Henstoat dies?

'I just thought it'd be nice to be treated like everyone else is for a change.' But I was under the impression that a lot of the things that you value about yourself (and in my humble opinion rightly) are those qualities that make you distinct from 'everyone else', ie Joe Average. Perhaps people on abc, your pseudo-peers, haven't lavished you with praise because you don't need it. You're not someone of so-so writing ability who is already past middle age and will never be exceptional, and so needs a pat on the head and all that drivel-as-encouragement that so often gets bandied about. People are talking about the book at some of them are piqued and riled. I don't think a book's really much cop *unless* it provokes that kind of response, at least in some circles. I think most of us choose to disregard comments from others that offend our vision of ourselves - to paraphrase Missi - and Hen's no different in this respect. I don't think it's worthwhile remonstrating with critics, however. They're giving your work the oxygen of attention. Let 'em witter. Could any of them have written it? No. Come on, Jon. Esteemed poet though he is, surely you don't crave Missi's praise so much that you're prepared to argue with him when he doesn't give it. You mentioned family and friends responding positively. Is it absolutely necessary that everyone loves what you've done? That smacks of insecurity, not to mention (if you really are hell-bent on soliciting George's blessing) desperation. Riiiise above it like the wingéd plover.

Well, I *am* insecure. And yep, I'm taking it too seriously. But no, I don't need everyone to love it. It's just the same as not expecting everyone in the world to like you. You'd still rather people didn't hate you. I had no problem at all with not a word being said about the book on ABC. I wouldn't have dared to plug it on the forums. But I do feel the need to defend myself against accusations of self-important literary swordplay, and, unfortunately, that's required a full explanation. Plus, on the rare occasion when Missi states his opinions in a reasonable tone, I can't resist the urge to try to reason back. I don't know. I think I am sorely lacking the Fuck 'Em Factor.

I think you need to make good on your old promise: 'I am currently devising the *ultimate* proem. Not only does it feature a tragic - yet ambiguously portrayed - accident befalling a honey-headed chap on a two-wheeled vehicle, *not only* does it take place at a turning point in Japanese history and feature a ghostly ancestor wreaking havoc in a way that might be interpreted as an allegory, *not only* will it be rendered *totally* unreadable by the self-consciousness of youth, but *in addition*, as an added bonus, it will end with me being rogered by a goat in the world's most beguiling latrine. It's called 'For Fistbatch of Pomes, Whoever He May Be'.' Surely, such a piece would place you above criticism.

It needs time to brew. I'm still not sure about the goat.

