[Roger Slater]

I haven't posted a poem here in quite some time, but when I did, I often would end up making no changes, or only minor changes. And there's nothing wrong with that. Posting a poem does not entail a promise to revise it, let alone to revise it along the lines of the comments received. Sometimes it's hard to know that you don't want to make any changes in a poem until you hear a bunch of people suggest changes that you think about and decide not to make. And when I offer critique, I am never offended if the poet rejects a comment I have made. It's not my poem, after all, and I would be uncomfortable offering suggestions if I thought they'd be automatically adopted. I don't want that kind of responsibility.

Just as a poet should never argue defensively with a critic, I think a critic should also refrain from arguing. As a critic, you have no personal stake in the final poem and no reasonable expectation that the poet will make changes to please you.

[E. Shaun Russell]

I had a much longer response that I accidentally deleted, but the gist of it was this: while there are rules and guidelines at Eratosphere, it's worth remembering that this place is inherently amorphous: different years will have different active members who have different critique styles etc. There's no legitimate way to homogenize this, nor should there be. Some members have left quietly, others have been "run off," while some amateur poets have become great poets, and some great poets have had individual poems derided...all because Eratosphere is the place that it is. In other words, many over the years have tried to change the culture of this forum (I may or may not have been one of them at some point), but that has never happened, and after nearly fifteen years in existence, I think it's safe to say that that never will happen. Nor should it. The core philosophy is that a poet can post a poem for critique, and a critic can say almost whatever he or she wants to about that poem, so long as it doesn't descend into ad hominem. Sometimes this means harshness, sometimes this means saccharine praise, but it is invariably incumbent upon the poet to either take or leave the criticism. It's good manners to "accept" a crit, or acknowledge the time everyone has taken to read and comment on the poem, but it's definitely not a "rule" per se.

Incidentally, I fail to see the "too many cooks" notion as being a bad thing. Poetry is inherently subjective, as are opinions on poetry. As a poet -- and this is true of any workshop -- you just have to decide which comments resonate with you and which don't. It remains your poem either way. Like Roger, I've posted poems for critique, had critique given, then decided not to use any of it. At no point did I not appreciate the time and effort taken by everyone to give that critique...it's just that sometimes it just doesn't mesh with your own personal vision of the poem. And sometimes you need dozens of voices to tell you different things before you're able to distill the essence of what needs to be fixed. A great example is Martin's poem up in TDE right now -- it has undergone a ton of changes since it was first posted, and might undergo more still...but at the end of the day, it has always been up to Martin to decide which to incorporate, and which to politely ignore.

All of this is just a long, roundabout way of saying that these things work themselves out, irrespective of the rules and guidelines. It's worked that way for fifteen years, and will probably keep doing so until Alex pulls the plug.

[Elise Hempel]

Thanks for all of the responses. I just wish I knew why I thought there was some particular etiquette/rule about accepting crits.

[Jeanne G]

Maybe wishful thinking?

To have to accept crits, as in have it be an enforceable rule would create mayhem. The poem would not be the poet's as soon as they posted it on the workshop. Autonomy for one's own artistry and craft choices are now at the whim and fancy of others. Wouldn't be a good thing.

Jeanne

[Elise Hempel]

Jeanne,

Precisely the reason I try not to tinker with anyone else's work, though I've done it recently. My main question is why post a poem at all, if you don't want help with it, if you reject all help, all responses? I thought the workshop forum was to get help and other opinions. Yet I keep seeing writers who reject everything.

[Julie Steiner]

When particular poets consistently find my advice 100% unhelpful, I just don't inflict any more of my unwelcome critiques on those individuals. And, lest I be tempted to comment anyway, I skip their poem threads. Problem solved, for both parties.

[E. Shaun Russell]

Originally Posted by Elise Hempel

Jeanne,

Precisely the reason I try not to tinker with anyone else's work, though I've done it recently. My main question is why post a poem at all, if you don't want help with it, if you reject all help, all responses? I thought the workshop forum was to get help and other opinions. Yet I keep seeing writers who reject everything.

I would be willing to bet that most of those poets you mention do want help with their poems, but simply haven't found the "magic bullet" solution to what ails the works in question. I don't think this is a rampant issue. I suspect the rule you may have seen is the "no vanity posting" guideline: poets shouldn't post just to get praise for their work and ignore all criticism. But it is admittedly unenforceable, as it would require knowing the internal reasons for the poet's posting in the first place.

[Elise Hempel]

I agree with the "no vanity posting" rule and agree that it's not completely enforceable. Yet I've seen members scold other members for over-posting and not accepting crits. So I don't know what to make of any of it. It only feels as though a lot of members don't accept any crits at all, and I wonder about their motive for posting in the first place. It's starting to feel like a waste of time to give a critique.

[Jeanne G]

I sometimes share that frustration myself, as it can seem to be a pattern w/ certain posters. Here's how I work it out. We have no idea if they are just slow to mull things over. They might save those crits and integrate ideas over mths. They may need a brain break and shelve it for awhile.

Some people post what is considered on other workshops, "instant revision". As Ross said, workshop etiquettes are different. I found the pace here very hectic at first, as I'm usually a slow muller. And some can power through revision, so quick on their feet to rework and utilize or think of new ideas. I've found I can sometimes do that, now. So we all have different systems.

Jeanne

[R. Nemo Hill]

Poems get discussed, regardless of what changes are made to them, and discussion is always valuable to a working poet. The idea that critique is some sort of cut-and-dried, one-size-fits-all, how-to surgery, or that a workshop is a place for the collaborative authorship of a poem, seems naive in the former instance, and the death of the muse in the latter.

I often spend a great deal of time and energy elaborating on crits I receive without changing the poem. I don't see how that is any less valuable to and appropriate for a workshop environment than critiquers who simple say I think you should change that, I don't like it, and are unable to articulate why. Accepting critique means acknowledging it in depth, not embracing it automatically. The depth of discussion and examination of poetics here is what makes this a non-beginners workshop. Opinion in and of itself is not critique.

Nemo