Cafe Doom

General Discussions => Hell => Topic started by: Ed on December 26, 2005, 04:13:10 PM

Title: Banned from BC
Post by: Ed on December 26, 2005, 04:13:10 PM
Yes, it looks like I've upset Alex :ak: Keegan for the last time (on BC anyway).  The thread where we were having a heated discussion is suddenly off limits to me now. 

I wonder if he deleted it, or maybe just cleaned it up and put an AK spin on it, making himself look like the injured party :scratch:
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: doolols on December 26, 2005, 05:12:00 PM
I wonder if he deleted it, or maybe just cleaned it up and put an AK spin on it, making himself look like the injured party :scratch:
As if. You gotta watch this forum paranoia, Ed. I've always found him to be open, honest, and caring.

Apart from the bit on East of the Web when he edited an opening post in a huge thread to prove that he was right, and eveyrone else was wrong  :bleh:
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: Ed on December 26, 2005, 05:25:11 PM
I'm surprised he's tolerated me this long, really.  The truth, to him, seems to have the same effect as sunlight on vampires :grin:

I made the mistake of asking him if we could give his grid to our new lit group members for free.  Then he went off on one because I'd set up an 'alternative to BC', thus depriving him of revenue :cheesy:

This is part of his reply -

Quote
And who the FUCK is going to run this group?

Quote
I did what you suggested we do - the proof is there in black and white. And now you are attacking me for doing it, saying I'm taking money from you. I say again - if it was such a shit idea, why did you suggest doing it?

I suggested, FOR CURRENT MEMBERS, who might not be staying (but wanted them all to stay) they might form a group (as was done before, way back).

You seem to overlook the fact that you were roping in OTHER PEOPLE, and further you asked that they get my copyright material for nothing.

Now that is EIGHT people (at least) who MIGHT have joined BC in some capacity or other had you not offered an alternative.


If you cannot see the difference, you're not very bright.




alex
Alex :ak: Keegan (AlexK, Snowball136)
alex.keegan(at)btconnect.com
Home Page
Seventh Quark

But his exact words, in another thread were these -

Quote
Just a thought but if some of you DO leave, you have the grid and the way to do things, why not form a group?


alex

Alex :ak: Keegan (AlexK, Snowball136)
alex.keegan(at)btconnect.com
Home Page
Seventh Quark

When I quoted this back to him and asked where exactly in the text he specifically said 'CURRENT MEMBERS ONLY', I think that was the last straw :grin:
 
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: doolols on December 26, 2005, 05:35:21 PM
 :cheesy: Sorry, but this brings back so many memories! To be honest, Ed, you may be better off not bothering. The burdon of work amd the pressure of standing up to bullies is something we can do without. I can see that, in his mind, he had the idea of a Little League Boot Camp, still within the fold, as it were, but separate. But you're right, he didn't actually say BC members only. And who knows, people may get so turned on to the idea from CD that they may want to subject themselves to the misery that is Boot Camp. It maybe gets people who weren't critting, nor using a numerical grid, into using them.

As he says (I peeked in the foyer earlier this evening), his results speak for themselves. If you want to win short story competitions, then maybe £60 a month for BC Pro is worth it to you. There's probably no better place (at the moment) if that's your driving ambition, and the money issue is acceptable.

Strange that there's a lot of unhappy Campers around who wouldn't rejoin the place even if they were paid.
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: Ed on December 26, 2005, 05:42:19 PM
You're absolutely right, Gerald.  That place sapped the energy right out of me - I and a lot of others are better off without it, IMO, in the happiness stakes at least.  :smiley:
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: doolols on December 26, 2005, 05:50:02 PM
It's such a shame. I have very high regard for the man's writing, and his ideas. Most of his craft articles are fantastic and insightful. But the way he treats people stinks. He would be a lot more successful, IMO, with BC if he were to treat members like real human beings, and not as scrawny dogs to kick and beat whenever he fancied it.
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: Geoff_N on December 26, 2005, 07:16:12 PM
Although never a member of BC, I have been in the forum to debate with AK over pedagogical technique. We disagreed but I always found him honest, well-researched and very frank.

I helped him with some IP tracking detective work when a certain person ("writer" & former lawyer) known to many of us, hit on his emails when fraudlulent writing competition activities were outed.

I don't understand why AK should get so worked up over his grid leaking out when it is available on the web if you know where to look ;)

Geoff

Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: Ed on December 27, 2005, 06:20:07 AM
Yes, he would probably be a very good teacher, if he climbed down off his pedistal and took on more human characteristics.  He's often moaned about people who have gone on to better things not crediting him as their teacher, but I think a good number of them end up hating the guy, because of the way he treated them, so a lot of it's his own fault, IMO.

Geoff, I've seen some of the things he's done, like Gerald said - going back over threads and changing his posts, deleting his worst insults, sanitising the discussion for posterity.  These and other things have given me a different impression of him from yours, sadly :/

Funny, his was the first forum I've ever been banned from, and for what?  :scratch: :grin:
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: SharonBell on December 27, 2005, 07:59:59 AM
Guess I'm the ignoramus here, but according to my understanding of the copyright laws (in the US, at any rate), you cannot copyright an IDEA. Unless you have borrowed his crit grid verbatim  I don't see where he would have a "case."

