Foet of the year

[Matt]

my suggestion. The evidence of their indiscretions is on your own website. If this is the first year of the awards then why not make it retroactive to those two (Iowa is stil ongoing). Georgia had a 22 year history under Ramke. Levine is a gnat. Why give a gnat the award. You do seem to lack perspective. It is not just those tow presses but everyone associated with them. I feel that I made my case in an eloquent way and you don't feel the same so I'll shut up. My suggestion still stands.

No need to be defensive.  I didn't think I was disagreeing with you.  You certainly did make your case eloquently and convincingly.  And I believe you are correct (and certainly don't want you to "shut up").  I have never felt otherwise.

I apologize if I have made it seem otherwise.

I don't have any specific desire to see Levine get the award.  My only concern is that any award given is fully documented.  If the award is going to be retroactive, then fine, we have all the documentation on the site already (for Iowa and Georgia, etc.).  But if the award is going to truly reflect 2006 only, then I am asking for help (whether from you or from anyone on this site) in compiling the data.

This topic we are posting in is precisely where such things are meant to be determined.

You should understand that my function here is managerial.  I have no contact with the PoBiz, no fingers in any PoBiz pies, nothing to lose or gain, and (to be honest) almost no interest in the internal goings-on of PoBiz whatsoever.  My purpose is to keep this site going and to do my best to get useful and valid information to those who read the site and these forums.

But I am entirely dependent on other people, those with connections and insider information, researchers and tipsters, etc.

I am not asking you for anything personally.  My thinking is merely this: you have made a strong argument for your nominees, a convincing argument.  Certainly, Jeffrey Levine's indiscretions do not sink to the level of Iowa, Georgia, etc, indiscretions.  You will get no argument from me on this issue.  But the next steps (in my opinion) have to be 1) deciding whether the award should be retroactive or reflect only 2006, and 2) formulating a concrete case for any indiscretions during the time period as determined in step #1.

It is at this stage, that I need the help of others.  My request for that help is not meant as a disagreement with your nominations or a desire to argue with you.

So, will everyone please give their input on those two steps mentioned above?  Retroactive or not?  What specific criteria/documentation should be used in the awarding of Foet of the Year?

Regards,
Matt

[Thewayitworks]

Matt, you're quick to criicize rather than just waiting for others to weigh in. And, of course, your posts are too long without much of a point.

I've pointed this out to Alan: Foetry has an opportunity to do something significant. An annual Foetry Prize would be useful, both for cheaters and Foet fighters. But as we fiddle AWP snoozes.

I suggested Robert Bly as the Foet fighter of the Year. He recently unveiled a new award (the Blue Toad) and spoke out once again by condemning the MFA programs. He has 40 years of attacking the MFA/academic programs. If you know your American poetry history Bly's attacks date back to the 1950s when he established his literary magazine aptly titled, well, The Fifties (later updated to The 60s and then The 70s). He has attacked the academics and MFA programs in books and in public.

The award need not be necessarily based on a specific act in 2006: like: Jo Smith went to a poetry reading and put a bag over Jorie's head and with magic marker wrote on it "Foetry". Or, so and so at a local poetry contest in Rainsburg, Ohio, manipulated the outcome for a $25 prize.

Poets & Writers selected Ramke's resignation as one of the significant events of the past year or so. Or Georgia: Georgia Press is still actively stonewalling (even to today) over the release of records of judges of the contest series. So Georgia is good for a decade of bad behavior followed by a continuing (add a few more years) of stonewalling.

In order for the awards to have needed significance they need to be about something significant. If you give an Oscar award to a nobody for a film that never made it into a theatre (and the film and performance were of no significance anyway) then the world yawns as the Oscars gives an award no one cares about. The Oscars diminish themselves.

Having never had a Foetry Award before, it's worthwhile to single out the the most significant cheater(s) and Foet fighters.

Bassed on press in NY TImes, The Guardian (UK), Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, San Fran Times, the Portland papers, the paper in Israel and Australia, who are the two names most closely associated (for their bad behavior) with the Foetry fight? Jorie Graham and Bin Ramke.

Throw in Zoo Press (much discussed at Poets & Writers) and Vassar Miller Prize as honorable mentions.

Even better is the fact that something concrete happened with each being exposed. Ramke resigned at Georgia, Jorie is no longer doing contests and now everyone knows about her manipulations. Their reputations have taken a beating. Zoo Press took off with the money and no longer publishes and has been exposed to the world. Cairns resigned at Vassar Miller and has also beeen exposed.

Very concrete and specific results that would have been impossible before Foetry. Hugely significant whether Foetry critics wish to agree or not.

Who else would you suggest? Red Hen Press for a single documented instance that Charles Webb and his friend, the judge, cheated? The Bad Boy Poetry Association (or whatever it was) for cheating over a single $50 poetry prize? Robert Phillips for directing a few students to the Texas Review Prize?

Nothing matches the scale of Jorie and Bin Ramke over the last decade or so.

Rather than weighing in so quickly why not wait (have a beer and go sit in the living room and watch mixed martial arts fighting)  and let others weigh in before you do in a negative way. It has a chilling effect to not let the debate work itself out. Lot of smart people (I'm talking about you Bugzita, Alan, Monday, Ed, Wilson, N. Joy Vey, Leander) posting on Foetry. They will do their usual good job of putting things in perspective.

I'm not necessaily so smart but I do understand what has been happening and why. Been doing it since 1973. I applaud Foetry.Com and the fact that Alan has not been deterred by any of the things thrown at him. Keep going Foetry fighters.

[Matt]

Matt, you're quick to criicize rather than just waiting for others to weigh in. And, of course, your posts are too long without much of a point.

Oh, SFB!  I didn't even know it was you.  Why didn't you just use your real name?

I guess you feel you have the right to insult me, fine.  But what on earth are you talking about with the "quick to criticize" thing?  And my "posts are too long".  Yeah, fine, but that has nothing to do with this topic.  Seems like a pointless jab perhaps based on old feelings (that are irrelevant to this conversation).

I will say this: your knowledge, experience, and conviction have been greatly missed here at Foetry.com.  I really wish you had stayed with us.  I think we would have done much better side by side.

But your comments/slurs above are just the same old argument we had before.  You don't like the slow-turning wheels of a democratic process.  You know what you know, want what you want, and you want to actualize that.  That's great. I like that about you.  But in my opinion Foetry.com is a community.  It isn't an ideological platform form my personal beliefs and I don't intend to use it as such.

So we disagree on that.  But really, I don't know why you are throwing jabs at me under the cloak of anonymity when we know each other.  Hell, we used to be partners.  I wish you wouldn't have made your return this way.  It's kind of . . . sneaky.

I wish this could have been water under the bridge.  We could really use you.

And, for about the fifth time for chrissakes, I AGREE with your nomination!  You convinced me with your second post . . . maybe before.

Please stop replying to me as though I've disagreed with it or criticized your opinion.  I haven't.  I have alway agreed with you on almost everything, if I remember correctly.

Now . . . let's move on, please.  I second your request for the input of others.

Regards,
Matt

[N. Joy Vey]

I agree with both Thewayitworks and Matt!

 :heart: Both are eloquent and persuasive and contribute greatly to the causes.  If we all posted in the same voice, I would have left this site long, long ago.  I am grateful to the disparate rhythms and tunes and have benefitted much more from foetrydotcom than I ever imagined when I first discovered it.

It's raining slushy sleet and I depart to console my offspring whose hopes of snowballworthy day were dashed...

sending figurative chocolate to all (save those with allergies)  Nomi

[Thewayitworks]

The more info that comes out on Levine the more base and shocking it is. Also the arrogance. Hard to comprehend.