Reviving the Poets.net Forum (Blogger Format)

Read more here

Friday, May 30, 2008

1984 in 2008?


One broken windmill, so many sheep.
Posted by Jennifer at 10:04 AM
Labels: , , , , , ,

24 comments:

  1. running out of ideas already?
    ReplyDelete
  2. You're one of those nameless chickenshit troll things I heard about, right?
    ReplyDelete
  3. And you'd be a flamer, right?
    ReplyDelete
  4. More of a farmer than a flamer.
    Please forgive my
    digital ignorance...I'm just an old bibliophile.
    Please define 'flamer' and I'll tell you if I am.
    ReplyDelete
  5. Gary,

    Don't worry about it; you're not even close to being a flamer.

    Here's a pretty good definition of Flamer Personality Disorder:

    http://amasci.com/weird/flam2.html#f10
    ReplyDelete
  6. Hey, Anonymous, you with the track suit as if you were a runner--

    Those sheep are pretty healthy even if the windmill is old. And you know what as well, an old windmill is a more potent image than a young one anyway--every poet knows that, though apparently the idea hadn't occurred to you.

    So what ideas do occur to you?

    Oh, you've run already.
    ReplyDelete
  7. Namecaller: This defines flamers. "Flamer" means "namecaller."

    Well, anonymous, I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

    Now here's one for you. Look up 'sniper'. That's what I would call chickenshit.
    ReplyDelete
  8. Quite honestly, you guys, why isn't "namecaller" or "sniper" good enough?

    The moment you slip into language like "flaming" and "chickenshit," anything you say is just cyber-babble with no face or conscious function. You might as well just keep on playing computer games, I'd say, because you've become as passive as a spectator at the Colisseum. Such language is like that of the goons in A Clockwork Orange with no heart or engagement with anything!

    It can even do violence without tears!
    ReplyDelete
  9. Hey Gary, it's perfectly acceptable to post anonymously here. Character assasinations are also perfectly acceptable apparently, so I'd be a fucking idiot to leave my personal details wouldn't I.

    If you want to call me chickenshit that's hardly going to bother me.

    Now back to your farm, haven't you got some animals to husband or something.
    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous #1:

    Did I misread your original post?

    "Anonymous said...
    running out of ideas already?"

    I found that to be somewhat insulting, so I replied. This site is becoming very important to poetry, especially "outsider' poetry (the really good stuff that your grandkids will read). Why do you feel a need to degrade it? Do you have a personal stake here?

    Also, when I first started posting at various places I used pseudonyms as well. How silly. Unless you're John Ashbery or Franz Wright or Gary Snyder you're basically anonymous anyway, aren't you?

    As far as 'character assassination' (you should work on your spelling), my poetry has been out there for sale for three years now with two more books to come. Go for it! Trash my stuff. That, after all, is the only real measure of a poet, not some superfluous comment on a blog.

    Anonymous #2:
    We "...slip into language like "flaming" and "chickenshit," because these are words and they have meanings required for the emotion of the moment (it's called writing). It's valid communication, contentious or not. You will find much worse in contemporary poetry.
    ReplyDelete
  11. Gary,

    Why would you find my original post insulting? It wasn't directed at you. I was merely commenting on the fact that the host put a pretty ordinary and unimaginative pot-shot out there, received no response and then bumped it back up to the front page again. That, to me, signalled a distinct lack of ideas and imagination.

    BTW--this site is not and never will be 'important to poetry'either, don't kid yourself.
    ReplyDelete
  12. So, obviously, you DO have a personal stake. How can you predict the future?
    ReplyDelete
  13. Dear Other Anonymous,

    Attacking me for posting anonymously, while posting anonymously yourself, is pretty funny dontcha think?

    If you had the capacity for coherent thought I'd be happy to engage with you in your discussion of 'potent windmills' and 'healthy sheep'. WTF?
    ReplyDelete
  14. It smells like Kansas in here.
    ReplyDelete
  15. Smells like s'bunch of sour grapes...
    ReplyDelete
  16. I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.

