»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Give And Get in Poetry
| The Alley |
|
Give And Get in Poetry |
|
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I'm sad to see the end of Constructive Criticism as a topic here. I've found it useful on a few occasions to submit and on more occasions to offer feedback. I've found that offering feedback has helped me in writing stuff I haven't posted here. I like to think that the feedback I've offered has been useful on occasion to those who've had an interest in accepting it or even in rejecting it angrily enough to form their own thinking about how to write more clearly. I don't think that this sort of thing has to end simply because a category called Constructive Criticism has gotten wrecked on the shoals. It certainly can, if we let it do so, and if there is no interest in pushing on with it in some sort of reformulated way. We pretty much know what we have to do if we want some sort of thing like this to rise from the ruins. We have to talk among ourselves and see what each of us is willing to contribute and what each of us hopes to get out of such a place. It must satisfy those of us who feel we have something to contribute, including Ron, whose contribution must return enough to him in some fashion to make the giant difficulty worth taking on. I propose as an initial step, to see if, in fact we can go any further, that we try to say what we hope to get from such a site and to say what we hope to give to such a site. We may not have enough in common here to go any further. If we do, however, the very process of negotiation may prove of some interest. My thinking is that if folks want to know about meter and metrics, Balladeer is already running an interesting forum. I can offer feedback about what the poem seems to be about. I can ask for folks to be specific and to offer clear imagery and to pay attention to the movement and internal logic of the poem. I can offer feedback about where the poem seems to be going and what it seems to be asking for. I can expect to be one voice among many voices. I hope to hear other voices offering substantive feedback as well. Substantive feedback does not include blanket dismissal or self aggrandizement. One does not need others to indulge in such things, and it tends to poison the well that everybody draws from. I would hope that feedback is designed to help others. Those of early thoughts. I'd be very interested in hearing what others have to say. Perhaps we can create something mutually satisfactory and beneficial here. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
| © Copyright 2009 Bob K - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I don’t think there’s much chance of resurrecting CA or creating a similar forum Bob, Ron was pretty clear about that. I do think however that constructive criticism has a place at PIP and I for one plan to continue offering it in the other forums when it‘s requested. Unfortunately I’m not an expert in any particular area of poetry so I can’t offer much apart from an insight into how I write poems. I’m not sure how useful that is given my lack of ability but if anyone wants to know how to write poetry as badly as I do I guess, in that regard, I’m about the closest thing to an expert you can get.  |
||
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I can be a little dense at times so I need to ask a few specific and rather direct questions. Hope that’s ok, Bob. First, are you talking about another CA type forum on this particular site, Bob, or were you perhaps suggesting starting new site? You’ve used the word site instead of forum, that’s why I’m a bit confused. Secondly, be it site or forum, what do you think would have to be done in order to prevent another shipwreck? That last one was rather traumatic for some of the regulars/long time participants who didn’t see or weren’t advised it was coming - left them a bit shocked, hurt and floundering. And finally, have you actually run this by Ron? You seem to be suggesting he would be involved. I don’t have the skills or knowledge to offer very much in the way of critiquing, so it’s going to take a little thinking to see if I could come up with some way to contribute. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. I think “constructive criticism” is suspect in that it always restricts the poet to the demands of the time. If confessional or personally advocating “I” poems are the fashion then “constructive criticism” will be from those themes. No one makes money writing poetry, much less able to live well on the proceeds, hence I think it is best treated as an innocuous hobby which at rare times, even from among the best of them , results in something worth the time to read. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Forum, not site. I wouldn't know what to do about setting up a site. I'm suggesting a suggestion as to what folks want and what they'd be willing to offer in such a forum. If Ron isn't interested in having such a thing here, I don't know what alternatives to suggest. I'd imagine that whatever options we'd come up with would have to include stuff that Ron finds interesting enough to at least tolerate and preferably enjoy. That would be up to him to say. Clearly it would have to be different enough from the last attempt at Constructive Criticism to be of interest. Huan Yi has said some stuff about what he doesn't like. I've been away from the Constructive Criticism forum for quite a while, so I don't know what it was that actually made that forum such a shipwreck for Ron or for other folks involved. My sense is that a lot of the time may have been spent talking about abstractions instead of what improves a poem. By "improving" here, I mean specifically, making it more publishable. I think that there should definitely be a place for poems that folks aren't so ambitious about, poems that are more personal, poems that are more emotional expression of political or religious ideas that aren't shooting for publication but for a more limited audience. To my mind, this forum would not be that place. I would want folks to be supportive and respectful, but to be clear about what needed to be improved and why. If issues of craft came up, and I'm sure they would, I'd expect them to be pegged specifically to the work under discussion. My thought is that we'd probably talk about one poem at a time submitted by somebody who wanted feedback, and that we'd try to give good weight on a discussion of that poem before going on to another. How to choose which poem will be looked at, I don't know yet. You'd have to give criticism in order to get any, though. These are some thoughts so far. Firmly carved in jello. Anybody else with thoughts? |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
I just wrote this in reply to someone in Open before I saw this thread Bob: " quote:I do not know why Critical Analysis wouldn't allow this on the forum. Leaves me with many questions. What questions do you have Artic Wind? I am not sure what you mean by Critical Analysis "not allowing" something? I think some people here have entirely the wrong idea about this mysterious arcane science called CRITICAL ANALYSIS. Personally I have always disliked the phrase critical analysis. It smacks of mechanistic dissection and forensic examination according to set rules. It sounds intimidating, and full of importance. All it is really is: "Close reading and honest comment" - CRHC. So when you think of it like that you can see there is no question of CRHC not "allowing" something. Everything is allowed in poetry. All I'm doing is reading Karen's poem very carefully in order to try and tell her what I personally like and dislike about it and why? It's not formulaic or prescribed. Also I think it's partly selfish in that by studying closely what makes poetry work for me I think I see flaws in my own work more quickly. I hope so anyway. Hope that clarifies. M" I'll be back later on this Bob. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I think Ron was pretty clear what he wants PIP to be Bob: “Over the years, Critical Analysis has tended to attract people who are really passionate about poetry. And I absolutely respect that. I admire it. But it's not me.” “Poetry, for me, will always place a distant second to poets. It's the people who count most.” “Like I said, this forum seems to attract people who are really passionate about their poetry. While I sincerely respect that, I don't intend to abandon my own passions to support theirs.” PIP is a social networking site Bob, built for people to interact with other people, the fact that it’s based around a poetry theme is incidental, if you happen to learn a bit about poetry while you’re here that’s a bonus but not the main aim. Once you realise that you get to understand what an anathema the CA forum actually became, instead of attracting people who first and foremost wanted to socialise it attracted people who were really passionate about poetry, so passionate that sometimes they abandoned social etiquette to make their point. It’s like having a coach of a little league team who has aspirations of reaching the world series, his aims are diametrically opposed to everyone else’s. The kids are passionate about having fun and taking part, and maybe learning a little about baseball along the way, he’s passionate about winning and is aiming for success at all costs. Take a look at CA and the Workshop then take a look at Open, the number of people contributing in each speaks volumes about what people want from this site. The number of people passionate about poetry is miniscule compared with the number of people who are here simply to have a bit of fun and social interaction. If you can accommodate both that would be great but CA is testament that it doesn’t work. When coaches start berating kids who turn up to try out but struggle to hit a ball or are holding the bat the wrong way it’s time for someone to step in and either sack the coach or close the team down. Ron stepped up and I think he deserves a little credit for that. How many people really want to be the next Joe DiMaggio? Not many, but there are some, and if they happen to wander up and ask an old player how to hit a curve ball I’m sure Ron won’t mind a little private coaching here and there as long as both parties get a little bit of something out of it. The important thing is they’ve got to want to know and they’ve got to ask. I ain’t no Joe DiMaggio, I’m not even Joe the plumber, but some people think I can swing a bat fairly well and have a half decent pitch. If they ask me for an opinion on their game or a little help on how I think they could improve it - fine. I can do that just as easily on the front lawn of Open or the back lot of Dark I don’t need someone to build me a Yankee Stadium to play in. Just my opinion |
||
|
turtle Senior Member
since 2009-01-23
Posts 548Harbor |
Quote: (Grinch) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The number of people passionate about poetry is miniscule compared with the number of people who are here simply to have a bit of fun and social interaction. If you can accommodate both that would be great but CA is testament that it doesn’t work. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Really? Then what does that make PIP? I'm glad you say this is "Just my opinion" because it is. If it were true then all those other poetry sites out there where posters are primarily posting in crit forums and workshops would be floundering in disrepair.......(like CA?). You should get out more Grinch, your opinion might apply at PIP, but I hardly see it applying to these poetry blogs as a whole Quote: (Grinch) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ How many people really want to be the next Joe DiMaggio? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ As many as can dream........ Quote: (Ron) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It's the people who count most. My objective for this site and most others I run has always been to encourage writers to write. I like to give them the tools to both write and write better, but honestly the latter has always been a secondary goal. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Yes. We should encourage writers to write, but write what? I doubt that one in a thousand will attain any form of recognition, if they try. Quote: (Bob) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I don't think that this sort of thing has to end simply because a category called Constructive Criticism has gotten wrecked on the shoals. It certainly can, if we let it do so, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bob - I agree. A site that gives no quarter to those who desire to better themselves in their art form is, in essence, just a vanity site. To not provide a haven for those more dedicated writers drives them away. To not provide a place for dedicated writers to post discourages them from joining and participating. I won't post my poetry in a vanity site. I feel I've put too much time, work, and dedication into my art. Eventually the depth of understanding of the art form at a site can be diminished. Eventually it could be garbage in, garbage out and everyone pats everyone on the back and tells themselves what great poets they are. Eventually you may not be able to give your writers the tools to write with, because there will be no one around that knows how to use those tools......Heck! There may not be anyone around to even know that they need a tool. This site has a lot of problems though mainly CA, that is not the only problem. However, understanding, consensus and guidelines might solve, or at least curb those problems. Like Ron says, there are a lot sites on the net. Some of them have critiquing forums that work. Many become cliques, but that may not have to be a bad thing if everyone is on the same page. And some sites may only need serve as the basis for a templet that works for this site. Quote: (Ron) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Like I said, this forum seems to attract people who are really passionate about their poetry. While I sincerely respect that, I don't intend to abandon my own passions to support theirs. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I hope that by dissuading those dedicated writers you are not diminishing your own passions. turtle |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Thanks coach. As my comments were wholly concerned with PIP I’ll take that as a compliment. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Took a trip through CA archives. Seems it did work for about ten years, admittedly with some very rough spots along the way, the same sort of rough spots that keep popping up in the Alley and other discussion forums, or as Grinch so delicately put it, some forgot their social etiquette. People are human, push their buttons hard enough and some are bound to spout off. Seems to me that’s when you need a moderator/administrator to gently but firmly put things back on track and be consistent with their expectations. As for what people want on this site based on the number of posts in certain forums, check out Dark and Corner Pub. They seem to move at about the same speed as CA did. Spiritual Journey and Prose are even slower moving. Why a Constructive Criticism forum? Do a survey in Open and ask how many would like to have a few of their poems published someday. Think you’ll see quite a few hands go up. There are those on this site with the knowledge, experience and expertise that could help some of those with the dream of being published achieve their goal. I misunderstand things sometimes, but it seems to me what Bob’s proposing is a more structured type forum where the focus would be directed towards the poem (and one poem at a time) rather than rambling discussions about poetics in general or personalities. Seems those sort of discussions were what put CA on the shoals. Discussions about poetics in general, like any other discussion topic, should have a place, but not in the comment box. The focus should be on the poem, why it works or doesn’t and what might be done to improve it. I’d like to see what Bob seems to be proposing given a chance. As uncomfortable as I am about critiquing, I’d be willing to give it a shot in order to have a forum like that. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Just looking in for a moment. I agree with everything Jenn said, most of what Turtle said and 99% of what Grinch said apart from: "Take a look at CA and the Workshop then take a look at Open, the number of people contributing in each speaks volumes about what people want from this site. The number of people passionate about poetry is miniscule compared with the number of people who are here simply to have a bit of fun and social interaction. If you can accommodate both that would be great but CA is testament that it doesn’t work." I don't think the failure of CA proved that. The failure of CA proved other forms of incompatibility, but not really that people here to socialise and have fun can't live at the same site as those passionate about poetry. I really will be back later Bob. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
If this is going to work, I think it needs to work for as many of us as possible. I think we still need to be listening to what people want and would like to give and get from a forum to see what's possible here. Everybody has to walk away with enough to keep them willing to come back for more, and the downside — and there will have to be a downside will have to be clearly outweighed by the gains. All of us need to think about that balance for ourselves and for everybody else as well. What do I hope to get, what can I imagine being happy giving? What feedback am I willing to offer and what feedback am I willing to accept? I'm really happy with the amount of feedback folks have offered in what's been to me so far only a fond hope. It seems that there may be some folks out there who share at least pieces of that hope. I'm interested to see where the discussion goes from here. All my best to everybody. Bob Kaven |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
To quote Ron: quote: quote: At the risk of sounding like a character in a Monty Python sketch Bob CA has passed on, it is no more, it has ceased to be, it’s expired, gone to meet it’s maker, a stiff, resting in peace, pushing up daisies, kicked the bucket, shuffled off this mortal coil. CA is an ex-forum and unless Ron does a complete u-turn it ain’t coming back - in any way, shape, or form. If it does do a Lazarus give me a shout - until then I’m off to play in the other forums.  |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Bob Apologies, I thought I'd have time this evening to address this properly but it seems not. In the meantime I've lifted another thread dealing with the problems of the old CA forum, some of which might be pertinent in thinking about any possible new way forward. Rob Grinch, you parrot murderer you  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ron goes through several steps... 1. He jokes about something, hoping other will get the point 2. His comment are a little more direct. 3. He starts deleting comments 4. He deletes comments and adds comments of his own. 5. He says knock it off. 6. He ends it. That's what happened in CA. I mention it because we are at step 5 in the Alley. If we reach #6, the Alley will follow CA into oblivion. Time to give that some thought... For people who really want help or advice on improving their work, why not pick out a poet you admire and ask for their help or input? You can trade e-mails, IM's, phone calls or whatever. Why is it necessary to do it in public, if bettering your work is your only objective? How can advice from someone you don't respect as a poet lead to anything but resentment or bad feelings? CA forums only work if they are conducted by experts in the field. Only a fraction of a percent of PIP members have ever visited the CA forum. It won't be back and, if we're not careful, other forums will follow. "A circle of friends"..that's Ron's vision and he won't accept anything less. We can accept it or move on....simple as that. BTW, Bob, thanks for your well-wishes. All is well. A nasty form of skin cancer decided my face made an excellent home and it was necessary to file an eviction notice with a sharp blade. Another scar,but who's counting? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: That’s not a bad idea Mike, maybe some of the folk from CA could follow your example and post a lesson in the workshop. Anybody who turns up and gets involved is obviously interested and looking for some help and advice which might avoid some of the friction generated in CA. I pop into the Workshop every now and again and I have to admit that the atmosphere is a whole lot better than it was in CA, that’s probably due to the fact that people see what’s on offer up front and either decide to join in or decide to give it a miss. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I don’t see what Bob’s proposing as being a replacement for CA. What he’s proposing seems to have an entirely different slant, getting a rough draft poem shaped up so there’s at least a chance of seeing it in print. For the last year or so, CA seemed to be more of a discussion forum tarnished somewhat by personality clashes and strutting egos. Sort of an Alley II, if you will. Or maybe I’m just grasping at straws because I’m afraid the good people from CA will move on to another site if they no longer have juicy bits to sink their critiquing teeth into or a particular forum where they as well as others can ask for input on their work. What a tremendous loss that would be. The closing of CA has really been a good thing in the sense that it seemed to wake some people up to the fact that they need to be far more sensitive to other peoples feelings, formulate their negative reactions in a more positive fashion, address the poem rather than attack the poet or others who comment and leave their egos at door before they put their pen in gear. I think the time may be ripe to cash in on that wake-up call. Something really good could rise from the ashes. How’s that for a bunch of mixed metaphors? Also, I think Bob has a good grasp on how a Constructive Critique forum could be set up so that some of the pitfalls that caused CA to crash might be avoided. And, no doubt in my mind, that should what he’s proposing not work out, he’d be the first to suggest closing the door. Just read your post, Balladeer. Short on time right now but I would like to get back to you on a couple of points. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Grinch, not only come over to the workshop but there could even be specialty workshops similar to mine. I'm a complete novice with regards to free verse and don;t have it in my workshop. A free verse workshop, conducted by someone free verse poets respect as very knowledgeable in that genre would be a good idea, I would think, as long as it is being conducted by one person and not turned into another CA. |
||
|
turtle Senior Member
since 2009-01-23
Posts 548Harbor |
WOW! I've been writing this little blurb on and off all afternoon to post in Grinch's thread. I'm amazed at how close we all are in being on the same page. I think you have some good ideas beamer and Bob, but I found some interesting things in Grinch's thread that your ideas do not address. The main thing it does not address is Ron's wishes. Another thing your guidelines don't address is reality. As Essorant points out on page 2 of Grinch's thread and what I find pertinent in my life is that fate plays a large part in what brings people to poetry. What I think Ron is saying is that he wants that same "fate" and in some respects "desire" to play a part in how he wants this site's members to grow and how he wants people to be inspired. I think what he is saying is he wants to provide the "tools" for those who want to learn and grow in this art form. Perhaps the guidelines should be addressed more to the ones doing critiques and less to the posters. Perhaps what is needed is less a guideline and more a philosophy or credo everyone can agree with and adhere to. OR perhaps a bit of both. Unfortunately, I don't feel this would solve the problems in CA for me, because I feel my hands are tied here. If I want to help an emerging or perspective writer and need to suggest to someone that they should get into a poetry workshop, I can't recommend this site. No disrespect to Balladeer here, I think he does a great job and he's clearly dedicated to this site. I once spent a few years in an online poetry workshop and over those years the participants learned and grew together. It was great for those of us who'd been around from the beginning, we were all on the same page. But, for any new comers we were way over their heads and they couldn't keep up. Personally, I think the needs of a newer poet are best served in a workshop environment were discussion could be more pertinent when applied to their skill level. Unfortunately, I don't think that all of Ron's expectations are realistic either. A good and talented poet with experience (A Ron tool) can usually distinguish between a talent and brain gas....errrr. No talent. Would it not be advantageous to all concerned if those more skilled members could work with and encourage those talents that come along from time to time and post in open? One more point of interest I have observed here, is that the default setting for a critique is set to "No". The result of this could mean the very people that come here with talent and are looking for help may not change that default setting because perhaps they don't know what a critique is, or perhaps they feel they are here looking for help, not critique. What if the default setting for critique were set to "Yes". Then the member would have to make a conscience choice to not receive critiques. Wouldn't this make things more clear for both the member and those doing critiques. turtle |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Back to those couple of points, Balladeer. In regard to your comment “Only a fraction of a percent of PIP members have ever visited the CA forum”, let me respond by pointing out there has been less participation by PiP members in Workshop than in CA. As for advise from those you don’t respect, well, when you post your poem for critique you get what you get, just like in real life when you publish and your work is at the mercy of reviewers and critics you may not respect. As for your suggestion of letting one person run a free verse workshop, I think you’d find, since there are far more free versers on the site than meter readers, it could get to be a little overwhelming for one person. And, one person’s view can be very distorted depending on their personal likes and dislikes. Focusing only on what was wrong in CA totally ignores what was good about it as can be seen by reading the CA archives as I did, and what a Constructive Critique forum could be with a little more structure, oversight and a few guidelines - exactly what Bob seems to be proposing - and others have in the past. Hope your surgery was a total success, Balladeer. Be well and stay out of the sun. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I wouldn’t mind learning how to write free verse if someone’s up for it. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