UKAuthors - Discuss everything else - Playing Possum Forum Index | UKA FP Discuss everything else New Topic | Go to Top | Go to Topic | Search Newer Topic | Older Topic Playing Possum Author: henstoat (---.dyn.gotadsl.co.uk) Date: 09-08-04 18:32 OK, I'm half-amused, half-stunned about this. How many of you are seriously shocked/outraged/upset by the fact that my poetry collection plays on the premise that the author is dead? It's odd, I grant you, and maybe a little confusing, but other than that, I don't see what the problem is. I thought my major problem would be people sighing and saying, "Done before. Dull, dull, dull." In which case I was preparing to explain that I had reasons other than wanting to do something 'new' ie. presenting my work in a particular way, expanding the boundaries of fiction. As I said to Shacks, if those of you who know of me read it, and generally thought I'd died, I apologise for the shock. But think about what that tells you. That you believe something just because it's written on the back of a book! I mean, come on! We live in an age where it's a cliche to say that the media lies, to us, but you still believe what you read in a blurb? Does that mean you believe that every author in WHSmith is truly "one of the most revered writers of our generation"? Or that Lemony Snickett is a real person, and his Series of Unfortunate Events is a factual account of the misfortunes of a real-life family of orphans? It's 2004, people! The death of the author has come and gone and been put on the syllabus! Experimental fiction runs riot! There's more to creative writing than passing on stories and sharing your feelings! This site even has an erotica section, y'know! Maybe I should just be excited that this kind of thing still has the potential to cause shock and outrage. But I don't want to shock and outrage UKA members. You're writers, and as such, I was kind of hoping you'd share in the joy of the writing experiment, and see how a simple thing like death affects the way we can approach poetry. - Rant off - Reply To This Message Re: Playing Possum Author: bektron (---.cable.ubr01.livi.blueyonder.co.uk) Date: 09-08-04 18:37 when I saw the blurb, a wry smile crossed my face and my immediate reaction was -what a smart idea. Which I think suits what I know of you and your poetry, like I said on the other thread this is exactly the sort of angle that the press/marketing people love it's a hook, a catch something to be discussed. I love it. Good luck with the book by the way! Reply To This Message Re: Playing Possum Author: Hazy (193.132.151.---) Date: 09-08-04 18:42 Am sure death affects the way we can approach poetry - or any type of writing, film, whatever media... of course, if someone dies, people want to read their stuff. It's human nature. If I dropped down dead today (touching wood here that some revengeful bus driver don't mow me down) then I bet my last penny (contest the will if you must) that you'd all go have a "butchers" at my stuff! OMG I'll be on the 'most read' section for months... Anyway, I do think it's a clever marketing ploy. But I do think it irresponsible that you could allow people who consider themselves your friends on here to believe you've died. Maybe it would have been courteous or a little more responsible to put somat on your journal (if you have, sorry... not checked) for those who might know you. Hazy x Reply To This Message Re: Playing Possum Author: Gee (---.l3.c3.dsl.pol.co.uk) Date: 09-08-04 18:42 Honestly, I think if it's your book, it's up to you to do whatever you want. If you want to say that you're dead, a ten foot tall alien from Alpha Centauri or a reincarnation of King Tut, then carry on. And, having read a little of the other thread, I don't think it was exactly put that bluntly but, not having had the book yet, I don't know. Reply To This Message Re: Playing Possum Author: Andrea (---.xdsl.tiscali.nl) Date: 09-08-04 18:42 *I* love it too :-) And Hen, in real life, is utterly delightful... *swoons* Reply To This Message Re: Playing Possum Author: bektron (---.cable.ubr01.livi.blueyonder.co.uk) Date: 09-08-04 18:44 Calm down Ms Lowne! there's more to life than books you know, but not much more... Reply To This Message Re: Playing Possum Author: Andrea (---.xdsl.tiscali.nl) Date: 09-08-04 19:36 Pass the smelling salts, will ya Beks? Reply To This Message Re: Playing Possum Author: arienette (---.tulane.edu) Date: 09-08-04 19:49 I just wish I'd thought of it first! pmh x Reply To This Message Re: Playing Possum Author: Chrissy (---.ptc-gw1.dial.plus.net) Date: 09-08-04 20:00 I just didn't understand why you did it. There didn't seem any point unless it was in your opinion, a good way to get people to read your work. A sort of ultimate sympathy read. Guess that's marketing. Can't say that it would make me want to read an authors work just 'cause they're dead. Chrissy Reply To This Message Re: Playing Possum Author: arienette (---.tulane.edu) Date: 09-09-04 07:20 Chrissy, I don't think it was a sympathy thing at all. I wouldn't buy a book on sympathy. I'd have done it as a quirky thing, to make the book a little less conventional. Everyone, after all, is fascinated with death. Think of the box sets that pop up in HMV after the demise of some rock star. The oodles of Kurt Cobain biographies. Also, I think it was a challenge. hen said earlier in the thread that it was a test of whether people believe everything they read or not. Many dandy highwaymen! pmh x Reply To This Message Re: Playing Possum Author: silentmemories (---.otenet.gr) Date: 09-09-04 09:23 Hen, death is not a simple thing but anyway. I really liked your blurb, it was different, it was something you wanted and you must keep it as it is. I wonder though what you would write in the next blurb of your next book of poems keep them busy Hen, after all they want to be kept busy. _______________________ sub specie aeternitatis Post Edited (09-09-04 09:23) Reply To This Message Re: Playing Possum Author: Chrissy (---.pth-as16.dial.plus.net) Date: 09-09-04 13:19 Just re-read your intro to this and I have to say that I was neither shocked or outraged by any of it. When I first read it and for a moment or two believed it, I was incredibly sad. The day I read of your 'demise' I had just heard the news of the death of a former pupil also aged twenty one and also killed in a road accident. Later, when I thought about it, applied my intelligence and realized that it wasn't true, I was just confused, couldn't understand for the life of me why you -- or anyone -- would do some thing like that. It seemed and still does seem totally pointless. At best it's childish at worst it's cynical. Sorry, cariad but that's the way I feel about it. Chrissy Reply To This Message Re: Playing Possum Author: dancing-queen (193.132.151.---) Date: 09-09-04 13:48 Hm...a little thought just crossed my mind, Jon. If anything fatal should ever happen to you and we read about it...we'll all just shrug our shoulders and say 'He's at it again!' A bit like the boy crying wolf scenario... Reply To This Message Re: Playing Possum Author: henstoat (---.dyn.gotadsl.co.uk) Date: 09-09-04 19:35 Well, it wouldn't make any difference to me! Well, Chrissy... I don't know what to say except that I wonder why you don't react the same way whenever there's a fictional death... in a film, or a book, or whatever. How is that any less pointless/childish/cynical? Incidentally, I chose a road accident death because it *is* such a potent killer of young people, and I thought it might make people think a little more about that, if someone supposedly important is the victim, for a change. And I don't think it's cynical to want to say something about the way we're vulnerable to accepting fictions when they're presented a particular way. Reply To This Message Re: Playing Possum Author: taichiitaly (---.no-dns-yet.ntli.net) Date: 09-09-04 21:39 Hi Henstoat, Hope you are still talking to me. When I first came on this site and you so gallantly came to my aid, so to speak! I also investigated your work. As you know I lost my husband recently and at 40, I considered him 'young'. And he too in a car accident. But their are worse ways to go and he never suffered. Please don't take this to heart. I too, felt very sad that such a talent should flicker out at such a 'young' age. Then I compared you with my hubby, because he too was an artist and comforted myself with the thought that your 'work' will live on. Thankfully you are alive and kicking! I understand your anger at the world, and with just cause. My anger at losing my partner could have destroyed my whole family at the time and I (thankfully) found poetry, just in time!!! You too, could channel your anger in an extraordinary way to change for the better, this 'chaos', we call a world. I am sorry you were offended by me on another thread. Yes I also felt pissed off when someone older than me extolled the nature of life. We all feel like that. But now that I'm of that age, I have to admit they were bloody right. This has gradually dawned and now when elders speak pearls of wisdom I listen. It's just one of lifes lessons. No hard feelings Tai Reply To This Message Re: Playing Possum Author: Chrissy (---.ptc-gw1.dial.plus.net) Date: 09-09-04 22:25 Hen, don't be so soft. Of course I don't react to 'fictional' death -- though I did cry when Bambi's mother died but I was very young at the time -- the point is, when I read your book 'blurb', I didn't know I was reading fiction and it struck me as a tragic coincidence that I should read of your 'death' when I had that morning received a letter from my friend to say that her twenty one year old daughter who had been my pupil many years before, had died in a road accident. When I re-read the start of this thread where you set out your reasons for presenting the 'about the author' bit in that way, I just totally failed to understand the point of it. You say that part of the reason was to teach us all that we can't necessarily trust what we read in -- or in this case on -- books. Not sure I really need that lesson, thanks. I can remember reading some where about an artist who faked his own death but he did it, cynically, to sell more pictures. I'm still fairly confused but that is not because I'm not living in this century and don't appreciate 'experimental fiction' which has been around a good long time now, I just see speaking of ones own death in a fictional way like that, with it not being part of the 'inner fiction', as a bit silly. Maybe I'm too old to appreciate your humor. Best of luck with the book, cariad. Chrissy Reply To This Message Re: Playing Possum Author: henstoat (---.in-addr.btopenworld.com) Date: 09-10-04 15:55 There's no such thing as 'inner fiction'. Fiction is fiction. My death is as fictional as Bambi's mothers. The only difference is presentation. You have to understand I never meant to fool people who know me. So your reaction (being initially shocked,) is like the reaction of a child who doesn't yet understand that Bambi isn't real. It's upsetting, and I am partly responsible for that - I apologise. But the 'lesson' (it's not really a lesson - I'm demonstrating something that, on some level, we know already,) is not meant to come by the process you went through. It's meant to be that either you know straight away, and think, "Ah - hang on - the blurb is not to be trusted." Or else you don't know, but you don't know me (so it's hardly emotionally trying,) and when you later find out you think, "Ah - so the blurb was not to be trusted!" It's caveat emptor. Not cynical. Not 'using people'. It's talking to them through demonstration. It's exactly the same as using any other kind of death in art, but less conventional. Reply To This Message Re: Playing Possum Author: sirat (---.access.uk.tiscali.com) Date: 09-10-04 20:55 I think dying was a brilliant move. It's the one thing guaranteed to enhance a poet's standing and reputation. It does a lot for artists as well. Look at van Gogh. While he was alive he sold only one painting, for the equivalent of three days of a labourer's wage: now there isn't one of his 800 paintings insured for less than £20,000,000. I think he had the last laugh. Come and pay me a visit at: http://davidgardiner.net/ Take a pack lunch. Reply To This Message Re: Playing Possum Author: arienette (---.tulane.edu) Date: 09-13-04 19:41 Very good point, Sir David. Though I don't think it was hen's primary motive, it is a point that death does sell, because it freeze-frames an author/songwriter/artist. If they're frozen when young, in a Dorien Gray sense, it is utterly compelling to try and piece together from their creations, the person that will never write, paint or play anything new again. K x Reply To This Message Re: Playing Possum Author: spacegirl (---.adsl.entanet.co.uk) Date: 09-13-04 19:53 I suppose it's how you look at things. Someone might read it because they think Jon is dead - but why? It plays on our tendency to be maudlin and I'd probably buy it thinking it's the last thing the author wrote. I was tempted to buy Eva Cassidy's "Songbird" because she had died. I bought Ray Charles definitive album when he died. Gave a copy to my dad tool. Maybe it's me. It reminds me of the great Andy Kaufman - people still reckon he staged his death and is around somewhere in disguise, enjoying the joke. We do have a fascination with death and if it works Jon then Would I be upset if he wrote another book called "Only Joking - Alive and Kicking", no I'd probably have a good laugh 2003/04 Arsenal were the untouchable and unbeatable champions of the EPL Reply To This Message Re: Playing Possum Author: Dylan (---.in-addr.btopenworld.com) Date: 09-13-04 20:58 To be honest, I knew when I read the blurb that it was a product of Hen`s extraordinary imagination. I think most regulars at UKA would also realise this. I agree with David that dying is an excellent career move, but don`t think this was The Divine One`s intentions. It is his work, he can present it as he likes. I have no doubt it will be excellent. Reply To This Message Re: Playing Possum Author: Pioden (---.in-addr.btopenworld.com) Date: 09-13-04 21:46 At least you exist! In a particular book published this year (note I am not saying what the book is) - there's a chapter about my dad - he died last year The post script at the end of this chapter states quite clearly that he was survived by his Wife, my Mam and their three children. According to this