[dean peterson]

Quincy, ha, that's some great footage. Eratospherians, if your poupon is gray, all I can say is that you may want to ask your doctor/lab for a liver panel.

Norm, all I can think of to say to your question is did you ever see the 60 Minutes interview with Robert Mitchum years ago where the interviewer gushingly (was it Morley Safer or Mike Wallace) asked him what he attributed his long marriage to, to which he answered, dryly, lack of imagination.

[Janice D. Soderling]

Other things have been said as well, Janice, not only this. For instance,

A style is learned by sedentary toil
And by the imitation of great masters.

I doubt Yeats did much critiquing, yet he was a pretty good poet wouldn't you say?

Yes, I would say he was a pretty good poet.

I don't know how much critiquing he did, but he was a founding member of the Rhymer's Club, a group that met to discuss their poems. So I suppose--only suppose, mind you--that he critiqued some.

Nonetheless, all serious poets study good work (which is, I think, a kind of critiquing, whether public or not) and then invent, deviate, fiddle and experiment.

Nice to see you posting again, Andrew.

[dean peterson]

Now that I think about it, maybe the Mitchum interview I'm trying to remember was with Barbara Walters, which makes his answer all the better.

[Bill Carpenter]

I have a couple of observations, based only on my post-Sullivan history here. TDE needs a smaller population so that submitters can come back again and again with revisions without feeling they are hogging attention. Some of John Beaton's poems went through impressive metamorphoses over several weeks. That was only possible because only a handful of poems were on TDE receiving close attention. A poem on TDE can develop at a stately pace, without the author's feeling he or she needs to go away after 7 days. Maybe it should be called The Long Play.

As far as critical acumen, it is certainly not linked to number of words used. One person speaking from the heart might pierce deeper in a single sentence than another in a screenful of commentary. I hope poets who have something to say will say it no matter how briefly.

Personally I have posted only on Met because I wanted a larger, more varied audience. I have received top quality responses on Met. I really don't think there are readers holding back comments because the poem is not in TDE.

[Janice D. Soderling]

As far as critical acumen, it is certainly not linked to number of words used. One person speaking from the heart might pierce deeper in a single sentence than another in a screenful of commentary. I hope poets who have something to say will say it no matter how briefly.

That is quite true. Perhaps I should have made clear in my statement above that an analysis can take a long time and the crit might be short.

[W.F. Lantry]

Originally Posted by Ann Drysdale

I wonder how many other people are dissuaded from the deep end by the knowledge that their academic credentials are below the level suggested by the rubric: [i]If you feel uncomfortable with … attention to the standard or lack thereof of your critique

Oh, geez, Ann. Academic credentials? I have four University degrees from two continents, and you're way smarter and more insightful than I could ever hope to be. All this about standards and bar-lifting... sometimes I wish they'd just whip out their measuring tapes and settle the issue once and for all, so we don't have to hear about it anymore. In this, I agree with Nemo and disagree with Alder: the phallocentric patriarchy is just trying to wave itself around and smack us all in the face. Once again. For them, it never gets old... and they clearly think they have to do it periodically just to keep us members of the rabble in our place.

But forget all that. We're talking about a forum that's grown pretty quiet. What's the cause? Hearing some people discuss it reminds me of listening to extreme right-wingers. Your economy's not doing well? Give it a good dose of austerity and rigor. Oh, now it's doing really poorly? The solution is more austerity and rigor! It's tea party logic, applied to aesthetics. And it has the same result.

Best,

Bill

[Max Goodman]

Those who don't feel up to TDE might be reacting to conditions that no longer exist there, and that Shaun seems eager to keep away. The denigration that Ann and others fear is the sort of thing the guidelines discourage with their comment about critting critters.

FWIW, I'm a dog paddler (great description, Dean) who feels welcome at TDE. All of my recent crits there have been disagreed with by other critters, never with any attempt to denigrate me, my opinions, or my way of expressing them.

[dean peterson]

FWIW, I generally did not feel un-welcome (as much as uncomfortable) either when I was participating occasionally at TDE, but I began to notice I was replying over and again to the same three or four people who posted poems at The Deep End, which began eventually to wear thin and made me feel uncomfortable and/or out of place, and made me wonder if it might be the same for them.

Maybe if TDE is salvaged a name change is in order.

http:www.youtube.com/watch/?v=c7DVWpHshCw

"Where's the Sands, where's the Flamingo ..."

[Christine Whittemore]

Just to say that I very much like E Shaun Russell's approach, and the encouragement to post on the Deep End. In my own case, I've just been away because I have been busy with other things, and also I haven't been writing as much poetry.

Also I definitely agree that TDE needs some new voices, and I think there's a sort of vicious circle--hardly anyone posting on Deep End means even fewer people post on Deep End. Not sure why this happens...sort of like the way people avoid a restaurant that seems almost empty. Just assuming it means the food isn't good, where it might only mean everyone else has made the same erroneous assumption!

When I am ready and have a poem in that state so well described by Julie--where one isn't sure about it--I will probably post again.

Just for the record about what differences there are if any between Met and TDE, I've always thought that a higher level of accomplishment (hmm! mare's nest, can of worms, who judges, etc!!) was expected on the Deep End in terms of poems posted; but I criticize in the same sort of way on all the forums. (fora?).

I am pondering the question of whether there's a point to having both Met and the Deep End; and whether there shouldn't also (as mentioned above) be two levels for non-metrical poetry; or whether it should just all be lumped together and there should just be one forum for poetry.

OR: what about this?

two levels...one for "beginners;" and one for those more experienced/published/accomplished/ or whatever we want to say.

This would mean newer poets needn't feel intimidated, can post in the beginner level, and maybe crits would be a bit less rigorous.

Within each level, any type of poetry--metrical or not.

Just a thought, has probably been thunk before, and discarded, in which case, never mind.
And after all eratosphere has been successfully going for very many years. Maybe it's just a question of natural cycles, and with Shaun's encouragement, things will pick up again soon.

[Janice D. Soderling]

Hearing some people discuss it reminds me of listening to extreme right-wingers. Your economy's not doing well? Give it a good dose of austerity and rigor. Oh, now it's doing really poorly? The solution is more austerity and rigor! It's tea party logic, applied to aesthetics. And it has the same result.

That strikes me as a rather poor analogy.