Recent Comments

Archives

Bookmark and Share

Poetry losing its Foundation

Someone at the Poetry Foundation doesn’t like me. They keep visiting this site, and as you can see in the screencapture below, opted to search for my name, along with mature words like “asshole” and “dumbshit.”

poe_found

It could be Travis Nichols who seems to have his grips on the Poetry Foundation’s blog, Harriet. He didn’t like two posts I wrote about him, so they got deleted, despite their polite nature.

Someone has also banned three or more of the smartest commenters. They can now be found posting at Scarriet.

An Open Letter to Travis Nichols, Board Member in Charge of Blog:Harriet,

The Poetry Foundation

Dear Travis Nichols,

Blog:Harriet is an extremely important expression of the mission of the Poetry Foundation, a major organization to advance poetry all over the world. The Blog is there specifically to provide a forum for poets and lovers of poetry to express their views freely, regardless of what poetry school they come from, who they know, or whom they serve.

You, Travis Nichols, have just presided over a very messy, introverted coup d’état on Harriet. Not only have you banned a whole group of enthusiastic and positive outsiders, you have protected insiders who have been negative for months, a group who were regularly trashing those who would expand the discourse. Furthermore, and this is really damaging to the Foundation’s reputation, one of your clique is being compared to John O’Hara in POETRY right now. Indeed, you have let Harriet be taken over by a clique who are specifically located in Chicago and want to become a celebrated new ‘Chicago School.’ And you want Harriet to be their own private bandwagon!

This is disgraceful, and totally against the Foundation’s principles. Indeed, you should resign.

I myself am one of the posters whom your friend Michael Robbins, the new O’Hara, regularly trashes, and you have done the same yourself, mocking me in public a number of times. Furthermore, way back at the end of May when I was just beginning, I had a whole post deleted, poof, just like that. I complained to the Webmaster and got a very nice letter back not from you but from the On-line Editor herself assuring me the deletion was just the mistake of an inexperienced monitor.

The subject was already Foetry!

The On-line Editor also assured me that I could repost what had been deleted, but because four days had past by then, and it was no longer relevant, I didn’t. When I finally did, I posted a much longer and more detailed Comment on the same matter, and was not only thanked by Martin Earl for it but he even bothered to go to my site, read a poem of my own, and to praise it (it was idiot simple and unprofessional, but still he liked it!).

I think you, Travis Nichols, should have taken a page from Martin Earl’s book. As the editor in charge of Harriet you should be welcoming and tolerant, not engage in cyber-cleansing as you did.

And those were the good old days, so good that they terrified you, Travis Nichols and Michael Robbins – yes, you felt you were losing control of the field!

Well, THE FIELD’S NOT YOURS, I’m writing this letter to tell you. Indeed, it’s the biggest mission of Foetry of all to see to it that it isn’t yours, so no wonder you were so afraid right from the start. For opposing the insidious take-overs of poetry people like you is Foetry’s main mission. The Contest was just the tip of the iceberg right at the beginning — because the Contest was so visible it was possible for Alan Cordle to prove that influence was actually being peddled, even in poetry. Indeed, he always made it clear where he was headed, and still is.

A revelation, influence peddling in poetry, but you still haven’t got it. That’s why you’ve gone to such lengths to hide it!

Yes, resign, Travis Nichols. You must resign and hand over the management of Harriet to someone not in cahoots with anyone, someone who is large enough to rejoice in the Irish outrage of a Desmond Swords, in the genius fun and challenge of a Thomas Brady, and even in the stutterings of an old poetaster like me.

We’re not better, just worth it as much as a Michael Robbins, and because we’re also funnier we’re healthier!

Christopher Woodman

Bookmark and Share
  • Dagzine
    Alan Cordle *is* Foetry.


    Do you take requests? Play that one that goes, how come others are getting to do what i can do but can't do because they won't let me. I liked that one. Almost ten years ago now.

    And more on Foundations, please. Poetry has always rested on those.

    And crap on Jim Behrle some more, too, while you're at it. I mean. What a creep, huh!
  • monday love
    Terreson has won the game of Harriet!

    Congratulations, Terreson!

    (Tere is the only one leaving comments on Harriet--most of which are incomprehensible)

    What is Terreson's prize?

    Don Share, what have you got for Terreson?
  • Jack
    Are you bunch of dipshits still at it. Hey! Catch aclue: foetry is DEAD. Give it a rest. Go away. Stop playing with yourself in public. The rest of us are bored with you.
  • For Amber Tamblyn's connection with Jean Rhys (!), got to Scarriet www.scarriet. wordpress.com. Also for more about humming, gabbing, and sex!
  • monday love
    US Weekly 'Stars Are Just Like Us'

    They post on poetry blogs and get flamed by Terreson.

    LOL
  • Jack
    Moderate this dipshit!
  • Jack
    Somebody fix all my typos and spelling. I'm way too cool to do those things anymore. Thanks.
  • Jack
    Oh yeah, by the by, Alan, that person looking for you, should have done a search as: "dipshit; Alan Cordle" - they would have gotten more hits. I know I did.
  • monday love
    Terreson's earth thoughts...
  • monday love
    Eileen Myles...trying...to give...Harriet...a little life....
  • The Scarriet URL is of course: http://scarriet.wordpress.com/
    -- and stay tuned there for Amber Tamblyn, not "tooned" as on Harriet!
  • But you know, Tom, I really hope Amber doesn't back out. What would really impress me is if she hung in there and proved to the world that Travis Nichols was correct in his evaluation of her writing skills, that he was right to put his trust in her. Indeed, I look at those two new posts of ours on Scarriet (www.wordpress.scarriet.com) and I think, what a wonderful opportunity for Amber Tamblyn, so beautiful, so plucky, so young, so full of hope and yes, genuine talent. In fact, how lucky Amber has been to get such a huge fanfare after just her very first article! I mean, with Scarriet added to the exposure she must have at least 3 times as many readers as she would have had on Blog:Harriet alone -- I have no doubt whatsoever that we get a whole lot more traffic at the moment. Triple, perhaps.

    But what I really want to say to all of you who are keeping an eye on Bluehole too, which is big as well, there is nothing Tom, Alan or myself have said about Amber Tamblyn that looks down on her in any way, as an actress, a writer, or a person. What we've done is exposed Travis Nichols' exploitation of her, and that's really something. Because it always was Travis intention to re-make Blog:Harriet into a trendy, young, in your face, Poetry Disco that suited the style and aesthetic pre-occupations of his ChiChi School of Poetry and its affiliates. He has hi-jacked Harriet for his own purposes, in other words, and has placed Amber Tamblyn on center stage with all the lights and the whole sound system wired up to her. And it's this that is demeaning to Amber Tamblyn, really, because he, Travis Nichols, doesn't take her seriously as a poet at all. He's using her to make himself look trendy!

    And that's one of the big reasons why he banned us too, Tom, I feel sure about that. Because had we still been on Harriet we would have taken Amber seriously. We would have listened to what she had to say and responded to it in a way that she herself would have found really inspiring, I feel sure. We would have helped Amber herself to open up and grow on Harriet, as we have done with all the other Contributing Writers -- indeed, I think without exception the Contributing Writers in May, June and July would have selected you, Tom, as their most faithful and resourceful respondent, they would have thanked you the most, as did Martin Earl, for example, and many others. Indeed, it was you who most powered the extraordinary flowering of the Harriet discussions that arose out of the May and June articles.

    As to me, I wasn't as influential as you, Tom, but think some of the Contributing Writers would have said I too contributed to the success of those wonderful months, as did Desmond Swords after his much later arrival. The whole place was jumping!

    And now it's stuck on a stale trechno beat, the lights are too bright and the tiny 'crowd' that are still trying to look good are too much the same age and height, are wearing too much the same costume with the same hairstyle and makeup, and are all without exception bored. Whether they're boring or not I wouldn't like to say, but they're certainly bored!

    And Amber Tamblyn is led onto that stage with all her wonderful valley-girl kitschy soap-opera genius and is asked to perform live? When it's dead?

    Poor girl -- but we'll continue to give her wild encouragement on Scarriet all night long, so don't worry!

    Christopher
  • monday love
    Tere: "poetry would have become a betrayal to me" LOL

    Hey, Woody, since they banned us, Terreson's got the most posts on Harriet.

    This is what the Poetry Foundation's left with: Terreson! LOL

    PO-biz has no idea how to make itself relevant outside its own clubby confines.

    Harriet's dead--in Sept./October. That's when it should be busy. Wonder what happened?

    Amber must be freaking out. Good chance she backs out and doesn't post anymore. Few comments, no substance, with negative votes attached--what must she think?

    The Foundation's humiliated, and their latest post is clearly a face-saving gesture: it's a post, not from one of Travis' guests, but from The Foundation: a listing, really, not even a post, just to remind us that the Foundation is still taking the high road in pursuing their poetry mission; but why such a short notice for the October date? (The concert in SD is a month away.) And it's in the category of kid's books, a billion dollar industry, which doesn't need any help from the Poetry Foundation--the two, if we are honest, have little to do with each other. If you want to teach kids poetry, give them great poetry, not goofy rhymes that condescend to them. Give them Keats and Shelley. The kids will get it. Goofy rhymes are great, don't get me wrong, but goofy rhymes are in countless kids' books anyway, it's really not a Poetry Foundation issue. Clearly this belongs elsewhere on the site. It's a desperate move.

    I think the Foundation wants to push down that 'White Stripes' post and Amber's post as fast as they can.

    I know I'm indulging in schadenfreude here, but I never thought Harriet would fall apart like this.

    I almost feel sorry for the old gal.

    Thomas
  • You said it, Tere, now put it where your mouth is:

    "Well, Ms Deutsch, if poetry is required, depended upon, to produce another young soldier willingly entering the killing fields I just might have to, and equally as willingly, cut out my tongue, since, poetry would have become a betrayal to me."

    Terreson on Harriet
  • Monday Love
    It's official.

    0 comments on Harriet discussing the film, "Bright Star" on John Keats.

    One of the best bio pics ever made on one of the world's greatest and most beloved poets...

    Yea.
  • monday love
    "You’re gonna read at Prairie Lights Book Store in Iowa. That shit is for real! You are real this time. Why open yourself up to the judgments of a prestigious poetry website?"

    Harriet welcomes its newest writer...

    I wonder if Cross wrote that?

    Pure comedy gold...
  • Monday Love
    no girls allowed in our club.

    we've banned them all.

    they post too much.

    yak yak yak
  • And you say we don't deal with woman's issues?

    What male writers have we cited beside Joel Brouwer (a friend!), Terreson and Travis Nichols? Isn't gong more than 80% with Eileen Myles, Abigail Deutsch, Rebecca Woolf, and Barbara Jane Reyes enough?

    And why aren't their any female writers on our writing rostra? Because Travis Nichols only banned the three of us, that's why. I mean, we didn't choose to get the boot together, that's for sure!

