workshop or not?
 

I've raised this issue before in other threads, but I thought I'd start a General Talk thread about it. I keep seeing certain members dismissing all crits they receive -- though doing it in a sweet and gracious way. Or members making the most minor of changes. What's the point of their having posted a poem? I thought a poet posted a poem because he or she actually wanted help, from other writers. Or did he or she just want a pat on the back for a job well done, no revision necessary? I'm confused about the purpose of this forum.

I'm confused about the purpose of this question. What do you hope to accomplish? Are you trying to get people to change their ways? Do you want new rules? Is there something that's bugging you that you'd like to change? Anyway, I think your question is pointless and will ultimately just cause arguments. People post for different reasons, and if you don't like what you perceive to be the reasons some people post, then simply avoid commenting on their poems.

Let me see if I have this right. You're upset by people who don't accept any crits. And you're upset by those who make the most minor of changes. Why don't you just ignore that bunch - both of those bunches - and focus on those whose response is just right. We'll call them the Goldilocks Workshoppers.

In other words - what Roger said. And see how wise he is - he said your question was pointless and will eventually cause argements, and - voila! - he's right.

I thought there was an Eratosphere rule about accepting crits. I thought that's what we're supposed to do. Michael -- you seem to be someone who adheres to and polices the rules. I don't really care about starting arguments or not. Are we supposed to accept crits or not, whether we do it nicely or not?

p.s. I've seen beginners insulted on this forum, told they shouldn't be here. But it seems to me that these are the very people who need it the most. What's the point of an accomplished poet posting a poem here if he/she never intended for it to be critiqued in the first place? I think I have a legitimate question.

Hi Elise,

I believe it is a mistake to assume that if someone doesn't post a revision or make major changes to their poem they haven't benefited from the critique.

Why revise in haste? It's not always possible or useful. Many people even frown upon it. Sometimes I post revisions in response to critique, but sometimes I lack the time or the inspiration: often the critique makes it clear what needs fixing, but I don't yet know how to fix it and rushing in isn't always seem to be the best move. However, I do take note of what is and isn't coming across to the reader, and the feedback I receive. It all informs revisions that I end up writing at a later date when the poem is fresh again -- and often those revisions benefit from that time and the distance.

Also, what Roger said.

-Matt

I'm guilty of not revising myself, and that's why I don't post very many poems (besides not having written very much lately). But I do take crits into consideration and say so. I thought there was a rule about accepting crits on Eratosphere (at least that's what someone else said). So is it okay to dismiss every single crit if you're nice about it?

I'm also wondering why I, or anyone else, should spend the time critiquing if the writer merely says, "You didn't understand my poem."

This isn't a beginner's forum. How many times do we have to say that? There are any number of sites which welcome beginners and, at least in my case, if I tell somebody they're beginner (which I do very rarely, because one man's beginner is another man's genius, so it either has to be glaring - or the member brings it up) I try to recommend another site.

There's no rule about accepting crits. Some of our members jump on every suggestion and respond with five different approaches and some are far more judicious, quite possibly put more time into the poem going in, and more inclined to have faith in their own talents, and only make a few changes, and those after careful consideration. So? If you don't like it, don't bother critting the people who don't jump up and down with joy at every suggestion. And if you don't want to act on crits of your own work, don't - you may lose responses after a time, but that's your choice. And you'll also find that if you've posted a good poem - and you have a history of good poetry - people are not going to be insistent about making changes. If the poem is awful - and you ignore crits and defend every horrible line - you're going to get a good deal of pushback. That's called life.

Elise, I think the phenomena of online poetry forums has aspects to it that are quite unique, instantaneousness for one, internationalism, and an largely unknown audience (far more 'guests' read the poetry than members).
Poetry forums are not forums, we are not Roman senators, nor are they workshops (there is no shop), they are a fairly unique product of the internet, like YouTube, they have created something truely new, which ezines and blogs havn't. It's bound to be problematic in regards to rules, formats, approaches and politics since it is so new ( I think poetry forums have been going for around 15 years). I've used about 10 different forums over the years, all have a different approach. All have problems of definition.
ie what is criticism, what standards apply, what is good manners? And so on. It is an interesting topic although I'm sure many members have read threads like this before.

I guess I'm wrong about there being a rule about members accepting crits. I don't know where I got it from. I thought someone pointed it out early on in my membership, and I think I've seen some members talk about it and/or scold other members for not accepting crits. I still don't understand, though, why members post their work and then don't take any crits into consideration. I don't see the reason for the poem being posted in the first place. If it's a workshop, you're asking for help, asking for a critique. I'll admit that it's hard for anyone to know who to listen to here -- too many cooks in the kitchen, so to speak. But if you really want help, take it, or at least take some of it.

Elise, I think your confusion is about what it means on this board to "accept" a critique. If the author rejects every suggestion and is insulting to the ones making the suggestions, he or she is likely to get few critiquers in the long run. To respond to a critique by indicating that it has been heard and understood, and then to explain why the author may not choose to adopt it, is accepting critique. If you find that some people always ignore your suggestions or clearly disagree with your point of view, you have the option of ceasing to critique that person's work. But every suggestion is made on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, and for a critiquer to insist that the author adopt his or her suggestion would be inappropriate and bullying.

Susan

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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