I don't exist, on account that at the time it went to publication my two brothers without my elder sisters knowledge decided that I was not part of the family - so I don't exist I don't exist its a lot worse then pretending to be dead - you at least had the choice - I only found out by accident - have you any idea how much it hurt Reply To This Message Edit My Post Re: Playing Possum Author: Jack_Cade (---.dyn.gotadsl.co.uk) Date: 09-13-04 22:00 That's pretty raw! How come they missed you out? "It wasn't for nothing that they put me away." Reply To This Message Re: Playing Possum Author: Pioden (---.in-addr.btopenworld.com) Date: 09-13-04 23:44 They didn't miss me! They made me none existent big difference - for three reasons 1) my father's book - my elder brother took authorship - I write he saw, possibly still sees me as competition - plus now Mam's ill - I am needed to nurse and care for her. Plus I was the one who encouraged my father to write it. Hence, suddenly I find myself being given Dad's second book, a form of cruel blackmail 2) I helped my parents whilst my father was ill/dying and he died - someone has to carry the can so to speak - its part of their grieving, they have to have someone to blame and I'm it 3) I'm female and easiest to hit out at Families can be quite cruel - makes quite a story - only wish it wasn't true one so you see your lucky you have the choice Reply To This Message Edit My Post Re: Playing Possum Author: shackleton (---.cable.ubr04.king.blueyonder.co.uk) Date: 09-13-04 23:48 Hi Henstoat. Thanks for your PM and sorry it's taken me so long to respond to you. If you don't mind, I'd prefer to answer you on an open forum. I will concede that I am perhaps not the sharpest poem in the collection, but I do actually know the difference between a bio and a piece of fiction. From where I'm sitting, Bambi's mother seems about as real as you do. When I read your bio, I initially believed it and felt desperately sorry about what had happened to you. Then I realised that you were just pretending. I thought it was probably just big, daft me, not fully appreciating the joke. I'm not actually very sophisticated. Then I got a PM from a friend who had also read your bio and had been distressed. Death isn't a joke, you know. I don't consider it to be 'cutting edge' or 'cool' to pretend to be dead in order to enhance a prospective literary career or a literary notoriety. I think you'd be better doing that with the quality of your work in the traditional sense. From what I've read of your work, I think you have an above-average chance of eventually achieving literary success. I have a friend who is dying a slow, obscene death. It's not glamourous - it's dusgusting and he is certainly raging at the dying of the light. I'm not impressed by the reasons you give for pretending to be dead. However, I recognise the fact that it is just my opinion - nothing else. I apologise for the way I have responded to you on a couple of the forums over this matter. I wish you success with your book and I hope that your literary dreams do come true. Catch you anon. Bye now. Reply To This Message Re: Playing Possum Author: Jack_Cade (---.dyn.gotadsl.co.uk) Date: 09-14-04 00:10 Ah, but I'm not pretending to be dead, anymore than I'm pretending to be a female literary critic called Mary Read. These are simply fictional devices used within a body of work. Why do we consider the outside of a book to be more part of our world than the inside? As I said in my message, I intended to fool no one. And death *is* widely considered to be a joke. I would consider it as such. A black joke. Perhaps the ultimate black joke. *Dying* is a different matter entirely. Thought you might be interested in an idea for a press release I typed up. Think, perhaps, of how different your reaction would have been if you'd seen this on the back of the book, and how much reckless trust we therefore put in blurbs. "If poets had an official headquarters, and worked 9 to 5 on their art in an office environment, someone would put up this sign: “You don’t have to be dead to work here, but it sure helps.” "'I’ll Show You Tyrants' is therefore a debut collection that pays homage, in the totality of its design, to the dead poet genre. The poet appears on the front, looking suitably dreamy-eyed and ragged, while the blurb on the back makes a compelling legend out of him. In addition, a generous introduction cements this legend in the facts of the day, and offers readers a ‘way in’ to the poetry by highlighting common themes and suggesting ways of interpreting the work. "Like a sort of literary flight simulator, I’ll Show You Tyrants offers the reader all the thrills of reading the work of a genuine legendary dead poet, but does so without harming the poet himself. A safe and sensible addition to bookshelves everywhere." "It wasn't for nothing that they put me away." Reply To This Message Re: Playing Possum Author: Kat (---.d.pppool.de) Date: 09-14-04 04:40 Hi Jon IMO, this blurb would have made all the difference in the world. This is smart, cutting edge. Deceiving/confusing people by lying, is no literary device in my book - I expect an author's bio to be non-fiction. Your clinical, art for art's sake approach, doesn't impress me - I have to wonder if you have experienced the pain and grief that death can bring - labelling it as 'a black joke' is far from our thoughts at such times. A tribute has been posted for Alec Marr on the front page, someone I did not know. This thread seems in bad taste even more so now. You are obviously a very talented writer and I'm sure 'a nice bloke' - continued good luck to you. Kat Reply To This Message Re: Playing Possum Author: Pioden (---.in-addr.btopenworld.com) Date: 09-14-04 11:19 you never bothered to ask my reasoning behind my post Jon As a talented writer you fail to grasp one thing - the logic of audience I can prove beyond doubt what my family have done to me - its there in black and white for all to see - but without my saying no one would be aware of what had happened - I could increase the sales of the book driven purely by raising the factual issue - I could even go so far as to promote myself as the 'Non-existent writer' - that is after I had told my children and those I cherish of it. Whereas you are turning your readers into fictional dupes - yours is purely a marketing ploy - clever maybe - humorous maybe - but its not your writing that will sell your book but a clever marketing ploy and nothing more It wont be remembered for its brilliance or your writing ability but for the fact that you had to treat some readers with contempt to get yourself known prey tell me you did consider this before you moved into the bad taste mode as Kat put it "You are obviously a very talented writer and I'm sure 'a nice bloke' - continued good luck to you." my sentiments also Lesley Reply To This Message Edit My Post Re: Playing Possum Author: Jack_Cade (---.dyn.gotadsl.co.uk) Date: 09-14-04 13:40 "Whereas you are turning your readers into fictional dupes - yours is purely a marketing ploy - clever maybe - humorous maybe - but its not your writing that will sell your book but a clever marketing ploy and nothing more." No. I'm sorry, but I've explained very clearly what my intentions were, and the above is utter bilge. I don't know how many times I have to tell you it was not my intention to dupe anyone - except perhaps a few people who don't know me, and would later find out. And I'm sorry about what's happened within your family, Pi, but it's entirely irrelevant to this subject. Nor do I accept that it's in poor taste. You're coming to this problem as if it's *me* who doesn't understand, when it's clearly *you* who is going on the false premise. I can only apologise for inadvertently causing any pain, but I will stand by the project. "IMO, this blurb would have made all the difference in the world." Exactly. But you've got to ask yourself why, and what that says about the pretences of reader/book cover relationships. If I were looking for a marketing ploy, I could just as easily have used the above extract, but that wasn't the point. Plus, if that blurb was on the back of the book, it wouldn't make sense. It would not be a homage "in the totality of its design." The implication of your arguments is absurdity itself - all styles of presentation would have to outline their intentions with a mini-essay on what the design was hoping to achieve. Lemony Snickett would have to put on the back of his books, "My name isn't really Lemony Snickett and this is actually fiction," which would be ludicrous. Furthermore, Rabelaise would have had to preface his 'La Vie de Gargantua et de Pantagruel' by saying, "This is not actually a real legend," and Swift would have had to begin his essay on the Irish eating her babies with "I am not actually proposing the following argument - it's more to make you *think* about the duplicity of reason itself." Every novelist who ever wrote would have to make it absolutely clear on the cover that, "The contents of this book did not actually happen. Rather, I have thought up a series of events that *might* have happened, in the hope that you might glean some enjoyment from it. I apologise if the deaths herein cause any offence." What you guys can't accept, and which I find saddening, is that your objection is rooted purely in the fact that this isn't considered 'normal'. It is *exactly* the same as Bambi's mother dying. The only difference is that you haven't grown up with fictional blurbs and bios as a regular thing. Or maybe you have? Who knows? Have you ever actually thought to question them? The fact that you find it so hard to get your heads round only further justifies the project. *Someone* obviously needed to make this point. - the presentation of the book is often just as much a part of the fiction as the insides. That includes bio and everything. If you think this sets out to dupe people, then you have always been duped. I'm sorry if this causes offence, but I must speak my mind on this. "I thought you were dead and it upset me," is OK, and, as I say, I apologise for that. "I think this is in poor taste, and inappropriate," is complete cobblers, and I feel obliged to explain why. Reply To This Message Re: Playing Possum Author: spacegirl (212.85.13.---) Date: 09-14-04 14:27 Jack, I think you have to take on board what people say. I don't find it offensive, but although friends have died, I think it really hits you when a family member died. Very fortunately, the only family member of mine that has died was a long time ago when I was a teenager and time does erase the pain. I have thought about this since and I thought of Neil. My son is diabetic and I would be very upset if he had died, and I'm sure there are many others who would be upset. If I saw a book written by an author pretending to be dead - and it is pretending after all. and Pi does have a good point that you do need to take your audience into account. If you alienate them, the book doesn't sell. Sometimes, even if we're not offended, we need to listen to what others feel 2003/04 Arsenal were the untouchable and unbeatable champions of the EPL Reply To This Message Re: Playing Possum Author: Jack_Cade (---.dyn.gotadsl.co.uk) Date: 09-14-04 14:59 Yeah, I know, but sometimes you have to take that risk. It's impossible not to alienate *some* of your potential audience. If you play it safe, you alienate those who want something exciting. As a reader, a lot of new poetry books alienate me by their wretched dullness. Anything else is a risk - it will draw in some people, but push away others. I think connecting this with the death of people you know is completely missing the point. When a character dies at the cinema, it manipulates our emotions, but it's not seen as poor taste. All I'm doing is pointing out (via demonstration) that the same fiction extends to the outside of a book. When people try to sell you stuff, they will manipulate you exactly the same way. My aim was to make that process transparent, not to join in with all the cunning marketing. Plus, poetry has such a limited audience anyway, I would think anything that throws a spanner in the works is a good thing. I'm not just going to sit back and do what everyone else is doing because it's the norm. I'm going to follow my instinct for what is a strong idea. I'm going to write something that I think is worthwhile, not play to popular demand. That's what I dislike about the accusation that I am 'marketing'. As far as I'm concerned, in making the falsity of my blurb so clear, I am being more honest than anyone who tries to sell their book by conventional means. I'm trying to share the joke with the audience, rather than manipulate them. I think it's sad that some people here obviously prefer to be treated as a market demographic by their books than as fellow human beings. I'm sorry, but you aren't going to convince me to lie in order to make everyone feel better. Until a bona fide marketing department takes over the handling of my writing and cons you all out of your cash, I'm going to use the cover and design element as an extension of the work itself. Go ahead and be played for suckers, if that's the way you guys prefer it. But that's not the way I like to treat people. Reply To This Message Re: Playing Possum Author: Kat (---.d.pppool.de) Date: 09-14-04 15:12 Hi Jon I expect an author's bio to be true - I was going to purchase your book, I was put off by the lie (who am I? Merely a potential reader and fan). Each time you respond you score an own goal - that's not good btw! Over and out. Kat Reply To This Message Re: Playing Possum Author: Jack_Cade (---.dyn.gotadsl.co.uk) Date: 09-14-04 15:41 "I expect an author's bio to be true." Y'see, that's where you're going wrong. The book is meant to set you straight on that. You're meant to say, "Hang on. This is tongue in cheek. This is a joke at the expense of cunning marketing." My bio is less of a lie than most of the ones you'll ever read, because it makes the untruth transparent. I don't know why I have to explain this to you. It's a joke between writer and audience. It surely only alienates the kind of people who aren't aware of how marketing works - how advertising execs everywhere are trying to work out the cheapest ways to make you buy certain products. The kind of people who read that so-and-so is "one of the most renowned novelists in the country" and actually believe it. God. No wonder we live in a consumer culture. You people are only happy being treated like potential customers. What happened to the idea of poetry as truth? All you want is Daisy Goodwin peddling her poetry-as-therapy nonsense. All you want is product. "Each time you respond you score an own goal." Right. In the future, I'll lie. That's what you seem to want. Lies. Dishonesty. Clever marketing. I'm sorry that you can't deal with the truth. And I'm sorry that this narks me off so much, but it's clear to me now that those advertising executives are tactically justified in treating people like dumb animals. I wish to hell they weren't. Reply To This Message Re: Playing Possum Author: chant (163.167.95.