In regard to your comment �Only a fraction of a percent of PIP members have ever visited the CA forum�, let me respond by pointing out there has been less participation by PiP members in Workshop than in CA. Not sure why you are pointing that out, Jennifer. The fact that less people frequent the workshop does not change the figures for CA so the point escapes me. The small percentage is not why CA is history. Thanks for the kind words. Staying out of the sun in florida is a little difficult, as you well know |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
The focus in workshop is more specifically on the sort of poems that Mike, who's running the workshop so deftly right now, is most comfortable teaching. As it should be. Mike doesn't pretend to be skillful in verse other than the sort he teaches, though I personally believe he is, and that he's being modest about the size of his talents. Mike's take on how to go about teaching this sort of stuff is also highly specific, and tailored to the way he thinks the material ought to be conveyed, as it should be. Only Mike can run the workshop as it stands with anything approaching the success that it has attained. It is Mike's dominion; it requires Mike's steady hand. I think that the need I see here is something other. I think we need to talk, as we are talking, to define more clearly what that need is. I'd like to focus a bit more on feedback to aims to help folks revise toward publication, personally. If not for the pieces presented — though I'd hope to help the poems in that direction — then at least I'd like to help folks acquire the skills to get there. Some of us already have those skills or are close to them, others want to work on gaining those skills. I don't think there's a lot of room for blustering and shows of ego in a situation like that; such displays get in the way of learning the stuff that needs to be learned and in practicing it in an ongoing way. Though they are always there not too far below the surface, aren't they? At least I know that I have to ride herd on my own fairly hard. The point is that in a forum such as this, comments have to be focused on what will help the other folks grow. Anybody have any thoughts on this? And how do we make it useful to those who want to be an active part, should there be any such people in the long run? What will make people want to show up in the first place? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Let's see, you've got Grinch, Bob, M. Jennifer, Turtle, and a few others I'm sure will participate given a little time. Why not just start? Choose a forum and start talking to each other (Use M's code: CRHC). If others get interested then they can start doing it too. Ron's concern is with civility and mutual respect. I can't imagine him getting upset with a little intellectual stimulation now and then. CA is dead, long live the CRHC! PS This afternoon it hit me. Maybe the problem has always been separation. Why not give integration a shot? Try Grinch's idea and see what happens. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Not sure if you’ll get many weighing in on your proposal at this point, Bob. Even though what your proposing is far different from what CA was, some don’t see the difference and I think are shying away from the topic for fear of seeming to support something Ron has banned. But, I think if it ever does come to the point where there is a forum labeled something like, Polishing Your Work For Publication, then you're going to see standing room only. One thing I’ve seen in other similar forums that seems to help cut down on the blustering and the back and forth debates that can get so out of hand, is the one shot rule. Those who wish to comment/critique carefully prepare what they have to offer and are allowed to comment only once per poem. Another is that any comments directed at the poet or other comments rather than poem are deleted without discussion. Those with a grudge or an ax to grind just don’t get a venue. And of course, the hook comes out for any off topic posts. Perhaps it might be helpful, a way to encourage those of us who feel we’re a little short on commenting skills, to post links to resources offering pointers. Just saw your post Brad, and only have time for a quick response. I think Bob’s idea of discussing goals and methods before setting sail is good way to help avoid another shipwreck. But thanks so much for your support and encouragement. |
||
|
turtle Senior Member
since 2009-01-23
Posts 548Harbor |
I too could gain from a free verse workshop. I have been giving this issue some thought Bob. There is an interesting attempt at providing a three step poetry workshop template at Poets.org. This is geared toward publication using three workshops. A poet edits his poem based on feedback from readers of progressively greater skill levels in each workshop. The intent is, after posting in the highest level of expert readers doing critique, the poem would be ready for publication. This doesn't work of course. Each workshop is just a big clique of varying skill levels and usually confusing, non supportive feedback. There are several poetry sites that have forums offering progressively greater in depth critiques. PFFA is one of the better known and in my mind is not very helpful. I went and looked at some profiles here at PIP and found that the "yes", "no" critique choice is running about 50% / 50%. I also found that many of those indicating they might want a critique. had a critique message that begged for mercy.....(chuckle) I think that providing links to publishers that are looking for submissions might be a good idea, perhaps in Announcements. But, I am doubtful that a CA here would be useful, or popular if geared toward the publication you suggest. I think there may be just too many different individual perspectives on what a critique should be and it might only serve to confuse the poster. (my opinion) However. I do think a critiquing workshop to teach critique might be both popular and useful. Especially if there were say 1, a beginning writers workshop, 2, a rhymed verse workshop, and 3, a free verse workshop. Perhaps the best poem from each workshop, each week, could be rewarded with being submitted to 4, a critiquing workshop, where it is critiqued by those participants in that workshop. There are many good templates on the web that provide guidelines for doing a proper critique. These guides could be used to create a teaching template to use in this "critique workshop" to teach those that want to learn to do critiques. This I think, might put nearly everyone on the same page. Also, those such as yourself who are passionate about publication, might provide links to publishers and resources in the body of your critiques. Here are just a small sampling of links that offer a critiquing template www.poets.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6481 www.authorsden.com/visit/viewArticle.asp?id=16980 http://www.ehow.com/how_2116676_critique-a-poem.html http://www.poemofquotes.com/articles/critique-poetry.php[/URL] ........I don't know, I may be barking up the wrong tree here. With only seven members responding to this thread I don't see this as much of a voice for Ron to consider. turtle [This message has been edited by turtle (03-20-2009 12:12 AM).] |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Bob, from what I've seen you write about poetry on this board there's probably very little blue water between us. I think one of the biggest difficulties any constructive critique forum faces is lack of focus. My CRHC acronym only goes so far. Without some sort of target or stated purpose, close reading and comment (which after all can be variously and widely interpreted) can (and will imo) result eventually in rather an aimless, and very "personality vulnerable", exchange of views. The success or otherwise of the discussions will depend almost entirely on the character of the participants and their own personal desires and aims. You might say (and I think Ron would) that this is inevitable in any discussion, and desirable as long as it remains civil and respectful. This is what social networking is all about, and this is apparently what PiP is all about. In the past, as you can see from the other thread, I've argued repeatedly for a series of guidelines or rules in order to channel discussion and comment. Ron has resisted this sort of stricture on the basis (I think) that it cuts right across the PiP ethos. Yet without it, I foresaw (and some might say helped to bring about, as I have a regrettable tendency to react badly sometimes) the eventual closure of CA. With hindsight I am still unsure as to whether a CA type forum could ever have been made to work successfully. I do however think now, having read what you have written, that a clear statement narrowing the purpose of such a forum might have gone a long way towards helping. But for that to work you first need to agree on what that purpose is going to be. It can't simply be to "improve" poetry, for I agree with you totally that the word "improve" when applied to poetry without a reference point is very tricky. The reference point you have suggested is that of the perspective of "a fair number of publishing professional poets" because that's one you are familiar with. I happen to think that that is an excellent perspective, and a worthy target to shoot for, but when I've suggested it in other online situations I've met with various levels of disinterest verging sometimes on hostility. Still, if the stall was set out clearly to begin with then one would hope that only those interested in working towards the goal would participate. That's the easy bit. The hard bit is policing. What do you do when a Monk Frost arrives? What action, if any, do you take when someone posts a "Hallmark" poem per day with a patent disinterest in writing in any other way? I can think of a lot of "what if's" Bob! Do you exclude people on the basis of what they say or don't say? If you don't, any new forum would I suspect go the way of CA. But if you do, then it isn't ever going to happen here at PiP (or if it did, it would mean not just a U turn from Ron, but a full reverse double twist with Triple Salko). That's all I can think of for now Bob. M |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Ron I'd be grateful if you'd look at this: /main/forumdisplay.cgi?action=displayarchive&number=84&topic=002677# 12 Thanks M |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Continuing Our Conversation, I think that in order to get critique for a poem in a setting like the one I'm proposing, it would be better to be sure that you offer critique of other people's poems as well. I think that would be a very good idea because it means that you have to learn to think critically about poetry, in the beginning about other people's poetry and what they should be doing to make it right, but — as you progress — about your own poetry and what you need to do in revising your own poetry to make it right. It's frequently only by trying out various statements about what you think somebody else ought to do, and listening to what other people have to say as well about each others' poems and your own, that you can begin to formulate your own particular way of working. That's the practical reason for needing to say things about other people's work. Politeness does figure in, of course, but that's often not enough to get people to overcome the shyness they feel about speaking their thoughts out loud. And that's why I say that politeness is really a secondary issue to developing a set of personal poetic "moves" for how you want to do your work and your revisions. There are a set of moves in poetry that I believes transcends the issues of formal or free verse that has to do with diction, and stance and concision that are helpful for almost everybody. Some moves are particular more to folks who write metric verse, I suspect, but the basics of stress and line break are important no matter what approach you take. I think. The only way that you can find out what you think is by trying to say what you think and having it questioned occasionally and by experimenting in the writing and revision process. Again: I think. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Bob, Before you continue wouldn’t it save some potentially wasted time and energy if you asked the obvious question? Designing a forum is all well and good but if it’s never destined to be implemented is there any point? Allow me. Ron, Is there any chance that the CA forum, or a similar forum, might re-open any time soon? . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Soon? No, it's not likely at all. Eventually? Perhaps. It won't be based on tighter rules or trying to force people to participate, though. And the word "critique" won't likely even be used. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Thanks for clearing that up Ron. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Ron, What about a workshop forum for free verse writers where writers would have to offer feedback at least three times before getting it for a piece of their own work, and where there would be a limit of say five poems a week permitted for discussion. Only one by a single writer. Focus on the sort of polish that people would need to have for publication. Many magazines, you understand, won't publish material that's appeared in a setting like PiP; they regard it as already published, I hear. So the focus would have to be on learning the level of skill needed. Or finding magazines outside the forum that would be willing to accept poems, should any come out of it that people want to give a shot. I believe this is a different proposal than the one Grinch suggested above. If I thought it the same, I wouldn't make it. Further details would have to be worked out to everybody's satisfaction, of course. Bob Kaven |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
What's "soon"? Good grief, we were 10 years messing the last one up. A few months or even a year or two for careful reflection and consideration in public (so as everyone can see exactly what people's feeling are, and to ensure transparency and clarity) is in my view essential. Bob's very kindly started that process, and so long as Ron uses the word "possibly" rather than "never", I think it should continue. If something like CA ever starts again I think it should be with everyone involved at the outset having their eyes wide open, and a high degree of consensus. Go to it Bob Later. M |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I think we're mixing some apples and oranges here, Bob. If you're talking about a teacher-led workshop like the Poetry Workshop, then we already have that structure in place. We just need to find a suitable teacher and coordinate it with Mike and Nan. If you're talking about another critiquing forum, with a lot of new rules, I again don't see that happening any time soon. I don't want to get into a long discussion at this point, but let me quickly address just the few new "rules" you've already mentioned, Bob. I don't want to necessarily discourage rules so much as I want to encourage a little deeper thought about new rules. I've been involved in on-line communities for a very long time. Even before this community, I was a moderator and admin at JimWorld.com, probably the first web developer community ever built. I worked with Jim Wilson for several years before his death in 2003. Most of the people who opened the doors to pipTalk with me I met in other on-line communities. Even today, I moderate and admin at two other very successful web developer forums. I'm sure I haven't seen everything tried in my twelve or so years of doing this, but I suspect I've seen more than most. Here's a few of the things I think I've learned. You can't force people to participate. Both of the web dev communities where I am involved have forums set aside for web site reviews. People build a web site and others review it. They're a different kind of crit, but they're still crits. One of those web dev communities has set a rule: before asking for a review, a member has to have 25 posts. The result, in my opinion, has been a marked increase in the signal-to-noise ratio, a dramatic rise in "me too" posts. When you try to mandate quantity, quality inevitably takes a hit. Similarly, you can't realistically limit participation. Not without an awful lot of planning and constant work. If you really want only five poems a week permitted for discussion, you're going to have to come up with an equitable and fair way to select those five poems, and then you're going to have to find someone to spend however much time it takes every week to make the selections. My experience is that will last less than six months. When I did it at the main site, I managed to make it work for almost two years, but I'm probably more stubborn than most. And even for those two years, it didn't work well. And even though it doesn't currently pertain, here's probably the number one thing I've learned about on-line communities: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him read the rules. Ever. For those who really want to make up rules, here's the philosophy you'll have to entertain if you want any chance of seeing them implemented. Never make a rule you can't (or won't) enforce. That just encourages people to break rules. Never make a rule where an incentive will work better. You want someone to do something? Make it easy. Make a fun. quote: Actually, we've already done that, Bob. I can't even remember what we called it (anyone?), but we long ago had a forum run by Ruth Kephart, better know in these parts as hoot_owl_rn, a very respected and well published poet. Ruth is still around and likely has a better memory than I do. The focus of the forum was helping people get published. There's also a small section at the main site dedicated to publishing, though it hasn't been updated in years. I'm not adverse to exploring this avenue again, Bob, but it's not easy to come up with a sustainable plan. And I'll admit I perhaps find it less than exciting because I know that "good" poetry and "publishable" poetry are two very different critters. I worry that when we encourage someone to write for money or fame, we risk setting them on the wrong path. Still, I'm amenable to discussion. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Bob I'm with Ron on practically everything he says here (although I think perhaps we need to explore what he means by "published", and whoever heard of a real poet writing for money , money?!).I may not have had Ron's hands-on experience setting up and running message boards and online communities but I've spent a frightening proportion of my last 10 years in them, and I have enough idea of what might be practical and long lasting and what might not, to be very wary of plunging into any new venture without a great deal of thought and planning. Of all the things he says, and they are all good, the point about trying to incentivise rather than coerce (perhaps too strong) is perhaps the one that resonates most with me, that, and the futility of placing quotas on numbers of posts (which I used to think might work, but have since seen in operation with precisely the results Ron cites). I still think that some of the suggestions for guidelines that I made back in 2006 would be helpful in any situation approaching a workshop environment: More moderators/quasi moderators. No necessity for them to be teachers or poetic experts. But essential for them to be active policemen of the forum guidelines, and for there to be sufficient off board contact between them such that difficult situations can be shared Strong encouragement for posters to say why a poem is liked or disliked (or maybe why an editor might like or dislike it, if you as reviewer have that expertise), and strong encouragement for the poet to say thank you to those who comment and to provide some feedback on the comments received Re-enforcement of PiP rules regarding comments directed at the person rather than the poem A suggestion that debate within the threads is encouraged but gratuitous adverse comment about others posters, especially that directed at new or learning posters, discouraged A zero tolerance policy for any hint at all of personal criticism whether indirect or direct and whether in poems or comments Posts that repeatedly (more than twice) break the spirit or letter of the guidelines to be gently (in the case of poems) directed to Open, and in the case of comments, deleted and replaced with a respectful message asking the poster to comply with the guidelines A real effort to encourage existing members of PiP to participate in CA and to make them feel welcome and their opinions valued ...... On the fun thing, I am quite sure that all sorts of competitions, exercises and fun stuff could be devised to lighten the place. But take up online is often low, and you'd have to be sure that enough core people were going to be around to share the workload. For me this is all early days. I'd want to do a lot more listening, thinking and reading before trying to decide anything. M |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Yeah... I posted stuff there and would not get feed back for like a year or get some one tell me that I "####" When I critiqued poetry I often had harsh reaction, so I think that it was a strange forum. There was allot of insults and poeple who would not let a dead dog rest. I felt that allot of new comers felt misplaced in that section. -Juju |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Okay, it's possible we have the beginnings of a negotiation, or something distantly like one here. We have comments from several people who say what they don't want, and a couple of comments by Ron saying what seem to be things that are less and more tolerable in terms of the way he sees the site. In addition to the other things Ron does for us here is he is the longest running and most detailed keeper of memory and experience about the place, and the guy who's seen the most trial and error. Turtle has seen a few web sites where things seem to have worked well, with caveats, and others have a healthy dose of skepticism. I'm feeling that we can probably do [i]something[i] useful and honorable and not too tedious if we are careful. I am nervous that things will become too unthinkingly approving to be of actual help in making needed revisions. I also see the general worry of folks being simply cruel for the sake of being clever or to salvage what may be seen as slights from poorly phrased prior feedback. I've been on the receiving end of this sort of thing, though I confess anything I've gotten here has been extremely mild, and I've never enjoyed it. If you send out for publication, and get the number of rejection slips that frequently entails however, even if the rejection slips are without comment, you understand that getting feedback, even difficult feedback, becomes something that you wish you had. If you are writing to have people simply tell you how good you are — and this is a perfectly legitimate reason to write, by the way; as is writing simply to get one's feelings out to have a look at the;, or to share them with a few uncritical friends — then writing to have people offer you publication style professional feedback is not what you should be doing. My vision of this sort of forum would be targeted to folks like this. Feedback that's simply cruel would not be encouraged. It should be aimed at being of concrete help to the poem, not a shot at the poet. And it should have a point to be made about the craft of the poem in question. That's more than enough of me running my mouth for now. I's like to hear from other folks. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Those were the guidelines of CA, Bob. They weren't followed. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Wasn't quarreling about that, Mike. I stopped posting there, instead. Folks are allowed to set up the rules of the activities that engage in so long as the rules themselves are legal. Also, Ron was pretty clear about finding CA a bunch of folk who had other ideas than the ones that were set up as the rules in the first place. Not a good fit. My suggestion is to negotiate a set of rules that's pretty much agreeable all the way around. With Ron, with anyone who's interested in writing for free verse publication. I suppose we could take a swing at metered stuff too, but that would encroach on your balliwick, and I'm not too keen about that. You have your own notions about that stuff. I'd like to see the comments have enough bite to be useful in making revisions and in getting poems ready to send out — though not to magazines, as I said before, that limit their submissions to poems that haven't been looked at in an "open" forum on the internet. How or if that happens has got to depend in some part on you, of course, and how tolerable such a forum would be for you, and what you think it might take away from PiP and what you think it might add. You have considerable seniority here yourself, and a lot of institutional memory about what works and what doesn't work, and what fixes failed and why, and what fixes work and why and all that sort of wisdom. In short, What YOU think about the idea? Plus and minus in whichever order. Or if your thinking is one-sided, let's hear that too. At this point, we're gathering information and seeing if there's enough interest to even start the thing up at all, let along make the changes along the way that it would probably necessitate. All my best, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Thanks, Bob, but I don't see where my 'toleration" would have anything to do with anything. Yes, I have some seniority here but that doesn't grant any special privileges to me. Do I think it would be good for the site? I can't say. it's easy to come up with rules. As I pointed out, rules were brought up for CA. When you get into critiquing, you get into personalities unless you have some respected, credentialed person doing the critiquing. When someone wants to introduce facts, it's one thing. When someone wants to introduce critiques or opinions, it's something else. For me in the workshop, it's much easier. Structured poetry has specific rules and guidelines. I simply point out the rules, which are verifyable. Free verse is a horse of a different color. As far as getting something ready for publication, there are many websites out there who will take one through the necessary steps for submittals. Plus, any interest that the subject would bring is secondary to Ron giving permission to do it. As for me, I have no personal feelings about it either way.. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