Rubrics, as any teacher knows, have been around for eons. Mine have been published in assessment textbooks, with attribution. That being said, when a new teacher (see the similarity here, Blunt) says, "Oh, I like that rubric, may I use it?" I say, please do, here's the link to it and here's an electronic copy. If it's to advance the teaching of a discipline, whether writing a research paper for management or  for fiction, it's an educational tool. I don't get the proprietary nature of his comments--there is no fee in this forum, other than that of critting each other's work honestly and with KINDNESS.

If ALL he has to claim for himself is a rubric, and not his ability to teach and attract new students by virtue of his ability to teach then, that's a sorry state of affairs--for him.  There will always be other forums and other crit groups and other teachers, whether formal or informal. He isn't the only teacher on the web. End of Sermon.
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: Walker on December 27, 2005, 09:03:06 AM
fwiw...I wouldn't cross the street to piss on him if he was on fire. Talent be damned, if he can't treat people with respect then he gets none in return from me.
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: Ed on December 27, 2005, 09:27:13 AM
Guess I'm the ignoramus here, but according to my understanding of the copyright laws (in the US, at any rate), you cannot copyright an IDEA. Unless you have borrowed his crit grid verbatim  I don't see where he would have a "case."

He accused us of 'ripping off his grid' and setting up in competition with him  :cheesy: -

Quote
We now have Alice's Restaurant, AR2, Cadenza's new thingee and yours, all basically using the BC model and all using my grid or a rip-off of it.

Quote
Rubrics, as any teacher knows, have been around for eons. Mine have been published in assessment textbooks, with attribution. That being said, when a new teacher (see the similarity here, Blunt) says, "Oh, I like that rubric, may I use it?" I say, please do, here's the link to it and here's an electronic copy. If it's to advance the teaching of a discipline, whether writing a research paper for management or  for fiction, it's an educational tool. I don't get the proprietary nature of his comments--there is no fee in this forum, other than that of critting each other's work honestly and with KINDNESS.

As you know, I haven't handed out his precious grid, nor have I produced a 'rip off' of it.  Like you say, Sharon, there are hundreds of rubric around, but in his mind they all appear to be based on his :grin:

Quote
If ALL he has to claim for himself is a rubric, and not his ability to teach and attract new students by virtue of his ability to teach then, that's a sorry state of affairs--for him.  There will always be other forums and other crit groups and other teachers, whether formal or informal. He isn't the only teacher on the web. End of Sermon.


There's no doubt that he knows a lot about literary fiction, but, to my mind, knowledge does not a teacher make.  It's a shame he can't impart that knowledge with a little respect for his students.

Walker -

Quote
fwiw...I wouldn't cross the street to piss on him if he was on fire. Talent be damned, if he can't treat people with respect then he gets none in return from me.

 :grin:  Thanks for that - you made me laugh.  That's exactly the way I feel, too. :afro:
Quote
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: Missy on December 27, 2005, 09:28:55 AM
Wow I only had two days off....

My two penn'orth. (if that's how you spell it.)
For those of use who have been members of BC; it is made clear from day one that the grid is something to be used as part of BC, not outside. None of us are stupid, that was always a given. We paid our money for the right to use it and in doing so I thought we agreed that we wouldn't bandy it about.
I don't understand copyright or intellectual property, but we all knew where we stood with that. I can't see what the problem is. Crits can be done without a grid or score. We've all done it before.





Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: Ed on December 27, 2005, 09:39:04 AM
Precisely, Jan - but he suggested we set up a group, and none of us have given his grid away, so where's the problem?

BTW, we all paid £30 for lifetime use of the grid, but I don't remember it being said that we can only use it inside BC - maybe I missed that bit :scratch:  If that's the case, though, why did he say this -

Quote
Just a thought but if some of you DO leave, you have the grid and the way to do things, why not form a group?

It's all very odd.


Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: Dan on December 27, 2005, 11:24:48 AM
Wow, is everyone here ex-BC?
As a fairly new writer i didn't even know who AK was until a couple of months ago - now i find traces of him on every writing forum!
But i digress...
For the uninitiated can someone explain what this 'scoring method' is about and how stories are stripped & categorised?
Also can i get hold of a copy of this grid to look at?
Ta
D
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: Ed on December 27, 2005, 12:59:27 PM
Wow, is everyone here ex-BC?

 :grin:  I think you'll find an emphatic 'NO' from many of the folks here, on that question.  A few have tried it and got on with BC alright, others have tried it and hated it, many others have been put off ever going there by AK's behaviour on other forums.

Quote
As a fairly new writer i didn't even know who AK was until a couple of months ago - now i find traces of him on every writing forum!

Yes, much to the chagrin of several BC Pro members, who were paying £60 a month and not feeling they were getting their money's worth, while AK was off arguing with people on other forums.

Quote
But i digress...
For the uninitiated can someone explain what this 'scoring method' is about and how stories are stripped & categorised?
Also can i get hold of a copy of this grid to look at?
Ta
D

If you look at EotW's scoring system, it breaks the story down into elements, like this -

title   
beginning   
characters   
plot   
pace   
originality   
language   
dialogue   
ending   
presentation   

AK's is very similar to this.  Sharon's is much more detailed.  All it means is that various elements of a story are marked individually and then added up to give a total score for literary stories.  Most genre stories will bomb, using AK's grid, even if the author is somebody like Steven King, who has sold a couple billion books and countless short stories.  So it has its own built-in limitations.