    Poets.net is the belly of the beast.

    People from Kansas are good people.

    I don't see why Poets.net has to be so impolite!

    It offends me. Poets are supposed to have manners.
    ReplyDelete
  17. The irony is that sour grapes are indigestible, rotten grapes delicious if you just ignore the puckered skin and syrupy odor.

    Seriously, as another older man I've come to find ignoring shelf-life beautiful!
    ReplyDelete
  18. What great poet can you name that had good manners?
    ReplyDelete
  19. How do you define good manners, behavior arising out of what people really feel or out of what they would like other people to think they are feeling?

    The blackbird whistling or just after?
    ReplyDelete
  20. "Character assassination?"

    "Important to poetry?"

    I thought you might have a point there and read through the whole site. Are they into "character assassination?" Well, if a website is a character you'd be right, because they certainly hit on Poets.org and Pw.org for sheltering celebrity mischief.

    Are the facts there to substantiate the cover-ups they claim? Most certainly, I'd say, and substantial--and the deletions and locked threads just high-light what they say.

    What about the mischief?

    Been out there for 18 months or more now. Nobody disputes the facts that I know of--not a single law suit launched, and lawyers engaged only to harass the whistle blowers. With regard to those, as far as I know all of the suits have been settled in favor of the defendants!

    Important to poetry? You're the first to have said it, Anonymous, and maybe you've got a point.

    But where from here is my question?

    That's the true challenge for you guys. You're proving your cases, but what are you going to do with the spoils? A lot of important peoples' reputations are on the line now, some of them hoist with their own petards (Tupelo had the best Guidelines in the industry!).

    Anyone ready to address that? Poetry after Foetry?
    ReplyDelete
  21. Christopher WoodmanJun 1, 2008 09:55 AM
    "Poetry after Foetry?"

    This is poetry after Foetry, right here!

    And it's my dream that we can all contribute. I was a victim--I can deal with that. I'd like my abusers to feel free to come in too--like truth and reconciliation in South Africa, we're all in this equally together!.

    Because I'm sure that some of you that are speaking up now on Poets.net are actually on the other side, and I don't mean as cheats or facilitators but more like co-dependents, people who got sucked into defending the PoBiz status quo unconsciously, and thus helping to make it work even without understanding how much damage you were doing. In fact, I think many of you were just like me, because the situation was unthinkable for me, you see, and that's why I just kept on sending out and sending out my precious work for years without suspecting anything!

    None of us had the eyes to see this, or the ears to hear even our own cries of outrage and despair. Yes, that strong!

    Now we need to move on--but moving on does not mean moving on just as we are. It means a whole rethink of American poetry, and what it means to be an American poet. Because this is uniquely our own, national problem--it doesn't exist anywhere else in the world, not even in Canada!.
    ReplyDelete
  22. Jorie Graham is such a great poet!

    Doesn't that matter to you???
    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous asked: "What great poet can you name that [sic] had good manners?"

    From personal experience:

    Allen Ginsberg
    W.S. Merwin
    Ed Sanders
    Robert Duncan

    ...to name a few.
    ReplyDelete
  24. Christopher WoodmanJun 1, 2008 11:17 PM
    Why "that [sic]"? Might it not be that Anonymous was referring to the function rather than the person?

    Big difference indeed between "soldier that" and "soldier who!"

    I mean, that's a petty observation, but you started it!

    And what's your point anyway? If you agree with the statement that poets ought to have good manners, which I must say is an interesting position, then why don't you discuss that obligation instead of belittling Anonymous' grammar?

    Finally, so what if Jorie Graham is a great poet? Does that mean she is entitled to write her own interview? Obviously Jorie Graham feels she is, because if we are to trust The Academy of American Poets she did--which is indeed the whole point of this site, I think, i.e. both what Jorie Graham does and how The Academy of American Poets accommodates.

    Why not work a bit on that?
    ReplyDelete

The following are subject to deletion:

--Comments with outside links
--Off topic comments
--Advertising and general spam
--Hate speech
--Name calling
--Bad language
--Accusations
--Pornography

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)