Mark wrote...

I'm confused about what you're hoping to accomplish with it. (I don't think it's helped you that everyone in on that discussion about collectives [original thread here -- Dan] had a completely different idea of what a collective is.) I'm already feeling spread a bit thin in terms of my online activity. What are you doing? What's on that site that makes it a good idea to divert my attention to it?

Also, why are you requiring people to register? Will your site just replicate what's already going on but make it less accessible to the uninitiated and just plain curious? I must admit I'm a bit concerned about the advertizing you suggested might be involved. Also, I find it a bit odd that you have the name of the site trademarked.

I don't mean this in a mean-spirited way. I'm interested in what you have to say.

To which I replied: " Of the comments that arose from Jay's Bookthug post on collectives, Lynn McClory's [original thread here -- Dan] informed my conception of what the site would do...

She wrote:

A poetics collective as a space for dialogue on the net is much more exciting than a formal committee to promote poetry. and while small has manageability for closer discussion advantages, inclusiveness is important...

The impetus behind the project was to create an augmented social network, one intended to be a tool to help extend creativity among individuals and enhance collaboration among those who share a common interest--writing, poetry, the small press, et al.

I threw a post on the Ahadada blog about The Small Press Exchange last night. Outlining three main _object_ives of the project:

1) To create a system that enables more efficient and effective knowledge sharing between people across institutional, geographic, and social boundaries;

2) To establish a form of persistent online identity that supports public commonalities and the values of the independent literary community; and,

3) To enhance the ability of poets and writers to form relationships and self-organize around shared interests in order to better engage in the creative process.

As for the community itself, I felt that it should be built on open standards, an initiative that would coordinate the efforts of many for the benefit of all.

Although, I see why you're hesitant, Mark -- as a couple of ideas that I had floated regarding advertising (my original idea was to set up a revenue sharing program, in order to pay for contributions from the community, ie interviews, reviews, et al) in retrospect appear to run contrary to the values that I seek to espouse. That the site name bears a trademark (not registered -- by the way) spoke more of my hope to create an identity for the community -- a difficult thing, of course, as the site is young and fresh and there is no community there yet to speak of!

I can certainly see where you are coming from in this respect and will now revisit both ideas. There is in fact no advertising on the site as of yet,

The registration, however, is necessary to a certain degree because of the nature of the online community. One's registration allows the site to be organized around profiles -- much like the friendster or myspace social networks. That these profiles are not publically accessible was intended to protect privacy. Upon reflection, however -- and your comments -- I can see that this makes the project appear to less accessible to the uninitated or curious. Of course, this runs counter to what I set out (and hoped) to achieve.

I certainly understand the importance of prioritizing one's time online -- and this was another goal of the project, as it was originally conceived. It's difficult for a person who is up to speed with what's happening in the canpo/canlit scene to keep abreast of what's going on, let alone the unitiated or the curious.

I hoped that providing space for online dialogue would help to organize our efforts online, acting as an index for our individual projects, our blogs, our writing both online and off -- a portal to the information that one seeks out again and again upon logon to the web.

In a certain sense it would replicate what's going on already, yet I hoped it to be a place where we could could extend our capabilities through integration or collaboration -- a place through which we could enhance what is already going on.

It's clear that a project of this nature is only as good as the sum of its parts -- and this, of course, would determine whether or not its worth further time investment from you or from anybody, although I think a project of this nature can provide a return on investment thats often not quantifiable.

And no need to feel shitty about raising valid points regardless of the work that's been put into it so far -- the project was established to serve the community, and as such, it need necessarily be shaped by the community.

Let me know what you think!

Hi Dan,

I've been looking around the site since joining. It's interesting. There's a bit of a learning curve, but it seems fairly logically laid out.

I tend to agree with Mark here. It's very difficult to orchestrate advertising along with sincere content. Yes, I'm against ads, as are many people, however I also understand the necessity.

With that said, let's consider that if advertising is a necessary evil -- is there some way you can integrate it into the site so that the advertisers get their anticipated 'views' yet the ads don't detract from the content? There is a balance that can be achieved where both elements can coexist.

Eric

Welcome, and thanks for the feedback, Eric. Please let me know via email or private message if you need any help with site navigation, et al.

It was always our intention to offer free advertising for small press publishers for their awareness & recognition. The question of advertising is a small matter, I think, in comparison to the other points that Mark raises.

It's my hope to create something here worth building a community around. In order to do that, it's important to give people something concrete to chew on. At the outset our focus will be on attracting and creating content that people will find uselful and worthy of debate or discussion.

That's one of the goals here, too -- the fostering of dicourse, the exchange of ideas and opinions. For that, we need people!

So join me in letting others know about the site!

So what is the focus going to be? Small press publishing in general? Will the site be confined to poetry specifically? Looks like most of the stuff here so far focuses on poetry and poetics.

The site itself has as its focus small presses and independent publishing in general.

This is no way limited to poetry and poetics. Granted, because that's where my interests lie and that's what I'm tuned into -- specifically Canadian poetry -- the content (what little of it there is thus far) will be poetics-centric.

However, since we rely on content contributions from our members, there's nothing stopping someone from coming on board and organizing content around their interests -- fiction, non-fiction, graphic novels -- whatever tickles your fancy. I'd be happy to create new forum areas for these interests, groups may be formed via the site's "groups" feature, etc.

Where do your interests lie?

Hey Daniel,

Just thought I'd follow up and elaborate a bit. Yeah, with respect to the notion of a collective, I think (and my impression is that this contributed to some other people's views in Jay's comments field) what distinguishes a collective from a group of some other kind is a political component that often takes the form of a decision-making mechanism that ensures consensus relatively free from any kind of coercion. Bodies like the Kootenay School were likely in people's minds. I don't know enough about the thinking behind collectives, so I'm not sure they're something I'm into (my knee-jerk reaction is to suspect them of naivete), but, in any case, I was surprised to see something that might involve advertising arise as a result of this discussion. Also, on a related note, I'd be curious to know if other people are concerned about the fact that the initial structure of your site is your work alone (this is something I appreciate at the same time). I think the fact that you want to discuss how things will go from here is a great thing, but does the fact that this wasn't part of the site's inception keep it from being a collective of any kind?

Again, I think people were all over the place on the idea of collectives. I'm just not sure the word means (okay, you know what I mean) anything if it doesn't involve some of these ideas.

And here's my thing with respect to the registration requirement (and this may well contradict what I've said above): my hunch lately is that, while the focus on community among innovative Canadian poets is a strength, it's unhealthy for a community to be too insular. I think the blogs that have sprung up lately give outsiders a safe opportunity to check things out and participate if they choose. Requiring registration will likely keep some of these people out, and, frankly, I think we need them.

Sorry I haven't participated in this discussion after leaving those questions hanging there. The shit's hit the fan at work and in organizing the series. (This is also the reason the above message is less crafted than I'd like.)

Mark