Critiques do have value, even if they don't seem to be appreciated by the intended recipient. Some critics have a talent for diagnosing problems in others' poems, and when I read such diagnoses, that helps me to recognize or avoid the same flaws in my own poems. That advice remains helpful to me, whether or not the author of the poem under discussion chooses to apply that specific advice in that specific case.

Still, I think it's understandable for critics and bystanders to lose patience, when the original poster of a poem thread doesn't seem appreciative of the time and effort others put into critiques. Even off-target critiques take time to compose. I know, having composed many of them.

Not every problem requires a legislative solution, though. People just gradually get less generous with their critiques for poets who don't seem appreciative of them. If someone doesn't seem to like my crits, but likes crits from others, I just let them enjoy the crits from others. And if they don't enjoy anyone's, they'll soon receive too few to make it worth their while to hang around.

I've had a similar impression to Elise's. It's not only that some poets dismiss all crits, but the way they do it has given me the impression they're not really interested, that for them our workshops are really just vanity sites. Of course, the solution is not to click on their threads.

Elise,

There is no such thing to me as a useless critique. Unlike some, I usually try to act on many of the suggestions and see what transpires. I may in the end go back to where I started. But the writer's journey is his/hers alone. The critique is however invaluable. Something I thought was great may well be mediocre at best, for reasons I couldn't see. Often I've been able to make my own changes after the thread is long gone, because it takes time to digest all this. I tried even in my last thread to explain to you that although I ultimately didn't take your suggestion, I tried it, which led to a valuable change no one had brought up.

There's a rule about having to crit others' work before posting one's own that has frequently been invoked, and sometimes more accomplished members are admonished for not responding to crits by even posting a comment, something frowned upon. But as to how one revises or not, that must always be the poet's prerogative.

Siham

Most people on this board do respond to crits little by little, pride notwithstanding; so slowly sometimes that it is almost unnoticeable. I know that I am not the translator I was when I first started. As for beginners being insulted, the folks here are usually too PC to do that. They may condescendingly correct, however. Anyway, I remember they once went slumming in praise of a "natural born talent", some sort of farmer, I believe, whose composition was peppered with inversions, most of them hackneyed. There's no doubt that this subject could improve (otherwise I doubt they'd have bothered with him); but many, despite their talent, are just plain lazy and won't put in the frustrating amount of time it takes to get the respect of the members in the board's day to day evaluations, much less to perhaps get accepted for its annual competitions. Not everyone is a gifted freak of nature, and, consequently, can't "conjure up" on the spot a genius rhyme or turn of phrase, but will, lying abed, get up and scribble down what he/she imagines is an improvement of what was penned that morning, and so on and on, whatever it takes.

Whether or not a poet uses any of the advice rendered is no one else's business. That said, it follows logically that a poet telling critics that their suggestions will not be used becomes a gratuitous snub. I'm not convinced there is "a sweet and gracious way" to tell critics that they've wasted their time and effort.

-o-

I'm coming back on to say, yet again, that I thought there was a rule about accepting crits, about not merely dismissing them. I guess I was wrong. It's just that when someone posts a poem and then dismisses every single crit they get, basically saying to all of the people who took the time to post, "Well, you just didn't understand my poem," then I don't know why they posted in the first place. Did they want help with their poem or not? I understand that revisions take time and consideration. But I thought we were supposed to at least acknowledge crits as possibilities and not dismiss the critic.

We heard you the first time.

Nemo

Well, Elise, by the same token I might ask you why you post a question in which you seem to want to hear what people have to say, but then you don't address what they've said but prefer instead to repeat your original question as if no one had said anything and/or it's a foregone conclusion that their responses were without merit.

Yup, both good points. You were not only heard the first time, but all the times thereafter. You've definitely been heard, Elise. And also replied to for pages worth. This is turning into a sestina, or rondeau, or whatever circular, repeating forms that make me dizzy if they get overlong.

Jeanne

Hi Elise,

I can't see too much difference between your latest questions and your original ones, though I do see you acknowledging some responses as not being the ones you were after. Perhaps if the below doesn't answer your question then you could be clearer on what exactly it is you are asking. So anyway, here's my attempt to answer to your questions.

Firstly, if someone replies to all critiques with, "Well, you just didn't understand my poem," then what they have is a poem no one understands, and they are ignoring some very valuable feedback, which is really their problem, not mine. And as many have said, I can choose not to critique such a person further.

As to why one might behave in the way you describe, I can imagine a variety of reasons. If you really want to know, you'd need to ask these people, whoever they may be. Or find analogous tendencies in yourself and extrapolate from there (I could certainly do that, but that would be another post).

When you say: "I thought we were supposed to at least acknowledge crits as possibilities and not dismiss the critic" I get a bit confused. You've recognised that there's no official rules/guidelines on this. So what do you mean by "supposed to"? What sort of an answer would satisfy you here?

I can say this however: It's both polite and also a useful communication skill to acknowledge another's viewpoint and to show that you've understood it. Not to do so doesn't necessarily mean that one isn't taking others' views into account -- which is worth remembering -- but is still very likely to come across in that way.

So, do we have to? No. Is it useful and polite? Yes. What do we do if someone isn't doing it? Whatever we want to, I guess.

Hope this helps.

All the best,

Matt