If you wanted to undertake an autopsy of the CA forum Bob it wouldn’t take a member of CSI to spot the root cause of it’s demise. You can distil it down to an incompatibility of types. Here’s the site requirements: 1 anyone can post a poem within the general rules of the site 2 anyone can post a reply within the general rules of the site You can call those type one requirements and here’s the requirements of the people using the forum: 1 only poems of a certain standard should be posted 2 only replies of a certain standard should be posted Let’s call them type two requirements. The problems occurred because when people saw what they perceived as posts that didn't match their idea of type two posts. Instead of ignoring them they decided to ignore the type one requirements and reacted with posts that were clearly outside the sites requirements. When that happened the Moderators were given no option but to either edit or delete any post that clearly breached the type one requirements or, based on their own type two requirements, ignore the site requirements and Moderate based on their own standards. This left the Mods out on a limb, they had rules they had to enforce which seemed bent on allowing the type of posts that, in many cases, they didn’t agree with. From the point of view of a lot of members some of the posters that they saw as being disruptive were allowed to continue to post while anyone confronting or criticising them was censored for breaching the type one requirements. In frustration they either blew a gasket and got bounced or packed their bags and walked. The Mods, sometimes just as frustrated, were put in untenable situations too. You can see from the requirements the quandary Ron finds himself in, he can’t abandon the type one requirements without excluding some people and he can’t exclude some people without having a clear definition of what a type two post actually is. If Ron doesn’t believe that my replies are of a good enough standard does he delete them? Does his standard match Brad’s, or Pete’s, or Moonbeams? You could try to build lots of rules to define a standard but the best you’re ever going to get is a whole heap of borderline cases and grey areas leading to inconsistent moderation. The issue, as far as I see it, was that for some reason people couldn’t simply accept that all types of posts are inevitable. At the same time, for some reason, they couldn’t just ignore the posts they believed weren't type two posts. They saw them as some sort of an affront and reacted like the proverbial bull faced with a red rag. Perhaps the answer could have been as simple as giving those people a little help to ignore the red rags. Why couldn’t there have been an “Ignore Poster” list for each member, similar to the library but in reverse, where, if you found someone so annoying you couldn’t stop yourself from reacting to their every word, you simply added them to your ignore list and all their posts were magically removed from your view. If that were in place moderating would have been made easier - if the members had a process to deal with people that annoyed them they’d have had no excuse for breaking the type one requirements to voice their annoyance. An added bonus is that this solution reflects real life, if you don’t like someone you generally ignore or avoid them, confronting them at every opportunity isn‘t generally an expectable way to go. Out of sight is out of mind? Grinch - Chief Crime Scene Investigator and Head Bottle Washer |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Yes Grinch! You woke up .I think you've painted a pretty good broad picture. I think your type two definitions are a little crude, in the sense that in my experience it's not the "standards" (unless you mean trivial irritations such as MF) which cause the real problems as tone and intent. Sure, people used to whinge about replies being "fluff" and used to encourage posters to say "why" they liked something - but there was really nothing wrong with that, and it rarely caused a major upheaval so far as I can remember. I think what really caused the problems was a kind of cycle of aggravation, caused in turn by the fine line between heavily criticising the writing and criticising the critic or the poet. The truth is that the more erudite and well read posters can spar between each other using textual pyrotechnics to keep, technically, on the right side of that line, i.e. criticising only the words of the other erudite posters. The problems arise imv when the, perhaps, less knowledgeable less erudite person posts, and the post is subjected to a less than flattering comment, albeit within the rules of PiP. Somebody who is learning poetry, or is not entirely comfortable in writing has a limited arsenal of ripostes and is at a disadvantage in expressing themselves, and more often than not will step outside the strict bounds of PiP guidelines and have a jab at what he regards as his tormentor. At this point the more erudite person (if he is on a sufficiently short fuse) will respond with a post which then also steps outside the PiP rules - BANG! The point here is that with hindsight it is easy to see that the new less erudite poster should be given more leeway, and the more erudite regular learn to keep his temper. The problem is though that while the newbie might well decide that CA is not for him and leave, the regular remains to have the process repeated and repeated and repeated. The effect is cumulative and in the end terminal. Pffa deal with this syndrome by simply chopping off all newbie insubordination with no second chances and no leeway. Clearly this approach isn't going to fly at PiP, and I'm now wondering whether we shouldn't turn the apparent difficulty with the overall PiP philosophy on its head and use it to advantage. What I'm suggesting is that maybe the way to go in any future discussion forum is to accept that the very grey area between attacking a poster and attacking the post is a major problem, and actually strengthen the guideline against attacks on person to embrace also harsh criticism of a contributor's writing whether it be poetry or critique. Thus the sort of critiques that Sid and I sometimes wrote for instance would become contrary to the discussion forum guideline, even though technically within the PiP guidelines. One would then hope that the cycle of antagonism would never start, for if the erudite person did not post the harsh criticism, one would presume that the newbie or less literate person would not respond with a personal attack. I agree with Grinch that a complicated set of rules cannot sustain the forum even with new guidelines. What I think can help are the things I've said before, and a very strong and active mod/quasi-mod presence. And as a final line of defence I think the ignore feature would be a useful addition. I do however feel that it should be available only in extreme cases and activated by a moderator. In other online situations I've seen the ignore feature cause mayhem. A poster will delight in telling another he is going to be ignored, the other will react with affront and pique, and believe me, there are plenty of ways to pursue mischief even on ignore. And what about new screen names? So "yes", but with caveats. M |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Oddly enough Moon I have just woken up - I’ve been ill and confined to my bed for the last three days but I’m feeling a bit better now. quote: Wouldn’t that simply allow the proliferation of unchecked bad advice? If we can’t contradict a premise put forward in a reply suggesting that capitalisation at the start of each line in poetry is a bad idea aren’t we simply promoting unchallenged, and perhaps obviously inane, assertions. quote: I don’t know about you but I’m not happy with the idea that a moderator, or anyone else, has the ability to decide what I can read and what I can’t read. If it meets the requirements of the site (type1 requirements) it should stay. If it doesn’t meet my personal requirements (type2) I need to be the one who decides to ignore it because, quite frankly, I’m the only one who knows what my requirements are and, odd as it may seem, they aren’t the same as yours, or Brads, or Pete’s or even Ron’s. I know what and who I want to ignore as soon as read a post. In a perfect world I’d do just that - ignore it - but in CA that didn’t happen, my suggestion gives those people who find it hard to ignore things and people that annoy them the tool to do just that and removes any excuse for reacting. You could do all that of course without any changes to the software at all, all you need is a Moderator who jumped on any deviation from the site requirements but that would just mean that MF’s post’s remained and all the caustic replies to him would have been deleted for being against PIP rules regarding respect and tolerance. How much would that wind you up Moon? Wouldn’t it just make life easier if MF was free to post whatever he wanted, whoever wanted to reply to him could and whoever wanted to ignore him was free to do so. You wouldn’t have to see his posts or any of Radrook’s replies and if you decided you did want to see them and decided to start a rant a Mod could simply delete your rant and ask you to ignore any replies that wound you up. You’d have a tool to avoid posts you don’t like and no excuse if you didn’t. Just a thought. . |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: I thought you'd gone uncharacteristically quiet. Glad you are better now . I shall ask Karen to send you waves of healing thingies. Oh wow. I wasn't suggesting that level of restriction on comments, and I think that discussions about what is and isn't bad advice are part of the fun of a discussion forum. For instance Ron clearly thought that some of what Turtle said was "bad" advice, or "wrong". It would have been great to see some enlargement and debate about that, with Ron supporting his comment and Turtle defending himself. Similarly I'm darned sure that some people disagree with my image based approach to poetry, and ~sigh~ gone were the days when we could have a lively debate in a vigorous but civil way about that sort of thing. Again the atmosphere in the forum wouldn't allow it and the people who would have had such a discussion had left. As for negative comment, I think it's as much about how you say things as what you say, and also, who you say them to. For instance I was in teen the other day and I wrote a short crit which said "this is awful". That's harsh. Taken in isolation that would be deleted under the new rules. But in the context in which I did it (which I won't elaborate on here) it would probably have been ok. I guess that's why a very strong mod and quasi mod presence is necessary. A mod seeing that comment out of context and summarily deleting could seriously undermine developing relationships, but that's another issue. No, what I was meaning was the ending of the scenario where a regular launches into someone with a full blown, no holds barred "terrible writing" crit. And of course you can say negative things in a nice way. You can balance the negative with positive, or if there is no positive, then with encouragement. And it's all about the overall atmosphere. If the atmosphere in the forum is good then the regulars won't be driven to the put you downs and the sarcasm. In the very early days we got plenty of idiots entering the forum, but generally there was a weight of positives which prevented serious deterioration. However it doesn't take long for this to change. Act early to prevent escalation; but that takes manpower.On the "ignore" you've convinced me, mainly because your arguments appeal to situations I've been in personally. I do think however that such a button can be misused as a threat and then a taunt; kind of like sending someone to Coventry at school, remember? It then all gets a bit juvenile with the ignorer and the ignoree digging at each other via the reactions of the posters they can see. You'd have to watch out for that, but ok. As far as the MF incident was concerned (and similar ones) I don't think "ignore" is a solution for the forum. It might be a solution for an individual, but my view is that letting that sort of thing go on unchecked for day after day undermines the credibility of the forum, both for those participating and those looking on perhaps wondering whether they might jump in. Not to mention sending out the wrong signals to others about what they can and can't do in a discussion forum. He wasn't participating in a workshop or discussion forum, it became obvious after a while that he had no intention of so doing. It would have been very easy to politely move his poems to Open. I think that you can do that without jeopardising the PiP respect and tolerance guidelines? Sorry this is all a bit jumbled; a little pulled out today with work. M |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: See that’s where we really disagree, MF didn’t do anything wrong posting in CA, he was contributing within the rules. That was the point I was trying to make to Turtle at the time, he wasn’t in breach of the site rules, the people attacking him because his method of contribution didn‘t match their requirements were the only ones guilty in that regard. Everyone seems to believe that creating a set of rules to allow his posts to be moved is the answer but I don’t think it is. Apart from the fact that I’ve already mentioned - that defining what constitutes a valid post is impossible there’s the possibility of excluding the wrong people for the wrong reasons. Take MF for example. Is it possible that he might just have been a little shy? Yes I know it’s not likely but is it possible? So in this hypothetical forum aren’t you just suggesting that one of the rules is essentially going to be that any shy posters will be discouraged and their posts moved to Open? I don’t think that one’s going to go down well with you know who, and to be honest I think I agree with him. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Ok, Grinch I feel like I'm on a roundabout here. I think I answered this in the other thread so I'll just copy and paste. First your contention from the other thread: "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." Then my reply from the other thread: 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 ..... So to sum up, I hear what you say about shyness, and everyone shouild be given lots of chances to get over shyness, of course they should, but MF was a case where a guy was there for several weeks posting poems with no effort to participate whatever the encouragement and provocation. Maybe he was shy, but he wasn't contributing. Maybe not contributing in a discussion forum is not against PiP rules, but that's irrelevant to my point which is that whatever the rights and wrongs of the past I'm talking about the future, and in my book such a poster has no place in a discussion forum when there's a perfectly good Open forum for him to post in. Any more that he would be in the right place in the Poetry Workshop in fact. It's not some kind of punishment to have your poems moved to Open you know |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
It is if you wanted an in-depth reply. I’m clearly missing something here Moon - what harm was MF doing exactly? Posts in any forum are precious - trust me I know - when I was the Mod of a struggling Forum here at PIP I would have given my right arm for a posted poem and the odd reply and MF would have been welcomed with open arms. Posting a poem is contributing, posting a reply is contributing, granted doing both is preferable but this isn’t a perfect world. Anywho - that’s me off the roundabout for a while. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Grinch I have a lot to say about what you just wrote, lol. Maybe tomorrow, out of fuel now. M |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
To start with I should say that I don't think that in the scale of things the Monk Frost fracas was of much account whatever. He wasn't reason for closing of CA and a discussion about him is only useful in so far as it serves to show one small particular instance of why some sort of guidelines might be useful. For the record he made 21 posts to CA over a period of just under one month at a fairly regular rate. Of those 21 posts he received replies to 18. Of those 18 three contained specific questions directed at MF by other posters, and one contained a direct comment from a moderator about his posting. He did not respond to a single one of the comments or questions made about his poems. He made one 8 word comment on another person's poem which had absolutely nothing to do with the poem and everything to do with a rather offensive statement about the poet's state of mind, which, inter alia, was a complete, and as it happened, erroneous, guess. What did he do wrong, and what harm did he do? 1 He spammed the forum. The level of his posting and his non-responsive attitude eventually led a moderator to say this: "The 3-a-day rule works pretty well in the fast moving forums. Here in CA, where the intent is to thoroughly analyze each post, it does not work at all. Even one per day is usually too much. It takes time for the group to discuss a poem. The way you are flooding the pages gives a strong impression that you are simply dumping your computer here, possibly because you don't know how to clean it up otherwise. If that's the case, learn to use the Delete button instead. As moderator of CA, I ask you to please stop the spam. Or at lease slow down to where it might become something of value in a critical analysis environment." 2 He failed to obey a moderator's instruction, posting another poem 70 minutes after the instruction had been given, provocatively entitled "Dare" and referring to the subjectivity of people's opinions (I think). 3 He failed to thank anyone for, or respond to a single comment made on his poems. At 3 or 4 poems that could be shyness. At 7 or 8 poems it could mean the poet is very busy in real life, except that wasn't the case as he continued to post poems regularly. At 9 or 10 poems one wonders what he is doing. At 13 - 15 poems it becomes a little wearing in a discussion forum. At 20 poems it is just rude and disrespectful. 4 He patently annoyed other posters. You might say tough, their problem. I say, that taken in conjunction with the mode of posting, and the period of time involved, the balance tilted from having goodwill towards him, through giving him the benefit of the doubt, to assuming that he was intent on trouble making. At that point there was no reason to leave his poems in CA. 5 To anyone of any intellect looking in from outside at the forum his antics showed both MF and other participants in a juvenile light. The forum would have looked as if it was neither about poetry or discussion, and it would looked unmoderated, drifting and basically an unproductive waste of time. As for your point about wanting posts in slow forums. Yes, of course I agree, but not at any price. If the price of having a lot of posts in a discussion forum is that everyone who has an intelligent or sensible contribution leaves, and the place becomes a one or two man joke shop, then what's the point? That's what happened in CA, that's ultimately why it failed. M |
||
|
Errandghost Junior Member
since 2003-09-10
Posts 17Thoroughly Abroad |
Alas, I admit my breath is running out hoping that Ron may change his mind, despite his fixedness. Do voices of many that would like to see CA last mean anything? If so are not they worth at least a third (Critical Analysis #3) and last chance? If anyone treats anyone as Monk Frost was treated his post can be deleted right away without any question. Even though the problem with CA seems too large to overcome, who looks more carefully may see it is not so difficult. The problem is ambiguity among members, and even the moderators sometimes, seeming to suggest a critical "standard, level, etc" . Obviously I had my confusion about it and spoke wrongly in the past as well. I think making a clear rule and statement right in the description of the forum, that every one and every level of ability and participation is welcome, shall remove that ambiguity among the people posting in the forum and it may be set as something all, both moderators and members must observe, just as a rule. It would be much better to see that confusion removed for sake of the CA forum, instead of the CA forum removed for the sake of the confusion. Is it impossible for Ron to change his mind? |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Ess, I personally haven't seen much enthusiasm here for a new "CA3" forum. The very name, in my view, is bad news, and any attempt to start a new discussion forum at PiP is doomed to failure without a lot of forethought, and a good deal more consensus than is seen here at the moment. I for one don't want to see Ron change his mind if it simply means: "another CA with added promises to be "good" from members". That's just tinkering. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I am sorry if you you are become "all or nothing" too, then, Moonbeam. It didn't sound like Pete or Brad, moderators themselves, or Jim, Chopsticks, Jenn, or Bob, just to name a few support closing the forum and not having a Critical Analysis #3. And many other members probably feel no threat of CA , since there was no threat to the other forums, and the threat within CA was limited, and was only there, because it was not removed to begin with. My point is that it is not that difficult a change that would need to take place to make it work much better. For it did work already, despite all its confusions. I have no doubt about that. It just didn't work without many accompanying confusions, for the exact reason that Grinch pointed out earlier. But that problem may be removed without denying a Critical Analysis #3. All Ron would need to do is clarify it as a rule, and in the description of the forum, that everyone and all levels of participation are welcome in the Critical Analysis forum, so that no one, moderators or members have any doubt as they did before. If that is done I have no doubt that CA may work without the kind of confusion we had in the past. [This message has been edited by Essorant (03-29-2009 10:04 AM).] |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
All or nothing? No quite the reverse. I wouldn't want the CA forum back in its old form. I disagree with you. I don't think it was working. Having said that, perhaps I was speaking out of turn. Perhaps there are people here apart from yourself who would want it back in its old form or something similar. To them I apologise for being presumptuous. Anyway whatever. I've had an idea. What it seems to me is emerging from this, and what is going on in the Alley and elsewhere, is that there might be a need un-catered for by the present forums (Poetic Haven may be the nearest), for serious discussion of: "What makes poetry work, tips for writing poetry, getting published, in depth reading and comment on members poems, polishing poems, points of interest from published works, favourite poets, interesting periodicals, poetry competitions, and any other poetry related topic of interest" It strikes me that the thread on Free Verse that Grinch started here is the sort of thing that people might have liked to have started in the old CA, but the forum was restricted to posting poems. What about broadening the brief to include any serious poetry related post. Grinch might for instance like to share his extensive researches into Dylan Thomas, Jenn might tell us about art and poetry, we could have competition links, discussions about new collections, essays on our favourite poets or poems, Ess might give some fascinating insights into the roots of language, and underpinning it all we could still have members posting poems for various reasons, for instance to obtain comment or maybe to polish for publication. One thing we might do in this respect is, when posting poems, reserve the title line in the forum, not for the title of the poem but for a very specific message about what the poster wanted: "Robust critique please", "Gentle suggestions please", "Advice on how to close the poem please" etc etc. The forum would be labelled as a discussion forum and the emphasis would be firmly away from simply posting poems to showcase them and towards interactive discussion of all things poetic. Just as in the Alley it is virtually unheard of for the originator of a thread to ignore the subsequent discussion, so in this forum the originator of the thread would be expected to participate and drive the thread along. That would be key to its success in fact. The thread starter would be, in a sense, responsible for the vibrancy of the thread, and to that end, even if a poem was posted for critique, it would, contrary to normal forum etiquette, not be considered impolite to bring your own thread up to the top with a suitably intelligent observation of course! Anyway that's the way I'm thinking tonight. May all change tomorrow |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
“What is life? What is poetry? Is structure better than free verse? Explore, with us, the secrets of the poetic Universe…” You mean a Forum with a strap line like the one above Moon? I only read it the other day and it’s been right in front of me for years - go figure. It’s called Philosophy 101. To me the poetic universe encompasses a whole bunch of topics and possibilities. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
