I agree with Jeanne and Nemo and Shaun. What I don't understand, then, is why I've seen poets get scolded for not accepting crits. And why there's a guideline (if there is one) of no vanity postings if that guideline can't be enforced and can't even be distinguished from non-vanity positings.

Elise, you spend far too much time thinking about how Eratosphere works. Your obsessive interrogation of the rules of order becomes really tiresome after awhile. It as if you must constantly justify your presence here according to what others do and do not do, or how you perceive it, and you are always trying to sniff out some unfairness, some inequality. It seems, ultimately divisive. Things get muddy around the edges, so what? We're human. Let it all go. Write a poem.

Nemo

It's part and parcel of a community. There's no censorship here, really, beyond the (relatively lax) ad hom policy. In other words, some people are going to post some things, and other people are going to post other things...and that's just the nature of discourse, plain and simple. If a poet is scolded for not accepting a crit, so be it. It's probably not going to be a moderator doing the scolding, unless it becomes an "issue." And there's no rule against snark. Seriously, people can snark away.

I guess I don't really understand what the complaint is. Are you suggesting that mods should crack down more on potential vanity posts? Or that there should be no guideline (or mods) at all? I know you've expressed elsewhere that you don't think mods should be commenting on poems, but what is the core of your concern?

You're absolutely right, Nemo. I've spent far too much time on this site and need to write. This sounds sarcastic, but it's not -- after battling depression I realize that you're right. Really. XXOO.

To answer Shaun,

I thought there was some rule about members accepting/not accepting crits, and I've noticed that there were certain members dismissing all crits they received. I've seen some members scold other members for not accepting crits, so I didn't quite understand what the rules were. Doesn't matter.

Knowing you are battling the depression monster does explain a lot. You do get rather obsessy about things, but that's part and parcel of the illness. In my experience, it's sometimes easier on the person to obsess out rather than in (things can get dangerous in there). Nemo's point, which you well received anyways, is that it can get annoying for the bystanders when one does too much obsessing out. If that makes sense.

Stick around, or go off and write by yourself. Whatever gets works for you. Just be careful of too much isolating.

Best,

Jeanne

I may seem OCD at times, but it's because I actually want to help writers make their poems better. There are some things I really believe in, as far as poetry goes.

Um, maybe we number a few scolds among us? Just like every human community?

Well, I can't speak for others, but I can discuss my own motivations. They're really three-fold: to see, to learn, and to discuss.

First, we never really see things until we see them through the eyes of others. This is invaluable to me, and I use those ways of seeing in subsequent poems.

Second, it really does help to learn the responses of others. Even if those responses necessarily say more about the critiquers themselves than the poem, they're still immensely valuable. And even if those lessons may not help the poem in question, they still inform one's practice in the next poem. I'm deeply indebted to everyone here, not because someone told me to cut a stanza here or a line there, but because their critiques are my teachers.

Third, the discussions of aesthetics are what interest me the most, but it seems those discussions best take place when there's some object to be worked on, something to be directly treated, as a physician works directly on a patient. The discussion and commiseration back and forth between doctors is valuable. And poets themselves are extremely reticent. I often compare them to woodworkers in this: few will talk to you about theory of woodworking. They'd find such talk useless. But you can pick up an awful lot of theory and ideas if you listen closely while they're working over a newly crafted cabinet.

Best,

Bill

We generally cut each other slack on this. Some comments may click months (or years?) after they are given. Some apparent defensiveness may include an eager engagement. Sometimes people just don't have the energy to spare for responses but that doesn't mean they don't appreciate thoughtful reactions to their posts. If you feel someone is just blowing off your comments, you can stop commenting, but you may be wrong about that. Arguing with suggestions is frowned on, but that can be part of the process of assimilating the suggestion into one's existing thinking and feeling about the line. Keep throwing your pennies into the well, please!

And poets themselves are extremely reticent. I often compare them to woodworkers in this: few will talk to you about theory of woodworking. They'd find such talk useless. But you can pick up an awful lot of theory and ideas if you listen closely while they're working over a newly crafted cabinet.

That's good, Bill. I have sometimes had the suspicion that poets were deliberately concealing hard-won secrets of their craft even when pretending to teach and critique. But it's really just a temporary mismatch of what's on your mind with what's on mine, right?

The idea that poets who post their poems are under an obligation to agree with the crits they receive, and to revise accordingly, is absolutely ridiculous. I mean, it's completely off the wall, and I find it astounding that you have started a thread to complain that poets have failed in their duty to do whatever the critics command them to do. I mean, huh? Are you actually serious? Really? If I post a poem, I am breaking a rule if I don't immediately adopt a suggestion posted in a comment? Really? That's absurd.

I suppose you find it hard to believe that someone who posts a poem and doesn't immediately comply with critical suggestions ever had a sufficiently open mind about revision to justify posting, but I can't see why it's such a hard concept to accept that sometimes a poet may wish to subject a poem he or she likes to critical scrutiny and may thereupon determine that the poem is fine the way it is, or with minor revisions. There's a difference between being willing to revise and feeling obligated to revise.

I get the sense that you are personally offended when a poet doesn't accept your suggestions for revision, and that's at the heart of your complaint, but if I'm right, all I can say is get over it. It's not about you. Asking someone for critique is not the same thing as inviting them to be a co-author of what you have written. And the idea that you would question the motives or bona fides of a poet just because he or she might not adopt your brilliant insights is not appealing.