    So why don't you come and join us? Then you could confront the man yourself -- I'd gladly move over!

    Christopher
  • Or take a step on the wild side and go for the burning qustion too: http://scarriet.wordpress.com/2009/09/30/a-burning-question-for-the-world-and-the-foundation-too/
  • For more discussion on all this you can go to Blog:Scarriet -- the Barbara Jane Reyes thread in particular. http://scarriet.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/communications-and-miscommunications/
  • Tom,
    What's interesting about Barabara Jane Reyes work in the Filipino community is that it is not only "outside of academic and institutional settings," but fun!

    As she writes in a recent article on Blog:Harriet, "And always, as with most Filipino gatherings, there’s food, and lots of enthusiastic picture taking. The vibe in the place becomes nothing like monotone automaton reading from behind a podium, eyes glaze over literary event; it’s more like a Philippine palengke, or bustling marketplace."

    http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/09/filipino-american-poetas-en-san-francisco/

    No wonder Barbara Jane Reyes doesn't get much response on Blog:Harriet -- I'm sure the genteel posters that still cling on there would find all that so vulgar. They want to talk about things that are out, up or in, never down, and forget the horizontal.

    You wait and see, before there's another reply to Barbara Jane Reyes there'll be a new post from Kenneth Goldsmith on outer space in language, some very precious dialogue between Terreson and Margo that define just how high we really are, and a Travis Nichols 'in' just on the edge of altogether out of sight.

    And as to the horizontal -- when was the last time you felt any warmth or sense of community on Harriet?

    So sad.

    Christopher
  • Game love to Thomas Love.
  • Tennis?
  • Terreson
    Thank you, Mr. Brady (Thomas Love) for the correction. I am confidant your readers are smart enough to see the divergence between what I said and what you cite me as having said.

    Now do please carry on. I am rather enjoying, perhaps a little perversely, these unimpeded, unfettered demonstrations of how you gentlemen reason.

    Oh. I almost forgot. Mr. Cordle, at this point at least, it is less a court of law you need to concern yourself with as it is a different sort of court.. But look on the bright side. Your blogs are getting free advertisement.

    Terreson
  • monday love
    Terreson complains Brady belabors Poe and Pound.

    These two are illustrative of two 'types' of writers, and it's more than just 19th century v. 20th century--one actually wrote things of interest to the world at large, while the other chiefly operated in the 'field' on various 'projects' in a brown blur; Pound is known for 'being known' more than anything else, whereas Poe, as well-known as he is, is barely known, in light of his actual, richly hued, output.

    We see the Pound syndrome in po-biz today, where the poets flit from flower to flower, and seem incapable of reaching any sort of audience beyond their clique, or outside their 'pop & fizz' argot.

    Oh, and we sincerely wish for Harriet a quick recovery from her current malaise.
  • monday love
    Eileen Myles is sick but it sounds like she's on the verge of seeing the Keats film.

    Harriet has not seen one remark from someone who has seen the film.

    Is blogging really so difficult? It seems like most people (who are writers?) just can't do it.

    Witness Harriet. It's a waste land.
  • Monday Love
    Here's what Terreson actually wrote on Sept. 18, 2009 on Clattery Machinery:

    "I am right. Mr. Brady is a spammer."

    "I’ve realized this about poetry spammers. They are not interested in conversation, dialogue, or the exchange. It is only their fixed ideas they look to promote. I wish I had covered this in the essay. The behavior is actually more damaging to on line poetry than management practices."

    Here's what I wrote on Sept. 28, 8:37 AM here on this thread:

    "These people are so boring! And with their agendas! Why don’t they just leave McClattery’s Bonnet alone! –Terreson"

    Then Terreson wrote, 8 hours later, on Sept. 28, on this thread:

    "Gentlemen I advise a measure of circumspection. Scorning me is your right. Falsley attributing to me comments I have not made, as Monday Love does, crosses a legal line."

    Good luck in court, Tere. I think you've just crossed the "I'm nuts!" line.

    Thomas
  • Speaking of language, Tere, you might want to check out the new article on Blog:Harriet thread just posted by Barbara Jane Reyes, which is all about language.

    Do leave a comment there as you usually do, effusive, full of deep spiritual sympathy for the primitive, in this case Philippino, and we'll be glad to discuss it as well on Blog:Scarriet. We have a thread already set up for that service called "Communications and Miscommunications."

    If you'd like to discuss the legal aspects of quoting and misquoting we might be interested in that too. Do give us a try.

    Christopher
  • I'll take the risk, Mr. T. Thank you for your input on the legal issues in "cyber-space."
  • Sounds EXACTLY like Motet from Pw.org -- spitting image. I also got communications like that from Sbunch and Chrissiekl on Poets.org, and from Travis Nichols on Blog:Harriet
    And, of course, Kaltica speaks like that even when he's discussing poetry.

    You've come a long way, Tere.

    Indeed, the similarities between what happened on Blog:Harriet and what happened on Clattery MacHinery are extraordinary, an object lessons for us all.

    Both sites pretended the high ground and ended up in the swamp because of it!

    Indeed, nothing brings a greater fall than altitude, and no altitude is higher than a feeling of managerial superiority. “Control” is the bugbear, and it’s equally destructive to the freedom-fighting Poetry Board activist as it is to the big bad Poetry Board administrator! Clattery in the end comes out of the closet, and Da Dah! — there are both Motet and Chrissiekl standing right there before you in reverse drag!

    Christopher
  • Terreson
    Only here to bear witness, Mr. Cordle. Not here to engage. As the blog's owner you might want to refresh yourself on certain attitude changes in the legal community concerning online communications. For example, as blog owner, if you sanction Monday Love's false attribution of a comment to me you become co-responsible.

    Cyber-space things have changed, Mr. Cordle. Monday Love's post crosses the line. If you sanction his post I guess you have too.

    This is your blog, your property, your responsibility.

    Terreson
  • monday love
    Someone has a bee in their bonnet.
  • I look forward to the day on Court TV. And welcome back to my blog. I knew you wouldn't stay away.
  • Terreson
    Gentlemen I advise a measure of circumspection. Scorning me is your right. Falsley attributing to me comments I have not made, as Monday Love does, crosses a legal line.

    Terreson
  • monday love
    "The Bee in the Bonnet of On-Line Poetry" LOL

    These people are so boring! And with their agendas! Why don't they just leave McClattery's Bonnet alone! --Terreson
  • Well, your reminder that nothing was happening on Clattery aroused some interest. There are now 2 comments, one from the Administrator, one from Terreson.

    A new essay seems to be imminent, "The Bee in the Bonnet of On-line Poetry."

    If you're a beekeeper you'll recognize that right away as one of the great images for an obsession with your own self-importance, a chronic Poetry Board condition as unnerving and debilitating as constipation or shingles. The bee crawls up your nose, around your ear, along your cheek, on your eyebrow, and you run around in circles and shout "spammer!" or "ad hominem!" When the sting finally comes you're fine, you're normal.

    Like the White Queen in Alice Through the Looking Glass, shrieking and shrieking until she finally pricks her thumb.

    That's why it's been so quiet on Clattery.

    Christopher
  • monday love
    Pee in the pool update.

    Since Clattery's tantrum 6 days ago:

    0 posts.
  • Monday Love
    Let us offend the theme-haters and push ahead with our theme.

    What is the one wrong against which we should all be united? What is the common root, the common denominator, the one thing, that characterizes the following items?

    1. The banning, deleting, and oppressive poetry site
    2. The genteel racism of the Fugitive/New Critics
    3. Writing methods such as: ‘show, don’t tell, write what you know, find your voice.’
    4. Manifestos of all kinds
    5. Tyrants and dictators of all kinds
    6. Theories and beliefs of all kinds
    7. Snobbery of all types

    The answer: Limit

    The tyrant seeks to place limits on others, from outright killing and imprisoning to censoring and blocking communication to sowing expectations of certain kinds of conformist behavior.

    I am not now writing a radical treatise.

    The Imagist is limited by his imagism, the conservative, Southern writer is defined by limits of place, the New Critical theorist is limited by a focus on text, the ethnic or multi-cultural critic is limited by race, the ‘show, don’t tell’ creative writing teacher delimits in terms of showing, not telling, the lang-po limits by a blinkered focus on language-use, the Marxist critic sees only class, the Art’s for Art’s Sake critic is limited by aesthetics, and so on.

    Ironically, because of the pluralisms of the ‘limiters’ listed above, the sin of imposing limits is the only sin which escapes censorship--since it ‘participates’ in the multitude of competing limiters!

    Shouldn’t we seek to universally question ALL those who impose limits and bans, rather than gravitating to various cliques and niches which thrive by imposing limits?

    Are not renaissance eras of unprecedented creative activity characterized by precisely this? Should we not seek to be renaissance artists, to be artists of universal value, such as Da Vinci and Poe, rather than narrow, thin-skinned manifesto-ists and nose-in-the-mud administrators?

    Would you rather brawl in a tavern with Marlowe or obey the precepts of Travis Nichols?

    This is no mere libertarian tract, either, for to indulge in freedom and license for its own sake is another kind of limit.

    If I must place before my readers a principle, it would be this:

    Never ignore morals or borders or limits, but assimilate and embrace as many as them as possible. Do not jettison the concern of the New Critic, or the moralist, or the Marxist; rather integrate their concerns; never fall into a negating spirit, for negation is a physical necessity of the eyeballing painter, but a foolish indulgence for the THINKER.

    I understand the principle of this treatise is broad, but surely IS IT NOT THIS PRINCIPLE which informs the scorn of the genius for the mere pedant, and the protest of the charismatic participant of the ‘on line’ poetry site banned by the bloodless, administrative hack?
  • Ouch indeed, he says.

    If it's getting a little thick in here and you need a distraction, try The Whole Harriet Show, 24/7 on Blog:Scarriet http://scarriet.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/name-that-goon-the-whole-harriet-show/

    You learn to read, you learn to write, you learn how to get your mailbox stuffed with review copies of all the books that will put you on the map as a poetry person, and you learn how to vote!

    Christopher
  • Re. #1, Excessive Speech.

    Tom, Alan, Gary and Terreson,

    I think Gaddafi's speech at the U.N was one of the greatest speeches, judged in terms of theatre, subtext and humanity, the U.N. has ever been privileged to host. It was true genius, and even though it was 95% off the wall, it spoke the truth in another way, just as most of what Hugo Chavez says, even if usually for all the wrong reasons, is spot on. That's going to be Oliver Stone's and Michael Moore's points for sure, and had Oscar Wilde been strong enough to survive Reading Gaol he would have ended up speaking just like that too, and the whole world would have sat up and listened!