---) Date: 09-14-04 16:36 hen, stop being so hot-headed. people want different things from books. like you, i want my universe to be shaken up. others may prefer stability, the sense that there's something reliable about books - books won't twist and turn like the world does, won't let you down. and that's cool. a book that appeals to everyone is likely to be little more than soma. at the same time ... you older ones. people have often tried legislate what an artist can and can't do by emotive appeals. Lolita and Lady Chatterley's Lover are two examples that spring to mind. hm. lastly, Kat. two words ... Feminine Principles. i do believe in that poem you're perpetrating a trick on the reader not a million miles away from what our Hen's doing in his cover blurb. and people can be as credulous about apparently autobiographical poems as they can be about apparent biographies. ;-) Reply To This Message Re: Playing Possum Author: Michel (193.129.22.---) Date: 09-14-04 16:43 Hmmm...that's very interesting, chant! Wonders who Kat really is and what he/she is really up to... *runs off to look up FEMININE PRINCIPLES* which are...??? Reply To This Message Re: Playing Possum Author: Pioden (---.in-addr.btopenworld.com) Date: 09-14-04 16:51 Jon It would be pointless to talk or debate with you on any subject as - you are a dupe yourself in that you cannot take on board that others have experiences and are not only living but have lived life no matter what their age You fail to grasp our individual abilities and understanding - in doing so you miss the point each time and show your own ignorance If someone was to tell you that blue was really black you would argue that it was really red and I bet your fed up of people telling you this - don't you think its time you sat back and took on board some of what your being advised for once It is not a case of our acceptance but that of your own ability to accept criticism or a difference of opinion, after all, you are the one having to explain yourself, what your actions are and yet you question us over our inability to see what it is all about as you put it. Maybe you need to try to understand what we are saying for a change or do you find that below you. It is so hard to take on board that some of us find it in bad taste and why should that make any difference anyway? If we do not understanding what it is you’re trying to convey then maybe that is down to your presentation and possible lack of ability to communicate to a wide audience of variable abilities - again your problem not mine or anyone else's As for justifying the point - what point are you making? I am sorry but I don’t see one - other than your none acceptance that other's may have a differing view point to your own If your finding it hard to take on board that people would take what your doing as in poor taste - then that's not a justification for what your doing but more of an abuse of the people you so obviously wishing to win over - and to be honest I am not impressed one bit I have a already skim read book on dying and at the moment I can't remember the name of the author - but I know he wrote it as he was dying and that it was published after his death - he at least did not pretend to be dead - so it isn't a first is it ? People have written about death before and in many different ways, fictional and non-fiction - so what As for questioning fiction blurps and so on most people want to be entertained not duped or made to feel inferior or be made to get their heads around the issue "the presentation of the book is often just as much a part of the fiction as the insides. That includes bio and everything. If you think this sets out to dupe people, then you have always been duped." Interesting - does this mean that it is still marketing ploy then? Funny that - I though we WERE questioning it? Sorry I did not realise you were on a different thread to this one - only I could had swore that that was what this thread was on about! I really must get my eyes checked and my mental inability re-ordered - my spending far too much time in the shout box is possibly accountable for my lack of intelligence Never under or over estimate your readers abilities or tastes - that is if you want your work to sell - otherwise it will become an academic fiction that lies in the dust in some darken University library with a few readers - if that what your after then fine Poetry is about connecting to feelings, senses, place, memories and so much more. Your poetry should connect to others, that is why you write it or at least thats what I though it was about. You have lied to your audience - you have placed a barrier between your readers and the connections they make - I tried to connect it using my reality and you just dismissed it - as unimportant and yet you want me to understand??? Writing is a two-way thing - it’s between the writer and the reader and yes whilst I agree risks need to be taken but this is not about risk- this about taking advantage and treating your readers with a lack of respect - also if you must debate like this try and keep to what your saying – one minuet its not marketing the next it is – get it right - which is it? Everything is relevant no matter how small - sorry if I've upset you Jon that wasn't my object - I wanted like you just to state my opinion Now I have more important things to be doing than wasting my time here - think I'll go an play in the shout box ... Reply To This Message Edit My Post Re: Playing Possum Author: Jack_Cade (---.dyn.gotadsl.co.uk) Date: 09-14-04 17:31 I never said it was marketing. It's not. Not in the sense that it tries to trick the reader. I suppose if you count any kind of presentation as marketing then it is - but it's marketing to the kind of reader who gets the joke. I don't think they're a demograph - I hoped that all sorts of people would get the joke. I will accept that you and the others would rather have a book that played it completely straight, and that therefore ISYT is not for you. But you insist that it plays people for fools, that I don't 'respect' my readers, whereas it is aimed, plainly and respectfully, at the kind of intelligent person who knows playful mockery when they see it. And *you* have to accept *that*. I will also accept criticism that is fair. *This* is not. If you'd come on, and said, "Sorry, I don't get it," or "It doesn't do anything for me," then I guess that's fair enough. I would even have accepted something along the lines of "Your presentation creates a certain conflict - the reader doesn't know how far he can trust what's inside the book because you make it clear that sometimes you're being satirical." I don't expect everyone to be on the same wavelength. But you've tried to convince me that I've done people wrong, that I've 'underestimated them' or duped them, and this is out of order. *Well* out of order, Leslie. From now on, I will save us all a lot of bother, and try my best to ignore criticism that is untenable. Reply To This Message Re: Playing Possum Author: Hazy (193.132.151.---) Date: 09-14-04 17:52 I get the satire in it Jon, I just don't think you're going to get 100#% positive reviews on here when posing it as a discussion... think you just have to accept the rough with the smooth rather than try and convert people. I can see where everyone's coming from which is why I'm keeping quiet. I do 'get' what you're doing and yes I do think it works to a certain extent. Hazy x btw, meant to mention at the bottom of your faerotica thingy (know not saying this in the right place, but have to shut this 'puter down and will forget if I don't do it now) have you read The Book of Revelation by Rupert Thomson?? There was a very slight edge to yours which made me recall that book... Reply To This Message Re: Playing Possum Author: Pioden (---.in-addr.btopenworld.com) Date: 09-14-04 18:41 firstly correctly spell my name - LESLEY - I have said sorry and I pointed out that it was my opinion which I am entitled too Do I have this correct that you will only taken on board criticism which suits you? That we now all have to write as you wish and present our criticism to suit you - where as you can do as you please ???? That strikes me as very immature It would be so sad to see such talent marred by your own ego I suggest that you start looking at humour as something that is not so easy to master - if you cannot accept that humour between various people is as different as colloquialism is between various areas - then your more of a fool than you think and have much to learn This is more than fair criticism when you look at how your having to react - shielding yourself in the sad sorry way does not help your case at all - and pretending that the criticism is 'untenable' is a sure sign of self denial You have tried to convince people that you were dead to gain entrance into their lives and then bound it back against them - that is playing them as fools - if you don't like my saying that then tough. I have the right to criticize you for it - just as you have to criticize me - even if I do find your criticism not only untenable but to be really honest childish After all who are these intelligent people you are talking about Jon ? Those that know you and say yes its great because they don't want you to know differently or those who don't. Is it those who will buy your book in good faith - its a miss and hit as to whether they will get your satire or not isn't it ? Makes you a first class hypocrite to your own writing doesn't it, if they don't get your joke and then feel deceived by your condescending attitude towards them because they don't? You talk of intelligence as if you have the only onus for it - again you treat your audience with contempt - what you are doing is plain marketing your book by deception there is nothing intelligent about that I watched two people die of terrible illnesses - one who was only seventeen years old - you never forget it and its never a joke - so when someone like you comes along pretending to have died when you haven't - you can hardly expect me to be overly warm to your idea of what is funny and what can be used as a MARKETING PROMOTION OF YOUR POEMS It does trick the unknowing reader into believing your dead there's nothing clever about that. If you find that funny then I hope you never ever have to witness a 17 year in her death throws - because believe me you wont find it funny. I recall a news report about a bloke who read all about his death - he was in shock and ended up having a mild heart attack - he nearly died because of a practical joke - funny or not Jon ? I know many jokes about death, dying and funerals. I have a good laugh about them because I am aware that they are jokes - you mislead first then have to explain and then expect people to be all smiles and saying oh well that's ok - who the hell do you think you are? if you want to use satire make sure that thats how its presented not as a deception that you have to explain to those who don't know you that well ! I do wish you'd stop contradicting yourself - "I never said it was marketing." - " suppose if you count any kind of presentation as marketing then it is - but it's marketing to the kind of reader who gets the joke. " and start to accept that there are those who see thing differently to you otherwise your writing will suffer from sameness and will not develop as you wont take on board other ideas, feeling and insights. Either you want to expand or you want to sink into a quagmire of nothingness - that choice is yours but you do have a duty towards those about you whether you like it or not someone once said that they would be shocked if I ever gave a bad criticism because they know that I dislike putting people down and that I love seeing people bloom and grow - you have not once questioned my actions here nor has anyone else - I wonder why? Jon - your a good writer don't whatever you do limit your abilities by denying that people have different opinions, attitudes and sense of humour to your own it would be such a waste otherwise but you do need to take on board that this happens and will happen Reply To This Message Edit My Post Re: Playing Possum Author: Pioden (---.in-addr.btopenworld.com) Date: 09-14-04 18:55 The Diving Bell and the Butterfly Reply To This Message Edit My Post Re: Playing Possum Author: Andrea (---.xdsl.tiscali.nl) Date: 09-14-04 20:28 Good grief! Such passion! Jon, you should be quite flattered :-) I, too have watched people die horribly, one a guy who I loved very much. And no, it's no joke, believe me. I never, however, equated Jon's intro/bio, whatever you want to call it, with that death. Which, incidentally, it took me years to come to terms with. It never occurred to me, either, that it's a marketing ploy. And I think if Jon says it isn't, then we have to take him at his word. Personally, I can't really understand why this upsets everyone so much. And it's no good telling me it's because I've never 'experienced the death of a loved one', because I have - several in fact. No offence to anyone, of course - but aren't we over-reacting somewhat? Reply To This Message Re: Playing Possum Author: Pioden (---.in-addr.btopenworld.com) Date: 09-14-04 20:30 there is one more issue that worries me about this and that the related to copyright I mean if you can play dead - whats stopping someone else using the same deception to publish my work? Reply To This Message Edit My Post Forum List | Threaded View | Log Out | My Profile Newer Topic | Older Topic Reply To This Message Your Name:Pioden Your E-mail:lesley.roberts2@btinternet.com Subject: Help | More Icons Attachment: Add my signature to this post. E-mail replies to this thread, to the address above. oops seems you ain't that well liked on UKA either! Shame........hahahaha

