Who's cherrypicking now?

What does it matter? Surely a cherry pick is a decision taken by an editor, and maybe each editor has a different angle on things. I wouldn't worry too much about it. :)

But Iceman! I worry about *everything*! Particularly the things that don't matter.

i think it's the loveliness of language that's the problem. occasionally it's a bit too lovely. since when were you a centaur? you have feet, not hooves! (think you carried your horse simile a bit too far). distance might be a problem too - you are closer to the second theme and your own personality infuses it more strongly. perhaps greater spareness and clarity is achieved when we treat themes we are emotionally further from. also, i thought the last line was a bit of a throwaway. in contrast, the first poem, ends with good comedy (particularly liked 'It's best I be off, sir '. thought both were top poems. i enjoyed the non-explicit fantasy element in the master gamester - is the man downstairs the narrator's father or dungeon-master? liked the way the dark ages squat on his shoulder like a familiar - summons mage theme. narrator like an apprentice, or a familiar himself. interested that poet (in contrast to Rimbaud - 'tu vatis eris') invests prophetic powers in someone other than himself. of course, prophets always predict dark ages - only at such times does society fall out of self-absorption and look for bright lights. good playfulness in second poem too. 'i owe him my ears' - double meaning if the narrator is the son - filial duty and genetic duplication. had i been an editor, i'd have cherried them both.

Thanks, Chant. I did dither between hooves and feet - I think my reasoning at the time was, "But if I've said I'm a horse and then I refer to my feet, won't that confuse?" But I was never set on the idea. I'm more resilient about the last line - I wrote the last two before I'd got to the end, and saved them til then, as I thought the 'longsightedness' of the gamester, set against the 'farsightedness' or which he is rightly proud, really summed up the relationship between the poet and him - his vision, so useful for playing the game, is blurred and unreliable when it comes to judging what is closest to him - the apprentice or son.

re. hooves - admirable logical consistency, but hope you change it. logical consistency is sometimes lacking in the work of other abc top poets - hope they take note. re. last lines, yeah it felt like you'd done that. think the idea behind the concluding couplet is a good one, but clearly so did you, so you shoved it in a bit lazily, without doing too much work on the phrasing. i'd like you to retain the concept, but re-word to give more bite.

Henstoat - you have to remember there are four editors, five if you include Tony, so not everything is read by the same person (although I did read all 68 pieces by one particular writer yesterday) For me, it is chiefly a matter of something really grabbing me. A cherrypick is my recommendation, so I take them seriously - I see a lot of your work that really grabs me, but I'm judging as a reader, not a writer, so it isn't always going to be the piece a writer loves that gets cherried. I've always said that if someone really, really hand on heart wants me to take another look at a piece I will, and the only person to ever take me up on it was Mark Y-B.

hello again henstoat. As Andrew has pointed out, there is more than one editor looking at the work. I cherrypicked three of your pieces last week, because I thought they were excellent. Someone else read your most recent pieces. It's obviously personal, and it's better to have more than one editor, don't you agree? But yes, if you think, or anyone else thinks, that their work should be re-considered, just email us. (We might have suffered a 'blind moment'). Tess (editor and cherrypicker)

I agree. I will cherry pick work that 'grabs me' - technical superiority is not everything. for the record i am editor 1525. if you see that on your congrats email, its me.

Same goes with me. I don't do as much editing as the others but I do go through a fair number of pieces. I look for soemthing that truly grabs me and I try to be as fair as possible. I sometimes cherry pick something that has already been read by another editor that has slipped through the net. Inevitably some pieces are not picked that should be and vice versa but we do our best! If you want to take it up with us then feel free! We are always open to discussion!

there were a couple of days there before skydolphin's binge where i really believed i was the only non-ed reading any of the last 10. in the last couple of days, there have been last 20's where total reads come to around 6. even if editor reads don't show up, there's still something wrong somewhere. and some of the cherries recently could be said to be sycophantic. just my opinion, like.

*has never given a cherry thats not deserved*

not pointing any fingers liana, but there's been some right dodgy ones; for example, matt purland's watchmaker is at least as imaginative as anything that was posted on the same day imo, and at time of reading wasn't cherried?

I must second that about matt purland!

Wow! My thanks to Andrew, Tess, Liana and Tony for swiftly coming to explain the matters of editing and cherrying, especially as this is the kind of stuff you must have to explain time and time again to people. Your patience is very much appreciated - I didn't mean to sound like I was complaining, and I do agree that having more than one editor is a good idea. I also wouldn't berate you for your personal taste - I was just very surprised that anyone should prefer the first poem, as I am whenever anyone declared they actually *like* the Moldy Peaches! Unfortunately, that's the thing about taste - it's very difficult to see exactly how someone would think differently to yourself, however much you appreciate they do - hence, debate over the best of this and that. I won't demand a re-evaluation, but I probably will resubmit the work some time soon with the adjustments Chant has suggested.

Aw man.. I don't mean to intrude on this.. but some of you just give it a rest will ya. I'm sick to death of hearing people moan. The editors do a great job.. I'm grateful that they put so many hours into making this site work; without them it wouldn't be half as good as what it is now; and I don't think any of them pick dodgy cherries. That's not a very nice thing to say. I think some people take this site for granted too much, and need to humble themselves a bit and get off their ego horse. Think about it: if you were an editor - some of you who whinge; then you would pick under the exact same guidelines as they do. I know I would if it was me, I'd pick stuff that grabs me and leaves some kind of impression on me, regardless of who wrote it. And I'll be the first to admit I don't read every piece that's in the last hundred, I just can't. It would be too tiring and not enjoyable. I probably read about fifteen to twenty at the most on my good days; other days it can be as little as five pieces, or somedays if I'm in a hurry just the story or poem of the day.. most readers are probably like this.. reading is done for pleasure not as a chore.. nobody unless they're superhuman can read through a hundred pieces in a day; so sadly some people might get missed, and it's a shame, but I don't know the answer to it. I find after fifteen - twenty pieces I have to stop and have a rest.. as it tires my eyes out. I imagine it's the same for the editors too, it must be tiring reading through everything that gets posted. But then they're probably faster readers than me, but even so, they should be given some respect for the time they give to this site, and the way they make it work. They're just human you know.. we should all be a lot kinder and give them some morale and positive vibes for the work they do.. some often go above the call of duty and all that, to clear the filter - putting extra hours in. I don't want to get on my high horse.. but I really am sick and tired of hearing people moaning about cherries and writers elitism and how many times their pieces have been read. Come on some of us we've got to get through that ego stage into more mature writing pastures. End this self-obsession with our own work. It really doesn't matter. The most important thing in life is friends. It's just great to be part of a site where you can put your work on public display. Sometimes a piece might not get read much, sometimes it might get read a lot.. and it's always there in your abcsets. I give my friends and family the link to my abcsets, so that they can read the things I've wrote, no matter where they are in the world. I've got a brother who lives in Korea, and he's a writer too; and it's great cause we can both easily check out each others writing anytime we like anywhere in the world, from the internet and give each other feedback if we want. Some of my friends and family live a long way from me. So is cool having a spot on the web where I can have all my writing collected together in one place, and all I have to do is send them the link to go check it out; and that gives me a buzz. So I wish people would stop moaning and just get on with reading and writing which is what this site is about. When writing starts to become an ego issue (and I've been there - many times) then it's time to sit down and start doing some serious soul-searching and find out why you write? It's like anything in life, to start with you just do it for the love of it. You're innocent in the beginning, then a certain quality seems to get lost somewhere, the further you go. And at some point in your development, in your training, your apprenticeship; something takes over and you start to care too much and try to hard.. wanting to win all the time.. but you lose your power when you think like that. And the only way out of it: is to humble yourself and start tunnelling under the Ego's wall and find that place where you just write for the love of it again.. and don't think about winning.. just follow your writing like a path. Follow your heart. It's the journey that matters not the goal. I know this is a long post.. and maybe a bit strong.. and some won't like it, but I've got to say how I feel. I'm just sick of writer's and their ego's it's so nauseating and immature. And I just think when people start moaning about cherries and stuff like that, that they're losing the point of what writing is all about. And when people say stuff like: some editors are picking dodgy cherries, I think that's a bit hurtful to the editors.. and not fair.. and it makes me feel a bit angry to be honest; casue they're good people man, and they take the criticisms well, which shows their sincerity if you ask me. And I think they do a good job.. so lay off will ya. I'd hate to lose them.. this site would be pants without the editors.

Our resident gentle philosopher has really hit the nail on its' noggin. Yes, the post may be long but there's a great deal of wisom in it. Well said, young Funky. Well said.

Wisdom.

Well, Richard w may have had a moan, but in a sense it has been useful. I immediately thought to myself, 'but I did cherry that piece'. It's on my list of prospective stories of the day. Then I went to have a look and the cherry didn't take. I am now reviewing the other stuff I thought I'd cherried today and will make sure everyone who ought to, gets one. My fault, and apologies to Matt. Obviously a bit too hasty on the "Back" button on my browser, before the cherry had time to kick in. The new system is a bit different to the old, where we got a screen announcing proudly "This story has been cherrypicked", we now get a blank screen for an indeterminate length of time, then a 'done' appear at the bottom corner of the browser. And I've never picked a piece for a cherry that I wouldn't stand by. I don't always pick 'literary' fiction or poems, I pick stuff that caught my attention and that I think others on the site would like. I would bet large sums of money that the other editors do the same.

Um...as I said, I didn't mean to moan. I didn't ask that the decision should be reversed, and I have nothing against the editors - I think they do an absolutely terrific job. Having *anyone* read wot I wrote is a privilege. I just thought I'd express my surprise at their choice - I did wonder also, as per my opening gambit, if there was a limit of one cherry per day. I didn't think it likely - but was making sure. Some reverse philosophy, Funky - like you, I don't mean to get on a high horse about this, but I think it is valuable advice: if you *are* sick to death of something, saying so is usually not the best way to put it. What I mean is: confrontation breeds confrontation, and in another incident (say, for example, I had been making a very serious complaint,) I think you might have been adding fuel to the fire, however good your intentions. Obviously, if someone *is* making a rather fiery complaint, then you need to calm them in order to stop them - be patient and explain matters, as all the editors have carefully done so. If I *was* an angry customer, their response would, I think, be successful in setting me on my way, whereas you run the risk of making me angrier, in self defence or what have you. I think you'll agree the world is already too full of people sick with other people and who feel the need to tell people they're sick of them, and in some cases to demonstrate that violently. As I say, I don't mean to lecture. I just think you *may* get in a few hotspots if you enter into a conversation saying, "I'm sick of people doing this...I hate people doing that..." etc. The only reason I know is because that was my attitude exactly for a long time, and I've realised, after much verbal battling, that however right I think I am, it just isn't worth the hassle that you get into if you aren't calm, patient and careful. On the other hand, fiery spirits and arguments always add colour to events, so I don't take any moral objection to what you've said - I *only* suggest that it may result in trouble. Egos may be nauseating, but we all have them - better to admit to them than to ignore them. Fact is, I *am* quite vain and oversensitive - I don't worry about 'winning,' as you put it, I just get an irrational fear of being rubbish if other stuff appears, in comparison, to be 'performing better.' I do write to enjoy it, but that isn't the only reason - I also want to write something that's bloody marvellous and encapsulates my philosophies and ideas, like a lot of writers. Doesn't necessarily matter if no one pays attention to it - I've just got one of those artistic vision thingies. This morning I was struck by the notion that I hadn't achieved what I thought I'd achieved, and needed some reason or reassurance. I never meant to fault the cherrypicker in question. However, I can see how the original title looks like a saloon demand or something: "Whose the guy who reckons he can outdraw me?" or summat. Ah. The end of another monstrous post.

yeah no worries Henstoat.. I wasn't having a dig at you mate.. I think I'm just fed up with writers and their self-infatuation at the moment; and writing has started to do my head in a bit, because of it. Yeah I do tend to say what I think and feel, I'm not too good at keeping my cool, I'll admit to that, it's one of my weaknesses; and it often gets me into trouble.. I'm just impatient I guess - I kinda hate the way the world is at the moment.. and want to see people's attitude change and for them to outgrow their competitive ego's and become something better. Somehting more unified and sharing. No offence, I'm lecturing to myself just as much as anyone else.. the things I say I need to learn too. I'm just looking at a reflection of my own character in a mirror which I've grown to dislike.. I just want things to change and become something more pure.. I hate the way the rat race mentality gets into everything. I wish for things to be sacred again. But I take what you say and will try to learn more patience; and not confront others, I know people's egos are a delicate thing.. and if it's the wrong person: a violent nasty thing. So I will learn to fight fire with water and not fire.. good advice dude.. take care. (-:

they were good poems btw Henstoat

Yes, Funky did nail it on the head. I went through the same sort of thing. There was one point when I went through a phase where I thought I was invincible ~~ and during that time, I only wrote maybe two things I can be proud of. Before that, I was writing because I needed entertainment quite badly (because college professors and students who lived in my wing in the dorms are generally evil-subhumans.) Now, I seem to be going through a phase where I realize that I never actually achieved anything great, and I probably never will. Even though I know it doesn't matter, it has me utterly depressed! I'm trying to break out of it by simply writing like mad. I'm glad to see that I am not the only one.

Thanks guys! Is the ending too vague though...?

Cheers, Funky - believe me, I'm the same - I've picked up quite a temper somewhere along the line and I have to keep very much ahead of myself in order to see that it isn't the best solution. Mind you, computers get a fair share of yelling at. I agree with you about the rat race mentality, and it is something I've philosophised to myself about frequently. I think I had a piece of writing a while back where I talked about 'brainwashing' as a kind of way we get by at the same time as all the nastiness that goes on. We wash our brains of it, and forget temporarily, allowing us to enjoy the numerous wonders and delights at are ours for the time, but like our bodies pick up dirt, our minds quickly pick up distaste for things and reminders of our darker sides, so they need to come in for another wash. It struck me at the time as the only way to get by. As for the writing stages, Donignacio talks about, I tend to go through them repeatedly in succession, depending on my mood. I sometimes do the 'invincible' thing, but never for very long - more at short, very high moments. I sometimes think I'll never achieve anything, and during that time I find it very difficult to write, as very little I do impresses me. My most frantic periods, I find, are when I see myself in the character of the writer who does his writing because he really needs to - he needs to stain the page, so to speak, to put the matters of his head and the world in some kind of order. I think I produce my very best work, however, when I simply have an idea for one or more characters, or a concept, that I really think should be made into a reality of some form.

*leads H back up to his attic before he can cause any more trouble. locks door.*

An interesting few comments there. I write because I think I have something to say. If somebody else likes my work thats great. I really dont think we consciously write just to get a good score or cherried. Some of my stuff has been "1"d even though others have "got it". Maybe sometimes work doesnt get good press because the reader hasnt got it. If I dont "get" a poem, thats it. I tend to put words down and only much later may I realise that there is a good rhythm in there, even if somebody else has to point it out to me first :) Ah well, it's only rock n roll after all :)

matt, just read that story and really enjoyed it [thanks due to richard for pointing the story out]..i think if you are being harsh on yourself you could wonder whether the ending is too vague..while reading it i think i was expecting the ending to be more of an outcome..but i think its a great story and a fine achievement to have written to it

I'm be interested to know whether anyone's ever been de-cherried? Like you could take your cherry picked piece and edit it taking out the elements which an editor liked enough to originally cherry it. So does the editor then have the right to take the cherry away?

Yes. *waggles cherry finger* have never done it though.....

Cheers Robert. In the original ending the soldier really *does* come back from the grave and take his wife and the child, in a sort of grim unbelievable ending scenario, dripping blood all over the floor... I discarded it as too unbelievable. Any case the little miner gets his revenge.

I did have a piece once that someone edited and took out exactly the lines I'd most liked - two, if we count one of Liana's pieces about a woman putting her face on. Both still deserved cherries in re-edited versions, but I felt less wowed about them than before the edit. What's probably harder is editing up an uncherried piece into a cherried one - except that a different ed will probably see it and may think different - the second time around, so much is familiar that you lose some of the wonder factor.

very enjoyable and well-written, Matt. i liked the defocused ending - a lot better than the blood and guts hack-fest you initially had in mind, i suspect. only thing i was a bit troubled by was the fact that, usually in fairy stories / myths, when humans make contracts with supernatural beings, they're always fulfilled to the letter. i know the little miner gets his revenge, but... if i was going to suggest any change to the ending, it would be that the central character does end up working for the miner for the allotted time-span, but perhaps not down the mine - can some metaphorical way be found for this to happen - the twist in the tail?

Thanks, Chant. I'm in two minds about it all now. Today I thought I'd add a final paragraph along the lines of... "And when the watchmaker woke up he found that his wife and son were gone." ...to make it less ambiguous about what I think happens. As for the miner, well I think he knew at the time he made the bargain that the watchmaker wouldn't keep it - the whistle underground signals this. If anything the w'maker becomes a slave to his own jealousy and stupidity. The whistling spectacles draw attention to themselves deliberately - not being hidden - and it's inevitable that the wife finds them and learns what they're for. Going to work for the miner may not have been a terrible *punishment* anyway, since he was mining for gold after all... I appreciate the comments... :o)