misc.writing.moderated: An invitation
Skip Press
Pa...@macbeth.computerbits.com wrote:
>My hope is that misc.writing.moderated will be to writing fiction and
>non-fiction as misc.writing.screenplays is to writing screenplays.
I get it. It's like kindergarten in hell with a room monitor.
Usenet Poster Boy
jje...@alumni.uvic.ca (Jensen) writes:
> dav...@jdc.org.il (The Chocolate Lady) wrote in
> <385cb5a3...@news.netvision.net.il>:
>
> >In article <ZnBWOP5JjYXtNF...@4ax.com>,
> >Pa...@macbeth.computerbits.com wrote:
> >
> >>My hope is that misc.writing.moderated will be to writing
> >>fiction and non-fiction as misc.writing.screenplays is to
> >>writing screenplays.
> >
> >And should we therefore start yet another group for people
> >like me?
> >
> >(Coming soon to a thread near you: RFD:
> >misc.writing.poetry!)
> >
>
> no way! i've made sure the poetry voice has been heard in the
> discussions.
>
Not mine.
I doubt that misc.writing.moderated will be an appropriate forum for
discussing poetry, techniques or aesthetics, and I would prefer it not
try to be.
Usenet Poster Boy
Pa...@computerbits.com (Paul Harwood) writes:
> On 01 Jan 2000 19:03:39 -0800, Usenet Poster Boy said in misc.writing:
>
> >I doubt that misc.writing.moderated will be an appropriate forum for
> >discussing poetry, techniques or aesthetics, and I would prefer it not
> >try to be.
>
> And the reasoning behind this statement is ...?
>
Poetry is enough different than other forms of writing, in much the
same way as screenwriting is, that there is little overlap in
discussion of either the technical or business aspects.
Poets take for granted, for example, business choices that are
properly derided in other forms of writing, and are stick unto death
of naive discussions about "if it doesn't rhyme it isn't poetry."
Marty
Paul Harwood
>I doubt that misc.writing.moderated will be an appropriate forum for
>discussing poetry, techniques or aesthetics, and I would prefer it not
>try to be.
And the reasoning behind this statement is ...?
--
Paul Harwood
Carol Flynt
poetry (or discussions of interest to poets) would fit in a
moderated writing newsgroup. Last heard, Marty, who opines:
>Poetry is enough different than other forms of writing, in much the
>same way as screenwriting is, that there is little overlap in
>discussion of either the technical or business aspects.
Hmmm. I've never claimed to be a poet, Marty, so I will
at least keep an open mind to comments from you and Jen and others
I know who practice the art. However, I offer a couple of reasons
why I disagree with the above.
I notice that I, a fiction (specifically SF) writer, *always* read
the poetry articles in both "Writer's Digest" and "Writer's Journal."
Why? Because the articles speak to me. They are rich with advice
on such things as symbolism and metaphore, and how to pick the
exact word necessary to relay multiple levels of meaning. It's
an economy I find useful in fiction, too.
I notice, too, that I read the articles on non-fiction writing,
and peruse the market listings. Why? Again, because I find that
the tactics of selling are translatable, even though the
markets are sufficiently different.
I may not be able to contribute to a discussion on poetry in MWM.
But I would certainly follow it. While it is indeed a major
challenge to put together a group that can balance such disparate
kinds of writing, it is also the advantage of such a group; there
are often more crossovers than we know until we find them.
And I dare say that there are poets out there who would also find
themselves following discussions on fiction, for similar reasons.
Which does not negate the possiblity of a separate group, as well,
dedicated to poetry specifically.
Carol (who knows that not all poetry rhymes) Flynt
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| PREFERRED EMAIL ADDRESS: ca...@cflynt.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Usenet Poster Boy
cl...@conch.msen.com (Carol Flynt) writes:
[snip]
> Hmmm. I've never claimed to be a poet, Marty, so I will
> at least keep an open mind to comments from you and Jen and others
> I know who practice the art. However, I offer a couple of reasons
> why I disagree with the above.
>
> I notice that I, a fiction (specifically SF) writer, *always* read
> the poetry articles in both "Writer's Digest" and "Writer's Journal."
> Why? Because the articles speak to me. They are rich with advice
> on such things as symbolism and metaphore, and how to pick the
> exact word necessary to relay multiple levels of meaning. It's
> an economy I find useful in fiction, too.
>
Hadn't thought of that angle. I suppose that other forms of writing
can benefit from a discussion of the techniques of poetry. But I think
that as much as other writers can benefit from a discussion of poetry
craft, such discussions bog down when writers from other approaches
try to apply lessons learned elsewhere to the craft of poetry.
> I notice, too, that I read the articles on non-fiction writing,
> and peruse the market listings. Why? Again, because I find that
> the tactics of selling are translatable, even though the
> markets are sufficiently different.
>
While there is valid insight in this, non-fiction and fiction markets
are dramatically different than poetry markets, and there is really no
lesson for either in the other's marketing techniques.
[snip]
> And I dare say that there are poets out there who would also find
> themselves following discussions on fiction, for similar reasons.
>
Perhaps, but I doubt there would be very many of them. Fiction demands
a very different craft than poetry and there really aren't that many
lessons from fiction writing that can be applied to poetic craft.
My fear is that the far more common ocurrance of misunderstanding
because people are trying to apply the common lesson that doesn't
cross over would far outweight the the rare occasion of a lesson that
does.
I've seen it happen in a lot of groups, and it is a reason why many
fiction critiquing groups won't critique poetry.
Marty
Usenet Poster Boy
jje...@alumni.uvic.ca (Jensen) writes:
[snip]
>
> this is exactly why poetry should not be relegated to some ivory
> tower. there is no reason for it not to be discussed in a
> general forum. there are some major differences in the business
> aspects of publishing poetry but there are also similarities.
>
I recall making no suggestion that poetry be 'relegated' anywhere, let
alone an "ivory tower."
> technically, there are many similarities between poetry and other
> genres. along with symbolism and metaphor, poetry uses just about
> every literary device one would expect to find in fiction.
>
Your mileage has clearly varied, since, in my opinion, there is very
little technical similarity, beyond the superficial use of devices,
between the techniques of poetry and fiction, except at the crossing
point between epic verse and sudden fiction.
> the only thing that i can see as a hindrance to discussion would
> be a lack of participants.
>
You should compare the discussions of poetic craft in misc.writing to
those in r.a.p, for some insight into the circumstances under which
the misunderstanding between the devotees of the different crafts are
most likely to inhibit discussions of poetic craft.
Poets hardly ever discuss their craft in a fashion suitable for an
ivory tower, but poetry craft differs from other writing craft to the
same extent that sculpture differs from oil painting.
IMO, the small overlap in craft is far outweighed by the large areas
of difference.
Marty
Usenet Poster Boy
jje...@alumni.uvic.ca (Jensen) writes:
[snip]
> what you did say was that you would did not think a general
> writing forum (MWM) was an appropriate forum for discussing
> poetry techniques or aesthetics.
>
Right.
> i don't agree with you. just as i've brought up poetry
> discussions here, i would bring them up in the new group.
>
And I've tried to participate in them, but I've found them frustrating
because of the problems I've mentioned.
[snip]
>
> >Poets hardly ever discuss their craft in a fashion suitable
> >for an ivory tower, but poetry craft differs from other
> >writing craft to the same extent that sculpture differs from
> >oil painting.
>
>
> so which of those would you want excluded from a general art
> discussion forum?
>
The usual approach in discussing the visual arts is to separate them
so as to treat the 3d arts in a different forum than the 2d arts. You
can see this in most art history books which, at best, pay lip service
to the role of sculpture in art history.
So, I would follow the trend, limit the "general" books to the more
common and wide spread 2d, representational, forms, and give the 3d
forms their own forum of equal weight elsewhere.
But within the visual arts you don't even have to go as far as 2d
versus 3d. Try discussing nonrepresentational techniques with a
representational artist some time. It's almost like trying to discuss
haiku with journalist.
Marty
Usenet Poster Boy
jje...@alumni.uvic.ca (Jensen) writes:
[snip]
> >
> >But within the visual arts you don't even have to go as far
> >as 2d versus 3d. Try discussing nonrepresentational
> >techniques with a representational artist some time. It's
> >almost like trying to discuss haiku with journalist.
> >
>
> LOL
>
Thanks
> you've given me some good food for thought, marty.
>
> i believe (at this point in time) that a general poetry
> discussion can be useful in a general writing forum. i won't go
> so far as to say that an in-depth poetry discussion would be. i
> know it wouldn't be and that's why i don't participate in them
> on usenet at all.
>
Here I think we agree pretty strongly.
> i think it still goes back to what i believe to be the biggest
> hindrance to poetry discussion in general writing forums--a lack
> of participants.
>
True.
> whose to say that journalist would want to engage in a
> discussion of haiku?
>
Not I.
cheers,
Marty
Andrew Csonka
> fiction critiquing groups won't critique poetry.
>
> Marty
>
We can discuss the craft and art of poets till the cows come home. As long
as I don't have to read it.
--
"Between subtle shading and the absence of light lies the nuance of iqlusion
[sic]." CIA
kmeyer...@my-deja.com
cl...@conch.msen.com (Carol Flynt) wrote:
> I may not be able to contribute to a discussion on poetry in MWM.
I don't write poetry, but I could contribute to a discussion of
marketing poetry in MWM. I don't necessarily want to say where I come by
my information at this point, but let's just say for now that my new
life affords me some privileged relationships and experiences.
klm
...awaits MWM patiently
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Prince Richard Kaminski
kmeyer...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <LSLb4.1274$in.1...@pravda.msen.com>,
> cl...@conch.msen.com (Carol Flynt) wrote:
>
> > I may not be able to contribute to a discussion on poetry in MWM.
>
> I don't write poetry, but I could contribute to a discussion of
> marketing poetry in MWM. I don't necessarily want to say where I come by
> my information at this point, but let's just say for now that my new
> life affords me some privileged relationships and experiences.
>
> klm
> ...awaits MWM patiently
Well, there's nothing to stop you contributing to writing related
discussions here in the meantime, you know, Kathie. It sounds as though you
have some interesting information, which could be valuable to some readers
of the group. There's really no point complaining about this group and
waiting for an MWM which might never arrive, without making a real effort to
improve the quality of *this* place.
kmeyer...@my-deja.com
Prince Richard Kaminski <richard....@lineone.net> wrote:
> Well, there's nothing to stop you contributing to writing related
> discussions here in the meantime, you know, Kathie. It sounds as
though you
> have some interesting information, which could be valuable to some
readers
> of the group. There's really no point complaining about this group and
> waiting for an MWM which might never arrive, without making a real
effort to
> improve the quality of *this* place.
Been there. Done that. All I got was a lousy t-shirt which I gave to
Lavina.
klm