BATWOMAN strikes AGAIN! HAHAHA

PS....seems your monkey doesn't have the respect of UKA EITHER"! HAHAHA

You see Jon, you take things you believe are set in stone and reiterate them when in fact they are not. >> My friends are honest, my parents are honest, and the UKA folk are honest << You don't KNOW that Jon, you just believe it, because it shores up your stability and belief in your understanding of those around you. Now I'm not saying they are NOT honest, just that you don't KNOW they are, so your claim is baseless. >> the UKA folk are honest (I've got far more actual criticism from them than I have from ABC) << Criticism isn't 'honest' by definition, sometimes if can be sycophantic or plain vindictive. You've obviously garnered 'criticism' that you find acceptable and that in itself would be enough for you to praise their 'honesty'. >> ...so long as its fair, I am happy to accept it... << I interpret that as meaning as long as YOU think it's fair; that isn't the same as others thinking it's fair, and the problem there is that if everyone has to check with you first then their criticism isn't valid anyway. >> ..What you call 'honesty' is very often second-guessing at my intentions. << Jon you can't keep trashing everyone elses point of view because you find it distasteful, it's THIS very attitude on your part that makes people dislike you. >> I picked up on the "congratulatory pat on the back", as you put it, simply because I thought that was what polite people did << That has nothing to do with politeness, it's just another shallow remark to ingratiate oneself. Finally, >> I just thought it'd be nice to be treated like everyone else is for a change. << Well as far as I'm concerned you ARE treated the same as everyone else. The difference is that you draw responses you don't like through your own persistent chundering. For my part, I would take anyone to task if I thought there was a case to be made. Again this isn't intended to be aggravating to you, or nasty in anyway, just an example of MY 'honesty', though I expect you to dismiss it in your usual way.

In *my* humble opinion, that reads as a very considered and reasonable post, Missi. Katrina, you are a moron. Couldn't you manage to put up a link instead of dumping an entire UKA thread into your reply? Less batwoman than bag lady, I fear.

aw thanks Rocki....luv ya 2 xx

Yeah, Missi - I was about to say, didn't you complain that UKA was always dull? And didn't you crown Pioden as the queen of nicey-nice dullness? Well, I've got Pioden to rake her nails down me, so to speak. If I'd intended to do this, I'd hope you'd be very proud of me. Unfortunately, it was a terrible askident. OK, I take your point that they might not be honest all the time. But I *trust* them to be honest. And you trust people when they've proved that they're looking out for you, not trying to shunt you this way or that. It's not a case of them fuelling your ego - it's the feeling that they have a handle on what you want to do, and be, and that they want to help you achieve it. There's nothing I, or anyone else can do, about the perimeters of what we consider fair criticism. We either accept the points or we don't. I like to think I accept a fair deal of criticism. *Not* sycophantry, but people pointing out where something is wrong. I've changed a lot of my work based on what people have said. Some things I've had to accept as complete failures. I've also had to accept - many, many times - that I have done the wrong thing, and treated someone badly. But whether you're criticising a person or their work, you *have* to meet them half way. You have to say, "OK, to a degree, this is what you are. These are the points you can change." You can't try to change an entire person into something else. And you can't be basing your criticism on a false understanding of that person. And by understanding, I mean really seeing eye to eye with them, not just a clinical rough diagram of that person's personality. It's intuitive. You have to 'feel' along with that person, have some real sympathy for them. Surely you know the difference between the feeling of a friend trying to steer you in the right direction, and an objector trying to 'correct' you? It doesn't work if the objector simply claims it's for your own good. You have to feel it. Some folk on ABC maybe think they understand me in that way, but mostly, I just don't feel it. And you can't expect me to overcome that with cold logic. My problem is that you tell me stuff like "You believe you're better than everyone else." I don't, so how can I accept criticism based on that? It's the same case with anything that doesn't really understand my intentions. Now, Chant - you may not like him, but he was one of the few ABC members who really did seem to understand me. And he did lay into me near the start - he disagreed with me, and he suggested that there were things I did wrong. But he gave me the distinct impression - before he offered any significant praise - that he understood where I was coming from. So does Liana, frequently, even though I don't think she's that taken with my work. So does Andrew Pack, and likewise. And so do many members of UKA. It really isn't vital that they like everything I do (you'll note that E-Griff doesn't really like ISYT either. Nor Dogfrog. But unlike Pioden, they appreciate the intentions behind it). I just have to feel they see eye to eye with me. You can't control these things to any great degree. It's deeper than clinical reason. The mistake is thinking that you can push or prod someone into being more like you want them, when you don't appreciate what *they* want. Being honest doesn't cut it. If several tens of people 'honestly' told you that you were a tosspot, would you believe it? You *know* yourself how important it is to stand by your guns when you know they're not seeing eye to eye with you. And when do you change your mind about stuff? When it's someone who is on the same level, who understands where you're coming from, but still suggests an alternative. I really appreciate you talking openly with me about this, because, however drawn I am to the squabbling with you, I really *hate* it.

One more thing - take Tim. Now, he's been pretty disapproving of my behaviour on this site. He probably agrees with you on several points. But I am *so* much more likely to take on board what he's saying, because I think he's genuinely looking out for me, and understands my frustration. It just comes down to trust, and you can't make someome trust you. Likewise, I cannot blame ABC for not accepting what I say. But the sheer fact is, there's little trust here for me.

Hen, Sorry to butt in, but your wallowing in self pity. Why? Take the "kick me" sign off your back buddy.

It's true, it's true.

For me the issue is that while Hen is right that an author is entitled to be playful, even with the parts of a book we expect to be factual (Dave Eggers has done this, and the Coen Brothers shocked even the actors in Fargo by their entirely false 'this is a true story' opening line), and while 95% of people would have immediately guessed that it was tongue-in-cheek and that Hen was not dead; IF this book were being launched in a place where the 5% who might be fooled had not had any personal contact with the author, that would be fine. However, it did upset some of those 5% who had some contact with Hen. I think it ought to have been possible to word the blurb in such a way that it would have been obvious to people who know Hen that it was fiction. Whether people ought to be smart enough to see through this or not (and for what it's worth, I don't think Emma or Shackleton, or Pioden are dumb people, so that tells me the tone wasn't right), I think a bit of consideration as to whether people might misread it wouldn't have gone amiss. So maybe it was a mistake. People make them, all the time. No need to lock him in the stocks and hurl rocks at him. On a purely personal level, I felt the blurb was a bit affected and it would have put me off reading it. I got the joke, I got the playful element and referencing, but it seemed to me to detract from what the contents of the book might have been. Given that some people have criticised Hen for being too "intellectual" and too distant from his work, this might have been a chance to see what Hen actually feels about the collection. (for my taste, being too intellectual is not a criticism in and of itself, writing ought to occasionally stretch the reader, but I don't like writing that don't get close up to their subjects and feel for the characters). Sometimes Hen is guilty of that, but so are lots of writers - Borges for one (who is actually one of my favourite writers) As usual, I destroy my own points while making them, but I suppose what I'm saying is that I didn't like the blurb and found it off-putting, though not distasteful. But others did, and I'd consider tweaking it, if it's not too late to do so.