I'm sure Sharon won't mind you seeing a copy of her grid, the one I devised is available as a free download in the lit section of this forum, and there are hundreds of other rubicons out there on the Internet, but if you want to see AK's grid, you'll either have to buy one, or like Geoff says, it's out there online, if you know where to find it.   :afro:

If you need any help using the CD rubicon, we'll guide you through it, no problem :smiley:
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: SharonBell on December 27, 2005, 01:43:02 PM
Yes, I'm happy to share this one. Donna gave me great feedback as I developed it. I used it to judge a horror contest at a now defunct website, and it worked well.

The best thing about any a priori evaluative tool is that you have in mind what's good, rather than the "I'll know it when I see it" mindset, which is very difficult to defend. After 10 years of university teaching, I know that rubrics are incredibly helpful for students to know what the expectations are for an assignment.  The same is true for other types of writing.

Hope this helps.  :ssmiley
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: GrinReaper on December 28, 2005, 02:21:14 AM
the whole thing just makes me want to get involved and make sure CD's crit group is successful. :)
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: Ed on December 28, 2005, 07:31:15 AM
The more the merrier, Grin :smiley:  Ideally, we could do with 18 or 20 people to keep the momentum going (and an expert helmsman), but we'll have to make do with what we've got and hope it grows in the right direction :afro:
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: doolols on December 29, 2005, 05:38:51 AM
... but we'll have to make do with what we've got and hope it grows in the right direction :afro:
Sounds like a very mottley bunch!

Hurrah - the library's open, so I can get my fix of th'internet whilst I'm away :dance:
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: Ed on December 29, 2005, 06:18:20 AM
They are, but they're a very nice and talented motley crew :afro:
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: The Diplomat on January 26, 2006, 08:25:36 PM
Ed you were never "banned from BC".

BC went fully charging and we were gradually shutting up shop to old BC Free members. At the same time as you were no longer able to access the main forums more than a dozen other defunct memberships were turned off. We have never actually kicked anyone out as far as I can remember. One member, an American lady was causing a load of grief and saying we were anti-American. She left and I wouldn't let her back in, but that's the only "ban" I know of.

Basically, BC Free was very hard to adminster and a few BC Pro people wondered why BC Free Members got so much for nothing. So Free had to go. But since then Boot Camp has grown and the resuts are if anything stronger than ever.

The statement "You have the grid, why not form a group" was aimed at BC Free members who were leaving. An ounce of thought would have told you that. BC Free members were charged £30 for "free personal use of the grid IN A GROUP" (because it's a tool for interaction and comparison, not a magic wand). It stands to reason that a grid which has been sold for  £30 a throw is not suddenly going to be given away. You also know it takes ages to get to grips with the grid, and that's with help from very experienced gridders. Let loose with a load of inexperienced people it would be  a disaster

As for "Who is going to lead the group?" that's not a trivial question. When Boot Camp first started charging, BC Free was set up (no charges of any kind, not even for the grid) but they were working totally without AK. The output fell and fell and fell, the crits got sloppier and sloppier and the hit rate per person dropped to 1/40th of BC Pro. BC Free became an embarrassment and that was why it was dragged back into BC and worked alongside Pro.

Gridding, whatever grid is used, means nothing if there's not a serious experienced writer at the helm, someone who has a solid publishing record and actually knows the ropes.

With all due respect, Blunt, you don't have that, so how are you supposed to lead a bunch of writers in a way similar to Boot Camp, or Alice's Restaurant. I wouldn't expect Alexandra Fox (20 First prizes with yesterday's) to run a group on her own (and she feels the same). There is nothing elitist or pompous in that. it's just a fact of life.

Sure, any grouping is better than no grouping, but IMO a group of beginners or a group of intermediates just repeats the same mistakes. You can see that at EotW when crappy stories get 9s and 10s. If you look at the sheer number of 10s and then check how many have actually been published...

As for sanitising threads, I just don't get that. Doolols said  here, that I edited a post of Vanessa's. Not so. I clicked edit/edit to top it, that was all. I have just asked in BC if anybody has ever thought I'd done that. i did it once at the request of Lexie when she was personally hurting over something, and a few times I've archived a "degenerating" thread because it was helping nobody, but the archives in BC are not hidden. Your "hot" one was utterly pointless, going round in circles, so I cut my losses and archived it. You were "off" so I was just wasting time and people were getting pissed off. There was a time when I couldn't drop a stupid row, but now I think life is too short.

There's a way to judge you new "Freedom" Ed. First, why did you stay in Boot Camp so long if you hated it so much, and only leave when you finally could not have it for free? But now you're out, and according to your posts at EotW writing "far more and freer/better" then you should very shortly be getting loads of excellent placements, right?

But I know of at least nine stories you wrote while in BC (sent via Lexie) so it wsn't exactly a "barren" period, was it? Looking at the titles, I think I only critted one or two, but that's because i rarerly critted BC Free stories (nor did I know they were yours until yesterday).

What amazes me and saddens me about all the BS about Boot Camp is that I make absolutely no secret about the fact we are tough on texts. it is, after all, called Boot Camp. I have been doing it this way for  YEARS and we have had 92 First Prizes and thousands of hits. I'm not a teddy bear, but everybody knows that up front, nobody is forced to join. So why do they join and then complain? Beats me.


