Broadly speaking, I tend to think of Met as the place to post when I want empirical critique, that is, critique focussed on quantitative aspects of meter, grammatical rules, and so forth. In contrast, I tend to think of TDE as the place to post when I want aesthetic critique, that is, critique focussed on the qualitative aspects of the work, rhythmical flow, voice, atmosphere, and so forth.

I'm aware, of course, that in terms of everyday critique there's a wide margin between how I see things and how things really are. And I accept, of course, that separating meter from rhythm, for example, isn't always possible or even desirable. All the same, I think the above perspective is valid to a degree.

Thoughts?

It seems to me that you get all of those things, in varying degrees, on both forums. I see little difference apart from personalities.
It should ALL be "deep end", in my opinion. By that I mean, if you're not aiming high (i.e. "deep"), then don't bother.

thanks
Chris

Mike, if you're describing how the moderators critique on their own turf, I think your analysis is reasonably accurate in practice. Particularly when I encounter work from a newcomer (or someone otherwise new to me), I'll spend more time on technical matters because I see it as my job to do that. That may mean that less gets said about esthetics, but that's simply because there's only so much I can cover in the time I have. If meter is not an issue, qualitative matters can get equal attention.

There are members, though, who read all the poetry boards and who comment in much the same way on all of them. Some readers are most moved to comment when they especially enjoy a poem, others when they especially dislike one. Their different habits probably limit the usefulness of any generalization about what Met is for.

The bottom lines as I see them: if you need to learn about meter, come to Met. If you've got a rough draft, something not well developed yet, try it out at Met. If you'd like bad news to be phrased a little more moderately, come to Met.

I'll be interested to hear how others see things.

It seems to me I often see more interesting work--bolder or more experimental--in Met than TDE, where the piece is often quite polished (and scans and rhymes fine) in execution, but is pretty tame and conservative in conception. Not all the time, mind you, but it is something I've noticed over the years.

Just as Alicia finds more interesting work at Met, I find that the critiques are frequently more..."deep end" at Met. Part of the problem is that TDE is clubby, which tends to support shorthand critiques, such as "me likee".

Overall, I think the lines are blurred between the two boards, primarily because TDE has its door wide open to the street. Before I first posted there, I asked Maryann if newcomers need something like "permission" to join, and I would have been fine if the answer were "yes, and you don't have it yet, pal."

There is grumbling about the "dumbing down" of The Deep End. And six out of eight threads are locked within three hours. Kind of a bad vibe, which I am told comes, as such vibes do most places, in cycles at TDE. But I think what is needed is a rethink of TDE. Perhaps it should be truly exclusive. As things are now, I agree with Chris. Maybe we should merge them.

[edited out a glitched repeat paragaraph]


[This message has been edited by Rick Mullin (edited September 03, 2008).]

I think that any attempt to categorise and compartmentalise poems is comparable to herding cats.
Janet

That would be a good name for a new board, Janet:
Herding Cats

What's that screeching?

Nemo

[This message has been edited by R. Nemo Hill (edited September 03, 2008).]

If the subject is herding cats, I just have to do this...


Herding cats

Sorry, Mike! Perhaps even now we can still explore the question you raise, in spite of all this.

Well, I found the level of criticism on both boards qualitatively similar. Mainly switched from Met to the Deep End because more people looked at the latter.

These comments are very interesting and variously demonstrative of the differences between "how I see things and how things really are". What differences do you think it would make if the forums were explicitly marked as being for "empirical" and "qualitative" critiques respectively? Do you think it would improve anything? Or would everyone (as I imagine) put their poems up for qualitative critique? (I mean, we're all first-class craftsmen and women here, aren't we? We don't need to be marked on grammar or meter, do we?)

Janet—

Please show me how my original post constitutes an "attempt to categorise and compartmentalise poems". (What is the difference between categorise and compartmentalise, by the way?) Unless I've misunderstood myself, my original post is an attempt to instigate a discussion of perceived differences in critiquing between the Sphere's two metrical forums. (Note: I make the assumption that you are responding in context, and not just shooting into the air.)

[This message has been edited by Mike Todd (edited September 04, 2008).]