I don't usually read the long discussions on the book blog - I simply don't have the time or motivation to plough through them. As Jane has her poem up there, I read some of the long thread of comments this time (snuck into a quiet moment at work).

It seems that some commentators only comment to display their own prejudices and others to take pot-shots. There are some engaged and sensible threads but should a 'poet of the week' really need to don asbestos underwear to go on there? I wonder if any of us would reject an invitation, having seen the result?

Anyone else read it?

Yes, I have, and I agree. I've already composed four different messages to post there, but each time it's taken me so long that the discussion (if that's the word) has moved on by the time I'm finished.
There seems to be a hardcore of posters there (including one very familiar name) with an axe to grind, and who are really not interested in engaging with the poems or any sensible discussion of them.

I've read a few of the comments, and replied. Just in passing, you know. ;)

Okay, so it's a bloodbath over there. I'll see you all again when I climb out of it sometime over the weekend.

Hopefully still intact. :wacko:

I've been too. It took me about 10 years to read all the posts, most of which seemed to be people throwing water bombs at each other. I tried to get some kind of discussion on track but seem to have failed miserably.

Many of the Guardian blogs seem to attract this kind of mudslinging. Having seen what Jane has been going through, much of the criticism ill-informed and clearly motivated by spite and jealousy, I certainly wouldn't want to put one of my own poems forward.

The Guardian blogs are notorious for this stuff. It's what you'd expect. Not sure why that should be, except that maybe, because it bears the imprimature of a newspaper all the blogosphere pundits come out extra heavy, thinking it's their big chance? Dunno.

I've seen people treated to worse on there. It's well-known for being horrible.

Frances Leviston had some pretty shabby treatment a few weeks back. It's a fairly fixed crowd, I think. Neil Astley seems to hang around there a bit.

Thinking about it, I think Jane might have had a bit of a go at Frances, too(?)

Frances Leviston did not have any shabby treatment. I'm not interested in flaming here, but I didn't agree even remotely with her judgement on twentieth century women poets (i.e. none of them except Plath being good enough to merit a look-in amongst all the great men) and said so openly and without prevarication. How that is 'shabby treatment' is beyond me. As we all know perfectly well on this forum, if you stand up in a public place and make a political statement - which is precisely what she was doing in her Guardian piece - you're not going to get flowers and smiles from everyone.

Of course not. It got pretty poisonous, though, I felt - the stuff about her opinions being motivated by having received a bit of male patronage and how she'd grow up and learn the truth one day etc.

It's the nature of the place, I suppose. But shabby, too.

The thread is now at 250. Never has so little been said about two poems in so many words ... :rolleyes:

What does the Guardian get from that? The main contributors are those who have been chucked out of this forum or its predecessor, not least Carol Rumens herself who was banned three times by the Poem forum for her pseudonymical bad behaviour and tasteless remarks... as for Sheenagh Pugh, well, I can't think of anyone in British poetry about whom there are more stories told with curled lips and gritted teeth. Meanwhile, what's his name ('Desmond') seems to be still spamming any poetry site who will listen, albeit with lots of cut outs in this thread. I'm tired of these 'late night' moaners - why does The Guardian give them space to sound off when we would not?

As a couple of other people have said, it seems to be par for the course for The Guardian's blogs. The sports blogs are often just as bad.

I guess increased hits, which may lead to increased sales from advertising? Hard to be sure.

Re Sheenagh Pugh, I was amused to see some innocent on the GU this morning mentioning her name in the light of poets who are 'modest and temperate'.

It's a crazy scene over there, all right. But I'd be lying if I said I didn't find some of that craziness vastly entertaining. Some people play with toy trains in their attics, some people reenact medieval battles on summer weekends, others like to hang out on combative message boards.

Having said that, I'd be horrified if this board descended into the same flaming chaos of accusation and counter-accusation. Not on my patch! :D

I just find it bizarre to see Carol Rumens described as some kind of ogre. I don't know her well, but I've always found her perfectly charming, as well as a terrific poet. And as for Sheenagh, well I know she rubs some people up the wrong way, but so do Jane and Roddy. You'd think people who don't mince their words would admire the same trait in others, but apparently it doesn't always work like that.

Oh, I'm such an innocent. I just had a little browse through the blog and I think you deserve a round of applause, Jane, for your robust self-defence.

When I first started writing poetry seriously - about seven or eight years ago now, I truly believed that the poetry world would be full of idealistic, supportive people motivated by a love of words and a desire to write better poetry. I thought it would be unlike the back-stabbing, ego-driven world of film and TV and of course theatre, where I'd spent the previous two decades.

Amazing really, that I can still be shocked by the petty bitter public squabbles and scraps, but I AM.
Not to mention the private, secretive cruelties.

Thank you Jacqueline, for your unbiased comment of support. It's appreciated.

Matthew, I didn't describe Carol as an ogre.

This is what happened, since it's clear you are annoyed for some reason and perhaps a better perspective on the facts may help.

Carol chose to post up a long and jokey performance poem of mine from 'Boudicca & Co' on Poem of the Week, the only such poem in the entire book, without stating in her introduction that it wasn't representative of my work as a whole.

The punters, having presumably been led to expect Serious Poetry from me, kicked off by jeering in my face. The first few comments were from people who wouldn't 'lower' themselves to comment on such a piece of rubbish. Desmond then came in with his usual 'performance poetry? this is crap! Now if only you knew something about Amergin and the Irish bardic tradition ...' routine. More piled in during the first forty-eight hours, some to support me, others to throw stones and rotten tomatoes, and soon it was a bare-knuckle fight.

By the time we managed to get a second poem, more representative of my work, posted up on the blog, it was far too late. They already loathed me by then. I could have posted up the blinking equivalent of the Waste Land and it would have been pilloried.

And before you say, with disdain, that I brought it on my own head by responding to comments there, that was the whole point of the experiment. I was INVITED by Carol Rumens SPECIFICALLY to go there and comment on responses, as her guest poet. It states this quite clearly at the beginning of her introduction.

Naturally I had been a little worried how it would pan out, since I know that crowd and they're fairly rough even on their own friends, but I'd been assured by the punters beforehand that they wouldn't be unpleasant. Fat chance!

I do admire Carol, and Sheenagh actually, for their forthright natures. But that doesn't mean I'm blind to the ways of the world.

FFS. Desmond has just posted up Roddy's comments about Carol and Sheenagh above and attributed them to ME. And I've been unable to point out his 'mistake' because they appear to be blocking new posts to the page.

Welcome to my world. :angry:

Once again, slightly crossed wires, Jane. This time it was Roddy's remarks I was taking exception to:

I admit I didn't make that clear. And by the way, I feel very bad about the way you were treated on that blog, as I said in my earlier post. It's just that I don't think that was ever Carol's intention. The poem wasn't the best choice in the circumstances (though I like it), but I feel there are plenty of posters there that have their knives sharpened ready for any published poet, just because they are one. My intention was not to criticize you, just to defend two poets I like and admire, who I don't think are to blame.

Sorry about that, Jane. These people all lurk here anyway, so they will no doubt know of the misattribution. Not that I said anything that is news to the poetry world.

Pugh, Rumens and whatever old Ciderboy is calling himself this week have all delighted in their mischief-making under aliases on the internet.

Matthew, I'm not going to drag up Rumens' specific past faux pas - isn't it enough to remind you how often we had to ban her (always a last resort) on these forums? I don't mind people who don't mince their words (if they know what they are talking about), but I abhor it when they do so under pseudonyms.

Jane - I'm just reading some of that thread - it's like some awful Guatemalan soap opera. I guess it's too late to say pull your leg out of the shit and shake off all those humping puppies!

Can't believe they're still at it over there, what a nasty business. Well done Jane for holding your own.

Good on you for trying to inject some sense into the debate. I suspect that most of them are pseudonyms for a very small number of people.

I'm trying not to comment anymore, as I'm damned if I do and I'm damned if I don't. But I'm also damned if I'll allow some of those personal - and untrue/libellous - comments to go unchallenged. Some of the things they've said about my private life are just utterly obscene.

Anyone here know a good internet lawyer? :angry:

Difficult, as it seems there is an active effort by whoever moderates the blog to delete or clean up the most offensive posts. But you could always send a quick note to the Guardian Editor(s) bringing your concerns to their attention <ironic smiley icon thingy>

My only proper comment on the Guardian Book Blog is that it seems to be a rather clunky way of discussing books - is it attempting to mirror real-life book club discussions?

I can only assume you don't hang out there very often, Rik, unless this is meant to be ironic. In actual fact, moderation there is extremely slack. Compared to here, at any rate, where trouble-makers don't even get through the door, let alone find themselves with carte blanche to post up libellous rubbish about people they've never even met.

This place is like Fort Knox in comparison to the Guardian book blogs. I email or google every person who applies, and applications from people whose true identity I can't verify get the Delete button without further ado.

649 hits to this page. Which is odd, considering the low number of posts. Hmm. As an online acquaintance of mine said recently: veni, vidi, lurki.

:ph43r:

In which case I should be insulting famous poets - if only to generate click-through to my website ...

Who wants to be first?

Sadly, none of us here are famous, though one or two of us might scrape into the FWK category, I suppose.

I dread to think what FWK stands for. Especially the W.

Seems about normal. The threads with higher numbers of postings appear to average between 25 and 30 views per post, roughly.

I had a look at the offending Guardian blog and a couple of others and couldn't quite believe what a monumental waste of time and energy they are. As Michael Laskey says, some people are wedded to their opinions. And nothing you can do or say, if fact no evidence you can present will shake them.

This place seems delightfully tranquil by comparison.

I can tell you how it would be pronounced in Welsh (though, to be strictly accurate, the K should be a C).