The politics of cherrying

SHUTTTTTTTTTTTTTT UPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP You insufferable man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I assure you my keyyyyyyyy tapsssssss are quite quiet, you dear, lovely woman !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

unfortunately personality appears to count on this site ... i know i am influenced by how i perceive a person to be and thus am far more likely to approach a person's work if they come across on thread as self deprecating, witty or generous in some way ... likewise i have different feelings about a person's work if they are trumpet blowers or if they brag or draw attention to themselves ... i don't suppose this is fair and objective and is proof positive that i am not suitable editor material ... and perhaps why i have done little editing in comparison to others and tend to defer to their judgement ... i am not responsible for my own so called "canonisation" or "popularity" on the site ... frankly i find the whole concept laughable but it has been interesting to get an insight into one person's view of it ... which is all it is ... the site has been important to me over the past couple of years ... i have met some very good people who have become friends and more and for that i am extremely grateful ... also i have really enjoyed finding new writers to read and watching the development of people as time has gone on ... i have also taken part in some very constructive work with a few people that has aided my own development as a writer ... and hopefully theirs too ... i don't feel it's up to me to comment on whether the alleged "attention" or "reputation" may have turned my head or altered the way i work or who i am ...or indeed to defend myself ... i am happy to leave those conclusions to the people who know me and the way i work... i certainly haven't found those suggestions upsetting in any way but i would say there is a naivety in making such detailed assumptions about someone you don't know in the slightest ... based on your own projected response to something you haven't experienced... my overwhelming feeling is that i am disheartened there are attitudes out there that fail to take account of the hard (unpaid) work of the editors and seem to be biting the hand that feeds them ... but maybe that is a natural consequence of the development of any community with its alliances and its hostilities ... but it is a shame that these attitudes have and will compromise some people's ability to be generous of their time and attention ... i am sorry this thread has happened at all ... and i think it will have consequences that will become obvious as time goes on ...

RE. "I never give fish cherries....and vice versa." is this a recent agreement Liana or are you saying that you have never given Fish a cherry? I was told by a friend that Fish had a whole set of cherries - I tried to check but I was told that she had no work available for viewing??? I agree with Hen that it’s easier to notice the contradictions and hypocrisy of various governments now-a-days - but most people are still prone to the emotional blackmail which strives to convince them that to be fair is to be weak and the enemy will exploit that weakness to the ruin of all! Missi, your profound paranoia is an example of the very thing that starts the wars in the first place. The "lets get them before they get us" mentality is inculcated by the those that seek power as an excuse for their aggression. If, like me, you think that war should be the last resort of the civilised then you are branded a pacifist or a coward by those easily stirred by the rabid rhetoric of the war mongers. Two of ABC’s finest have been so effected by the paranoiac propaganda of the Bush Babies that the mere suggestion that war might be a tad premature and that America was over-reacting to the “terrorist threat” elicited the following reactions On the Ann Leslie thread Justyn says: “Terrorists actually exist, or is that too much for your pacifist mind to grasp? Perhaps you would prefer that we simply open the front door, let the poor darlings into the house, where they can rape, pillage, and burn without being interrupted? That's what pacifism is all about, isn't it?” On the same thread Missi says: “I know that dictators and bullies thrive on pacifism and someone sometime has to stand up and be counted when the bullets fly. The only thing I'm certain of is that they WILL fly. The question is will they fly as a result of a dictator going the whole hog or will they fly as a result of peace-lovers trying to pre-emt the dictator? If I have to die by the sword I'd prefer it to be in trying to stop a worse catastrophe ensuing by my turning my back on reality. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the nastiest, shitiest life-form on this planet is human beings, and I'm ashamed to be one most of the time.” Not that I’m surprised by these reactions because the Bush administration have used every trick in the book to try and gain support for their proposed war with Iraq. A good example of the way that the truth is twisted - I think it’s called “spin” in popular parlance is - if you took the trouble to watch the small bit of Co-lin Powell’s performance today you might have noticed the small vial of powder which he said was about the same amount as the amount of Anthrax virus that caused so much fear and paranoia when it killed a couple of postal workers (a letter burst in the sorting room and exposed them). He neglected to mention that the Anthrax used in the attack was manufactured by USAMRID and was the purest strain available on the planet and yet killed less than half-a-dozen people. He also neglected to mention that the attack was perpetrated not by Iraqi terrorists, in fact not by terrorists at all, but by a research worker at USAMRID who wanted to show how unprepared America was for the dangers of attack by an infectious disease. Of course USAMRID had a large increase in funding as a “reward”. I’m not trying to suggest that Saddam is any better than Bush - but so far as I know he’s not in a position to do any serious damage at the moment and I can’t see why were are all being pressured to condone the murder of countless thousands of innocent people in the name of the “greater good”. So I’m not sure that you’re right in saying “Advancement in the technology of communication and information has made it more difficult to propoganda” Hen. Perhaps it’s actually made it easier - but hopefully harder to do it successfully to those who are prepared to think rather merely than swallow the rhetoric.