But nevertheless such topics were also accepted within Critical Analysis. Do you already forget such discussions that we used to have in CA? Think about when Brad was bringing forth some important poems by published authors for discussion. Or, Moonbeam, some of your own discussions about using imagery and original wording in a poem. In CA, those kind of discourses were taking place right alongside sharing poetry because such is part of studying and looking at poetry with more depth and judgement. That was a great virtue of the forum. I still think the forum did work and established an important part of Passions which should be improved and continued, not given up on. We should learn from these experiences and improve the forum, not give up on it. Nor did Ron ever suggest otherwise in the past, it seemed. He even pondered giving CA its own site at one time. But in any case he never suggested that just giving up would be the answer. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Essorant, I don't think I'm in favor of closing or against closing CA, truth be told. I found that I couldn't get the kind of feedback I needed there for writing poems, and I found that I was limited in the kind of feedback I could give in terms of the poems I saw. If I see an interesting poem up for discussion, I like to talk about it, especially something current or in process. Copyright makes this a touch difficult. For out of copyright poems, there may be problems about how useful they are in terms of technique and in terms of the current dialogue among poets. In some ways this makes the discussion of current poetry more difficult and privileges the discussion of of older, out of copyright poetry. It may even give a skewed notion about what the field actually is like for those who actually drop in for a look. Though older, out of copyright material is often as interesting as the current stuff and sometimes more so, it comes by its more widely available status because it's cheaper to publish, often, as well as its more familiar qualities of rhyme and meter. Folks won't publish it solely because it's cheap, but they'll publish it preferentially over stuff of at least equal quality that's copyright protected. Where else are we going to talk about questions like that if we don't get over the notion that CA was everything, and we start bringing up some of these questions for discussion wherever, and see where the good Lord feels they're supposed to go. Or Ron, whichever comes first. I'd really hate to let anything talk Essorant into keeping his mouth shut about issues like this or issues that he thinks are important or poems that he thinks people want to see. The problem isn't that Essorant wants to bring them up, but where to put them; and that, it seems to me is something that we need to experiment with until we get it settled. The need is there. The resources are there. How do we put them together. How do we include Ron the in mix in a way that makes him feel happy about the way things work out? We really do need to start thinking in terms of negotiations where everybody ends up winning in the end instead of negotiations where there are winners and losers. In the long run, it helps the next time an issue comes up that everybody felt that the last experience made everybody felt that the effort was worth it. That's what I think, at any rate. How about you, Essorant? Bob Kaven, here in scenic Southern California |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Grinch Yes a bit like 101, but with a much greater focus on poetry as opposed to life. Specifically in fact trying to get away from airy fairy philosophical questions like: Is Poetry Life? to the nut and bolts issues. Poems up for discussion, what's going on in contemporary poetry, and classical influences etc. And of course the focus would mainly be on discussing members poems, which is different to 101. Ess Yes to an extent but the forum needs to be more explicit about the encouragement of discussion imo. Part of the problem with CA in latter days imv was that it became a posting place - a grey reflection of Open. As Bob said it didn't offer him anything. Same for me, same for quite a few people I think. Out of time, sorry this is hurried. M |
||
|
chopsticks Senior Member
since 2007-10-02
Posts 888The US, |
I know you guys have been waiting for my thoughts , so here they are: I so wholeheartedly agree with everything Grinch has said on this thread, that I will agree with his next post right now.. If MF was the probablem , closing CA was not the answer.. Grinch, keep telling it like it should be . [This message has been edited by chopsticks (03-30-2009 09:16 AM).] |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
MF wasn't the problem. MF just highlighted part of the problem. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
And while I remember, Balladeer said something a few days ago that imv goes to the heart of why it's tricky introducing a purely critical forum into a place like PiP. Balladeer: quote: I think what Mike is saying, or what he should be saying imo is that when you get into commenting on someone's poetry it is more likely (than say in the Open forum) that at some point frictions will be generated that will cause the discussion to spill over from a discussion about the words and the poem into a one about personality. As I said to a friend in e-mail the other day, the less erudite and literarily adept poster might well feel the necessity to defend his writing by attacking not the words of a critiquer, but the personality. This then starts an unfortunate chain reaction. But I think a lot of the problem is this whole issue of "critiquing". And this is where I depart from an often implied underlying assumption, which is that there is a right and wrong in critiquing. I think it would be foolish of me to deny that if I wrote a poem and had the choice of receiving comment from Mary Oliver or Britney I'd choose Mary, but nevertheless, Britney's opinion would be equally valid and might even throw up one or two unusual angles that a "professional" would never think of. Several time in Open I've been told outright that critiques are pointless as they are just opinion. I always respond by agreeing that they are of course just opinion, but that's precisely why they aren't worthless. Unless of course you aren't remotely interested in what readers think of your work. Once you get over the underlying idea that a lot of people have here at PiP that a "critique" is somehow telling somebody how to write a poem or what is right and wrong, and move towards the idea that a critique or comment is simply the honest opinion of a reader at whatever level of poetic expertise he or she happens to have, then I think you can start to dilute some of that personality friction that Mike referred to. The added implication of Mike's statement above is that you should only believe or not argue with critiques from "experts". Quite apart from the difficulty of defining what an expert is, I think this is so very wrong. It misses the whole point of responses to all poetry, formal or otherwise, which is that any reading is valid, and any reading can be useful to the poet. In summary, I think there's been a lot of unnecessary friction introduced into PiP over the issue of critiquing (I prefer "commenting"). Critiques are treated with great suspicion and there's a feeling that they can somehow defile the purity of the poetic message. Even that they are "forced" on the poem. Look at Mike's syntax above: "When someone wants to introduce critiques or opinions, it's something else". "Wants to introduce"? It feels in that statement as if the opinion is being forced or pushed onto a poet as being fact. "A sonnet has fourteen lines" = fact. "You should have less adjectives in that line" = opinion whether it comes from Shakespeare or Joe Bloggs. Finally, as I said at the outset, Mike's statement implies that there is likely to be more scope for friction between personalities in a discussion forum than in say Open. I couldn't agree more; which is why clear firm forum specific guidelines (rules?) and a very active strong mod/quasi mod presence are necessary. |
||
|
chopsticks Senior Member
since 2007-10-02
Posts 888The US, |
Let me restate my hypothesis ~ If MF was part of the problem, closing CA was not the answer. Beamer, I’m not sure at all, why it was closed. And until Ron shows me the nail prints in his hands, I won’t believe anything . I just think Grinch has made his case. Btw, Ron doesn’t have to give me his reason, anymore that I have to give him my pin number to my bank account I just don’t think one person should cause it to close or be part of its closing.. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Does Grinch have a case? What do you think Grinch's case is then Chops? I have to say I am not at all clear. (I agree with you that no single person was responsible for the closure) |
||
|
chopsticks Senior Member
since 2007-10-02
Posts 888The US, |
“ I couldn't agree more; which is why clear firm guidelines (rules?) and a very active strong mod/quasi mod presence are necessary. “ I Am Not A Poet, had the answer. He had the target in his sight , but was not allowed to pull the trigger. Forgive me but I must ~ A dog barks and the journey continues ~ |
||
|
chopsticks Senior Member
since 2007-10-02
Posts 888The US, |
Beamer, reread Grinchs post number 41 that is where he makes his case. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
How about opening a Critical Analysis#3 for a trial period of 6 months with the rule highlighted and made clear that no one must be treated as if (s)he or her/his participation doesn't belong, is somehow obliged to meet some standard of criticalness, some amount of responsiveness or any standard at all beyond the general guidelines agreed upon when becoming a member, in order to be welcome in the Critical Analysis forum. I believe that as a highlighted rule of the forum everyone would then be clear about it and there won't be the kind of confusion there was in the past. But if it doesn't work and people make the same mistakes, then it shall be proof that the forum can't work respectfully and should be ended. |
||
|
chopsticks Senior Member
since 2007-10-02
Posts 888The US, |
Ess, how about a Critical Analysis forum with just a couple rules: 1. No personal attacks . 2. One poem a day, And all other general rules. And some of Grinch‘s ideas from his post 41. ( Like if you don‘t like a poem, don‘t go there ). |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
This: quote: Plus this: quote: Equals: The Open Forum. So why don't you post there? And if you don't like a poem, surely it would be useful to the poet if you tell him why you don't like it. Isn't that the whole point? |
||
|
chopsticks Senior Member
since 2007-10-02
Posts 888The US, |
“ So why don't you post there ” Beamer, it’s not a critique forum. “ And if you don't like a poem, surely it would be useful to the poet if you tell him why you don't like it.” I would never critique a poem I didn’t like and I would never tell the poet it was drivel. But I will post in open if you and Balladeer and the other seasoned poets will promise you will critique me there, if you like my poem. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Actually I agree with most of what Grinch said in post 41, including, on trial, the ignore button idea, and what Ess said above too. I even agree that a limit to one poem a day might be a step forward. But maybe one poem a day is too mechanistic. The point is that imo for the forum to be different to how it was, and worthwhile there has to be a shift in emphasis towards discussion and exchange of views. I personally would have no objection to twenty poems per day if the poster was prepared to put in the time and effort on follow up posts. But over all that I keep coming back to the key point that without a number of likeminded people who are prepared to put in the time to run the forum and participate, and who are in perfect accord with what Ron wants for PiP, it's going to fail again. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Chops Open is really about as much a "critique" forum as CA had become. There was far better poetry in Open if you looked for it, and plenty of people with their crit flags set to "Yes". Any new forum imo has to offer something that will prevent it from simply reverting to what CA became.As for your comment about not critiquing poems you don't like I'm afraid I just don't get it? Why not? Don't you trust yourself not to upset the poet with your comments? Don't you think the poet will gain from hearing where his poem fails for you? And seriously Chops, if you are uncomfortable with saying anything negative about a poem, then perhaps the people in Open really would be happy to have your comments. Somebody who only makes good comments about poems in an honest way would be very helpful to those in Open who have their crit flags set to "Yes". |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Moonbeam What it became (which is a temporary snapshot) is little compared to what it was and overall, which is most important because what it was overall includes not only the negative but the positive experiences and the moments where there was great activity. There shall always be moments of "what it became" (negative), but there were and likewise will always be (if the forum is revived) many and more examples of "what it became" in a positive way too. Personally I think the positive even as the forum was, outweighs the negative. But with a few adjustments along better clarifying "Critical" "Critical" to Critical Analysis is as "Philosophical" to Philosophy 101, a description, not a stipulation of meeting some kind of forum standard, then the negatives of confusion may be prevented even more. There is no reason why "Critical" shouldn't be respected as flexibley in Critical Analysis as "Philosophical" is in Philosophy 101. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Ess I respect your opinion, and I know there were good times . I don't altogether agree that latterly (last 2 - 3 years or so) the good outweighted the bad, or perhaps I should say the indifferent (I will be more specific about why I say that in e-mail if you would like). The forum "drifted" imo, and when a boat drifts rudderless it is more susceptible to storms. As for the words "critical" and "analysis", we both understand what is meant by those words and are not intimidated or misled by them. This is often not the case with other people. "Critical" is often assigned its most abrasive meaning and no other, which immediately starts things off on the wrong foot. "Analysis" imo is often an affront to those who believe that it is at best unhelpful, perhaps just impossible, and at worst downright sacrilegious to analyse what comes from the heart. I think that in keeping with your own suggestion that any new forum is as inclusive as possible those two words should be avoided like the plague as being likely to prejudice a largish proportion of the poetic population before they even enter the portals. |
||
|
chopsticks Senior Member
since 2007-10-02
Posts 888The US, |
As for your comment about not critiquing poems you don't like I'm afraid I just don't get it? “ Oh my Beamer, I hope we’re not starting to back slide, so let me tell you about my comment about not critiquing poems I don’t like; I would never critique a poem that was detrimental to my country, mental disorder, alcoholism, race, poverty,just to name a few. I may write a rebuttal poem, but that is just about it. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Essorant and folks, I was wondering, because I was trying to do some exploration here that was including but also made an effort to go beyond the concerns of CA here about this: Not only WHAT IS IT THAT WE WANT? that CA was offering, but clearly not everybody; but also, WHAT IS IT THAT WE NEED TO GIVE? to offer a more satisfying forum that more folks feel happy to be a part of. The what we want seems to be getting clearer for me, though not clear enough that I'd be willing to take a shot yet at paraphrasing it. The question of what we feel we should be willing to give is totally unclear to me. Clearly, what we've been giving hasn't been on base or our negotiations have been utterly muddy, but I see nothing that anybody is willing to offer to make CA or something like it appealing in an administrative sense. The suggestions seem to me to be that we try it again with pretty much the same rules and hope that it ends up differently, but without any explanation for what would actually make that happen short of divine intervention. I think the folks who want it or something like it back would need to GIVE something to sweeten the pot here, if they have any sort of realistic expectation of things changing. Maybe not even then. GIVE and GET so there's some sense of satisfaction for everybody, and nobody ends up feeling like they're carrying the slippery end of the stick. I think. IMO. IMHO. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Oh no Chops, not backsliding at all, I was really interested in trying to understand what you were saying. I think most animosity springs from misunderstanding. And online where you can't see expressions I have found that you have to be particularly careful about what you say, especially the short pithy comment, that can be misinterpreted. That's probably why I ramble so much, Thanks for explaining what you meant, and you see, now I see what you are saying and sympathise. What you are talking about is the poem's message, what I was talking about was the poem as a totality, i.e. everything about it, perhaps especially the way it was written. So if I read you correctly and you saw a poem where somebody was trying to convey a message that you agreed with or liked, but which had problems with syntax or diction or whatever, you be happy to try and give your views. Sorry if I misunderstood. Best. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Some of the suggestions have been that Bob. But not mine. That's precisely what we need to avoid, imo. Haven't got time now to paraphrase all I've waffled on about over the last week. Will try to do so later. Regards M |
||
|
chopsticks Senior Member
since 2007-10-02
Posts 888The US, |
“I think the folks who want it or something like it back would need to GIVE something to sweeten the pot here “ Now I know why the subject of the thread is called ~ Give and get in poetry ~ What could we possibly GIVE to sweeten the pot ? The only thing that I know of that we could possibly GIVE is rhetoric. With the possible exception of Grinch, I don’t think we have done a good job at that. I think we should make Grinch our spokesman and ask the court for mercy. I make a motion that we ask Grinch to plead our case, do I hear a second . |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Moonbeam et alii I understand your opinions. But I don't think most of those negatives are unique to Critical Analysis. Most of them are just difficulties that come about in most forums. The unique one here, I think, and the one that ends up getting us in trouble is a tumour of expectations among people of meeting some kind of critical prerequisite or standard. I am guilty of contributing to that tumour as well. Why did such a tumour come about in Critical Analysis, but not in a forum such as Philosophy 101? People in Philosophy never assail someone with suggestions that they are not living up to some standard of Philosophicalness and responsiveness. Since the philosophy forum is a forum about expressing opinions and philosophy, judgement, about any topic, but doesn't have the same problem, I think we should follow its example when expressing a judgement in respect to poems in Critical Analysis, without the kind of expectations mentioned above. We can also take examples from the Poetry Workshop on how to approach varying abilities respectfully. Perhaps some are also influenced by the manner of other critical forums out there that have segregations such "advanced" "less advanced" etc or demands of how many poems a day or how many responses, etc. Without some clarification about the the openness of our "Critical" people influenced by other critical forums may be much more likely to speak inappropriately here. Something needs to be made clear right at the door that the manner of Critical Analysis is an open one, not one that excludes based on abilities or amount of participation. If we set up lines such as that, I think the problem itself could be removed instead of the forum. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Chops I think we get it that you agree with Grinch here , but I think that Bob is making the point that in a new forum giving would be as important as getting, and I agree with that.The quality of the posts is at least as important as the quantity, no wait, cancel that, is far more important. A good well thought out intelligent comment which has had a deal of effort put into it, even though short, is, imo, in a discussion forum worth any number of quick-fire poems or off-the-cuff witticisms. And I am not saying that these don't have their place, but they are the icing on the cake, the levity that brightens the day, they are not the meat and substance that keep the forum alive and attracts new, intelligent, thoughtful, dedicated, willing to learn, people. Ess mentions Philosophy as being an example of a forum which works, and here we are in the Alley, both of these forums have far more work put into them by posters - far more giving than CA did latterly. Look at the number of passionate, intelligent, thought out responses you get in Philosophy and the Alley, and compare these with the lightweight banter and often personality based cattiness that typified CA. Ask yourself why those people who were prepared to write reams and reams of stuff in the Philosophy threads wouldn't do so in CA, and you might move nearer to understanding the problems of CA and what would be needed to rectify them. And Ess, your points about those problems are not entirely without foundation imo, but you still aren't focussing on the main difficulty imv. May I e-mail you please? Thanks. M |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Moonbeam, I don't use e-mail. Please just unlock your thoughthoard here. If it is "the main" difficulty it probably ought to be spoken at large anyway so we may all weigh it against our experiences and consider how to prevent it in the future. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Oh, Ess, you used to back in 2006 I think, we exchanged a word or two I seem to remember. I don't ask lightly but simply because it is not possible to say what I want to say to you in public. If you don't do e-mail then I guess I won't be able to say it. No problem. As for the "main" difficulty, I've already said several times what I think this is. My e-mail would have simply sought to convince you with evidence and examples, but never mind. M PS Can you comment on/answer this: "Ask yourself why those people who were prepared to write reams and reams of stuff in the Philosophy threads wouldn't do so in CA," |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
And also Chops, I confess once again to being a bit confused by your comments. In the continuing spirit of detente I wondered if you'd clarify a point or two for me regarding what you just said .Firstly: When you said the only thing we can give is "rhetoric" I assumed you meant in this thread. Now I wonder whether you were talking about CA generally? Perhaps you could enlarge on the comment and explain a bit more? And secondly: You referred me to Grinch's post 41 when I asked you about what you meant by Grinch having the only sensible solution. Post 41 made some statements about possible causes of problems in CA and proposed an "ignore" button as a solution. Is your solution to all CA's problems an "ignore" button? Or have I missed other things that Grinch has proposed? Thanks in advance. M |
||
|
chopsticks Senior Member
since 2007-10-02
Posts 888The US, |
“ I think that Bob is making the point that in a new forum giving would be as important as getting, and I agree with that “ Beamer , I agree with that too, but if GIVING always trumped GETTING, we would not be talking about getting a new forum. The same laws of love that applied when the first CA was started apply now., so I suggest that we have a game plan along with love when Grinch makes his pitch..... I seriously suggest that we let Grinch get a proposal together and present it. This is almost as much fun as that other place, what was it called. |
||
|
chopsticks Senior Member
since 2007-10-02
Posts 888The US, |
“Firstly: When you said the only thing we can give is "rhetoric" That is the only concrete thing that I know of that we can give. Is your solution to all CA's problems an "ignore" button? Or have I missed other things that Grinch has proposed. You missed other things. He started off his post by saying why he thought that CA failed and I agree with him. He had other good ideas in his post if you wanted to see them. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Moonbeam quote: I used to use e-mail, but I stopped using it after too many bad experiences. Just be true and open right here. There is no need to hide anything. quote: Well, we can't expect critiquing poetry to be put on the same level of attention as national, worldly and everlasting questions. As important as art is and cultivating one's judgment of it, things such as human rights, religion, law, etc, in general still have much more importance to people and therefore people talk and care about them much more. I think it would be a mistake to measure the success of Critical Analysis by how much it gets the the kind of attention those forums may get, for those forums deal with issues more common to everyone, while CA deals with poems individually and issues specially oriented to those interested in the art and studying it in a more indepth way. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Chops I don't have any problem with Grinch or anyone "getting a proposal together", who finally does the typing and posts it or e-mail's it to Ron is however imv irrelevant. The point is that it's pretty pointless to put a single individual's view unless there is broad consensus supporting that view. Perhaps Grinch would like to submit a summary of his proposals here for us to see, and I'm sure from what I've read that Bob's would be really good too. Plus Ess has some good points, and Jenn too. I don't understand the point you are making about giving and getting. I never said anything about "trumping" On "rhetoric" - ahh, so you are talking about this thread? Well I disagree with you strongly in that case. I think everyone who has contributed to this thread has done marvellously well. You don't think anyone else apart from Grinch has done a good job in this thread? I think it's kind of sad you think that. Am I misunderstanding?Chops this is the post you referred me to: "The problems occurred because when people saw what they perceived as posts that didn't match their idea of type two posts. Instead of ignoring them they decided to ignore the type one requirements and reacted with posts that were clearly outside the sites requirements. When that happened the Moderators were given no option but to either edit or delete any post that clearly breached the type one requirements or, based on their own type two requirements, ignore the site requirements and Moderate based on their own standards. This left the Mods out on a limb, they had rules they had to enforce which seemed bent on allowing the type of posts that, in many cases, they didn't agree with. From the point of view of a lot of members some of the posters that they saw as being disruptive were allowed to continue to post while anyone confronting or criticising them was censored for breaching the type one requirements. In frustration they either blew a gasket and got bounced or packed their bags and walked. The Mods, sometimes just as frustrated, were put in untenable situations too. You can see from the requirements the quandary Ron finds himself in, he can't abandon the type one requirements without excluding some people and he can't exclude some people without having a clear definition of what a type two post actually is. If Ron doesn't believe that my replies are of a good enough standard does he delete them? Does his standard match Brad's, or Pete's, or Moonbeams?" All the above deals with possible reasons for its failure, but no proposals. "You could try to build lots of rules to define a standard but the best you're ever going to get is a whole heap of borderline cases and grey areas leading to inconsistent moderation." This is a reservation about more rules but no proposals "The issue, as far as I see it, was that for some reason people couldn't simply accept that all types of posts are inevitable. At the same time, for some reason, they couldn't just ignore the posts they believed weren't type two posts. They saw them as some sort of an affront and reacted like the proverbial bull faced with a red rag." This is more reasons for failure but no proposals "Perhaps the answer could have been as simple as giving those people a little help to ignore the red rags. Why couldn't there have been an "Ignore Poster" list for each member, similar to the library but in reverse, where, if you found someone so annoying you couldn't stop yourself from reacting to their every word, you simply added them to your ignore list and all their posts were magically removed from your view. If that were in place moderating would have been made easier - if the members had a process to deal with people that annoyed them they'd have had no excuse for breaking the type one requirements to voice their annoyance. An added bonus is that this solution reflects real life, if you don't like someone you generally ignore or avoid them, confronting them at every opportunity isn‘t generally an expectable way to go. Out of sight is out of mind?" And this is a proposal for an ignore button I hope you won't mind if I repeat my question from above again: Post 41 made some statements about possible causes of problems in CA and proposed an "ignore" button as a solution. Is your solution to all CA's problems an "ignore" button? Or have I missed other things that Grinch has proposed? I've tried to see the other things in this post Chops, I still can't see them. Can you help me out? M |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Ess ~sigh~ I'm sorry, it's not a question of not being true and open, my comments might cause some personal offence and that, even if I was prepared to risk it, is against PiP rules and I can't do it. Your other point deserves a proper reply and I don't have time right now - hope to be back later. Thanks for discussing this Ess .M |
