[Fred Longworth]

I will probably draw fire here, but I am very weary of posting a poem, and then the first or second critiquer to comment asks a question of me or indicates a need for clarification. I then answer straightforwardly -- only to have the critiquer let loose with an ad hom or spitefulness directed at me.

This spoils the thread. It gets the poem off on a bad foot, and it biases comments further down the line by other members of the community.

I am a sensitive person. Poets are not generally thick-skinned, unfeeling individuals. That connection to our feelings underlies our art. Words meant in derision or spite ARE painful. One has to process the words, percolate them through one's mind, to attenuate the venom.

When such words appear in the thread under my poem very early on, it means that every time I visit the thread I have to go through a process to depotentiate the rancor. It also means that every other member of the community who encounters the hostile remark(s) will need to deal with them too.

So I'm drawing the line. When my poems elicit an ad hom or spitefulness right off the bat, I'm pulling them.

Fred

[Simon Hunt]

Wow, Fred. I think this is directed at me, since you've yanked the poem I was first to respond to, leaving my comments twisting in the breeze. I hasten to add that I LIKED the poem and said so. I also quibbled with one (1) passage. You responded with an explanation of that passage that you now call "straightforward," but that I found condescending and insulting. I responded in a way intended to indicate my displeasure and clarify my initial point. I may well have been oversensitive, but I deny that I went ad hom or spiteful, as you claim. Impartial observers can take a look and see what they think; unlike yours, my posts are still there. Anyhow, I'm sorry to have hurt your feelings, which was never my intent. I like your poem and hope to see it again some day. I may be wrong about those lines, but for me they weren't as strong as the rest. Best, --Simon

P.S. I was also miffed you didn't say thank you. Y'welcome.

Edited to say: P.P.S. I fear I'm still sounding like a wiseguy to you. I stand by the post above, but I'm genuinely sorry to have upset you and to have prompted you to un-post your poem. I will endeavor to be more careful in the future.


[This message has been edited by Simon Hunt (edited September 19, 2004).]

[Carol Taylor]

Fair enough, Fred. In my own case, I just wait to see what everybody else thinks and try not to respond in a confrontational or defensive way that might encourage other posters to take sides. I know some people don't like my poems (and probably some people just don't like me), but one critic rarely "spoils" a whole thread all by himself. If his remarks are clearly ad hom, his post can be zapped and business can go on with the least disruption possible. If he's simply stating a negative opinion, there's an outside chance he's right. Maybe others will agree with him, maybe not. At any rate, he's entitled to express his opinion.

I do think there are times when an early negative crit (or an early extravagantly positive one) can set a trend for the critique that follows, and in that case the best thing to do may just be to offer the poem elsewhere for a fresh take on it.

Carol

[Michael Cantor]

Fred -

I read the poem you recently withdrew as well as the entire thread with Simon's comments - plus every other thread of your poetry I could find - and I think you are greatly over-reacting.

Over the past several months you have received a good deal of excellent, honest, and mature criticism from a diverse group of poets on a number of your posts. Many pointed out problems and difficulties with your work. (You post ambitious, but often difficult and/or confusing poetry, and I don't think that's surprising.)

Some individuals were contentious. Grown-up poets disagree and argue - that's life. But what I essentially saw was a series of mature comments on mature poetry, with the basic aim of providing guidance that would help you with your work. I urge you to go back and look at your posts that are still up - the totality of them, not a few comments - and rethink your reactions. If you really want to announce that you will pull your poems whenever you receive what you perceive as an ad hom or spiteful remark, I suspect you will see more of the, "I really liked your images. Thank you for sharing," stuff and less real criticism, and that would not be helpful for you or the Sphere.

I can't comment on your "sensitivity", except to say that I honestly feel that - if the kind of crits and back-and-forth I see on your posts is that disturbing to you - you are letting it get in the way of improving your poetry; and possibly you have to consider what is most important to you.

Michael Cantor



[This message has been edited by Michael Cantor (edited September 19, 2004).]

[Fred Longworth]

Michael,

I am not referring to Eratosphere alone. Neither am I contending that this happens a lot, or to any special degree here.

I have, however, kept a watchful eye on poems of mine in the threads of which ad hom or spite have erupted very early on. And there has been a consistent trend for the negative energy to continue to propagate throughout the thread. This may partially be due to my own inability to quell this, or to muster whatever psychological defense mechanisms are necessary to stop the ad hom or spite from ringing in my ears.

