Hox is right - the personal abuse is unwarranted, especially since the main targets (liana & fish) are fine writers.
My work is presently more noticeable because of the Inspiration Point exercises. I am very grateful for these because, like liana, I've hardly written anything for months. It has also allowed me to go for a change of style in my writing (sub-armitage).
I think your comment
"I thought Fish's one about seeing a couple in the station strayed into lazy generalisations toward the end. Sorry, but I thought we were interested in writing to the best of our ability?"
is shameful. Do you ALWAYS write to the best of your ability?
I'm absolutely sure I don't. But I always TRY to, as I'm sure do fish and liana. To suggest otherwise shows a lack of grace and a complete lack of respect for other writers.
Sorry for shouting.
The suggestion that the vast majorityof members may be using the site as storage is questionable at the very least as it's far better to store documents on either floppy discs (which can hold an amazing amount of text), or CD's which can hold more than most people write in a lifetime. I don't think you're wrong in trying to develop ambitious writers and writing, I just believe it comprises a very small and dedicated section of the site and is being pushed as if it appeals to the majority. It's always the fervent activists and passionate people that push their point of view the hardest. That's the very reason that 20th. century trade unions were dominated by left-wing activists and pseudo-communists; the average member just wanted to have a job and pay his bills, but was bullied by the 'closed shop' into taking part against their wishes. A similar thing occurs in politics, whole nations are bullied by the ambitions of the few. So I'm not trying to sabotage your efforts, I'm just pointing out that you are one of a small minority, who believes that your way forward is not only desirable to the masses but is almost a crusade that the world wants and needs. People like you WILL go forward, but you can't expect others to be so dedicated and follow you, they have lives to get on with, families to raise and bills to pay. You are at the beginning of your adult life, a lot of us are either in the middle or nearer the end of ours, we don't have dazzling writing careers on the horizon, to use a phrase I coined myself, 'my future is all behind me'. What I would say to you is, you appear to have a glittering career in front of you in advertising.
i dont feel attacked ... i have considered this site to be about writing and reading ... writing the best i can and reading the best pieces i can find regardless of who has written them ...
the argument about everything being subjective is flimsy at best and often carted out by people when they dont feel their work is getting a fair hearing ... i dont mind who reads my work or who likes it or not ... i certainly value being read by certain people whose opinion i respect ...eddie being one of these ...
i also think its true to say that i am constantly on the lookout for new voices and talent (as i see it) and to encourage those writers ... someone said to me the other day that i am absurdly loyal to abc ... this may be true ... and threads like this do make me wonder why that is ... although i did find myself agreeing with a point henstoat made earlier ... i can understand why someone might feel a certain unhealthy response to someone due to their reputation ... positively or negatively ...
Yes. The "Paul says" makes me sound like a kid in a school playground. I hold my hands up. I make no apologies for standing up for someone who I like, talk to, and have stuff in common with. But I do apologise for starting a thread which has lead to emotions getting out of hand, and lots of people (myself included) saying things they regret.
Hitch...personal abuse? However flippant, telling someone the perception of their work is clouded by mass hysteria is not what I would class as personal abuse. Telling someone their poem has "generalisations" is not personal abuse. I certainly didn't consider Chooselife's admission that he didn't like my style personal abuse. But you know as well as I do - not you, I've seen you take criticism on the forums - that certain writers will take criticism like this very badly, so much it makes it look like personal abuse.
He didn't say Fish wasn't trying her best, he was saying Fish is not critisized anymore, and is unable to do her best. He may be right. He may be wrong. But I still stand by him. And hope this @!#$ blows over.
Right, time to break a from abc. Liana, who has been a good friend, is not talking to me. This thread has brought some bile and striking insecurities to the surface. I feel - for one - I've made a dick of myself. I need a holiday from this. It's affecting my life. Not to mention my writing.
Liana, I hope you change your mind. If my "friendship" with you is over because of this, I feel my time here is over too.
Surely it's the storyline that's important, not whether it's written first-person or third. Remember, Chant's original argument was against the large number of biograhical pieces submitted.
I, for one, love most things that Margaret Attwood has written....they are all written in first person. Such writing lets you get to the heart and mind of a character, lets you 'see' what they're thinking. Personally this style pulls me into a story in a way that a 'detatched' viewpoint often doesn't.
don't go, Paul! you're a really good writer and a lively presence in the forums.
