[Donna English]

I haven't been around the Sphere much at all for the past year, but since being back I noticed that The Deep End, which used to be full of cannonball and bellyflop action, looks nearly deserted. Did somebody just poop in the pool, or is The Deep End drying up? With the rate of posting there, I have to wonder why there are two metrical forums anymore--has there been any discussion of that?

Curious,
Donna

[Richard Meyer]

You are quite right, Donna. I've noticed the same evaporation at the Deep End, well over a year ago, but have refrained from making any comments or drawing any conclusions. That board seems to have become more of a puddle than an advanced diving area. I don't recall any discussions taking place on the Sphere about this trend. Whatever the reasons may be, most people seem to prefer other swimming holes.

I wonder if your inquiry will get the water splashing?

Richard

[Duncan Gillies MacLaurin]

Talking of how forums are used, Donna, it seems strange to me how often lots of people are viewing General Talk even when there's very little activity on this forum.

The thread I started on The Discerning Eye about Amis on Larkin 9 hours ago has had 17 views. If I'd posted it here it would have had at least double that, I'm sure.

Recently there was a thread started here about an essay on Frost and Thomas, and three days later I had to point out myself that I'd started a thread on The Discerning Eye about it a week before.

Duncan

[Jayne Osborn]

Hi Donna, Richard and Duncan,

I don't think there are any conclusions to be drawn, as such, about the paucity of 'action' in The Deep End. Overall, there's just TOO much going on here to keep up with, that's all!

To prove my point, I've been astonished at the lack of response to my posts on D&A where, for the last three weeks, I've been standing in for the MODERATOR.

John Whitworth, who's enormously well-known and well-respected, has been absent, because of having had an operation. The response to this news? An embarassingly small amount. That's no reflection on John whatsoever - most people just haven't noticed the threads!

Most of us have our favourite 'haunts' here, and will amble over to other boards now and then - but let's face it, no one can view all of it all of the time!

[Rick Mullin]

Hi Donna. Nice to hear from you!

Well, I never liked the Deep End / Metrical delineation. What is a Deep End crit, and why wouldn't one give it at the Metrical section? Do we go on longer than necessary at the Deep End? Do we hold back at Metrical? Are the Deep End poets the advanced swimmers?

As I understand it, The Deep End was started by a group of friends who saw themselves, rightly or wrongly, as deserving a board above the common gaggle. When you leave the door open, that kind of thing falls apart. I like the door open. It is very easy, on the other hand, to start another critique board and control access--members only.

I also think The Deep End, at its most functional (I've only been around for about four years, mind you), surveyed poetry from a quite narrow perspective with the kind of "formalist" criteria that extends beyond form. Poems were taken seriously to the extent that they emulated Richard Wilbur's or Robert Frost's--no slouches, those guys, but a particular taste prevailed more so than it did at Metrical. But even that has become mushy over time.

The Deep End has gone through cycles of activity, but it never seems to come back stronger. I find that the crits at Metrical, on the whole, are all I'd expect from a Deep End.

Rick

[Jayne Osborn]

I agree with Rick. What can you say about a poem posted on TDE that you couldn't say if it was posted on Met, and vice versa?

When I joined, my understanding was that The Deep End was no place for wimps!
'Post your poem here at your peril - it will get torn apart' seemed to be the subtext.

In reality, there doesn't appear to be any significant difference between TDE and the other boards.

[Donna English]

Richard, thanks for taking the plunge. I'm glad to know I'm not imagining things. Seems every time I'd stop by for the past year or so, TDE was slow. Now I know I wasn't just checking in at slow times, but was seeing a trend.

Duncan I appreciate your thoughts. I've noticed a lack of action in General Talk as well. Probably because we used to talk about the goings on in TDE all time. I don't frequent the Discerning Eye all that much, but it, to me, has always seemed like a feast or famine kind of forum.

Jane, thanks for stopping in. I'm not sure I agree with you regarding conclusions being made about the lack of activity at TDE. I'm not sure what to say about the goings on (lack of ) at D&A.


Hi Rick! Interesting reply. I think you hit the nail on the head. It does seem to be more drying up rather than quickly abandoned. I guess I'm wondering whether it's time to fill in the pool with concrete, so the hole isn't so obvious.