Regardless, my reaction here (not voiced in the thread) was basically to make a judgment that the energy field of the poem-and-thread had been sullied. I withdrew the poem and posted it to The Gazebo.

* * * * *

I am incredibly fed up with people going off on me on poetry boards, when I have done nothing to antagonize them other than state my points honestly.

I recently had a situation develop on another board -- I am going to go ahead and name it: Bag End -- where I did a critique on a poem which was fairly well written craftwise, but the poet had pushed the poem into the maudlin zone. I liked the poem and said so, and I zeroed in on two lines which pushed my maudlin button. I said absolutely nothing derogative about the poet.

The poet went ballistic. I was a crude, barbaric lout. Allegations were made about my childhood. I was cruel and hurtful. Another member (male) chimed in and raised the same nits as I had about the poem. Then the poet asserted that men were not qualified to understand her poem, because men were not emotionally sensitive enough.

Then a moderator (female) jumped in and sided with the poet. Then two more moderators (females) gave their nods.

I quit the forum altogether.

* * * * *

As for this situation and this particular poem, I am going to play by the rules, wait a week and repost the poem.

Fred

[Michael Juster]

I didn't see the thread in question before it was deleted, so I'm forced to be agnostic about Fred's more specific points, but I do want to add my agreement to his more general observation.

A small but very active minority here has gotten gratuitously nasty, and taking people "down" for sport seems to be part of their game. Aggressive assaults on people's religion, talent and politics are increasing. A lot of the cooperative spirit that brought people here is vanishing, and it is hurting the board badly in my opinion. This is a place to work on poetry, not an online attempt to overtake shock jock radio.

There has been a definite shift in opinion lately among the sponsors that we have been too laissez faire, and that we should be warning people about hateful comments more aggressively and banning them more often if they do not comply.

Nobody wants to be part of any thought police, but civility is important to the health of the board, and I would encourage those who want to flame at will to simply take their acts elsewhere. Their departure will be a net gain because hateful speech is driving good moderators and participants away from here.

Strong opinions? Fine. Negative opinions on a poem? Fine. Just learn how to express it as a mature adult.

[Carol Taylor]

Mike, I don't know what Fred said, but Simon's comments are still there and you can check them out yourself. I find nothing remotely snide or ad hom about them, do you? Furthermore, Simon has apologized to Fred in this thread because his remarks were perceived as hurtful. I think Mike Cantor is right when he urges Fred to take a look at his overall reaction to critique, perhaps tending to take offense where no offense was intended and responding in a somewhat contentious manner.

Fred, the experience you describe at the other site sounds very much like the experience Simon just had on this one.


Carol

[Elle Bruno]

Fred, I don't believe you're being fair to Simon by deleting your posts and not allowing others to judge whether your remarks to Simon could elicit such a respons.

Your response to Simon was something like this:
Hint for Simon: think of what fountains do

To you, I'm sure that is a straightforward response.
To others, it could certainly be interpreted as rather rude.
I may be wrong, but I don't think you thanked him for his remarks, which, on the whole appeared positive to me. The combination of those two factors could make anyone defensive.
like you, Simon has the right to be sensitive to comments.
Dee

[Michael Juster]

As I said, I missed the post and didn't see the comment--I'll look again. But my point is--even assuming in this particular case for the purpose of argument that Fred overreacted--his general point about civility is one I embrace wholeheartedly.

[Fred Longworth]

I have been urged many, many times NOT to go into extensive explanatory stuff about a poem, especially early on.

A reader (Simon) indicated he did not get an image. I could have taken a paragraph or two to add this or that detail, but I feared this would've looked like I was trying to justify the poem, trying to explain in notation what the poem had failed to say in its lines.

I tried to find the briefest, quickest way to answer his implied question. I should also mention that I had posted this previously to Desert Moon and got some comments on the final stanza (of the immediately earlier draft) from several poets there.

Simon indicated quite plainly that I was, in effect, via my prompt, brief note to him, calling him an idiot. Simon is not an idiot, and I am neither, as Simon implied, a boor nor a jerk. However, in my ethical frame of reference Simon did throw the first stone here.

I felt -- and still feel -- that that stone sullied the thread. I pulled the poem, and would do so again.

I am not seeking an apology from Simon, no offering one. Ultimately, this isn't about who's right or who's wrong. This is about one particular way a thread can get spoiled.

Fred