Liana - reply to Paul's e-mail!
Hen - apologise to Fish!
editors - i think we have a problem. from what i've seen, Ralph and Hen haven't been getting any cherries for their work since Tess left. i may be mistaken, in which case, please correct me. but if that is the case, then i feel a problem of objectivity has arisen.
Chant - I think you are mistaken about the cherries... andrew was always Ralphs biggest fan, but I have cherried him recently, as I have Hen.
And this is directed at the rest of you -
Regarding who is talking to who, this is entirely irrelevant to abc. If people fall out via email, then it is a private matter, and should not be replayed or discussed on the forums.
I do not wish to have posts on threads discussing me and who i am or am not talking to. Its nothing to do with anybody.
ABC is about writing, encouraging writing, reading, and enjoyment.
This is NOT enjoyable.
Andrew Pack once said "You are behaving like someone who goes to the cinema to see a great film, then spends the whole time in the foyer bickering over the pick n mix - I couldnt agree more. For gods sake, its not like anyone even PAYS to see the film - its free, and should be appreciated for that fact.
Now for Christs sake, get on with what abc is about, and stop hissy fitting on the forums, its juvenile, and its pathetic.
Chant re your last paragraph. If it's true that Ralph and Hen haven't been getting cherries since Tess left, then the reason must be because Tess left. Meaning that the other editors remaining havent objectively seen fit to cherry anything by them. Or they would have done. Sorry if it sounds that simple.
I am not going to get into mud slinging as that would be irrelevant . Like I said if anyone wants to put pieces of work up on the 'discuss writing' forum I will give honest reasons why if I read that piece I didn't cherry it. And maybe the other editors will - I can't speak for them. And hopefully other people who aren't eds can add their opinion which would be every bit as valuable. I don't see any of the eds as being on a power trip. But I do see people regarding abc as some kind of a parent establishment to rebel against. And at the same time to depend upon. Is that the editors fault if that's the case?
What people seem to forget each time this cherry and ratings topic crops up is that abc is a free site. I don't think anyone would wish it to be different. But (re first post on this thread) it also means that you can't realistically expect a handful of eds who have lives to run outside their computer, to sit down and discuss the pros and cons of every single piece which crops up until they come to some agreement to cherry it. Small fruit - huge fuss!
well, Liana says she's cherried both of them recently, so i retract my comment. but had they received no cherries since Tess left, i would have found that problematic, as they're both excellent writers, and, for me, their work (not without blips, of course), has been getting better and better.
I'm new, got a cherry on my 3rd submission, no fuss, no talk. So what? So one person liked what they read and cherried and yes, it is encouraging. I don't get much time so I read & vote when I can, and post occasionally. Anyone can post & some post a lot so it can seem like a private club, especially when it deteriorates into a slanging match. However, if a reader is impressed with something particular they can also post. As Freda said "other people who aren't eds can add their opinion which would be every bit as valuable". The site is as good as the people who contribute, and for me it's good enough to keep coming back when I can. Let's get cherries in perspective.
Ralph, I agree. I always cherry objectively. The last three months? Ive had a couple, but then am not writing too much.
You can be assured, that I cherry fairly. Im sure you would not wish to indicate anything otherwise.
This three month ago cherry was from me, i believe.
Writing is the most important thing in the end. I agree.
definitely.
perhaps Hen could be made an editor?
for me, incidentally, the site keeps getting a bit like Radio 1 before the big cull. it has a tendency to get flabby and mired in family values. i raised this before with regard to the swear filter. (don't think there should be one on forums or stories).
personally, i would like the site to be much more cutting edge. but if it can't be that (and i know there's not the money to do anything with it at the moment), then i'd like at least one editor to be pulling in more novel directions and i reckon Hen would be good for this.
My take on this is "what ye reap, so shall ye sow" or whatever the bloody biblical adage is. Yes ABC seems cliequey to the casual observer. It's the same names on the board, the same people with opinions. you have the core of ABC which seems to fall into two camps depending on who is pally with whom. then you have the peripheral'edger's' I'd consider myself in this category. People who are here pretty much consistantly but don't post on the forums, read, or review as much as the other's. and then you have the people who pop in, post a few bits and then disappear.