||
|
chopsticks Senior Member
since 2007-10-02
Posts 888The US, |
“On "rhetoric" - ahh, so you are talking about this thread? Well I disagree with you strongly in that case. I think everyone who has contributed to this thread has done marvellously well. You don't think anyone else apart from Grinch has done a good job in this thread? I think it's kind of sad you think that. Am I misunderstanding?” Beamer, you like to type hundreds of words and turn things around. That is OK with me, have fun . I think everybody has done a good job in this thread. What I said before you turned it around with your words is “AS FAR AS I KNOW, ALL WE HAVE TO OFFER IS RHETORIC .” There may be something else concrete we can offer, but I’m not aware of it. Maybe we could do some kind of community service for the forum ? I don’t know. It could be that I understand things different than you do. That said I will try not to confuse myself any more , but if I do, feel free to throw hundreds of words at me. After I post this I will cut and paste the part of Grinch’s post that I thought was spot on, to use a little down town jive.. I think Grinch is a very fair person and would do a good job on a proposal. Back when CA was going full blast I have heard Grinch say, that all poets were welcome at CA. I never heard anybody else say that under the same circumstances. . Grinch I hope I haven’t embarrassed you .This is my last post and now Beamer I am truly out of here . If you wanted to undertake an autopsy of the CA forum Bob it wouldn’t take a member of CSI to spot the root cause of it’s demise. You can distil it down to an incompatibility of types. Here’s the site requirements: 1 anyone can post a poem within the general rules of the site 2 anyone can post a reply within the general rules of the site You can call those type one requirements and here’s the requirements of the people using the forum: 1 only poems of a certain standard should be posted 2 only replies of a certain standard should be posted |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Autopsy is not something that I think would work here, Chops. I do understand the frustration. The temptation in situations like this is to get all rational (I do this myself, and sometimes it's helpful, certainly); and to look at the past (which is also helpful at times, but probably not here and not now. Autopsies end up fixing blame, I find, which is fine for legal stuff, but not so great for friendships. What I'm looking for is something on the order of what I can do differently to make the outcome different next time. "Next Time" doesn't need to be the next iteration of CA. Next time, in this case, is this time I'm talking to you or this time I'm talking to Essorant so that I don't get in my own way and make things more difficult for you in talking with me about the poetry and technique that seems to matter to all of us. In terms of Ron, if I listen to him, at least one thing that I heard was that he and his crew had to work hard in keeping the discussion going in a way that they felt was respectful and productive. If I want to give something to Ron and the moderators, this might be something I'd need to address. I'm not sure how to do that at this point except to try to police my own large mouth and to address the large mouths of the people I I talks with at times. With myself, that means that I have to work on being more aware of when I'm actually crossing lines that don't fit with the forum. I have to give not simply rhetoric, but my attention to myself and my intention to bring myself into clearer compliance with the mores of the joint. And where not to my liking, I need to find some decent way to discuss this without trying to make anybody else feel lousy. It seems to me that these are things that I can at least work on giving to the forum and the members. I used to study aikido when I was younger, and the tradition was that when entering the practice hall, you were supposed to bow twice, once to the picture of Morihei Uyeshiba, who was the founder, and a second time to the mat. One day I asked the Sensei, the teacher, about this. "I can understand," I said, "About bowing to the picture of the Founder. It's a matter of simple respect. But why the mat?" The sensei said, "We bow to the mat that keeps us from breaking our backs." The basics of PiP, it seems to me, deserve respect for somewhat the same reason. And I don't think it would hurt if we made a point of trying to let others know in a gentle way, a gentle way, if perhaps they were asking for criticism they weren't willing to return, or if they were posting more stuff than seemed appropriate or whatever. That might be somewhat helpful, though only if we could do it gently, and without encroaching on administrative prerogatives. That's one thought of some things I might do that might make things easier rather than more difficult in dealing with stuff. What about other folks in terms of getting and giving? Perhaps I'm being too personal here, and other folks have more general thoughts. Those seem useful as well. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Chops, sorry; I'm certainly not trying to turn your words around, it's simply that sometimes I find it hard to understand what you are saying, and I think that has led to misunderstandings before. So here I was simply taking the opportunity to make a real effort to understand where you were coming from. I hope I haven't offended you. But, at risk of upsetting you even more Chops I do just want to point out what I mean about being careful about language and meaning in dialogue here in the forums using the example you have just yelled at me You tell me that I turned round your words and that what you actually said was: quote: But Chops that is not what you said at all. It might have been what was in your head but it's not what you wrote. What you wrote was: quote: All I did was ask what you meant by that because "rhetoric" can have a pejorative meaning. I sincerely don't mean to twist your words, I was just trying to understand whether you meant that in the context of this thread or a new forum. [This message has been edited by moonbeam (04-01-2009 08:42 AM).] |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Bob I don't think you're being too personal, and I agree gentleness is one of the keys. But I don't agree with you about not trying to understand what went wrong. It seems to me that if you want to stand any realistic chance of as you say: "making the outcome different next time" you have to know what you are making it different from and why. Medical autopsies are carried out for several a good reasons, one of which is to try to understand and prevent illness in the future. Sure, there is a chance that a rational discussion may bruise ego's, may even damage friendships, but what do you think those so called friendships were founded on if they are so fragile that they can be damaged beyond repair by an honest exchange of views? I was brought up to believe that when things go wrong that's the time to have a full and frank exchange about why they went wrong. Not simply brush the issues under the carpet. That way surely results in any new edifice simply being built upon the resentments and errors of the past. To be honest I'm finding it slightly frustrating here that I can't be more outspoken without risking infringement of the PiP rules. Also in this vein I think that online misunderstandings can be even more perilous than in "real life". I guess that's why I try to take the trouble to explain myself, and why sometimes this results in what Chops calls hundreds of words of rhetoric. Many many problems arise in my experience from the quick quip, the ill-thought out witticism, the joke at the expense of what someone else has written, the implied criticism of others by the praise of one. People are very quick to take offence when they can't see facial expression, and a large part of why CA was quite successful to begin with was that a good deal of trust and respect was generated between members so that the stock of goodwill and understanding was at a level which could withstand the occasional faux pas. For any forum to work I think that level of trust has to be present in a good proportion of the regulars, and frankly if one or two of the members are periodically, or even continually, throwing textually ambiguous bombshells into the mix then it eats away at the trust reserve and makes for an atmosphere which is hostile to serious discussion or even fun. You put your finger on it. We all have to watch our mouths. Think before we make off the cuff jokes, pause before we joke about what someone writes, how much they write, what books they recommend - and even if we don't consider we are making a joke or comment at someone else's expense think about how it might look to them before hitting that return button. I certainly know I have in the past been too quick to take offence at what I regarded as barbed comments, and I've made a resolution to try and take the time to engage with someone who makes a post I don't understand. Thanks for listening. M Ess Yes I think you have a point about the worldly appeal of 101 and the Alley. But I guess that was why I suggested above that any new forum should be a discussion forum rather than a pure critique forum: that all sorts of posts to do with poetry and the poetic world should be encouraged rather than just people posting poems. Grinch started a good thread right here in the Alley - and look at the good stuff that's being generated there. And I can think of lots more ideas that would hopefully encourage diversification and a wider breadth of interest and participation. But then it does occur to me that from the description of Phil 101 (the strap line), all Ron would have to do would be to allow posting of poems for critique there and we would more or less have a forum such as I am describing. M [This message has been edited by moonbeam (04-01-2009 07:37 AM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I think that is a good idea. Basically that is what I am suggesting as well, but that Critical Analysis be revived as Critical Analysis#3 for the purpose, with a new "philosophy" and description to clarify the philosophy of the forum. If we improved Critical Analysis along those lines critiquing/discussing poems and poetry would still be the center of the forum. That wouldn't happen, and would seem inappropriate to try to make happen in the Philosophy forum where philosophical discussion about topics are and ought to be at the main. My point is that Critical Analysis is what we make of it. And if we make of it something better, it shall be better. The forum and the name "Critical Analysis" aren't the problem. The problem seems to be a confusion of what kind of participation is or should be allowed in the forum. What more would it take but some kind of description or mission statment that clarifies and at this point demands as a rule the hospitable and inclusive kind of "critical" we wan't, instead of the haughty and exclusive kind? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Why don't we create a thread called "Critical Analysis #3" and use it as the Critical Analysis forum? We could use the collabrative thread as the forum itself for now and post our poetry and critique therein. If we give good evidence of being able to maintain a good thread as a forum, not only that, but if the thread is active enough that it is always at the top of Open or else at the top here in the Alley, unrelentingly unsinking and in everyone's eyes, by the fiftieth page, surely Ron's mind might be changed a bit to consider giving the improved activity of "Critical Analysis" in the thread its own "official" forum. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I'm still uncertain what you hope to get that would be different and what the different quality of the input would be to make this distinct from the Critical Analysis forum that simply didn't work. Do you understand what was upsetting to Ron about it? How does your proposal address that? Does it Give Ron something that makes him feel like the pain is worth it? Can you specify what that is in seriously concrete terms? For those of us who've drifted away from that forum, do you want or need us back? For what purpose? What's going to be different to make the experience worth another try? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Bob, The difference is in being clear about what is appropriate and not appropriate in Critical Analysis, so we don't mistreat someone as we did Monk Frost, and so that we encourage an approach that remains hospitable and inclusive and agreeable with the spirit of Passions. I believe that with such a clarification, then the ambiguity between some members suggesting an unofficial "prerequisite" and Ron expecting us to be accomodating to everyone shall be done away with. I think a new and improved Critical Analysis may be much more inclusive to everyone and even persuasive to people that drifted away than a closed Critical Analysis that no one can post any new poetry in. [This message has been edited by Essorant (04-01-2009 02:10 PM).] |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Ess I'll be frank with you. I disagree that the name "critical analysis" is a good idea for the reasons already stated, and I think it is a significant point. Also I think you're being superficial in your analysis of what was wrong with CA, and that superficiality is resulting in a simplistic solution: "a new CA with a pledge to be nice and not to be haughty; that just isn't going to work Ess". To be even more blunt seeing as you raise MF again, I'll be honest and say that if another MF came into the forum and did exactly the same again I'd be looking for him to be discouraged and for Pete to post what he did after 5 MF posts instead of 21. I know, and I suppose Ron knows, that there have been problems in CA for a long time, I don't think he entirely agrees with me as to the reasons, but he's already made it clear that a simple promise to be good boys and girls in the future isn't going to open the door again. I don't know if you've read all I've said about why the forum failed in this thread Ess. If you have, then I can only assume you disagree with me. If you haven't I wouldn't blame you because I've rambled on and on .On your idea about a CA thread. That's intriguing in that it's rather like what Bob and Grinch are doing here in the Alley isn't it? Why don't you join in with that for now, and see how it goes. Really Ess I don't mean to be confrontational here, but I just feel like there is no point in pushing this thing too hard or too fast. Everyone needs a breather imo, Ron is doubtless busy and certainly won't want the pressure of having to make decisions about a new forum, one of the key issues that of moderating hasn't even been thought about, and I for one, feel that a few months of reflection and intelligent discussion wouldn't go amiss. Peace. M |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Moonbeam, I respect your points, but find you mistranslated my own sayings somewhat. I meant that I don't think changing the name does much for changing the manners. The manners we ourselves have and uphold behind the name is based on the mentality we put into it in manifold ways, philosophically, socially, individually, etc, If we establish something better, it shall be better. That may be done with almost any name that more or less means the same or similar as "Critical Analysis". But Critical Analysis was already the name and the forum, and people put much time and effort into it. Why can't that be respected by using the same name and forum, and improving it with a better philosophy behind it, so that it may be continued and made to work better for everyone, and not forsake what was already begun for almost a decade? Also, I am not suggesting "promise to be nice", but something such as a highlighted "mission statment" or even warning in Critical Analysis, so that people know right at the door how the general rules of the site are to be kept up in the enviroment of a Critical Analysis. Instead of a promise it would be something such as a declaration or warning. It would basically be telling people how to make sure to follow the same general rules of the site but in the atmosphere of Critical Analysis. We found out that it is not as simple as just "don't attack someone", etc. but fell into debates about quality and quantity of participation, how harsh a critique may be, the kind of reception we give to new members, etc. It may sound like an oversimplification, but I do think if there were special instructions to try to deal directly with these things that everyone could see, it would solve the problem we had. Perhaps a highlighted message on the page where we enter our replies to poetry? Who wouldn't think thrice with something such as warning of what to keep in mind right above the textbox where we enter our responses to a poem? Some tools need their own special instructions in order for the users to know very well how to use the tool properly and remember and therebeside continue using it properly. The tool shouldn't be blamed for Passions failing to give the means to itself to establish a "system" by which the users could better maintain a proper use of the tool called "Critical Analysis". We should not blame the tool nor throw the tool away. Instead I think we ought to give the people the means to better know how to use it properly. Special instructions won't hurt. In fact, I think it would heal the most part of the problem of this case. He may, but I doubt Ron wishes this to be drawn out for three or more months. He may be more annoyed by the length of drawing it out in such a way more than by us trying to make a strong defense right now and the sooner hopefully have peace and quiet about it. Anyway, sometimes nature and nurture need a little pressure quote: No, it isn't as a forum because it determines its subject of discussion, but I think it is a good example of the kind of of wordmeetings we should make. I am not much for freeverse, but that doesn't stop me from appreciating a good discussion. quote: If they are willing, why not let Pete and Brad? They have the experience and enlightenment from dealing with old CA behind them, which would make them more fit than anyone else to take on a new CA. [This message has been edited by Essorant (04-02-2009 03:17 PM).] |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Because I believe it puts some people off participating before they even participate. It was a bad name choice. And also with respect Ess, because I do agree with some of what you say, I think you are somewhat too attached to a failed system because of the nostalgia you have for it. You are trying to make it work against the grain. Yes, bad manners were a symptom of the problems in CA but they were not the underlying cause of the failure. Bad manners will occur again and again however many assurances you and I and the other few people who participated give to Ron. That is unless you want to restrict participation in the forum to 5 - 10 of us. quote: Now I think you are making some concrete proposals that make sense to me, and may help to address the underlying problems. I think this sort of thing is a move in the right direction. quote: Great, if they'll do it. I have a lot of respect for both of them, but don't forget Brad just resigned from 101, he may want a break! Also two mods is not enough. Not nearly enough. The only way this is going to work is if there is a more or less continuous mod or quasi mod (regular members without mod powers but with trusted reporting status or some such) presence in the forum, and a good deal of behind the scenes dialogue between mods. One of the main reasons CA failed imo was that problems that could have been jumped on and nipped in the bud before they escalated were not, and they did. Just too much work for the poor mods. Participation is the key to this, and the only way you are going to get that is if people feel the "Yes!" that Bob mentions below. Good post Ess |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I'm still stupidly unclear about how your actions will be different from the actions in the discontinued forum called Critical Analysis. I remain stupidly unclear about what the appeal is for me. And I have no understanding what difference there will be in the administrative involvement. Until the differences are large enough to be felt on more than an intellectual level by all concerned, and unless everybody actually has a sensation of "Yes!" in their guts, I suspect that this won't work. I mean and actual physical sensation of "Yes" that's palpable a being tickled or stirred to laughter. Not a concept. You, Essorant, seem to be one of those folks who can actually be moved by concepts without necessarily having a concrete physical feeling being tied to them. This is a gift that most of us do not share. Practical suasion requires that you master the skill here, should your aim be success rather than lengthy and fruitless dialogue. Please pardon my straightforwardness in this, but I believe it to be true. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Bob The appeal for you is a space. A place where you can pursue what you like to do, and want to do (within the PiP philosophy) harmoniously and with other likeminded people without fear of ridicule, belittlement or unsupported, illogical attacks. That maybe the goal. How we get there is clearly not at all certain yet. Even if a group of people eventually agree on what needs to be done, we then have to find the man/woman power willing to implement and maintain it and then on top of all that we have to convince Ron. Quite a mountain yet to climb. It's fun climbing. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Okay, so let's try talking about getting, then. Is there something that folks would be interesting in getting that they didn't get in the old Critical Analysis setting? About this, we do have some fairly clear information from Ron about what he was able to give and what he could and couldn't do that might be some sort of help. Or at this point in the discussion, I don't know if Ron wants to bring himself in or stay out of things or not. At any rate, what do the rest of you hope to get from something. I'd like to have a discussion of the hows and wherefores of free verse, with a bit more openness to feedback on the material, so long as it's clear and presented in a useful fashion. Other folks? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I don't think there was anything people didn't get in the Critical Analysis forum. Poetry, critical discussion, debate, teaching, preaching, pokes, pinches, word-attacks. For well and ill, it was all there quote: I hope for a Critical Analysis forum here at Passions. One where the expectations of the site for the forum are made very clear and perhaps upholden a bit more strictly, thus preventing members from making the same mistake as before or at least stopping it from going so far that it gets the forum closed. quote: Bob, That will get us in trouble again. We can't dictate certain levels of clarity and presentation for the forum. Express what we believe, debate something critically and respectfully, indeed, but not dictate and limit the forum to a standard of style. [This message has been edited by Essorant (04-04-2009 01:10 AM).] |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Respect and tolerance? . |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Grinch If that were true the forum hadn't lasted for almost a decade. The problem I think was not the absense of respect and tolerance, but the breaches and lack of clearness about how to maintain them enough and in a way that lived up to the appropriateness that Ron and the site expected for the forum. I know your posts in CA were respectful and tolerant. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: We’ll have to agree to disagree then Ess because I’m convinced that the constant lack of respect and tolerance offered to the people using that forum is the main reason that the forum was closed. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
