The politics of cherrying

Dont bark up my tree! I only just got in dear.

I knew! I knew!

*applause* Congrats on "coming out", Freda.

bloody typical! What really amazes me Paul, is how a teacher manages to get enough free time to post as much as you do? I thought you lot were always complaining about having to cover the bun fights and playground battles and having to work until 3am marking papers and preparing lessons plans?

No, that's just a myth we like to bandy about. We're not underpaid either. Lesson plan? Nah, you're kidding. Ofsted coming up soon will be the stimulus for my first plans in years (other than when I've been observed, ahem, internally). Once you've done it a year, you just teach whichever class turns up. Holidays are a bit short though.

Ah.... just as I thought. Those blooody firemen are overpaid too. With all the spare time they get in between polishing their poles.... and engines, I'm surprised we don't have any contributing to ABCTales. Perhaps we do.....?

Missi - I worry that your complaints are attempts to stifle any kind of criticism on this site. As this thread has demonstrated, a back-slapping, critic-free zone is more comfortable, but progression must come through more of a readiness to engage in debate. You launch an ad hominem attack on anyone who dares to make use of their education and get involved in a debate. Do you expect me to believe that YOU don't think you have a "superior judgement of others writing techniques"? Of course you do - everyone works from the assumption that their instinctive responses are right, and you need other people to challenge that. Your response is disheartening - that anyone challenging your initial ideas is somehow (and this seems to be your chain of logic,) an inferior human being because they possess superior literary experience! Naturally, the arguments of myself and others WILL seem harsh and grounded to you, because we live in a society where everyone falls back on rhetoric at the drop of a hat - if we didn't use rhetoric, few people would listen - it is a means of making an argument arresting and interesting, of stirring up response. How do you think you sound to those you belittle? Your posts frequently carry a tone of disgust and outrage - rhetorical tools used to suggest righteousness. And if you think you're more righteous than any of us, then you too are "self-inflated" - so you can see (I hope,) that you're coming to the battleground with the same armaments that you abhor so in those who disagree with you. It is dispiriting indeed for me if you cannot take a moment to cool down and accept this, for you know very well that you are as good as any of us at bringing about animosity.

If I may be so bold: Cherries as a means of encouragement is damn right. But that means you give an occasional one to a brave or outstanding piece in a person's canon of work. Several well-loved ABC Talers (I *will* name names - Fish, Hitch and Liana, most prominently,) seem to have great difficulty getting anything through the system without it being cherried. To my mind, this not only misses the point of encouragement - if plaudits are just flying at you, the drive to keep pushing your limits reverts to personal will power - it also actively serves the more dubious notion that cherries are there to highlight 'the very best writing on ABC Tales.' The favourites maybe, but this is a rather sweeping claim when it seems to moves the focus to only the minority of writers who are consistently cherried.

well thanks Hen... nice to know that my *stuff* is only done because i am a well known taler...... and as for hitch and fish, which i wouldnt dream for a moment of putting myself into the same category as - are damn good writers. Thats why they get the cherries.. I personally have a ton of stuff that isnt cherried. *dumbfounded*

Back at the beginning of the 20th century, Mykle, I would have thought that the politicians' power to corrupt was almost the same as now - their rhetoric reaches everywhere they want it too. Advances in communication have speeded up their methods, but that's nothing - I think - to how they have benefitted opposition and dissent. Lowly people like thee and me can now voice our dissent out loud across the Internet, on the television and the like - news gets out. Upsetting truths leak into the ears of the populace. Your average chap would have to be quite bullheaded, or not pay much attention to current affairs, or have some kind of agenda for the anti-war case not to be very clear in their minds. Thus, we're about to have the biggest protests ever.

Hen, looking back over Fish's, Hitch's and Liana's posts, they don't all get cherried. Those that do always seem to deserve them. D.Beswetherick is consistantly cherried. I don't like the stories, but the quality of writing is exellent.

.... and I obviously type slower than Liana.

i am presently deciding to push my limits and write some really crap pieces to post just so i dont get cherried and it will even things out a bit ... i will exhort eddie to do the same ... if only we had realised we were not cherried on the merit of our work but merely because we were well loved ... imagine! we have been labouring under the illusion that our approach to our work is professional and that we have high standards of ourselves ... thank goodness we have henstoat around to point out the error of our ways ... *licks pencil and ponders writing a poem using both "shards" AND "soul"*

Hen, you worry unnecessarily, I had no thoughts of stifling anything or anybody, and I don't expect you to believe anything, including this post. You consistently return to statements about education and superior literary experience, why I don't know, maybe because you believe you possess these qualities. It is my belief that no one is inferior to me inspite of some people doing there best to convince me I am wrong. I also believe that no one is superior either; if I come across as having a superiority complex I apologise, it must be my inferior communication skills sabotaging my intent. Whether you believe me or not, I DO NOT believe I have 'superior judgement of others writing techniques', I believe that the content is far more important than whether a person uses first person or any other person in the queue. Most people that read regularly would have read some first person writing of high quality, and also some third person garbage. It therefore follows that the perspective is far less important than the style, subject, language employed etc. *Your posts frequently carry a tone of disgust and outrage* Guilty I guess, although not necessarily the majority of them. My excuse is that I often feel obliged to prick pomposity, and no I don't feel 'more righteous' than any of you, in fact I don't feel 'righteous' at all, I just state my opinions, exactly like the rest of you. *you are as good as any of us at bringing about animosity* I can tell you that almost without exception any animosity I engender is deliberate. There have been a few incidencies when I was genuinely misconstrued and I had to deal with those as and when they occurred. When I see somebody being superior and pompous as I interpret the terms, it makes my piss bubble, to use a rustic term, and I shall continue to say my piece. *anyone challenging your initial ideas is somehow ... an inferior human being because they possess superior literary experience* I haven't a clue what this means, but suspect I disagree.

Don't worry fish, I'm about to start posting my poetry using your name.

Shards AND soul, fish? *faints*

Good idea. Where can I fill out an editor app?

cheers choose ... i can do with all the help i can get ... yes shards and soul and lots and lots of abstract wittering about feeeeeeeeelings .... i think hen may have been responsible for the scales falling from my eyes ... i feel it deep in my heart that i am about to discover a whole new dimension to my craft ...

Missi, when I say 'superior' I do not mean in the sense of a hierarchy of respect. Certainly, people who haven't been on courses and the like have an equal position in fronting their views. But when I say 'superior' I simply mean 'a greater amount' - a greater amount of literary experience in this case. I would say that someone who has been taught a lot, or read a lot, has a superior literary experience to those who haven't. I don't know what category you fall into (indeed, we shouldn't need to categorise,) but you seem to rally against people bringing in theories and ideas that are beyond the expertise of others. I'm sorry if I have you wrong - it just seems you're saying we shouldn't let complex notions like literary theory influence our views, when that cannot be helped. When I start quoting or referencing weird areas of literary study, I am not throwing my intellectual weight around - I am trying to bring them onto the table. You're right in that I probably cannot claim 'superior literary experience' to many on this site, which is why it is all the more beguiling for me when I'm accused of being some kind of soulless hyper-scholar. I'm just coming from a different angle - a different path in life. When Chant talks about first-person etc. he isn't saying one form is inherently superior to the other - he is drawing attention to the main stylistic feature of a bigger deal. In this case, he finds ABC overcrowded with autobiography, and that this is encouraged disproportionately to other kinds of writing. By cutting edge, I believe he means we should be encouraging more daring and branching out in writing - personal development in every one of us. And this is what I am rallying so fiercely about myself. I believe the atmosphere of polite interest and acclaim in each other's accounts, diaries etc. has a built up effect so that other writing is crowded out. I don't think there's been a single piece of science fiction or fantasy writing publicised since I got here - OK, so most of us find them crass, but we should be encouraging development on all fronts. Niether you or anyone else could have known what this combination of people would mean to the site, but I think it is now clear we have come to a partial failure - because, by being too laid back and following our interests, picking out our favourites, we are engaged in closing off the site.

*pops on and cherries Fish's last post*

Freda, just log on and overrule Liana will you? Fish's last post was NOT worthy.

ooooh thanks liana ... its good to know i am so well loved even on the threads .... was it my use of "deep in my heart" that swayed you?

You see this cherrying is so arbitrary and unfair and done by AN UNELECTED CLIQUE. There should be some way that we, the common masses, huddled beneath the torch of those more enlightened, could make our views known about a piece. Some designated forum perhaps, or maybe a rating system on a 1-5 scale ... ... clearly I'm leaving in cloud cuckoo land and need a lie down ...

yes jon ... pull yourself together ...

Story of the week, not three weeks ago, was a science fiction piece! It is by no manner of means the first! I think you are barking up some wrong trees here, hen, but I will defend to the death your right to do so!

i hope you will all read my latest poem ... i wrote it at a time of deep emotion ... i think its best if you have a hankie ready to stem your tears ... henstoat ...deep thanks ... without you none of this would be possible ... *feels like a new woman* http://www.abctales.com/abcplex/viewstory.cgi?s=32698

Ahhhhhhhhhh The thread is stretching tooooooooooo long ...............

Well, I'm not apologising. If you want to throw idiot slurs on my comments then you can, but I stand by what I said. Choose - you make good points. I haven't read everything by the persons mentioned, and I have noticed the occasional uncherried ones. But I don't agree that they all deserved it. Some were definitely sloppy by the standards of their peers. 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? That requires some degree of constructive criticism, which few are prepared to give or receive. Fish in particular has been propped up on a pedestal and cordoned off by velvet rope ever since I got here - which makes it impossible to approach her work with any degree of objectivity or an open mind. You either buy into the 'phenomenal writer' line or you don't. And I don't. In fact, I feel any degree of pleasure I can obtain from her poetry has been effectively ruined by her reputation. And I'm not talking just about cherries - however much we admit to the presence of other good writers here (and who would argue with me about Beef, say, or Spack, or Chant or, lately, Paulgreco, to name a few?) the amount of talk and praise dedicated to Fish, and a small number of others, outweighs all of this. Hitch obviously less so - and I might add, that I DO buy into Hitch as a great writer. Fish and Liana - I don't know where to begin. However much you might concede to the concept of taste in theory, you don't seem to have any regard for its practical applications. If someone has liked your work in the past, and reads a considerable amount of bits and pieces each day, it is NATURAL, not the result of some conspiracy or plot, that a return to your work will be a pleasure for them. If I were reading poetry all day, and occasionally found a Leonard Cohen poem, whether it's a good Cohen or not, it will stand out to me - I'll enjoy it more because I'm familiar with his voice. I would argue that THIS accounts for a number of your cherries - not all, necessarily, but a number. What I am saying is NOT that there is some falseness to the editors', or indeed everyone else's, enjoyment of an author for that reason, but that it SHOULD NOT be the force behind cherries. Of course, it depends on what you say cherries are for, and in the email you send out you make it quite clear that it's simply the editors' faves. But on your site you claim cherries account for the 'best writing' on the site - a spurious claim, however much I myself might agree with the selections - good writing is measured by people's appreciation of it, and we how much people appreciate it will depend almost entirely on what experiences they've had in their life and what they've read before. It's all about context, and what you want - frequently, a book or poem fulfils a reader's NEED for something. The objective 'quality' of writing is perpetually rejected as being a boring subject - people say "it's not about that" whenever criteria are announced. Then there's Freda's suggestion that cherries are about encouragement. Just how encouraging is it for everyone else when a small number of writers are lauded?? You might be made of sterner stuff than me, Fish, but if *I* had been subjected to the amount of worship I've seen directed at you, I'd have lost the plot by now. Don't sneer, "You HAVE lost the plot." You know what I mean - so no word games. Factor jealousy in if you like, but I personally don't want my status to change - at least not when I think about it properly. After a shakey start, I thought the way cherries were handed out to me was just perfect - I got nothing for a while, when I was just settling into a good pace, or a groove, then I'd try something different and sometimes, about one in three attempts at branching out, I'd get the old cherry - hoorah! etc. someone noticed my effort. So I start exploring that area more thoroughly. Fine. All's well. I should not have to be derided with sarcastic remarks when I defer from the main consensus of this site. You both have enough fans - you certainly don't need me. I think your reactions are ridiculous and unbecoming of you both.

Dont be silly Hen. You are foot stamping, and THAT is unbecoming... whether you intended it or not to be offensive, it certainly was. The above posts are merely designed to take the personal sting out of your comments.

I wondered where that pedestal got to.... fish has bought a time-share on it. the velvet rope is a nice regal touch. i hope it's pink fluffy velvet.

Hen, I think if you check carefully, you'll see there's less 'talk and praise dedicated to Fish, and a small number of others' than you suspect. Beef and Spack have both been lauded in the past, both now post less regularly (and aren’t they UNI-buddies of yours too?) Paulgreco has been mentioned in despatches, though I personally do not like his style and were I an editor, I think I’d have overlooked some of his cherried pieces (sorry Paul). Chant has always been a favourite of mine, not just because I like his writing but also because he’s given me, and I assume others, wonderfully constructive criticism. He’s also not afraid of tackling fish and liana head-on. You’re simply attacking them as respected writers rather than giving individual criticisms of their work. That’s what the Discuss Writing On ABCTales is all about, isn’t it?.

I'm having a flashback. This cherry battle has been fought every 6 months since the site started, in fact I believe I was the originator of the very first one, can't think how it ended though, not without going into the tomb. I've no intention of joining in here but I WILL take issue with Fishy over one point. Soul is a perfectly good word with a perfectly good, if somewhat unclear meaning. Your suggestion that it is somehow anathema to good writing is crap my dear. Avoid it's use if you will, but don't deride it's use by others or I might just start denouncing the use of the word 'f.uck' and then where will you be? (smiles sweetly to reduce the severity of the riposte)

fish and liana are great champions of new talent on this site. They are usually the first in line with praise for newcomers and they are both excellent writers. Full stop.

Really?!? Well, perhaps I am too out of touch to have this situation by the balls, but I also think I've got some strong points too. My impressions are not the best informed, but gathered from my own experience - I can only say that if someone were to ask me for a typical ABC story of the day, what would immediately occur to me is a personal account of an emotionally intense period for a normal man or woman, set in modern England, with some lovely description of everyday items and a carefully controlled economy of language. Doesn't account for everything, as you say, but I think the weighting is in favour of that kind of thing.

*Chant .... he finds ABC overcrowded with autobiography, and that this is encouraged disproportionately to other kinds of writing.* Having been on this site almost since it's inception I have to say that I have NEVER been aware that any particular style/type/genre of writing has ever been encouraged. ------------------------------ *When Chant talks about first-person etc. he isn't saying one form is inherently superior to the other * In reply to your statement above Hen, I point you to two of chants remarks from this thread: *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 * *to write in the third person about oneself is still an improvement on the first person view * I think perhaps chant says what he believes and you either choose to ignore it or feel obliged to do a PR job for him. Having expressed my opinions in opposition to his I, like Tony, would defend his right and anyone elses to express theirs.

*hopes chooselife isn't being groomed for editorship* (Sorry Choose) I think Hen's very brave for saying what he did. I bet that there's a few people thinking similar things, but not daring to speak out. By the way, I think Hitch's and Liana's work are great.

groomed? ha ha ha! You should see my hair. You carry on posting mate, perhaps I'll grow to love you.

I don't see how Chant's statement contradicts mine, Missi. He says that publishers won't be interested in writers who are only interested in themselves, and thus write only about themselves. This is probably true - as you say, if this site is dominated by such writing, it's because that's what most people want to write. If that's what most people want to write, then it won't be very rare or exceptional, and that's what publishers are looking for. Again, it seems clear to me that Chant isn't saying third person is inherently superior as a form, but that the amount of first person writing is an indication of this self-absorption. A drive for third-person would force writers to look outside their immediate thoughts and feelings and look at things from different viewpoints. You CAN write in first person about someone else - get inside their head, as Freda says she likes to do, but more often than not, it represents the world of the writer. I think what Chant is suggesting goes hand in hand with my own overzealous suggestions - it's about our development. It's about breaking away from the area where we just write well about familiar things, congratulating each other for conveying our own thoughts and feelings, and move into new territory - explore and experiment. It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I think we - and I mean all of us - should be trying to progress like that. Leading people away from first person is a good idea in this respect - but it isn't saying first person is inherently wrong or inferior. If you read my 'Manley & I' scrap, you'll see that I'm not out of the scope of Chant's criticism myself - most of it started out, and a lot of it still is, very self-centered. I'm trying to go against that - I'm trying to make it more open for other people, so that they aren't forced into my head, so that they're free to take the individual stories and ideas as they like. One of my ways of doing that has been to try to turn as much of it as I can into third person. The effect is that, reading it, I am not reliving my memories through the character of 'Hen' - I am witnessing Hen moving about. I can judge him and see other people's point of view. I only hope this goes for other people reading it too. Sorry to mention me. Please note this is not 'Henstoat finally coming to the point of his vehement harangue - trying to make us pay him more attention.' I just wanted to bring it up as an example.

Cherries are fine but sour grapes don't taste so sweet.

I hope you're not implying Hen is feasting on sour grapes. Hen has his fair share of cherries, which I'm sure he's very content with. There's a part of everyone who would like to be behind the velvet ropes - but Hen's right, if it becomes a "truth" that your poems are great, it must surely affect your work, and the way others view your work. Whether this effect is positive or negative depends which angle you're looking from. Fish seems very happy that it's the former, so let's stand back and let her bask, eh. What I love about Fish though, is that she lets all this rush like water off a duck's back. Not a hint of school-bully-style jibing or pomposity. How does she do it? So Liana. Are we expected to believe you'd go through the trouble of having your software keep tabs on editors' readings just so you can make more work for yourselves by firing off FORMALITY EMAILS. I don't doubt there are editors who take the code of conduct less seriously than others. But why don't you admit there is one? It's no big deal. You seemed a little flustered before. Come on now, be a sport.

What on earth are you talking about, my software?? Are you referring to the software that ABCTales had created in the first place? Nothing to do with me. Im a little bewildered as to what politics you seem to be so gleefully certain that the eds have ...... and i dont do "flustered" Now Im going out for a pint with some friends - you could do worse than getting off the PC for a while, and perhaps doing the same. Cheerio.

I'm not fighting a cherry battle. The last post was a little rushed and flustered, for which I apologise. Look. You guys want suggestions and feedback right? All I'm saying is that, for people who prefer Earl Grey to Fish - and that is clearly a matter of subjectivity - there is the irrepressible feeling that her name is being forced on us. She's the only poet, so far as I know, who gets her OLD pieces in the 'of the week' sections. Only occasionally, yes, but that's just an example. Right now, she's got two or three pieces recommended on the front page - another one was there on the last update. I've been here for a while now, and sometimes it feels like I'm being subjected to an expensive advertising campaign. The reason I add Liana and Hitch to the list, is the last 10 entries system. Most people seem to use this as a way to browse the site. Cherries show up here alongside the name of the piece, and since the same is not true when you're looking at an individual's set, we must conclude that this is in order to draw readers to the editors selections. And I'm certain it's the same names that come up repeatedly - most of the 'new talent' applauded for a couple of days in the forum tends to go under again. Fish, Liana and Hitch often appear in the last 10 as the only cherried pieces - these, plus a handful of other names - are what we're constantly led back to. The list alters over the year, but still it seems there is a sizeable gap between those that come up frequently and everyone else. This is the impression, I get, and you have to worry that it results in a kind of exclusion. In the interests of getting more funding and attendance to ABC, don't you think we should be drawing attention to possible forces of exclusion? I know I'm about the only UEAer who still regularly trawls the site - Beef is still enthusiastic about you all, but is nowhere near as 'involved' as I am, and the others are pretty unaffected. In fact, some worry that I'm too involved in all this. My point being, exclusion doesn't have to mean disgusted punters going away in droves - it can be more subtle. And for all the attempts to welcome newcomers, I think there's still some sense of 'cliquiness' that needs to be dealt with. I could be wrong, but aren't you at least interested in entertaining the possibility?

I don't believe that publishers ARE necessarily looking for something rare or exceptional, I believe they are looking for something they hope will sell, preferably in large quantities. The argument about them being disinterested in people who are only write about themselves is most obviously exploded by the tidal wave of autobiographies written by anyone and everyone with a modicum of fame in whichever area you care to choose, that has flooded the market for the last decade. Most of these are either ghost written by hacks or are appallingly written by the subject of the book, nevertheless they still shift copies and publishers fight over the options. I seem to remember that 'The Crossman Diaries' were big sellers as were Tony Benn's. Everyone from Dickie Bird to Billy Connolly and Geri Halliwell have secured lucrative publishing contracts, all as you would describe it, for 'self-absorbed' writing. I don't think much of this stuff necessarily has any literary merit but it didn't deter publishers from doling out large sums of cash to the writers. I also don't believe for one second that everybody, or even most people here, are engrossed in trying to become a beacon of literary excellence. Most of them have posted what they felt they wanted to write and a large percentage are happy with what they've written, the vocal minority on the forums pale into insignificance when you examine the figures. There are maybe 50-60 people that post here and take part in these debates, that leaves approximately 8950 who don't bother. Now I'm not suggesting that none of these are interested in improving their writing skills, but a lot of them obviously don't feel strongly enough about the objects of the site that you and others keep banging on about. They most probably are quite at ease with what they do and treat it as an enjoyable hobby, and why shouldn't they. Your assumption that by transposing your first person writing into third somehow gives you a detached and fairer view of yourself is to my mind a delusion. Whichever standpoint you examine yourself from, it is still you doing the examining and you, like the rest of us, see yourself through sympathetic eyes. To do otherwise you would have to be someone else. As you say, not all first person writing is self-subjective anyway, there are many novels written in first person and I don't believe the mode cripples the writer in any way at all. It seems to me there is an ambitious writer faction here that is determined that everyone should follow their beliefs, when in fact most people don't care that much. If this indifference offends the ambitious element I suggest they form an elitist group and do their own thing. I would have thought there is room for groups of all abilities and aspirations here, without the need for pressure groups trying to force-feed their dogma on the rest.

Postscript/addition: You know how arrogant *I* am, how much self-belief I have and how highly I regard my own work. But this place does get me down sometimes, like the Guardian bookpages, and I'm trying to isolate possible causes, because I reckon people in my position who aren't as arrogant or ready to argue (and surely such a person is imaginable,) wouldn't stick around.

Well - how about anyone who feels overlooked/cherrily challenged putting specific pieces up for discussion on the 'discuss witing from abctales' forum? I don't see how a criticism or blowing up of any individuals work can be at all relevant to this thread. The cherries and the rating system is actually a good thing to discuss, which is why it comes up again and again. It means the site is working and developing, not fixed or static . If there were NO cherries the latest 100 would seem like a conveyor belt . Just some ratings that most people who read can't seem to be arsed to click on.

Publishers are inundated with material from writers - what gets published HAS to stand out, as well as fitting into the latest fashion niche. Sure, autobiographies and memoirs sell, but ONLY when they're by famous people, people we're already interested in, and like you say - it doesn't matter how well they're written. Against this, a writer who wants to be published must work very hard to impress, and because most of our experiences are first person, we take the easy option of simply writing about what we like. This is fine for sharing with a small group of people, but beyond that we need higher sights. The thing about the other 8, 950 is that I'm not sure how many come back and regularly use the site as anything but storage. A lot seem to have only one or two pieces on. Most of the UEAers just put the occasional one up, again for storage or just to see what happens. I don't think many of these people stick around long enough to read each other - I think they may well be put off by the cliquiness. My suggestions and ideas envision a more open community, where there of us and we read a greater variety of the site's contents, not just the fashionable cream (lest we forget our tastes will be influenced by fashion.) So you're right - they probably don't care passionately about it. They certainly don't leave in disgust....but what we want is to generate more positive interest, right? It's like politics - just because most of the population doesn't give a damn, does that mean a particular reform won't benefit them? I think we could make the site more attractive as a place to read, discuss and develop writing, rather than a postbox for the odd piece, which I think it must be for a good number of people, perhaps the majority. As for my story, I'm not labouring under the misapprehension that changing the perspective puts the 'Hen' character in line with the rest of the characters, but I think it does give me a more detached view. I think this is why Conrad chose to put 'Heart of Darkness' into the hands of another two storytellers. Third person enables the authorial voice to differ from the view of the main character - I no longer have to justify everything 'Hen' says. He can come out with anything, and where a first person voice thinking back would have to assess the worth of that, or excuse themselves, the authorial voice just laps it up. The authorial voice sympathises, but does not have to take sides. For the average reader too, I think the landscape is blown wide open. You're trailing 'Hen' - you aren't being forced to see the world through his eyes. Sure, it's an illusion, because 'Hen' and me (the author) are bound to have similar points of view, but it's still an illusion worth maintaining. I don't think our 'ambitious group' is wrong in pushing for this development of writers. I'm not saying the rest don't know what's good for them, but there's equally no harm in saying it might well be good for them. People may not feel passionately about it, but I think if you provide the opportunity you're more likely to get people picking it up. When you're trying to attract people to a site, which I think we're involved in doing (Tony himself says the front page is mainly for 'newcomers') you can't sit back and expect them to tell you what you're doing wrong. They won't be outraged if you don't provide - they'll just go away. So it is with this, I think - those eight thousand plus don't really want to get involved in the more fundamental aspects of the site - it doesn't mean they won't welcome the opportunity if it's there.

Ive written four poems in 10 months. sorry if im monopolising the last ten.....

I've not done much editing over the past couple of months, as I'm setting up a business. But when I do, I take it seriously, although I know that anything I cherry will be a subjective judgement on my part. And my subjective judgement is certainly worth no more than anyone else's. Everyone posting on the site has the right to question a particular judgement, and there have been several instances where people have posted in the Writing on ABC tales forum to lobby for a cherry for a particular piece. 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. Criticise the process by all means - there is always room for improvement - but keep your envy to yourselves.

Will Tate had an old poem on the poem of the week a couple of weeks ago didn't he?

Okay, things seem to be getting a little heated now. So this will stay off the forums. If you want to discuss this, I suggest you email me or whoever else is involved. The only individual I have "attacked" is Fish; because she attacked Hen, my friend, for making an intelligent point about the status quo at ABC. I've got a horrible feeling the dust won't settle on this - which is a shame because I love it here. I was I N Sider. I admitted this to Liana by email. It was only meant to be a bit of a laugh. It's gone pear-shaped big time.