BUT isn't this inevitable? If I post a piece today. Lets say ten people read it. five of those will be browsers who see it in the first ten. Maybe two more will read it because they've read something else by me that they liked so figure this will be a good bet. and maybe three will read it because I've recently read and commented on something of theirs.
If I now read and write to a hundred people to say I'd read their work, wouldn't a good percentage of them then come and read something of mine as a good favour returned? I know this is getting off the subject of cherries but it's very much on the subject of clique.
So thenI post to the forums, people get used to my name and my work. They answer me, so I put out another five posts.
to my mind, clique comes down to useage.
I think it's irrelevant that Lianna and fish are both editors, though I'm sure some people might bear that in mind when posting to them. What both Liana and Fish do is use the site more than most. THEY READ OTHER PEOPLE'S WORK which is the lifeblood of any writing site. They post often on the forums. In effect they put themselves about (sorry girls but it was the best description I could think of :-)!) make themselves known so they are never far from peoples thoughts. If you want to be in with the in crowd then post more work, post more forum posts, read other people's work and write to them with reviews. Increase your usage and you will increase your presence. Simple.
Liana
Despite our rows I have always known you to be fair when its comes to being an editor. I hope that do not think that I was implying otherwise.
Chant, Hen would be a fine choice.
Cutting edge: Well we all make our razors, its just the site might need a bit of shapening thats all.
Ralph
yes, i agree, Sooz! a good example of this would be ukauthors, where Sirat has a dominant presence on the site. ukauthors is currently deciding which authors' work should be included in an anthology, and i see many of Sirat's pieces have been nominated for this. and rightly so, for Sirat is an excellent writer. but he has ensured his presence in the anthology lists is strong by giving an awful lot of feedback and by being a vocal presence in the forums.
incidentally, one of the strongpoints of Sirat's writing for me is that he tells stories about OTHER PEOPLE. i feel the emphasis on this site is way too biased towards first person narrated personal lifestyle/autobiographical accounts.
Sirat is also to be congratulated for attracting a publishing offer from PublishAmerica. and Andrea (the site's manager) should be congratulated too for pursuading PA to browse the site!
oh, and i *do* buy into the Ivoryfishbone great writer thing, though i wouldn't go with an automatic cherry policy, as i think the best writers should be made to work harder for their cherries. clearly this would conflict with the 'cherries represent the best work..' tag, but i always thought that tag was bulls.hit anyway.
I totally agree with you chant Sirat is one of the mainstays of UKA. He is very generous with his time and reviews vitrually everything I, and anybody else writes. Which goes to prove my point. Make yourself known and you will get reccognition. This might be seen a being cliquey, but I don't think it's a bad thing. I spend a lot more time reviewing on UKA because I prefer the comment box than having to e-mail the author, and so am better known on there than on here. It's all down to how much you put into a site. Now I'm not working though I intend to have lots more time to review on both sites :-)
Chant - If abc seems biased towards first person or autobiographical accounts then it's solely because that is what people are choosing to submit. Though there were once suggestions about writing journals and diaries , no-one had to take the idea up.
Or are you saying that the editors favour 1st person, over 2nd person narrative, whether well or badly written? I see no evidence of this.
I wish you could somehow get it together to commend one thing without needing to put down another. Surely an appreciation of something has enough strength to stand up for itself!
When I say storage, Missi, I mean a kind of organised storage - in part, this is why I use ABC - my hard drive is cluttered, my papers spread across my room - an ABC collection is easily navigated, accessable from almost anywhere, and a good place to direct mates too.
I see where you're coming from, but I would argue that the passionate few often make a positive change for everyone. Early feminists, for example, have undoubtedly improved life for women everywhere. Same with those who campaigned for Universal manhood suffrage, and the activists who brought about reform in the 19th century. Look at the upcoming peace rallies - 50, 000 in a couple of cities hardly represents most of Britain. But wouldn't it make a difference if they did stop the war? Just because others are not as vocal or activistic doesn't mean they aren't sympathetic. Similarly, while it may be only a small number who push for change on ABC, I think once some key alterations are put into action, you may find the site attracts a lot more people into its more fundamental, central areas. We're competing for attention - and while they make no fuss if we don't get it, they might well be prepared to give it. If an advert fails to catch your eye, say, you aren't upset - you don't *want* it to. But if it does, and you buy into the product, and enjoy it, then aren't you glad it did? I don't think we can take the silence of the majority as proof that it wouldn't affect them either way.
