First, let me say how happy I am see poems posted on this thread. I think it is the greatest pity that on a poetry site such as this there is no forum for the simple sharing of poems.

In John Barr’s Essay (on a thread below), I found this:

The one valid impulse to write a poem is not to impress but to share: wonder or anger or anguish or ecstasy.

And I agree. However, the present system operates on the implicit principle that a poem is posted to impress, since the criterion for “success” is that the poem has been purged and cured of all perceived faults.

Poems may be shared in a sense by posting them to a crit forum, but then the poem is no longer presented to be shared but to be “improved”, “corrected”, “tightened” or “Polished.” It is not read with the same eye as a poem presented for sharing. And so poems on the present boards can only be shared by becoming patients, and we read them with a view to making them “better”.

Lee, you say that “Publication is sharing.” But not every poem we might like to share is destined for publication (like the poems on vegemite you mention), and so if such poems cannot be shared on a General Talk thread, they will never be shared at all.

Lee, may I quote one of your paras above:

You are quite right, Lee, to realise that you cannot post such work on TDE. All your experiments with bending or breaking the rules would instantly become faults to be corrected, and you would not enjoy the experience. And so there is no forum on this site for you to get any feedback on the general impression your poem makes, unless it submits to the process of becoming a patient to be cured.

It seemed to me a possible explanation of the increased activity on Metrical, that people were becoming more interested in receiving this type of general response – a simple indication of the poem’s effectiveness, without the prescriptions for major surgery.

Anyway, if anyone has anymore poems they would like to share with us, I am happy to see them posted on this thread.

One of the reasons often given for not sharing poems on GT threads is that it may compromise future publication. But if the poster removes the poem in a later edit (after a few days) then the poem has received no more public exposure than those posted for crits.

My preference would be for two metrical boards with a clear-cut division of labor:

[1] The present "Metrical" for light, general response only.

[2] TDE for detailed, in-depth criticism.

Mark--

Dude, you don't even post to either board, so why do you care?

Quincy

Quincy, if there were such a thing as a light response board I would certainly post poems on it.

I would love to share some of the work I am doing.

But not at the cost of having the poem treated as a patient presenting for surgery.

Of course, some people want the surgery, and they should have every chance to gather as many opinions as they can.

But if you are more or less happy with a poem (but could use a helpful response), then at present you either post under false pretences or not at all.

I don't agree. I've often posted poems I was more or less happy with. Sometimes, in the process, critics have pointed out weak spots I hadn't noticed before. Other times, I've gotten confirmation that the poem was good. And of course there have been many times I've gotten advice I didn't agree with, and which I never acted on. I don't consider that posting under false pretenses. I'm posting to find out how readers react, but there's no promise built into that. It's my poem.

Why on earth would anyone come to a poetry workshop and expect to "share" his poems there, lobbying for a forum exempt from critique? Nothing wrong with the idea of sharing; what's wrong is the location. If people want to share your poems they can Google you up and visit your blog or buy your books and share away. If they want to engage in reciprocal critique with their peers and work on writing more effectively, Eratosphere's the place.

As Maryann points out, a random or cyclical lack of activity affects all boards. Sometimes there's nothing up that moves anybody to comment, and sometimes people have other things to do. And then of course there is an endless supply of GT threads which are more fun and less demanding than critiquing, with no dues to pay.

Carol

Carol, where does this idea of "exempt from critique" come from.

Let me repeat my earlier point:


The first board would NOT be "exempt from critique", but merely exempt from the prescriptions and directions and on-going persuasions to change.

Critique on this first board could be as pointed and as scathing as the ad hom rules would allow, and comments like: "This is the worst load of crud I have ever read on this site" would be perfectly acceptable.

Rose, this short response board would certainly not preclude the sort of helpful comments you mention. I have been happy with poems too, and have had suggestions which have transformed them to the improvement of the original.

At present the two boards seem to be doing much the same thing. So why not make the distinction between them more clear-cut?

Am I the only one experiencing a feeling of deja vu here?

Quincy

What Carol said. It's a workshop, Mark, not a billboard. Crappy poems get knocked - sometimes with a great deal of detail - good poems get praised - again, sometimes with a great deal of detail. And everything in between. And generally with disagreement. We post here because we are striving to work and improve our poems, and we value that feedback, and it's up to the poster to be a big boy or girl and deal with the critiques, as Rose indicated. You takes what you wants, you ignores the balance, you thank everybody graciously, and - damm - sometimes you discover something.

If you don't want the feedback - fine. Paste your poems to a fence. Start a blog. Do whatever you want. But will you stop continually whining and complaining and proposing WORKSHOP changes because you don't want to workshop.

Second point. Lee, the Deep End is not some kind of Formalist fortress. I've never had a problem with knee-jerk negative reactions (at least from writers I respected) when I pushed the envelope on a poem. As a matter of fact, in my experience it's been encouraged. Once you demonstrate that you know what you're doing, and you're not a fool, I think that the main players on the Deep End will work with you. You want to write a random het-met (which I have at times), or mess with rhymes, and the critters you have to worry about (I can't speak for every single member) will crit the piece on the basis of whether the poem works, not on some ananlysis of whether you followed the rules. We've had villanelles posted that replicated the repetends precisely - and were knocked as being lousy poems - and others that barely respected the repetends, and were highly praised.

It's a Metrical Board. Write metrical verse - or at least verse where the substitutions don't overpower the basic meter, or where the lines just don't clang because it's an inherently lousy poem - and I believe that it will be treated on its own. I think what sometimes does happen, however - and it creates problems - is that "I am breaking free from the straightjacket of tight-assed Formal verse" is used, on the Metrical Boards, as an excuse for poor writing. That's sometimes a tougher call, and there can be honest differences of opinion, but I believe that the thrust of the criticism is to push for good poetry, not formal orthodoxy.

And, if you want to break away from formal verse, or you want to avoid the restrictions of formal/metrical criticism - post on Non-Met. I won't pretend that all of the poems or all of the crits on that Board are at the same level as the Metrical Boards (FV inherently has a lower entrance barrier), but some of the best Metrical poets post and crit on Non-Met as well (Maz Griffiths, for example, and Maryann Corbett), and in my experience good, thoughtful poetry attracts good, thoughtful crits. It depends on you, as well as the critics.


[This message has been edited by Michael Cantor (edited November 17, 2006).]

[quote] "In John Barr’s Essay (on a thread below), I found this:

The one[!?] valid impulse to write[!!??] a poem is not to impress but to share: wonder or anger or anguish or ecstasy."

-- Excuse me, but that's one of the more arrant pieces of [Quincy, what's the word I want here?] Oh, yes, Nonsense that I've read anywhere in a long time.

Did someone elect John Barr Lord of the Poetry Pronunciamento when we wasn't looking?

Frank

How many times and in how many different ways is Mark Allison going to whine about wanting to post without having his work critiqued? Why can't he get the message? What parasitic bum will Britney Spears marry next? Which elected official will be caught next with his hand in the till or someone else's pants? Stay tuned for the next repetitive episode of It's Déjà Vu All Over Again.

[This message has been edited by Howard (edited November 17, 2006).]