But you seemed to change the subject a bit Grinch. We were talking about the forum as a whole, rather than just the negative moments. I agree that Ron closed it for the lack of respect at certain moments, but not because the forum overall had no respect and tolerance. Go look and remind yourself of the history of members' participation in the forum, and then come back to answer this: was not the majority of participation still generally respectful and tolerant? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Wrong question Ess, it implies that a lack of respect and tolerance is acceptable to some degree, it isn‘t. There was either a lack of respect and tolerance in the forum or there wasn’t. There clearly was a sufficient lack for Ron to close CA, you admit it yourself.. quote: . |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Grinch you are stating the symptom again without reference back to the cause of the sympton. Ess, I think, was on the right lines here. Saying: "CA was closed because of lack of R&T" is like saying "the dog was shot because he was foaming at the mouth". You see something that is bad so you shoot it. That may be quite justifiable if the risk is that it might infect the whole town (forum). But the autospy then seeks to discover what it was that caused the foam. Perhaps it was rabies, but perhaps the dog just ate some catnip. You may well be right. Lack of R&T may have been a factor in the closure of CA. But look at the Alley. Lack of R&T in many threads but no closure; degree and frequency are very relevant. But above all it's no good harping on about the fact that there was a lack of R&T, that's a dead end. What you have to address is why. Did the conditions in CA make a lack of R&T more likely than elsewhere in PiP? And the answer to that imo, as I've said ad nauseam, is "yes". You've suggested an ignore button to help ameliorate those aggravating conditions, and I think that's a step in the right direction .M |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: I don't think it is wrong or irrelevent here Grinch because you suggested people didn't "get" respect and tolerance in CA. My point or implication by asking you "was not the majority of participation still respectful and tolerant?" was to point out that I think people did get respect and tolerance, most of the time, and if you look at the evidence of the history of participation you shall see that, despite whatever examples of disrespect and tolerance that also showed up at certain times. The disrespect for which Ron closed the forum is still an example of an exception of behaviour in CA not a "rule" and the majority. quote: Yes, but there is even more than a sufficient reason for Ron not to close CA. The first is the history of CA, which established CA and showed that Critical Analysis overall is important to the site and people here and does offer room to very worthwhile activity . The second is that the problem is very limited and may be dealt with within the CA forum itself, without needing to change anything in the other forums. It is a very limited. The third is dealing with the problem may actually be easier than it seems, for we generally know what the problem is. All there needs to be is a willingness to make adjustments in the forum itself to deal better with the problem. quote: I very much agree with that. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: “Most of the time” doesn’t cut it Ess if the rule is total respect and tolerance. By that measure the contributors fell far short of the target. . |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
I don't see the point you are making Grinch, no-one is denying that R&T weren't shown. Are you saying that because the rule is total R&T, just one instance of lack of R&T justifies closure? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
No Moon, I’m saying that I believe that the forum was closed because of a lack of R&T by the contributors, and that my opinion is that it was probably the ONLY reason it was closed. I’m also saying that I think this statement by Ess isn’t correct. quote: My view is that the absence of R&T is precisely the reason the forum was closed and unless you address that you haven’t got a feline in hades chance of convincing anyone that it’s worthwhile giving it another go. Ignoring the lack of R&T is how we got here in the first place, it seems silly to do the same thing twice. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Grinch Remember your original comment to me was toward my statement about thinking members got just about everything in CA, good things and bad. In comment 103 you suggested that they didn't get respect and tolerance. That is the context I am speaking in here. I am arguing against stereotyping CA wholesale as if it had no respect and tolerance at all. I am not saying the certain moments of lack of respect and misbehaviour are not what moved Ron to close the forum, I am just saying that those events are far from being the "all" or even the majority of the participation in the forum, therefore it is wrong to stereotype the forum as a whole and say it didn't have respect and tolerance. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I don't think total respect and tolerance are the goal. No forum could live up to that. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Step back. Take a deep breath. Inhale — yes, that's ri-i-i-i-ight, a nice long inhale. And now ex-hale. That's it. Respect & tolerance are swell things. There was lots shown by everybody, simply not enough. I think I have that right. And there wasn't enough supervisory time to put into the matter to correct the problem. Everybody's been very nice, but nobody's said how they're going to take over the time that Ron and the other moderators have had to put into the thing to make it run with some degree of tact and respect. Not only does this have to make me happy, and Grinch happy and Essorant happy, but it also has to make Ron and the moderators happy, and I haven't seen much understanding of what it is that they do in this context and the time and effort that it takes to do it. Maybe I'm overestimating this, it's possible, but if it were a snap, I suspect that the forum would still be puttering along. I haven't understood from Essorant what happens to take the work off of Ron and the moderators to maintain their notion of quality control and general comity. It has to be concrete enough to make them want to leap up and say, Yeah! Wish I'd thought of that. Sure that'll work! Otherwise I suspect they know it's more of the same. What's in it for them? What reduces the amount of work reliably from x hours a week to x minus ten hours a week? How can you demonstrate that? What's your business plan, so they can go ahead and put work hours from CA to someplace else without having to drag them back to CA at some later date? It's not a matter of being GOOD or reforming, it's a matter of concrete planning that actually brings in Ron and the other moderators. It can't cajole them. They have to feel like it's to their advantage to come on board. They need to feel that they're actually getting something because it's true in their terms, not simply your terms, Essorant. Your terms are fine so far as they go, but they don't appear to be drawing any sort of enthusiastic response or agreement, which is the minimum of what you need here. I think. Thoughts? I'm trying to put this in terms of giving and getting to keep with the theme of the thread, but also because I happen to believe that it actually works better that way. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Bob Here are some practical points that I put forth for consideration. I hope others may share their thoughts and help improve them as a proposal for the forum. 1. Moderators: Pete & Brad (if they are still willing) and anyone else that might be brave and willing enough to be a moderator. Some Deputy/Volunteer Moderators if possible. The more moderators there are in CA, I think the less work for Ron or for any individual moderator. But all the moderators in CA need to be agreed about what kind of level of appropriateness should be maintained, that is why I recommend number 2, a writ about conduct and appropriatness in CA". 2. A writ about the level of appropriateness that belongs in CA. This could be a concise set of general points to try to clarify the appropriateness that belongs or is expected in Critical Analysis, listed as easily to understand as possible, somewhat like the highlighted rules we see when we join the site. But unlike the rules, these would be present on the reply page, to make them as emphatically present as possile, to be kept in mind when responding to someone in CA. Certainty and emphasis about what appropriateness is expected by means of such a writ would lessen the load for Ron and moderators, for more people would be aware through the writ, and less people need the rules reiterated by the moderators. 3. Name change. I still prefer "Critical Analysis" but others expressed enough concern about changing the name that it deserves to be included for consideration. A name I suggest might be something such as "Interpretations", something very open and without negative connotations. Any thoughts? |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
I think Ess's suggestions would go a long way towards addressing the underlying problem that caused the lack of respect and tolerance. I'd combine it with Grinch's suggestion for an ignore button. I'd expand the forum to include all sorts of poetry discussion, not just the posting of poems. I'd also make it a prerequisite of the opening of any new forum that for a period of a few days/weeks the proposed moderators and quasi-mods had a collective e-mail dialogue (including/copied to Ron) to establish precisely the ground rules for dealing with "difficult" posts and to also establish what constitutes a difficult post. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Those are very worthy additions Moonbeam. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Moderators: Pete & Brad (if they are still willing) and anyone else that might be brave and willing enough to be a moderator. Interesting and telling statement....bravery would be a requirement...why? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Balladeer I wasn't suggesting bravery as a manmade requirement, but as something naturally shown when taking on something such as a commitment. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I think Pete, Brad and Grinch would make a great triumvirate to moderate the forum. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I don't think bravery is a requirement. I do see enthusiasm as a requirement. quote: I don't see any of the three nominees enthused and leaping to their feet. I don't hear any acclamation sweeping the proposal into existence. I hear the proposal being swept out to sea on a wave of lethargy. I suspect this is because there's no market for it, and the people who would have to do the work see no reward for themselves in doing the amount of work required; whatever that amount may actually be, it appears to feel unrewarding, and these are the people who should above all need to feel excited if such a proposal is going to carry. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I don't hear any acclamation sweeping the proposal into existence. You're missing a point, Bob. Acclamations don't matter and there is no "sweeping into existence". Ron axed the forum. His is the only decision that counts and I haven't seen him state anywhere that any acclamations forthcoming would change that decision, regardless of the amount of conversation. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I'll tell you what, Folks. I feel the energy going out of this thread, so I think I'll try something to kick start it. Everybody's got different proposals for what's right an what's wrong, what we need to give and what we need to get, and we're all dying of abstraction here. I have an old poem that I've been working on that I've reached a dead end on. I don't believe it's going to get to the point where I'll ever try to publish it in one of the big-shot magazines, and I'm more interested in what we can all learn from kicking it around and playing with it. I will give the poem. I'll give you the text to play with and we can all try out our various approaches on kicking the thing around and revising it into something that might be workable. As long as everybody makes a point of being polite to each other, there's no need as far as I'm concerned to be polite to the poem. Try to confine yourselves to remarks that you think will improve the thing, and make it more publishable. Try to learn from what other people say, try out saying things to see how you look in them, like a new set of clothes. Have fun. I'll do the same. Here's the text: This Morning A young mare, stippled with hints of first light scratches a flank against a favorite post in her stall. It still bears the mill marks of raw lumber. The ocean wind blows in across the salt marshes. Out of this ambiguity first features appear, first sounds gather and spill. Why not experiment and see what you can give to and get from this one? |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Bob I thought we were doing discussion here and poems in the other thread. But ok. Be right back on this. Mike Ron is very quiet indeed, I hope he is well and not incapacitated in any way. I don't think Bob is missing the point really, just making a different point. Just because Ron axed the forum it doesn't mean we can't have some sensible discussion about why, and how in the future a forum might be made to work. Nothing is ever final. Understanding is always productive. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
A young mare, stippled with hints of first light scratches a flank against a favorite post in her stall. It still bears the mill marks of raw lumber. The ocean wind blows in across the salt marshes. Out of this ambiguity first features appear, first sounds gather and spill. Immediate impressions: falls in my category of "beautiful incomprehensibility". And I mean most possibilities: "beautiful and incomprehensible", "beautiful but incomprehensible", "beautiful because incomprehensible", and even maybe "incomprehensible because beautiful". And perhaps if I was able to assign specificity of meaning it would be less attractive. Having said that I'd feel happier if the incomprehensibility was a general one, but in this instance it relates to the central proposition "this ambiguity". It's such a point of inescapable linguistic precision. There is an ambiguity - look for it! I just wonder if it isn't demanding too much. And perhaps such clarity of demand isn't required? Because generally I'm taking away and impression of the age old theme of birth and death; the never ending circle. The new born scratching her ribs (echoes of lumber marks - liked) against the rawly dead lumber, the pleasure of life in death. Incidentally I loved the sudden shift of focus from the mare (beautiful opening line - stippled and hints work well sonically) onto the post. Not sure about L8 -9. They act as a kind of pause, a stocktaking, maybe a reflection on the apparently continuity and stability of the wind and the marshes, versus the instability of blood and sap. Intellectually I am not sure that this is entirely convincing, and is a somewhat well worn theme in any event. But the pause is "right" for the poem I think, coming as it does before the final postulate. The close engages with the idea of creation from contradiction, and while again, beautifully written and sonically lovely, I'm pulled towards a rationalisation that, for me, detracts a little from a simple pleasure in the sound and tone of the piece. Just my first impressions Bob. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
First impression????  Can't wait until you get more specific! |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Okay, Rob. Now I've been working on this thing for a long time, and eventually I may take a shot at publication. But I'm pretty detached from it now. So what I suggest as an exercise for you, or anyone else who's interested, is to think of it as something that you've written — for purposes of criticism, yes? — and to think about what you'd need to do to finish it as one of your poems. That will serve, first of all, to highlight the differences of the choices and sorts of choices that I make from the sorts of choices you make. It doesn't matter whose choices are better. There is no better for our purposes here, there's only different, and the attempt to understand why did he or she do this as opposed to that, and what are the advantages and what are the disadvantages? It may also give you some understanding of what I might say about some of the choices you make in some of your poems, and why. This is one of the ways we begin to learn from each other. One of my own poetry values, by the way, is that I want my poems to be prose-paraphrasable from beginning to end. So if you tell me that I am both beautiful and incomprehensible in this poem, flags go up for me. I want the plot of my poems to be clear, so I want to know where the incomprehensibility lies and what the incomprehensibility may actually be so I can fix it. This may be a right reaction on my part or not, I don't know yet, but this is where my curiosity is drawn. Another place it's drawn is to the notion of beautiful. I'd like my poems to be beautiful, but I'm very nervous about the word. To me it often is a word in a piece of feedback that gives away an over-sentimentality or a saccharine quality in a piece of poetry. It shows an underlying flaw in a work. Not that I don't want a piece to be beautiful, you see, but hearing about it also sets of loud alarms. All these demands from my internal reader of criticism must not get in the way of actually hearing what you've said. The is something shopworn about the central conceit of the poem, and about the turn that happens about lines 8 and 9. While the music is fine, I haven't taken a big enough leap here, and leave the reader unsurprised and unshaken. This is something that I had not seen for myself, for all the work I'd put into the poem, and even if I gain nothing else from having taken the risk of having put it out here, will have in itself have repaid that risk tenfold. Thank you. Give and get. Now of course, it remains to be seen whether I can return the favor. And whether it can be spread around to others. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Okay, Rob. Now I've been working on this thing for a long time, and eventually I may take a shot at publication. But I'm pretty detached from it now. So what I suggest as an exercise for you, or anyone else who's interested, is to think of it as something that you've written — for purposes of criticism, yes? — and to think about what you'd need to do to finish it as one of your poems. That will serve, first of all, to highlight the differences of the choices and sorts of choices that I make from the sorts of choices you make. It doesn't matter whose choices are better. There is no better for our purposes here, there's only different, and the attempt to understand why did he or she do this as opposed to that, and what are the advantages and what are the disadvantages? It may also give you some understanding of what I might say about some of the choices you make in some of your poems, and why. This is one of the ways we begin to learn from each other. One of my own poetry values, by the way, is that I want my poems to be prose-paraphrasable from beginning to end. So if you tell me that I am both beautiful and incomprehensible in this poem, flags go up for me. I want the plot of my poems to be clear, so I want to know where the incomprehensibility lies and what the incomprehensibility may actually be so I can fix it. This may be a right reaction on my part or not, I don't know yet, but this is where my curiosity is drawn. Another place it's drawn is to the notion of beautiful. I'd like my poems to be beautiful, but I'm very nervous about the word. To me it often is a word in a piece of feedback that gives away an over-sentimentality or a saccharine quality in a piece of poetry. It shows an underlying flaw in a work. Not that I don't want a piece to be beautiful, you see, but hearing about it also sets of loud alarms. All these demands from my internal reader of criticism must not get in the way of actually hearing what you've said. The is something shopworn about the central conceit of the poem, and about the turn that happens about lines 8 and 9. While the music is fine, I haven't taken a big enough leap here, and leave the reader unsurprised and unshaken. This is something that I had not seen for myself, for all the work I'd put into the poem, and even if I gain nothing else from having taken the risk of having put it out here, will have in itself have repaid that risk tenfold. Thank you. Give and get. Now of course, it remains to be seen whether I can return the favor. And whether it can be spread around to others. There will of course be contributions by others and by yourself that will push and pull the process in all sorts of interesting ways. Let's see what happens. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, in case you are not aware you can use the edit function to add a line to a previous entry. It's not necessary to repeat the entire comment in order to add a line. I'm thinking perhaps you didn't know that.. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Thanks, Mike. I did in fact know that. I in fact did that, or something like that — I get confused around these pieces of electronics — and it printed me out an entire new entry, which I never know how to get rid of. They leave me baffled and looking at the world through egg colored glasses. Any suggestions, since this sort of thing happen to me with baffling irregularity, and I can't figure it out? And what do you think of the discussion, by the way? Mr. Bob |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Thanks Bob. Just got in from a longish drive, and another tomorrow, but I'll be back on this as soon as I can, and your very interesting suggestions; oh yes, and the word "beautiful" Rob |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, you can always take the duplicate entry, hit the edit button, delete everything in it and they type in Oops! Double entry...or something similar. I don't really understand why you can't simply edit the first reply and add another line at the bottom. That's the normal way... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, I did edit the first, and add another line at the bottom. What you see is what was the result. I will take your suggestion, however. I find the double printing as annoying as you do. And since when did you start to expect me to do anything the normal way? Out of pure curiosity? Bob Kaven |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I don't think you're editing, Bob, you're hitting your BACK button to seemingly change your post. Except that doesn't change anything, it just creates a new post. Look for this icon  in your last post? Click on it. That is editing. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Oh wow Ron, a sighting. Remind me to bribe Nan to let you beat her at Scrabble every time I want to be outspoken round here, it seems to, uh, divert your attention. Working on this now Bob. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Here is a better example of the "points of appropriateness" that I suggested could go on the reply page: http://www.geocities.com/ednewenglish/Example.htm Wouldn't people be clearer about and more mindful of the appropriateness expected in the forum if it were listed in such a way? |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Very clever Ess, and also very convincing. I still think that there should be implied some expectation that if someone posts a starter posts they should be encouraged to respond to respondees. I am not saying they should be obliged to do so as clearly there are times when responses are not necessary or appropriate, but I think that commonsense has to prevail and repeated posts without any effort whatsoever to respond to comments should be discouraged firstly with a request, then a firm request, then an instruction, and then removal of the posts to Open. But generally I think your formatting, and the thought behind it is very positive. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
I think you've picked up on the main uncertainty I had about the poem Bob - which was uncertainty itself. And is not being certain such a bad thing? Is an allowance for flexibility of interpretation sometimes not a worthy goal, or at least spin-off? I suspect the answer to that depends somewhat on how and why it arises. For me it's all about signposts Bob. I've noticed that sometimes I connect better with poetry written from within my own culture. And I mean culture in its narrowest and widest senses, not just national boundaries or ethnic group. Here is a poem I "get", and also like: Julia Lewis On returning your homework http://www.poetrysociety.org.uk/content/competitions/npc/npc06/npcjulialewis/ (Thanks Ron, PiP is different to other sites, I keep forgetting) This poem is, to my mind, neatly packaged, wrapped and clearly addressed, leaving little room for ambiguity while at the same time making interesting comments about "life and relationships" and clever tangential observations. I would not however describe it as particularly "beautiful", nor does it really tackle a large universal theme. In contrast, your poem reminds me of some of Mary Oliver's work, venturing into the "unknown" in a way that depends as much on how something is said as what is said. Does this cut across your suggestion that your work should ideally be "prose-paraphrasable from beginning to end"? I think it at least makes me question it. Maybe you wish your poems to be prose-paraphrasable, but maybe this particular poem doesn't want to be that. And perhaps it has gained a good deal in its evolution from idea to poem, which could not be captured by any prose summary. Yes, this poem resonates for me with elements that can be found in the work of two of my favourite poets, Hughes and Oliver. This brings me to the matter of "beautiful". Oliver certainly writes beautiful poetry but in no way saccharinely sentimental, and as for Hughes, well much of his nature poetry is beautiful in a muscular kind of way. And this is what I meant by calling your poem beautiful - how can the three images not be beautiful: the mare with hints of first light, the marked post and the salt marshes. Those images, animated by the action of the mare and the wind, simply exude beauty, in a good and evocative way. And I'm sure that was intended. Similarly I did not mean to imply that the central idea (as I saw it) of life, death, cycles, beginnings and endings was in anyway "shopworn" - can such ideas or contemplations ever be worn out? I think not. Man will go on happily speculating and discussing until time really does end for him. No, what can be "shopworn" isn't the idea, so much as the mode of expression. And I also didn't mean to imply that your words were in any way tired or overused. Rather the opposite in fact, because, as I said, I like what I hear a lot. All I was doing was speculating on your theme and hoping I was establishing a "valid" reading in assuming that you were tackling those universal issues. And the reason for the speculation is that you are right to say that I am struggling with what you call the turn at L8-9 and the way in which this sets up the closure. It's difficult to be more specific about why I'm struggling, because for one thing I'm tired, and for another I'm finding it very difficult to rephrase what you've written in a way that gives it a clarity that I recognise. In fact, I'm rather of the opinion that you've posted a poem that defies reshaping, unless such reshaping becomes total reconstruction. However I'm still thinking, or I will be when I've had some sleep. Rob [This message has been edited by moonbeam (04-12-2009 04:46 AM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Thanks Moonbeam Before you suggest anything make sure to ask "Would Ron approve of it" at least twenty times. An implied expectation for members to respond: would Ron approve of it? A threat of removal of post to Open if they don't respond: would Ron approve of it? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
