Author Spotlight
A Seth Abramson Sighting—-
blogging again, woo-hoo!!!
Seth’s blogging again (The Suburan Ecstasies). And this time he’s butting heads with Mr. and Mrs. Lehman…..
That was the last contact of any kind I had with Mr. Lehman or his wife–the last time I spent more than a moment thinking of either him or her. When I wrote my methodology article for the Poets & Writers MFA rankings in 2009, I didn’t (needless to say) mention either of the Lehmans, or single out his employer, as the MFA rankings have absolutely nothing to do with the Lehmans generally or with Mr. Lehman’s employer specifically. So when Mrs. Lehman (Ms. Harwood) decided to pick a fight with me over the rankings I was (though perhaps I should not have been) more than a little surprised–as her blog, the official blog for the Best American Poetry series, normally has absolutely nothing to do with MFA programs, so there was no obvious reason for her to pen a screed about either the rankings or about me
To see it all go here.
I’m just glad to see Seth back in his real blogging shoes. I mean this man was meant to blog. So, love him or hate him, just enjoy. Just stand in the Seth-showers and enjoy !!!
Tags: Seth Abramson
Abramson’s expansive response falls one step short of being exhaustive–that is, he neglected to address the actual content of Stacey Harwood’s letter, which I read without any knowledge of his long and tangled history with BAP et al. (Aside: notice how I call her by just one name–her own name.)
I went to New School (though I did not study with Lehman there–I studied fiction) and I’ll be the first to bemoan its lack of funding, but a low rank from Seth Abramson isn’t going to destroy that school’s reputation, or impact its bottom-line. The notion that Abramson poses any kind of threat to David Lehman’s or Stacey Harwood’s livelihood is either disingenuous or delusional. But Lehman and Harwood do pose a genuine threat to Abramson’s livelihood, inasmuch as a rebuke from the powers behind BAP might well discredit him in the eyes of would-be customers–and this is the real issue.
An article by Seth Abramson on rankings for MFA programs can only be–and in fact only is–a long infomercial for Seth Abramson’s own highly dubious enterprise of having you pay him to help you pick an MFA program. What surprises me is that Poets & Writers gave Abramson space in which to hawk his wares. The next time he wants to run a full-page ad, he should have to pay for it like everyone else.
Abramson’s expansive response falls one step short of being exhaustive–that is, he neglected to address the actual content of Stacey Harwood’s letter, which I read without any knowledge of his long and tangled history with BAP et al. (Aside: notice how I call her by just one name–her own name.)
I went to New School (though I did not study with Lehman there–I studied fiction) and I’ll be the first to bemoan its lack of funding, but a low rank from Seth Abramson isn’t going to destroy that school’s reputation, or impact its bottom-line. The notion that Abramson poses any kind of threat to David Lehman’s or Stacey Harwood’s livelihood is either disingenuous or delusional. But Lehman and Harwood do pose a genuine threat to Abramson’s livelihood, inasmuch as a rebuke from the powers behind BAP might well discredit him in the eyes of would-be customers–and this is the real issue.
An article by Seth Abramson on rankings for MFA programs can only be–and in fact only is–a long infomercial for Seth Abramson’s own highly dubious enterprise of having you pay him to help you pick an MFA program. What surprises me is that Poets & Writers gave Abramson space in which to hawk his wares. The next time he wants to run a full-page ad, he should have to pay for it like everyone else.
The AWP has posted a long response to Seth’s absurdly flawed rankings here.
It it is kind of amazing how verbose Mr. Abramson can be on his blog while completely frilling to address the actual claims against him. He’d make a great politician.
The AWP has posted a long response to Seth’s absurdly flawed rankings here.
It it is kind of amazing how verbose Mr. Abramson can be on his blog while completely frilling to address the actual claims against him. He’d make a great politician.
yes, amazingly verbose….. sigh….. :)
yes, amazingly verbose….. sigh….. :)
kay
kay
and Seth has replied at length to that !
http://sethabramson.blogspot.com/2009/10/response-to-awp.html
and Seth has replied at length to that !
http://sethabramson.blogspot.com/2009/10/response-to-awp.html
Just the notion that you could even rank MFA programs like they’re going to get a BCS bowl bid or something is ridiculous. Nobody should go to a school because of it’s theoretical ranking; they should go to a school because they are interested in the writers who teach there or the writers who come out of it. I guess it’s nice for Seth Abramson that he is able to turn this whole concept of MFA rankings into a snake oil salesman act for himself, what with his book and consulting firm, but soon enough people will just realize it’s all a big joke and stop giving him their money. His aggressive desperation seems to demonstrate that he realizes that. At least it’s a hilarious show.
Just the notion that you could even rank MFA programs like they’re going to get a BCS bowl bid or something is ridiculous. Nobody should go to a school because of it’s theoretical ranking; they should go to a school because they are interested in the writers who teach there or the writers who come out of it. I guess it’s nice for Seth Abramson that he is able to turn this whole concept of MFA rankings into a snake oil salesman act for himself, what with his book and consulting firm, but soon enough people will just realize it’s all a big joke and stop giving him their money. His aggressive desperation seems to demonstrate that he realizes that. At least it’s a hilarious show.
yes, it’s a hilarious show, but i’m not so sure that “soon enough people will just realize it’s all a big joke and stop giving him their money”,… and Seth’s not just about the money… he sees himself as a great crusader……….. we’ll see…
yes, it’s a hilarious show, but i’m not so sure that “soon enough people will just realize it’s all a big joke and stop giving him their money”,… and Seth’s not just about the money… he sees himself as a great crusader……….. we’ll see…
People won’t realize it is a big joke until someone with some integrity tries ranking or evaluating programs. Otherwise, he is the only game in town.
People won’t realize it is a big joke until someone with some integrity tries ranking or evaluating programs. Otherwise, he is the only game in town.
“Just the notion that you could even rank MFA programs … is ridiculous.”
Is it any more ridiculous than ranking other graduate school programs? A ranking system is totally standard in every other discipline … making an exception for MFA programs seems like saying it’s not a real degree.
“Just the notion that you could even rank MFA programs … is ridiculous.”
Is it any more ridiculous than ranking other graduate school programs? A ranking system is totally standard in every other discipline … making an exception for MFA programs seems like saying it’s not a real degree.
Just because something is standard doesn’t make it unridiculous. Ranking humanities and social sciences programs seems to me similarly fraught. History programs, for example, vary widely in their conceptual and theoretical persuasions. If you want to focus on the class struggles in early modern China, you’d have no business at a “top” rated program if its professors have no background in East Asia, the early modern period, or class analysis. There’s no shortcut to the extensive research involved in choosing a graduate program of any kind.
Just because something is standard doesn’t make it unridiculous. Ranking humanities and social sciences programs seems to me similarly fraught. History programs, for example, vary widely in their conceptual and theoretical persuasions. If you want to focus on the class struggles in early modern China, you’d have no business at a “top” rated program if its professors have no background in East Asia, the early modern period, or class analysis. There’s no shortcut to the extensive research involved in choosing a graduate program of any kind.
were the rankings presented as a shortcut..? i didn’t see that. the article seemed to say the opposite of that. they’re just something that can help, like if you need funding to go to an mfa and wants to know who funds
were the rankings presented as a shortcut..? i didn’t see that. the article seemed to say the opposite of that. they’re just something that can help, like if you need funding to go to an mfa and wants to know who funds
i thought it was an article about rankings..? did they publish an article on his business too?? can you link to it plz i want to read it
i thought it was an article about rankings..? did they publish an article on his business too?? can you link to it plz i want to read it
ps. hows this for scary- the abramson/kealey mfa handbook outsells bap on amazon!
ps. hows this for scary- the abramson/kealey mfa handbook outsells bap on amazon!
Huh? The Handbook is written by Kealey. Abramson is merely one of several guest contributors to the second volume. And yet now its “the abramson/kealey” handbook?
LOL
Huh? The Handbook is written by Kealey. Abramson is merely one of several guest contributors to the second volume. And yet now its “the abramson/kealey” handbook?
LOL
The 09 BAP has a much higher sales rank on Amazon as well.
The 09 BAP has a much higher sales rank on Amazon as well.
hey i don’t have any opinion on that, i don’t want to fight- its just the largest section of the book, the abrahmson part, like a fifth of it (just checked mine) and its the reason i know i bought it and some others did because its the most specific.. but i guess you could say its kealeys too or more kealeys than abramsons
hey i don’t have any opinion on that, i don’t want to fight- its just the largest section of the book, the abrahmson part, like a fifth of it (just checked mine) and its the reason i know i bought it and some others did because its the most specific.. but i guess you could say its kealeys too or more kealeys than abramsons
Yes I guess you could say that the book that Kealey wrote is more his than one of his guest contributors. Yes, that would make sense.
Yes I guess you could say that the book that Kealey wrote is more his than one of his guest contributors. Yes, that would make sense.
Yes, I guess you could say that the book that Kealey wrote is more his than one of several guest contributors to his second volume. Yes, that would make sense.
Amazon also gives a much higher sales rank to BAP than Kealey’s handbook, not that that is either here nor there.
Yes, I guess you could say that the book that Kealey wrote is more his than one of several guest contributors to his second volume. Yes, that would make sense.