    And Gaddafi's costume? Could Oscar Wilde have done better? I mean, the things you could do with all that cloth and all the bells and whistles as you shredded all those notes across the desk? The hair style, the mouth? I mean, how long do you think Gaddafi would last on Blog:Harriet? And that's a serious question, because in fact Travis Nichols has a secret fantasy he's just like him, even in looks I feel sure. Look at Travis Nichols' posts and tell me they couldn't have been written by Gaddafi?

    So we were up against a lot!

    Ouch!

    Christopher
  • Brady, thanks for that post. I really wish you and Christopher and some others had written the "Foetry" book instead of me. I'd like to incorporate points 2 and 3 into my next revision, with your permission. Number 1 is certainly true too; I wonder how many people just made it through your comment before spinning out somewhere else on this great web?
  • Monday Love
    Tere speculates on why Woodman, Swords, and Brady were banned from Harriet. Woodman was banned from Poets.org and the Poets & Writers web sites.

    Thomas Brady was not banned from Poets.org, I just got bored with it and left, after Woodman and his wife were banned (insulted, etc) by the management on that site.

    (I also had time, while I was there, to expose Kaltica’s pedantic folly, reducing the resident poets.org prosody bully to tears.)

    Tere says he gets banned from poetry sites because he “challenges management” and implies that Woodman, Brady, and Swords do NOT.

    Are you kidding? Woodman sends soul-searching emails to management; if anyone intelligently and passionately challenges management, it is Woodman.

    The irony is that Woodman, Brady and Swords do NOT quarrel with the nuts and bolts of management rules and regulations; they have no problem with these.

    Woodman, Brady, and Swords (as well as Cordle, of course) 'sin' in much broader ways. It is not ‘management’ or any sort of practical, day-to-day authority, Brady, Swords, and Woodman assail; in fact, obedience at all times marks their behavior on this count, for it is no petty affront which characterizes this band; but what IS wrongly rubbed by our crew is the stuck-up, credential-grubbing, officious, bureaucratic, thin-skinned, paranoid, careerist, DUNCE-LIFE which currently rules poetry—it is the FORM and CONTENT of our discourse which frighten the rabbits in their Poets & Writers and Poets.Org and Poetry Foundation warrens.

    This offense takes 3 basic forms.

    1) Excessive speech. “Excessive” is relative, of course; the ‘old days’ in which people actually READ treatises and discourses and thought about them, have, unfortunately, passed away, and our age favors the ‘fast-read’ (thrillers, page-turners, plugs for one’s latest book of poems, etc). The expectation now is to be clipped and link to friends’ poetry readings; it is bad form to actually discuss and judge. There exists today almost a puritan hatred of excessive language, of language that explains, that rips open seams, that dances. Swords, I believe, was banned for only this.
    2) Association with Alan Cordle’s Foetry.com, the poetry consumer protection watchdog site, is poison. Foetics is not really new: Dante, Pope, Poe Byron are prime examples which immediately spring to mind, but more generally, foetics is what describes the meta-fictional reality of poetry on an even grander scale, where the process of making the poem, making the poet’s reputation, and the forming of judgment itself as it relates to careerism in general, is considered. Woodman, I believe, suffers banning from this reason, as well as #1 above.
    3) Basically ‘showing up’ others discursively, even when not practicing #1 or #2. Thomas Brady was banned from Poets & Writers, for instance, by merely using the word “careerist” on that site, annoying the tiny clique of back-scratching regulars who operated there. Another example is consistently proving another wrong in matters of literary history, prosody, and just being far more charismatic than everybody else. This category is difficult to measure. Thomas Brady was NOT banned for this on Poets.org, for instance, but surely it contributes to general dislike. Also in this category: hammering pet themes and motifs of literary history, such as Swords’ Celtic sweep and Thomas Brady's Poe and Pound and the Fugitive/New Critics, etc. But this is NOT offensive. Philistines resent thematic methods and historical sweep; nothing more needs to be said on this. #3 is used as a cover for, and overlaps with, #1 and #2, mostly among the prissy and the unlearned, who usually have pet theories of their own--but which are unconscious and unexamined.

    Thomas
  • Well, I've never seen the poem before, but at least I knew it was a good one. :-)
  • Monday Love
    Gary,

    The House By the Side of the Road is an old poem by Sam Walter Foss (d. 1911). Sorry, I should have cited authorship, but it's a pretty well known poem.

    Tere,

    No one said Colin Ward's identity was breaking news. Joel B. of Harriet seems to think the idea of short reviews is new.

    OK, when I get a chance, I'd like to lay things on the table, answer Tere's questions, etc.

    Peace,

    Thomas
  • Gary,
    I do apologize to you -- of course I moved the poem from Harriet to Scarriet! I'm just putting so much of my good will and most positive hopes into our attempt to reform Harriet I get confused. I fel Scarriet is Harriet!

    So do forgive me if you can, both for doing it and for getting confused about it.

    Also, everybody passing by, do have a look at the new OPEN LETTER TO JOEL BROUWER on Scarriet. www.scarriet.wordpress.com. I think that's what we mean.

    And I want to thank Alan Cordle for having started the impulse that has led to such important developments.

    [CHEERS, CAPS IN THE AIR, PILLOWS EXPLODING]

    Christopher
  • ChriStopher:

    I apologize for the typo in your name up there. I'm a little lit (go figure). It's already 1:00 am and I have to get up at 4:30am to go to work tomorrow. Damn these blogs! (Aren't they fun?)

    Jeez...I just went out on to the back porch to finish my beer and a HUGE possum was on the table eating the leftover kitty-crunchies and went FLYING off the table and freaked me out.

    I just wanted to say that Thomas Brady's poem 'The House by the Side of the Road' on 'Scarriet' was incredibly good. That's a keeper, Thomas. Submit it to Poetry Magazine. If they accept it that would truly be poetic justice, wouldn't it?

    Gary
  • .

    "As to the poems, Gary, they were already posted by you in the preceding comment. I merely ‘copied’ them in a reply, which is standard practice."

    You are a little confused, Chritopher. I posted my poems on Harriet...you posted them on 'Scarriet'. Hardly the "preceding comment".

    Someone just e-mailed me and asked: "Gary...aren't Taoists supposed to be humble and mild?"

    Yes. That is why we study the martial arts...to protect ourselves from the harsh and arrogant. Lao-tzu said: "A wise man will own a sword, but it will be rusted and unused."

    Unless necessary.


    .
    Don’t You See?


    Doesn’t anyone see around us
    this unnatural lethargy, a nation almost
    hypnotized into digital complacency,
    the loss of all community?
    You look out for you. I’ll look out for me.
    It’s as though we all agreed at once
    to look away.

    Don’t you sense a certain general slow
    decrease in energy, some kind of
    supernatural invisibility?
    And so the greedy and ambitious men,
    disengaged from this reality,
    after twenty-thousand years still
    rule the Earth. Still make a mess.

    But if no challenge then no consequence,
    no task to overcome, reason to proceed.
    Then no victory or success.
    Does no one see this debilitating need?
    This desire to run away and hide?

    Being handed what you have is not a challenge,
    or finding it or stealing or having lied.
    Knowing you can’t have it but honestly
    obtaining, that is winning a hero’s rest.
    So how should we obtain, then,
    rise up to take this challenge?
    How do those without greed or blind ambition
    learn to care for what the greedy need?
    How do those without need for dominance
    learn to fight and inflict violence?

    .
    Copyright 2009 - Tall Grass & High Waves, Gary B. Fitzgerald

    .
  • .

    Most of you here appear to be fairly good writers, but there is a difference between a good writer and a poet. A good writer must be confident, self-righteous and even a little arrogant to succeed.

    A good poet must accept humility.


    .
  • As to the poems, Gary, they were already posted by you in the preceding comment. I merely 'copied' them in a reply, which is standard practice.

    I liked what I said -- I hope you did too. I took a risk in including them at all, I know, but I do trust your sense of humor. You only get into trouble when you lose it, as I think you did in your reply to Alan Cordle just above.

    How do you say that when you don't have an emoticom? LOL? (That's the first time I've ever written that, so you can laugh at me too, out loud!)
    C.
  • Gary, friend,
    An olive branch to me is an offering that shows someone wants to work toward peace and understanding. Throwing down a gauntlet is a challenge to war, holding out a hand is an olive branch. Indeed, we shake hands in our culture because it's a sign we don't hold a sword in the same hand, that we are willing to make ourselves vulnerable.

    That paragraph you quoted is so full of anger and rivalry, and is so obviously designed to be hurtful, it goes nowhere for me. It's a sword, and if I accepted it I know it would cut my hand to the bone.

    Terreson is a dangerous individual. It took me a long time to give up on him, even when he treated me so badly on so many occasions, and without any warning. So I'm afraid I'm not willing to try anymore, Gary, I'm not willing to put myself at risk.

    And of course Terreson is convinced I'm what he calls a "BS artist," and I'm sure he would read this note to you as more of the same. In my experience, people that make sweeping dismissals of others like that, and particularly when those others are so obviously trying, have no interest in peace or understanding. All they want is to win hands down (another aspect of the same metaphor -- fascinating).

    For Terreson to win I would have to accept that I'm so foul mouthed, aggressive, tedious and untrustworthy there's no place for me anywhere, and I would have to banish myself from all human congress.

    Finally, Gary, do you know what makes Tereson angrier than anything? That he, Terreson, the fiercest Poetry Fighter of them all, the Poetry Board Sherriff for all seasons, didn't get banned and, worse than that, he didn't even atrract attention!

    But let's drop that now, you and I. Let's not let all that get between us. Do go on being Terreson's friend and supporter if you want to, that's certainly your right, and perhaps you can even help him, and that's good.

    Christopher
  • .

    "Terreson, for someone who wants no party to poetry discussion, one has to ask: why do you keep posting here? Shouldn’t you be smoking some bees or something? Or registering self-published poetry at the Library of Congress?"

    That, Alan, was pretty much a cheap shot. I would have expected better of you.
  • .

    By the way, Christopher, although I’m happy that you appreciate and have complimented my poems, I am a little concerned that you posted them on another site without my permission. I’m not actually dead yet, you know. This is my intellectual property, after all, and all of the poems I post on the internet have been copyrighted and published. It is my prerogative to post them when and where I want. I know it isn’t necessarily a legal issue since I’m sure you could claim ‘fair use’ or ‘public domain’ because I posted them for free on the World Wide Web, but it seems only proper that you would have, at least, asked me first. There is such a thing as simple courtesy.

    Furthermore, Thomas, I am a Taoist, not a Zen Buddhist. Though I am proud to call myself a ‘Nature poet’, you seem to have your ‘Gary’s’ mixed up.
  • Terreson
    http://www.scarriet.wordpress.com

    You make a good point, Mr. Cordle. And thank you. You've been a bit of a mystery to me but not any more. Thanks for coming out. I'll not bother your blog again.