I work the way I work because I believe in what I am doing and because I produce results. I have made loads of friends through my teaching. I don't sit on the fence, so I will always make enemies, too. That's life. I will be slagged off. That's life too. I just get pissed off when people lie about me.

But just set the record right. You were not banned from Boot Camp and I have never ducked an argument.

As for ruthless crits. You were bollocked by me on more than one occassion for "nasty" crits, for stepping over the line. We may be tough but ultimately we all repspect one another. All that was wrong with you was you were too opinionated (without justification) and never listened. If you listened more you would improve and start placing your work. Lexie has twenty first prizes now, yet she was in tears on a face-to-face course I ran in Wales last week. It wasn't nice and i felt awful. But two days later she rewote the piece and made it twice as good. That's why she keeps winning prizes.


Alex
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: Dan on January 27, 2006, 04:30:32 AM
Wow - is this the infamous AK?
Who knew that the writing world was filled with such drama?
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: Geoff_N on January 27, 2006, 06:00:04 AM
Dan, you call that drama?   Piff!!

There is much more related to these events including the incredible nefarious activities of one former lawyer / writer who, Alex might like to know, is looking for more toilet paper in the Shawnee County Jail to write another novel.

Geoff
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: Alex Keegan on January 27, 2006, 08:11:45 AM
Are you serious Geoff?

I heard that whisper but also heard it was a rumour spread by MB himself to discredit someone (not me for a change).

I had an email from his SISTER asking me to ring her!!

No reply when I tried. I'm probably racking up a bill ofr hard porn or worse somewhere now.

I pray it's true. Is he still advertised at BW?


Alex
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: canadian on January 27, 2006, 08:15:14 AM
Nice to see AK come out from underneath The Diplomat!  :grin:

I have also heard this 'rumour' but now understand it to be more than that. Geoff & people he knows have more info.

And a humble question, AK: how come stories were deleted from the Comp thread here?
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: Geoff_N on January 27, 2006, 08:43:07 AM
'Tis true, Alex. He was put away not for doing dastardly deeds to writers, but three counts of DUI.

Les Floyd has details. Email him if you want the Jail address if you want to send him a Get Well card. Les has already sent him a copy of my Escaping Reality, a story about a prison escape! But as it has been described as a fugitive's manual, I doubt the prison authorities will let him have it.

Geoff
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: Alex Keegan on January 27, 2006, 09:29:28 AM
Geoff, if he escapes, I am coming looking for you.



 :hot:
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: Alex Keegan on January 27, 2006, 09:38:56 AM
Canadian, i often sub under a pseudonym.

In the case of Cafe Doom, CD was officially a non-sub place because the first two comps were
too small. Ed was in BC when the latest one came out, so I suggested to all the BCers they should
enter and at least one ex-BCer also entered at least twice, that they should all enter. If that got the
numbers up to 20 or more then a hit there would count.

After all many magazines take 1 in 3, or 1 in 4, or 1 in 5, or 1 in 10. This would be 1/20 or 1/25
and thus self-validating. I supported the gang by subbing an old flash of mine I wrote at Scrawl
but I most certainly didn't want to sub under my own name and invite the inevitable pot-shots.

BTW a Boot Camper won it and an ex-BCer was "lucky-dip" second and I think we had a few in the shortlist.

As for "stories being deleted" I know nothing about stories plural.

I zapped my own because I wanted to sub it elsewhere.

But I see it's been unzapped.


Alex
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: canadian on January 27, 2006, 10:47:46 AM
It would have been polite of you to discuss your need to remove the comp entry with the site admin, wouldn't it? That's the way I've dealt with this kind of issue in the past, elsewhere. Just common courtesy IMO.
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: Alex Keegan on January 27, 2006, 11:25:20 AM
Courtesy?

Why, do you detect "common courtesy" between Ed and myself in this thread before I joined it?

Gimmee a break!!! Ed don't like me, fine. He's doing a good job of slating me here
and at EotW, to name just two places. And to say he was the most difficult person
Boot Camp has ever entertained, would be being kind.

I did my job, got some BCers to enter a comp, and kept my name out of it,
then quietly deleted my story without "getting involved" or raising issues...

Just as I didn't get involved in the vote or discussing stories or raising personalities or author names.



Alex

Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: canadian on January 27, 2006, 01:18:53 PM
You are a knowledgeable, capable writer, Alex. But you seem to have absolutely no class.
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: Vivacious on January 27, 2006, 01:25:05 PM
Quote
He's doing a good job of slating me here
No, no, you're doing a fine job all on your own, iMO.  :/  (http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/4664/snack0fz.gif)

Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: Alex Keegan on January 27, 2006, 04:30:42 PM
Isn't it strange how Ed can say what the hell he likes and only Missy questioned it gently.

The when I come in, speaking honestly, it reveals a lack of class.

Maybe a few of you ought to browse BC for a coupla days and read some of the exchanges.

Anyway, I am not on line to find a family. I have those things OFF line. Real flesh and bone.

BC is successful because we don't spend 80% of our time telling each other how wonderful
we are. The latest issue of Buzzwords has 4 BCers, 2 ex-BCers, and both editors are ex-BC

These are real facts. As are twenty-six frst prizes in 2005 four first prizes already in 2006.

Why should I care if a few people or  a few thousand people think I have no class?

