🚀 go-pugleaf

	It would be premature now to post an actual proposal for a
can.arts.lit group. Some months ago I tried to organize a similar group at
the level of the ott.* hierarchy, and found it wouldn't fly because of the
vast personal effort I was expected already to have put out. First, as I
learned the hard way, a whole lot of organizing must have been completed.
	That job could only be done if numerous active participants could
be found to publicize the proposal adequately. Instead, for the ott.*
proposal, not one other person ever volunteered to provide the leadership
effort really needed.
	Oh sure, there were many statements of support ... but some were
wishy-washy or late in appearing, some made counter-proposals, and none
offered actual help, without which I was unable to make the proposal known
to the local talents I knew were in fact our there: writers, editors,
publishers, retailers, teachers/professors, students, et al.
	The challenge will clearly be far greater at the national level.
With a fulltime writing career plus lots of other demands upon my time,
and at age 71 as well as with very poor hearing, I just am not up to
meeting such a huge challenge as a "team" of just one.
	At the same time, with the human resources theoretically available
at the national level, and given that "many hands make light work", in
principle it should - and in reality it just may - be possible to assemble
a workforce capable of getting the job adequately done.
	In the ott.* experiment (as I now see it), one critic accused me
of being on an ego trip. You see, I'd been forced to carry the whole load
myself; I couldn't refer to the proponent(s) as "we". Likewise, I was 100%
of the effort's philosophical steering group. Thus being damned for making
the effort, I'd have been double damned in my own eyes if I hadn't tried.
	Well, all that's not going to happen twice! If there's to be no
group effort there will be no effort at all, as far as I'm concerned.
	However, I'll have no objection to someone else's taking the reins
and letting me merely help, if that. Accusations to the contrary, I don't
care who gets any credit for leading the envisioned effort. All I hope to
find is the opportunity freely to exchange ideas, information, even
fellowship, with other literati - unfettered by my constant difficulties
over oral communication.
	ABOUT EXISTING NEWSGROUPS: My time for cruising the Internet being
very limited, I can't say and don't even care what international groups
may exist in the (small-l) literary field. Perhaps a decade ago, though, I
had wild-west Internet experience in a different field (sailing), but
found it downright repellent.
	Two people in particular were already in a huge flaming match
which was still afire when I quit the group. What bothered me even more
were (a) American domination, to the point where US citizenship was
assumed; and (b) the ultra-rapid scrolling of articles so that one's
articles had lifespans of only an hour or so.
	Within the can.* hierarchy, I note can.arts.sf (which, for the
uninitiated, stands for "science fiction".) In terms of small-l literature
- for big-L Literature is highfalutin' stuff in a genre on its own - sf is
only one of many genres. Some others are romance, travel, adventure,
action, sports, crime, and espionage.
	Writings also include journalism, other non-fiction, and poetry. 
	Sf, being written, is literature. That being so, can.arts.sf would
seem already to provide all argument necessary to expand into every genre,
for the sum of all parts clearly is greater than any one part. This
observation implies, though, that the existing sf group can be merged into
a broader can.arts.lit group. If it cannot, it would seem appropriate to
rename it "can.arts.lit.sf", clarifying the relationship of sf to all
other writings or literature, and also of literature to all other arts. 
	Of less interest to citizens of other provinces/territories and
towns, the ont.* hierarchy has no literary newsgroup at all, unless I am
mistaken; while the ott.* hierarchy at present has only ott.rec.books, for
consumers rather than producers. This group seems to have a small user
base that may spend much of its time in idle bickering. 
	The reasons for my initial effort for an ott.arts.lit (or perhaps
.writings - there remained a controversy about names, when I withdrew my
proposal) included the inappropriate name and focus of ott.rec.books. Not
all writers produce books; some specialize in magazine/newspaper articles
or short stories, poems, etc. I also found ".rec." a poor "middle name".
Professionals would drop it like the proverbial hot potato, I felt.
	That was, however, after a decade or more of experience with news
groups in Ottawa's National Capital FreeNet or NCF. My experiences had
included watching/resisting the dwindling of an NCF SIG (Special Interest
Group) infelicitously named ncf.sigs.boating+sailing. "boating" here meant
"motorboating" - an uncomfortable bedfellow for sailing. Once it was clear
that the single-server group was dying, three of us combined to set up and
successfully launch a more boardly accessible ott.rec.sailing newsgroup.
	I later became much more active in the ncf.sigs.writers group, but
it too began failing over the years. With only about half a dozen active
users, I now consider it no longer viable. For people like me, then, the
contemplated leap is from a small, local, specialized writers' group to a
potentially huge, national, readily accessed, literature-in-general one.
	ncf.sigs.writers being in existence, I'd hope its half-dozen users
will move en bloc to a future can.arts.lit. As to its present name, it's
not inclusive enough to attract important subgroups such as editors who
aren't primarily writers. Being restricted to NCF users, moreover, it now
inevitably leaves out the vast majority of literary people within the
local region (which I tend to equate with the Ottawa Valley) who use other
servers than the NCF - for example, Magma or Yahoo.
	Thus a proposal for a can.arts.lit group would not only greatly
boarden the geographic "catchment area", but also would broaden its
sociological catchment, e.g., from writers to anyone concerned with
aspects of writings/literature. 
	There seems every reason for the described new group to succeed,
but only if enough people with enough energy and time to spread the word
will get solidly behind the effort from the outset.
	Remember, this is not yet a NG proposal. Before it is, the
essential human resources must be found to ensure that the word will get
around. Without those resources there will be no such proposal from me,
although others are welcome to take the concept and run with it.
	Any relevant comments will be welcome, especially if they show how
the problem of "finding resources to find resources" may be circumvented. 

--
Pete Hodgins Sr. / pth@ncf.ca

"Something is rotten in the state of Publishing."