    Terreson
  • No hard feelings T. On first reading your pee in the pool piece, i saw you in a wholly different light than i had previously on Harriet. I never took much notice of you there, thinking you were just one of the many midway composite bores who network there: but the pee in the pool article changed everything; because unlike my scatter-fire stuff - it was considered and thoughtful and you articulated everything i thought poetry bopards were about.

    Take no notice of me, i am only havbing a laugh. I started on the guardian, and went through 100 name changes there before the (female) person in their moderating team who had a big no no against me due to a daft e mail i sent her colleague threatening to get a lawyer to chat with them if a racial slur was not removeed against me, propelled by anger at being called Oirish.

    I regretted sending it, as my mantrea has always been, people who put themselves up as poets, once we start threatening lawyers to speak for us: it shows we are not the language experts we would like to be.

    Anway, i had my theatrical training there, going through 18 months of various levels of toleration. Some weeks and months i was public enemy number one and zapped on sight: other times if i wrote in a generic blog style for the first few posts of the username, i would linger for a few posts, until i wrote as myself, and they would see through the username, knowing it was Ovid Yeats, my Monday Love and name used for a wonderful six months on first appearing on the guardian, prior to Jane Holland coming in her attempt to bounce me off. After she had slung me off her poets on fire gaffe, for not saying what she wanted to hear, and then when i went to a bigger stage, delivered by the poetic fates, she getting the hump with it and being highly competitive, like me, came to teach me a lesson and sporting there for 2 months until it all kicked off and she left after the regs gave her a right drumming, after she got Carol Rumens to put her as the poet on poem of the week - when only a two week blow in, and there was us regs, months on end ploughing away.

    Due to the fall out of that Terreson, I went through 20 or so usernames before they let me stay a few months as Practicing Artist, my Thomas Brady equivalent; which lasted until I said something the mods (prior to the stockmarket crash when the moderating pysche was all upward moi moi moi) decided was disgutingly insolent: basically for being too witty, not showing deference and writing more readable and exciting copy than their own bloggers.

    Then the long slow grind down and down: posting rights removed on sight, never more than a few hours on, and the process one which forced me to write in such a way, that the more they removed me, the more the few who read what i was writing - thought: why is this person being removed?

    Far from contravening any rules, writing the best of anyone there, and slowly, slowly, my writing polished up. Each time I got removed, a tiny thickening would occur, because when i started, i constructed a version of reality about that blog, laughably far off the mark. Everyone did, because it was all new, us and them, am and pro.

    A ficticious figure of £200 was mentioned for each blog, which fell into being fact for a while on the US side: them pro bloggers writing rubbish, a travesty, we thought, until the truth dawned that they were doing it for far far less, some probably for free.

    So, the truth of the scene began emerging as i wrote wrote wrote: and once they started removing my posting rights, but leaving up the copy, the posts - i knew they were on the back foot in the pyschological war.

    What would happen is, i would write summat that in no way contravened the talk policy, and the only lame regulation they could invoke was i was banned: but the art of it, the writing was saying otherwise, and so too embaressed they left the writing up, underhandedly zapping me off as Travis did, by the back door in the dead of night - scores of times, until the day David Harsent wrote a blog and i defended him from the regs who had coalesced around me. The disaffected mob who saw me as their champion, the ones who would have left after a ban or two, feeling they had sinned, who have a deep love of language,. but feel excluded perhaps by the state apparatus, mirroed in how the guardian used to operate, prior to me changing everyhing there Terreson you old theatrical queen.

    The mod who had it in for me, showed her hand, came out asking if readers of poetry also need teaching, and it was game over: 18 months hard fight, coming close to quitting, and in the end, Theatre mate.

    have a bleedin laugh.

    I couldn't giove a monkeys about Trav. I don't think he;s racist at all, just said it in the role, wearing a mask: Trav's a little boy who is a one man executive body feeling big and important, and humorless, arrogant and a guy who writes shit poetry. A nobody whose work will not survive him.

    love
  • Terreson
    Mr. Woodman, how can it be over when, in my estimation, it has never been on? I've never respected your opinions or your take on things. I think you are a BS artist. I think you don't care about poetry or know the slightest thing about its canon. Seriously. I've never had respect for your take on what makes poetry poetry. Come to think of it, my estimation of your buddy, Brady, amounts to much the same. Prove me wrong and talk in depth about poetry. But you are right. You, Brady, Cordle, you people use poetry forums in a way I don't want to be party to.

    Terreson
  • .

    Olive branch:

    "So if any of you gentlemen wish to address issues, rather than trading insults, I can be your huckleberry. For example, should Woodman and company have been banned from Harriet’s? If not, why? Then there is this question that keeps in the back of my head. Why have Woodman and company been “escorted” off so many boards and blogs? Sure, I’ve been banned from a few boards too. But it has always come when I’ve challenged management practices. They seldom have, if ever. Mr. Woodman never has, to the best of my knowledge. Mr. Swords never has, again to the best of my knowledge. Certainly Mr. Brady did not challenge Harriet management. So what is up with that? Is it a conspiracy against the Woodman clique? Or is something else at play? And what about the case of Jack Conway? Where does the Woodman clique stand vis a vis his case? Additionally, should the posts of Woodman and company have been deleted from Clattery’s blog? If not why not? In my view they tended to not only dominate the exchange but subvert it in such away to turn away both posters and readers."

    - Terreson

    Terreson is offering you an opportunity for serious discussion and examination of the issues, sans ad hominem insults and accusations.

    I recommend that you take him up on it. Frankly, gents, he's the only friend you've got.

    .
  • Gary,
    Good to have you here, even though you always make me nervous. Thanks for the poem -- you keep me grounded even when you've got me on my toes!

    An "olive branch" in Terreson's communication? You may be right, but I don't see it. Do be more specific, because if there is one it would be worth seizing, this is all so wasteful and unpleasant. Do quote the peace offering and I'll respond, I promise.

    Christopher
  • It's over, Tere.

    Yes, it certainly was a shock for us to have come to your site for help only to have dozens of our posts deleted and eventually to be banned. Our hope was to explore some new ideas about Poetry Board Management only to find that the Management of the Poetry Board best known for it's opposition to the influence of vested interests on Poetry Boards should have such a strong vested interest in its own ideas it could not enter into any kind of dialogue at all.

    Also, Tere, the record is still 90% there, and eloquently bears witness to the fact that we were always respectful, always on topic, and always interesting. Your accusation that we used "foul language" is absurd, and you've never substantiated that with any examples -- you could still do so just by listing the identification numbers of any offending posts you found, and letting others go and have a look.

    The accusation that we "hijacked" the discussion is equally untenable, as we came to discuss "The Pee in the Pool of On-line Poetry," and did. Indeed, we only allowed ourselves to discuss other concerns when you attacked our probity and our persons -- your ad hominems were the sole distractions during our 2 weeks on the site. Again, if you can show us where and how we hijacked the discussion, including some post ID numbers of posts not on target, we can all go and have a look.

    As to being boring, we dealt with that extremely well at the end but you deleted the whole discussion, including all the numbers. We posted some statistics on the number of posts and posters in different months on the site and they all showed we were not only responsive but very, very exciting.

    I'll post those statistics again if you dispute them. They don't make you yourself look good at all, so perhaps we should just leave that.

    I see nothing else in your previous comment that is worth replying to, it's all so full of spite and innuendoes.

    So it's over, it truly is.

    Christopher
  • Mr. Swords:

    Terreson has just offered you one of Mr. Woodman's famous proverbial "olive branches" and you insult him and put him down!

    To paraphrase Braveheart: If you are an Irishman, then I am ashamed to call myself one.
  • .



    I’m afraid
    of the great reckoning,
    having to see ourselves
    when all gray walls collide
    and every dark oppresses…

    comfort me, beckoning
    blindly to any help, protect me
    from having to decide
    myself from my impressions.

    Copyright 2006 - Specimens-Selected Poems, Gary B. Fitzgerald
  • What gets me is the oh soo serious tone of Mr Rainey droning on and on about stuff that the casual reader would find only highly comedic. Here we are, a bunch of spammers and banned posters, arguing the toss over - what
  • Terreson
    Yep. This is pretty much the same character assassinations I received in the late spring and summer of '08. Then it came from the board management class and their supporters. What makes you boys any different?

    Anyway, Mr. Woodman calling me pretentious makes for sweet irony. I've encountered few on line characters to speak as condescendingly to women as he does, forever correcting them, telling them how to speak and what to think. As for my supposed anger, what is there to be angry about? However, to do a little of my own textual analysis you and your confreres communicate with a tone that gets shriller and shriller, once spurned, with each post. Oh, respecting the great revelation that has been made on Scarriet's, I am afraid this is old news. Pirvaya/Kaltica/Collin Ward put out the information a long time ago, maybe six or eight months ago, on Clattery's blog. I didn't respond then and I will not respond now. Bless his heart, as my late mother was fond of saying when faced with a particularly sorry specimen of the species. If Mr. Woodman thinks Ward is an erstwhile friend of mine, well, he should confer with his ideal poet and thinker, Mr. Brady.

    As for Mr. Swords post. He seems to have forgotten the foul and violently sexist language he used on Clattery MacHinery's and which he was asked not to repeat.

    I see Mr. Brady has managed to bring the thread around to the sins of Pound et al. This fixed idea of his is precisely why so many boards and blogs have, over time, tired of him. Well, this fixation and the other one that has him in thrall: the Poe fixation.

    So if any of you gentlemen wish to address issues, rather than trading insults, I can be your huckleberry. For example, should Woodman and company have been banned from Harriet's? If not, why? Then there is this question that keeps in the back of my head. Why have Woodman and company been "escorted" off so many boards and blogs? Sure, I've been banned from a few boards too. But it has always come when I've challenged management practices. They seldom have, if ever. Mr. Woodman never has, to the best of my knowledge. Mr. Swords never has, again to the best of my knowledge. Certainly Mr. Brady did not challenge Harriet management. So what is up with that? Is it a conspiracy against the Woodman clique? Or is something else at play? And what about the case of Jack Conway? Where does the Woodman clique stand vis a vis his case? Additionally, should the posts of Woodman and company have been deleted from Clattery's blog? If not why not? In my view they tended to not only dominate the exchange but subvert it in such away to turn away both posters and readers.

    Mr. Cordle, because I do not entirely trust you you need to know this post gets saved in a document.

    Terreson
  • Monday Love
    BREAKING NEWS

    Only ONE comment so far today (2 pm EST) on Harriet.

    Someone named Stephen Cope has left the following post on Tonya Foster's 'Ramadan' thread:

    "Let’s not forget that the passage Tonya quotes from Oppen is haunted by Pound’s conflation of aesthetics/economics: the word abstracted (like data) in a bank is essentially a word the meaning of which one takes on ‘credit.’

    The disastrous consequences of Pound’s belief are well known. And frankly ‘unspeakable.’

    Oppen chose to omit that section of “A Language of New York” from “Of Being Numerous.” It’s possible that he did so with Pound’s politics in mind. And the politics of language in mind. And the politics of credit in mind.