I would like to see Henstoat made an editor too. One because he's young. Two because he has a courageous element to him which is useful. Three because it would give him something useful to do which would be a novelty for him.
Well done the people who set up the site who have adminstered and edited it and to those who do it now. Good job, no question about that.
For me it's not like radio one it is more like radio two and specifically Terry Wogan's fan club. When a lot of the discussions approach intense or serious the abc Woganite faction come to the rescue with charming inanities. It is kind that people will intervene if they imagine others may become unhappy with the way the dialogue heads sometimes. I don't think they should worry quite so much though.
It's like mountain walking. Some people enjoy the exercise. Sometimes the effort produces a view which can be tremendously joyful and satisfying. For those intent on only seeing landmarks with which they are already familiar then it probably isn't so satisfying.
PS Another reason to choose Henstoat. Remember that in the Soprano's, Tony had to make the guy captain who was causing the most trouble. He didn't like it but he bit the bullet and made him up.
Henstoat is fully charged up on the elixir of youth. God knows what he's capable of if you don't get him on the inside.
An editor of a writing site probably I think needs a nurturing soul, and to be able to find lots of positive things to say to people. Henstoat is a clever boy, but a bit petulant and angry to hold a position like that I think. Tact and diplomacy are very necessary qualities, and many here need to learn that, but specifically he. If he has any sense whatsoever, he will stop all this nonsense and concentrate on his writing and his studies.
Why is it the men who are so anxious about this? All the girls apart from Lianna, seem happy enough.
God knows indeed. nice post, Vartis. will someone please make use of Henstoat's enormous talents?
well, Freda, as this thread has partially developed into a discussion of abc, i'm just taking the opportunity to express my feelings about the site in response to Hen's claim that the place gets him down sometimes. i'm giving positive and negative on the thread because that's how i feel.
i think it's up to the editors to give people a positive lead away from first person narrative, and towards third person narrative. no publisher is going to be interested in a writer who can only tell stories about themselves. nor, to be frank, do i think writers are worth much if they're purely self-focused.
Henstoats youth is the very reason he would make a terrible editor, not because he is young but because he is inexperienced. He also admits that he thinks his own work is superior indicating a gross lack of humility.
the site needs balance! it lost balance when Andrew left. it's gone too far in the direction of pink fluffiness and old quarrels that refuse to die. now there's nothing wrong with pink fluffiness, but you can have too much of it. old quarrels that refuse to die are just bad news for everyone.
come on, Tony Cook! the site needs to harnass the fire and youth and INTELLECT of Hen. he's only petulant when he's overlooked.
The passionate few we have to deal with at the moment include Bush, Blair and Hussein along with Mugabe and that evil bastard with the hook hand and glass eye in London, so it isn't always a positive thing to have passionate people around. So I would argue that the passionate few are almost single-handedly responsible for some of the worlds worst human tragedies. I'm just advocating a balanced view here not trying to neutralise your every argument, a little caution can save a lot of regrets later. The problem with the advert that convinces you to buy into the product is that all too often it leads to disappointment and a feeling of having been cheated.
Chant you really are an insufferable tosser, the site has youth in the editors circle with Mark, who just happens to be a self-effacing writer of talent. Hox is a man of inestimable common sense and intelligence, Liana and Fish are respected writers with a lot of experience on this site. Whether they wear pink fluffy whatever is immaterial. Your incessant wittering about hens talent is doing nobody any favours, least of all hen. And petulance is petulance whether it's the result of being overlooked or not, although I doubt if he or anyone else here has been. So why don't you just shut up!
no, anon, i'm not insidiously stirring. i'm just stating how i feel. the stuff about Ralph has been going on for ages. now whatever the rights and wrongs of it, i don't think that jumping on his every post is going to drive him off the forums. and it's just bad for the rest of us to have to read.
Lorra lorra stuff for me to reply to.
Liana - talk of hissy fitting is completely out of place. I brought up a serious point without attacking you or anyone else personally - I wasn't even angry. I'm still not particularly angry. If it has consequently descended into a slanging match (and I think comments from Chant, Paul, Sooz and others have prevented it from doing so,) then it's due to kneejerk reactionism in defence of people who haven't been attacked. You should note: I have not insulted you or anyone else personally, except in regard to your conduct on this thread. I have not said Fish's poetry is 'bad' per se, or undeserving, and I have not accused the editors of cynically cherrying their friends. The point I made, and which few have actually addressed, is that the cherries and other forms of attention-drawing seems to have been focused on a small group, with Fish at the prow. This is all very well if you like them, but if you're not a particular fan then it gets tedious. It really does. Now I like a lot of your writing, and I like Hitch's, but I don't really like Fish's.
Fish - so you're challenging subjectivity? This fits in with the tact you have taken before - that good writing is simply 'good', that it is a status achieved by the piece itself, not by interaction with the reader. I don't see how you can possibly defend this view, especially when your oeuvre is simple poetry that 'says so much in so few words.' For words to say more than their immediate meaning, they have to draw on what the reader associates with those words. In this age moreso than any before, the experience of living is extremely diverse, and you would have to achieve an extraordinary level of universality to conduct much meaning with few words. Clearly, you've gone some way, but not all the way. For me, the scenarios and emotions that are familiar are not expressed in terms that fulfil any kind of need in me. You do not give me what I'm looking for, and the success of a poet lies in exactly that. Now you've succeeded with a good number of people, and that's no mean feat, but that does not automatically give your poems an undeniable objective status.
I'll continue in the next post.
And on And on - not sure if it's worth replying to you, but anyways... Would you prefer it if I feigned humility? If I didn't think what I wrote was good, I'd rewrite it until it was. In writing, it automatically has to fulfil my subjective standards of what is good. What possible reason could I have to writing pieces that I thought were inferior? It doesn't affect my ability to like other people's work, nor my ability to be objective.
Chant makes my point well - surely the better writers should have to work harder for cherries? Surely if cherries are about encouragement, they should be rewarded for individual achievements, in relation to one's own work, rather than for being better than someone else who hasn't had as much experience?
To Hox - You say, "and my subjective judgement is certainly worth no more than anyone else's."
You see this far, which is good. What I'm saying is that perhaps you SHOULD be more tactical with cherries, rather than subjective. As in, what I say above - knock the cherry against the lips, but don't give it all away. Respond to each writer's improvements by giving them encouragement, but also motivation by making it progressively harder to get cherries. Otherwise, your subjectivity WILL lead you, quite naturally and quite professionally, to prefer certain writers and thus focus will be drawn to them. And too much focus on faves IS a cause for concern! I'm not saying you've gone wrong - I'm suggesting an improvement. I'm not saying 'you shouldn't cherry Fish because she's no good' - I'm saying that her success has led to her being practically canonised, which is a source of exclusion for those who, again subjectively, don't like her. It can lead to a closed off community, a clique.
"What I find appaling about this thread is the attack on individuals, their integrity, and their own work, by people who purport to be fellow writers. "
What's wrong with 'attacking' work? I haven't said anything that isn't an honest reaction - and that's constructive criticism. I have explained, with reasons, why Fish's poetry doesn't work for me, where I think it could be improved. Surely there's room for this kind of criticism?
You misused the word tact Hen. Its "tack" you needed to use.
Hysterical misuse though, really. Proves you have no idea of the definition of it, if proof were needed.
I agree that passion is often misdirected - but your examples are a bit weak. Blair? Cuddling up to the US, surely. Bush and Hussein are completely self-interested - their passion is a put on to inspire faith in them. Showing caution is of vital importance, I agree, but it is usually a guide and helping hand for passion, rather than a stifler. Again, the leaders you mention would have us believe they combine caution and passion in this way. And, of course, the passionate pro-war side are always rolling out cautious old Chamberlain as a model for their hesitance equals doom equation.
I'm afraid I must make the case against me being an editor.
I think, if I had more time and focus, I could do a good job. But I spend too much time on ABC anyway (not that I don't think it useful, or don't want to - but I could clearly be achieving more right now by doing some work, or tidying my room before the landlord comes. I'm having to type in haste as it is.) I couldn't possibly give a fair reading to every piece submitted, let alone instigate the kind of tactics I'm suggesting to the present editors. I think I would flop like Blair.
I am, however, extremely grateful to Chant and others for saying what they have.
I've just reread Fish's post and feel my above response was very poorly handled. I apologise.
To Hitch, whose work I like: You say, "Do you ALWAYS write to the best of your ability? I'm absolutely sure I don't."
Well, exactly! So surely some feedback is helpful? The idea of helping each other improve in this way is utterly impossible if a criticism of the latter half of one poem immediately makes me an 'abuser.'
"But I always TRY to, as I'm sure do fish and liana. To suggest otherwise shows a lack of grace and a complete lack of respect for other writers."
I'm suggesting, among other things, that it infringes on one's ability to improve if they are shielded from criticism. I said quite plainly that I couldn't say for sure if Fish had been affected, but that I'm certain I would be in her situation.
My examples are of people who have a passionate belief in their own self-righteousness, it doesn't matter whether you or I see them as puppets. They have the future of millions of people in their hands and that makes them dangerous and strong in that sense. Chamberlain wasn't cautious, he was a weak, frightened man that would do anything to avoid the truth that was unfolding before his eyes. The doom you refer to is ultimately unavoidable because civilisation is basically an alien state to the human race. Dictators are people who see this clearer than most and take advantage of the socially adjusted masses. There will always be wars unless we have a world government to police the entire planet.
And another thing, what the hell does all this have to do with cherries?
I think both Fishy and Liana should post 10 items each tomorrow and give each other a bowl of cherries.
Re the misuse of "tact"
Maybe, if Hen concentrated on English, rather than inserting random French into his posts to impress, he could find the correct English words. It's like Hyacinth frickin Bouquet!
"Hysterical misuse though, really. Proves you have no idea of the definition of it, if proof were needed."
Two sentences that mean completely different things? The winner is number one - I am too flustered to get every word right. Hysterical is an overstatement - I was hysterical when I found I'd been locked out of the launderettes. Right now, I'm flustered, because people keep telling me to clean rooms and the bathroom spray has run out, and I seem to spend most of my thread trying to repeat what I've said before in a manner that leaves less room for misinterpretation.
Chant - you are, of course, not alone in that view. And there is no invalidity to that view. And to an extent, it may well be right. I *wish* I could agree, but I've read every piece of Fish's that has come recommended, and not found what I was looking for. I don't know what I *am* looking for, but every reader knows when they find it.
Ah, the cherries stuff is to do with who we draw attention to on the site - I was complaining that the same names are drawn up again and again, however fair the rewards are.
You seem to contradict yourself - you say that the dictators and leaders are dangerous because they have the future of millions of people in their hands. Well, exactly, I'd say - that's why they ruin so much. I don't think passion has that much bearing on that - the only passion they seem to have is for their own success.
I don't go by that definition of Chamberlain - it's easy to blame him in retrospect, and he's often characterised as the weak one, the fool, so as to lend strength to any old Nazi Germany comparison that the warmongers throw up. I think at the time it must have seemed like a reasonable manoeuvre - after all, Germany was regarded as the diplomatic problem. Nazism was a social one, and not strictly in the same realm. The Daily Mail supported our own blackshirts, of course. I'm pretty sure caution had a lot to do with Chamberlain's actions - caution against a war that he hoped could be avoided, especially after the pointless death toll of the first world war. His error was one of calculation, not integrity.
I don't know about unavoidable doom either - it does look pretty hopeless sometimes (ie. now,) but there has been positive advances made in the name of peace. I don't think we've ever had a situation quite like now, for example, where so many people oppose it. Advancement in the technology of communication and information has made it more difficult to propoganda - contradictions and hypocrisy are apparent to anyone who wants to see it. There is some hope.
"the argument about everything being subjective is flimsy at best and often carted out by people when they dont feel their work is getting a fair hearing"
My work gets a fair hearing every week by people who sit around and listen to me read it. Often they like it, but everyone will try to suggest improvements or point out areas of failure. This week I read 'The Scrub Brush Burns' which Beef described as 'absolutely beautiful.' Joel said it didn't do anything for him because it lacked the witticisms that usually elevate my wordiness out of mundanity. Dentalplan said it was let down by one character's speech imprediment, since (Rokkitnite agreed, taking up the point) slurring the esses breaks the illusion of translated Japanese - the speech then *has* to be English. So I'm going to change that. Can't do much about Joel's not liking it, but that's fine.
So I don't think I can be accused of that motivation, Fish. I don't feel particularly ignored, and, as I've said before, I think the number of cherries I get is pretty fair, outside of the odd pouty disappointment with something I was quite proud of.
Pages