babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » rabble writers' circle   » Content vs. Form

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Content vs. Form
kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 31 May 2005 02:35 PM      Profile for kuri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This NYTimes editorial describes a topic I've seen come up here a number of times: whether the form of writing is as important or even more important than the content.

quote:
Most composition courses that American students take today emphasize content rather than form, on the theory that if you chew over big ideas long enough, the ability to write about them will (mysteriously) follow. The theory is wrong. Content is a lure and a delusion, and it should be banished from the classroom. Form is the way.

The author then goes on to describe a course where students are instructed to make up their own language with a view towards better understanding the purposes of words and their relationships to each other in a sentence. Now, despite having a major preference for content (I truly believe even the most elegant writing cannot elevate a bad idea) and despite having learnt to read within a primarily whole language framework, I can see the benefits of such an exercise.

It's at this point, however, that I start to get a little offended:

quote:
"We don't do content in this class. By that I mean we are not interested in ideas - yours, mine or anyone else's. We don't have an anthology of readings. ... The reason we don't do any of these things is that once ideas or themes are allowed in, the focus is shifted from the forms that make the organization of content possible to this or that piece of content, usually some recycled set of pros and cons about abortion, assisted suicide, ... free speech and so forth. At that moment, the task of understanding and mastering linguistic forms will have been replaced by the dubious pleasure of reproducing the well-worn and terminally dull arguments one hears or sees on every radio and TV talk show.

This is a rather cynical view towards what makes up a good deal of higher education, no? Is simple deliberation a waste of time? Should no ideas be refined, discussed and reflected upon before putting pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard)? In fact, I've found I can tolerate the most incoherently expressed thoughts if I find a gem of an idea contained within the dirt.

Furthermore I find that those who pay the most attention to traditional rules of structure (of the essay format) are also the most dull to read. I'm thinking of social science essays that contain, within the introduction, something along the lines of, "In section 1 X will be discussed, while in the section 2 the issue of Y will be addressed and finally section 3 will discuss the implications of X and Y." In this manner, flawless form seems to replace what is (too often) a tired replay of wholly unoriginal content, in my most humble of opinions.

So that's the end of my little diatribe against the guardians of form. How important is form when compared to content, in your most humble of opinions?

{NB. No doubt there are a number of problems with the grammar, spelling and form of this post. No doubt I won't see them until 45 minutes after I post it, if then.)


From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reverend Blair
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6377

posted 31 May 2005 04:06 PM      Profile for Reverend Blair   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think it has to be relatively coherent. We've all seen wars start on the internet between two people who agree with each other, but cannot get their ideas out properly.

I don't agree with being locked into a specific form though. I do a lot of technical writing and so much of it dead boring. You want to know why nobody reads the instructions? They tried but they fell asleep. So did the guy writing it.

I find that with a lot of what is out there as news, it might as well be an instruction book. "AP style" is no style at all. It's like trying to drink sand.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
SamL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2199

posted 31 May 2005 05:50 PM      Profile for SamL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
This is a rather cynical view towards what makes up a good deal of higher education, no? Is simple deliberation a waste of time? Should no ideas be refined, discussed and reflected upon before putting pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard)? In fact, I've found I can tolerate the most incoherently expressed thoughts if I find a gem of an idea contained within the dirt.

On my reading of the editorial, I thought that the author meant that classes intended to teach writing and composition are all too often side-tracked by these issues of content, thus missing the point of the entire course. I don't think he's trying to say that content should be banished from the entire curriculum; that would just be silly. I don't think he's talking about form vs. content in writing in general, but simply in how writing is taught: should writing be taught in the context of something else is the question; the context-du-jour (at least in the Ontario academic/university English stream) is the study of literature.

I read the opening line of the passage with a lot of amusement and a fair bit of head-shaking. As a soon-to-be-graduating high school senior (finally!), I can assure you that an alarmingly high number of my classmates will walk up to receive their diplomas with little more than a basic ability to speak and write coherently; many of them seem unable to move beyond dressed-up "AIM-speak". To me, it is utterly inconceivable that they're anywhere near prepared for what they're going to encounter in university and in the workplace, or even in non-academic/work life.

These are students who have been through the academic/university stream for four years, and thus have never encountered the slightest bit of formal instruction in grammar and mechanics; with the advent of "balanced literacy" approaches in the younger grades, it is likely that they have never seen such instruction beyond the rudiments, save perhaps in foreign-language courses. I don't believe that students need to be taught the most obscure elements of English grammar (though a basic understanding of parts of speech and sentence structure can be invaluable in writing coherently); however, it has become clear to me that written and spoken expression needs to be formally taught, and it needs to be taught apart from (in the case of Ontario) the study of literature.

I also find that the students who are the most formulaic writers are those who have received no formal instruction in expression outside of those writing skills incidental to the study of literature. It's the students who know about written structures and who have done coursework that consisted of writing for the sake of writing who have the skills and the confidence to break away from writing from a formula.