    This puts a refurbished damper on comparisons of the present American circumstance to the last big (American) crash. Whether the next big (American) crush is affected remains to be seen.

    Dear poets: is it possible that America doesn’t really matter that much anymore?"

    Mr. Cope's remarks MIGHT be interesting, if only the poster weren’t being so coy.

    Big explosive ideas are squeezed into cryptic hints:

    I, Stephen Cope, on Harriet, am entertaining these big ideas, but do I really know what I’m talking about, and what if someone finds out I don’t know what I’m talking about? Actually, I’m a busy man, in a hurry! Gotta run! goodbye!

    “Oppen is haunted” and “the disastrous consequences” and “frankly ‘unspeakable’” and “the politics of credit in mind” and “the last big (American) crash” and “the next big (American) crush” and “is it possible that America doesn’t really matter that much anymore” are big, muscular phrases, but they are hauled before our view by a disingenuous weakling, (or so it appears) afraid to tell us straight out whether we should really be afraid and in awe of all this, or chuckle at it, or merely be impressed by Cope's clever phraseology.

    Time and time again, po-biz rhetoric out-paces common sense.

    I blame the ubiquitious practice of blurbing, for in blurb-speak one puts up a dense paragraph of interest and praise WITHOUT REALLY EXPLAINING what any of it means.

    "Oppen is haunted by Pound's conflation of aesthetics/economics..." And so begins the blurb, making the poet Oppen sound soul-searching, dynamic, worldly, important. But is the blurbist seriously saying that 'credit' as it plays out in actual economies is specifically informing the poetry of Oppen? We'll never know, because that's not really important. What is important is that the blurb gets us to believe in an Oppen who is "haunted" by something truly significant.
  • You said it not me, Victor. I didn't start this even if I am a woman.
  • So who is just himself and has no wife? Obviously the world is getting pretty short of moral onanists, I mean of true idealists who really stay pure and stick just to themselves?
  • Jiminy Cricket
    Since a link has been provided (on 'Scarriet) to a site in which a poster named 'Pirvaya' reveals the real names of the players in the current drama, it seems only fair to note that 'Pirvaya', aka 'Kaltica', is actually one Colin Ward.
  • 'foul, sexistly violent language'? for ASKING if Trav wes racist?

    What i wrote was:

    'proof Travis Nichols is a racist?'

    In the body of a link to the tea party in Washington where many ape-minded racist idiots gathered with pics of Obama as Hitler; and not referring to not liking him because he is black, but because they think he is the anti-christ.

    So, where's the 'foul' 'sexist' language T?

    I am Irish, Nichols removed my posting rights, and Brady's, at the sdame time, by the looks of it. This was a few weeks after removing Woodman's rights, and as far as I am aware, we are the only three he wrote his little letter to prior to introducing what he called 'HANDY' 'DISLIKE' and like icons, brought in - i beleive - for the sole purpose of getting rid of three people who were happy spammers being inoffesive.

    The way Trav undertook the act of deleting my and Brady's posting rights: there being no post which occassioned it, and the only reason seeming to be Trav's 'dislike' of us as human beings - is it unreasonable to ASK if Trav is racist against Irish people?

    It happens a lot, historically, and I am not saying he is, just asking.

    Love you T.



    , I would have consigned the post to a locked forum I call the Honey Bucket.
  • Monday Love
    McTerreson putting on airs.

    How funny.

    "I speak out against all of you."

    We're all trembling.
  • For those of you who don't know who I'm talking about, go here www.scarriet.wordpress.com
  • Down to what level, Terreson?

    I see no lower level here than you ever talk on, and I also see your normal mangling of English syntax and vocabulary -- I mean, you're always trying to lift what you say up another level, which is called pretension. Your whole style is a give away, Terreson -- you're always in disguise, you're always putting something on, or over.

    No, I hear a very troubled person talking who's whole modus vivendi is anger. There's anger in every word you speak, in every gesture, and your pretensions do little to hide it.

    You've been bested once and for all now, Terreson, I'm afraid, because the one thing you might have had, some small integrity, perhaps, now lies in tatters.

    Have a look at your new identity on Scarriet -- there's your new picture. You might also click at the bottom of the page to find out why even your friends don't trust you!

    Christopher Woodman
  • Terreson
    Yes, Mr. Cordle, I think I am smart enough to get your question. (the tone of which smarminess just dropped you a few notches in my estimation. but so it goes.)

    Terreson has been my screen name since '99. It has been my nome de plume, which is French for pseudonym, since '91 when I registered writings with the L of C under that name. Maybe you've heard of the Library of Congress.

    About your second paragraph, your fight with Nichols has nothing to do with me. I've had no traffic with either of you.

    Third paragraph. Is this really how you operate? What exactly did I have to do with Harriet or Clattery management decisions? By accusation and association? Prove the case, man. No board or blog has ever owned me. I speak out against all of you. Against you, Brady, Woodman as much against the boards, sites, and blogs that look to diminish poetry. Ya'll, with your cliques, do exactly that. You diminish poetry as much as any board ever has.

    Paragraph four. I guess you are not really real to me either. I think you are a librarian somewhere in the neighborhood of Portland and that you have a poet wife. I think that Brady works for some small college in MA and he has a poet wife too. I think Woodman lives in Thailand and lives off his wife.

    You and your boys want to bring the discussion down to this level? You just did.

    Terreson
  • But Terreson -- I must ask -- is that your real name? Is Terreson your sole internet identity? Are you smart enough to get what I'm asking?

    I didn't follow closely the posts in which Swords allegedly called Travis Nichols a racist, but I can say that I noticed (and I was not alone in this) when the Wave Books Poetry Bus, managed by Nichols, excluded minorities from the trip across America. It may have been an unconscious exclusion, but often that's how racism manifests. And in fact, there was not a single woman on the stop here in Portland until I commented publicly. Then Nichols and/or Matthew Zapruder added a token few to the stop. It may be one of several reasons why Nichols would like me to disappear. It won't silence what will eventually be known about him.

    Travis Nichols' alleged racism/sexism is less offensive and manipulative than deleting innocuous posts -- something that's happened both at Harriet and Clattery. But then the two of you participated in that action as well.

    As for Monday Best and Christopher Yasuda -- well -- I knew them well online before I met them both in meatspace. They're two of my favorite people ever. You, Clattery T. McBowden, are not real to me.
  • Terreson
    Replies in tandem.

    In my view racist speech is hate speech. On my small board I certainly would have taken off the screen Swords's post where he calls a Harriet mod a racist. I wouldn't have warned him once or twice about his foul, sexistly violent language, I would have consigned the post to a locked forum I call the Honey Bucket. Then there is how, by his own admission, Swords has used the thumbs down option at Harriet's just for fun, indiscriminantly. He has no respect in my eyes

    About Woodman, Aside from the fact I've never met any man online as passive/aggressive as he is, again I'll call him a liar and a poser. To my knowledge at least twice now he has posed as a woman and on two different sites. This so disgusts me. This is not a play. This is an intellectual exchange.

    Then there is Brady or is it Monday Love or Tom West or Thomas Graves. Not once has he bested me in argument as he would like to have it in his rich enterior life. Nor has he bested anyone else. We've all simply let go when we've realized his reasoning is circular and closed.

    Don't these boys get why so many boards and sites find them tedious? They don't have a truth to tell. They just have their fixed ideas. Sure. I have been banned from poetry boards too. In every case it has been because I asked for it or because I challenged management. This is the difference. You three are liars, users, cyber vandals, and spammers.

    Terreson
  • monday love
    Update: Clattery ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

    The distinguished and honorable Terreson, hosted by the regal Cluttery McTerreson, is preparing some essay against the on-line barbarians...
  • monday love
    Update: Harriet still dead. (3 posts a day)

    For a good discussion, see the smaller, but more interesting, Scarriet.
  • This was the final post I made before being banned.

    1446

    I have to say Clat. I was reading all the posts, and cannot recall anything which could remotely be termed ‘foul’ – in the sense I take it that you mean: the eff, and C words.

    Please can you reproduce any of it here (with appropriate x for fxxx, etc)?

    Thanks very much.
    Comment by Desmond Swords — September 21, 2009 @ 2:56 pm

    ~

    Are you Clattery Terreson, please?

    I always just assumed you are. If you decline to answer this, then i will take it you are.

    cheers
  • monday love
    "I honestly don’t think you boys want to take me on, Woodman and Brady..." --Terreson

    What is this supposed to mean? LOL

    Are you swinging a chain while saying this? LOL

    The point is, I've 'taken you on' many times, Tere, and I've embarrassed you--on Poe, on the Fugitives/New Critics "I'll Take My Stand," on poetry pedagogy, and now with this meltdown by you & Clattery (are you the same person, by the way?) you've really lost everything, I'm afraid.

    I've always been civil to you, Tere. I've always given you the benefit of the doubt. But I don't know about you now... you come across as a walking bruised ego. You've spent the past month spraying vague insults and writing sorry little things on Harriet in order to ingratiate yourself into that sorry, Travis Nichols, cut-and-paste ruin...I know what you're doing...your reputation on the web is in tatters, but you hope to win plaudits by being the knight who stands up to the Foetry.com crowd. It won't work, because you don't have what it takes. It's a cynical ploy and everyone can see that. 'Pee in the pool' is vastly over-shadowed by Foetry.com and what it did for poetry, and what its participants are still doing for poetry, and will do for poetry, and you, Tere/Clattery, are not man enough to acknowledge this.

    "Take me on." Uh...did that. And won.
  • Terreson,
    I got banned. I tried to post a question to you about what was happening and it simply disappeared. I thought about it for a few minutes, then thought, no, "The Pee in the Pool of On-line Poetry" doesn't ban people. Then I tried again and got an immediate flash on my screen: DISCARDED.

    "Discarded," Terreson? Does that mean thrown away? Almost 2 dozen comments have now been deleted, but after they were posted. Now I'm "discarded" just like that.

    I don't want to be humiliated so I haven't bothered to try again.

    And what about you, I'm sure you must be equally disgusted with the Clattery Board management and will resign.

    And to show you I'm not bitter, I just posted some very complimentary words about your flare and style on www.scarriet.wordpress.com. I think you'll agree with my assessment, and hope you will support me there at least.

    Christopher
  • Terreson
    I can't know if Swords got banned as he says. Were the board mine I might have banned him for calling a Harriet blog mod a racist without proof. And Woodman is a liar. There were not dozens of posts deleted from the Clattery blog. There were eight. Mostly his and one of mine.

    I honestly don't think you boys want to take me on, Woodman and Brady. You got scorned at Clattery's because of your spam conversation. The record is there for anyone to see. You both have a proven record over several boards and blogs for anyone to see. Here, you are looking to make your case, which I respect. But don't do it at my expense. Nor at Clattery's or Indy's expense, nor at the expense of any other honest broker who comes on line for poetry. I will stand up to you in the same way I stand up to all bullies.