99% of the internet is a little incestuous round-robin of unqualified editors
publishing people that aren't ready to be published. I just happen to say it.

Alex
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: Geoff_N on January 27, 2006, 05:05:21 PM
99% of the internet is a little incestuous round-robin of unqualified editors
publishing people that aren't ready to be published. I just happen to say it.

Hear hear. Also true for the non-Internet world, as testified by James Joyce and Anthony Burgess who both complained their editors were crap, and their work was in still in draft when the publishers' rushed into print. And no doubt it has always been true since the first stone tablet.

I am not the first to hold up my hand to say my writing wasn't ready to be published. Five books later I am still saying it. Hopefully, I will be saying it fifty books later.

Geoff
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: Ed on January 27, 2006, 06:23:02 PM
Say and show what you like, Ronald - I freely admit that I have been overly harsh with other people's stories on occasions, and I feel guilty about that, especially Lee Reynoldson's.  Put it down to something akin to Stockholm Syndrome, or frustration, exhaustion, whatever you like.  At the end of the day, it's my failing and I've got to live with it.  I was too 'rough, tough, blunt and forceful.'

I've long since viewed you as an unreasonable person, so I see no point in engaging you in conversation here.  If you really wanted to open up a dialogue with me, you would have sent a PM, or an e-mail.  I believe your only purpose here is to troll the place up, like you do at EotW, with your multiple identities and your underhand snipes at anybody who dares to offer an opinion without having a trophy cabinet to wheel out with it. 

For as long as you treat me and everybody else with contempt, you will get it back.  Pick a fight and you will get one.  Personally, I'd rather spend my time improving my writing skills, though. 

It's up to you - your call.

Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: Vivacious on January 27, 2006, 06:34:38 PM
Isn't it strange how Ed can say what the hell he likes and only Missy questioned it gently.

The when I come in, speaking honestly, it reveals a lack of class.

Maybe a few of you ought to browse BC for a coupla days and read some of the exchanges.


Now why on earth would I browse a forum in which you've edited your own and others posts to help your arguments?? What would I learn there except more of you pompous drivel?

Quote
Anyway, I am not on line to find a family. I have those things OFF line. Real flesh and bone.

BC is successful because we don't spend 80% of our time telling each other how wonderful
we are. The latest issue of Buzzwords has 4 BCers, 2 ex-BCers, and both editors are ex-BC

These are real facts. As are twenty-six frst prizes in 2005 four first prizes already in 2006.


Yes, yes, you are SOO much better than us. You have all the infinte knowledge us lowly boobs can only hope to glimpse in our pathetic empty lives. And oh please let us suckle what you'll honor us wih from your teat. Because being published makes you, well, near Godlike, right?!  ::) /end sarcasm

When I see a person who belittles others and lauds his own successes to make himself seem bigger and better, I see a small person indeed.


Quote
Why should I care if a few people or  a few thousand people think I have no class?

If you've found that you bump heads with Blunt and you don't care what we think, as you claim, then why are you here? Under a couple of different names, even??

Quote
99% of the internet is a little incestuous round-robin of unqualified editors
publishing people that aren't ready to be published. I just happen to say it.

Alex


From what I see here, judging by your words and attitude, I can plainly say I wouldn't want to meet you in real life let alone give you money to critique anything I've put time and effort into.

You may be a talented person but you lack tact. Something to think about: Pride goeth before a fall. Just my 2 cents.
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: GrinReaper on January 27, 2006, 09:37:58 PM
I find this thread thoroughly depressing. Aren't we all in the same boat, in that we are all people who have an urge to express ourselves using the written word?

I don't understand why people expend all this time/energy dissing each other in various forums.

I think people who are secure in what they are doing have no need to sledge others. And unfortunately it only takes one undiplomatic comment to start a fully fledged flame war that accomplishes nothing other than distracting us all from what we're here for -- to become better writers.

It's very sad to see an productive online writing community destroyed -- I know, I saw it happen to getoutthere, back in the day.

 :cry: :cry: :cry:
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: canadian on January 27, 2006, 10:58:57 PM
Thank you, grin! That spoke volumes!

And Viv ... you are wonderfully intuitive!
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: SharonBell on January 27, 2006, 11:47:47 PM
So, here I am on vacation in Florida, escaping my academic internecine wars. I go to my favorite website for a little R & R and what do I find? SSDD.

If only those who follow a "certain path" are "truly enlightened," then why is it that others who are not among the "faithful disciples' can attain publication, honors, and awards? [Visualize pointing all around and at self, here.]

Why is it that the fellow named AK seems to be claiming that he has the only true path? Having tread a different route, I find it impossible to believe there is only "one way." There are many ways to find one's voice and one's ability as a writer. I don't think anyone owns the path.

That's my tuppence=2 cents plain from Punta Gorda, Florida, US of A.
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: Geoff_N on January 28, 2006, 04:20:23 AM
Ah, Sharon, is there room for another beach airbed beside you and room for my weary head on your lap? Please...


Geoff
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: SharonBell on January 28, 2006, 07:41:40 AM
Yes. There are many . ;)
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: Alex Keegan on January 28, 2006, 07:43:08 AM
why on earth would I browse a forum in which you've edited your own and others posts to help your arguments??

That's a perfect example of bollocks.

I have never done that. The reference Doolols made was simply incorrect as I explained.

If you applied common-sense you would KNOW it must be false. Boot Camp is a tough environment. If Boot Campers saw me editing my posts or others to "fix" arguments, they would leave in droves. The fact that they do NOT, shows that the accusation is unfounded.

But you just take a casual remark, solidify it into fact and then act as though the fact is written in stone, underwritten by the United Nations.

You COULD however, enter BC, raise the suggestion/accusation and ask everybody there to answer, is it true, is it false, is it misunderstanding? Why simply take one remark and presume it MUST be true?





What would I learn there except more of you pompous drivel?

John Ravenscroft and countelss others have publicly stated how much they learned in Boot Camp. Even Vanessa G says
I taught her to write and I have an email from her as recent as her Willesden win asking if I wanted her to give Boot Camp
a mention. "After all Alex, whatever else, it was you who taught me to write."

John was in BC for years from raw beginner to the level he is now and at any time he'll answer your questions.
Ask John if I would ever tamper with evidence.




Yes, yes, you are SOO much better than us. You have all the infinte knowledge us lowly boobs can only hope to glimpse in our pathetic empty lives. And oh please let us suckle what you'll honor us wih from your teat. Because being published makes you, well, near Godlike, right?!   /end sarcasm

BUT I AM (if we are talking about writing experience, results).

It never ceases to amaze me that people find this thing so TERRIBLE. Right now *I* am being taught. I'm doing Open University and LISTENING to someone who knows more than me. I freely acknowledge that compared to them (in the subjects I'm studying) *I* am a lowly boob.


When I see a person who belittles others and lauds his own successes to make himself seem bigger and better, I see a small person indeed.

Funny that others think the direct opposite. I don't belittle beginners, I LOVE beginners. They are full of hopes and dreams and potential. I ran BC for seven years for free, never charged a cent, helping hundreds of people into print. What I belittle is bullshit zines run by mates and publishing mates, showcasing that gets morphed into "published", unbelievably bad editing by people often without ANY credentials and almost-zero experience.

What I belittle is the way threads in places like EotW or Bewrite are full of people wetting themselves over web publications in sometimes stunningly bad places, or people who cannot write settig themselves up as teachers on paying courses. I belittle these round-robin incest-groups that publish each other. I belittle the fact that so many self-publish with Lul or whatever and never get tested in a real marketplace.

Had I been starting out now, no doubt I would have fallen for it, the BS, in exactly the same way. But who speaks out against it?

I did at EotW, got pilloried, except by a few.

Six months later Vanessa said almost the same thing but now she's gone back to "just making it fun."

You need to hear what real-world editors say about 98% of web publishing, about self-publishing, about places like Bewrite, LSS, Skive.

I don't for one second think that the people that run these pklaces don't have big, generous hearts. But I believe they are seriously misuguided and HURT beginners.


It's SUPPOSED to ne tough to get published. The rejections and editorial feedback, the struggle is part of the learning experience.

There's a magazine I know (paper) and I published there when I started. I got acceptances there before I'd even bought a copy. The editor is very old, a very nice, good-hearted bloke and he believes in "giving beginners their chance". In any issue half the stories would make your eyes water. They are criminally bad.

But the writers think "I was published in..." and they come back 2-3-4 times. They start to believe they are already writers when they are "writing" stuff that is 25% below even basic competence. it's a trap, a well of self-delusion.

But I was $600 runner up in an important comp. I went to the toilets and someone very very senior in the literary world spoke to me and said. "Lose" your credits in XXXXX. He told me that all my grant applications had been seriously hurt by the simple fact I'd been published in XXXXXX. It's considered to be a millstone rather then a stepping-stone.

When the recent "Willesden Herald" comp came up, a few Boot Campers asked about entering because the blurb said, "The short list will be read (note it did not say 'judged by') by Zadie Smith". The price was a china mug. I asked the BCers, "If the prize is a china mug, are you going to put in stories that might win $1,000 somewhere else? Do you think the comp will be filled with serious writers sending good stuff? The comp is a SKIT newspaper on the web. If you won it, who would you have beaten? Do you think it will look good or bad on your record?"

So BCers didn't enter, because, right or wrong, I saw it as a Mickey-Mouse competition.


If you've found that you bump heads with Blunt and you don't care what we think, as you claim, then why are you here? Under a couple of different names, even??

I'm not "under a couple of different names". i signed my posts as Alex and applied to come in as Alex but hadn't got the email, didn't know if it was coming. I subbed my story anonymously because I think judging a SS comp should be anonymous, because I think names alongside immediately distort the process. Put a few names by stories and allow reader comment befoe the judging and the judging can never be impartial, no matter how hard the judge might wish to be impartial.


From what I see here, judging by your words and attitude, I can plainly say I wouldn't want to meet you in real life let alone give you money to critique anything I've put time and effort into.

Your choice. You are pixels. I don't know you. You think I'll lose sleep tonight, shattered?

You may be a talented person but you lack tact. Something to think about: Pride goeth before a fall. Just my 2 cents.

Tact? You mean LYING.

As for "before the fall" I could face my maker and stare him in the eyes. The one thing I have always been is honest. I know that in life, fence-sitting and handing out false praise is the way to garner accolades, but I shall follow my beliefs, and one day I will die.

