[Carol Taylor]

Eratospherians, I'm asking for some support here. Our guidelines clearly call for critique that deals with the poem in question, not with its writer. Offensive personal remarks are prohibited.

But what should we do about poems that masquerade as poems but are really nothing more than personal insults aimed at another poster, slams which do not limit themselves to the truth or honor the opponent with due respect or the writer himself with good sportsmanship?

This kind of conduct can be found on other boards. With a notable exception it has been virtually absent on Eratosphere. In the recent goose thread we saw opponents squaring off and playing to the grandstands with absolutely no value placed on veracity. And the lower the blows, the louder the applause from the spectators.

There is a danger in involving personalities in a critical forum. The danger is that we lose our credibility as critics and poets, become competitors and form cliques, and drag down the venue we have built here based on objectivity and honesty in critique and mutual respect.

I'm inviting posters to voice opinions here. My own inclination is to delete future overt personal attacks whether they rhyme or not.

Carol

[ChrisW]

HI Carol,
I enjoyed some of the Goose thread, and thought maybe you were overreacting. But I looked at the funexcise thread before saying so. Now, I'm inclined to think you're right about the danger of this sort of thing.
Chris

[nyctom]

What Chris said. Perhaps we should think of new targets for poetic invective, rather than each other. With this in mind, here are a few suggestions:

James Faria and Robert Wright--inventors of astroturf
Waldo Semon--inventor of vinyl
Nabisco Company--inventor of spray cheese (you'll note no one at the company was willing to 'fess up that they personally invented it)
Carl F. Pascarella--President of Visa Credit Cards
My ex-boss--names and details furnished upon request

Tom

[ginger]

Ooo, Tom! Can we satirize my ex-boss, too? My co-workers and I used to joke about how the office was like one, big happy dysfunctional family and she was alcoholic step-parent. We all spent lots of time hiding in our cubicles. (For some reason she liked me, though I'm not sure that made things better.)

On a more serious note, I believe Carol's right. I too, enjoyed the early parts of the goose thread, when it seemed mainly a back-and-forth between two willing participants with tounge-in-cheek commentary from the others. But if it's going to descend into serious squaring-off and others feel the need to jump in and choose sides, I suppose it's not a good idea. After all, who wants to be bothered writing up and enforcing rules on how to poke fun at one another? If that's what's neccessary then just do away with it altogether.

Ginger

[Jim Hayes]

Thank you Carol, I believe your suggestion is the correct one and would perhaps have saved some grief, if not entertainment, had it been established earlier.

However, as a participant on both the Goose thread and the Fun exercise thread, I am entitled to point out that in all instances I was the one who was subject to initial attack,
personally and maliciously.
As there was no mechanism in place to curtail the activities of my attackers nor any sign of intervention from the moderators, I was left to the only defence at my disposal, i.e to respond, with at least a modicum of wit, if I may be permitted to say so.

So by all means impose your very correct rule but do so in timely fashion, particularly before someone who has bitten off more than they can chew, starts crying foul.

Jim Hayes

P.S. I would like to go on record also as saying that I hold Roger in high regard and I regret and am sorry for my part in our disagreement.


[This message has been edited by Jim Hayes (edited January 23, 2002).]

[Ms Robbie]

Do I understand you people correctly?

Hayes starts a thread poking fun at Bales. Bales responds, poking fun at Hayes. Various others chime in, and a ringside announcer provides timely status reports.

I chime in with a couple of Higgledy Piggledy posts. Hayes responds by stating I'm one of Bales's tarts, and further states (on January 21) that my father poked a hole in my head and crapped in it. I fail to take the bait, and merely respond (also on January 21) that his taunt was lame.

All this sits there for two days. Then, suddenly, a moderator wakes up and locks the thread. Hayes's very insulting, and quite disgusting, shot at me remains.

And the rest of you think this is Bales's fault?

Now I remember why I lurked this place for months before joining. I should have stayed in lurk mode.

[ChrisW]

Actually, Ms. Robbie, I don't think you did understand. Only Jim spoke of assigning blame -- the rest of us spoke quite generally about the danger of that one thread infecting others.
And speaking for myself, I was not even *thinking* about any assigning blame. The thread seemed fun for a while, I thought, but it degenerated, and probably Carol's right that it's a dangerous game.

[Ms Robbie]

OK, Chris, perhaps I took Hayes's remarks as speaking for the whole.

I'll switch to decaf.

[jack edwards]

I've only been slumming here for a couple of days now, but I gotta tell you, it's been nothing short of a riot! There are few things funnier (to me) than a bunch of formalists taking potshots at each other. At certain points in a thread, the indignation becomes so acute and palpable that I can't close my office door before I bust out laughing.

It's not the verse that's so hilarious -- it's the reactions. You just can't find this kind of stuff on free verser boards. They don't take themselves seriously enough, not by a long shot.

If this were a democracy, I'd vote 'laissez faire'.

Sincere thanks,

jack

[Robert J. Clawson]

[quote]Originally posted by Carol Taylor:

"Our guidelines clearly call for critique that deals with the poem in question, not with its writer."

As they should.

"There is a danger in involving personalities in a critical forum."

You can't prohibit what will naturally form in a reader's mind. Personalities simply develop. We each have an impression of each other's personality. They differ. Our writing can't neuter our personalities.

However, I support you in, at least, having moderators point out ad hominem attacks. When Alan Sullivan accused me of "dancing on American graves," I asked for and got an apology.

"The danger is that we lose our credibility as critics and poets, become competitors and form cliques,"

Some people work actively to compete and form cliques. They seem to need friends and to set up enemies. They apparently need we/they situations. Maybe they're trying to establiish themselves as leaders. Who knows why? We can either befriend them or ignore them, just as we could choose to ignore "A Goose for Marcus Bales." Although I agree that we should direct our attention to the poem, competition and cliques happen, Carol. Alert moderators can always jump in and point out that a critique has burst free of the guidelines. I think the smarmy, sychophantish critiques are as bad as the astringent attacks.

I think that it would be most helpful to the poet, who seeks help by posting, if critics didn't argue OR try to curry the writer's favor OR try to direct the writer towards a choice. We should make our observations about the poem and let the writer sift them and be her/his own arbitrator.

"I'm inviting posters to voice opinions here. My own inclination is to delete future overt personal attacks whether they rhyme or not."

Then, you would have banned Wilmot, the Earl of Rochester. You might also have banned Jonathan Swift, Mark Twain, and Salmon Rushdie.

I, for one, was apparently one of the "kids" who thought the battle between Bales and Hayes was an elaborate put-on. If their enmity is genuine, then, at least, they cloaked it in wit.

I'd leave a little breathing room on this issue. Has either Jim or Marcus claimed to have been harmed? I wouldn't have read their personalities that way. Each seems to have a robust sense of humor.

Bob