Should read .... rather than merely swallow the rhetoric. A bit late for long posts ;o)

Whose attitudes are failing "to take account of the hard (unpaid) work of the editors"? To suggest I and others are ingrates just because we challenge some of the inner workings at ABC is outrageous. I'm prepared to carry the can for all this. If an editor goes overboard and leaves over a bit of criticism like this, I'll be your scapegoat as the starter of the thread. One editor thinks I've blown it for myself here anyway. I'll concentrate on getting poems published and read in the real world. I very much doubt the editorship will be challenged in the same way again, after this show of rank-closing; which is a shame. Every leadership needs to be kept on its toes unpaid or not. (And stop playing the "unpaid" card, I'm sure there's lots of people here who would like to do it.) I think it's obvious that personality counts for you, Fish. And no one was blaming you for your so-called "canonisation".

Which editor is leaving? I have seen no evidence of this. What I do see is one little man, still foaming and wittering even after a "break" from this.

My reply to all of this is on the Front Page. I am happy to continue in debate on this matter but I do worry when I look at my bank balance re: ABCtales and then get a load of grief for it. Spare a thought for those who pay!

'likewise i have different feelings about a person's work if they are trumpet blowers or if they brag or draw attention to themselves ... ' Kettle Black Poppit! Tulip anyone?

I wasn't contradicting myself , I was actually saying that they have a passion for their own success, thats what most passion is about, convincing others we are right. I don't expect anyone to agree with my assessment of Chamberlain but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. Or right for that matter. Mykle, I have no intention of getting into any discussion with you, your opinions are so irrelevant to anything I believe and always were. I don't give a dogs dick about anything you may think or have to say, as far as I'm concerned you are, and always will be, a total non-entity. If you have trouble understanding this, I'll re-phrase it in language you understand. And before all the 'nice' people here get on my case I'd like to say that this is not just me flaring up at Mykle, it is the resumption of an ancient feud re-ignited by the twerp himself.

honestly, Missi, you've been running up and down the general board like a hobbit whose woolly toes have caught fire! why not hop over to the discuss board and give Nancy some feedback on her new novel?

ah. the prodigal son returns. i hope for good. welcome back, Paul! there, there Tony! no one's giving you grief. i'm sure we all appreciate the cost you bear on all of our behalfs to keep the site going. all that you have seen (overlooking the personal abuse between members that sadly dogs the site, and which no one can do much about, it seems), is people who care about the site and want their voice to be heard on it. you *are* the captain, of course, and the good ship abc will follow the course you choose for it. allow a few backseat shipmates though!

Always allowed and always listened to chant! Not always agreed with but all shipmates are taken on board!

Thanks Chant. I hope so, but my confidence has taken a bit of a knock. Someone has privately suggested I've "stirred up a big mess then run away from it", and I won't be accused of that. If I'm "wittering and foaming" it's because I'm still a bit shaken up by how the editors have - whether they admit it or not - taken all this to heart. Each of these terms has been used by a different editor on this thread: "hissy fitting", "personal abuse", "hostilities", "grief". And, I've heard someone threaten to leave. I have someone that won't talk to me. I've had someone suggest that my writing will suffer and that I've killed the goose that laid the golden egg. So despite support from Chant (on the forums) and others (by email) I'm obviously unsure about my future here. I'd love all this to blow over, but if I leave, I want people to understand why - whether they care or not. I started a thread about something someone let slip to me (and I asked that person's permission before I posted it) to see what reaction it would get from fellow abc-talers. It never occurred to me that I was "attacking" the editorial team. It didn't seem that serious to me. But I apologise, I didn't realise the consequences. I didn't realise people would let out some strong feelings, and those feelings would be reacted to in such a dramatic way. But I am sorry, everyone. Truly sorry. I'll get down on my knees and grovel if you want. Seriously.