Thanks for your thoughts folks!

[Maryann Corbett]

Donna, since the board belongs to Alex and not to us, I'm not sure what function a public discussion has.

Alex has just *added* a board, so I wonder how he'd receive the argument that the number of boards stretches us too thin. Each of the boards was established for a reason, and each has proponents, even if those people don't visit often. Get rid of any one of them and some people will be put off.

But it's Alex's call. I think direct lobbying would be more appropriate.

[Stephen Collington]

Originally Posted by Rick Mullin

As I understand it, The Deep End was started by a group of friends who saw themselves, rightly or wrongly, as deserving a board above the common gaggle. When you leave the door open, that kind of thing falls apart. I like the door open. It is very easy, on the other hand, to start another critique board and control access--members only.

Originally Posted by Carol Taylor

I think I can clarify that one. While Alan is correct that we considered having a beginner's board when the volume became too great for one metrical board (if you missed a day a new poem could slip to the second page before you even saw it, let alone commented to it, and no poem stayed around long enough for serious critique or revision), we never actually had one. We knew we needed to split the board, but we weren't sure whether to make the boards alike or have each with a slightly different focus. We even took a poll to see how members would like to have us name the boards.

We considered the Deep End and the Shallow End or Kiddie Pool, but in the end we decided against a beginner's forum because Erato is not a beginner's board. We bill ourselves as a senior workshop and don't feel that we can be all things to all people. The internet is full of beginner's boards.

We considered Met I and Met II (and Met III), but since we had fixed moderators, we didn't think there would be much mingling between one and the other. If you wanted a certain mod or the people who hung out on a particular forum to comment, you'd post to that forum. People from the neighboring board wouldn't see or comment.

In the end we decided to divide along the lines of skin thickness, and set up The Deep End as a forum for those looking for more advanced and more exacting critique and Met as pretty much the same but less so. If there is any practical difference it is probably that the crits in Metrical may be worded in a kinder, gentler fashion, acknowledging that a member may be new to writing metrical poetry even though he isn't new to writing, and may be looking for some help with the basics, and that all of us post poems in varying levels of completion, some of which may not be ready for the extra-picky scrutiny they would get on The Deep End. You choose your depth and your distance.

The idea got around that anybody who was anybody posted to TDE, so TDE got busy (often with problem-riddled drafts posted by incompetent poets) while Met slowed to a crawl. Some members employed a reverse snobbery and posted only to Metrical. I guess there's no ideal division, but Met seems to be enjoying a boost in popularity right now while TDE is momentarily in the doldrums. I just hope it doesn't mean we're becoming kinder and gentler at the expense of honest critique or that we've suddenly all become thin-skinned.

Carol

Have we had this discussion before?

Yes, we have. Witness the thread Is TDE Dying? from, umm, November of 2006. The discussion there is worth reading, not least for the persective it provides on such matters as the question, mooted above, of the real origins of the Deep End . . . and, yes, the unfortunate misunderstanding that sometimes has flourished as to what it means to post there.

For any of our newer members who might not know, Carol Taylor, whose post I've quoted above (it's #69 in the original thread) was Eratosphere's first Administrator. She held the position, as I understand it, for some five years; she knows whereof she speaks.

Anyway . . . I've been taking a break from active participation myself for the last few weeks, but in case anyone's concerned, the Deep End is indeed open for business. Splash away.

Steve C.

[Quincy Lehr]

The Met/Deep End division mostly exists in the minds of a few long-time members, I imagine, though Rick does have a point about the two boards having different styles. But hey, traffic at one versus the other has fluctuated before, and it's more like picking a room to hang out in at a party than the person one intends to marry, so things will almost certainly remain as they are for inertial reasons, if nothing else.

I would also imagine that few if any editors pay much attention to the reaction individual poems got on the boards when one sees them in slush piles--I at times remember having seen things on crit boards, but rarely the tenor of discussion, and even if I do, it isn't a consideration. But more than that, has any editor ever said, "Well, I like this poem, but I can't help but feel that if its author had only posted it on Eratosphere's Deep End, it would be even better. I suppose I'll reject." I doubt it.