to the exclusion of any other way. It failed, I think, where critiquing was privileged over writing.

My goal is to encourage people to write. I don't feel any great need to encourage people to critique. I've always been willing to support critique -- but ONLY insofar as it encourages people to write.

quote:
I can't help wondering if you (and others) really wanted CA to succeed, or whether it wasn't just a  bit of an embarrassment and occasional annoyance.  It almost seemed to me that a times you were ignoring the build up of challenging situations in order to test the patience of the posters there to see whether in fact they would break the respect and tolerance guidelines.  And when they did you could turn round and say; "I told you so" or "this forum ain't working".

Nope, not even close. My dereliction was nothing quite so fancy. The truth, being far simpler, is that I only entered CA as a chore, never as a participant. That means I didn't get there often, and obviously it wasn't often enough.

Please understand, I have no loyalty to critiquing, at least not as I've seen it practiced here. I think most of it was wrong and what wasn't wrong was nit picking. Divorcing a poem from emotion is a bit like trying to explain a joke; anything that was there is lost in the process. Except for the mechanics, I honestly don't understand how critiquing can be useful to the learning process. But that's okay. It doesn't have to work for me to gain my support. I'm not dissing critiquing so much as trying to explain why I didn't spend much time in the forum. Most of the critiques I read just irritated the crap out of me, and that's a feeling I usually try to avoid.

However, while I have no great loyalty to critiquing, I have a great deal of loyalty to the people I like.

Brad has been a friend for over a decade, Pete for nearly as long, and there's a very long list of names associated with CA, both past and present, that I will forever owe a debt of gratitude. I really don't care if ANY individual forum succeeds, but I very much care whether the people who champion it succeed. So, yea, I really wanted Critical Analysis to succeed. For Brad and Pete and everyone else who has ever been involved. The worst part about closing any forum (and we've closed only a few) is knowing I've let down my friends.


moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


31 posted 03-24-2009 11:03 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

Ron

Grateful again for the time you've taken to explain your mind.  I don't think there's much you've written that you haven't either impliedly or explicitly said before except maybe shifts of emphasis to answer my questions, so apologies if this turns into a ramble.

Perhaps what you expected CA to be and what it wanted to become were continually at odds (the tension).  

You attribute every breakdown to "someone wanting it to work their way to the exclusion of any other".  In that statement I think you hit the nail on the head, but not in the way you meant.  That someone is you Ron.

But I don't want to personalise this too much because what we are actually talking about is the underlying PiP ethos.  At the back of everything that was going on in CA was a deep mistrust of the word "critique" by many of the powers behind PiP, together with this curious idea, voiced by someone I was talking to in Open the other day and now again by you, that critique somehow, what was your phrase: divorces a poem from emotion.  And, you know what, this attitude shared by quite a few PiPsters it seems, really saddens me.  

It saddens me partly because I think people like me are somewhat responsible for it.  I regret the sometimes overly harsh critiques I've made in CA; it wasn't the place for them.  I also don't really think overly mechanistic critiques are that helpful either, although in that respect I'm rather less guilty I hope.

It saddens me also because it is patently so wrong.  As an aside, it doesn't help in my view to use the word "critique" coupled with that soulless forensic word "analysis".  You are bound to alienate a significant proportion of the "from the heart" (meant kindly) poets before you even embark on any "critical analysis", with a signboard like that. And it seems to me now quite obvious that if you have a site owner and his near colleagues who believe that in-depth discussion of "what makes poetry work" will somehow subvert the emotional core of that poetry then you are pretty much blowing in the face of a hurricane if you try to set up a forum ostensibly to do just that.

Furthermore, if you really think that my recent commentaries  in Open and Teen are a threat to the essence of poetry, then I guess we might as well end any further discussion, because personally I'm nowhere near reaching the conviction that it isn't helpful to the learning process generally to read a poem very closely and repeatedly and to try and figure out what makes it attractive, or thought provoking, or beautiful or creepy or, for that matter, what makes it boring or uninspiring.  Perhaps you don't learn from that process Ron, but I know many who have done so, and do.  And that really is all I am talking about here.  A mutual learning process based upon multiple personal opinions of what works and doesn't work and why.  

I'm totally with you on encouraging people to write, but my own experience is that if people can obtain honest comment from their peers they will tend to write more if anything (at least that was my experience a few years back when I tried to offer such a service and eventually had to stop because my mailbox was  burying me).

You say that CA used to annoy you, that what you read was wrong.  In my definition of "critique" there's no room for "wrong".  Sure if you are trying to help a very young or inexperienced poet there are probably some basic ideas that you can suggest, and some ways of writing that you can suggest might be best avoided to start with.  But generally, just as in poetry there is no wrong, neither is there a "wrong" in honest comment.  I suspect (and hope) you're talking about the sort of critique that begins: "Never, never, use capitals at the start of lines for the sake of it.  All sonnets must be 14 lines of iambic pentameter.  Don't ever use the word "love", it's cliche."  Perhaps CA "allowed" too much of that; perhaps it allowed too much of a lot of things that would have been better discouraged.  Perhaps, for example, rather than leaving it for other (less erudite) members to jump on me for being pompous you or Pete or Brad should have done it.

Which brings me neatly to your comments about the Workshop forum.  Certainly it was set up differently.  It was set up, as you say, with more constraints upon the ways of posting and replying and it works.  Once we agree what CA should have been; which it is by no means certain we ever shall, then I am simply saying that CA could well have worked with a stated clear purpose (see Bob's ideas), clearer guidelines and a firmer hand to ensure those guidelines were adhered to (and a different name).