I made my choice 12 December 1988


alex
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: Alex Keegan on January 28, 2006, 07:52:12 AM
Why is it that the fellow named AK seems to be claiming that he has the only true path?

I have NEVER said this, or implied it.

Please show in 13 years of writing where I have said there is only one way?

I have never said it, never claimed it, never implied it.

There are many poor methods, slow methods, weak methods, damaging methods.
There are any traps along the way.

There are many GREAT ways. You think I wouldn't like to spend two years at IOWA working with great authors and learning from them? You think I didn't study and get two degrees, then study some more and get an MA in Creative Writing (AFTER I had over 100 publications)? If I believed there was one way only, why do thse things? Why a I doing OU NOW and studying literature at a higher level? Why am I learning (like a beginner, listening) about poetry.


But this is typical of these threads. You just make a statement which will be rpeated ad nauseam.

The only trouble is it's totally without foundation, completely and utterly WRONG.

I state it here and now. The Boot Camp way is NOT, repeat NOT the best way.

The absolute best way is to work 1-2-1 or in a small group led by a great, widely-experienced writer.

Any group led by a good writer and teacher (and I am both) which deands honesty and outlaws
bullshit, will do well. If it also insists on discipline, writing regularly, subbing often, it will get results.


That happens to be how BC works. It's a compromise that allows me to work with 10-50 people.

The alternative is to work with 1-3

But other places (like Alice's Restaurant) have publicly stated that anonymous stoiries, formalised critting,
regular schedules etc have transformed the way the work and dramatically improved their results

Alex
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: SharonBell on January 28, 2006, 08:21:47 AM
Mr. Keegan--

I took your comments here, in this thread, as that reference point. Your statements here are all about you and BC.

I didn't Google you to find all your pubs, honors, and awards. And, I daresay, you have not done that for me either. If you did, then perhaps you may have excluded me and a few other non-vanity published folks in your sweeping comments about "people wetting their pants" over getting published in ezines.

I understand that you feel very strongly about standards. As a textbook editor, journal editor, multiply published healthcare services author (here's my CV http://www.towson.edu/users/buch) I am all about rigor in writing and research.

For many of us, fiction is a new venue or in my case, an old dream to return to, midlife.  This isn't my day job. I will never be Joyce Carol Oates, who is, by the way, a lovely, gracious professor who is kind to literary groupies and writer wannabes.  In this very large world of words, there are many reasons people write and just as many goals. My goals are modest. They are to: to publish short stories in print magazines, with the help of cyber-writing/crit groups and live crit groups; to publish my novel, re-written a hundred times with the 1 to 1 tutelage of a freelance editor who is teaching me how to write; and to learn and have fun. When it stops being fun, I will stop writing fiction. I have enough angst in my "real" world. If I achieve those goals, then I consider myself a happy woman.

Good luck to you with your goals, whatever they are.

Sincerely,

Sharon Bell Buchbinder, RN, PhD
Professor and Chair
Department of Health Science
Towson University
Towson, MD, USA
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: Vivacious on January 28, 2006, 12:27:20 PM
@ Canadian; Thank you, love. I only just came back from a long break last week and damn, if I don't have a nose for where the trouble has made itself at home!

@ Sharon; aahhh the paradise that is Florida! Enjoy it!! Although I live in Florida full time right now, I love vacationing just south of here because there is just no place better than a sandy strip on the coast of this fine peninsula!

And WELL SAID! I too, am only drawing an opinion of AK from this thread as I have noooooooooo interest in his forum, teachings or brand of self delusions.

I've never heard so much, I, I, I, me, me, me in my life! And I have two small children!! I do not base my self worth on my accomplishments online or in the real world, but rather in the love, respect and support I recieve from loved ones and friends (online and off). I find that is a far better measure of my character.


@ AK, sounds like BLAH BLAH BLAH, BLAH BLAH BLAH, and I'm like, ok, uh huh, whatever, SHUTUP.  :afro: But, seriously, good luck to you and the floor meeting soon.

Now be gone (or drop it), you are wasting your precious time. I'm sure you can appreciate that.
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: Ed on January 28, 2006, 01:23:52 PM
I think that pretty much sums it up.  You've been allowed to have your say and, as per usual, it appears to be mostly about yourself and your awards, Ronald.

Feel free to look down on us all from your lofty perch of literary achievement - try to be an owl instead of a seagull, and we'll do our best to ignore you, if you'll afford us the same courtesy :afro:
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: Alex Keegan on January 28, 2006, 04:00:50 PM
I am not "trolling" Ed, you "trolled" when you named the thread (with a lie)

There was a full month of misrepresentation and lies before I entered this thread (january 26th)


Post 1 in this thread Dec 26th

Ed Blunt said he had been banned from BC. That was a lie.

He also said a second lie-by-inference: "I wonder if he deleted it, or maybe just cleaned it up and put an AK spin on it, making himself look like the injured party."

Post 2 Doolos made a totally unsubstantiated false remark: Apart from the bit on East of the Web when he edited an opening post in a huge thread to prove that he was right, and everyone else was wrong.

Post 3 Ed is again abusive. He said: The truth, to him, seems to have the same effect as sunlight on vampires. ie: he calls me a liar.

Post 4 Dools says: the misery that is Boot Camp.

