[Janet Kenny]

Heavens Janice. I'm not talking about "niceness". I'm talking about modesty. Caution. Refraining from strident certainty. It's like restoring a painting or practising medicine. Do no harm. I agree that "sincerity is no excuse". I never thought it was. I said that about genuineness to fend off assumptions that I was advocating flattery. I am sometimes accused of that.

I was never at any stage talking about injustice. I've already said so several times. I say it again. No injustice. None. Absolutely not ;-)


John, I too prefer not to tangle with a poem which I don't find rewarding. An exception is if it's a simple metrical hitch in a poem which aims to be simply metrical. I did recently go OTT with an old friend but he knows I respect him and he has often unpicked my favourite samplers. Still...in retrospect, I wish I hadn't.

Pat, you say it so well. Thank you.

Clive, of course we take what we need. I have seen poems revised to death. The poet's fault? Yes and no. I have also seen poems improved out of sight so of course you are right. But so am I;-)

So are we all cried Thumper.

[Maryann Corbett]

I have to disagree, gently and respectfully, with the notion that if you don't have anything nice to say about a poem you should be silent. (Janet, I realize this may be different from the stance you were asking about, but John has put it this way.)

To some extent we all espouse, in our social lives, the dictum that "if you can't say anything nice, you shouldn't say anything." That makes it hard to comment on unappealing poems. But poems are posted for critique and we're not worth much as a board if we don't provide critique. So we've got to do the hard thing.

Certainly we can comment on why the subject matter appeals to us particularly. We can (and should) express sympathy with the sentiment if we feel that. Certainly we can welcome a newcomer regardless of whether the poems are good, and we can note that we've all been there. We can say nice things to the poet, even if we have nothing but criticism for the poem.

It's not destructive to point out the elements in a poem that are ineffective. It's necessary.

Sorry to deliver this homily yet again!

[R. Nemo Hill]

In Janet's original post she wrote: every poem comes with an aura of otherness which we ought to respect. I think that's her real point here. Yes, Janet? Too often we see a crit trying to re-write the poem in the critter's own image, or in the collective image of the board itself (which is even more egregiously tyrannical and detrimental to poetry as a whole). As far as I am concerned, the first and foremost responsibility of a critter (and a reader) is to try to get inside the head of the "other" poet, not to cut that head off and replace it with one's own. That crucial moment of empathy is, I think, what Janet is addressing. Yes, Janet? Without it, the rest (other than the sort of technical discussions that are possible on the metrical forums) can too easily degenerate into mere showboating and jerking off.

Nemo

[Michael Cantor]

Thank you Maryann Corbett, for cutting through the dither and saying what had to be said, clearly and directly. The function of this site is for poets of a reasonable level of competence and experience to critique each other's work, honestly and directly, under the assumption that we are all (a) competent, (b) experienced, and (c) emotional grown-ups who are here for feedback, not pats on the back and praise. At least that used to be the function. If nobody "tangled" with poems they did not "find rewarding", then the primary function of this site would disappear.

[Janice D. Soderling]

Nemo, as you know, technical discussions of FV are also possible. An FV poet has all the poetic tools at his or her disposal that the metrical poets have, except received forms.

The issue at hand is not empathy but whether the Non-Metrical moderators have allowed or perpetrated cruel criticism on one or more members. That is what Janet said

I have sometimes wondered about the responsibility and limited usefulness of one's personal views when writing a crit.

I won't say which poem prompted my present rumination. It was a poem that engaged my imagination in an interesting way. It isn't a formal poem.

and

If we know another poet fairly well we can let them have it with both barrels occasionally but then we must expect to have the missiles returned. (...).

And when a new poster posts something which causes us to shudder do we wait or let 'em have it. OK! Cruelty can be fun.

"aura of otherness" was a meandering sub-thought to the topic at hand.

Again, the purpose of workshopping is to allow the poet access to the thoughts and suggestions of a diversity of compeers--some of whom are qualified, others less so, just like the general readership in the real world.

The developing poet (and the oldtimers) must be aware that both pros and cons, when politely worded and grounded in specific elements of the poem, are the purpose of workshipping.

The role of the moderator is to maintain, to the best of our ability, an atmosphere that takes consideration to this "aura of otherness" while promoting a learning environment. That is what I strive to do as moderator and what my excellent partner (who has taught me nearly everything I know about moderating) strives to do.

Our goal is to promote a good learning envrionment that has room for everyone's "aura" and all types of poetry.

If we are charged with having failed to support those goals, we welcome specific instances of how we have failed and we will do our best to remedy it.

[R. Nemo Hill]

I strongly disagree with your characterization of Janet's original post, Janice, and think you have let petty defensiveness about "your" board obliterate her more general concerns. The meandering sub-thought is what you are giving all the attention to.

Exit.

Nemo

[Michael Cantor]

I think the problem with Janet's post, Nemo, was the same problem I see in some critiques - Janet was trying so hard not to offend any living thing that it was almost impossible for most of us to figure out what the hell her point was - the post was hints and nudges, philosophical wanderings, mysterious allusions to a thread that could not be identified, dither and thither. So everybody heard what they wanted to - responded to what they thought they heard and away we went!

I have this bad habit, which probably stems from my engineering and numbers/management geek background. If I am critting a poem I try to first provide an overview of my reaction, but - if I think there are a number of problems with the poem - I will bang-bang-bang - go through them with comments and suggestions. I make the assumption that that's why the poem was posted. And I also make the assumption that the individual posting the poem is competent enough and capable enough to evaluate my comments and decide which are worth thinking about, and which are nonsense and don't apply to the poem they want to write. And that I can crit in a businesslike way, and it's not necessary to mechanically insert a sentence of praise before each critique.

It is primarily the responsibility of the poet to decide which critiques to heed and which to ignore; and not the responsibility of the critic to worry about whether the crit will wrongly influence the poet. It is assumed that the critic is intelligent and experienced enough to understand what the poet is trying to do, and comment accordingly; and that the poet is experienced and capable enough to sort through critiques and deal with them without overreacting. As our Guidelines state, this is not a beginner's site. We should be worrying about improving the quality of critiques, not toning them down to make certain that nobody is damaged by being trated like an adult.

[Elle Bruno]

so does every poem come with an aura of otherness which we ought to respect.

The same can be said for every critic. We comment in our styles, thankfully. Some of my greatest awakenings came from 'unfriendly' crits.
And one of the comments that bothers me the most on this site goes like this; "I didn't mind the crit, I minded how it was said." I think that's self deception.
Get over how you want people to present themselves and learn from what they're offering.

I don't think it's the moderators' job to make sure all the crits are nice and supportive.
If you feel someone was too rough, then follow up with a more positve crit.
Thanks, Dee

[John Whitworth]

Nope, Maryann and Michael, I don't agree. I like some poems better than other poems. I think the following poets wrote nothing but shit: Hart Crane, Allan Ginsberg, Ted Hughes (pretty well), Sylvia Plath, John Ashbery... You see, I prefer some poets to others. About these guys and gals I have nothing to say. Unless I like SOMETHING in a poem I don't want to comment. If it is just bad, bad, bad then others will say so. It MIGHT be that some Spherean seemed to have a high reputation and I thought ALL the rest of you were mistaken. But that hasn't happened yet.

Oh, and Walt Whitman. I forgot about him. Every now and again he ALMOST says something good. But he never QUITE manages it. I'd trade everything he ever wrote for the libretto to The Mikado.

[Allen Tice]

Originally Posted by Janet Kenny

We all know who they are and we're all very fond of them in spite of everything.

Duh?

Originally Posted by Allen Tice

Duh.......

Duh.