I'm not sure about your choice of 'quotes' regarding either UKA or Pioden (and can't be arsed to check, though I see that Pioden has recently shaken off her goody-goody image and found her voice), but it IS my belief that UKA is peopled largey by sycophants and shallow personalities (there are also some very good writers and decent folk there, they all know who they are), making the site forums very incestuous and artificial. The basis for my conclusions re the sterility of the site is quite deeply rooted in the military-style controls exercised by the management (I notice Richard barges into conversations with his usual degree of ineptness whenever he thinks there's a threat to his little empire) including the ridiculous forum controls that mark the site out as a haven for homogenised souls that daren't contemplate an open honest confrontation about anything. (I do notice however that YOU have been granted the right to use the 'bilge' word in relation to someone else's comments. You really must be loved to be allowed to get away with that!). Your comments about 'trust' in those you feel are 'looking out' for you indicates an unwillingness on your part to believe that those you don't consider to be friends are trustworthy; some of the people whom I trust implicitly are neither friends nor acquaintances, but people whose public demeanour and my 'knowledge' of them allows me to have trust in them (albeit tentatively). In my opinion this shows a lack of confidence in your own ability to assess people fairly or correctly, I know for instance that there ARE those on UKA that I deduce, from your past comments on various threads, that YOU trust, and yet 'I' know are to be treated with caution. Why was it a mistake to rile Pioden? Perhaps because you know she is widely liked and respected on UKA? Because you maybe thought that the site 'good girl' wouldn't retaliate? I disagree that when criticising someone or their work you have to 'meet them halfway'. All that does is taint your criticism; it's better to be objective rather than subjective. It's also a human failing that people will embrace criticism or advice from those they like, and reject with suspicion or animosity that given by those they don't; that's a basic mistake because the validity or usefulness of such crit/advice is far removed from friendship. I have dear friends whose advice is nearly always crap, and some of the best advice I ever received was from enemies. You also seem to be preoccupied with a belief that members of ABC (or indeed maybe anywhere else) are REALLY interested in you or your writing. Well I can tell you they ain't, you're just another pebble on the beach. I don't mean that as a nasty comment, they feel much the same way about myself I suspect, maybe even more so. Your very real need to be accepted, praised even, by those around you comes over for all to see, it’s a common symptom of the young, I suffered from it myself when I was your age; now I don’t give a shit. The idea that friends ‘steer’ you and others ‘correct’ you is another symptom of the insecure. What’s to say that a friend’s ‘steering’ is sound and that the other person’s ‘correcting’ isn’t? It all comes down to whose opinion we choose to give credence to. Personally I nearly always listen to advice or criticism but am hesitant about endowing it with the wisdom of ages, preferring to rely on my own experience (yes Jon, that experience I spent 60 years accruing that you are so dismissive of). Your remark concerning pushing or prodding someone into becoming more like you want them is also a bit of a non-starter. ‘I’ have never wanted anyone to become someone else. I take your point about changing minds over something when confronted with a reasoned argument you find acceptable, we all do that (I hope). In the final analysis I believe your probs on ABC are more to do with personality than writing, but I wouldn’t expect you to change anything. I wouldn’t. I haven’t read your blurb per se and don’t really have any personal opinions regarding your method of marketing your book, nor do I expect I’ll buy it, but that’s not a personal thing, I rarely buy poetry books feeling there is all I want available on sites like ABC. I wish you luck with it however.

Well, thank you. That's all I need, really. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree over accepting criticism. As I say, I've been giving and receiving it (for writing,) for three years, enthusiastically, in weekly meetings, and I don't think you can deliver it right without sympathy for what the writer is trying to achieve. I think it's meant to be about helping each other, not sombre judgement, and I think this counts for people as well. When you say: "Your very real need to be accepted, praised even, by those around you comes over for all to see..." That demonstrates to me that you don't sympathise with my intentions. Accepted, yes. Praised, no. I really didn't have a problem with people not mentioning the book here, and I wasn't going to plug it. I haven't submitted anything to ABC in some time now, which would make my presence on the forums completely pointless, if I seriously wanted praise for my work. As for my 'pseudo-intellectual' arguments, what I want, like anyone making an argument, is to convince people of what I'm saying. And yeah, I can react negatively when that isn't achieved, but so can you. I would really just like to get on with things, which, yes, involves being accepted. I would think that's the way things work in communities. It may well be the case that an aggressor tells you something that you later find out to be true. This does not make it good advice, in my book. Good advice is that which is delivered in such a way that it influences the person rightly. If you deliver it aggressively, with no sympathy for their feelings, it will likely do the opposite. You cite it as a human failing that people will more readily accept criticism that comes sugar-coated, or from a friend. I don't think that's a failing - I think it's a survival tactic. We do not respond well to aggression, even if it is corrective aggression. We do respond well to what appear to be good intentions (and we trust our friends to have good intentions). Whether or not it's a failing, it's something that has to be worked round. You can't give people aggressive advice, to which they respond badly, and then expect to fix all that by saying, "Oh, you just can't take my honesty." That's silly. I don't think it's dishonest to smuggle in criticism under the sugar-coating, so long as you don't lie about what you like. Balanced crit is the most effective - you talk about what you liked, and what can be improved. If what you liked rings true with what they were trying to achieve, they will be a hundred times more likely to accept the criticism. And I'm sorry, but I *do* trust my friends for honest advice. They know I want it, and they know I can deal with it, so they give it. But, crucially, they have a better idea of what I'm trying to do with my work. You only have to look at how it's improved, and according to whose advice, to see that the blunt-honesty-from-enemies approach doesn't work in my case. I respond to aggression with aggression, acquiescence with acquiescence. Obviously, my friends can get away with much less sugar-coating because I do not doubt there good intentions. Chant could say the same thing, just as something as bluntly as you, and I would be far more likely to take it seriously. And I would think that's very human. Why do you think counsellors have to be so patient? Improvement is far more likely to come from positive guidance than rebuke. I'm not saying carrot over stick - I'm saying treat people like people, not donkeys. And your tactic for improving me here has been 100% stick. Your theory seems to be that if you tell me enough times what you think I'm doing wrong, I will eventually stop. This doesn't work with criminals, and it doesn't work with me. Now, UKA. Andrea has deleted very few threads (only 2 that she can remember,) - she does so when people ask her to, and she makes it very clear that what she's against is personal verbal abuse. Let's face it - you delight in this, so it's no surprise that you don't get on with the UKA forums. But there *are* interesting threads on them. You just have to keep your eyes peeled. And yes, I have been urged not to get personal myself. And the forums are not to UKA what they are to ABC. Most of the meaningful discussion goes on at the bottom of the individual pieces. *That's* where I get serious criticism, and nothing anyone's said has ever been deleted, including those who, I think, have really lost the plot (check out Jasper's comments, for instance.) You dismissal of UKA as an asylum is unfair - ABC simply does not offer the same amount of suggestions for improvement to each member. Most pieces submitted on UKA get some suggestion for improvement from someone. That's better than ABC's system of mostly selective praise, which seems to just work on the premise that you keep trying, without guidance, until you've produced something amazing. Now, MONSIEUR PACK: "I think a bit of consideration as to whether people might misread it wouldn't have gone amiss." Agreed. Unfortunately, it's just a case of getting it wrong. I really thought it was obvious - not necessarily from the tone, but from my continued presence in the forums. It *was* a mistake not to give advance warning. Hinting at the contents of poetry books, meanwhile, is extraordinarily difficult. I browze them a lot in bookshops, and read adverts for them as well, usually out of curiosity. I think most of them are godawful, going along the lines of 'unique voice...bold and fresh...recalls Armitage and Hughes'. I find the blurbs on dead poets' books far more effective, simply because they tell you something about the character of the poet - where they're coming from. They're also usually ever-so-slightly misleading - preferring to mention titillating myths and half-truths, which are then put into better context by the scholarly introduction. So I went with mimicking that. Now, as far as I'm concerned, elements of the blurb and bio *do* tell the reader what I think my poetry's about. 'Vigour' being one thing - energy. To an extent, alienation and aimlessness. Loss of territorial identity. And Caligula, as an alter-ego, plays a strong part in the book. Also, that many come from discovering one's own country - I write a lot of things that revolve around English places. And also, crucially - playfulness. Caveat Emptor. To my mind, that cover is an effective signpost of the contents. If people don't like it, it's probably a good indication that they won't like much of the poetry. So, really, it does its job.

A fair point, well made. For what it's worth, I've liked most of what I've read of your stuff. Occasionally I've thought one or two pieces might be better if they wore its heart rather than its brain on its sleeve, but I don't think I've read any Hen pieces that I actually disliked or thought failed to achieve anything. It's a question of finding time, as much as anything. I've liked everything I've read from Dotty Beswestherick, but the site doesn't make it terribly easy at the moment to hunt out work by a particular author, so I haven't read as much of it as I'd like. Good luck with the book, hope it does well and brings you some interesting feedback.

