"The Girly Poetry Thread"

This thread is interesting mainly because of its issues with timing and
clarification. Conversation is fragile here, and one speaker can,t pull the
conversation back on target"when Christy tries (twice) to convince Michele
to continue discussing Bukowski, no one responds to her. Michele makes a
controversial statement, and participants question her, trying to identify
what,s included in "girly poetry." Interestingly enough, participants
never suggest their own readings or authors"they seem content to question
Michele on her definition (at least until a more pressing issue of
clarification comes up"the identity of a group member). Michele becomes an
authority figure which group members avoid challenging (a role which would
have been challenged in a f2f discussion).

What derails the conversation is interesting as well. While the speed of
questioning suggests Michele has proposed a topic of interest to many of
the participants, the issues which can distract the speakers are identity
and intrusion as the participants attempt to figure out who "guest" is.
Here, clarification is also insisted upon"but the most important issue
remains enforcing group boundaries. Micah is summarily ejected without
even entering the conversation, and Danko is asked repeatedly"and
unsuccessfully--to prove his identity. There is an assumption that guest
is someone who wants to be disguised. Participants not only want to know
who the intruder is, but whether or not he belongs to the group and can be
trusted.

So sayeth Rachel and Marn, anyway.

Michele responds:

I found this summary extremely interesting and it seemed to offer several issues of example as discussed in the Aristotle MOO among the women. I had to go back and reread the Right Table transcript. What I realized was that what I was doing in the Right Table MOO is exactly what I had mentioned I was only able to do in the Aristotle MOO: play like the boys.

Several people were asking questions about how I define certain poetry as "girly while Christina was specifically asking for more information about Bukowski. While Eric Freak stated: "oooo, bukowski. good stuff, I responded with, "Too good for you, Badminton B. being playful and not really getting into a criticism of Bukowski, more of wanting to tease Eric. Once I define girly poetry, Christina asked for an example. Everyone responded with various witticisms, such as "guest (Mike?) with, "is trout poetry girly poetry? It is clear that there is going to be no discussion of literature or poetry in this MOO, exactly what I struggled with in the Aristotle MOO: staying serious/academic.

What is even more clear in a parallel link with the Aristotle MOO is that it is Marnie and Rachel bringing about this lack of academic tone concerning Christina. It was these three women that I shared virtual space with in Aristotle. As Christina ends with, "No more comments on Bukowski, Michele? reading the transcripts has me realizing that I never even noticed this comment from Christina as I was too busy still playing. I am not certain that things would have been made more clear "f2f as the summary indicates. It is likely that Christina could have made her presence more known physically, such as through eye contact or voice intonations so that I would have seen her directing a question toward me specifically. Anyway, I think this whole issue is a great example concerning the play aspect we have been discussing. Any thoughts?

return to text