If Ron disapproves, he will say so. He tries to be good about that. If not right away, then later. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Rob, First, thanks for the Julia Lewis poem. She's very good, and is very good in this culture as well as in the UK. Very solid, very fine, very controlled. She's a gem, and thank you for the introduction. It's not a cultural difference, her is a good poem and mine is a failed poem that I'm trying to get some sort of grip on. It may be a good poem someday, but it sure isn't now, and the reason why is why I presented it. Your suggestions are as good as anybody's. It has some decent qualities. No need to go into an English politeness frenzy at having said some useful things or at being taken seriously for saying them; that's what the poem wants and needs, and that's what I want and need if I'm to actually have a hope of getting the narcissism out of my eyes, and actually seeing the poem plainly, for what it is, and then being able to make the changes that the poem needs to have made to it so that the poem can thrive on its own. Right now it survives only because I look in on it occasionally and puzzle over it. I don't have a clear view of it. When I was in school, the Poet Galway Kinnell was teaching one of the classes. He was working on The Book of Nightmares at the time, which after almost 40 years is still in print as a book. To have any book still in print after 40 years is phenomenal; but a book of poetry is beyond that, by lightyears. He brought in the section of the book where he wrote, I believe, about the bodies that wouldn't stop burning in a field in Vietnam. It's an amazing piece that could well stand by itself as an amazing poem, but he'd brought it in to a class of poets in Iowa for a look. I read it over and made a comment or two, and this one guy told him to take this the big chunk of the poem. When I looked at the poem after it came out, all the changes the class suggested were in there, even the big chunk of what I thought was very fine poem — gone. Now I thought he might have taken the advice too much to heart, but here it is almost 40 years later, and the book's still in print. And it's a darn fine book, too. It still makes my hair stand on end, especially when I try reading parts of it out loud. I don't imagine anybody here will try that, it's too difficult and too trusting and wouldn't be warranted, but it might be possible to get our skills to the point where we could offer and get feedback that clear. You weren't wrong, Rob, you simply got shy about what you were saying. As I look at the poem, I tend to think you may be right, but aren't sure where or how, and are afraid of being more specific. There are lots of places it isn't polite to be more specific when being asked for criticism, and lots of places where it may not work out well. I can understand why you're nervous about the matter. Keep in mind that for the time being, it's your poem. You can do whatever you want with it. It won't say a thing, and it's not going to tell me while you aren't looking. Imagine what the poem wants, not what I want. I don't matter here. It's the poem that matters. I'm always thrilled to be happy, mind you, but what makes me feel best is a happy poem, one that feels alive and whole in itself. You have some wonderful material by JM to work with on your poem, and I'll be happy to see how you react to what see has to say, and happy to see what you have to say about her effort. This is looking like a pretty interesting effort here. I hope that this is as useful for you and JM as it is for me. Anyone else is welcome to join in, but remember, we have enough poems to work on right now, and we need some folks to comment to start off with before you start bringing some of your stuff in. We're being experimental here and trying to work things out as we go. There's an exercise at the beginning of the thread that you might want to start with. There's also an interesting exercise by Jim Simmerman that Grinch looked up for us. If you follow out his work on that poem in his draft, you can see he came a fair distance and could pick up where he left off without much trouble, or might try something else if he wanted. Not that I give Grinch a hint. Grinch. Grinch? All by best, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: Indeed, unless he said it many times in the past already. Using what Ron said in the past seems like the best whetstone for sharpening the suggestion we give him in the present. Otherwise it is just a weary disagreement between what we suggest and what he believes in. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Thanks Ess. Yep, I'm only too well aware of that stricture. But while some here may view Ron as God , I don't and neither, I know does he view himself that way. Ron has been known to change his mind, he is a reasonable person. Let's look at the facts here. Ron, from a position of ultimate control, has already openly acknowledged ultimate responsibility for whatever went wrong at CA. Implicit in that is an acknowledgement that something(s) would have to change to make it work in the future. We're in new territory now, Ron might (if indeed there is any chance of him wanting to re-open) have to reconsider some aspects of his thinking. I simply think anything that jeopardises the overarching respect and tolerance guideline should be looked at carefully. "Spamming" as Pete quite rightly imo called it, does so jeopardise, ergo the attitude to it should be reconsidered. And this sort of thing illustrates why your poll question was too simplistic to be really useful. My answer to your original question would have been "yes". But my answer to a proposed forum without such controls as I suggested would certainly be "no". Like I say though, I'm not looking for hard and fast rules, just an "understanding" between a group of mods and quasi-mods that certain behaviour would not be encouraged. With Go .. er, I mean Ron's blessing of course. M |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Happy Easter, to everybody who celebrates. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I'm still lurking Bob. I'm simply taking your advice and slowing things down instead of rushing ahead as I usually do. You could say that I've gone glacial. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: I agree. But I am not so sure Ron believes his general philosophy and belief was the problem, rather than not putting a structure in place to make it work more accordingly. Ron is strictly against excluding and turning people away, trying to dictate any kind of standard level of participation. The forum could work with limitations about such things if it were set up well. But from what Ron said in the past it seems clear he is not interested in that kind of forum. But likewise the forum could work without such limitations, if it were set up well. The moderators and members need to be clear about whether it is ever appropriate or not to turn someone away because they are posting what seems too many poems or are posting extremely sloppy work. Allow it or limit. Either may work if set up well. But it needs to be clear and consistent to both moderators and members which it shall be, or else it shall just end up at confusion and problems again. quote: But that is why I think it wasn't too simple, Moonbeam. It was just about the general idea. If people supported the general idea, then we could move on and ask about and discuss more specific things they might prefer for such a forum. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: Happy Easter Bob. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Sorry to be so late in responding to your poem, Bob, had stuff to finish up plus I feel more than a little out of my league, thus rather hesitant about commenting on your work (as well as moonbeam’s) - procrastinated a bit before publically exposing my critiquing/commenting ineptitude. This Morning A young mare, stippled with hints of first light scratches a flank against a favorite post in her stall. It still bears the mill marks of raw lumber. The ocean wind blows in across the salt marshes. Out of this ambiguity first features appear, first sounds gather and spill. Anyway, what I got out of your poem was a little different - to me it seemed like an awakening experience. Hard to explain but sort of an aha moment (This Morning) when a closer look at the ordinary and familiar for some reason seems to connect us with the eternal. The images and sonics are lovely, particularly the image in the opening lines and the lovely whispering s sound in every line. It’s a very special and beautiful poem, Bob. Thank You. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
"An awakening experience", what a lovely way of putting it Jenn. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: And so am I against exclusion, emphatically against. Also I am absolutely sure that Ron doesn't believe his general philosophy and belief was the problem, and neither do I. The problem was that his general philosophy and belief wasn't being adhered to. The were several reasons for this imo and most of them are dealt with in your proposals, but right at the end of the life of the forum there was a clear example of someone behaving in a way that in my view isn't compatible with the sort of place I want to be part of. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
But didn't Ron make it clear that posting in a way Monk Frost did wasn't doing anything wrong according to how the site is run ? Are you trying to convince him otherwise about that, or trying to show him that you would respect that if a new forum came about? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: No. It wasn’t one person it was a whole bunch of them. There was Turtle, Chops, Pete, Moonbeam, Ess, Brad oh, and that Grinch bloke to some extent, to name but a few. The main problem with CA was the regulars, they’re the ones who continually ignored the respect and tolerance rules not the passing poster‘s like MF. We were the reason Ron closed the forum. . |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Grinch Sorry for changing my question a bit. I completely agree with your answer though. Perhaps most of us in CA contributed to some bad experiences. But at least we contributed to some good ones too. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Ess I agree and disagree with Grinch, no time to explain further right now. I've already answered the question of whether MF did anything "wrong" earlier in the thread in response to exactly the same question from Grinch, I'll repeat: "To start with I should say that I don't think that in the scale of things the Monk Frost fracas was of much account whatever. He wasn't reason for closing of CA and a discussion about him is only useful in so far as it serves to show one small particular instance of why some sort of guidelines might be useful. For the record he made 21 posts to CA over a period of just under one month at a fairly regular rate. Of those 21 posts he received replies to 18. Of those 18 three contained specific questions directed at MF by other posters, and one contained a direct comment from a moderator about his posting. He did not respond to a single one of the comments or questions made about his poems. He made one 8 word comment on another person's poem which had absolutely nothing to do with the poem and everything to do with a rather offensive statement about the poet's state of mind, which, inter alia, was a complete, and as it happened, erroneous, guess. What did he do wrong, and what harm did he do? 1 He spammed the forum. The level of his posting and his non-responsive attitude eventually led a moderator to say this: "The 3-a-day rule works pretty well in the fast moving forums. Here in CA, where the intent is to thoroughly analyze each post, it does not work at all. Even one per day is usually too much. It takes time for the group to discuss a poem. The way you are flooding the pages gives a strong impression that you are simply dumping your computer here, possibly because you don't know how to clean it up otherwise. If that's the case, learn to use the Delete button instead. As moderator of CA, I ask you to please stop the spam. Or at lease slow down to where it might become something of value in a critical analysis environment." 2 He failed to obey a moderator's instruction, posting another poem 70 minutes after the instruction had been given, provocatively entitled "Dare" and referring to the subjectivity of people's opinions (I think). 3 He failed to thank anyone for, or respond to a single comment made on his poems. At 3 or 4 poems that could be shyness. At 7 or 8 poems it could mean the poet is very busy in real life, except that wasn't the case as he continued to post poems regularly. At 9 or 10 poems one wonders what he is doing. At 13 - 15 poems it becomes a little wearing in a discussion forum. At 20 poems it is just rude and disrespectful. 4 He patently annoyed other posters. You might say tough, their problem. I say, that taken in conjunction with the mode of posting, and the period of time involved, the balance tilted from having goodwill towards him, through giving him the benefit of the doubt, to assuming that he was intent on trouble making. At that point there was no reason to leave his poems in CA. 5 To anyone of any intellect looking in from outside at the forum his antics showed both MF and other participants in a juvenile light. The forum would have looked as if it was neither about poetry or discussion, and it would looked unmoderated, drifting and basically an unproductive waste of time." Anything more will have to wait till tomorrow Ess. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: There you go Moon, if I was a betting man I'd lay money on that being the precise point where Ron decided to close the forum. MF was doing nothing wrong. Once a Mod started ignoring the respect and tolerance rule and started openly condoning and emulating the actions of the rest of us Ron had little choice but to close the forum. Just my opinion of course. . |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
True, but other members get their words deleted very often, especially here in the Alley, without the forum being closed because of it. The fact that that comment was a moderator's I think deserved at least that much grace. Ron couldn't have just used the delete button? And considered making it openly certain to the moderators and members what exactly is appropriate in such situtations, so they wouldn't make the mistake in the future? The fact that the moderator contributed unawares to the problem is an omen of much lack of knowing what exactly was appropriate in such situations and that it was more or less up in the air and left to "on the spot" decisions, hoping for the best, but obviously not always getting it. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Yet. If the lack of respect and tolerance in this forum gets to the point that the work involved maintaining it outweighs the benefits of having it then I’m sure that this forum will disappear too. In those last day’s of QA there was perhaps only one or two people adhering to the rules, and even one of those wasn’t exactly interacting in a positive way. The Alley, where you’d expect a high rate of heated exchanges, doesn’t even come close to matching that - yet. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
How could people adhere to the rules in the specific ways of appropriateness that Ron wanted when the specific ways of appropriateness were not made clear for the kind of situations we were dealing with in CA? It is fine to have general rules. But when you want people to behave specifically within those general rules and in those kind of specific situations, then you also need more specific rules or clarifications in place to make it understood. Without those things in place the members and moderators were in the same boat of much uncertainty. No one knew for sure what the specifics of appropriatness were, but specifics were still expected. We didn't live up to the specifics that even the moderators were not completely clear about, and now we have two less of excellent moderators, and one less forum that was important to some people. It is hard to call that "better". |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Exercise respect and tolerance. It seems fairly clear and simple to me Ess and, on the whole, members and moderators alike manage to maintain that standard in every other forum. Ron’s already alluded to the disproportionate amount of interventions he’s had to make in CA and on numerous occasions he’s underlined that rule of respect and tolerance and we’ve merrily ignored every warning. Is it any wonder he decided to close the forum? . |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Grinch If we didn't understand or heed that general rule, then I don't think we would only fail to live up to it in CA, but also fail to live up to it in any other forum we posted in. Why only or mostly only in CA? You don't see it as anything to do with a lack of some stationary specifications or clarifications in CA itself to deal with some different and more specific situations that we had? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Clearly the energy is back in the forum, but it's focused on the relationship that folks have with Ron and with what went wrong with CA forum. Is Mark Frost the cause of the downfall? Had the people in the forum been doing things badly? Had they not understood Ron appropriately? Was this some sort of punishment for ill behavior? That appears to be where the energy here is. We try to get away from that subject — I try to draw us away, to be fair; that's the subject that people seem pretty much fascinated by — and you bring us back to it. I'd like to understand how come this happens in a forum labeled "Give and Get in Poetry." I'm certain there must be a connection somewhere, but I simply don't see it, and it's beginning to fascinate me, since my interest is in "Give and Get in Poetry." I wonder if I have to give a little so we can get back to the subject, but I guess I need to get some clarification on the way. What gives guys? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: Confusion. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Bob this is one of the statements you opened this thread with. That's what's been going on. We've been talking amongst ourselves trying to figure out what we want from such a place and how we can make it work - Ron's guidelines inevitably come into that discussion and also the question of why the other place didn't work. Yes a bit of confusion now ensues I think perhaps because as I hinted here: /pip/Forum6/HTML/000037-6.html#125 posting your poem has kind of turned the thread into two parallel threads. I think your poem was worth much more than getting it entangled with all the backwards and forwarding of the discussion. Maybe it's not too late to disentangle it even now into another thread? .................... Ess and Grinch Sorry Grinch but I feel Ess is correct here. First, if you are right then I think much much more respect should have been shown to a moderator of 9 years standing. And again if you are really right about the point where the decision was made to close the forum being the point at which Pete made his (long overdue) remonstration with MF then I would be extremely disappointed in Ron. I find it difficult to believe that is the case, and were it to be so then I think I would need to reconsider my commitment to PiP. Sometimes I think a bit too much is made of Ron's ownership of the site and his efforts connected with it, which though considerable would be to no avail without the loyal dedication of his team of moderators. Ron knows this and I believe gives a good deal of respect to the views of his senior moderators, I feel sure that far from closing the forum because of Pete's behaviour he would have discussed the issue with him and given a good deal of weight to his opinion. And once again I think you are wrong in attributing the failure of CA entirely to the actions of the regulars. Even Ron himself has stated that a good deal of the responsibility was his. If you mean that the actions of the regulars in the final days were the final straw which showed Ron once and for all that CA was not working then fine I will go with that. But as for those actions being the root cause of the failure, I think, by Ron's own admission that is not the case. A Tail There was a pride of lions living on the Veldt. The dominant male, the King of the lions, one day decided that, except for prey absolutely necessary for survival, the members of his pride would henceforth harm no other living creature, moreover all members were to be given equal status and each member would show great tolerance of, and patience with every other member's behaviour. Now it so happened that the pride was divided into three cohorts. The first of these was the largest and was a lovely place for socialising and friendship: relaxed, happy and with a rapid flow of quick fire repartee and gay chatter. The second cohort was a small one where lions with a fiery desire to learn the skills of crochet repaired at intervals. In this cohort happy friendship was still the key, but lions were expected to adhere to certain rules in order that the process of learning could be conducted in an orderly way. The third cohort was also quite a small place. This cohort was the forum for discussion of the ways of the lion, the various strategies for stalking and of course haute cuisine. Now, the new strictures of the King of the pride worked fine in the first cohort. All was peace and light, and the occasional wayward member or buzzing insect was treated with benign tolerance or cheerful indifference. Everyone was relaxed and unstressed, the workload was light or non-existent and life proceeded cheerily and with equanimity. In the second cohort the cohort leader was less happy. Once or twice a member was overly enthusiastic and pushed forward pieces of crochet work that were nothing to do with the lesson on hand. Moreover the constant buzzing of mosquitos was a distraction and an irritation from the work. The leader therefore applied to the King and said, "Oh King, mightiest of mighty lions, while we humbly acknowledge the great wisdom of your recent decree, we would refer you to Para 8 clause 4 sub-clause ii, regarding, non-harm, tolerance and respect to all living creatures. This clause while being generally sound and principled is, in its present blanket form, preventing me from dealing firmly, yet fairly, with inside and outside distractions." "No problemo" said the King - who btw had Roman ancestors - "we'll just addo a few little rulios to ensure that where necessary you can zappo the bugs and gently cuffo the miscreants." Thus peace, order and learning was restored to the crochet learning cohort. Meanwhile in the forum of the third cohort chaos reigned. "It's a long story," said the Top lion in the cohort, when accosted by the King about the noise. "The thing is," continued the Top lion mournfully, "we just can't seem to function, maybe it's our fault, but all the heart has gone out of this place. We can't seem to discuss the ways of the lion, the various strategies for stalking or even haute cuisine any more. I'm sorry to say it O all-wise King but your all embracing rules, while good and noble, seem to me to permit behaviour in our cohort which takes our minds and efforts away from the work that we need to do to make our place work harmoniously. For instance one or two members who have always been inclined to the frivolous, the off-the-cuff miaows and the quick whisker flicks, are apt to make light of our serious ventures, in a doubtless amusing, but sometimes tiresome manner, and in ways which lead to misunderstanding and friction O my King." The King growled ominously, and laid a heavy soft paw, claws retracted, on his chum's shoulder, as he said, "Simply ignore them then my friendo." Top lion looked very uncomfortable, "My King we have tried to do that, but it becomes harder and harder as the balance between those who want fun and those who want both fun and deeper study shifts in favour of the former. You see I haven't yet mentioned the mosquitos." "The mosquitosos?" queried the King. "Yes, the mosquitos O King. They buzz. They sting. They fly in and bite and then fly off again. And all the while we are trying to concentrate. Plus we have the Gaudy Eagle." Up went the King's eye whiskers. "The Gaudy Eagleo?" "Oh yes my King," groaned Top lion, "He sits on a bunyan tree right in our midst and poops, over and over, it's hard to ignore him, and the smell makes our members fractious and irritable. One particular member by the name of Boonmean has become cynical and sarcastic. Not like his old self at all." "Tough," said the King, "tell him to deal with it, and the others too. They must learn to handle the troubles of life, even in the midst of adversity." "Oh, I did that King," the Top lion said, "I did that, and now look at us, a sorry spectacle. For rather than stay and suffer the torture of trying to work and concentrate while being pestered by mosquitos and pooped on by eagles, our best members simply left our cohort to wander the veldt. Now we are left with just the frivolous, and the cynical Boonmean who limps on pathetically, and of course the mosquitos." The King sighed a deep sigh, "I knew all this thinko was bad for lions," he muttered to himself, "lions are meant for lolling and lazy chat, not for deepo stuffo, this is all my doing for allowing your cohort in the first place." "Oh no great King!" remonstrated the distraught Top lion in agony, "the idea is good, the haute cuisine is wonderful, but we need a wee bit of help to operate amicably. Please O King in thine infinite wisdom and mercy, grant us the latitude to