Funny you mention ‘play pen,’ for that was the gist of the debate; some were saying Robert Service is a poet for kids.
What do you think?

Thomas
Report this comment

Robert Service was recommended to me by my roommate in college, who was a Classics major (his own personal favorite was Propertius – he used to read Greek & Latin poetry with a mini-Sony TV perched on his capacious midriff). He was one of the wealthiest kids in Kansas City (cattle-drive money). He wore cowboy boots. He became an expatriate. Eventually went to work for an international refugee agency in Switzerland. Now lives in Latin America, helping poor people. Has spent a lot of time in refugee crisis locations (like Chechnya). I think Service represented the vita activa (as opposed to collegiate life in the Ivy League).
Report this comment

” Jack argues with a certain style; he’s tough, he’s no-nonsense. That’s a STYLE.”

Damn straight. And don’t chew forget it sonny!

I’m the fricking Norman Mailer of this place.
Report this comment

Does he have 15 years experience in magazine editing and production?
Answer: No.

Does he have eight books published with major publishers? Answer: No.

Does he have any books published?
Answer: No.

Hence he has no experience in my experienced opinion a real rookie. Believe what you like. It’s a free country. But I will tell you this his “experience” is a joke.
Report this comment

I think limiting the number of comments the commentators and the blogger can make on a given thread sounds too much like the Atkins diet. Firstly, I would reiterate what I said above, that the thread – to the extent that is can be controlled – should be controlled by the blogger herself and not by the foundation. And “steered” is more what I mean. The thread is a continuation of the post by other means (pun intended…pace Clausewitz). There’s a parody of this in my second post, which a few people didn’t realize was a parody. Personally, I like to participate in the threads. In fact, I don’t feel like I’m really blogging until I get into the thread. But that’s my problem; I still haven’t learned how to write a proper blog. Since I wouldn’t want to limit myself, I don’t think it would be equitable to limit others. Annie said above (I’m paraphrasing) that all of the wonderful discussion and speculation wouldn’t happen without some people at times getting over-enthused. I think she’s absolutely spot on. At any rate, it’s easy to identify, or simply speed read the comments one isn’t interested in and move on quickly to those that strike one as interesting and purposeful.

One more note: shame on the person (I can’t remember who it was) who picked out the posts with the least comments and tired to make a marketplace example out of them. The number of comments that accrue has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of the post. Denton Welch is not Tom Clancy.

Martin
Report this comment

Aggressive over-commenters; resentful under-commenters.

I’m against too much censorious control. But unless everyone shows some restraint, seeks a happy medium, then control will inevitably be applied.

Do you hear that, Thomas Brady? Jack Conway? Henry Gould?

Don’t make this a venue for personal preening. In a world where most people have to work a lot, & have little time to catch up, the egoism is stupid & self-defeating. The more you hang on your own every oh-so-clever word, the less other people are going to pay attention. Law of diminishing returns. Get it?

Seek the happy medium. Show some courtesy & restraint. Allow some new voices to pipe up. We’ll all enjoy this blog more if we follow these simple admonishments.
Report this comment

I apologize again for the misunderstanding.

We had different views of ‘the pitch’ of Iolanthe’s post. I was wrong. I’m sorry I got her tone wrong.

I’m glad we all agree, then, that ‘chaos and crisis’ do not exist here.

Thanks for your comments.

Thomas
Report this comment

John,

Michael Robbins has been rude and abusive to me since I came onto Harriet.

Let me check to see if I’m OK.

Yea, I am.

I guess I just don’t see the big deal. It goes with the territory. Michael Robbins is far more than what I see of him on this site. His behavior towards me is a given. I accept it, and I even respect it. I wouldn’t want Harriet to censor Michael Robbins. I prefer his abuse. I really do. Because, it’s not really abuse. It’s him, it’s how he feels and thinks, and I want it. I do. I want it.

I haven’t the slightest concern for “streams of abuse,” as you call them. I read them, or don’t read them, as I please. They sometimes make me laugh. They consist of real human beings expressing themselves, having arguments, scoring points. So what? The comments above? With Jack arguing re: blog protocol? That’s a legitmate argument. Jack argues with a certain style; he’s tough, he’s no-nonsense. That’s a STYLE. The little asides and pokes? It takes me a few seconds to read them. They are not ‘abusive.’

Come on, why do we need to infantilize ourselves like this? John, you mix it up pretty good, and I enjoy it when you do. Are you seriously saying anyone here has been “abused?”

I see all these people coming here, complaining, and then I look at all these wonderful posts and none of them are discussing poetry on these threads! What is up with that?

I don’t really know what else I can say on this.

I hope to continue to see you on the other threads.

Thomas
Report this comment

I pointed out that Iolanthe’s comment was not written in the pitch you said it was, and that your description of it was hyperbolic. Saying Iolanthe saw “chaos and crisis,” implying irrationality or willful exaggeration, is not consistent with the rather congenial things that commenter said. Your prolonged and energetic reaction to something that was not there is what I wanted to point out.