Amazon also gives a much higher sales rank to BAP than Kealey’s handbook, not that that is either here nor there.
hi, like i said its not important to me for arguing, when i checked this morning it was higher than bap, i know that stuff changes a lot, maybe bap sells as much as the mfa book i don’t know, i doubt it though only b/c fiction/nf writers buy the mfa book also not the bap. yes its kealeys book but really most of it was written by other people, and abrahmson wrote more than others so i see it could go either way- not really worht arguing
hi, like i said its not important to me for arguing, when i checked this morning it was higher than bap, i know that stuff changes a lot, maybe bap sells as much as the mfa book i don’t know, i doubt it though only b/c fiction/nf writers buy the mfa book also not the bap. yes its kealeys book but really most of it was written by other people, and abrahmson wrote more than others so i see it could go either way- not really worht arguing
So, I’m waiting for the ultimate Jimmy Chen post on good old Seth.
I know others are also waiting. Make your voices heard.
Jimmy, you have the best posts. Always. And Seth is gold for you.
Seth’s rankings are fun. Good HTMLGiant fodder.
Here’s a question: how good is Seth as a poet? He’s been published EVERYWHERE except The New Yorker, The Atlantic, The Paris Review.
So, I’m waiting for the ultimate Jimmy Chen post on good old Seth.
I know others are also waiting. Make your voices heard.
Jimmy, you have the best posts. Always. And Seth is gold for you.
Seth’s rankings are fun. Good HTMLGiant fodder.
Here’s a question: how good is Seth as a poet? He’s been published EVERYWHERE except The New Yorker, The Atlantic, The Paris Review.
Speaking only for me, the sad thing is I think the blog is annoying but his poetry is pretty good actually (to me I mean). I try to separate poetry from poet (feel like I have to)
Speaking only for me, the sad thing is I think the blog is annoying but his poetry is pretty good actually (to me I mean). I try to separate poetry from poet (feel like I have to)
Stacey Harwood is a genuine researcher. Surveys and methodologies are her profession. Her initial post, which explained why Seth Abramson’s rankings were anything but scientific, seems well-rooted and smart.
Seth Abramson’s reasoning for not using scientific methods at all center around the limitations of self-reporting and the lack of resources to employ such methods in the first place. One look at ranking systems such as the Philosophical Gourmet (http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/) indicate what might be possible if there were a ranking system based on any sound methodology.
That said, this kind of ranking report is catnip for people like myself, who just love lists, rankings of all kinds. Anyone who bases a decision on a program to attend based solely on the list is probably clueless in the first place.
Stacey Harwood is a genuine researcher. Surveys and methodologies are her profession. Her initial post, which explained why Seth Abramson’s rankings were anything but scientific, seems well-rooted and smart.
Seth Abramson’s reasoning for not using scientific methods at all center around the limitations of self-reporting and the lack of resources to employ such methods in the first place. One look at ranking systems such as the Philosophical Gourmet (http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/) indicate what might be possible if there were a ranking system based on any sound methodology.
That said, this kind of ranking report is catnip for people like myself, who just love lists, rankings of all kinds. Anyone who bases a decision on a program to attend based solely on the list is probably clueless in the first place.
Hi Daniel,
If you see that methodology (which I went and read) as relevant to the problems faced by polling MFAs to create a ranking of programs, I’m not sure you’ve been tracking the extensive methodology debate that’s been going on for three years now and which Stacey–who is smart, motivated, and knows far more about statistics than me–has nevertheless not spent any time whatsoever following, and would have needed to understand in order to have added substantively to this long-standing debate. There’s so much low-hanging fruit in this discussion–and so much of it is so much fun for so many–that it’s easy to forget that the P&W rankings, and how they came about, actually can’t be summarized in a 100-word blog-post. And it’s easy to forget that the revelations Stacey claims to have made about the rankings’ methodology were made first–by *me*–three years ago, and were read, at the time and since, by many thousands of MFA applicants. The field of rankings is a lion’s den, because you can’t possibly please everyone and–in fact–you learn almost immediately that there is no perfect, unassailable methodology. You learn, too, that you sometimes have to choose between the needs of the field (and the rankings’ consumers) and the methodologies you might otherwise prefer; likewise, you find yourself constrained by facts beyond your control, like the fact that the data necessary to a scientific ranking of MFA rankings has never been made available and will not be made available prior to the universe imploding. Or that the population some people want you to poll has nothing probative to say to the actual consumers of the poll, and in fact has in the past done them significantly more harm than good where polling is concerned.
After three years mired in the rankings “question,” it takes no time at all to see more than a dozen immediate problems with the methodology you linked to (more than 10% of programs were excluded; 33% of the population to be polled ignored the poll; the poll measured only one trait, a trait many of the responding population did not have the requisite information to measure; the polling was not conducted over several years to compare survey data internally; the 1-to-5 ranking system is inexact, subjective, and non-scientific; the population to be polled was not screened for bias; each respondent was invited to choose their own definition of the question to be answered; the program trait measured was ephemeral and therefore the resultant rankings were immediately rendered obsolete upon publication; respondents were allowed to provide partial responses to the survey; the trait measured is not one the rankings’ consumers employ in making the decision the rankings say they are helping consumers make; poll respondents were not randomly selected; and so on and so on–that’s what I saw in the first minute after reading). The P&W poll (which is only a portion of what P&W published; we’re not speaking of the four uncontested rankings in the article) has many of the same flaws. But then, that wasn’t your point–your point was the opposite.
On one sort of thing at issue here–strategizing how best to organize and deliver a rankings system for a field that historically has been resistant to it–I am an expert, however pathetic that may be to concede. I know more about the target population and more about this field than anyone because I’ve spent more time researching it than anyone (by far); that’s no more arrogant to say than to note (as I do) that Stacey is a statistics expert and I’m not. The facts are what they are. When it comes to statistics, which are only one portion of the rankings “question,” Stacey is indeed more knowledgeable by leaps and bounds (though I have more credentials than either you or she have acknowledged, partly because you don’t know as much as you seem to think you do [which I don’t say harshly] about my autobiography). I wouldn’t last 10 minutes in Stacey’s job. But nor would she–I promise you–last 10 minutes trying to create the sort of fatally-flawed ranking system you’re envisioning here, particularly if she (for rhetorical, not substantive reasons) continues to focus exclusively on methodology and not at all on context. If readers read my latest blog-post (“A Response to AWP”), at least the tip of the iceberg re: that context can be seen, and the problems–as I’m guessing you know–go well beyond what you’ve described here. To talk about rankings as though they were synonymous with a college-level statistics course proves–immediately–that the speaker has never done any rankings-related research, or attempted to create a workable ranking for an unranked educational field.
Take care,
Seth
Hi Daniel,
If you see that methodology (which I went and read) as relevant to the problems faced by polling MFAs to create a ranking of programs, I’m not sure you’ve been tracking the extensive methodology debate that’s been going on for three years now and which Stacey–who is smart, motivated, and knows far more about statistics than me–has nevertheless not spent any time whatsoever following, and would have needed to understand in order to have added substantively to this long-standing debate. There’s so much low-hanging fruit in this discussion–and so much of it is so much fun for so many–that it’s easy to forget that the P&W rankings, and how they came about, actually can’t be summarized in a 100-word blog-post. And it’s easy to forget that the revelations Stacey claims to have made about the rankings’ methodology were made first–by *me*–three years ago, and were read, at the time and since, by many thousands of MFA applicants. The field of rankings is a lion’s den, because you can’t possibly please everyone and–in fact–you learn almost immediately that there is no perfect, unassailable methodology. You learn, too, that you sometimes have to choose between the needs of the field (and the rankings’ consumers) and the methodologies you might otherwise prefer; likewise, you find yourself constrained by facts beyond your control, like the fact that the data necessary to a scientific ranking of MFA rankings has never been made available and will not be made available prior to the universe imploding. Or that the population some people want you to poll has nothing probative to say to the actual consumers of the poll, and in fact has in the past done them significantly more harm than good where polling is concerned.
After three years mired in the rankings “question,” it takes no time at all to see more than a dozen immediate problems with the methodology you linked to (more than 10% of programs were excluded; 33% of the population to be polled ignored the poll; the poll measured only one trait, a trait many of the responding population did not have the requisite information to measure; the polling was not conducted over several years to compare survey data internally; the 1-to-5 ranking system is inexact, subjective, and non-scientific; the population to be polled was not screened for bias; each respondent was invited to choose their own definition of the question to be answered; the program trait measured was ephemeral and therefore the resultant rankings were immediately rendered obsolete upon publication; respondents were allowed to provide partial responses to the survey; the trait measured is not one the rankings’ consumers employ in making the decision the rankings say they are helping consumers make; poll respondents were not randomly selected; and so on and so on–that’s what I saw in the first minute after reading). The P&W poll (which is only a portion of what P&W published; we’re not speaking of the four uncontested rankings in the article) has many of the same flaws. But then, that wasn’t your point–your point was the opposite.
On one sort of thing at issue here–strategizing how best to organize and deliver a rankings system for a field that historically has been resistant to it–I am an expert, however pathetic that may be to concede. I know more about the target population and more about this field than anyone because I’ve spent more time researching it than anyone (by far); that’s no more arrogant to say than to note (as I do) that Stacey is a statistics expert and I’m not. The facts are what they are. When it comes to statistics, which are only one portion of the rankings “question,” Stacey is indeed more knowledgeable by leaps and bounds (though I have more credentials than either you or she have acknowledged, partly because you don’t know as much as you seem to think you do [which I don’t say harshly] about my autobiography). I wouldn’t last 10 minutes in Stacey’s job. But nor would she–I promise you–last 10 minutes trying to create the sort of fatally-flawed ranking system you’re envisioning here, particularly if she (for rhetorical, not substantive reasons) continues to focus exclusively on methodology and not at all on context. If readers read my latest blog-post (“A Response to AWP”), at least the tip of the iceberg re: that context can be seen, and the problems–as I’m guessing you know–go well beyond what you’ve described here. To talk about rankings as though they were synonymous with a college-level statistics course proves–immediately–that the speaker has never done any rankings-related research, or attempted to create a workable ranking for an unranked educational field.
Take care,
Seth
You type fast, Seth. What was my point again?
Oh, yeah–that there’s limitations to your methodologies. That is, there is none.
And Stacey Harwood, for whom statistics are her bailiwick, pointed that out.
Now, I know there’s other dynamics–the New School business, the Best Amercian wikipedia backs-and-forths–that, while interesting, have nothing to do with those statements of fact: that the report you did is not scientific.
Now, before you start hitting the “reply” button, as you did before reading my paragraph about how these surveys are enjoyable, that polls are enjoyable, that there is real information to cull from these things–try to hold to thoughts at the same time. Ready?
What college ranking poll-rankings-report is scientific? Answer: none. The Philosophical Gourmet is regarded as reputable, really reputable, but it is what is: not a scientific report, but a poll, a survey.
Your reservations on the Gourmet report have nothing to do with statistics, and nor does purport itself the survey a statistical report. It’s a survey. A survey-ranking by the reputations of the philosophy profs would not work for MFA programs–writers would just report themselves as #1.
Then again: It doesn’t seem terrible compelling to me, nor very helpful to making your project look so good, to go head-to-head with the “statistically sound” argument anyway–the US News and World Report rankings are hardly scientific, and I put your project in the same category.
Perhaps these criticisms arise because, as you say, you’re the first person to give a go in the MFA realm? Or the word-count overkill response in the process?
Is the full survey in the $4.99 PDF that Poets & Writers is selling now? Or is it in the next edition of the MFA guide?
That’s pretty much it. But please don’t say you’re “mired” in this whole business. You must love it, right? I mean, it’s your work now, your daygig. If you’re “mired” in all this, you should probably give up.
>>I’m not sure you’ve been tracking the extensive methodology debate that’s been going on for three years now << Abramson, @Nester.
I'm gonna have to go with Seth on this one, Dan. I am also deeply unsure about the extent to which you have been tracking the methodology debate. My concerns about the extent (and nature) of your trackage of this debate (and related debates) are deep, thorough, vast, expansive, substantive, denatured, pluralistic, ambiguous, amphibious, dietetic, pugilistic, dynastic, and abstract. I hope you will identify the nature of your trackology as qua said debate (please be sure to specify kind as well as degree) with all deliberate speed.
You type fast, Seth. What was my point again?
Oh, yeah–that there’s limitations to your methodologies. That is, there is none.
And Stacey Harwood, for whom statistics are her bailiwick, pointed that out.
Now, I know there’s other dynamics–the New School business, the Best Amercian wikipedia backs-and-forths–that, while interesting, have nothing to do with those statements of fact: that the report you did is not scientific.
Now, before you start hitting the “reply” button, as you did before reading my paragraph about how these surveys are enjoyable, that polls are enjoyable, that there is real information to cull from these things–try to hold to thoughts at the same time. Ready?
What college ranking poll-rankings-report is scientific? Answer: none. The Philosophical Gourmet is regarded as reputable, really reputable, but it is what is: not a scientific report, but a poll, a survey.
Your reservations on the Gourmet report have nothing to do with statistics, and nor does purport itself the survey a statistical report. It’s a survey. A survey-ranking by the reputations of the philosophy profs would not work for MFA programs–writers would just report themselves as #1.
Then again: It doesn’t seem terrible compelling to me, nor very helpful to making your project look so good, to go head-to-head with the “statistically sound” argument anyway–the US News and World Report rankings are hardly scientific, and I put your project in the same category.
Perhaps these criticisms arise because, as you say, you’re the first person to give a go in the MFA realm? Or the word-count overkill response in the process?
Is the full survey in the $4.99 PDF that Poets & Writers is selling now? Or is it in the next edition of the MFA guide?
That’s pretty much it. But please don’t say you’re “mired” in this whole business. You must love it, right? I mean, it’s your work now, your daygig. If you’re “mired” in all this, you should probably give up.
>>I’m not sure you’ve been tracking the extensive methodology debate that’s been going on for three years now << Abramson, @Nester.
I'm gonna have to go with Seth on this one, Dan. I am also deeply unsure about the extent to which you have been tracking the methodology debate. My concerns about the extent (and nature) of your trackage of this debate (and related debates) are deep, thorough, vast, expansive, substantive, denatured, pluralistic, ambiguous, amphibious, dietetic, pugilistic, dynastic, and abstract. I hope you will identify the nature of your trackology as qua said debate (please be sure to specify kind as well as degree) with all deliberate speed.
para 6
two thoughts
not to thoughts
para 6
two thoughts
not to thoughts
Daniel, c’mon, there’s no need to be patronizing. I wasn’t trying to be patronizing to you, I swear. I think my “tonal” limitations as an online writer are pretty well known–I write too formally, I’ve admitted as such many times, but that doesn’t mean I’m trying to get into a shouting match with you. I like discussion. We’re discussing something now. I like this. That’s all, I promise.
I appreciate that you said you enjoy the rankings, I only skipped that part in responding to you because I didn’t have anything particularly useful or interesting to say about it. Maybe that was wrong, so let me say now, I do appreciate you saying that.
I don’t know that we disagree about anything, Daniel. I may think Stacey did a lot more than merely point out a statistical problem–she actually went straight to a personal attack against me–but I don’t disagree with her point if we treat it as simply being that the rankings are unscientific. They are. I said this years ago. I don’t know why this becomes an “aha” moment that somehow proves I’ve been hiding something. Can you see why I’d consider that unfair, i.e. the insinuation that I’ve been “caught out” on something? Or how about this: Stacey deleted a comment I made on her blog which was my standard type of response, a long post on an esoteric topic (everyone here knows what a response from me looks like, yawn &c &c). Nothing out of the ordinary. Because no one can see that message now (because she deleted it), she now feels free to describe it as “threatening”–Daniel, if you knew me, you’d know there’s a zero percent chance I’d ever say anything threatening to Stacey Harwood. I can’t even conceive of doing that. But now she’s added to her point–which you say was her only point–this outrageous (I mean literally, as outrageous as if I suddenly called you a pedophile) allegation. Tell me, is that fair? How would you react if I wrote a blog-post tomorrow saying that you’d sent me a private message threatening to kill me? My blog gets read by many thousands of people a month–how upset would you be if I said something crazy like that and tried to make it stick? So I hope you can understand how, yes, I feel “mired” in this at the moment. At the moment this whole thing completely and utterly sucks a big fat egg.
The irony (separate point) is that I had originally typed another response to you which began, “You’re confusing rankings with surveys…” I deleted it, obviously I should have sent that one, it would have shown (based on how you were reading my response) that indeed I did follow your points. So anyway, to clarify: I am not trying to go “head-to-head” with the “statistically sound” argument; I said that the P&W rankings are “probative,” and I stand by that. I also think the USNWR rankings are probative, and so do you–otherwise, you’d have to tell me that you think the USNWR “rankings” of colleges are merely a random list of programs. Obviously they’re not. But scientific? No. To be clear, I’m only speaking of the poll here. I think the funding, selectivity, postgraduate, &c rankings are a separate conversation. There’s hard data at work there.
“Perhaps these criticisms arise because, as you say, you’re the first person to give a go in the MFA realm? Or the word-count overkill response in the process?”
You *think*? :-)
Yes on both counts. I write like a lawyer. I think like a lawyer. That doesn’t automatically make me an asshole (yes, yes, I see the obvious retort, “No, other things do…” &c &c, fine). For years the same verbosity that now gets me treated like a leper was used to defend the U.S. Constitution from stomping on poor people. Maybe that’s why I’ve always considered it the sort of thing that wouldn’t bring down a strong cause in itself. It’s a personal flaw, ok. My intentions are not bad.
The full survey’s in the print issue, and/or in that PDF (which I was paid a flat $100 to have my work appear in, lest anyone think I’m somehow getting royalties). Which reminds me, BTW, how many guys out to make a buck (“snake-oil salesmen!” they say!) sell 3 years of research, that’ll sell thousands of magazines, for $100? Rhetorical question. Sigh.
S.
Daniel, c’mon, there’s no need to be patronizing. I wasn’t trying to be patronizing to you, I swear. I think my “tonal” limitations as an online writer are pretty well known–I write too formally, I’ve admitted as such many times, but that doesn’t mean I’m trying to get into a shouting match with you. I like discussion. We’re discussing something now. I like this. That’s all, I promise.
I appreciate that you said you enjoy the rankings, I only skipped that part in responding to you because I didn’t have anything particularly useful or interesting to say about it. Maybe that was wrong, so let me say now, I do appreciate you saying that.
