I had no intention of upsetting anyone. I had been polite throughtout
my interaction with that group until the very end and despite repeated
rudeness towards me. You can see the archives. I have the emails.
I had not been aware of this item of list etiquette and will observe
it in the future if I choose to stay. I informed Andrew about posting
his stuff to that group and apologised, he informed me that he had
posted my version of his piece including the sound file to his blog
before asking for my permission and he apologised. I don't know if
this makes things even or fair. But I apologised to him anyhow and
told him I had no problem with what he did. I even, on noticing that
he posted the sound file to his blog linking to my webspace and
therefore using my bandwidth allotment. I did not even mention it to
him and took the time to move my other files to a another account so
there wouldn't be a bandwidth problem. I still haven't told him about
this; that was my act of kindness in secret.
I also never hesitated to apologise whenever something was pointed out
to me in that group or here regardless of whether I thought it was
justified or not. But there are limits.
Please compare between the Kasper's reply to me here, which I praised
with much reverence for its tact and substance, and the offensive one
sentence reply I received from someone on that list "I don't think you
understand the concept of communicating with other
people.". On getting that offensive reply I still replied politely
made it clear I was leaving the list once I'd answered one other email
that had already was sent to me. That other email turned out to have
been rude too in its manners. People kept emailing with increasigly
rude replies and guess what, I still then made it clear that I was
leaving the list and asked not to be emailed again.
I don't know what the history of that group is, but heartily
disapprove of the lack of manners on the part of a few individuals
over there.
On 10/12/06, Roger Collett <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Congratulations on upsetting the only list I know that has not had any flame wars before. Also
> the breach of list etiquette in posting items from this list on another is reprehensible IMNSHO.
> Did you ask Andrew's permission to post his work on another list? Which is not a discussion list
> btw but a workshopping list with all that implies about authorship. Basically I heartily
> disapprove.
>
> Roger Collett
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "biloxi andersen" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 10:14 PM
> Subject: Re: Please excuse me from "critique" duties
>
>
> > Hi Kapser. Great post. I love it. Exemplary tact and wonderful
> > intelligence. I read it but won't reply right now 'cos I'm tired. I
> > don't feel obliged to reply either as I feel a reverence for what you
> > said and on the face of it don't feel I need to have a problem with
> > it. I must say that post I made initially was provoked by bad
> > experience I had on "The Pennine Poetry Works"
> > <[log in to unmask]>, I unsubscribed from that list now. I
> > hesitate to badmouth people but I had nothing good and nothing but
> > trouble from that mailing list, though it's perhaps a tenth the size
> > of this one, and nothing but a wonderful experience here. I think that
> > bad experience might've driven me to an extreme.
> >
> >
> > On 10/12/06, kasper salonen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >> "I don't think anyone is in a position to 'critique' my stuff, just
> >> like I'm not in a position to critique theirs."
> >>
> >> I find that a close-minded & destructive attitude. of course a writer
> >> should never attempt to tailor his work to an (imagined) audience's
> >> generalised desires, but I couldn't ever imagine learning or
> >> progressing as a writer without the input of others. 'input', meaning
> >> the interpretations, connotations, sound-connections, tones that
> >> someone reading my work finds him/herself tossing in their head. their
> >> reactions aren't some rulebook I then consult & follow; I don't follow
> >> advice I don't agree with. they're points of view. if a writer's point
> >> of view never changes, the writing (or its quality) also never
> >> changes. I'm of the opinion, as you are, that we learn most through
> >> practice; but what's the point in practicing it from from vantage
> >> point? sounds to me like practicing, for years, to paint a picture
> >> from just one single angle. the lighting & the colours also can't
> >> alternate that much, let alone develop, because it's a single space
> >> from a single place. I know that analogies from visual art are used
> >> way too often when speaking of literary theory, but it communicates
> >> what I mean in this instance.
> >> & when it comes to practice, isn't most gained through a _discourse_?
> >> when one learns, teaches & re-learns all at once, the benefits are
> >> notable; & that isn't possible without a position counter, or at least
> >> dissimilar, to the writer's own.
> >>
> >> of course, this all depends on whether the writer wishes to improve or
> >> not; & whether the writer writes "for themseves" or not. I think
> >> writing for oneself (ONLY**) is ridiculous, but I respect people who
> >> can explain to me why they _don't_ think it is. I will very probably
> >> not agree, but maybe the opinion I offer in return will make the
> >> person consider some of the things connected to their practice of the
> >> craft.
> >>
> >> ** I mean this in the sense that one writes a poem & never shows it to
> >> anyone; I do write 'for myself', increasingly so, but language is
> >> meaningless if it isn't used in a dialogue of SOME kind. one cannot
> >> have a dialogue with oneself, that's a monologue (& it's monochrome,
> >> in my opinion).
> >>
> >> "That's really the only 'critique' I could give to someone."
> >>
> >> here's my take. when one is able to write well, one is able to
> >> identify connections & methods. this is a given. in being able to
> >> identify these things in their own work -- before, during & after a
> >> poem is written by them -- they will also be able to identify them (or
> >> their lack) in the work of others. to point out the presence or lack
> >> of those qualities, & the effect that it has on a/the piece, is
> >> critique. one might deduce from this that to be able to write is to be
> >> able to critique.
> >>
> >> returning to the idea of being in the 'position' to critique: that
> >> belittles the person reading the poem, making them separate from some
> >> mythical 'realm' from whence the poetry is drawn, & it elevates the
> >> writer of the poem to the position of Creator, who is also in a
> >> separate realm & is also therefore untouchable. both extremes are
> >> false & fruitless. that rings untrue with poetry itself, in my
> >> opinion: everything separated.
> >> if that piece (beginning 'Disposable scripture / In the moment..') is
> >> the result of such thinking, I'm not surprised: it strikes me less as
> >> poetry & more as nihilistic philosophising. one of my first & most
> >> important lessons learned concerning the craft is that philosophy &
> >> poetry are not the same thing, & seldom mix well.
> >>
> >> this is all my POINT OF VIEW, to be ignored or acknowledged as your
> >> management of _your_ point of view allows. I'm also open to discussion
> >> on why & where you disagree with my disagreement. :)
> >>
> >> KS
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Her Lust is Wiser is a book of verse by Biloxi Andersen and Ziad
> > Noureddine. It is part of ongoing diaries.
> > http://inkatthedevil.blogspot.com/
> > --
> > This email has been verified as Virus free
> > Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net
> >
>
--
Her Lust is Wiser is a book of verse by Biloxi Andersen and Ziad
Noureddine. It is part of ongoing diaries.
http://inkatthedevil.blogspot.com/
|