Didn't know this was here !!! oh dear - how I would like to have a nice and dull life - let along be crowned for being nice and dull - lets face there are far worse things Jon your all for fair criticism correct - is this an example of what you would call fair criticism Author: Jack_Cade (---.dyn.gotadsl.co.uk) Date: 09-14-04 23:42 OK, so I take it you won't accept that anyone's allowed to like this ISYT? You won't rest until everyone agrees with you? Until I say, "Gosh, I understand now. You were right all along." Fine. Just so you know where we stand. I can't wait til you get a book out, Pi. I'll be sure to rip into it, accuse you of soiling the memory of my dead grandparents, declare that you won't accept anyone else's point of view when you tell me this is unfair, ignore any explanation you try to make, claim you are alienating your audience, patronise you, chastise you and rake you with my claws, and then cut and paste the same post three times just to be sure. Oh no, hang on. I won't. *gasp* "Why not, Jon?" Because we can see from this example that it achieves the square root of sweet F.A. "It wasn't for nothing that they put me away." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I see this more in line to threating behaviour - it has nothing to do with writing skill or your ability to communicate in a way that is productive and positive - you have swiftly attacked me for your own gains that has nothing to do with your artistic ability but because you felt you could You miss the point continually do you really honestly expect people to take you seriously after the above comment ?! You make far too many assumptions about what I believe and what I see because your so busy 'seeing' and 'responding' to what you want to and not actual what it there I will not comment again not here or on uka on this subject but leave it where it should be with the reader

There is obviously a vast difference between giving and receiving criticism within a writing group that meets in person on a weekly basis than almost never in person and on the web. The site exchanges are largely between people who don't know each other, and in many cases have never met. This must to some extent disallow the aspects of exchange based on personal contact and increase the 'sombre judgement' content you mention. You assume that all advice not proffered by friends skilled in the art of confectionary is aggressive when this is patently not the case, some of it is dispassionate and objective without taking individuals sensibilities into account. I believe there is nothing wrong with that at all, in fact it is likely to be more honest than otherwise. I get the impression that you believe everything I say is said with hostility and venom and that is not true either, you just choose to read it that way. On the subject of counsellors, it's my belief that they have to be very patient because the subject of their counselling is usually distressed or otherwise mentally sensitive, I don't believe that is the case with the members on the average writers site (with one known exception). You say that my 'tactic for improving' you has been 100% stick when in fact you have that wrong, it was never my intention to 'improve' you at all, nor do I believe I have tried to correct what you believe 'I' see as your wrong-doing. All I have ever done is express my opinions, whether you have sympathy with them is immaterial to me; I DO occasionally change them however, but I admit that's not very often. Your claim that I delight in personal abuse is a bit rich, apart from being wrong. I accept that I'm outspoken and that at times it offends people, but I'm sure you know that if I bothered to trawl the forums I would find equally abusive posts made by yourself directed at me, Liana, and a few other users. You indulge it on ABC because you know it allows the freedom to do so; you restrain yourself on UKA because you know it breaks the law there. I prefer the openess that ABC affords and it's clear to anyone that as the ABC forms have survived in tact that the occasional heated exchange does no harm. In fact it helps to keep the forums interesting and lively to have some volatile characters beating their chests. You may find this hard to believe, but there have been times when the ABC forum is in torpor that I have email from regular users practically begging me to liven things up. It was even suggested to me a couple of times that I start a row with the emailer to generate interest. You say there is 'meaningful' discussion going on over at UKA, but if there is a policeman looking over everyones shoulder waiting to say 'Oi, you can't say that HERE!' it must prevent the degree of honesty available on ABC, even if that honesty is to be found only on the forums. The thing is, that not everyone that writes and posts work wants criticism, many are quite satisfied and happy with their work as it is. That doesn't necessarily make them bad writers or prevent their improvement, you can learn just as much by reading the work of others as having your own stuff dissected. I've said many times on this forum over the past few years that 'I' don't join in the criticism of work regularly because I don't believe that I'm qualified. I also don't believe that most others are either. I would accept that ABC isn't particularly 'critic friendly' but those that desperately want criticism usually request it on the appropriate forum and I believe, get it.

ON NO ACCOUNT ARE YOU TO EVER SEND ME ANY PRIVATE MESSAGES ON UKA AGAIN JACK CADE Re: Re: Hmm (Sent: 2004-09-15 15:27) WTF?!? *I* live in a closed world? You're the one who won't accept other people's views. Nothing you've said in this post makes sense! I never forced you to agree - I said several times that you can keep your own views. Can't you read? Or do you just blank it out? Yor're the one trying to force me to agree - now with silly, snide little tactics, and make believe scenarios. You've exhausted my patience. I'm marking you down as an immoral and sneaky little madam. Let me know when you've stopped playing wargames and are ready to talk like adults. I mean, you've been perfectly, utterly horrible, and you*mean* to be. You've tried your level best to upset me, to push me. I'll be warning people about you. And that's not a threat. I thought you were simply distressed, and wanted to agree to disagree, but you're obviously just a sneaky little bully. People deserve to know that. This whole email exchange has been one big attempt to force your views on me, and when you can't do that, you throw a wobbly. Face it. You weren't going to be happy until you'd belittled and knocked me enough to make me agree with you views. Well, fuck you, you horrible, horrible woman. Jon

ooops!

I thought I saw that post on UKA a few minutes ago but it's GONE now! What could possibly have become of it?

ON NO ACCOUNT ARE YOU TO EVER SEND ME ANY *PRIVATE MESSAGES* blind, missi?

UKAuthors - Discuss everything else - Thread deletion request Forum Index | UKA FP Discuss everything else New Topic | Go to Top | Go to Topic | Search Newer Topic | Older Topic Thread deletion request Author: Jack_Cade (---.dyn.gotadsl.co.uk) Date: 09-15-04 22:15 I'm asking for the 'Playing Possum' thread to be deleted.

"The site exchanges are largely between people who don't know each other, and in many cases have never met." We got a lot of new people at the CWS all the time, and only a few of us met outside of the seminars. I was always handling people I didn't know. I also crit people on UKA who I don't know very well. Only recently, K was saying that she found people didn't respond well if she was brutally honest, and that's just the way it is. Like I said, good advice is convincing people to act for the better, and if brutal honesty makes them regress, then it's not good advice. It's not the same for everyone, but it's very common. "I get the impression that you believe everything I say is said with hostility and venom and that is not true either, you just choose to read it that way." Mostly, yes, and I accept that I often misread you. But the same is true of you misreading me. There is miscommunication in these forum chitchats. It's not that I *want* you to be hostile and venomous though - I simply find it hard to interpret what you say in other ways when it involves knocking me back. I *am* very defensive, and that comes out as aggression. I'm sorry - I try not to be - but it's the way I tend to be. I *hope* that this will change as I get older. Now, I agree that not everyone wants 'proper criticism' so to speak. But I think most writers want feedback - they want people to say if they enjoyed a piece. They write in the hope that other people will like reading it. And what you think of as sycophantry at UKA is usually just that - members saying they enjoyed each other's work. I think the kind of writer you're talking about - who doesn't want to improve via the crit method - can get more from that system than from the no-response-at-all to most ABC pieces. Remember - it's not necessarily people patting each other on the back and saying, "You're a great writer." Sometimes it's just, "Thanks. I enjoyed it." And I think that's just as important as the critting. And it's true that I get angry on ABC because it allows me to. But I don't like being angry. I would *prefer* it if I was restrained from saying things I will later regret. When Chant or someone tells me to back down, and I do, it usually saves me a lot of hassle. This is the same principle Andrea is trying to apply to the UKA threads, I think - trying, gently, to stop people doing things they might regret. I know you prefer the openness of ABC and I've always respected that - it's your cup of tea. But that doesn't mean UKA is a joyless tundra. It just suits people who want different things. It works for me, and it works for many others, and I just don't see why you have to slag it off all the time. I don't mind a bit of heated discussion but, like Andrea, I don't like it when it turns personal (chiefly because, as you've noticed, I'm easily drawn into it). But it *can* do harm - witness the people who have left both sites because of such discussions. You have to be careful with them, I think. "Your claim that I delight in personal abuse is a bit rich, apart from being wrong." Sorry. I thought that was the case. It's just that you indulge in it a lot and then say you're having a good time. My mistake. I can happily believe people email you asking you to enliven the forum. I just don't think you should take any notice of them. Sometimes things need to be dull so that we can all calm down. Now, as for the rest: I don't actually think any of Pioden's posts show me in a particularly bad light. Let's see - firstly, I say that I'm *not* going to subject her to the same treatment because it will achieve "sweet FA." Very threatening behaviour, I'm sure. And I lose my temper with her and say 'Fuck you' because she's been harrassing me with insulting messages. After I sent her an apology as well. But I guess that's not how it looks if you're selectively blind. I'm surprised Lesley didn't get her correcting pen out and delete the following, very revealing Hen-lines: "I never forced you to agree - I said several times that you can keep your own views." "This whole email exchange has been one big attempt to force your views on me." "Oh no, hang on. I won't. Because we can see from this example that it achieves the square root of sweet F.A." All true. Pi was not happy to leave me to my own opinions. When I said I had different opinions on society and reader/writer relations she threw a hissy fit. She has a sociology degree, or something, and so she thinks her opinions are more important and learned than mine. I don't accept that, and that's all there is to it. As for the thread deletion, maybe it would help if you posted the *whole* of my message? I wanted it deleted because it had descended into personal insults. It's time to move on. When you've had an argument with someone do you need an audio record? People have said their say over this matter and no one, to my knowledge, has changed their mind over it. So it's totally unproductive. Time to leave it behind. I don't see what that's got to do with censorship.