Paul I think what you have said is fine. It’s made people think about the importance of the site personally and where its possible future lies. I echo what my old pals Chant and Hen have said as well. This site has to be ever evolving for it to progress. It has to spread it wings to become inclusive and not exclusive. That means a wider variation of editors and not just writers who have cut the mustard on the site (they are welcome also of course). It appears to me that we have a siege mentality at work here, which is sad. A 'them against us' atmosphere does nobody any good and I am frankly shocked at all this, but hey, something good may come out of it. Chin up old sausage. And Mr Tony Cook and Stephen Gardiner, stop rubbing salt on your red pepper and take the next step in accordance with your mission statement for ABC. Regards Ralph

Ralph - you never fail to be astonishing. Read the front page dear heart.

yes, please stay, Paul! we desperately need people of your (super-high) calibre! as far as making the site more cutting edge, please allow me, Tony, while i say this: i would like to suggest that the 'cutting edge' desire coincides with some of the principles that the site was founded on. first, the first person/third person question. there is an awful lot of creative writing on the net, and an awful lot of what i have read of it is autobiographical / written in the first person. when i write autobiographically and in the first person, who am i writing about? yup, you've guessed it! me! but isn't this indicative of one of the fundamental problems of today's society - one of the things that causes us to ignore others less well off than ourselves, namely, that we are so self-focused we no longer really notice others? in this sense, to be cutting edge would be to give members positive incentives for writing *other people's stories*, such that they might start to see other people more clearly. i would also like to suggest that to encourage experimentation of style / genre (and i think the UEA group are most consistently novel as far as experimentation in poetic style is concerned. i, at any rate, have learned a lot from them) is another method of encouraging a break away from the philosophy of self that, i believe, dominates writing on the net, and is reflective of today's self-based mentality. ask me to write a fantasy, or a verse in rhyming couplets, and my 'all about me' piece may be subverted, and forced to flow off in a direction that takes in more than 'my little world', and therefore takes me beyond 'my little world' and into that unfamiliar country of other people's lives! i would also like to see more appreciation of writers who actually challenge the self-based society in their work. i was very disappointed not to see a couple of Funky Seagull's recent poems selected as poems of the day, as they seemed to me to be forceful, important works on this theme. and now... time for my yorkie bar.

Writing in the 1st person doesn't have to mean telling about oneself (it's just a viewpoint); 3rd person doesn't have to mean telling about somebody else (could be you as another character); though this is often the assumption. I take your general point though.

By the way, Chant, thanks again.

I don't have much time for you either as it happens.

no, absolutely right, Paul. that's why i added the autobiographical element to my definition. to write in the third person about oneself is still an improvement on the first person view though, i think, because you're looking at yourself from outside yourself. you are employing 'the view from nowhere' as the philosopher Thomas Nagel put it, which is surely the starting point for seeing ourselves in a more objective way, and the first step towards putting ourselves in other people's shoes. and this is surely the foundation for both practical ethics and story-telling ( where we are not simply telling our own story from the inside).

no probs, Greco boy. just keep posting and KEEP WRITING!

Rubbish. If an editor sees one piece that has been marked by a. n. other editor and not been cherried, then they will mail the ed (out of pure courtesy) and then cherry it. No one ignores a piece if they like it. If I dont cherry, and mark likes it, he will cherry..vice versa, and same with tony and the other eds... Bad form... cor, dearie me..... keep the cherry counts down? dearie me again.... your ear may be at the door, but the sound is muffled - you only heard half the story.

I like to read diaries.. your own Chant, were very interesting for quite some time.... it appears to the voyeur in me perhaps.. I take your point though about 3rd person.. though Paul is right...

um, er, cool!!!!

I do not agree with the 1st/3rd person thing at all. I more often write in 1st person because I feel at ease putting myself into someone else's head. When I do put myself at a distance to write in 3rd person, i find myself only describing movements and events, and there seems to be more use of the word 'the'. It just becomes narrative and doesn't flow. I understand that everyone has personal preferences but I don't understand this implication that 1st person is crap or a total cop out.

Dear Insnider, we don't 'ALL' care about cherries. For what it's worth I don't give a flying f.uck about them.

Well that makes at least two of us Freda cos I think it's twaddle too. But then I suppose I'm not as intellectual as some people.