“Counting comments and visits or ‘hits’ ” to Harriet would not be, to use your word, a “scientific” way to assess the impact of recent commenting on Harriet’s readership. You would get numbers but no reason behind or way to interpret the numbers. The work that would be required to evaluate the numbers seems excessive, and it seems fair instead to accept the voices of the many people asking for change outright as an indicator that such change may not be a bad idea. After all, Catherine Halley did tell us that 3 people had posted 30% of 829 posts recently. That “scientific” evidence of disproportion should at least decrease your cynicism.

Jack Conway,

Based on what I have seen at a few different publications, contributing editors and associate editors often do help make policy. After Michael Robbins pointed out that he had participated at publications in roles like these, your saying he had “no experience” in publishing didn’t make sense. I still don’t think it does.

I’ll let you guys have the last word.
Report this comment

Just a thought.

Kent
Report this comment

To Quote the poetic words of Clint Eastwood, “Feeling lucky, punk?”

Yikes, I hope that doesn’t scare poor John. Dear, dear your false sense of outrage and phony concern is hilarious. Thanks for the laugh John.
Report this comment

The point is, though, that, yes, I am 100% opposed to censorship of any kind. Even expletives. Would we prefer “They goof you up really bad, your mum and dad”?

On the other hand, I do not favor complete anarchy. Sometimes, though, we must choose the lesser of evils. As I earlier said, every community has its bully or village idiot. Tolerating the occasional bad actor is a small price to pay when compared to any inhibition of free expression. Who, then, would judge the judges? Just my humble opinion.

Carry on.

GBF
Report this comment

As it happens I do feel lucky!

Jack asked for evidence, called me a punk when I didn’t immediately comply, and then said he didn’t want the evidence after all.

Find your own evidence, Jack. If you don’t know what you’re talking about, that’s not my problem. It doesn’t happen all the time — hasn’t happened in a few months — but Hertzberg occasionally compliments his coworkers on his blog. He recently referred to a “New Yorker” profile as “great” and thanked another “New Yorker” blogger for linking to a good article.

Here are my questions to you, Jack. Why does such practice bother you? Why is it in your opinion “unprofessional”? (Obviously it *is* professional — people are being paid to do it!) I’m glad that Harriet staff comment on each other’s posts — it’s all part of the discussion! Why exclude professionals from the discussion, Jack? Why the desire for segregation?

I was going to let this drop, but then I saw the question about my feel for luck. Isn’t Eastwood pointing a gun at someone when he asks that question? Are you going to shoot me, Jack? I certainly hope not! (I don’t think you are, by the way, but the threat of violence is unpleasant and should probably be taken seriously in these times.) I do expect an answer to this question.

And my question for you, Thomas: Why does it surprise you that lots of people don’t like an abusive comments stream?
Report this comment

“Thomas Brady,

To Iolanthe you wrote this:

‘You haven’t proved that Harriet is in the throes of chaos and crisis; yet you speak as if it is, without one shred of evidence.’

You indicate someone said something that was not said, and then claim the original speaker is at fault because the truth of what was not said fails the test of proof. “Chaos and crisis” is hyperbolic, and Iolanthe’s comment does not take that kind of pitch. Search for “chaos” in the comment field and you’ll find that you were the only one using it.”

Hi Stephen,

I did not “indicate someone said something that was not said.”

You, however just did the same yourself.

I said Iolanthe spoke “as if” Harriet was in “crisis.”

I did not say that she said Harriet was in “crisis.”

In the context of this whole thread, this whole conversation, I felt that her saying ‘every site must be moderated’ was taking a position that, based on recent events–which include a spike in comments and lively discussions, and a ‘spitting contest’ which has since has been resolved–that something “must” change in the way Harriet is run.

I think it was clear to everyone what I was saying, and what I was saying was not that unusual, and for you to come here and accuse me of twisting Iolanthe’s words and to accuse me of being “hyperbolic” is a red herring.

My position is clear, Stephen. You don’t have to play lawyer with me.

I love it here and I think the conversaton has expanded since I’ve come here. I think I am fitting right in with the Poetry Foundation’s mission: to make poetry more accessible to the general public.

I don’t know the long history here. Have there been disputes before? How many comments does the average post get?

I saw where people vehemently disagreed with each other over Robert Service, but I think everyone involved is OK. Let me check. Yea, they’re OK.

I have posted a lot. I think people have surivived that, too. Let me check. Yea, they’re fine.

I’m simply arguing that I like this freedom and I think blocking that freedom would do more harm than good. I don’t think anyone needs to be banned, and I don’t think extra moderation is needed. Posts await to be read, and commented on. Go to it.

That’s my opinion.

I try to respond to everyone with civility and care. And I respectfully beg to differ: I did not, as you say, “indicate someone said something that was not said.” I’m sorry you feel that way, and Iolanthe, I’m sorry if you felt that way, too.

I don’t why some people are assuming that they are flowers and I am a weed. I just don’t understand this.

I have no idea what you are saying here:

“After thanking two commenters for their thoughts and summarizing a newspaper article, Iolanthe’s comment did say that “blogs must be moderated.” For good reasons to think that Harriet should start moderating comments, rather than forensic evidence proving the suggestion is unbreakably right, see the original polite blog post by Catherine Halley, quoted in part to you already by Former Berkeley Girl; but this can’t be accepted because it’s coming from a corrupt voice on the inside. See also other comments by Kent Johnson, Michael Robbins, Former Berkeley Girl, Iain, Travis Nichols, Colin Ward, Michael J, Desmond Swords, John, Daisy Fried, Monica Fambrough, and so on, who don’t all advocate banning certain commenters. But all make suggestions as to how the comment fields could be altered to discourage abuse or, at the least, to improve the current state of discussion; but this can’t be accepted because these people are arrogant, also on the inside, or have no idea what they are talking about.”

Stephen, you are putting words in my mouth. What do you mean “this can’t be accepted because it’s coming from a corrupt voice on the inside”?????

I disagree with the idea that Harriet needs stronger moderation right now. Pretty simple. That’s it. Are you trying to imply that I am rebuking “the original polite blog post by Catherine Halley” in some insidious manner? I am simply stating my position. I don’t even consider that there may be a “corrupt voice on the inside.” You are saying this, not me. I’m appealing to (what I think) is reason, that’s all. I feel a certain way and I’m trying to express how I feel as rationally as I can. I’ve never said these disagreements can’t exist.

Then, Stephen, you write:

“You say you want “evidence that people are leaving Harriet.” What would that be, a bunch of people returning to the blog to say they aren’t here? If they aren’t here, how can they be asked to say they aren’t? Should the blog staff sort through every IP address that visited the site six months ago, ascertain which visited enough times to be considered a regular, and then compare these lists to a current list of IP addresses? If the number of Harriet’s readers listed in the previous paragraph would like to see or are willing to suggest alterations to how the comments are run, and since some of them DO say they have been commenting at or visiting Harriet less frequently lately, isn’t this enough proof?”

No, Stephen, I don’t want “the blog staff to sort through every IP address…” (!!!)

I thought counting comments and visits or ‘hits’ to a site was pretty simple. Maybe I’m wrong.

I don’t think evidence should be purely ‘anecdotal.’ That was my point. I don’t think name-calling is evidence. I don’t think you or Kent saying ‘Thomas Brady has been posting too much’ should be used as evidence. If thousands of people are reading Harriet, and then suddenly hundreds of people are reading Harriet, then that might be a concern. Has that happened? I don’t know.

Finally, Stephen, you write:

“Your disingenuousness in this is overbearing, which is odd because, as Kent Johnson pointed out, you have often shown here a serious mind for literature, and one would think you’d like for this blog to present good discussions about writing instead of sophistry. Which do you want?”

Yes, “good discussions about writing” over “sophistry.” Yes.

Thomas
Report this comment

Posts or comments?

I was assuming that posts were topic essays posted by Annie Finch, for example: the Simone Weil piece is ‘a post’ and then ‘comments’ are added to that post?

I know that posts are often referred to as comments…

Thanks, and sorry if I confused you or misread you!

Thomas
Report this comment

I don’t have the time or inclination to sus it all out. I came here because it was recommended to me. I even brought someone Jennifer Hawes, Some BOZO here insulted her and she refuses to come back. Worse is that she told me she won’t be recommending this site to any of her English faculty associates or students. Good job Brownie!

Lookit, I’ve two books tours coming up: one on Cape Cod for my Cape book and one for the new book on NYC in the Gilded Age, which by the by should take me into NY Barnes and Noble. Supposed to be a big roll-out. We’ll see. Convincing people here they have some problems with inertia, professionalism and behavior is a full time job. I’ve not the time or once again inclination. I’m sure I’ll come back to this site in the fall and it will be just the same as it ever was with just the same people saying just the same things and having not a clue as to why they can’t attract new people. Ho-hum. I will tell you this: word of mouth is a powerful tool. You can be certain that as I (and as Jenn has done) have an opportunity to speak to people during the upcoming book tours, if it ever crosses my mind, I will be more than happy to not recommend this cite to anyone serious about poetry. Granted, a limited audience, perhaps, but still in all given the lack of numbers here and the inertia that has set in, it will be my distinct pleasure not to put in a good word for this cite or the behavior of the people here — unprofessional is the word that readily comes to mind.

And yes, John, I will be writing that letter to John Barr, as will probably my publisher, agent and others. As to whether it makes a wit of difference, doesn’t matter, but if I was a CEO I’d want to know that my product is being misrepresented and mishandled. And since you pointed it out, since you can’t regulate yourself, then maybe someone else SHOULD moderate the goings on here.
Report this comment