It sure is a funny place, and getting funnier and funnier.
Now is there not a space between blasting someone's critique and ignoring it? I am sorry if I speak out of turn: I am new to this game in many ways. As I see it, in the forums that interest me (Non Metrical Verse and Fiction) this is how it goes:
A posts work
B,C,D,E, etc., give their opinion on A's work, kindly or not kindly, patronizingly or not patronizingly, competently or incompetently, - this is rather irrelevant -
A picks up bits and pieces from the sundry critiques and A) revises poem, often to make it worse, B) thanks politely the critics and moves on to another masterpiece.
In between, there is a nice parlor game being played: it is called mutual admiration for some and mutual hate for others, which is of course absolutely the same thing.
Could there not be a debate between B,C,D,E, etc., about A's work, which would be moderated by.. guess whom? the moderators. So there is no question of critting the crits or sh..ing the sh.it. being eraticaly correct or not. It should be the game itself. If B tells C why he disagrees with C's critique, it may just be useful to both of them and to the board, except if B and C are both stars in their own right. And perhaps that sort of dialogue might induce A to explain why he wrote this line that B thought fair and C thought rotten. So B and C together can agree it is ever worse than they thought...
Well, I am certainly too new in this game for my suggestion to be taken seriously. Thanks anyway to anyone who will have read it through.
------------------
'arry
- down to earth -
|