But overall I keep coming back to this uncomfortable feeling that your heart was never really in CA, that you don't actually believe or understand that there are some forms of in depth commentary that both inform the poet and the commentator while, far from harming the emotional drivers behind the writing, actually enhance a writer's ability to convey them to his or her readers.  Unless I've misread that, until you shift your viewpoint  on this I think it would be a very bad idea indeed to start up any further form of CRHC forum at PiP.

And I feel there's quite a mountain to climb here Ron, because I know you hold friendship and good relations in high regard; you have, as you said, known Pete and Brad for a very long time, yet when you closed CA I understand (forgive me if I'm wrong) you did it unilaterally without consultation or discussion with those longstanding moderators.  It seems to me that your animosity towards the forum and what it stood for had reached a pitch where plain good manners went out the window; that to my mind was letting them down in a bigger way than was really necessary.  It is however a measure I suspect of just how far you will need to travel in your own thinking, and how far the rest of us have to travel in our behaviour to regain your trust, before such a forum ever reappears at PiP.

Rob

PS Btw, given what you feel, I think it's extremely decent of you to carry on discussing in this way Ron.  Tolerance is something you sure do live.    
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


32 posted 03-24-2009 08:20 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


"That someone is you Ron."


I too always suspected
in his heart of hearts
Ron had three 6's
under that black hat.


.

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


33 posted 03-25-2009 04:00 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

Far from it Huan, more like a halo than three 6's.

Absolutely benign, very well intentioned; but all-powerful - bit like the Almighty in fact     .

PS Just quickly:

Huan's joke has made me think that I was unclear in what I said.  

That comment wasn't any sort of jibe at Ron, I was simply trying to make the point that ultimately he was the single person able to determine how CA worked.  Sure, people came along who, as Ron put it, disrupted the structure, but they weren't the cause of its failure.  The cause of it's failure imo was the inability of the structure to deal with such disruption.

Sorry to go back to the recent example of MF in the Poetry Workshop, but contrast the efficient way in which his potential disruption was dealt with, with the way in which wrangles in CA developed over the years.

Anyway I'm repeating myself.  I'm not sure I have a lot more to say on this for now, which I expect will be a relief to you all .

[This message has been edited by moonbeam (03-25-2009 05:16 AM).]

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


34 posted 03-25-2009 05:15 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Sorry to go back to the recent example of MF in the Poetry Workshop, but contrast the efficient way in which his potential disruption was dealt with, with the way in which wrangles in CA developed over the years.


Moon,

MF was posting inappropriately in the Workshop so his post was removed whereas he wasnít doing anything wrong in CA, which is why his posts remained.

Ron has made several references to this but Iím not sure people are getting it - CA wasnít closed because of the actions of people like MF, it was closed because of the reactions of the rest of us.

He didnít do anything wrong - we did.

Dark Star
Member
since 02-20-2008
Posts 394
Lost in your eyes


35 posted 03-25-2009 05:33 PM       View Profile for Dark Star   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Dark Star

Still its kinda sad for her to die, mostly being the main cast, all series finales always have main characters dying, I love it lol, and Kara being God's helper, good episode
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


36 posted 03-26-2009 04:18 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

quote:
MF was posting inappropriately in the Workshop so his post was removed whereas he wasn't doing anything wrong in CA, which is why his posts remained.

Ron has made several references to this but I'm not sure people are getting it - CA wasn't closed because of the actions of people like MF, it was closed because of the reactions of the rest of us.

He didn't do anything wrong - we did.

Two points here Grinch, first the minor one:

It is possible imv, even within the embracing PiP philosophy, to argue that MF was in fact pushing the boundaries.  The section of the guidelines I cited in the forum makes it clear that responsiveness is greatly encouraged, he certainly wasn't responsive.  Additionally, everyone who's been in online forums where exchanges of views are promoted knows that it's considered fairly rude to enter a place as a newbie and simply post poem after poem, not for days mind, but for weeks, and ignore all responses.  That in my view may breach the PiP guideline on respect.  

However the main point is that of course I get the fact that (if you ignore my minor point above) we did something wrong not MF.  But that's been my point all along.  I accept Ron did the right thing closing CA, because CA was always an environment and a structure where we were likely to "do wrong".  The fault however lay in lack of clarity about the purpose and a failure to appreciate that such a forum could not exist comfortably in PiP without additional somethings.  MF was removed in the Workshop because, as you put it, he was posting inappropriately, he wasn't removed in CA because he wasn't posting inappropriately.  In my ideal discussion forum he would have been, but then I didn't and don't fix the boundaries.  Which is perhaps just as well     .

M
Jim B
New Member
since 04-13-2009
Posts 1


37 posted 04-13-2009 03:07 PM       View Profile for Jim B   Email Jim B   Edit/Delete Message     View IP for Jim B

quote:
Maybe so, Pete. Seems to me, though, it mostly depends on the results?


I'd say producing better readers and writers of poetry is a result.  I've never been one to confuse good with prolific, which is probably why I felt at home there.  Well, I'm sorry to see CA go.

(FYI, I'm the poet formerly known as "jbouder" ... lost my password and discontinued the old email account ... geeze).

Jim
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


38 posted 04-13-2009 04:40 PM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

Jim

While I sympathise with your point of view (how could I not, I was one who learned and improved there), I think that as the years progressed and new blood was not brought in to bolster and energise the moderation effort, it became unrealistic to expect Pete and Brad to maintain the level of participation necessary to try and make it work.  And by "make it work" I mean keep the benefits at a sufficiently high level to outweight the disbenefits.

Just my opinion.

M
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Battlestar Galactica-- the end   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors