The Future of Poetry - Part II - Discussions

Earl the Squirrel's Rule #72

     As long as we identify what we do primarily as "poetry" it will be ignored by everyone except, perhaps, poets.  For the most part, people are Content Regents, minus the delusion that this is an aesthetic.  They seek drama, comedy and romance.  Why make the mistake of concentrating on mode of speech when genre is what matters to our audience?  When was the last time you heard authors identify themselves as "prosers"?  (Hell, some may have to doublecheck just to be certain "prosers" is a word!)

     Once we stop fixating on form [without compromising on quality] we notice the participants expand to include everyone, from geniuses to Fox News viewers.  As we saw with "Harriet¹", the challenge is to design a conversation model that works for all relevant demographics without a lot of moderating.  These groups might include, in ascending order of egregiousness:

• Geeks


• Critics


• Teachers


• Poets (Pixel, Page or Stage)


• Fans


• Looky Loos 


• Fanbois/Fangirls


• Blurbers


• ConPoets


• Content Regents


• Anti-intellectuals²


• Pseudointellectuals²


• Trolls


• Psychos


• Spammers


• Plagiarists

      Joining is free.  All registered participants from geeks down to teachers are considered "Expert Members" ("EMbers") and are able to vote on the status of anyone further down the list.  Those from "Poets" down to "Pseudointellectuals" are "Members in Good Standing" ("MiGS").  Like EMbers, MiGS can present videos (as via a YouTube "embedded" link) based on the poems provided.  Trolls, Psychos, Spammers and Plagiarists are "Bozos", which means that their posts are visible only to the individual posters themselves.  Similarly, newcomers are bozoed until their intentions are clarified. 

Earl the Squirrel's Rule #124

     By default, then, everyone, including lurkers, will find reasonably pertinent, rational discussions.  Anyone can fillfile ("plonk") a member or category of member to avoid seeing their posts.  For example, Anti- or Pseudointellectuals can protect their ignorance by plonking one or all of the Teachers.  This doesn't affect anyone else's access.

     Poems, performances and videos can be evaluated numerically, with scores ranging from 1 to 10, or via a simple Thumbs Up or Down, to determine a rating for each poet, performer or videographer, respectively.  Similarly, members can Like, Dislike, Flag, Agree or Disagree with comments.  This feedback not only helps us appreciate each contribution;  it can be useful in determining the status of a member.  With some attention to technique, today's Content Regent could be tomorrow's Geek.

     These features are already included in some commercial packages.

---

Links:

The Future of Poetry - Part I - Venues

The Future of Poetry - Part II - Discussions

The Future of Poetry - Part III - Funding and Repêchage

---

Footnotes:

¹ - New to the Internet discussion and critical forum ethos, The Poetry Foundation proved unable to handle the intersection of so many different perspectives.  Before readership responses were closed down in April, 2010, "Harriet" was among the three most informative, entertaining and insightful sources on the Internet.  No, really.

² - My guess is that sites will find appropriate euphemisms here.

---