Post 5. Geoff speaks fairly

Post 7 (Dec 27) Walker I wouldn't cross the street to piss on him if he was on fire

Post 8 Blunt agrees with walker and says: There's no doubt that he knows a lot about literary fiction, but, to my mind, knowledge does not a teacher make.  It's a shame he can't impart that knowledge with a little respect for his students.

Post 9. Missy speaks fairly

I came into the thread a full MONTH after it was started


Coming in to a thread after SEVEN hostile posts, in a thread built on a direct lie, is "trolling"

Later Vivacious repeats the lie that I edit other people's posts.

"Now why on earth would I browse a forum in which you've edited your own and others posts to help your arguments?? What would I learn there except more of you pompous drivel?"

On ezboards any edits are clearly marked. You can't do them secretly. The accusation or consolidation of bollocks written earlier is typical of "unthinking" threads.

Than Sharon decides to create another myth, namely that I insist the BC way is the only way.
DESPITE THE FACT THAT SHE NOR ANYONE ELSE CAN PRODUCE ONE QUOTE IN THIRTEEN YEARS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ACCUSATION.
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: Ed on January 28, 2006, 04:07:47 PM
Make the most of your posting ability, Ronald - you will be leaving very soon. 

Call it what you like - access revoked/banned - semantics.

You are not welcome here.
Title: Re: Banned from BC
Post by: Ed on January 28, 2006, 07:10:03 PM
Right – as of now, Alex :ak: Keegan is banned from this forum. 

He has been allowed to say his piece, in his usual fashion, and now I am going to say mine.  Unlike on every other occasion I can think of, mine will be the last word on this argument (on this thread at least).  Because I’m going to lock the thread.

Firstly, my access to BC was suddenly cut, during a heated debate.  The only part I could see into, or post in, was the part where new people ask for access.  I see that as me being banned.  Semantics?  Call it how you see it.

Secondly, if Doolols says he saw you edit your post in a thread to make yourself look right – I believe him.  I’ve heard the same thing from several people, which, after seeing your general behaviour – your apparent need to always be seen to be right – I can certainly believe.  I have seen you bait people, under your own user name, on EotW, and then go back over the thread to delete your worst insults - sanitise the thread.  I’ve also seen you do the same on your own forum.  I can’t prove it, so all of what I’ve just said must fall into doubt – my word against yours.

Quote
Coming in to a thread after SEVEN hostile posts, in a thread built on a direct lie, is "trolling"

No, ‘trolling’ is what you appear to be doing on EotW.  No doubt you’ll deny it’s you, but every time anybody dares to try and discuss an opposing view to anything that you have an opinion on, a new user pops up, asking how many awards, prizes, blah, blah, blah – the same old rhetoric you’ve posted here.

Quote
Blunt agrees with walker and says: There's no doubt that he knows a lot about literary fiction, but, to my mind, knowledge does not a teacher make.  It's a shame he can't impart that knowledge with a little respect for his students.

From what I’ve seen, you treat practically everybody with contempt.  Not least of all, your top student – Alexandra Fox.  Earlier in this thread, you tell us how you made her cry.  You, by your own admission, have made her cry on many occasions, telling her, what – that she’s stupid, that her writing is totally left-brained crap?  I think I remember those two, as well as many other insults about her writing.

Is that the marque of a good teacher?

Over the whole of my experience in learning, I have never seen any teacher make a student cry like that.  EVER.  Let alone brag about it like it’s a valid practice – she edited it and it won a competition.  At what price to her dignity?

On EotW, I see a thread where Zoe King says she hit a point where she could not write a story for eighteen months - http://www.eastoftheweb.com/uncut/node/view/27428#comment  about the eighth post down.  Is she talking about you?  Because Vanessa said something similar, too.  My creative energy dried up in Bootcamp, because I felt utterly inhibited, frustrated, hopeless, and it seems like it happens to a lot of your students – Lexie being one of them.

Well, hang on a minute – is that the marque of a good teacher?

I don’t think it is.

Knowledge alone, does not a teacher make – my opinion.  If you cannot impart your knowledge without making people feel worthless, useless, stupid, confused, frustrated, or reducing them to tears, I don’t think you have the right teaching skills to do the job.  I believe YOU  are more damaging to beginning and intermediate writers than any peer group, critique circle, or whatever, even if it’s run by a monkey like me. 

That’s my opinion, but it seems to be shared by a great number of people.

Add to this that BC does not have any kind of discernable curriculum – structured learning (not that I could see, anyway).  It’s an open-ended deal, where people regularly pay you money to learn how to write.  I see that system as being inherently open to abuse.

The BC way works! 

I’ve seen it a hundred times.  I’m sure the multiple successes attract the right kind of writers to keep it going, too.  But it begs the question – would these same writers have had some success on their own anyway?  I think they would.  Maybe not as much as when they’re pushed to sub constantly, but I’m sure most would.

Now that I’m free of the place, and what I see as your tyrannical reign, I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off me.  I’m enjoying my writing again.  Maybe my writing is crap – I’ll let others judge.  The main thing to me is getting back to the enjoyment of it.

Finally:
As I said before – I am not free of guilt.  I am ashamed to say I took on some of the ideology, for a while.  I wrote some harsh critiques.  I wish I could take it back, but I can’t – all I can do now is regret, and try to make sure I don’t do it again. 

Maybe you should take a step back and take a look at yourself and your practices, too?  And that’s not intended as an insult.


***

Now, let this be an end to it.