History of Foetry.com (Wikipedia article)

The Wikipedia article about Foetry.com (now an inactive forum) has been posted here because the article offers an implied rationale for why a forum like Poets.net needs to exist. While this forum will not engage in investigative work, it will offer a space for discussions about the literary community and offer anonymous poets and writers a chance to post on the forum without fear of being uncovered and, perhaps, ruining their publication possibilities. Evidently, some poets are very vengeful.

Also, this will be a safe place to archive a balanced version of the article, should the Wiki article be erased or otherwise changed.

I have archived the Jorie Graham Talk article in draft mode.
________________________

Foetry.com, sometimes referred to as just Foetry, was a website that attempted to identify fraudulent and unethical practices in poetry contests. It was active from April 1, 2004 until May 18, 2007.

Organization

Members and visitors contributed information which ostensibly linked judges and prize winners in various poetry contests. The site was divided into two main areas: lists of specific contests and relationships between judges and winners which suggested evidence of impropriety, and a forum for the discussion of ethical behavior in the poetry world.

Origins and Evolution

Foetry.com was launched on April 1, 2004, by an anonymous editor, with the motto "Exposing fraudulent contests. Tracking the sycophants. Naming names." After about twelve months, the founder of the site, Alan Cordle, was outed. No longer anonymous, he continued to operate the site until May 18, 2007. Various members, including Cordle, continue to post blogs with foetry-related material [1].

Foetry.com received press coverage both positive and negative in such outlets as the Boston Globe,[2] the New York Times, [3] Poets & Writers Magazine, [4] and innumerable blogs, including that of Ron Silliman. Coverage came to a head around the time of Cordle's outing, amidst rumors that the site would shut down due to the loss of anonymity. The ambiguous yet perceptible impact of the website on the poetry world was summed up in a blog entry at the Kenyon Review about a month after Foetry's closure:

"If its death (if we dare call it that–might it, like King Arthur, lie in wait to rise again at a time of future need?) made almost no noise, its birth and early years sounded a great barbaric yawp. Are contests more fair? Perhaps, perhaps not. It may in fact be the case that poetry contests are more careful about egregious conflicts of interest. They may indeed be more transparent now, as well. But it was never clear if justice or revenge was in the forefront of everyone’s mind in the heyday of Foetry.com (this applies to me and the other voyeurs of foetry.com as well as those who posted for or against the site). As people used to say in the Renaissance and earlier, Astraea (goddess of justice) has left the earth. History may record whether Foetry.com brought her back. Or, it may not." [5]

Successful Campaigns

Foetry.com's most successful campaign, both in terms of news coverage and action taken because of it, was against the Contemporary Poetry Series run by the University of Georgia Press, and against Jorie Graham in particular. Acquiring documents through the Freedom of Information Act, Cordle and others discovered that Graham, as judge for the 1999 contest, had chosen Peter Sacks. She would marry Sacks in 2000. Graham would also join Sacks in a teaching position at Harvard in 2000[6].

Among documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act were two letters:

-----The Bin Ramke (editor of the series) letter to the editor of the University of Georgia Press explaining that he was selecting Peter Sacks as the winner for that year (although Sacks had never actually entered the contest and was in fact solicited outside the contest) and Ramke's admission that he had read only half the paid manuscript submissions -the rest were discarded

-----Jorie Graham's letter to Ramke advocating for the literary value of Sack's manuscript and its publication in the series[7]. As editor, Ramke chose Sacks as the winner for that year. As a judge advocating for Sacks as winner, someone with whom she had a personal relationship, Graham opened herself to attack on ethical grounds. Graham had previously come under fire at other poetry contests (AWP, The Barnard Poetry Prize, The Colorado Poetry Prize, The National Poetry Series, The Walt Whitman Prize) for selecting former students and individuals she had relationships with.