gently bat away the mosquitos or to at the very least wear protective insect repellant (£1.50 from M&S) to allow us to ignore them. Furthermore empower me to gently remonstrate with those would put frivolity and naughty fun at the centre of their agenda if I feel it is a disruption to the whole cohort. Finally let me ask the Gaudy Eagle to learn the language of Lion that he may discuss and debate with us on equal terms, and thus he may explain the where's and whyfore's of his regular poop." "Never!" quoth the mighty monarch. "The prideo of the prideo is paramounto; never shall I jeopardise our credo for the sake of the discussion of mere lion ways and haute cuisine. Depart! and continue." So the Top lion went sadly away, and what followed is of course well known history. The vicious Boonmean was even more cynical and sarcastic, the frivolous frivvled merrily and to the continued distraction and annoyance of some, the Gaudy Eagle pooped and the mosquitos bit, and gradually the oldest members grew worn out and disillusioned and wandered away into the veldt. And worse than that, other wise lions from Africa passing by on their travels looked in on the cohort and, when they might have stayed to pass the night or even longer, the biting and scratching and sheer silliness that pervaded the place, caused them to wrinkle their lips in disgust and wander away. Thus the days and months and years wore by until one afternoon a particularly annoying super-mosquito entered the cohort. So persistent were his attentions that even the patient old Top lion was sorely troubled. "Desist," he growled softly. But the mosquito merely poked him playfully in the eye. SPLAT went the large furry paw of the Top lion; and the mosquito, though not clawed and therefore still unharmed, buzzed frantically. "Enough!!" cried the aghast King seeing this, "Ah, woe is me, I see now my error, and that the wisest of my wise servants was right. This cohort cannot run harmoniously thus constituted. I hereby disband it. It is perhaps not possible ever to resurrect it - time and leonine consideration is required." And so the cohort ceased to be and the few remaining members - and there were piteously few by this time - were cast into the barren veldt. Some blamed the King, some the Top lion, but one tenacious grouchy old lion blamed only himself and the other regular members of the cohort. "We were wrong," he said. "Despite the frivolous ones, the mosquitos, and the Gaudy Eagle we should have all remained sweet placid lions. Despite the loss of our ability to think straight, and despite even the loss of the raison d'etre of the cohort, we should have tolerated, respected and purred at those mosquitos." "But then," ventured one innocent little female lion who was a latecomer to the cohort and therefore somewhat sensible, "what would have been the point?" "The point," ejaculated the grouchy one, "the point! The point of course would have been to uphold the decree of our dear and infallible King!" "Oh," said the small lion, feeling most chastised and very stupid, "of course, infallible. Yes, I see now." |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Ron’s failure was not intervening and closing the place years ago. . |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Hey Bob. After what’s been intimated on in this thread about CA, the posts, and the events that led to its demise, I don’t ask why. I’ve seen Ron’s comments, over and over and over again, in Discussion about: “Focusing on the post not the poster. Direct your replies toward the topic, not the person. Personal attacks are not tolerated. Etc.” As far as the Giving: First person directive of language and constant over-familiarity faux pas are the first No No’s of English 101when trying to remain formal and to write effectively in any arena. Many times these things are just slips or mistakes with no harm meant at all, but many times they are exacted tactics of forum warfare. And...sometimes we’re just cool with not being on any formal terms and we’re just blowing smoke, poking the other or sharing nods with each other, usually in appropriate forums, other times not, I’m sure. On a serious note: Your poem “This Morning” took me to Kiawah Island, where they have some beautiful riding stables. It’s one of my favorite aways from the ways of the world. Thank you for such an offering. The language is very simple and precise, and I love the soothing stylistic sibilance with the “S’s,” which you didn’t overdo, like I just did. Yes, soothing to the mind and silky to read aloud. Because of your use of formal punctuation, I believe there's a coma needed at the end of L2 for proper structuring, and L10 due to the line being a positional intro, and the ending might be capped, as such: "This Morning A young mare, stippled with hints of first light, scratches a flank against a favorite post in her stall. It still bears the mill marks of raw lumber. The ocean wind blows in across the salt marshes. Out of this ambiguity, first features appear. First sounds gather and spill. " The “It” in L6, is sketchy due to the subject being the "mare," and it could be nixed: example: "against a favorite post--still bearing the mill marks of raw lumber in her stall." Tiny suggestions while enjoying the little breeze you’ve offered me, Mr. Bob. Ciao for nowz, reg |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Yay, we agree! Precisely Grinch. He is just too patient and nice. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
The forum was so ugly that you kept coming back to it. I guess you just couldn't stop enjoying the lack of respect and tolerance, and secretely believing it should be closed without ever letting on to it back then. You both had me very fooled. There is no point if you are both willing to write off CA so easily. Grinch already said a "no" to a new forum. And Moonbeam, your argument seems a bit too fond of your own way. If a new forum came about, and Monk Frost posted as he did, it sounds like either you would be unwilling to participate in the forum, or if you did participate you would still be treating Monk Frost's behaviour as if it were inappropriate or didn't belong in the forum. The third and worst omen is that between the possibility of Ron's silence meaning he is amused and changing his mind, and meaning he is highly annoyed and even less inclined to reconsider things, I don't think we may have any doubt that it is the latter. We failed at doing well in CA, and we fail even worse in trying to convince Ron of something new and better. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: No. I kept leaving because it was ugly, I kept coming back hoping it would get better. quote: It was a pretty open secret Ess, I suggested closing the forum three years ago, Ron was against the idea at the time. The time to save CA was while it was still open, Ron gave us the chance to do that and we failed, I doubt whether Ron will re-open it so we can do the same again. quote: If I thought there was something I could do to convince Ron that the forum would work if it was re-opened I’d have done it already. I’m sorry it closed but I think closing it was the right decision. Adding more rules won’t work - Ron has said on numerous occasions that he won’t add any rules above and beyond the overriding rule of respect and tolerance. Adding notifications of acceptable behaviour won’t work because, people will simply ignore them and judging what is and isn’t acceptable is subjective and hard to define. What could have saved CA was an injection of common sense, either applied by all members or enforced by a moderator - one who could mirror Ron’s expectations and diplomatically nudge the members in the right direction. Without that it was doomed to fail and any possible replacement is destined to go the same way.  |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Dead right Ess, and simply because such a reoccurrence would be symptomatic of what Grinch says, viz, that the replacement would be going the same way as the Mk I version. FWIW I was hardly active in CA in the last year. As Grinch says simply adding more rules won't work, but adding notifications of acceptable behaviour, combined with active mod presence (and I mean mods plural - at least 4 at a guess, preferably 5 or 6) and active mod liaison behind the scenes, combined with case study based agreement with Ron as to what is and isn't acceptable (reliance on the vague notion of respect and tolerance is insufficient), combined with a clear stated purpose and posting guideline, might just work. M PS Ess, I don't understand why you think this discussion will be angering or annoying Ron? I certainly hope it isn't because I think it's pretty constructive. Just a pity we couldn't have had it years ago. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Reg, This was very helpful, very precise feedback. I must certainly use the suggestion about the comma in line two; it improves the reading and clarifies the pace. The rewrite suggestion around the notion of the "it" is quite useful as well. Those "its" can be very pesky and introduce ambiguities where they are unwelcome; and your comment not only spots the problem but suggests a fix. I may use that as well. I appreciate your engagement here. This sort of point of view is one that offers a great deal to the ways of looking that Moonbeam and JM bring to the party, and I'm glad that you put the time in here. I'm hoping that you're able to take something away from what JM and Moonbeam are offering in their comments and the occasion comments on a more general level that I've tossed in here and in the Free verse exercise thread. Your comments about my rhetoric are also somewhat useful, though I think you are constrained by the values of politeness in this venue from being more specific about what you'd like to say. You really should feel free to email me with more specifics, since about political stuff and political rhetoric I'm nowhere near as acute as I am in this context. As long as what you have to say is meant to be helpful, though, I'm happy to take it in that spirit. If it helps my political communications, I'm interested in hearing what you've got to say, though I can't promise agreement. You won't go too far wrong if you assume the logically unlikely proposition that I am both as obtuse as I present myself as being and as bright as you think I am all at the same time, simply not in the same ways and places that logic would lead you to believe. Indeed, I've found that to be true about most people. I'm simply very poor at covering the contradictions up. Thank you very much for you contribution and for you kind attempt to extend a hand. Mr. Bob |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Dear Mr. Bob, You’re very welcome. Poetry is my pleasure, but I struggle for quality time due to running my housekeeping business. My purest love is for English and I’ll be a forever student of the language as well as the others I find architecturally rooted and entwined in the etymology. I’ll try to offer more toward poetry & feedback, as time allows me. I know I always get something from what others put into the pot. About effective writing: quote: My comment was not directed toward “you,” but your reply is a great example of how things can go. I was speaking about the forums in general and how first person “YOU,” in a directive, never really gains/maintains much civil ground. The moment the word “you” is typed, it automatically becomes personal to the reader. Simple as that. So, such a word needs to be handled with care, when trying to properly convey as a writer with respect and regards to readers. AND I think this is especially important when replying/critiquing/providing feedback on someone’s offering of poetry. If you will be so kind to peruse my paragraph once more, you will notice there is no “you” at all, anywhere to be found. But I did use “we’re,” which can also go awry since some people will want to be excluded from my generalized inclusion. However, the passive safety-word of “sometimes,” indicates a non-argumentative stance and my offering stands as pure rhetoric. I may still offend someone, no matter. In your paragraph, “you” is throughout, but I don’t take offense because I know you don’t know me, nor am I trying to pick you apart. I’m addressing effective writing only. However, you’re partly right about me here: “Your comments about my rhetoric are also somewhat useful, though I think you are constrained by the values of politeness in this venue from being more specific about what you'd like to say.” Specifically, I’m rarely “constrained.” LOL. However, poetry does soothe me, as your poem did. But no, I generally say whatever I want to say with little constraint, which gets me into big trouble, more pointedly, in politics. I can be a barracuda with an ITCH in the middle. Yeah, go ahead. It’s already been said. I’m like a Marine who’s locked and loaded, though my pen is my weapon and my words are my bullets, and yeah, there’s no room on my page for passivity when I take an argumentative stance. I could blame that on my Professor in college, and the fact that I spent hundreds of hours editing passivity out of argumentative papers as an English tutor/editor-turned machine. I know. I need to lighten-up, and it’s easy for me to do so with poetry, but politics…..rile me, and that makes or breaks me as an effective writer for the genre. May I say: We all learn something new everyday? It’s fun to learn together. I gotta run, but if you like I’ll address over-familiarity another time if you need examples or need more input, and I’ll take a gander at the Free verse thread asap. salut, reg |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Has everybody gotten what they need from this thread about getting and giving in poetry? If they have, is there anything that they would like to give a try to in response to what they've spoken about here, or do we simply let things peter out? Either result would be interesting after its fashion, as the discussion has, so far, proven interesting. We might also try somebody else tossing in a poem and seeing if the rest of us might be helpful to them with that poem. My preference would be for free verse, since folks do metrical verse other places, but I'm open in that regard as well. The rules would have to be rules that would emphasize use of comments intended to be helpful to the poems and to the development of folks writing skills. We couldn't handle a lot of poems at a time and still give the kind of feedback that we'd need to develop proper feedback skills, which would mean development of our own free verse revision skills. I'd like to use examples of everybody's work, should they want that, but the emphasis is on the feedback and understanding each other's feedback. That's my thinking at this point. If anybody's interested, we could start. If nobody's interested, there's no reason to, it seems pretty straightforward. If anybody gives us too much trouble, we'll stop or ask them to stop or change their ways. Any thoughts or reactions? |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
As long as you're around Bob I'm happy to post poems here . I might just complete my obligations to you and Jennifer in the other thread first though, and meanwhile give someone else a chance to post something. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Moonbeam quote: But there you go treating Monk Frost's kind of behaviour as if it were the problem or the sign of the problem, which displaces where you know the blame should be. I think Grinch was saying that the forum would fail because our ill behaviour would continue, not because posting as Monk Frost did would be present or not considered inappropriate. Ron didn't agree with not accepting him or his posts, and our lack of courtesy thereto was the finishing point for the forum. How do you think Ron may ever agree with a suggestion of a forum that does the same thing, treating behaviour like Monk Frost's as if it is wrong or innappropriate, the symptom of the problem, or the problem itself, when that kind of treatment was the finishing point for Critical Analysis? I certainly do think rules work, but I didn't intend the "points of appropriateness" to be "new" rules so to speak, but rather just branchings out of the general rules into more specific "points" adjusted specially to deal with the problematic situations we had in Critical Analysis. I think they would work with a virtue of making people much more aware and cautious in CA just as the general rules themselves make people very aware and cautious of the rules of the site. But in combination with the moderators upholding them as consistently as possible, I think they would reach the kind of level that Ron would hope for such a forum. Thanks for supporting them. I am just pointing out where your own argument seems to have a contradiction. quote: But does the "silent treatment" usually mean good things? [This message has been edited by Essorant (04-15-2009 10:56 PM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Essorant, I don't know what "The Silent treatment" may be for you; it's different things for different people, and an explanation almost always gets into personal history. I like personal history, but this isn't really the place for it, I don't believe, unless an emergency of some sort presents itself. The flip side of the silent treatment, is to let one's self act as though he or she was responsible for running both sides of every conversation to the point of kidding one's self that you've got the ability to read the mind of the other person, and to know what their intents and wishes are. Beyond a certain limited degree, this is pretty much impossible. It suggests that the two of you (or more) subscribe to telepathy as a common means of communication. If there is such a thing, it doesn't seem to work all that dependably. Nor would you have to wonder what Ron would think or do, would you? You'd know. Ron seems like a pretty nice guy with a human set of normal neuroses, like most of us. In the field we talk about "normal neurotics," which is a phrase I've always loved. You've got to trust Ron to make his thoughts and feelings known when he thinks it's important, and to do it with the same amount of clumsiness available to anybody else at their best and worst. We have a say in what we do here and the fact is that in the end he has a deciding say because nobody else is willing to do the amount of work that he is, and it's his basketball. Mostly he seems to have fun playing with the basketball, and sometimes he's got to worry about paying rent on the court, and keeping people acting civil as they practice, so other people can practice too. Outside that, he's pretty negotiable, as near as I can tell. If he says differently, then I'll listen to him like the Ron he is. Beyond the power element, he's worth listening to because he's got interesting stuff to say. Don't try to anticipate him beyond the rules you're clear about, and which he's been clear about. If he wants to say something, he can say it as well as you can. In fact, about his stuff, he can say it better. In My Humble Opinion. Sincerely, Mr. Bob |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
You may not have noticed I said this above, but, believe me, I did. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Ess Am I not explaining myself clearly? Yes, MF's behaviour was a problem for me because it distracted from what I feel such a forum should be about. That's my personal opinion. At this stage of the debate I don't really care if it doesn't accord with Ron's or anyone else's. I'm aware that Grinch thinks that the forum would fail because ill behaviour would continue. I'm going one stage further and saying that that ill behaviour will be even more likely if MF type scenarios are allowed to reoccur. This isn't about blame. This is about establishing why bad behaviour in the forum occurred, and finding a solution to stop it happening again. With very great respect to you Ess I think you are focussed too much on trying to second guess what might please Ron. Ron's model for CA has failed once, and Ron is nothing else if not a realist. If, and it's a big IF, he ever wants the potential hassle of starting some similar forum again I am quite sure that it will be on the basis of some changes. But don't think it's useful to try and surmise what detailed changes might please Ron, especially when they might produce a forum that wouldn't please me. All I can do is say what I personally would like to see in a forum, and how that forum might be made to work. That's all I've done and all I'm doing. If Ron chooses to listen that's fine, if he doesn't that's equally fine by me .If I was Ron I'd be doing exactly what he may be doing, either: watching and reading with interest, or ignoring totally on the basis that he's had his fill of CA type forums for a decade or two. Either scenario produces silence. I wouldn't be annoyed though. Best. M |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: I agree with you Bob. But again, Ron already said things in the past about CA and his beliefs. If you look (especially in CA) you will find. quote: That is the problem Moonbeam. It looks like you aren't willing to overlook a simple point of personal disagreement to make a compromise with what someone else believes in (Ron). I agree that Ron would want changes, but I feel 99% sure that those changes wouldn't include treating anyone as if they or their participation should be treated as if it were inappropriate in one way or another because they don't participate up to a level of responsiveness or skill that you (or I) agree with. That much seems endlessly clear from Ron's words. There is no point in suggesting anything if you aren't willing to sacrafice something you don't agree with which in this case seems rather trivial, for you know that you don't need to have anything to do with a post whose participation level you don't think is "worth it", the more reason why it shall never be treated as innappropriate or deleted just because it doesn't please you. Why won't you simply overlook that point to make a compromise? |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: If that's what it looks like Ess then obviously I'm not making myself clear. You make it sound as if it's a trivial point. It's not. It goes to the heart of the nature of any new forum. Simply put: 1 I'm only interested in a new forum that can provide a congenial atmosphere for discussion of poetry. 2 I believe that respect should be shown for both the people who participate and also for the purpose of the forum, or that required atmosphere will not be forthcoming. 3 I believe that certain types of behaviour are disrespectful, and not conducive to an atmosphere of sensible discussion (MF's behaviour and the reaction it received were but one small example). 4 No-one is talking about exclusions any more than we talk about people being excluded from the Poetry Workshop when they deviate from the behaviour normally expected in there. My idea of a new forum is a discussion based forum. If someone enters the Poetry Workshop and does nothing but chatter they are asked politely by Balladeer to desist. If someone enters a discussion forum and posts nothing but 20 poems with no attempt at discussion then they should be asked politely to desist. Is that breaching the main PiP guidelines? My view is that it is not. Finally, it is of course perfectly possible to create a forum where any post of any kind in any quantity would be acceptable within the PiP main guidelines, but I think the forums we have already provide that facility. M |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Well, I think the old CA was still a lot better (even if "of the evils" should follow the word) than this situation we have in the Alley. People were able and people did have discussions like those you are having with Bob and Jenn in here, in the CA forum. But they also had the room to express themselves in many different ways as well. Pete and Brad were moderators. Chops was joking around. Grinch was still posting and responding to some poetry, instead of speaking doom and gloom and points of no return for the forum. I think Ron should judge the closure by its results too. From what I see the closure has not made anything better for anyone or anything. Even Monk Frost was probably a lot more annoyed by not having CA to post poems in anymore than any comment he received from us. [This message has been edited by Essorant (04-16-2009 10:09 PM).] |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Perhaps you put your finger on it Ess. What you describe is an eclectic collection of people and postings, latterly largely ungoverned by day to day supervision of any kind, in a forum named "critical analysis". If you try to stand apart and look at that description objectively it should, from your experience of real life, start to ring alarm bells immediately. Also I, for one, am a lot happier since closure. It used to upset me seeing CA reduced to what it had become from what it had been on occasions. It wasn't a good advert for either PiP or poetry. But don't despair Ess, I think patience is required here. Perhaps unlike Grinch, I still do see a role for some kind of poetry discussion forum at PiP some time in the future. To get it right though it's worth taking a good long time to consider what might be best. If and when Ron ever countenances opening a new forum I am sure it will be on the basis of careful thought and not a rushed decision. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
What is new that suggests Ron is willing to do something this time? What seems more favourable? A new round of years of patience, to find out nothing will be done again? No thanks, Moonbeam. I fear that if Ron continues running the site so undemocractically, without letting other people--supposedly a "family"-- have any say in such things as closing a forum that was important to quite a few of them, not even letting the moderators of the forum have a "vote", as it looks like in this case, eventually this shall be a site run by one overhwelmed man, and it will have no new moderators arriving to inherit it when this generation is past. There will be no one after him to keep up the site, for his undemocratic way of running the site when he will close a forum and lose moderators and members and activity at the site instead of improve the forum and encourage the moderators and members' continued participation. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Ess, come on, be rational, a lot of what you just said is likely to be nonsense and you must know it. PiP isn't a democracy and no-one has ever pretended it is to my knowledge. Possibly you're just trying to provoke Ron into responding, but all I know is that Ron ain't stupid, he will have thought about all the points you make about continuity (or not, as the case may be), and no doubt in his own good time he'll divulge. Best. M |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