In terms of how important the two are, I'll say that I won't put much effort into reading and analyzing my classmates' work if I can tell from the first bit that it's poorly written. While good writing isn't always a pleasure to read, it shouldn't be utterly incomprehensible. So long it can be understood and the errors aren't so glaring as to distract from the content, then I'd say form is superseded.


From: Cambridge, MA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
venus_man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6131

posted 31 May 2005 05:57 PM      Profile for venus_man        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It also evident in the web publishing and content development. People usually visit websites for the informative reasons. Be it news or municipal information or buying a book, looking up a restaurant, movie etc. The presentation of the content in these cases is rather minimalistic because the user supposedly doesn’t pay much attention to the form the content presented in as long as it is neat and easy to follow during relatively short period of time. The idea here seems to be prevailing over form. Not so though. Form, I believe, has its laws and rules as a physical vehicle for the idea. Being physical in nature (however invisible as such) form should reflect its times, sociological values, perceptions etc. etc. in order to serve as a coherent vehicle for the idea its intended to manifest and present.
My verdict therefore-both are important.

From: outer space | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 31 May 2005 06:33 PM      Profile for kuri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SamL:
On my reading of the editorial, I thought that the author meant that classes intended to teach writing and composition are all too often side-tracked by these issues of content, thus missing the point of the entire course. ... should writing be taught in the context of something else is the question; ...

To be fair, I may have added in some extra context. (Which goes to show that a text cannot exist independent of context!) The context I placed the editorial in is one where people despair of contemporary education in comparison with a rather idealized 'past' where only reading, writing and 'rithmatic are taught (often by rote). I think the emphasize on grammar and form filled a void left by a greater degree of conformity when it comes to content: that was indicative of underlying ideas of singular Truth. Not much to discuss when there's only one or two sides to a topic. I feel education, on the contrary, should develop a capacity for critical thought from a young age.

Furthermore, I felt his comparison of debates in "content-oriented" classes with USian television programmes really did serve to insult them.

In essence, I feel a lot what constitutes good writing: the appropriate use of learned vocabulary, the play on structure, sound and idea is highly dependent on the context and teaching form free of context - especially making up a language - encourages students to see writing as fundamentally mechanical process. While I also find some of the AIM speak confusing (I had to look up "l33t" the other day!), I also see that as something really exciting in the evolution of language - just as a non-standard dialect or joual. Which, I suppose is my fundamental beef when it comes to form: it seems that placing it above content tends towards conservatism and standardization. Exactly the tedious style of writing I referred to in my opening post.

[ 01 June 2005: Message edited by: kurichina ]


From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 31 May 2005 06:51 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A growing body of research shows that phonemic awareness is not only the most powerful predictor of success in beginning reading, but also, for most children, a necessary prerequisite for learning to read


I guess it might like looking at a musician with a style and inflection of their own. That makes them unique?

Form in this respect is delivered. In a way, that is new? It might "sound good" and keep us listening.

If by chance, a writer can lure the person into their world, hypnotically entrained, then, I'd say the writer did a good job Non?

In this medium diversification of image and writing , java, animations, serve a greater reckoning I think because of that versatility of form? Has the idea been transferred?

Someone once mention streaming of consicousness.

I find this a interesting observation. Why? Because like poetry, the rhytmns seem to accompany this flow? So if delivered in a way, would it not embue artistic inclination as a style in that form?

Just thinking out loud here. Interesting.

Shakespeare has a interesting delivery. Some of the older writers. Jack Kerouac, or John Steinbeck.

[ 31 May 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 31 May 2005 07:44 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Content does NOT trump form. Certainly not in an academic setting, nor should it. To attain a level of good writing, one must have both in combination.

I taught a first-year film studies course this last semester. Part of the aim of the course is to teach basic film analysis, and part is to teach essay writing. It wasn't so much that form was primary, but that it was important in the dissemination of content. Content suffers when it is expressed in a maundering, wandering, disorganized mess of thoughts. Content NEEDS form to make it sing.

quote:
I feel education, on the contrary, should develop a capacity for critical thought from a young age.

So do I. However, most student do not leave high school with that ability. Rather, we've taken both form AND critical thinking out of the mix because we're all concerned about self-esteem and feeeeeeeellllings. "I like the movie because it rocks, and it's funny when that thing falls off the wall onto soandso's head..." isn't critical thought, but we wouldn't want to squash a developing ego by explaining that, would we? And believe me, they really resent it when you have to explain that in a first year course.

As a writer, I've tried to understand different forms and apply them. Good content is important, but I still maintain that the virtuoso use of form is what really makes writing transcendent.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 31 May 2005 08:51 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't think content is important in a class where the teaching of form is the point.

Anywhere else though, I don't think you can separate form and content. If people are to understand the information, it has to be presented in a way they can absorb it, and also want to.

(edited for...um...form..)

[ 31 May 2005: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 31 May 2005 09:28 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I wonder what his opinion is about learning math skills.
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 31 May 2005 10:59 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
I wonder what his opinion is about learning math skills.

Why would you say this? Do you believe math are like form and content in context of this thread's questions?


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
GJJ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9023

posted 01 June 2005 10:14 AM      Profile for GJJ        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, there's a real aesthetics in math solutions - its been argued that using it is how the best mathematicians work towards solutions ... I think it was Poincare who first pointed it out. But of course its secondary to understanding content.
From: Saskatoon | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 01 June 2005 10:30 AM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
We might need a good janitor.

(edited for...um...form..)

Rodan was doing more then "thinking of content?"

His "form" is simple enough?

[ 02 June 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 01 June 2005 07:20 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
See, I don't take every opportunity to take a cheap shot here.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
SamL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2199

posted 01 June 2005 07:39 PM      Profile for SamL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

From: Cambridge, MA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 01 June 2005 09:07 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In the case of forum observer, I understand neither the form nor the content.

Misplaced commas make baby Jesus cry.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 01 June 2005 09:17 PM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Isn't that: 'Misplaced, commas make baby Jesus cry.'

No, wait! It's: 'Misplaced, commas, make baby Jesus cry!'

[ 01 June 2005: Message edited by: Anchoress ]


From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 02 June 2005 12:38 AM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
ess

In the case of forum observer, I understand neither the form nor the content."

That's understandable.

[ 02 June 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 02 June 2005 11:51 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
kurichina wrote:

quote:
Furthermore I find that those who pay the most attention to traditional rules of structure (of the essay format) are also the most dull to read. I'm thinking of social science essays that contain, within the introduction, something along the lines of, "In section 1 X will be discussed, while in the section 2 the issue of Y will be addressed and finally section 3 will discuss the implications of X and Y." In this manner, flawless form seems to replace what is (too often) a tired replay of wholly unoriginal content, in my most humble of opinions.

Now, when I read that paragraph, kurichina, I realized that you and I actually agree, even though we are (we must be) interpreting your topic terms differently.

I am a great believer in the understanding that form may make manifest, may body forth, but that particular notion of "essay" form makes me retch too. An undergrad teacher of mine once instructed: "Say what you're going to say; say it; and then say you've said it." I repeat: retch.

To me, that is NOT an essay. An essay is Charles Lamb or Matthew Arnold. And I'm writing this as someone who has edited scholarly writers for thirty-five years. On so many of them, I just gave up. The dissertation process, writing to a committee, internalizing all that professional self-consciousness had just ruined them permanently as writers, IMHO. They couldn't get beyond that template, and to me, that is not writing at all, and it certainly is not "form" in any serious sense of the term.

To students of literature (and therefore, I should hope, to teachers of writing), form is interesting in other ways that matter to thought. In literature and in art generally, form can, and should, and inevitably does convey meaning. There is meaning in sheer restraint, as there is in sheer exuberance. There is meaning in impressionistic fuzziness, as there is in photographic precision. And if you know the history of writing, any culture's writing, you will become more and more aware of classical structures popping up again and again era after era, sometimes straight, sometimes ironized or otherwise elaborated, and the play on the original will be meaningful to you.

When we teach writing, it is often useful to set students to writing parodies of formally accomplished models. Give students a great sentence out of Edgar Allen Poe, or a great paragraph from Samuel Johnson, and tell them to follow the form but use their own content. Johnson was comparing Dryden and Pope: you compare two other things that interest you, but construct your sentences on the pattern that Johnson laid down.

You wouldn't believe how wondrous the results are: an essay comparing bicycles to motorcycles, eg, or Arts students to engineers, written in the rhythms of Augustan classicism, full of semi-colons correctly used. (Two of my great triumphs. )

When people begin to accept that form has meaning, then their meaning begins to take form.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 02 June 2005 11:53 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A meaningful form:

Picasso's Don Quixote


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 02 June 2005 12:55 PM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Interesting, skdadl --- a reproduction of that Picasso drawing hangs prominently in my living room. It holds significant meaning for me already, and your reference has given it another facet for me to consider.

This discussion of content v. form has been interesting for me to read. One of the reasons I have diverged from the traditional path of the legal profession is the emphasis of form over content that is strictly demanded by the mainstream. I think I may have ranted about this elsewhere here. At any rate, at my last legally-related job, during my brief debrief with my supervisor, she told me that my work contained too much of my "voice." To most lawyers this would be a stern rebuke worthy of self-recrimination and anxiety, but I was actually quite glad to hear it. I had been struggling, unsuccessfully it would seem, with the requirement that I deploy what is termed in the profession as the "neutral" voice. This was even more important at that job because much of what I was doing was essentially ghost-writing in the legal sense (I was something like a judicial clerk at an administrative tribunal). Iudicet Auditor, anyone?

Essentially, the question I struggled with was one of audience. The generally-accepted mode of legal writing requires that one write for other lawyers, in the abstract. It is much like writing an encyclopedia entry, only drier. I prefer to write with the parties in mind, since they are the people for whom the dispute, and the tribunal's resolution, is most relevant. My instinct is to address the decision to them. However, this was, and is, considered bad form, in my experience.

Not to mention the fact that, when it came down to it, my sense of justice and that of my ghost-authors differed somewhat. Which was the other reason I was glad my voice came through.


From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 02 June 2005 01:05 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
verbatim, that set of squiggles has peculiar meaning for me too, beyond the obvious, although I do think that the obvious is generally available: that Picasso could squiggle in what looks like such a minimal way, and yet produce an instantly recognizable icon -- that is the marvel, I think.

But I also think that it looks just like my Thorfinn.

Thinking about an audience has a powerful impact on "voice," as you term it, which I still think is a form of form, actually. You weren't resisting form as such, verbatim: you were just choosing a different one from the conventional, the professionally enforced.

For me, anyway: I am at my most self-conscious and therefore most stilted when I am thinking of an audience that enforces standards, that makes me worry about whether I'm measuring up to the way that they think.

Not all audiences have that effect, though. To some audiences, I think that we feel we can give, and that is when we stop feeling so self-conscious. You seem to be describing that dynamic.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 02 June 2005 01:35 PM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In my brief experience with freelance journalism, I ran into the same problems as verbatim with voice. In my first couple of feature articles I reported and wrote with a voice, but this was not what my editor was looking for, and is apparently contrary to standard practice in features and reporting (I understand why it's so, but I think it's just become a bit too...standard.) So I duly edited my voice out and although I thought the writing was that much more dull, the editor was really happy with it.

So I started to pay more attention to columns, and was blown away by the way voices get squeezed into those few inches of column: if you have a personality and you manage to get a gig, you can get away with writing the dumbest, most off-the-wall tripe.

That said, good columnists are wonderful to read, and I think newspapers have realized that they are in fact what people read a newspaper for - to hear a human voice telling them what's happening and what they think about it.

Reporters and feature article writers are generally so anonymous that after a while, you barely bother reading them unless they're writing about a subject that really interests you.

I got bored writing that way, and eventually stopped and went on to other things.


From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 02 June 2005 01:44 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Skdadl, your comments about the stultifying academic form have some resonance with me. I was always able to follow that form easily (a function of having to write 'position papers' for my father from ~10yrs old).

Towards the end of my acedemic life, I found that form to be exhausting, boring as toast, and in many cases a sure sign that the authour had no confidence in his/her assertions. In fact, while researching my thesis I started to use an informal 'bullshitometer' to identify what was worth reading - particularly important if you are flirting with the fringes of postmodern flimflammery. Simply put - The density and complexity of the language is inversely proportionate to the quality of the argument.

Abuse, or excessive use, of language to hide a paucity of original thought was one of the main reasons I ran away from academia. A surprisingly large proportion of academic writing fails the 'bullshitometer' test when it actually gets around to making an assertion. The only conclusion I could draw was that a lot of academics are hiding behind obfuscation and linguistic whirligigs; they were hoping nobody would look behind the curtain.

Not to say that there aren't some excellent academic writers out there - but as in most pursuits, they are the diamonds in the rough(or in this case the colour in a grey landscape).


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
fossilnut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8972

posted 02 June 2005 01:56 PM      Profile for fossilnut        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Brebis-noire,

That's an good comment re 'voice'. I've been on both sides of many articles...from writer to editorial board. What I've learned is to never judge a writer by what's written in a particular magazine. journal, etc. Is the finalized published writing a reflection of the author or the editor...whose 'soul' is in it?

Most notorious are newspapers. Editors will slash concluding paragraphs, etc. What was submitted as a witty coherent piece of writing can be transformed into 'filler'. I've learned to make all my relevent comments in the opening couple paragraphs and let the piece 'peter out'. The reverse is true of magazine articles...a snappy opening and an equally thought provoking ending.

The bottom line is the editor is God and has to be. Tough decisions need to be made for a variety of reasons from 'fixing up crappy writing' to advertising space, time restrictions, what the competition just published, etc. Writers get 'pissed off' when their 'baby' is altered...therefore it's vital to read the publication's voice ahead of time...submit a piece of writing 'exactly' according to expectation... submit a 'perfect' copy free of grammar errors, etc.

When I was editing the biggest and most common sin was exceeding word count. Can't authors count? The excuse was always 'well, I couldn't express the idea in 1500 words so I had to write 2000...too much material to cover' (or some variation). Think about that! The editor will reduce it down to 1500 words and 'if' the writer can't get it down to 1500 words (knowing the subject)...how does the writer expect the editor to reduce it to 1500 words any better? The piece is published and the writer mumbles about how the editor left out the most important part.

[ 02 June 2005: Message edited by: fossilnut ]


From: calgary | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 02 June 2005 02:04 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
fossilnut speaks truth. Especially about newspapers and word count.

Newspapers butcher. That's the way it is, folks. Give them ten words too many, and your sensitively conceived original is gone with the wind, boy.

Och, fossilnut, I have had that happen to me, even though I am an editor and I knew everything you're saying -- I still couldn't bear to cut my own deathless prose quite enough ... So they did it for me, and God, that was ugly.

I sometimes suspect they make their cuts more ham-handedly than necessary, just to teach us all a lesson.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 02 June 2005 02:08 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think to academics generally, the content is more important; you do the research first, then you write the interpretation. Some suggest that academics won't write clear and simple language because they feel it looks unprofessional; not academic enough. [Or it's a plot to keep the secrets of the profession.]

Some do try to write well; one of my history professors told every class to eliminate the passive voice. Then I worked with someone trained in management, who would usually edit my memos to have more of the passive voice in them.

About the Picasso; the form is striking; but the content is part of it. We know who the figures are and why they contrast so much, and why there are windmills. I think Picasso started with the content, and produced the form as an expression of the content.


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 02 June 2005 02:16 PM      Profile for kuri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's the thing. I *heart* the passive voice. It's perfectly suited to describe systemic phenomena. That's an academic thing I have no problem with.

And skdadl and verbatim have identified my main personal issue with form: it's not form itself, but standard form. I think standard form counts for a lot more in Europe than in North America. And it chafes me.

(But I still insist the editorial I posted was cranky and insultory. But that could be their form. )


From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
fossilnut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8972

posted 02 June 2005 02:26 PM      Profile for fossilnut        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Editors are people. Hitler was a person and so was Mother Theresa. There's good editors and crappy ones. Never be discouraged by the comments of a particular editor or how they butcher your work...unless you get the same feedback from different individuals.

My wife has a few books published, is a weekly columnist for the Calgary Herald, etc. Otherwise, she's a damn fine write who has published a thousand pieces with numerous publications. Last year she was approached by a magazine to write a particular piece on Alberta's centennial. She doesn't take any writing lightly and did all the research, ran various drafts by me and friends...and off it goes to the magazine. She rec'd a reply from the editor saying that her piece was 'child-like' in quality and to completely redo it or...blah...blah. she more or less told the editor to stick it up his nose.

She is always open to constuctive changes but this was too much. She says she was just thankful it wasn't the first piece in her career she had submitted or she would have been devastated and maybe given up. When the magzine was published I flippped through a copy at the library and it was 'blah'...cardboard with no soul. I also knew, however, that the writing was not so much that of the authors but of the editor.


From: calgary | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 02 June 2005 02:30 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The passive voice: AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHH!

When I was teaching composition, way back in the late seventies and early eighties, I used to start off my mini-lecture on the passive by saying, "Now, the passive voice has its uses. That's how we all learned to write up our chemistry reports, after all."

"Isn't it."

"Isn't it?"

And I would be met with dead silence, utter incomprehension.

So finally it occurred to me that people even ten years younger than I had NOT been taught the passive voice by their high-school chemistry teachers, which was standard practice into the early sixties.

So then I had to teach the damn thing, and THEN I had to explain to my kidlets why they should really try to unlearn it as much as they could! *frazzle*

The passive was taught. It was not known who taught it (without a lot of wordy additions). Active agents had been excised from the prose. And the result was thought good, or at least useful, usually by bureaucrats.

[ 02 June 2005: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 02 June 2005 02:33 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A friend who trained as a historian then became a lawyer explained the difference to me. A historian wants to pin things down; what happened, when and how; but a lawyer wants to avoid painting herself into a corner, to have an escape route if necessary.

If you use the passive voice, you can say "It was decided to do such and such." However, if you write "Joe Blow decided to do such and such," you identify who is responsible. Bureaucrats use the passive voice [of course!]; but the active voice is a lot more interesting to read.

I wrote this before reading skdadl's post; great minds, eh? Any bureaucrats want to object?

[ 02 June 2005: Message edited by: Contrarian ]


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 02 June 2005 02:38 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I only learned about the passive voice from grammar-checking software.

Or should I say, "The passive voice was only learned about by me?"

It's hard to remember back to elementary school (1960s), but I don't think our instruction went far beyond Subject/Object and Verb/Noun/Pronoun/Adverb/Adjective. I remember my grade 3 teacher saying verbs were "action words" and we pictured things like roller-coasters!


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 02 June 2005 02:42 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
One of the best things I find about this forum, is the sharing in respect of this journalistic bend.

The "digs" just a rudeness of character that wastes time.

This "voice interjection" has of course got my attention. As well as, the words of the few who have obviously have a profession doing this.

I think "image representation" holds a lot of information? These points shared are important to me, for they sum more then all the words written. Next to that, how careful the words choosen, that entrain us into this image(passive stance to encourage others opinion ?

Like other attempts to educate myself, part of this would be, the writers bend to begin, the "anchoress story of the writer" and not some "fictional death created" would have amounted to a beginning writer, succeeding. For whom this paragraph tolls?

The suggestions about artistic characters comparison and phrase, seems to be part of the inkling I find with Historical characters.

Getting a phrase to ring into days ideology.

My thanks to those who are actually kind enough to share their perspective in light of the opening post of this thread.

[ 02 June 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 02 June 2005 02:44 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, in Junior High I learned the simple explanations for verbs, nouns etc., but not those fancy words like predicate. But my English teachers had actually been trained as Social Studies teachers, so may have been a little more, ummm, humane?
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 02 June 2005 03:04 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
[rant begins]

Stanley Fish in Devoid of Content notes:

quote:
What did it take to turn a random list of words into a sentence?" A lot of fumbling and stumbling and false starts follow, but finally someone says, "I put the words into a relationship with one another."

This bears a remarkable resemblance to the Marxist claim that it is the relationships among things, rather than the “things” themselves, that is most important in understanding society/consciousness/nature. So much so, in fact, that Bertell Ollman, for example, calls Marxism the philosophy of internal relations.

quote:
Fish: Content is a lure and a delusion, and it should be banished from the classroom.

Perhaps this reactionary assertion is why the author made it to the NY Times in the first place. I agree with the previous contributor who asserted that this can’t possibly apply to all classrooms and can really apply only to classes in which the goal is to teach form. But can form really be taught in splendid isolation? Any artistic work is a unity of content and form. For people who take alternative views, content dominates form and not just in art. Interrelation between content and form is a typical example of relations between dialectical opposites, characterized as they are both by unity of content and form and by contradictions and conflicts between them. The content of art is reality in its aesthetic particularity, chiefly humanity, human relations, the life of society in all its concrete manifestations and form here is the inner organization, the concrete structure of a work of art that reveals and embodies the content. Of course this is a two-way street but we should be crystal clear in which direction the bulk of the traffic travels.

Formalism in art, for example, absolutizes and aestheticises form as the opposite of realism. Art is contrasted to reality, based on the mistaken idea that artistic endeavour is completely beyond the control of reason, and from a conception of aesthetic pleasure, which, it alleges, has nothing to do with social ideas, vital interests, and so on. Some of these “artistic” trends are actually hostile to art in general.

[end rant]

I wanted to share with babblers a piece (or two) that poet lawrence ferlinghetti wrote. Comments are welcome. It is from his Third Populist Manifesto (Modern Poetry is Prose)

quote:

Most modern poetry is prose
as is this poem
and I am thumbing through a great anthology
of contemporary poetry
and ‘The Voice That Is Great Within Us’
sounds within us mostly
in a prose voice
in the typography of poetry
which is not to say it is prosaic
which is not to say it has no depths
which is not to say it is dead or dying
or not lovely or not beautiful
or not well written or not witty

It is very much alive
very well written beautifully written
lovely lively prose
prose that stands without crutches
of punctuation
prose whose syntax is so clear
it can be written all over the page
in open forms and open fields
and still be very clear
very dear prose
in the typography of poetry
(the poetic and the prosaic intellect
masquerading in each other’s clothes)


quote:
I am thumbing through a great anthology of contemporary poetry, and it would seem that “the voice that is great within us” sounds within us mostly in a prose voice, albeit in the typography of poetry. Which is not to say it is prosaic or has no depths, which is not to say it is dead or dying, or not lovely or beautiful or not well-written or not witty and brave. It is very much alive, very well written, lovely, lively prose – prose that stands without the crutches of punctuation, prose whose syntax is so clear it can be written all over the page, in open forms and open fields, and still be very clear, very dear prose. And in the typography of poetry, the poetic and the prosaic intellect masquerade in each other’s clothes.

[ 02 June 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 02 June 2005 05:47 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Personally, I like the poem.

If the spirit of the work is written well does it naturally put aside all those things that form the delivery?

I wouldn't of given it a second thought, and second thought would require the punctuations.


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 02 June 2005 06:11 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
forum observer: If the spirit of the work is written well does it naturally put aside all those things that form the delivery?

Ferlinghetti might have been showing, rather than saying, that form is clear second to content. But his content is about poetry and so is about form. A harmonious balance? I'd like to think so.

quote:
I wouldn't of given it a second thought, and second thought would require the punctuations.

Punctuationless writing is a lot harder (to do well) than it appears. How many people can write poetry like e.e. cummings or bill bissett? Maybe as many as can write like Robert Service or Robert Frost.

A word of caution - I have only provided a fragment of the piece and it is not complete.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 02 June 2005 06:21 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think I paid more attention to the poem because it was a poem; if I had seen the prose first, I would probably have skimmed it and missed the elegance of the words.
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 02 June 2005 06:28 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If you pay even a moment's attention to Stanley Fish's form, you will be forever cured of his content.

Seriously. I will never understand why entire generations of North Americans have got so fired up, pro and/or con, about American academic hacks like Fish or the Blooms or fill in many blanks.

Read a page. If you don't like it, ignore them. I certainly do.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 03 June 2005 12:50 AM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"A word of caution - I have only provided a fragment of the piece and it is not complete."

So the best is yet to come? Prose as close to normal writing yet "not poetic in the true sense." Although it is close?

I am new to fish so I'll listen to the warnings and advice with the reasons why.

I keep thinking of Emerson's essays. How so on these? Anyone.


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 03 June 2005 05:06 AM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
When it comes to poetry, to some extent art, and even some avant-garde prose, one of the big stories of the twentieth century was an extended attempt to be rid of form.

It didn't work--can't work, really. In the process some new forms were generated, forms that in my opinion are by and large pretty weak. It's almost unfortunate that the people doing the rebellion against existing forms were often geniuses who were able, usually having first mastered the older forms, to make more minimalist forms work and work well.

The result has been that lots of people since think they can get away with doing the same kind of thing without coming to any real understanding of how and why the giants were able to do it.

Taking Picasso--Picasso mastered older styles of painting first, and then he abstracted and minimalized from there. And he was a frickin' genius. But now every Tom, Dick and Laura think they can come to art without learning the craft and do abstract stuff and people should care. And most of it's crap. When one reaches the point where the artist's statement is more important for critical acclaim than the actual work, I have to wonder which is the art--the work or the statement? It's like there aren't actually artists, just critics and critics. Or at least, it was like that for a while--things may be starting to improve.

Similarly with
poetry,
a few people were
able to muck
around with layout,
(trapped)
by typography, eschewing rhythm,
and still
make
us
CARE.

But personally, I think there are some dashed good reasons why traditional poetry involved formal effects based on sound and rhythm. And for that matter, why street-based poetry-like forms such as rap effectively reinvented the rhymed, metrical line. That kind of stuff, regular rhythm of lines, rhyme, assonance, alliteration, they're formal, but they're also primitive in their impact; something recognizes them in the brain and the heartbeat. So while it got fashionable for a while to reject that in favour of visual layout effects, I think that should probably be a secondary direction for poetry, and the insistence on making that kind of thing a primary focus has both weakened and marginalized poetry as a form.

Edited to add:
o yah, and i think yusing no capital letrs and speling how u think is foneticly is pretenchus bulshit, altho bil biset is stil a nyse gy.

[ 03 June 2005: Message edited by: Rufus Polson ]


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 03 June 2005 01:14 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You know I can't help thinking, when I read the previous commentor, that ole things actually had some value in how we learn.

Music in Plato's Academy


. . . . . . . . . . . .
o yah, and i think yusing no capital letrs and
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
speling how u think is foneticly is pretenchus
. . . . . . . . . . ? .
bulshit, altho bil biset is stil a nyse gy.

. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . ? .

.-represents beats

......okay so I tried

[ 03 June 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 03 June 2005 05:50 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Rufus Polson: So while it got fashionable for a while to reject that in favour of visual layout effects, I think that should probably be a secondary direction for poetry, and the insistence on making that kind of thing a primary focus has both weakened and marginalized poetry as a form.

If we stick to our guns on content vs. form, we have to say that what's lacking is the social content to make poetry more meaningful to larger numbers of people that has been missing and contributing to "marginalizing" poetry. Further, probably 90% of (published) Canadian poets are academics who work in an environment that expects them to publish (or perish)their work . There are probably many academic poets who view poetic performance as of secondary importance.

But is poetry, broadly speaking, really marginalized? New forms like the poetry slam, the open mike, rap, hybrid intermediate art forms that straddle the boundaries between poetry and other art forms suggests to me at least that poetry has got some strength left in it. Many, many people write poetry who never perform or publish it. (OK, I admit that I'm glad about that sometimes. Bad poetry is as harmful as a bad teacher. ) There's no question as well that the mega-industry of marketing and the manufacture of consent make use of all sorts of poetic and linguistic (and visual) creativeness to be as successful as they are. Poetry in the service of commerce is used to capture our attention and convince us of the virtues of "revolutionary" air fresheners, gas guzzling, shiny SUVs, and products that we need like we need a lobotomy. Capitalism depicts itself as the most dazzling, flashy, "must-have" kind of society in the history of the world. But the true aim of an art form can only be the enrichment of humanity in the broadest sense possible. And what better way than by connecting art to the noble goals of social betterment and social justice.

My two bits, anyway.

To forum observer: I think I would be violating copyright if I typed the entire ferlinghetti poem. And I've been unable to find an online copy.

The other point I'd like to note is that "Waldo" (Ralph Waldo Emerson) is a favourite of Unitarian Universalists (like myself) and you might find lengthy discussion of him at some UU site. Good luck with that and if you have any success I'd very much like to hear the results of your search.