After Graham judged contests and selected former students several contests immediately changed their contest rules to prohibit judges from selecting former students and other entrants they had relationships with. The rule against playing favorites in literary contests in which entry fees were paid became known loosely among those in the contest industry as "The Jorie Graham Rule."[8][9] [10][11][12]Some members of Foetry.com suggested that she could be charged with mail fraud, as contest fees were collected through the US mail[7], but no charges were ever filed. It is estimated that the University of Georgia Press took in as much as $250,000 from contest fees over the life of the contest series, which Ramke edited for twenty years.

Graham no longer judges literary contests. Bin Ramke, editor at the time of the Contemporary Poetry Series, resigned from his position as more and more national publicity turned the spotlight on the insider dealings at the University of Georgia Press and criticism mounted over his role in the controversy[6]. Despite the failure of both the editor of the University of Georgia Press and Bin Ramke to release a full and complete list of judges and other information (correspondence) related to the activities of the contest series, Foetry.com has carefully compiled documentation of winners and judges in the series[13], including notations of conflicts of interest.

It should be noted that throughout the course of the contest Ramke insisted that judges of the contest be kept secret. The Open Records Act was used to obtain records that both the University of Georgia Press and Ramke refused to provide upon request. It is also worth noting that Graham had previously published several books of Ramke's through a press, Kuhl House Press, she operated at the University of Iowa with Mark Levine, a former student of Graham who was selected by Graham as winner in the National Poetry series in 1992.

Another successful campaign, against the University of North Texas Press, resulted in the resignation of Vassar Miller Prize founder and series editor, Scott Cairns. Some judges of the contest had apparent connections to Cairns or to the University of Utah where Cairns and a number of judges and winners had studied, not necessarily at the same time. Other Cairns connections to judges and one winner were through the University of Missouri. At least one judge, Eleanor Wilner, was friends with a contest winner, Constance Merritt, and had co-authored a literary work with Merritt that won the Edward Stanley Award from Prairie Schooner in the same year Wilner selected Merritt as winner of the Vassar Miller Poetry Prize. After Foetry.com alleged the relationships between Cairns, judges and winners, Cairns agreed to resign in e-mails to Alan Cordle, Steven Ford Brown (Brown edited a book of criticism on the poetry of Vassar Miller and was critical of Cairns's management of the Vassar Miller contest series) and the editor of the University of North Texas Press.

Criticisms

Criticisms of Foetry.com generally come in two forms. The first is that the tone is "shrill," as University of Florida professor William Logan put it in the San Francisco Chronicle, [14] despite agreeing with the overall message and intent. The second is that members tend to assume guilt until innocence is proven and with rare exceptions, such as the CPS case above, do not insist on credible/tangible evidence, or that it is possible to separate personal relationships with writers within an aesthetic community from judgments of literary merit[15]

Notes

1. Post-Foetry.

2. Stephen Burt (July 18, 2004). A muckraking website aims to blow the lid off the cozy practices of contemporary poetry.. Boston Globe. Retrieved on 2006-10-21.

3. Edward Wyatt (April 21, 2005). Surrender in the Battle of Poetry Web Sites. The New York Times. Retrieved on 2006-10-21.

4. Kevin Larimer (July/August 2005). THE CONTESTER: Who's Doing What to Keep Them Clean. Poets & Writers Magazine. Retrieved on 2006-10-21.

5. Joseph Campana (June 28 2007). Out with a whimper? Foetry.com. The Kenyon Review.

6. a b Tomas Alex Tizon, "In Search of Poetic Justice," Los Angeles Times, June 17, 2005. Available at the LA Times (subscription needed). Text is available at New Poetry Review or SFgate (accessed 16 March 2007)

7. a b Thomas Bartlett, "Rhyme and Unreason," Chronicle of Higher Education, May 20, 2005, available here (accesed March 16 2005)

8. Alex Beam, "Website polices rhymes and misdemeanors," Boston Globe, March 31, 2005, available here

9. http://foetry.com/wp/?page_id=85 Foetry page on Jorie Graham

10. John Sutherland, "American foetry," The Guardian, Monday July 4, 2005 The Guardian

11. Example of use of the phrase at blog Mobylives

12. Example of the use of the phrase at blog [http://larina.wordpress.com/2007/03/03/a-note-about-rejection-letters-okay-a-rant-but-close-enough/ Significance and Inspiration[ (accessed 3/27/2008)

13. Foetry.com archive

14. Tomas Alex Tizon (July 10, 2005). Angry librarian's darts sting the world of poetry. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved on 2006-10-21.

15. More Foetry (December 5, 2005). Retrieved on 2006-10-21.

External Links

Foetry website

Documents obtained by Foetry.com regarding the Graham/Sacks/Ramke collusion in pdf format

"Rhyme & Unreason" from the May 20, 2005 cover story in the Chronicle of Higher Education

University of Georgia Press Poetry Series documentation at Foetry.com

Post Foetry, a blog by former Foetry admins.

_______________________

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foetry.com"

Posted under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.

Version: March 27, 2008 (Jeffrey.landis)

Forum Thread: What is Cronyism in the Literary Community? (Discussion)

The following in-depth discussion, which discusses cronyism in general terms, is from Wikipedia*, and used in accordance with its GNU Free Documentation License.

Cronyism is partiality to long-standing friends, especially by appointing them to positions of authority, regardless of their qualifications. Hence, cronyism is contrary in practice and principle to meritocracy. Cronyism exists when the appointer and the beneficiary are in social contact; often, the appointer is inadequate to hold his or her own job or position of authority, and for this reason the appointer appoints individuals who will not try to weaken him or her, or express views contrary to those of the appointer. Politically, "cronyism" is derogatorily used. The word "crony" first appeared in 18th century London, believed by many to be derived from the Greek word χρόνιος (chronios), meaning "long-term", however, crony appears in the 1811 edition of Grose's Vulgar Tongue with a decidedly non-collegiate definition, placing it firmly in the cant of the underworld.[1] A less likely source for the words etymology is the Irish Language term Comh-Roghna (pron. ko-ronə), which translates to "close pals", or mutual friends.

Governments are particularly susceptible to accusations of cronyism, as they spend public money. Many democratic governments are encouraged to practice administrative transparency in accounting and contracting, however, there often is no clear delineation of when an appointment to government office is "cronyism". It is not unusual for a politician to surround him- or herself with highly-qualified subordinates, and to develop social, business, or political friendships leading to the appointment to office of friends, likewise in granting government contracts. In fact, the counsel of such friends is why the officeholder successfully obtained his or her powerful position — therefore, cronyism usually is easier to perceive than to demonstrate and prove.

The NHS is becomingly increasingly prone to Cronyism, most notably at NHS London, where a female inner circle close to the Chief Executive are favoured and in turn favour their friends. This is in direct opposition to the principles of its Single Equality Scheme.

In the private sector, cronyism exists in organizations, often termed 'the old boys club' or 'the golden circle', again the boundary between cronyism and 'networking' is difficult to delineate.

Moreover, cronyism describes relationships existing among mutual acquaintances private organizations where business, business information, and social interaction are exchanged among influential personnel. This is termed crony capitalism, and is an ethical breach of the principles of the market economy; in advanced societies, crony capitalism is a breach of market regulations, e.g. the Enron fraud is an extreme example of crony capitalism.

Given crony capitalism's nature, these dishonest business practices are frequently (yet not exclusively) found in societies with ineffective legal systems. Resultantly, there is an impetus upon the legislative branch of a government to ensure enforcement of the legal code capable of addressing and redressing private party manipulation of the economy by the involved businessmen and their government cronies.

The economic and social costs of cronyism are paid by society. In the form of reduced business opportunity for the majority of the population, reduced competition in the market place, inflated consumer goods prices, decreased economic performance, inefficient business investment cycles, reduced motivation in affected organizations, and the diminution of economically productive activity. A practical cost of cronyism is manifest in the bad workmanship of public and private community projects. Cronyism is self-generating, cronyism then begets a culture of cronyism. This can only be apprehended by a comprehensive, effective, and enforced legal code, and empowered government agencies who can effect prosecutions in the courts.

All appointments that are suspected of being cronyism are controversial. The appointed party may choose to either suppress disquiet or ignore it, depending upon the society's level of freedom of expression and individual personal liberty.

Some instances of cronyism are readily transparent. As to others, it is only in hindsight that the qualifications of the alleged "crony" must be evaluated.

Cronyism can exist anywhere, in both free and not-so-free states. In general, authoritarian and totalitarian regimes are more vulnerable to acts of cronyism simply because the officeholders are not accountable, and all office holders generally come from a similar background (e.g. all members of the ruling party).

Some situations and examples include:

-----George Washington was criticized for appointing Alexander Hamilton as the first U.S. Secretary of the Treasury after Hamilton had served as Washington's aide during the American Revolutionary War. Nonetheless, the contributions Hamilton made to stabilizing the currency and securing outside capital for the fledgling democracy are well known. Referring to Hamilton's appointment as cronyism seems particularly disputable in retrospect, although it is only after looking at his accomplishments that this determination can be made.

-----Appointing cronies to positions can also be used to advance the agenda of the person making the appointment. And it can also spectacularly fail to do so. In medieval England, King Henry II arranged the appointment of his good friend Thomas Becket to be Archbishop of Canterbury. Henry believed that Becket would promote the king's agenda but was dismayed to see Becket adhere to his own conscience. Becket eventually excommunicated the king and the king allegedly incited three knights to murder Becket in response.

-----Examples of cronyism can be found in a number of current and former communist states. The cultural revolution in China was initially popular due to the perception that Mao Zedong was ridding the state of a number of officials who had obtained their positions by dint of friendship with communist authorities. In Russia, President Vladimir Putin has gone after a number of former communist officials who held office through their connections to party officials.[1]

-----Independent of the world of politics, the business and labor community have also seen charges of cronyism. President Theodore Roosevelt led an attack on the cronyism against the oil, steel, banking and other businesses that had conspired to set prices by maintaining virtual monopolies through cronyism. Through interlocking directorates it was not uncommon to see various corporate boards share members among each other.

-----One of the most severe cases of cronyism occurred during the Kennedy administration in the United States. Robert S. McNamara was appointed by President John F. Kennedy without any experience, a point that McNamara made clear in the 2003 documentary The Fog of War. McNamara's role in the disastrous Vietnam War was crucial and he is often considered "the architect of the Vietnam War". Kennedy originally offered him a job as United States Secretary of Treasury and when McNamara admitted to having no experience he gave him Secretary of Defense. Even though McNamara confessed no experience in defense, Kennedy insisted he accept the position.

-----Most recently, US President George W. Bush was accused of cronyism after the nomination of Harriet Miers to the US Supreme Court.[2] Miers had no previous judicial experience and demonstrated little knowledge of constitutional law, and her selection was rejected by many conservatives and liberals. The appointment of Michael D. Brown to the head of FEMA could also be considered a case of cronyism as Brown had no experience pertaining to his job.[3] [4] The administration has also been accused of cronyism for reducing Scooter Libby's sentence in the Plame Affair.[5]

-----An example of cronyism, with devastating effects, is seen in present day South Africa: The appointment of Manto Tshabalala-Msimang as the country's minister of health. Thabo Mbeki, widely known as an AIDS dissident, practices cronyism by keeping her in her position. She was widely seen as following an AIDS policy in line with the ideas of South African President Thabo Mbeki, who for a time expressed public doubts about whether HIV caused AIDS. In 2002, the South African Cabinet affirmed the policy that "HIV causes AIDS" which as an official statement silenced any further speculation on this topic by Cabinet members, including the President. In August of 2003 the cabinet also voted to make anti-retrovirals available in the public sector, and instructed Tshabalala-Msimang to carry out the policy. South Africa has the highest rate of HIV infections in the world. Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge, on the other hand was fired from her position as deputy minister of health. She expressed long-term disharmony and disagreement on HIV/AIDS and other issues between herself and the Minister of Health (Dr. Manto Tshabalala-Msimang)[9];

-----Paul Wolfowitz was mentioned[6] in connection with cronyism after the World Bank committee charged him with violation of ethical and governance rules as bank president by showing favoritism to his companion in 2005. The report noted that Mr Wolfowitz broke bank rules and the ethical obligations in his contract, and that he tried to hide the salary and promotion package awarded to Shaha Riza, his companion and a bank employee, from top legal and ethics officials in the months after he became bank president in 2005.
_________________________

*External Link

SuperNews: Hurricane Katrina - A political flash cartoon about the cronyism surrounding Michael D. Brown and Hurricane Katrina.

*References

^ "Crony: An intimate companion, a comrade; also a confederate in a robbery" - Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue, 1785 [1811]. Grose

^ BillOReilly.com: The O'Reilly Factor Flash

^ Cronyism

^ Adam Bellow on Nepotism, Cronyism & Harriet Miers on National Review Online

^ BBC NEWS Americas Bush not ruling out Libby pardon

^ The Guardian - Wolfowitz under fire after partner receives promotion and pay rise
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronyism"

___________________

*Wikipedia Bibliographic details for this version of "Cronyism"

Page name: Cronyism

Author: Wikipedia contributors

Publisher: Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.

Date of last revision: 26 March 2008 07:20 UTC

Date retrieved: 4 April 2008 16:07 UTC

Permanent link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cronyism&oldid=201008294

Page Version ID: 201008294

_____________________________

For discussion:

-----Does cronyism exist in the literary community?

-----Do you feel that you have been discriminated against due to cronyism? If so, how?

-----Is cronyism in the literary community institutionalized (at least to a certain extent)?

-----Are outsider poets and writers punished, shunned, and silenced if they disagree with the majority viewpoint? If so, how?

-----Are MFA programs hotbeds of cronyism? Examples?

You may post your viewpoints anonymously; access to visitor stats (other than number of clicks to the site) is not public.

Register.com Responds to The Public Forum Doctrine Thread

Wendy from Register.com emailed the following message:

You can be sure that Register.com regards the privacy and security of our customers as a top priority. We do not monitor the content of our customer’s websites but in some cases, questionable content has been brought to our attention. Our policy in such instances is to respect our customer’s freedom of expression; we will only take action against websites where we believe the site violates US law, promotes acts that violate US law or creates an imminent danger to person or property. Even though there may be times when our customers promote messages with which we disagree, it is our policy not to censor customers based on differing points of view.

I hope that helps clarify how Register.com approaches your right to register an available domain name of your choice and use that domain to communicate freely.

____________________________

(Posted with permission)

Forum Thread: What is the Public Forum Doctrine? (Discussion)

(What a webmaster and users discover after registrar and webhost GoDaddy disables a domain name and website.)

______________________________

Although the Public Forum Doctrine has more to do with protected speech during government-sponsored events and on government property (both real and virtual), this is a topic worth discussing because it isn't clear (at least in my mind) how the internet is defined as a forum space, for example, private vs. public. The Public Forum Doctrine defines the Open Public Forum as "State property that has traditionally been open to the public for speech, assembly and debate. Public forum property has traditionally included public streets, sidewalks, parks and city squares."

Does this apply to the virtual world as well, at least on U.S. soil?

In essence, who "owns" the internet? No one, supposedly. Yes, a governing body called ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Names) develops policy and guidelines regarding the sale and use of domain names (such as Poets.net), which one must have in order to set up a website (even that free blogger url is considered a subdomain, for example, the blogspot address for Poets.net is http://www.PoetsNet.blogspot.com). ICANN is an international governing body that is supposed to set policy regarding domain aftermarket sales, the domain deletion process and cycle, and trademark and cybersquatting issues, among other things. In my opinion, ICANN doesn't always enforce its own rules, often resulting in confusion and, yes, cronyism among some board members and backroom deals--another story altogether.

In any case, the U.S. government can only enforce Freedom of Speech issues as it pertains to internet activities on U.S. soil. The U.S. also has jurisdiction over VeriSign, the company that manages the .com and .net extensions (known as Top Level Domains or TLDs) and NeuStar, the company that manages .us. So if a crook from Asia uses a domain with a .com extension to rip off a U.S. citizen or national on U.S. territory, the government can file an injunction to order VeriSign and the actual registrar to disable that spammer's domain name, which, in effect, disables the website.

So, theoretically, the U.S. Government can exercise significant power over the majority of domain names (.com being the most popular, .net the second).

Which brings me to RateMyCop.com. On its website, Rate My Cop has posted its purpose:

RATEMYCOP.com is a privately-held company based in Los Angeles. The website allows registered users to leave written feedback about their interactions with police officers, and rank the officer's service based on three criteria: Professionalism, Fairness and Satisfaction.

Although a poetry and a cop rating website may seem to have little in common, just hang with me for a bit.

In early March, GoDaddy, the registrar and hosting company for the domain name RateMyCop.com, decided to shut the site down. According to Wired, Rate My Cop went dark "after hosting company GoDaddy unceremonious[ly] pulled-the-plug on the site in the wake of outrage from criticism-leery cops."

No warning.

When the website owner called GoDaddy's Support Center, he was told that the site was shut down for "suspicious activity." Later the registrar backtracked and said that Rate My Cop went over its three terabyte bandwidth limit.

Yeah, right.

What really happened is that several police organizations had filed their complaints directly to GoDaddy, who then unilaterally decided to shut the site down, never mind freedom of speech issues, which (the last time I looked) includes the right to offer opinions, both good and bad, about cops and any other public officials charged with serving the public.

No injunctions, no legal process at all, just Bob Parsons, the owner of GoDaddy, deciding that he was all nine judges on the Supreme Court.

Rate My Cop is back up and running, but what about the small-website owner who doesn't have the deep pockets to fight the moneyed domain registrars and the powerful police lobby?

Fortunately, the outcry over this illegal act was loud and clear. Members of NoDaddy.com, a free-speech forum that focuses on the foibles and missteps of GoDaddy, and others posted about about RateMyCop.com's plight.

As I see it, the owners of Rate My Cop have set up a Public Forum, much like Rate My Professors, reviled by college faculty all over, and no one seems to call for its banning (nor should they). The police lobby argues that placing generally public information (name, badge and home phone numbers, and even home addresses) places police officers in clear and present danger. While it might be a good idea for the owners to nix posting police officers' addresses and phone numbers from being plastered on the web, they are not obligated to do so.

Right now, Poets.net is in its infancy, so very few people are paying us much heed. But what happens when we become really noticed and the powers in the literary community start complaining about our great big loud voice to our registrar and host? Will Register.com (the current registrar of this domain) and Google, the owner of blogger, simply cave and disconnect us without due process?

I don't know about Register.com, but Google is well-known for its sometimes heavy-handed style of dealing with its publishers and pretty much hides behind its Terms Of Service (TOS) when dealing with cranky sites.

Because the U.S. has jurisdiction over .net and .com, does the First Amendment preclude an internet company's TOS? On the other hand, given that these are private companies, are they obligated to allow webmasters to incorporate the Public Forum Doctrine, even if aspects of the doctrine may violate a company's TOS?

My primary questions, then: do only the rich enjoy true freedom of speech on the web, money and connections trumping all? Or is the internet supposed to be a venue for unfettered, serious and trivial, discussion by everyone, even if we might personally find some of the content highly offensive, such as the content in JuicyCampus.com, no matter who manages the domain name and hosting?

Here are some links to discussions about the Public Forum Doctrine:

Freedom Forum

In The Public Forum Doctrine and Its Possible Application to the Internet, author Angioletta Sperti, LL.M., UCLA School of Law, says, "It is ... necessary to clarify to what extent the Internet may be considered public and if private entities must be included in the Internet as a public forum and assimilated to the State for constitutional purposes or if a distinction is more appropriate."

This relevant article, certainly for this forum, is well worth reading.

What are your thoughts?

EMPLOYER BLOCKS POETRY WEB SITE, WORKERS DEMAND ROBERT FROST, OTHER VERSES

Found in my email this morning from poets.org:

For Immediate Release

Launch of Mobile Poetry Archive Leads to "April Madness"

April 1, 2008—When the Academy of American Poets announced the launch of a mobile version of their poetry archive in March, no one could have predicted that poetry would become the concern of Fortune 500 companies across the nation. But this is just what is happening, says Rich Richardson, CEO of Tercet, a Duluth-based import export firm.

"It started in a very benign way with an all-company email," Richardson says. "Our comptroller forwarded 'Birches' by Robert Frost. This poem touched many of our employees, leading several to spend their work hours looking for poems on Poets.org."

But this was only the beginning, says Richardson. "Once they had a taste for lines like 'They click upon themselves/As the breeze rises,' there was no stopping them."

Richardson says he began using SmartFilter, a tool for blocking websites, to combat his employees' Poets.org usage. "Unfortunately, this did not keep them from getting their poetry fix on their mobile devices," says Richardson. Poets.org's archive of 2,500 poems, biographies of poets, and essays about poetry became accessible on handheld devices including the iPhone last March.

Tercet's CFO, Abby Abramson, says the widespread internet searches for poems during business hours will not be tolerated beyond April, otherwise known as National Poetry Month. "Despite the obvious personal benefits of reading poetry, we can't condone something that decreases productivity," Abramson says. Abramson estimates that employee interest in poetry could cost the company $2.2 million in lost revenue by the end of the fiscal year, a significant financial blow for Tercet.

"Printing out Elizabeth Bishop's poem 'The Moose' and posting it in the cafeteria is fine. Reciting 'The Moose' to your spouse on the phone during work hours then using Poets.org to find more poems about animals is an abuse of our employee policy," says Abramson.

Abramson declined to comment if this use of Elizabeth Bishop's poem had actually occurred.

Tree Swenson, executive director of the Academy of American Poets, sympathizes with the concerns of Tercet's management, but her empathy lies with the poetry readers at the company. "We believe that poetry expands the possibilities of daily life, as imagination alters reality,” says Swenson. "If that possibility is blocked, you may have a revolution on your hands," she says.

That revolution may come during National Poetry Month, when the Academy of Amercian Poets launches the first national celebration of Poem In Your Pocket Day.

"Poetry readers across the country will be carrying a poem in their pocket and sharing it with co-workers on April 17," says Swenson. "I would hate to hear that Tercet's workers were being penalized for acknowledging those 'unacknowledged legislators of the world,' our poets," Swenson says.

Happy April Fool's Day.

________________________

Obviously a spoof press release, but what if this were true? What if you were really blocked from reading your favorite poets on your iPhone or iPod during work hours?

What if your poetry and prose were consistently ignored by the literary community?

What if you were banned from writing and poetry forums because your viewpoints did not mesh with that of the establish literary community?

Oh.

I forgot.

That last bit is all too true.

Another thing: if consumers were enthralled with poetry as much as they adore Britney, Paris, and Lindsay scandals and sporting events, you had better believe your employer would have a policy in place regarding downloading your favorite poets during working hours.

Isn't it a good thing that most people feel that modern poetry totally sucks?

Happy April Fool's Day!

Book Review Thread: Drama/Playscripts

Have you recently read a playscript that you absolutely loved or hated?

Here's the thread for you.

This thread is open to those of you who want to review the written version of plays (in other words, no reviews of performances), traditional or experimental.

The first signed (not anonymous) and quality review (negative or positive), will be elevated into this post.

Some Guidelines and Caveats:

• No Self-Promotion. There is another thread for self-promoting your work. However, you may add an link to where one can buy and/or see more information about and other reviews of the book.
  
  
• You may use this thread only; book reviews in other comment or incorrect genre threads will be moved or deleted.

• By posting a negative or even neutral review, you do leave yourself open to attack by unhappy and angry authors about your review, and these comments will not be deleted.
  
  
• Anyone may comment on your review, including reviewed authors. If you are an author, you are welcome to respond to the review, but you may not self-promote in this thread. Instead, go to the self-promotion thread. Self-promoting comments will be deleted from this thread.
  
  

Questions? Email me