And more to the point, what people choose to do on UKA has got nothing to do with us. This is a tired argument. We know that Jon feels that the moderation at UKA has some positive points and that Missi feels that it is oppressive censorship. It's been said before, at some length. See also the long-running 'Hen thinks he knows everything but he is young and arrogant' debate. Agree to disagree, for f***s sake. And I'm disappointed in the people who email Missi asking him to stir up trouble. I can believe that it happens, but it is still disappointing. He's not a bear to be poked with sticks for our amusement, he happens to be someone who often has something worthwhile to say once you trouble to read it.

"See also the long-running 'Hen thinks he knows everything but he is young and arrogant' debate. Agree to disagree, for f***s sake." My problem is that as long as people believe that, they seem to be highly tempted to get all preachy and tell me blindingly obvious stuff stuff like, "Now, when you're older, you'll learn that sometimes people are different to you," or utter claptrap like, "You only disagree with me because you haven't lived as long as I have." One thing I am - and I make no excuses - is hot-headed. It's hard not so say, "For, Christ's sake, I know that," or, "Buuuuullshit!" Whereupon people like Pi get all offended because they genuinely think that they're helping me with this cocktail of common platitudes and unfounded assertions. They seem to see it as rejecting a guiding hand. Have you read 3x3 Eyes? In it, Yakumo gets made immortal and has to deal with other-worldly horrors. When his friends see him get torn apart, only to come back together again, they assume he's some kind of bitch-ass killer god. So they start getting jumpy and responding to his friendly requests as if they were orders. "Cut if out!" Yakumo says. "Treat me like you used to!" "O...Of course, Yakumo! Anything you say!" Anyhow, as long as no one else comes out with such things, I'm happy to leave it and get back to normality.

Howabout (whilst i have no wish to engage in this argument whatso*ever*) everyone just accepts that some peoples stance will not alter, no matter how well reasoned any statements of perceived truth are made? Howabout, if we just accept that some people just have a different opinion, and if it is not crucil to the health of mankind, we just shrug and move on? Howabout, when someone disagrees, we dont get more and more angry and flail around with personal insults until one or another, feels so utterly drained they just bugger off? People will *never* agree on loads of things. Howabout accepting that, and just mooooooooving along the bus. How about a little respect?

Well... yeah? But you can't go round mindlessly insulting people and then guarding it as your 'opinion' when they tell you to eff off.

But you see, and to use a barroom analogy, while it is wrong for someone to glare at you and say "What are you looking at?", it is not terribly clever to answer back, "I can look at whatever I like, pal" If you stonewall every single time with "That's your opinion, with which I don't agree, but we've done this debate to death", then there's no sport and the argument withers and dies. And no, I'm not saying that the responsibility to end this all falls on you, Hen. I think that you made an honest and sincere attempt to bring hostilities to an end, and I'm disappointed that you've not been taken up on it. I said last time that I think there's a huge difference between Hen and previous people who have locked horns with Missi, in that in general their twattish behaviour brought it upon them. I just don't see that with Hen. He gets wound up and tries to justify things that to be honest, he doesn't need to justify. Better to just say, "I think you've got me all wrong, but I'm not going to argue about it" It really frustrates me that intelligent, articulate people on this forum seem incapable of having a disagreement about things without it becoming personal and aggressive. It does not seem necessary to me for Hen to respond and justify himself every time he gets criticised for things that are not correct, and by the same token, it does not seem necessary to me for George to contribute every time Hen says something on whatever topic, just to let us know that he thinks Hen is pretentious, needy and arrogant. You have different views, let's leave it at that. I have to be honest, I find this endless spat nearly as frustrating as when Stephen kicks off. At least there's some explanation as to why he acts the way he does. And can we please, please, see an end to people posting up great chunks of UKA posts? If we want to know what's going on over there, we'll go and look, thanks.

no, but you're doing it as well, even though you feel it is wrong, so where does it ever stop? It just goes on and on and on.

Hmm. You're both right. I'm not trying to make excuses. I just know it's taking an awful long time for my practices to catch up with my theories. The mind is willing but the flesh is weak. And it doesn't help that even when I make a massive effort to be polite in the face of hostility, I seem to draw in those who think they know better. I feel like fate is trying to match my every attempt to bring it to a halt. But anyway, you're right. I do *not* handle these things as well as I could.

The short answer Liana, is it doesn't stop. It's what the human race has been doing since day one. Where Jon and I are concerned I instinctively feel there's a large element of 'generational warfare' at work. He admits to being hot-headed and I guess impetuosity is the control of the young, in my case I just forgot to remember that I'm no longer young. I suppose I should excercise a little 'senior' control but alas I don't have any, that coupled with my Italian temper doesn't serve me well. Everytime I see Jon expounding his self-belief it acts as a red rag to me and I suspect he knows it. Jon, I disagree about Andrea's intentions by the way, she is intent on stopping people saying what SHE thinks is unacceptable. I guess as the site editor that's her right but it's my right to speak up about it if I so wish. The fact that the thread in question was removed is yet another indication to me that it is a restrictive stilted environment. I can't believe that YOU went so far as to request it and UKA complied. What a crap decision. It was a waste of time in anycase as Pioden, a long-term user of the site generally regarded as sweet and harmless has been made to feel it's a place to leave. These things were always bandied around as reasons for 'defectors' (as Dicko styled himself) leaving ABC. All I can say is that as far as I know she is STILL a member of ABC, and hasn't expressed (to me at least) any intention of leaving.

Well, I asked for the thread to be removed because everything that was going to be expressed had been expressed, and it was obviously boring the pants off everyone. Also, to remove the temptation to keep it going with more retreads. I don't see how that's restrictive. No one is saying 'You can't say these sort of things', just that after they're said, they're better buried if nothing good has come of it.

"it was obviously boring the pants off everyone"... Er... yes. EDITOR?????

Threads that bore the pants off everyone die a natural death and fade into the history book, there's no need to remove them, UNLESS you want to erase the fact that they ever happened and prevent anyone researching them at a later date. As it happens anyone that wants to read the thread can always contact me, as I archive EVERYTHING. I just feel these things should be in the 'public domain. It smacks of government 'D' notices etc.

I dont like to see threads deleted really (despite my pleas on the EU thread). I feel it falsifies history in a weird way... as missi says, threads drop off the bottom anyway, and unless we're talking death threats etc, i cant see the point... we can always say "i'm wrong" or "i'm sorry", and there's an end to it. Writers have ALWAYS fought against censorship, have they not? And i *do* feel it's censorship.

They don't drop off the bottom if people keep going back on them to goad and insult each other. What a stupid idea - that I'm trying to erase the fact that they happened.

pardon me?

I think perhaps he means that although he was responsible as the one who requested the thread be erased, he was not trying to change history (pretend none of it happened)?

I'm sorry, but he WAS. He was trying to eradicate a thread he found 'personally' distasteful. Big deal. If we ALL had theads we don't care for wiped out there'd be bugger all left. He wasn't obliged to keep the ball rolling, he could have ignored it and neutralised the comments. Stephen started an abusive thread about me 2 or 3 weeks ago and I declined to contribute to it. It eventually died a death as the one Jon objected to would have done. I think it's removal has done absolutely nothing for his standing as a writer, and done a degree of damage to the site involved. As Liana has said, and I've said it myself many times, writers have fought for the freedom to express themselves for centuries, it goes against everything they ever stood for to censor anyone. I've heard all those tired old platitudes about freedom having resposibilities and in general I agree, BUT it also has to allow for those that refuse to be bound by accepted standards. The price of freedom of speech is to put up with the minority, a group I might add that most of us, including both Jon and myself, have been members of from time to time. I would NEVER request the removal of a thread just because 'I' was the subject of the criticism or insults within. (I did however request the removal of my address from a thread last week, though I believe that is an entirely different thing)

Right. Hen rewrites history to clear name. What a crock.

gargh... this is it. If someone disagrees, its a crock, and a stupid idea.. why so AGGRESSIVE little one?

"he was not trying to change history" "I'm sorry, but he WAS." That's why, Liana. Because that's a pile of shit and I know it. I don't have to respect other people's misguided opinions as to what my intentions were. I *know* what my intentions were, and so I *know* that the above is a crock.

No hen doesn't rewrite history, he deletes it, and whatever you SAY your intentions were you can't deny it, the proof is there to not be seen.

You can't 'delete' history, you twat! It's in our memories! I told you why I wanted that thread deleted. What I said is the truth, and what you've said is your usual specialist brand of elaborate hokum. So get off my case.

oh ffs.

'You can't 'delete' history, you twat! It's in our memories!' I delete History everytime I go offline. Such is the shadowy path of Porno Incognito. So... if we could delete our memories - a la Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - then everything will be hunkydory, right?

So it's possible to rewrite history but not delete it? Yeah right. How do you propose to rewrite it without deleting the old version? I merely pointed out that you delete it and don't replace it with anything new. History in your memory dies with you, the only history that really survives intact is 'written' history, but then being a twat I've probably got that all wrong and should realise by now that I'm in the presence of a superior being. How ARE things over at UKAwful by the way? I here you've successfully abused and threatened Pioden into leaving. Who's next?