Reading through the archives to understand this argument, it seems to me
that Marcus's position has been impressively static. To simplify it, it
goes like this: in order to improve your writing you have to have an idea
of what is good and bad in writing. Otherwise your writing is just a
personal indulgence. It doesn't seem such a contentious point. (Though
there are aspects which could be contested. Isn't it possible, for example,
that something which is merely a hobby for the practitioner, someone bereft
of any aesthetic principles at least that he/she could express, might have
considerable aesthetic value for others?)
   Despite invitations to do so, Marcus has chosen not to move on to the
next stage of the argument, the difficult one - how we distinguish the good
from the bad in writing. Mark Weiss valiantly tried to lead the discussion
away from the personal towards this next stage, but understandably got
frustrated with the whole thing.
  (My impression is that Alison was trying to think through other issues
than evaluative ones but then that trusty good/bad routine was brought to
bear. The routine can operate like this:
A:  Do you think your poems are any good?
B:  I leave that to others to decide
A:  So then you don't have any criteria to judge them by...etc. etc.)
   It's not always easy to follow Erminia's position. She now seems a
passionate enthusiast for the evaluative approach. But when Marcus tried it
out on her she wasn't having any of it:

>> nobody but you touched the notion of 'good' and 'bad': it
is you introducing it revealing in doing this what your fears are:you fear
that the critic, the reviewer will come out with a response about what is
good and what is bad: this kind of legislative critique has ceased to exist
and we now speak of 'interpreters' who set/ locate the text.. <<

It all went to show that Marcus wasn't "a professional critic". "Thank
God.." said Marcus. But when Marcus used the old routine on Alison, Erminia
must have decided professionalism was all well and good but nothing like as
much fun as harrassing Alison. She became a convert. This was better than
all that stuff about arboreal fascism which had petered out somehow. The
story she made up about Alison "arranging" the interview looked promising.
Alison responded with "hurt pride". People who aren't stuck up welcome lies
being told about them. And the one about stealing that phrase from Sontag
without proper scholarly acknowledgement didn't fly either - because it
seems Alison mentioned it in her first post. So now "legislative" criticism
is back in fashion, just the thing for what she called "Alison's Trial".
   David is sitting on the fence.
    Am I right in supposing Alison has left the list?
    It's probably too wearisome to go over all this stuff - Marcus has
apologised for the personal attacks but there still seem to be continuing
and not very veiled references to Alison in the last posts of David and
Erminia.
    I know if I were cornered and asked to explain what I find good or bad
in poems and harangued on all sides, I would find it difficult to come up
with any satisfying and all-inclusive answer. I think this is something
other than saying that I have no criteria at all.
best
Iain