[ 03 June 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 03 June 2005 06:32 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bumped so that forum observer will find this thread. (f_o's PM feature is turned off.)

[ 03 June 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 03 June 2005 11:42 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
N.B,

Thanks for the consideration in regards to Emerson. I didn't know this UU, yet the link was there on site of Emersons essays.

With its historical roots in the Jewish and Christian traditions, Unitarian Universalism is a liberal religion --

I was attracted to his style of writing.

Something deeper, that was easily reached for him? Also it was not far off from my own perspective on what Raphael painted, that we see under the arche of inductive/deductive processes, where two men speak from different locations. One points to heaven, and the other to those things around him.

I found this kind of wholeness(circle) in people and cultures.

Each new step we take in thought reconciles twenty seemingly discordant facts, as expressions of one law. Aristotle and Plato are reckoned the respective heads of two schools. A wise man will see that Aristotle Platonizes. By going one step farther back in thought, discordant opinions are reconciled, by being seen to be two extremes of one principle, and we can never go so far back as to preclude a still higher vision.

The example by Rufus of punctuation was in reference to the secondary perspective I had mentioned to which you responded. Yet, I wanted to show, how vowel sounds might have some inherent pattern? Non!

Ancient ways of sound were spoken from other perspectives that support my view.I will re-edit "that post" to show what I mean. Watch for it

I am still trying to wrap my head around the literary forms and perspectives shared.


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 04 June 2005 12:21 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Form is crucial. For example:

quote:
Shakespeare has a interesting delivery. Some of the older writers. Jack Kerouac, or John Steinbeck.

Because this bit lacks a verb, it also lacks a clear meaning. The content is somewhat dodgy as well.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 04 June 2005 06:38 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Shakespeare has a interesting delivery. Some of the older writers. Jack Kerouac, or John Steinbeck.

quote:
Form is crucial. For example:

Because this bit lacks a verb, it also lacks a clear meaning. The content is somewhat dodgy as well

"Interesting delivery." What does this imply?

That writers have different approaches in delivery? That Shakespeare was unique, for reasons I understand. So, in order to protect himself(who is this Francis Bacon?)a delivery of language of the day?

Writers develope personae's for what purpose? How do they advance the converstaion, if they are in the midst of creating the conversation, as well the views we see?

Write the sentence out as someone suggested and see what seems better to you. So I can see that it's content and form, are more acceptable. I am thinking of the examples set out here by previous poster?

Go ahead.

[ 04 June 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

[ 04 June 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 04 June 2005 11:38 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:

If we stick to our guns on content vs. form

I don't really have any guns on content VS. form. I agree with the people who consider both important, and indeed interrelated. If anything, I suppose one thing I wanted to get at was that the 20th century attempts to reject form were misguided and resulted only in weak form, not in any real emphasis on content.


quote:
, we have to say that what's lacking is the social content to make poetry more meaningful to larger numbers of people that has been missing and contributing to "marginalizing" poetry.

I don't buy it, frankly. Sure, some social content might be nice--but I'm not sure you can really argue that it's absent, either, or that it's usually been that much more present. Lyric poetry's always been mostly about romance, aesthetics, sometimes religion. Narrative poetry's a whole 'nother story, but then narrative poetry's effectively a dead form, period, whether metrical or otherwise.

quote:
Further, probably 90% of (published) Canadian poets are academics who work in an environment that expects them to publish (or perish)their work . There are probably many academic poets who view poetic performance as of secondary importance.

Not by and large. The problem with academic poetry is not so much the lack of emphasis on performance, as the emphasis on performance to a select group. Modern academic poetry tends to be pitched to an audience of academics. The result is an emphasis on making it difficult to decipher, so that the audience can take pride in being able to understand it where the unwashed would not. Sometimes it reaches the level of emperor's clothes, where nobody really understands but they all keep quiet so they can fool each other about how smart they are. I don't think it's a co-incidence that the attempt to find ways around form, or to find less and less accessible forms, went along with the increasing dominance of poetry by academia.

quote:
But is poetry, broadly speaking, really marginalized?

How broadly?

quote:
New forms like the poetry slam, the open mike,

They're pretty marginal. Arguably hipper than academic poetry, but the audience is no bigger and probably just as inward-looking.

quote:
rap, hybrid intermediate art forms that straddle the boundaries between poetry and other art forms suggests to me at least that poetry has got some strength left in it.

No doubt. But the very forms which are vaguely poetic and continue to be popular are precisely the ones making use of the formal elements of more old-fashioned poetry. Which would include appropriation for various kinds of commercialism--the capitalists never fooled themselves into thinking they could sell without using the rhythmic and sonic tricks that catch people's attention and memory.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 17 August 2005 06:23 AM      Profile for kuri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bump!

Now there's a course in another type of form: teh txt msg class! R U redy?


From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca