My article "The Thing About Poetry" elicited this very interesting comment from Cynth B. of Salinas, CA. I thought it raised enough important points to merit a separate article. I shall first reproduce parts of Cynthia's comment, followed by my opinion.
"My thought on publishing writing on Gather (and not just poetry) is that this is a forum for all writers in all stages of our development. Not everyone writes solid "10" material, but that's no reason to self-censor our work on the off-chance that no one likes it or thinks it's poorly developed. That is why there is a Constructive Criticism group. And I'm all for constructive criticism, for that helps those of us who are just starting out to improve our writing. I see its secondary purpose as helping fledgling writers improve their work and develop our talent. If you don't like my poetry or song lyrics, give me constructive criticism on what you think needs some work. I may or may not agree with you, but that's okay."
I have no real argument with this comment. Of course, not everyone can be a Stienbeck or a Hemmingway and fledgling talent does need to be encouraged. However, even the best writers self-censor their work and that is not a bad thing. After all, as a writer, you are putting your talent on display; your pride should be involved and you owe it to your readers to make sure your work is the best you can make it. Reading some of the articles on Gather, it is apparent that no real effort has gone into them - some read almost like a "Dear Diary" page. Constructive criticism has meaning only if there is something worth criticizing.
"Gather is not a magazine or book publisher. It is a networking vehicle primarily."
If by "networking vehicle", you mean a social interaction site, I would not quite agree. There is no dearth of such websites (Friendster, Orkut, MySpace) for persons looking to make friends. Gather should set itself apart by being a forum for writers; not for exchanging recipes or true confessions.
"I don't approve of automatic "10" ratings for people in one's network. However, by that I don't mean rating it a "2" and leaving a comment about how it "doesn't work. I don't think you've been slamming my work, since I do put quite a bit of effort and rewriting into my poetry and song lyrics. There is someone out there who punitively rates my work from time to time on the few times I've sent out promotional emails to my network, but that's their problem."
This whole rating business needs to be given a hard second look. It is becoming quite obvious that the rating given to an article very often bears no relation to its literary merit. Just have a look at some of the articles listed under "Highest Rated". The rating system should definitely not be used for settling personal scores or, even worse, out of sheer vindictiveness. Moreover, I have seen really well written articles get a rating of 6, say, and maybe five comments; whereas an "article" that merely asks a question like "What would you do if today was the last day of your life?" gets a rating of 10 and 34 comments. We need to ask ourselves what precisely is it that we're rating and commenting on.
I am not even attempting to be "prolific" for the sake of points. My points goal is to only use them for holiday gift card presents and the occasional non-profit contribution."
I do not doubt your sincerity for a moment. However, I am not convinced that gathering points is not the precise intention of some contributors. I see some names that regularly submit four or five "articles" every single day - some quite good, but many as short as three lines. I don't think even Shakespeare was quite that prolific. Even five recipes will be submitted as five separate articles...and so on. I presume you Gather points for every article you submit, so such individuals would clock up points very quickly without actually deserving them.
"Not everyone can be a Keats or Byron. Not every essayist on Gather is on the level of HL Mencken, but they are still permitted to speak their mind--your essay being a prime example of this. It's not the best essay I've ever read in my life (very few on Gather aspire to the highest standards), but it is okay. At least you're honest about your own shortcomings as a writer. Yet, here you are on Gather much as we all are. You're speaking your mind, and that's just fine with me."
I have already addressed the first part of this comment. By all means, speak your mind, but try to do it as lucidly and elegantly as you can. I would not be so presumptuous as to judge my essay as "the best" or even in the top rung. There are thousands with infinitely greater talent, but whatever I do write is the result of genuine effort and to the best of my limited abilities. That is the most we amateur writers can aspire to.
"My constructive criticism on your essay can be summed up in this way: it needs a bit more development of its key thesis. You use the example of Kern well, yet there is not even a mention of how his work contrasts with Kurt Weill's pre-exile collaborations with Bertolt Brecht."
Your criticism is insightful and well merited. It is also appreciated.
"A deeper examination into your personal ideas and preferences can only help to improve upon your seemingly haste comments."
I do not quite understand how you arrived at the conclusion that my comments were made in haste, but that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I have expressed my personal prefernce in poetry, but that does not mean I am contemptuous of other styles. If I conveyed that impression, it was intentional. Like you said, my writing is "okay" and I am working on it.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 19
I believe that Gather is coming through a transition of sorts. It is attracking all kinds of members. People who are looking to share and be part of a writing community are definately still here but so are the freebie groups, recipe groups and networking folk. The question now is "Is this town big enough for all of us?" How do we as Gatherers feel about the expansion, if not evolution of this forum?
Personally I have no problems with anyone except the unstable morons who get upset with people and stalk them.
The rating system is supposed to be in work to be revised. Last I heard it was going to change late this year. We'll see.....
Thanks.
Ravi your suggestion for categorization is an excellent one...i don't deny there are several gems out there, but sometimes you have to wade through a minefield of mediocrity to find them
John...Yr suggestion abt going straight to the Groups is a good one, except sometimes it is hard to fit one's article into a specific slot and, consequently, to find what yr looking for
Martha...I enjoy occasional fluff too...heck, I write a lot of it myself...i was just venting my pet peeves and if I came across as over-analytical, I apologize...I can't afford to have a featured Gather writer mad at me-)
Cheryl...well said, indeed
I believe we need to make a major paradigm shift on this issue, which is why I came up with a pre-Simulationist philosophy and along with five brilliant writers and artists on this site co-founded the pre-Simulationist movement and group here, to surpass postmodernism's bogus assumptions that have been in place for thirty years; strip the Critics of excessive power based on downgrading authorly status based on an unreliable construct of "intertextuality"; and restore the proper balance of author and critic in the real world, while eliminating the concept of "criticism" in the sim worlds (where we are all authors in reciprocal relationship, are we not?) and substituting instead an I-Thou author-author transactional relationship that creates the proper context for true constructive sharing, "approximating of personal constructs, " feedback.
The notion of critic and criticism makes little sense when we are all reading each other and forming close collaborative virtual friendships with groups and such; the group dynamic term "workshopping" one's material makes better sense in this framework.
I liked your essay tremendously here, by the way, and found it extremely well written, concise, and on target with the notion of speaking to "content." I have no time for nitpickers on this site who deride or belittle others because of secondary grammatical or spelling errors; speak to the heart of someone's work or move on.
I like you, Firoze. You are earnest and humble and wish to move the world and make a difference in this community. Just having such a fairminded and open attitude as I see in you and in your introductory email to me shows me you can become a major asset to Gather, while improving your own writing by hooking up with people that give you the synergy you need to create.
I hope to read more of your work and hear your comments on mine; two authors helping, sharing and learning from each other's dynamic 'vernissage' on Gather.
Vernissage is a word I'm modifying in pre-Simulationist theory to include writing in progress as well as paintings, especially on Web 2.0 blogs where getting constructive author-author" workshop feedback" matters in the redrafting.
Here's the definition of vernissage, and imagine how I'm changing it to apply to the sim worlds. Maybe you'll join me in a few months as one of the first pre-Simulationists!
vernissage \vair-nih-SAHZH\ noun
: a private showing or preview of an art exhibition
Example sentence:
Before the art auction, there will be a vernissage during which people can mingle with the artists and preview their work.
Did you know?
"Vernissage" has its roots in the old practice of setting aside a day before an exhibition's opening for artists to varnish and put finishing touches to their paintings — a tradition that reportedly dates to at least 1809, when it was instituted by England's Royal Academy of Arts. (One famous member of the Academy, Joseph Mallord William Turner, was notorious for making major changes to his paintings on this day.) English speakers originally referred to this day of finishing touches simply as "varnishing day," but sometime around 1912 we also began using the French term "vernissage" (literally, "varnishing"). Today, however, you are more likely to encounter vino than varnish at a vernissage, which is often a gala event marking the opening of an exhibition.
I find that every few weeks or so several members discover 'new truths' or 'new problems' about Gather that seem to keep cropping up...this is that sort of thing...not a complaint at all, but actually an observation that the same kind of phenomena keep going on here at Gather.
I am perfectly fine with criticism, as long as it does not degenarate into the vituperative and the personal...however, I do believe a critic should not dish it out unless he is prepared to take it as well...and some comments do tend to go off on a tangent that bears little relation to what I've written about.
I am honoured that you like me and that you think I can become an asset to Gather...I don't know how you got the impression that I'm "humble"-)...I would obviously not compare myself to you, who is on a more elevated literary plane, but I do take pride in my limited abilities...and I freely admit that I am more of a wordsmith than an ideas man...but there is a grandeur in the English language, properly composed, that imparts an almost phsical thrill..to me, at least.
I am almost tempted to vernissage future articles with you before unleashing them with on the Gather public...but I know you're a busy man, so I shall resist the temptation-).
I was expecting some impassioned and fulminating reactions to my article, so I am not surprised...all said and done, Gather - warts and all - is still superior to many other "relationship" sites...I just wish it would give more emphasis to writing - both serious and fluff...perhaps indexing contributions, instead of lumping everyting under "articles" could be the way to go...that said, I realise that it may not be practical given the enormous volume that gather handles every day.
Pardon my 'tongue-in-cheek' manner, but here are a few thoughts of mine, as I have published them elsewhere on this subject...
Perhaps an effective way to address the concerns identified here would be to break Gather into multiple parts. One 'part' could be reserved for poetry, one for jokes, one for technical stuff, and fiction, and perhaps another for daily blog entries or muses, among others. This would then allow members to more easily identify the content that is of most interest to them. Members could also be allowed to define their own category, if none existed which fit their content. This would provide greater flexibility overall, and allow for the expansion of Gather into hither-to-unknown areas of cyberspace, accommodating a great variety of applications and material.
Each 'part' of Gather could then be defined with a label. Perhaps calling it a 'tag'. Then, members could search for content using these 'tags'. This would a very effective means of finding content, and tailoring searches to a members area of interest.
Thus, I think that Gather should implement 'tags' for identifying content. Then, implement a way for members to add tags effectively to their articles and images, and then educate members on the proper use of these tags. This, combined with a comprehensive and easy to use search mechanism, would be an excellent way to resolve many of the issues Gather suffers from today.
While my words may be facetious, my intent is not. I believe that the existing tagging system can work to resolve many concerns. However, it must be more effectively managed, across the spectrum of Gather's processes. If done properly, Gather can easily accommodate a flood tide of new content, and members, while keeping us all sane at the same time.
But even when you properly label, and post to groups you were invited to, you get flamed by some people.
While I don't claim to be perfect, I enjoy some things that others here may not. I suspect at times, most of us fall into that category. Then some self-appointed Gather Censor comes along and flames the ones that offend his/her sensibilities, claiming to be an "original" gatherer, and that we are destroying their Gather.
This is not what any community is about. These trolls need to wake up and smell the coffee cherries. Gather is evolving.
This is an interesting article and thread. I am glad you are here and look forward to reading what you are writing.
By the way, does anybody bother about the suggestions? I doubt.
Firoze, you always generate a lot of heat, and so very convincingly...with all your modesty intact by the adverse reactions in some quarters. That's how it should be. I am least impressed by the 'most rated, 'most featured' or the likes...they reflect public taste, which I am afraid, is not as cultivated as it should be. Some sort of filtering is required.