I don’t know that we disagree about anything, Daniel. I may think Stacey did a lot more than merely point out a statistical problem–she actually went straight to a personal attack against me–but I don’t disagree with her point if we treat it as simply being that the rankings are unscientific. They are. I said this years ago. I don’t know why this becomes an “aha” moment that somehow proves I’ve been hiding something. Can you see why I’d consider that unfair, i.e. the insinuation that I’ve been “caught out” on something? Or how about this: Stacey deleted a comment I made on her blog which was my standard type of response, a long post on an esoteric topic (everyone here knows what a response from me looks like, yawn &c &c). Nothing out of the ordinary. Because no one can see that message now (because she deleted it), she now feels free to describe it as “threatening”–Daniel, if you knew me, you’d know there’s a zero percent chance I’d ever say anything threatening to Stacey Harwood. I can’t even conceive of doing that. But now she’s added to her point–which you say was her only point–this outrageous (I mean literally, as outrageous as if I suddenly called you a pedophile) allegation. Tell me, is that fair? How would you react if I wrote a blog-post tomorrow saying that you’d sent me a private message threatening to kill me? My blog gets read by many thousands of people a month–how upset would you be if I said something crazy like that and tried to make it stick? So I hope you can understand how, yes, I feel “mired” in this at the moment. At the moment this whole thing completely and utterly sucks a big fat egg.
The irony (separate point) is that I had originally typed another response to you which began, “You’re confusing rankings with surveys…” I deleted it, obviously I should have sent that one, it would have shown (based on how you were reading my response) that indeed I did follow your points. So anyway, to clarify: I am not trying to go “head-to-head” with the “statistically sound” argument; I said that the P&W rankings are “probative,” and I stand by that. I also think the USNWR rankings are probative, and so do you–otherwise, you’d have to tell me that you think the USNWR “rankings” of colleges are merely a random list of programs. Obviously they’re not. But scientific? No. To be clear, I’m only speaking of the poll here. I think the funding, selectivity, postgraduate, &c rankings are a separate conversation. There’s hard data at work there.
“Perhaps these criticisms arise because, as you say, you’re the first person to give a go in the MFA realm? Or the word-count overkill response in the process?”
You *think*? :-)
Yes on both counts. I write like a lawyer. I think like a lawyer. That doesn’t automatically make me an asshole (yes, yes, I see the obvious retort, “No, other things do…” &c &c, fine). For years the same verbosity that now gets me treated like a leper was used to defend the U.S. Constitution from stomping on poor people. Maybe that’s why I’ve always considered it the sort of thing that wouldn’t bring down a strong cause in itself. It’s a personal flaw, ok. My intentions are not bad.
The full survey’s in the print issue, and/or in that PDF (which I was paid a flat $100 to have my work appear in, lest anyone think I’m somehow getting royalties). Which reminds me, BTW, how many guys out to make a buck (“snake-oil salesmen!” they say!) sell 3 years of research, that’ll sell thousands of magazines, for $100? Rhetorical question. Sigh.
S.
P.S. I read your article about leaving NYC (in the Morning News) and was moved by it. I know what it’s like to feel like an outsider though people are treating you like an insider. I know the feeling that one needs to get away–permanently–from a sort of environment that feels poisonous. The sort of environment in which the people around you (even if only “virtually” around you) have intentions toward you with which you’re not the least bit comfortable.
P.S. I read your article about leaving NYC (in the Morning News) and was moved by it. I know what it’s like to feel like an outsider though people are treating you like an insider. I know the feeling that one needs to get away–permanently–from a sort of environment that feels poisonous. The sort of environment in which the people around you (even if only “virtually” around you) have intentions toward you with which you’re not the least bit comfortable.
seth, were you ever spanked as a boy?
seth, were you ever spanked as a boy?
Dude, where was I patronizing?
I was telling you that you gots ta chill.
But it is hard to chill when you see people writing about you online. Believe me, I know.
Some of this agita has to come from how your PR people are portraying you–by which I mean the lawyerese of words like “probative.” In laypeople’s terms, you would call it a “first try,” which rings as a much better apologia than using the former term.
I can’t account for what other people say about you. I’ve always thought you were a good, smart guy, a solid-ass poet. My only quibble with you was you spent time on Ron Silliman’s website’s comment fields. If that’s the worst thing I can say about you, you’re pretty good in my book.
My comment, in other words, doesn’t add up to disagreement: just an observation. The others ones I made, I think, you agree with–the Guy Who First Tried To Rank MFA Programs problem, shit like that–that’s gonna happen.
Dude, where was I patronizing?
I was telling you that you gots ta chill.
But it is hard to chill when you see people writing about you online. Believe me, I know.
Some of this agita has to come from how your PR people are portraying you–by which I mean the lawyerese of words like “probative.” In laypeople’s terms, you would call it a “first try,” which rings as a much better apologia than using the former term.
I can’t account for what other people say about you. I’ve always thought you were a good, smart guy, a solid-ass poet. My only quibble with you was you spent time on Ron Silliman’s website’s comment fields. If that’s the worst thing I can say about you, you’re pretty good in my book.
My comment, in other words, doesn’t add up to disagreement: just an observation. The others ones I made, I think, you agree with–the Guy Who First Tried To Rank MFA Programs problem, shit like that–that’s gonna happen.
Blake, just five minutes. Five minutes is all I’m asking for. I’m trying to talk to a guy about a thing, but like an adult sort of thing. I promise you can go back to toilet humor or whatever in like five minutes, frankly a lot of it I do find funny, just seriously dude if you can put it on hold for five minutes I would appreciate it.
Blake, just five minutes. Five minutes is all I’m asking for. I’m trying to talk to a guy about a thing, but like an adult sort of thing. I promise you can go back to toilet humor or whatever in like five minutes, frankly a lot of it I do find funny, just seriously dude if you can put it on hold for five minutes I would appreciate it.
Dude, when you try to walk an attorney–particularly a public defender–through the idea of cognitive dissonance and/or multi-tasking (“try to hold two thoughts at the same time. Ready?”) it comes off a certain way. Maybe I misread. In fact I probably did misread, I do that a lot too. Forget I said anything. Like I said, we’re pretty much on the same page.
And yes–My PR guy should have been fired a long time ago. He has absolutely no clue — he’s winging it, I promise you.
Peace,
Seth
Dude, when you try to walk an attorney–particularly a public defender–through the idea of cognitive dissonance and/or multi-tasking (“try to hold two thoughts at the same time. Ready?”) it comes off a certain way. Maybe I misread. In fact I probably did misread, I do that a lot too. Forget I said anything. Like I said, we’re pretty much on the same page.
And yes–My PR guy should have been fired a long time ago. He has absolutely no clue — he’s winging it, I promise you.
Peace,
Seth
Thanks for your kind words about The Morning News piece. The poetry world makes me uncomfortable. I am glad I got out of New York and out of the poetry business, which thinks to be anything but a business. For years, I thought it was something I could handle. Between New York and online poetry universes, something had to go. I was me–the house always wins.
Thanks for your kind words about The Morning News piece. The poetry world makes me uncomfortable. I am glad I got out of New York and out of the poetry business, which thinks to be anything but a business. For years, I thought it was something I could handle. Between New York and online poetry universes, something had to go. I was me–the house always wins.
In an earlier version of my post, I was going to say “probative” made me think of “probing,” and then I thought of other things having nothing to do with surveying or ranking. So that’s how I roll. I thought the two-thoughts-in-one-head crack as an allusion to Fitzgerald’s “The Crack-Up,” and was urging you to read my whole comment, because I was about to agree with you and shit. I.e, gots ta chill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjlNZQe6U-A
In an earlier version of my post, I was going to say “probative” made me think of “probing,” and then I thought of other things having nothing to do with surveying or ranking. So that’s how I roll. I thought the two-thoughts-in-one-head crack as an allusion to Fitzgerald’s “The Crack-Up,” and was urging you to read my whole comment, because I was about to agree with you and shit. I.e, gots ta chill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjlNZQe6U-A
your five minutes are up.
your five minutes are up.
and that was a serious question.
and that was a serious question.
Rankings aren’t meant to be a substitute for research, it’s just one data point. When you do a product search on Amazon, you can sort by “best rated” or price, low to high or high to low, or by relevance, etc. The existence of those rankings isn’t meant to replace human judgment. They’re just filters/heuristics.
Physics and math programs vary widely along the same lines, humanities aren’t special in that regard.
Rankings aren’t meant to be a substitute for research, it’s just one data point. When you do a product search on Amazon, you can sort by “best rated” or price, low to high or high to low, or by relevance, etc. The existence of those rankings isn’t meant to replace human judgment. They’re just filters/heuristics.
Physics and math programs vary widely along the same lines, humanities aren’t special in that regard.
Blake,
The details of my life are quite inconsequential. My father was a relentlessly self-improving boulangerie owner from Belgium with low-grade narcolepsy and a penchant for buggery. My mother was a 15-year-old French prostitute named Chloe with webbed feet. My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes, he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament.
My childhood was typical: summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we’d make meat helmets. When I was insolent I was placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds — pretty standard, really. At the age of twelve, I received my first scribe. At the age of fourteen, a Zoroastrian named Vilmer ritualistically shaved my testicles. There really is nothing like a shorn scrotum — it’s breathtaking, I suggest you try it.
S.
Blake,
The details of my life are quite inconsequential. My father was a relentlessly self-improving boulangerie owner from Belgium with low-grade narcolepsy and a penchant for buggery. My mother was a 15-year-old French prostitute named Chloe with webbed feet. My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes, he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament.
My childhood was typical: summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we’d make meat helmets. When I was insolent I was placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds — pretty standard, really. At the age of twelve, I received my first scribe. At the age of fourteen, a Zoroastrian named Vilmer ritualistically shaved my testicles. There really is nothing like a shorn scrotum — it’s breathtaking, I suggest you try it.
S.
what MFA programs should Mike Myers apply to, based on this sample?
what MFA programs should Mike Myers apply to, based on this sample?
Seth I thought you were a grad student not a public defender/attorney.
Seth I thought you were a grad student not a public defender/attorney.
That’s easy: Bennington.
seth can i interview you about your life
That’s easy: Bennington.
seth can i interview you about your life
What rankings are not meant to be and what they are for most people are often quite different things. I think Hardwood’s question is how much a “data point” a self-selected, unprotected—did students or faculty log in to multiple fake names to post boost their own programs ranking? Quite likely some did—blog poll is.
What rankings are not meant to be and what they are for most people are often quite different things. I think Hardwood’s question is how much a “data point” a self-selected, unprotected—did students or faculty log in to multiple fake names to post boost their own programs ranking? Quite likely some did—blog poll is.
Blake,
Perhaps you’re interested in how a man undresses. You know, it’s a funny thing about that. Quite a study in psychology. No two men do it alike. You know, I once knew a man who kept his hat on until he was completely undressed. Now he made a picture. Years later, his secret came out. He wore a toupee.
Yeah, I have a method all my own. If you notice, the coat came first, then the tie, then the shirt. Now, according to Hoyle, after that the pants should be next. There’s where I’m different. I go for the shoes next. First the right. Then the left. After that, it’s every man for himself.
S.
Blake,
Perhaps you’re interested in how a man undresses. You know, it’s a funny thing about that. Quite a study in psychology. No two men do it alike. You know, I once knew a man who kept his hat on until he was completely undressed. Now he made a picture. Years later, his secret came out. He wore a toupee.
Yeah, I have a method all my own. If you notice, the coat came first, then the tie, then the shirt. Now, according to Hoyle, after that the pants should be next. There’s where I’m different. I go for the shoes next. First the right. Then the left. After that, it’s every man for himself.
S.
Hi Sam,
I graduated from Dartmouth in 1998 (English/Sociology), attended Harvard Law School from 1998 to 2001, practiced criminal law as a public defender in Massachusetts my third year in law school (2001) under a certificate, and then worked for the New Hampshire Public Defender from 2001 to 2007 (everything from juveniles truancies to first-degree murder). From 2007 to 2009, I attended the Iowa Writers’ Workshop. Starting in 2009, I became a doctoral student in English Literature at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. During the time I was a public defender in New Hampshire I was also a political analyst for Air America Radio, anonymously ran and was the primary journo for a popular political website specializing in election law (particularly vote-counting errors; the site was the first-ever Blogger-hosted media outlet ever listed on Google News), founded a literary magazine (The New Hampshire Review), and created the first funding-inflected MFA rankings (published in January of 2007, nearly three years ago). I’ve also been a disc jockey, a secretary, a newspaper editorialist, a Division I college basketball radio broadcaster, a criminal investigator in Anacostia (D.C.), and a bunch of other things. Now I’m a small business owner in addition to being a grad student, a university Project Assistant, a poet, an attorney, and a freelance journalist. At every single turn I’ve given up opportunities to make a lot of money because money isn’t what drives me; everyone who knows me knows that about me. I turned 33 yesterday, so yes, I’m trying to pack quite a lot into as little a space as possible. I hope that won’t make you think I’m making it all up. I’ve never been satisfied wearing just one hat.
Be well,
Seth
what if i wear my shoes on my hands? where should i go for to study poetries? my friend told me i speak good poetry, i want to learn, please help me – so alone with this vault of money that i swim in
Hi Sam,
I graduated from Dartmouth in 1998 (English/Sociology), attended Harvard Law School from 1998 to 2001, practiced criminal law as a public defender in Massachusetts my third year in law school (2001) under a certificate, and then worked for the New Hampshire Public Defender from 2001 to 2007 (everything from juveniles truancies to first-degree murder). From 2007 to 2009, I attended the Iowa Writers’ Workshop. Starting in 2009, I became a doctoral student in English Literature at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. During the time I was a public defender in New Hampshire I was also a political analyst for Air America Radio, anonymously ran and was the primary journo for a popular political website specializing in election law (particularly vote-counting errors; the site was the first-ever Blogger-hosted media outlet ever listed on Google News), founded a literary magazine (The New Hampshire Review), and created the first funding-inflected MFA rankings (published in January of 2007, nearly three years ago). I’ve also been a disc jockey, a secretary, a newspaper editorialist, a Division I college basketball radio broadcaster, a criminal investigator in Anacostia (D.C.), and a bunch of other things. Now I’m a small business owner in addition to being a grad student, a university Project Assistant, a poet, an attorney, and a freelance journalist. At every single turn I’ve given up opportunities to make a lot of money because money isn’t what drives me; everyone who knows me knows that about me. I turned 33 yesterday, so yes, I’m trying to pack quite a lot into as little a space as possible. I hope that won’t make you think I’m making it all up. I’ve never been satisfied wearing just one hat.
Be well,
Seth
what if i wear my shoes on my hands? where should i go for to study poetries? my friend told me i speak good poetry, i want to learn, please help me – so alone with this vault of money that i swim in
Blake,
If I didn’t admire your wit so much, I might seriously tell you to go do something anatomically impossible. I really don’t like being patronized, and you can tell Rauan that too. The idea that I’m somehow oblivious to what you all think of me is charming, but much more for your benefit than mine. When you have to stand up in front of a public gallery every day for seven years and say things most people would hate you for (and many do, openly), you learn to take a very expansive view of when a man ought feel ashamed for saying what he honestly believes. I’m not 18, I’m a thirty-something, so it’s different for me; I don’t know how old you are, Blake, but if you’re not 30 yet you’ll see what I mean when you are. That’s not intended to be patronizing, it’s just how things go.
I do think this site is pretty funny, though. Not “A Serious Man” funny, but funny.
S.
Blake,
If I didn’t admire your wit so much, I might seriously tell you to go do something anatomically impossible. I really don’t like being patronized, and you can tell Rauan that too. The idea that I’m somehow oblivious to what you all think of me is charming, but much more for your benefit than mine. When you have to stand up in front of a public gallery every day for seven years and say things most people would hate you for (and many do, openly), you learn to take a very expansive view of when a man ought feel ashamed for saying what he honestly believes. I’m not 18, I’m a thirty-something, so it’s different for me; I don’t know how old you are, Blake, but if you’re not 30 yet you’ll see what I mean when you are. That’s not intended to be patronizing, it’s just how things go.
I do think this site is pretty funny, though. Not “A Serious Man” funny, but funny.
S.
Seth, Thanks for the bio, although that wasn’t my point of my question.
My question is: are you still a public defender? It sounds like you’ve been a lot of things, like all of us have. But when you are in the middle of a discussion about your statistics, trying to pass off your patronizing tone by saying stuff like “Dude, sorry, I’m a public defender!” makes you look foolish. You’re a grad student, okay? As far as I know, you’re no longer a public defender.
Seth, Thanks for the bio, although that wasn’t my point of my question.
My question is: are you still a public defender? It sounds like you’ve been a lot of things, like all of us have. But when you are in the middle of a discussion about your statistics, trying to pass off your patronizing tone by saying stuff like “Dude, sorry, I’m a public defender!” makes you look foolish. You’re a grad student, okay? As far as I know, you’re no longer a public defender.
Reynard,
From what I can see, no matter what system of government we have, there will always be leaders and always be followers. It’s like the road out in front of my house. It’s on a steep hill. Every day I watch the cars climbing up. Some go lickety-split up that hill on high, some have to shift into second, and some sputter and shake and slip back to the bottom again. Same cars, same gasoline, yet some make it and some don’t. And I say the fellas who can make the hill on high should stop once in a while and help those who can’t. That’s all I’m trying to do with this money. Help the fellas who can’t make the hill on high.
S.
Reynard,
From what I can see, no matter what system of government we have, there will always be leaders and always be followers. It’s like the road out in front of my house. It’s on a steep hill. Every day I watch the cars climbing up. Some go lickety-split up that hill on high, some have to shift into second, and some sputter and shake and slip back to the bottom again. Same cars, same gasoline, yet some make it and some don’t. And I say the fellas who can make the hill on high should stop once in a while and help those who can’t. That’s all I’m trying to do with this money. Help the fellas who can’t make the hill on high.
S.
Remember when Seth said he was “orchestrate a sea change in an entire industry by [himself]”? Dude has an ego that would make Kanye West embarrassed.
Remember when Seth said he was “orchestrate a sea change in an entire industry by [himself]”? Dude has an ego that would make Kanye West embarrassed.
Hi Sam,
Sorry, I misunderstood the question — I thought you were asking how I came to be a grad student if I say I’m also an attorney, and/or calling into question whether I’m being honest when I say that I’m both a grad student and an attorney, and/or saying that being trained as a public defender is something one turns off like a spigot (by way of analogy, I think the theory would be that when one acts like an asshole, and then stops acting like an asshole, one does not remember the ways of assholes as being inherent to the self; yet this seems unlikely to me, so I’d love to hear your thoughts on how the process actually plays out). Now that I understand what you’re trying to insinuate, let me offer a better response to you. I shall tell the truth. Because if I did not, my nights would be haunted by the specter of an innocent being expiating under the most frightful torture a crime he never committed. It is impossible for honest people to read this iniquitous bill of accusation against me without being overcome with indignation and crying out their revulsion. I know several languages — crime. I work hard — crime. No compromising papers are found in my apartment — crime. I go occasionally to the country of my origin — crime. I endeavor to learn everything — crime. I’m not easily worried — crime. I am easily worried — also a crime. For over a year, the Minister of War and the General Staff have known that I’m innocent, but they’ve kept this knowledge to themselves. And those men sleep, and they have wives and children they love. One speaks of the ‘honor of the Army.’ The Army is the people of France themselves. And this affair is a matter pertaining to that Army. I cannot be vindicated without condemning the whole General Staff– and in making these accusations, I am aware that I render myself open to prosecution for libel. But that does not matter. The action I take is designed only to hasten the explosion of truth and justice. Let there be a trial in the full light of day! I am waiting.
S.
I like the little comic thingy on his blog.
Hi Sam,
Sorry, I misunderstood the question — I thought you were asking how I came to be a grad student if I say I’m also an attorney, and/or calling into question whether I’m being honest when I say that I’m both a grad student and an attorney, and/or saying that being trained as a public defender is something one turns off like a spigot (by way of analogy, I think the theory would be that when one acts like an asshole, and then stops acting like an asshole, one does not remember the ways of assholes as being inherent to the self; yet this seems unlikely to me, so I’d love to hear your thoughts on how the process actually plays out). Now that I understand what you’re trying to insinuate, let me offer a better response to you. I shall tell the truth. Because if I did not, my nights would be haunted by the specter of an innocent being expiating under the most frightful torture a crime he never committed. It is impossible for honest people to read this iniquitous bill of accusation against me without being overcome with indignation and crying out their revulsion. I know several languages — crime. I work hard — crime. No compromising papers are found in my apartment — crime. I go occasionally to the country of my origin — crime. I endeavor to learn everything — crime. I’m not easily worried — crime. I am easily worried — also a crime. For over a year, the Minister of War and the General Staff have known that I’m innocent, but they’ve kept this knowledge to themselves. And those men sleep, and they have wives and children they love. One speaks of the ‘honor of the Army.’ The Army is the people of France themselves. And this affair is a matter pertaining to that Army. I cannot be vindicated without condemning the whole General Staff– and in making these accusations, I am aware that I render myself open to prosecution for libel. But that does not matter. The action I take is designed only to hasten the explosion of truth and justice. Let there be a trial in the full light of day! I am waiting.
S.
I like the little comic thingy on his blog.
Snap! Misquote, though. I said “trying to”–kind of strange how that didn’t make it into what you said. Add in “trying to,” and I just sound like a starry-eyed idealist with a plucky fantasy of making Big Change in the world. Of course, Kanye’s also just such an idealist… Hmm… Oh man. Totally confused now. Don’t do that to me, D!
S.
Snap! Misquote, though. I said “trying to”–kind of strange how that didn’t make it into what you said. Add in “trying to,” and I just sound like a starry-eyed idealist with a plucky fantasy of making Big Change in the world. Of course, Kanye’s also just such an idealist… Hmm… Oh man. Totally confused now. Don’t do that to me, D!
S.
Seth, thank you for making clear you are no longer a public defender. I used to work in a bookstore, and I was trained in the bookselling arts, so I know how you feel. Sometimes, when arguing/discussing with someone about things, I accidentally tell people “Sorry! I’m a bookseller! It’s all I know!”
Seth, thank you for making clear you are no longer a public defender. I used to work in a bookstore, and I was trained in the bookselling arts, so I know how you feel. Sometimes, when arguing/discussing with someone about things, I accidentally tell people “Sorry! I’m a bookseller! It’s all I know!”
Sam,
A fellow can remember a lot of things you wouldn’t think he’d remember. You take me. One day I was crossing over to Jersey on the ferry. And as we pulled out, there was another ferry pulling in. And on it there was a girl waiting to get off. A white dress she had on. She was carrying a white parasol. I only saw her for one second. She didn’t see me at all. But I’ll bet a month hasn’t gone by since that I haven’t thought of that girl.
S.
Sam,
A fellow can remember a lot of things you wouldn’t think he’d remember. You take me. One day I was crossing over to Jersey on the ferry. And as we pulled out, there was another ferry pulling in. And on it there was a girl waiting to get off. A white dress she had on. She was carrying a white parasol. I only saw her for one second. She didn’t see me at all. But I’ll bet a month hasn’t gone by since that I haven’t thought of that girl.
S.
haberdashery is all I know
haberdashery is all I know
This was fun–gotta bounce. PD stuff calls. Oh, I mean PhD stuff.
S.
This was fun–gotta bounce. PD stuff calls. Oh, I mean PhD stuff.
S.
someone should delete all of seth’s comments. please?
someone should delete all of seth’s comments. please?
case and point – Pound
case and point – Pound
Para one: are none, not is none
His books it titled The Suburban Ecstasies so probably terrible.
Para one: are none, not is none
His books it titled The Suburban Ecstasies so probably terrible.
I agree! I can’t believe we’re being subjected to this! This is outrageous! And on a BLOG no less!
Do something, somebody PLEASE!
— Stuart
PS Please delete Joe’s comment also! It’s an outrage! THANK you!
I agree! I can’t believe we’re being subjected to this! This is outrageous! And on a BLOG no less!
Do something, somebody PLEASE!
— Stuart
PS Please delete Joe’s comment also! It’s an outrage! THANK you!
well, its just its soooooooo long!
well, its just its soooooooo long!
i would like to voice sincere admiration for seth’s negotiation of the “htmlgiant aesthetic” in his self-defense here
lazy chestnuts
that’s good stuff
i would like to voice sincere admiration for seth’s negotiation of the “htmlgiant aesthetic” in his self-defense here
lazy chestnuts
that’s good stuff
Just because some people in New York are bad, doesn’t mean they all are. The town is big enough for everyone. Why leave because of the people? That seems a little melodramatic. Why not just avoid literary people and events? It’s easy. Millions of New Yorkers do that every day. There’s lots of other stuff to do.
Just because some people in New York are bad, doesn’t mean they all are. The town is big enough for everyone. Why leave because of the people? That seems a little melodramatic. Why not just avoid literary people and events? It’s easy. Millions of New Yorkers do that every day. There’s lots of other stuff to do.
Seth’s attempts at hip link (“hey man!,” “like, seriously, whoa dude,” and shit like that) is hilarious. He’s a stodgy fucking prick who used to get beat by his ex-girlfriend. In person he’s quiet as a little mole rat. His keyboard warrior routine is hilarious, though, I have to admit. I love it. The dude is like the L. Ron Hubbard of poetry. Bravo!
Seth’s attempts at hip link (“hey man!,” “like, seriously, whoa dude,” and shit like that) is hilarious. He’s a stodgy fucking prick who used to get beat by his ex-girlfriend. In person he’s quiet as a little mole rat. His keyboard warrior routine is hilarious, though, I have to admit. I love it. The dude is like the L. Ron Hubbard of poetry. Bravo!
That would be LINGO, not “link”. Thank you. Seth’s got me so excited I am typing with abandon, frothing at the fingertips for another one of his run-on sentences heavy with parentheticals and those obnoxious italics he throws in like so many peppercorns in a too-tossed salad.
That would be LINGO, not “link”. Thank you. Seth’s got me so excited I am typing with abandon, frothing at the fingertips for another one of his run-on sentences heavy with parentheticals and those obnoxious italics he throws in like so many peppercorns in a too-tossed salad.
Was that really Seth? I don’t remember him being quite the pompous blowhard he is here when I used to read Kealey’s blog.
Was that really Seth? I don’t remember him being quite the pompous blowhard he is here when I used to read Kealey’s blog.
Wow.
Wow.
“Pauly,”
Holy shit! You’re my fucking hero, MAN! Is this the drug-addicted, misanthropic, “minimalist”-humpdick hermit who lives in a cabin in northern California and jerks off to pictures of his female “friends” on Facebook when he isn’t begging for gifts from strangers or posting pictures of titties on his blog, OR the ex-Navy/MFA-dropout reprobate whose embarrassing, highly-public man-love crushes show him to still be the pathetic, second-rate, dead-ender poetry-hanger-on he has been since he was workshopping his squeeze-turd poetry online in the 1990s? Inquiring minds wanna know, LIKE SERIOUSLY, DUDE! You ain’t never met me, SPORT, if you think I’m quiet as a little mole rat. Wanna meet up? It’d be EDUCATIONAL (and “shit like that”).
Pathetic–
S.
“Pauly,”
Holy shit! You’re my fucking hero, MAN! Is this the drug-addicted, misanthropic, “minimalist”-humpdick hermit who lives in a cabin in northern California and jerks off to pictures of his female “friends” on Facebook when he isn’t begging for gifts from strangers or posting pictures of titties on his blog, OR the ex-Navy/MFA-dropout reprobate whose embarrassing, highly-public man-love crushes show him to still be the pathetic, second-rate, dead-ender poetry-hanger-on he has been since he was workshopping his squeeze-turd poetry online in the 1990s? Inquiring minds wanna know, LIKE SERIOUSLY, DUDE! You ain’t never met me, SPORT, if you think I’m quiet as a little mole rat. Wanna meet up? It’d be EDUCATIONAL (and “shit like that”).
Pathetic–
S.
that’s what i’m saying, i think he is getting in the spirit of the game here
that’s what i’m saying, i think he is getting in the spirit of the game here
PS I know who you are, you little limp-dick fuck, and I also know this isn’t the first time–or the thousandth–you’ve gotten “excited” at the keyboard. Drop dead in a pool of your own filthy spooge, asshole. Mind you, I’m only saying all this to try to fit in here. In person I am LITTLE MOLE RAT of course.
PS I know who you are, you little limp-dick fuck, and I also know this isn’t the first time–or the thousandth–you’ve gotten “excited” at the keyboard. Drop dead in a pool of your own filthy spooge, asshole. Mind you, I’m only saying all this to try to fit in here. In person I am LITTLE MOLE RAT of course.
Mike, I’m trying. I’m testing out my if-I-ever-see-you-in-person-you-won’t-soon-forget-it schtick with PW, below, but I can’t tell if he gets the message or not. PW tends to get so worked up when he includes the words “tossed salad” in a post that he’s totally useless to the six year-old boy he ritually buggers in his mother’s basement for at least a few hours or so.
Whoa dude–this stuff is *hard*! All in good fun, though, all in good fun.
Sorry–I’d be italicizing all sorts of things like peppercorns here but I can’t fathom the HTML on HTML GIANT. I guess I’ll just have to say that I would LOVE TO MEET Pauly Walnuts when he’s not cowering behind a pseudonym like he use to cower behind his sister’s bum while dad was servicing the landlady.
S.
Mike, I’m trying. I’m testing out my if-I-ever-see-you-in-person-you-won’t-soon-forget-it schtick with PW, below, but I can’t tell if he gets the message or not. PW tends to get so worked up when he includes the words “tossed salad” in a post that he’s totally useless to the six year-old boy he ritually buggers in his mother’s basement for at least a few hours or so.
Whoa dude–this stuff is *hard*! All in good fun, though, all in good fun.
Sorry–I’d be italicizing all sorts of things like peppercorns here but I can’t fathom the HTML on HTML GIANT. I guess I’ll just have to say that I would LOVE TO MEET Pauly Walnuts when he’s not cowering behind a pseudonym like he use to cower behind his sister’s bum while dad was servicing the landlady.
S.
Wrong and wrong, Seth! But it’s amazing the love you still have for Massey and Robinson. I think they moved on a long time ago from your vortex of bullshit, you clown. I’m not male, despite my moniker. I met you at the AWP last year.
Wrong and wrong, Seth! But it’s amazing the love you still have for Massey and Robinson. I think they moved on a long time ago from your vortex of bullshit, you clown. I’m not male, despite my moniker. I met you at the AWP last year.
Hi all,
Okay, this is getting crazy. I had a conversation with Daniel Nester earlier today, and it seemed to me that conversation was civil and productive, but I’d ask that whoever has been posting under my name (at least, in several posts since then, including the four immediately above this one, but it looks like a couple others as well [at least]) stop doing so. I can fight my own battles, thank you, and when I do fight them I’ll do it in my own way. I knew there was a reason I avoid this blog. I mean, Jesus, at least a modicum of decency would be swell!
Be well,
Seth (Abramson)
Hi all,
Okay, this is getting crazy. I had a conversation with Daniel Nester earlier today, and it seemed to me that conversation was civil and productive, but I’d ask that whoever has been posting under my name (at least, in several posts since then, including the four immediately above this one, but it looks like a couple others as well [at least]) stop doing so. I can fight my own battles, thank you, and when I do fight them I’ll do it in my own way. I knew there was a reason I avoid this blog. I mean, Jesus, at least a modicum of decency would be swell!
Be well,
Seth (Abramson)
All right, just kidding. I’ve actually got no problem with the guy, never met him and don’t care to, I just imagine he’s one of these quiet types in person. Those run-on sentences are pretty heavy with parentheticals, though, and I do think a little obnoxious. But whatever.
All right, just kidding. I’ve actually got no problem with the guy, never met him and don’t care to, I just imagine he’s one of these quiet types in person. Those run-on sentences are pretty heavy with parentheticals, though, and I do think a little obnoxious. But whatever.
I don’t know what to believe anymore.
I don’t know what to believe anymore.
Haha, now that’s a fake Seth.
Haha, now that’s a fake Seth.
HA! I wasn’t AT the AWP last year, jerk-off! Try again, ass-clown!
HA! I wasn’t AT the AWP last year, jerk-off! Try again, ass-clown!
I take it all back and I want everyone to buy Seth’s book and stop picking on him. Raun hypnotized me with his Seth sex fantasies and I felt violated and decided to take it out on him here. I’m sorry, Seth. Let’s agree to be comrades. I feel ashamed.
Don’t worry, I don’t take it personally. This is a pretty intense site, I’ve realized that ever since Rauan Klassnik (who’s stalked me elsewhere) was brought on board, not that I really care about Rauan anymore either. I’m not taking anything said here as a big deal; I’m a big boy, I can handle it (apart from, I suppose, someone pretending to be me, which, I’ll concede, gets way under my craw).
Take care,
Seth (Abramson)
I take it all back and I want everyone to buy Seth’s book and stop picking on him. Raun hypnotized me with his Seth sex fantasies and I felt violated and decided to take it out on him here. I’m sorry, Seth. Let’s agree to be comrades. I feel ashamed.
Don’t worry, I don’t take it personally. This is a pretty intense site, I’ve realized that ever since Rauan Klassnik (who’s stalked me elsewhere) was brought on board, not that I really care about Rauan anymore either. I’m not taking anything said here as a big deal; I’m a big boy, I can handle it (apart from, I suppose, someone pretending to be me, which, I’ll concede, gets way under my craw).
Take care,
Seth (Abramson)
Whoa–not cool. I fucked around with the guy, fine, but that’s it, you don’t just pick up my handle and run with it, guy. Knock it off.
Whoa–not cool. I fucked around with the guy, fine, but that’s it, you don’t just pick up my handle and run with it, guy. Knock it off.
I write Flarf.
I write Flarf.
Okay, “Seth,” that’s a good bit of proof right there that you’re impersonating me–I *was* at AWP last year, lots of people saw me there. That said, I don’t have any recollection of meeting or spending any significant time with any woman I hadn’t met before; I spent most of AWP a) off-site sight-seeing in Chicago, and b) hanging out (when I was at the event at all, though really it was just the Book Fair, as I didn’t go to a single panel or on-site reading) with IWW folks who all already knew me. But in any case, I don’t think it was the “real” Pauly Walnuts who said he (she? I have no idea anymore) met me at AWP, so why doesn’t everyone just stop (re-)using handles, already? I’m totally confused. I know who Massey and Robinson are, of course, and a lot of people know we had a tiff, I broadcast it pretty widely on my blog I’ll admit (though this was way back?) but I’ve no interest in dealing with those guys now, again, or ever.
Be well,
Seth
Okay, “Seth,” that’s a good bit of proof right there that you’re impersonating me–I *was* at AWP last year, lots of people saw me there. That said, I don’t have any recollection of meeting or spending any significant time with any woman I hadn’t met before; I spent most of AWP a) off-site sight-seeing in Chicago, and b) hanging out (when I was at the event at all, though really it was just the Book Fair, as I didn’t go to a single panel or on-site reading) with IWW folks who all already knew me. But in any case, I don’t think it was the “real” Pauly Walnuts who said he (she? I have no idea anymore) met me at AWP, so why doesn’t everyone just stop (re-)using handles, already? I’m totally confused. I know who Massey and Robinson are, of course, and a lot of people know we had a tiff, I broadcast it pretty widely on my blog I’ll admit (though this was way back?) but I’ve no interest in dealing with those guys now, again, or ever.
Be well,
Seth
Too late, cheese-dick! It’s WAR now, LADDIE– Strap it ON, woo hoo!
Too late, cheese-dick! It’s WAR now, LADDIE– Strap it ON, woo hoo!
Cool- Peace out, chief.
Well I can tell you for a fact that Massey has spent the last two years in rehab. He’s now a devout Catholic and would never enter this kind of discussion. I can’t speak for anyone else.
Cool- Peace out, chief.
Well I can tell you for a fact that Massey has spent the last two years in rehab. He’s now a devout Catholic and would never enter this kind of discussion. I can’t speak for anyone else.
Nice try — *I* write flarf.
Nice try — *I* write flarf.
this is pretty lame now, seems like just nonsense for where im reading, the new threads here are way better
this is pretty lame now, seems like just nonsense for where im reading, the new threads here are way better
Pauly Walnuts,
Okay, that’s good to know, I guess. I only met Joe one time, it was not a pleasant meeting, but I’ve never seen or heard from him since then except on a blog-thread a few months back, though it was Tony (who I’ve known much longer, and used to be on okay terms with) who came after me then (but pretty mildly). But whatever, I wish the guy best of luck. And if someone here who knows about my history with this person (and you’d have to have been reading TSE for a very long time to know it) thinks it’s funny to try to fan old flames, it really isn’t. I’m embroiled in enough nonsense as it is, I don’t need any additional grief from any corner.
Take care,
Seth (Abramson)
Pauly Walnuts,
Okay, that’s good to know, I guess. I only met Joe one time, it was not a pleasant meeting, but I’ve never seen or heard from him since then except on a blog-thread a few months back, though it was Tony (who I’ve known much longer, and used to be on okay terms with) who came after me then (but pretty mildly). But whatever, I wish the guy best of luck. And if someone here who knows about my history with this person (and you’d have to have been reading TSE for a very long time to know it) thinks it’s funny to try to fan old flames, it really isn’t. I’m embroiled in enough nonsense as it is, I don’t need any additional grief from any corner.
Take care,
Seth (Abramson)
This thread has gone on a long ways without the heart of the issue being addressed, beyond maybe Justin’s post.
This thread has gone on a long ways without the heart of the issue being addressed, beyond maybe Justin’s post.
I love how the “real” Seth always signs his 5,000 word flame post-essays with “be well.” Only Robert Olen Butler is more passive aggressive.
I love how the “real” Seth always signs his 5,000 word flame post-essays with “be well.” Only Robert Olen Butler is more passive aggressive.
actually i know i for one person would love to see the issue be over, its pretty lame like i said
actually i know i for one person would love to see the issue be over, its pretty lame like i said
I might’ve confused what you’re saying, but the paragraphs about lazy chestnuts and scrotum shaving are from one of the austin powers movies.
I might’ve confused what you’re saying, but the paragraphs about lazy chestnuts and scrotum shaving are from one of the austin powers movies.
I love how the “real” Michael always signs his snotty posts with a fake name. Only Baby Bear from Sesame Street is more craven.
I love how the “real” Michael always signs his snotty posts with a fake name. Only Baby Bear from Sesame Street is more craven.
There’s something twisted about this comment. It’s the wet dream of anyone who’s just started a business to get the kind of exposure and free advertising that a circulation like P&W offers. Any person with any sense – and whatever Abramson is he is NOT an idiot – would not only mention their business in their article bio, but also (A) take out an add for the business in the issue, and (B) if at all possible work the name or concept of the business into the article. Here we have a SEVENTEEN PAGE spread in a large-circulation mag in which a guy who’s just started up a business never mentions the business once, even in his bio, and doesn’t take out an ad for the business either. So the obvious and immediate question is not the one you’ve asked but the OPPOSITE – what prompts a person NOT to use a space for advertisement that anyone with any sense would use six ways from Sunday? But like Karl Rove, ie taking a page from Rove’s playbook, you try to approach your enemy, ’cause you definitely treat this guy like an enemy, by hitting him on his strongest suit – ie what is manifestly NOT an advertisement for a business, in fact almost inexplicably so for anyone with business sense, you treat as a “full-page ad.” How about you approach the question like a normal person and ask, why DIDN’T the guy use the article as a full-page ad? And if it’s true what the guy says here, that he sold his research for $100, what the HELL causes someone to do that? None of us would sell that sort of information for chump change, I sure as hell would not. And while we’re at it, how in the world could the editor of a poetry anthology threaten the business of a guy whose 2 websites claim to get a total of 500,000 visitors a year, and who contributes to a writing guide that, from what everyone says, sells thousands of copies a year? Christ, call the guy a dickhead, that’s fine, but this sort of thing is just INSULTING to anyone with any common sense. I remember the BAP flap of a few years back and as I recall the BAP people were actually pretty steamed – apparently THEY thought getting decimated on blogs read by a lot of people WAS bad for business.
There’s something twisted about this comment. It’s the wet dream of anyone who’s just started a business to get the kind of exposure and free advertising that a circulation like P&W offers. Any person with any sense – and whatever Abramson is he is NOT an idiot – would not only mention their business in their article bio, but also (A) take out an add for the business in the issue, and (B) if at all possible work the name or concept of the business into the article. Here we have a SEVENTEEN PAGE spread in a large-circulation mag in which a guy who’s just started up a business never mentions the business once, even in his bio, and doesn’t take out an ad for the business either. So the obvious and immediate question is not the one you’ve asked but the OPPOSITE – what prompts a person NOT to use a space for advertisement that anyone with any sense would use six ways from Sunday? But like Karl Rove, ie taking a page from Rove’s playbook, you try to approach your enemy, ’cause you definitely treat this guy like an enemy, by hitting him on his strongest suit – ie what is manifestly NOT an advertisement for a business, in fact almost inexplicably so for anyone with business sense, you treat as a “full-page ad.” How about you approach the question like a normal person and ask, why DIDN’T the guy use the article as a full-page ad? And if it’s true what the guy says here, that he sold his research for $100, what the HELL causes someone to do that? None of us would sell that sort of information for chump change, I sure as hell would not. And while we’re at it, how in the world could the editor of a poetry anthology threaten the business of a guy whose 2 websites claim to get a total of 500,000 visitors a year, and who contributes to a writing guide that, from what everyone says, sells thousands of copies a year? Christ, call the guy a dickhead, that’s fine, but this sort of thing is just INSULTING to anyone with any common sense. I remember the BAP flap of a few years back and as I recall the BAP people were actually pretty steamed – apparently THEY thought getting decimated on blogs read by a lot of people WAS bad for business.
I love how the quotidian and pusillanimous Michael has spent too much time studying his GRE flash cards.
Be well, yours sincerely and truly, and best wishes,
Michael Seth Abramson, who will be attending the University of Wisconsin in the fall (in case you haven’t already heard)
I love how the quotidian and pusillanimous Michael has spent too much time studying his GRE flash cards.
Be well, yours sincerely and truly, and best wishes,
Michael Seth Abramson, who will be attending the University of Wisconsin in the fall (in case you haven’t already heard)
Matt–
Did you read the essay?
Oh, I get it — you are in comment box mode!
I don’t say, as you say here that “all people in New York are bad” or even “all New York writers are bad.” I do say some are, sure, but that’s hardly the point of the essay.
As for being melodramatic, guilty as charged. I’m not sure if you know this, but a lot writing is based on–follow me here–real-life events. Then, a writer works with that material, and adds drama, mythology, feeling, and humor. There’s a lot of books about this in the “Writing Guides” section of your local bookstore. Ask around.
But wait–maybe you did read it?
Matt–
Did you read the essay?
Oh, I get it — you are in comment box mode!
I don’t say, as you say here that “all people in New York are bad” or even “all New York writers are bad.” I do say some are, sure, but that’s hardly the point of the essay.
As for being melodramatic, guilty as charged. I’m not sure if you know this, but a lot writing is based on–follow me here–real-life events. Then, a writer works with that material, and adds drama, mythology, feeling, and humor. There’s a lot of books about this in the “Writing Guides” section of your local bookstore. Ask around.
But wait–maybe you did read it?
mo money mo problems, yo
i’m just a bill on capitol hill,
huffing gasoline
from broken down cars
mo money mo problems, yo
i’m just a bill on capitol hill,
huffing gasoline
from broken down cars
Daniel–
Just read your story. It isn’t melodramatic–it’s simply, like you say, suffused with real emotion. Don’t let people tell you that’s melodrama. I continue to feel like I’ve had a kind of happy inverse of your experience (by coming from the nonfiction side)–I couldn’t write poetry _until_ I left New York.
Daniel–
Just read your story. It isn’t melodramatic–it’s simply, like you say, suffused with real emotion. Don’t let people tell you that’s melodrama. I continue to feel like I’ve had a kind of happy inverse of your experience (by coming from the nonfiction side)–I couldn’t write poetry _until_ I left New York.
i was a butcher !!!
i was a butcher !!!
no way,.. Seth’s totally hip… totally cool…. totally “now”,…….
no way,.. Seth’s totally hip… totally cool…. totally “now”,…….
Wait – is this imbecilic comment offered INSTEAD of replying to the one I made above that you have no response to? Uh, okay.
Wait – is this imbecilic comment offered INSTEAD of replying to the one I made above that you have no response to? Uh, okay.
I wonder what young MFA candidates and their parents would think of Seth’s bilious remarks throughout this thread. He sounds like a loose cannon. Not someone I’d want to ask for advice, about anything.
I wonder what young MFA candidates and their parents would think of Seth’s bilious remarks throughout this thread. He sounds like a loose cannon. Not someone I’d want to ask for advice, about anything.
Huh? Have you been reading this blog much? By your logic no one should ever ask anyone who posts on this blog for advice – about anything. Anything goes here. The charge against Abramson on HIS blog has always been the opposite of what you’ve said here – that he’s a humorless tight-ass who takes everything too seriously.
Huh? Have you been reading this blog much? By your logic no one should ever ask anyone who posts on this blog for advice – about anything. Anything goes here. The charge against Abramson on HIS blog has always been the opposite of what you’ve said here – that he’s a humorless tight-ass who takes everything too seriously.
and you’re saying he isn’t that here?
and you’re saying he isn’t that here?
No, he IS. Terrance was saying he’s not – that HERE he’s some kind of “loose cannon,” pretty much the OPPOSITE of someone who a “humorless tight-ass who takes everything too seriously.” That’s crazy. See?
No, he IS. Terrance was saying he’s not – that HERE he’s some kind of “loose cannon,” pretty much the OPPOSITE of someone who a “humorless tight-ass who takes everything too seriously.” That’s crazy. See?
No, he IS. Terrance was saying he’s not – that HERE he’s some kind of “loose cannon,” pretty much the OPPOSITE of someone who a “humorless tight-ass who takes everything too seriously.” That’s crazy. See?
No, he IS. Terrance was saying he’s not – that HERE he’s some kind of “loose cannon,” pretty much the OPPOSITE of someone who a “humorless tight-ass who takes everything too seriously.” That’s crazy. See?
[…] noticed that I enter the comment boxes at HTMLGIANT. I’m not going to do that anymore, by the […]