I can back Liana up on this one. I quite often add a cherry to something read by another Editor - and sometimes I don't inform that Editor either! I know I should but occasionally I'm just in a hurry. I also note that stuff I've decided not to cherry does get cherried by another Ed. We are also always open to appeals - either on the Forums or by email. Don't always agree but do always go back and have another look.

This thread reminds me of the scene in The Fugitive when Tommy Lee Jones arrives on the scene of the train wreck and comments: "My, my, my, what a mess." And I agree, there's nothing wrong with 1st person narrative.

We should all be writing in the second person, end of story... right! time for me to bring about world peace, but now I have to go drink some coffee ...

I personally think the editors should go through my sets and cherry everything.

WE should all be writing in which ever person we so wish ...RIGHT! How dare you pompous amateurs presume to know what is right and best, who the hell are you to judge? If you think you can bring about anything except animosity with a view like that you're very much mistaken.

Missi, I think he was making a joke.....:))) ...but I might be wrong....

what a load of TOSH.............if yer good yer will be cherried! It don't matter who the author, editor etc was. And I know cos I was an editor for the ickle abctalers......and if I liked a piece I always over rode the other editors who had read the piece.........that was my job to edit, to cherry. So come on......give it a rest, stop yer moaning and if yer don't like the heat...........keep OUT!!! Like I said many moons ago......if you are any good......yer wouldn't be even submitting on this site.......cos yer would be earning big £££££££££££££££££ I rest this thread........as is my want. :)

Clearly that coffee wasn't strong enough. Off for some more...

It was early February and the sun spliced itself through the venetians, already disappearing by the time it reached her desktop. She decided that the discussion about the merits of first and third person, though well worth disputing, ought really to have been carried into a new thread.

Tony, do you think you could find the time to re-assess my stuff? I seem to be a bit deficient in the old fruit bowl mate.

You may be right James, but for what it's worth I don't believe so. Ever since this site got off the ground there has always been a few people that think their self inflated literary talents endow them with superior judgement of others writing techniques. In the early days it was the bitch from Toronto, then it was the 'astonishingly talented' author of Torturing Tanya (who has just surfaced on another site under a new name, but who has wisely, so far resisted posting any of his gruesome pornography). There will always be someone. And there will always be someone like me ready to tell them the truth about themselves. I have no such belief in my own abilities I might add.

If that comment is any way to do with my second person remark then I'm feeling hard done by as it really was just a joke. Of course if it isn't then I'm just being hyper-sensitive and more self-centred than usual this morning...

Sometimes a piece grabs right away and I cherry it. Others can take longer; like a poem might quietly stick in my head and i'll remember it when I'm scrubbing grunge off the bath. In this case I've gone back rooted around for it and cherried. A couple of times another ed has got there first. Fine by me. I haven't been doing it long though and am cautious of stepping on other people's feet . Sometimes it's my opinion that the writer could have spend just a little more time on it, so a cherry would be premature. I see the cherries as nothing more than a positive gesture, a stroke of encouragement. In the way someone emailing out of the blue saying they like something you've written makes you feel understood. It's just feedback and cool, not meant to incite nigglings and put downs. It would be a shame to see it as politics, looking at the state of politics now!

Will somebody please post an example of this 'cutting edge' writing that everyone's talking about. A short sharp poem would be nice. I ask this because I haven't got a clue what is meant by the term. Thanks in anticipation.

Good job you're not one, with a mind like that Mykle.

Freda, I didn't know you been made an editor.... well done !

KILLING COLOUR I was just going for a walk you see. Just a hungry boy with amphetamine eyes. Through the dark, drizzled, slant streets of this city. The finest city. With the near dead dogs wailing. and the painted up girls waiting. Who would have thought tonight would turn into this. My colourless hour. Old paint. Shiny, silky and peeling, from the solid walls of my life. Who would have thought That I. Would be here, scratching in a sodium bulbed room with an ashtray carpet. Wilting, writhing on a leatherette sofa at 4am. With a ripped up charred up slit whore, smoking, death choking, from a plastic coke bottle. She don't care for me don't even know me, I don't care for her don't even want to know her, just into each other for next hit. The Crack comfort of strangers. I'm drug dancing up with the devil and his waltzing with my credit cards. Tonight I'm on my own. For the very first time. In a long time. I'm killing all my colours. I'm turning sepia.

If this is a serious reply to my query, will you please explain why this poem is considered 'cutting edge'?