    Terreson
  • And the whole FOUL LANGUAGE dialogue has now been deleted from Clattery MacHinery too. Fortunately, there was a copy made and it's been re-posted on Blog:Scarriet, "The Pee in the Pool of On-line Poetry," Comment #3.

    www.scarriet.wordpress.com

    The big question is, when will Terreson resign from Clattery? He resigned from TCP, Poets.org and even the most P.C. of all sites, Poets.net, because nobody was ethical enough for him. Indeed, as Terreson explains himself, nobody in cyber space was aware enough at that point, and only Clattery MacHinery had the courage to accomodate his ground-breaking essay on the subject!

    Now Clattery MacHinery itself has waded in with negative Poetry Board Management practices such as the poetry world has never seen!.

    Will Terreson just turn his back on his values to save his face? Will he just go to Harriet on his hands and knees for favors? I mean, is Terreson really going to go down in literary history as poetry's Neville Chamberlain?

    Christopher
  • I have been banned from Clattery now, for asking 'please can you reproduce any posts by Woodman or ee, which use 'foul' language?"

    Sad gits.
  • Sorry too, the entry point I gave you at Clattery may be a bit confusing. 'Henriette' is me there -- I put up a few posts under the name of 'Henriette' right at the beginning because I was so amused by the mincemeat whoever she was made out of some of the big wigs on Harriet. The first post I put up under my own name was the apology that comes right after that begins, "Not my style."

    It's very amusing because now I get all the credit for the wit of 'Henriette' on Harriet even when my IP is banned there, and even when I don't speak a word of Spanish (a great lack in my life, never having learned that beautiful language, so I'm chuffed!).

    Also a minor detail. 'Indy' on Clattery was 'Pirvaya' on Poets.net, and christened Monday Love 'Thomas Brady.' A small world is Clattery, but a whole kaleidescope of disguises.

    And of course my name on Blog:Scarriet was given to me by Travis Nichols on Blog:Harriet -- if you don't know what it is you're in for a shock. (Can you imagine the Administrator of the Blog of the Poetry Foundation of America actually mocking a poster like that?)

    Makes you think about management, doesn't it.

    Christopher
  • The Blog:Scarriet address is http://www.scarriet.wordpress.com .

    Sorry.
  • I too welcome anyone to examine the record at Clattery MacHinery -- I first came on the site about here http://clatterymachinery.wordpress.com/2008/04/20/the-pee-in-the-pool-of-on-line-poetry-by-terreson/#comment-12946 . You can scroll down through what used to be almost 300 comments--almost 2 dozen have now been deleted.

    This whole debacle is also being covered in great detail on a new site called Scarriet, including a posting of ALL the posts that were deleted in the last Clattery massacre. http://www.scarriet,wordpress.com .

    You also might be amused by the last exchanges specifically about FOUL LANGUAGE on Clattery -- check quickly as this exchange too will almost certainly be vaporized. http://clatterymachinery.wordpress.com/2008/04/20/the-pee-in-the-pool-of-on-line-poetry-by-terreson/#comment-12946

    Christopher
  • monday love
    "hijacked" the thread. What does that even mean? We were posting on it. On topic--which is 'pee in the pool.'

    Tere, give it up. You and Clattery are jealous, bitter twits who can't handle being upstaged. No one "hijacked" any thread. There's was an up-tic in conversation. You and Clattery "hijacked" the conversation by throwing insults--'Oh this is boring!' 'Oh this is tedious' "Hrmmph!' 'Let me put an end to this and delete posts!'
    Come on...everyone can see you guys are acting like loons... Tere, don't dig a deeper hole for yourself. You have a conscience...have a good talk with clattery...it's not too late...

    thomas
  • monday love
    Clattery is lying on his McCluttery blog right now, telling Desmond that I used foul language on his site. I did NOT. I'll give a thousand dollars to Clattery if he can present a post in which I used foul language.

    Here's my reply on Clattery--who's gone off the deep end, deleting posts he doesn't agree with, after waging a campaign against this very practice for years.

    "Clattery is a liar. I never used foul language.

    Clattery, old bean curd, quit while you still have an ounce of respect.

    Don't add lie to lie.

    People are reading your deletions on other sites.

    You need to take a rest. You're embarrassing yourself.

    This thread is called 'pee in the pool' and YOU are censoring reasonable and factual discussion of this very topic and LYING while doing so--and the world can see it.

    You better just erase this thread and say g'nite. Tere can live on the super-thrilling harriet blog.

    Thomas"
  • Terreson
    Anyone vaguely interested in yet another artificially manufactured controversy by Woodman and Monday Love can google and find the Clattery MacHinery 'Pee in the Pool' blog. They can read, judge for themselves, the extent to which the pair hijacked the thread, going back to 1 Sept, 19 days ago. They can read, judge for themselves, whether or not the pair was insulting and dismissive of anyone who might have held different views. It is an interesting display, actually.

    Terreson
  • monday love
    Harriet Update

    Today, as of 9 pm, there has been a total of ONE post on Harriet.

    The only post on Harriet today (Sept 20) is by Terrson, replying to himself on the Keats thread--now up to 2 comments, both by Terreson--wondering who it could be that gave his previous post a thumbs down.

    100% of today's Harriet posts are by Terreson.

    100% of the Keats thread posts are by Terreson.

    I say, ban him.

    Come on, Travis. It's the only way to save Harriet.

    Tereson is impeding discourse.

    He's chasing everyone away.

    Isn't he?

    Isn't this all Terreson's fault?

    LOL
  • monday love
    Tere,

    Clattery's lucky I'm there.

    60 posts? So what? Who's counting?

    You are, evidently, and that's the problem: Content of the posts? Who cares! There's too many!

    Memo to the dense: my 60 posts did NOT prevent anyone else from posting. According to your data, Tere, there was 229 posts on clattery from 9/1 to 9/20.

    Now, you can surely find...I just did. It only took me a second.

    Let's compare 229 posts in those 20 days to

    June 7 to June 27 on Clattery, 2008, shall we?

    From 6/7/08 to 6/27/08 there were 12 posts.

    Of those 12 posts, 9 were by Terreson.

    One of those 12 posts from June, 2008 on clattery, by Durkee, complained of a "double standard for mods & admins" who "can do whatever the heck they want."

    Are 12 posts, 9 by one person, BETTER than 229 posts, 60 by one person?

    It all depends, doesn't it? If you're a poor reader, you might prefer 12 posts in 20 days. If you're a good reader, YOU MIGHT JUST ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT THE CONTENT OF THE POSTS.

    Oh, and the discussion on Clattery during those 20 days in June, 2008? The fact that Terreson was banned by TCP, and, also of interest and sympathy to the clattery-ites, was the fact that Homprang, Christopher Woodman's Thai wife, was banned from Poets.org and 20 of her posts were deleted.

    Thomas
  • Terreson
    Between 1 Sep and today, 20 Sep, 229 posts were made on the blog, Clattery MaChinery's 'Pee in the Pool.' Brady, using various names, posted 60 times. Woodman (aka Henriette) posted 52 times. The combined total is 112 posts. This is 5 shy of half the total posts in 19 days.

    I call this kind of on line behavior spamming, especially since the combined total amounts to little of substance. And I call the motivation hijacking. Add to this the insults meted out by the two posters, by Woodman in particular, I commend the blog's owner for his tolerance.

    (For the record this poster weighed in at 24 posts in the same time period.)

    Can there be any wonder why boards and blogs have come to shudder when they see Messrs Brady and Woodman coming?

    Terreson
  • monday love
    Yup. Clattery just began deleting.

    Don't let others have a say.

    Good one, Clattery!

    We're all proud of you!

    I thought I sensed a Tere/Clattery/Indy (same person?) meltdown.

    Whoever the person is, they're obviously suffering some kind of mental break...

    Out of pity, I'll leave them alone now...maybe something bad is occuring in their personal lives...I'll respect that...

    Or, po-biz has claimed another victim...

    Too much truthful information entered their little heads and they exploded...
  • monday love
    harriet: still dead.

    They can cut and paste; they can link.

    They seem unable to have conversations.

    Now Terreson of 'pee in the pool' fame, ('pee' a kind of foetry.com lite--very, very lite) is single-handedly attempting to breathe life into the poetry foundation blog, but unsuccessfully, alas.

    Someone named Tonya has given us one of these typical 'stream-of-consciousness-quote this-quote that-what-does-it-all-mean?' pieces of gibberish which has made Terreson all excited: 'This is great! I want to see more...gibberish.'

    A poster named Wendy aptly ends the comments (a total of 4) with "Does meaning have to make 'sense?'" This harriet comment stream is bound to take off in the days to come. uh...not.

    The 'Keats movie' post on Harriet, now in its third day, has one post.

    The single post--by Terreson--asks, 'if anybody from filmdom is here...' and suggests other stories for films, that he, Terreson, is certain would make great films. Uh...Terreson, old bean, no one from filmdom is on Harriet...NO ONE is on Harriet.

    harriet has nothing to say about Keats (who is keats?) or the film, which has been getting good reviews...

    but if you're looking for film ideas...

    Terreson... on Harriet... is your man.

    Good thing Travis Nichols is at the controls on Harriet, though.

    Travis, the Harriet chief, will keep the Keats thread (with its single comment) safe, and free from pee.

    Mr. Nichols is there to make sure no one "hijacks" the busy Keats thread.
  • monday love
    The Harvard Crimson--oh yes! The student reporter was excited about doing the story...until it was suddenly & quietly kaboshed.

    BREAKING NEWS

    It appears the gentleman who runs Clattery Machinery, the host for Terreson's 'Pee in the Pool' thread, has just become the pee.

    For reasons unknown, Clattery and Terreson, despite all sorts of friendly overtures from Brady, Woodman, and Swords, are having a major snit (almost as if they are the same person) and threatening banishment and deleting of post... for what...? It's not at all clear.

    The explanation, I fear, is mental derangement: Clattery, affectionately called 'old bean' by Terreson on the 'pee' thread, is determined that a poster named indy is right and I am wrong: I 'hijacked' threads on Harriet and this is why I was banned. The fact that I didn't 'hijack' threads on Harriet is of no matter to tere, clattery and indy. 'Oh, Brady, you're just a bad apple' is where indy and clattery and terreson want to be. Fine. But now they are going off the deep end about it because I'm politely defending myself against the charge. Oh well. What can you do?

    I'm posting my last post on Clattery here, since it very well may get deleted by Clattery (who has lost his mind) and I don't wish to deprive po-biz of a few laughs:

    "Clattery,

    #1439 --your words, or indy's. Not clear.

    So you are hijacking this thread?

    Sweet.

    This is priceless:

    "Whether you see my comments as feedback or insults depends in large
    part on what you do with them."

    And this:

    "for [indy] telling someone like it is." #1437

    But indy did not 'tell it like it is.' That's just it. You can't distinguish between a banal insult and reality.

    "Deleting and banning is not a bad idea, though." --clattery #1437

    In a self-effacing rage, you throw off the one shred of dignity you had left.

    Clattery, you just became the pee."

    Thomas
  • I think the deletion was to cover up TWO LEVELS of anti-Foetry prejudice on Blog:Harriet. The first, you point out very rightly, is the absurd Foetry phobia expressed in the questions themselves, asked by, as everybody could see clearly, Harriet regulars. But even more incriminating is the VOTING PATTERN. Look at all those Red cat-calls for Thomas Brady's brave aself-affirmation, and the Green foot-stamping for his red-neck detractors.

    Not nice -- worthy of the opponents of the ACLU, not proponents of poetry!

    And this is Blog:Harriet, don't forget -- which is why we're still going on about it here, and will continue. Somebody at the Foundation needs to take hold of Harriet and shake it!

    Christopher
  • Monday Love
    Christopher,

    So Harriet DELETED this exchange?

    “You say that like it’s something to be proud of.” (+3 green thumbs)

    “Proud as hell, my friend.” (-3 red thumbs)

    “I thought there was a whiff of sulfur about you.” (+2 green thumbs)

    It's an innocuous exchange, really; I don't mind the 'sulfur' reference; it's just a joke--but what I find disturbing is that Harriet felt it had to DELETE these simple words.

    Is Harriet SO freaked out by a simple reference to a consumer protection site, Foetry.com?

    That's really creepy. The New York Times, the LA Times, the Boston Globe, the Chronicle of Higher Ed, the Guardian (UK) and Poets and Writers have all written on Foetry.com and taken Foetry.com and its watchdog goals seriously.

    Why is one vindictive manager at Harriet permitted to speak for the Foundation in such a paranoid manner?

    Thomas
  • I hope it's clear that in the preceding post on Blog:Harriet, now DELETED by the management, I was trying to quote an earlier dialogue on the thread. And what you should also look at, of course, is the vote distribution, how Thomas Bray gets -3 Reds and the two small-minded baiters all get Greens.

    And all this under the aegis of The Poetry Foundation???? So where are you, John Barr, who has started your presidency so well? Because it's not too late to distance your precious, indeed miraculous Childe Foundation from the Machiavellian cynicism that's got hold of Harriet.

    DELETED from Eileen Myles CONTESTS Thread
    http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/07/contest/

    “You say that like it’s something to be proud of.” (+3 green thumbs)

    “Proud as hell, my friend.” (-3 red thumbs)

    “I thought there was a whiff of sulfur about you.” (+2 green thumbs)

    POSTED BY: CHRISTOPHER WOODMAN ON JULY 31, 2009 AT 4:25 AM

    ~

    Yes, I did post that on July 31st at 4.25 am (pm where I live), but like all my posts from July 14th to my demise at the end of August, it remained invisible -- i.e. it was "awaiting moderation," a euphemism for censorship. Three weeks later it was simply liquidated, or expended.

    Why??????????

    So is anybody listening? Will anybody stand up for The Foundation? I mean, it would be so easy just to say, "Hey, this isn't worth it. This is not what we meant at all." Then cancel the Like/Dislike function, reinstate those who were banned, and ask Thomas Brady to write an article!

    You don't think Tom could do that without stirring up trouble? Well, he never stirred up trouble even when every word he wrote was being pummeled with tomatoes, so why don't you think he could do it in a receptive atmosphere?

    And what would he write about? Possibly about music, possibly about baseball, or Plato.

    (I'd sure as hell stand surety for him. I wouldn't hesitate to put my head on that block!)

    Christopher
  • But you're no stranger to this, Tom. Look what they did to you on Harriet?

    I've just been making up a list of all my posts that got deleted at Harriet, and there are well over 20. The following one starts off with a little dialogue between you and a Harriet regular who had just mocked you for having been involved in Foetry.com. It's an eye opener, both for what it says and the fact that IT ALL GOT DELETED! Can you imagine?

    07/31/2009 4:25 am CONTESTS Thread
    http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/07/contest/

    “You say that like it’s something to be proud of.” (+3 green thumbs)

    “Proud as hell, my friend.” (-3 red thumbs)

    “I thought there was a whiff of sulfur about you.” (+2 green thumbs)

    How many witches have not been hunted down with such innuendoes? How many lives have not been wrecked by such fantasies: fabricated covens, secret memberships, icons concealed in the cellar? And how recently has such a movement not terrorized our own society, and compromised some of our best writers and artists?

    Do a little research on Foetry.com, Matt and Robin, see what it was actually like. Almost at random I chose the following, a thread called “Judging Poetry and Integrity” which was started in December 2006. http://foetry.com/forum/index.php?topic=937.0

    The last post on the thread, 121 replies and 29486 visits later, is by Monday Love (Thomas Brady) and is dated February 12th, 2007. Here it is:

    "Adam,

    I absolutely agree what you say about the Platonic dialogues. What a treasure. And Socrates seems to be out of favor among the literati these days. Too bad.

    I was reading the lesser-known dialogue “Lysis” last night, and it reminded me so much of Shakespeare–the psychological love-intrigue is brilliant, as well as the exploration of: what is a slave? A lover? a friend? A citizen? I can see how the Greek context of the male-dominated society would be off-putting to some, but the questioning spirit is so eye-opening on so many levels. Like all great art, Plato never feels tawdry or reductive.

    Monday"


    POSTED BY: CHRISTOPHER WOODMAN ON JULY 31, 2009 AT 4:25 AM


    More from this same thread has just been posted at Clattery MacHinery http://clatterymachinery.wordpress.com/2008/04/20/the-pee-in-the-pool-of-on-line-poetry-by-terreson/ The exchange beautifully illustrates the absurdity and abuse of the Like/Dislike system. This is a real indictment of Harriet, where the function was deliberately introduced to hurt people. The regime obviously twisted people's logic, and created a nasty, back-biting environment.

    On the other hand, it didn't work because you as Thomas Brady remained cheerful and unflappable. So they just pulled your plug.

    As just did Travis Nichols' friend, Bobby Baird.
  • Monday Love
    Bobby Baird, former Chicago Review editor, doctoral student at U. Chicago, and Stephen Burt worshiper, runs a little blog in which Kent Johnson posted his silly 'chicago school' diatribe.

    I responded in the comments section:

    "A man named Johnson presents a list of names, then a tortured explanation of how this list of names is, but is not, a school. We are informed that Stephen Burt is “far and away” the silliest man whoever put on pants, and invented something called the “Ding-a-Ling” school.

    A spirited discussion ensues. Does X really live in Chicago? Someone named Adam claims ownership of the list of names, or the school that is not a school, or something. Adam does not live in Chicago. Adam is a filthy liar. Or perhaps he does live in Chicago. I don’t know. Perhaps… I don’t care.

    Tomorrow, we’ll examine the Back-Scratching School—which is nothing like the New York School! Believe me!"

    Bobby refused to publish my comment.

    Whatever the "Chicago School" is, we now know it takes itself very...very...seriously....
  • monday love
    Woody,

    It is enlightening to revisit that Harriet thread, the CONTEST thread of Eileen Myles. This was back when Harriet was alive, in July, and not dead, as it is now, in September. (Brady and Swords were banned Sept. 1)

    On the CONTEST thread on Harriet, back in July, THIS post, by Michael Robbins, earned THREE PLUS votes:

    "At first I thought this said, “The last time I judged a contest, they sent me a big pie,” & I was, like, mmm, pie …"

    --Michael Robbins

    Compare Robbins' comment to mine, below, which earned 12 negative comments and was disappeared:

    "As an old foetry.com pro, here’s my reflective take on the contest controversy:

    In 99 cases out of 100, to read even a single poem, in a fresh state of mind, in a good mood, we find ourselves enjoying the act of reading itself, alive to the steps the poem is taking, and yet when we finish the poem, we are not really certain whether the steps, which we did enjoy, did lead to a result in our minds such that we can say with certainty that the poem managed to score high enough (for lack of a better term) in comparison to the million or so poems we have read in our lives.

    The odds of any new poem, on any given day, asserting itself so that we know: this is ‘it,’ are probably a million to one.

    No wonder we have numerous public examples where judges announce smoothly that nothing pleases them and ask to see manuscripts which have not even been submitted (Auden, Merwin, in the Yale Younger, etc)

    After reading a dozen poems or so, enthusiasm will automatically flag; we have no idea, at that point, if we are really pleased or not, for the effort to give the poem the attention it deserves has long since faded, and we begin to blame the poems themselves for not keeping us enthusiastic, when in fact, a natural limit is at fault. If there is the slightest pre-disposition to like or dislike a particular manuscript, here the prejudice will quickly manifest itself at a thousand times its normal strength; here the judge should simply stop reading.

    But the judge cannot stop reading; a deadline looms.

    In addition, there is the added issue that contemporary poems tend to plead their case in terms which are vague, winding, complex, insidious, moral, amoral, loquacious, prosaic, coyly humorous, and even coyly matter-of-fact or banal, so that ‘judging’ finds itself in a carefully constructed hall-of-mirrors which intentionally mocks the whole idea of judgment itself.

    Ashbery said once that he sought to write the critic-proof poem—and this contemporary issue, as far as I know, has never been properly examined; for how does one examine a thing which is judgment-proof? In as much as Ashbery and his numerous followers have succeeded, judgment is dead, and when judgment is dead, so, of course, is the contest.

    In discussing the uncomfortable subject of contest cheating it needs to be acknowledged right away that cheating overcomes a very immense problem."

    ---Thomas Brady

    This is pretty strong proof to me that some form of bad faith 'ballot stuffing' by an insidious and cowardly coterie was going on behind the scenes at Harriet.

    Otherwise, why would Robbins' smarmy, unfunny and off-topic remark get 3 positive votes, while Brady's on-topic, interesting post (whether one agrees specifically with its points or not) get a minus 12?

    The minus 12 for Brady might simply indicate disagreement on the part of a number of readers--this is fine, and I never complained of this; I carried on with good humor in the face of negative votes.

    However, the fact that Robbins--who openly and crassly rebuked Brady as soon as Brady showed up on Harriet (and the good Robbins has since apologized for his behavior towards Brady, on THIS thread) earned 3 POSITIVE votes for his off-topic, unfunny offense on Harriet's thread and Brady earned 12 NEGATIVE votes for his on-topic, thoughtful post, on the same Harriet thread, must give one pause.

    This must especially give one pause in light of the fact that Brady, one month later, was BANNED from Harriet without a warning, simply for making thoughtful, on-topic posts similar to the one quoted, and, we might add here, also BANNED, were Woodman and Swords, not for offense or abuse, but simply for making Harriet a lively and more democratic place, even as they were generally greeted with negative votes from the same voters (we must assume) who gave Robbins 3 POSITIVE votes for his off-topic 'pie' remark.

    Brady, Woodman, and Swords were happy to dwell in Travis Nichols' thumbs up/down universe, and even said good things about that system in a thoughtful, good-natured way; in other words, these three didn't gripe or muck up the site with off-topic, woe-is-me complaints; they kept doing what they love to do--talk poetry.

    Travis Nichols was happy--posts that Harriet 'readers' didn't like were voted down and disappeared--and Brady, Woodman, and Swords were happy, because they could keep posting on poetry.

    Apparently not.

    Travis Nichols was STILL not happy.

    He BANNED Woodman, Brady and Swords.

    Now Harriet is dead.

    If what I am describing in my comments here has any validity at all, the trustees and managers of the Poetry Foundation should be ashamed, embarrassed, and outraged.

    I hope they are.

    Thomas
  • monday love
    Woody, yea, I'm funky!

    I see Margo and John Simon are blah blah blah on Harriet. I wonder if they'll get a warning: watch your word count? I love the people who blah blah blah--but God forbid! that others blah blah blah. I suppose their blah blah blah is acceptable because it's just anecdotal dribble. I suppose Harriet feels very sophisticated discussing whether W.H. Auden preferred vodka or gin... Yawn.
  • Monday Love
    "Has it occurred to anyone here that you may have been banned becuase you are raving, paranoid maniacs?"

    Yea, I'm a raving, paranoid maniac.

    And watch your word count, there, Artful Dodger...too many words REALLY offends us...we don't read terribly well, we're sort of illiterate, so lots of words, boy, we really don't like that...just be careful about your word count AND your post count, OK? Thanks!
  • Artful Dodger
    You contest the fact that you were banned from Harriet due to length and volume of posts. Why don't you go back and count your posts/words here and on Clattery Machinery.

    You're all freaking nuts, that's all!
  • Artful Dodger
    Has it occurred to anyone here that you may have been banned becuase you are raving, paranoid maniacs?
  • Monday Love
    Woody: 'plain, short, and dysfunctional?' Is that what I am? LOL
  • Monday Love
    We all live in the yellow submarine, yellow submarine, yellow submarine, we all live in the yellow submarine...
  • I don't think we need have an inquest on the failures of Travis Nichols. Far better to sing from where the action and excitement is here, with everyone reading, and as detached observers of a more competitive ring of poesy elsewhere, where all is one person's madness crashing itself about on the poor mugs opting into a 'handy' 'dislike' function. Deluded, and without duende, one man at his desk, bored and pretending to manifest importance with neat ideas that fail on all counts - apart from telegraphing...

    I have had three seperate experiences of being the Administrator of a chat gaffe, and learnt something of importance on all three.

    The first was after getting slung of the poem.uk board in 2004/5 - and getting a thousand visits in a week, with no members talking. I remember the surprise and realisation that, the Adminstrator/s banning me had only caused people to become interested in what I write.

    The second had a life of several weeks and less than one or two members: a failure from the beginning.

    The third, came about several months after first writing on the guardian books blog six months after it began, in spring 2007. A poster had the idea to set up their own board, to get round the mod policies, which many ended up thinking were biased towards the paid writers, who we later found out did not recieve the 150 a pop blog-fee, but a paltry amount and possibly even doing iot like us, for free.

    We found this out after taking the idea of setting up a forum for disgruntled rebs, and setting up my third one. Literature Lovers - which had a six month intense flowering, before it died a death after I lost my cool and blew it, showing myself not the guardian angel of sweetness and light I was aiming for: but a dickhead.

    I remember setting it up and finding my way round the panel of admin panes that give full control over what appears in one's very own Forum we control as ...who are we? - we ask: if we're lucky enough to get out and be a humble ciffer, blogging anonymous, free from the chains of superfical success, contemporary, in the moment - which do not reap happiness but something else: failure.

    Hurragh!
  • Robbins is the breath of fresh air. Great read Michael: loved it, professionally as a tosser off of anything in the hope it hits a target.

    Sorry for slagging you so remorselessly before you wrote this refreshingly dishonest piece of total balderdash - you double agent working for Satan's little helpers over at the Foetry Poundation.

    I know you're connected to Sonny O'Hara, Fred Asda and Frank O'Hare, a next Seidel Walmart from the Chicago School. Have you heard about it?

    There is me, Graves you and Woodman, along with a load of others - 20 or so - four puppets each, handcostume to ventriliquise the theatre in our minds Michael, mate, colleague, founder in the quad who make a New Chicago School Thing, 'the cloth and talk of honest men'.

    A line by James Kelly, last of the wandering Kerry bards: a voice of human birdsong and poetic intelligence, simply unique. As we all are, in every School, Group or Workshop, perhaps - perhaps not Robbins - Swords Graves Woodman and now another, Mick Robbins, Frank O'Who ooh, is it Chicago for us all longeur and ennui.

    ~

    Forgive the experimental speculative discoure above, as what's happening is a space of poetic discourse is opening up, right before the ear and eye, balanced colloquy between lovers of poetry, writing and reading the most honestly we have yet, about our own Truth within: who we are.

    Presenting ourselves only in print, is an exact science and never mastered, perhaps, probably, possibly - no - yeah - because we are all individual people: the person we truly are, within.

    When rendering the mind within, without - if this is what we are doing - success can only be measured by what happiness the activity of writing brings (is it fair to say?), if this bringing to be in print of ourself - is what's existentially happening: in reality?

    This has been a truly positive development in our campaign for making us the recipient/s of a Muse's favour, who come here as the Chicago colloquists.
  • Robbins
    Well, I didn't leave Harriet because it didn't advance my career! I left because, if you guys want to know, I am embarrassed by how often I allowed myself to lose my cool. Best not to post. I'm sorry you're so offended, Christopher, but you're quite wrong to say that I have no interest in poetry beyond my own career. You don't teach for dirt pay for fifteen years unless you love to share your knowledge of, & hopefully your love for, poetry. I may have done all right lately in small ways, but what about the twenty years no one had the slightest idea or cared who I was? I wrote & taught poetry all that time because I love it, that's all. I don't care if you believe that, but I wanted to say it.

    As for Kent, he teaches at a community college, & he loves it! What influence does Kent have in the academic or poetic community? He just cares, is all. I didn't ask him to write anything about me, although of course I appreciate his kind words. I truly don't ask anyone to be impressed by my "pals," nor do I think anyone should be. I didn't know Don Share or Paul Muldoon from Adam when I first showed them my work. And I don't claim to have influenced anyone. I'm pleased by what I've accomplished, but I understand if others are unimpressed, & I make no claims to greatness. Hell, cultural prophecy's a mug's game. I'm just writing poems & trying to reach people with them. I don't ask you to like them or think they're any good.

    I'm telling you, it was not your passion about poetry I ever objected to. I just think you misread the situation at Harriet. The only reason anyone got banned is because they posted too often, & their posts were too long.

    Meanwhile, I met Travis & Don exactly once. I had nothing to do with anyone's getting banned. No one asks me what I think about Harriet, or shares their plans with me. I'm not posting there any more because I regret my own part in our battles. No need to prove that I got angry, Christopher, I know I did. But Thomas did too.

    Anyway, let this be water under the bridge. I wish you both all the best—two folks who, whatever our disagreements, care about the poems, which is all we should ask.
  • monday love
    Michael,

    So according to Kent Johnson, you are to Seidel what Seidel was to Robert Lowell, "in open thrall to the master," and Kent is anxious to point this out, why? Have you influenced Seidel? Why should anyone care what your friend thinks of you--who no one knows--in terms of Seidel? This is blatant back-scratching, plain and simple, and you obviously don't need to go on Harriet every day with friends like Kent Johnson.

    My personal issue with Harriet matters little, you're right, but I do care about systemic issues like manifesto-ism and coterie-ism and I like to look at 'em and point 'em out.

    I've got bigger fish to fry than advancing my own career. That's a horrible contradiction, I guess, but I'll deal with it.

    You obviously have pals in places I don't, but I just never find myself impressed by that sort of thing.

    Thanks for your apology.

    Good luck to you,

    Thomas
  • Michael Robbins
    And to say that you weren't belligerent in your posts is really certifiable. I certainly didn't intend any personal offense to you with any of my posts, which admittedly were heated at times. If I offended you, I apologize. But I'm finished with Harriet for good, Thomas. You can have it, if they'll have you. Why is this such a big deal for you anyway? So they banned you: if I were you, my attitude would be, who needs 'em?
  • Michael Robbins
    Ha! First of all, Frank O'Hara is not John O'Hara, not even in the same ballpark. Second of all, both Kent & Michael are well aware that my own review of the Seidel book appeared a few weeks ago in the London Review of Books, so to say I have "nothing to do with the Seidel review at all" is disingenuous even if it weren't clear from my work that he is an important influence on my poetry.

    Third of all, poor Mr. Graves, the last time I posted at Harriet was on the 1st of September, & before my posts in that thread I'd been away from the site for some time. That's what this is really about: far from "regularly" doing anything at Harriet, I have an actual life that requires long periods wherein I don't even visit the site. If you've been banned from Harriet, it's only because you posted several comments a day, every day, or almost every day. No one's interested in anything ANYONE has to say that often, much less whoever you are.
  • Monday Love
    I think Christopher is referring to THIS:

    "It's a small thing to note, though who knows, it may become a bigger thing down the road, when Seidel has accumulated his generations of imitators, like Frank O'Hara has had. But it's an interesting coincidence that one of the other reviewers in this issue is Michael Robbins, who seems very much now to Seidel what the young Ted Berrigan was then to O'Hara, or what the young Seidel once was himself to the older Lowell: a brilliant "first" imitator, in open thrall to the master, working through the older poet's signature steps, on the path to finding some kind of new synthesis of his own." Kent, Sept. 3, 2009

    The above is from the first comment on a Poetry Foundation site review of Fred Seidel by M. Hofmann, and the comment clearly shows careerist machinations at work, since Kent Johnson is clearly interested in singing the praises of the belligerent Harriet poster, Michael Robbins, even though Robbins has nothing to do with the Seidel review at all. Kent Johnson goes on inform readers in the post quoted that Robbins had a poem published in 'The New Yoker,' as the transparent back-scratch continues.

    Robbins, who regularly flames other posters on Harriet, the Poetry Foundation blog, is one of Harriet's pets, and the blatant back-scratching from Kent Johnson (another Harriet pet) in the 'articles' section of the Foundation site, is a nice piece of evidence.

    Harriet has recently banned three posters who showed more civility on Harriet than either Robbins or his buddy, Kent Johnson.

    It makes one wonder. Is the Poetry Foundation interested in increasing the presence of poetry in the general culture, as its stated mission suggests, or is it more interested in advancing the careers of certain individuals?
  • Michael Robbins
    Does he mean Frank O'Hara? I don't really know what he's talking about.
blog comments powered by Disqus