[Elise Hempel]

I don't believe this is a circular argument, especially when some members are giving certain "rules" that may or may not be true. I actually, really thought there was a rule about not dismissing your crits. Someone said at some point that you're supposed to accept your crits, whether you revise or not. So sue me.

I also really didn't know that beginning poets weren't welcome to post their poems, that this forum is for only experienced, published writers. Personally, I don't believe in that rule and don't know how it can possibly be enforced. I feel like a beginner each time I begin a poem.

As far as my own poetry goes, I now don't know what to post -- poems I'm sure of, or poems I'm not sure of. So sue me again.

[Shaun J. Russell]

Originally Posted by Elise Hempel

I don't believe this is a circular argument, especially when some members are giving certain "rules" that may or may not be true. I actually, really thought there was a rule about not dismissing your crits. Someone said at some point that you're supposed to accept your crits, whether you revise or not. So sue me.

Some people say a lot of things. That doesn't make them absolute, definitive rules. You have mentioned this previous "thought there was a rule" notion many times now, and you have been told as many times that there's not. Read the guidelines of each forum to determine what is expected. For instance, the posting philosophy at TDE, as expressed on the main page, is:

"Post stress-based (accentual-syllabic or accentual) poetry at The Deep End for advanced critique, close reading, and frank comments. Work should be well developed, not an early draft. If you feel uncomfortable with close attention and emphasis on craft, or attention to the standard or lack thereof of your critique especially by TDE moderators, then post at Metrical. Your work may be moved at the moderators' discretion."

The description for Metrical is not quite as detailed, but there are still guidelines. But the guidelines at Eratosphere are very basic, and they're not really "rules." This place has always been largely self-policing, and as with the crits themselves, you just have to distill the essence of what everyone says and find your own way. Every critic will have a different critiquing style. Some will be harsh. Some will be gentle. Some will be brief. Some will be verbose. Most will fall between these poles. No words, save for Alex's, and to a much lesser extent, the moderators', are "law."

I also really didn't know that beginning poets weren't welcome to post their poems, that this forum is for only experienced, published writers. Personally, I don't believe in that rule and don't know how it can possibly be enforced. I feel like a beginner each time I begin a poem.

The spirit of this idea is that you (speaking generally, not specifically) should post work that is in the (admittedly broad) ballpark of being "finished." That is to say, if you think it's something that could eventually be publishable, but needs some kinks worked out, then sure...that's something worth workshopping. If there's something that has a solid core idea, but you're having trouble fleshing it out, then sure, some good critique will probably do it some good. If you post something that most critics say is terrible, or "beginner's work," then regroup and try out another poem. If the reaction to that work is similar, then wait another week and try again. If this receives the same reaction yet again, then you might have to consider the possibility that your poetry really isn't very good. But hey, the critics might be wrong. Seriously -- they might! But what it should tell you is that this workshop isn't the place for you, in that instance.

As far as my own poetry goes, I now don't know what to post -- poems I'm sure of, or poems I'm not sure of. So sue me again.

Post stuff that you feel is "good" in some way, but needs improvement. Or post something you're not sure about. You'll get comments either way, and distilling the essence of those comments should give you an idea of the poem's relative merit...but no matter what, it's going to be subjective. Most critics were (and are) effusive in their praise of Milton's "Lycidas," but 100 years or so later, Samuel Johnson came along and gave it a famously scathing critique, saying (among other things) that "its form is that of a pastoral, easy, vulgar, and therefore disgusting: whatever images it can supply, are long ago exhausted; and its inherent improbability always forces dissatisfaction on the mind." Does that mean that Johnson is right? Maybe, maybe not. It's subjective. I've personally never been fond of the Mona Lisa. That doesn't mean it's not worthy of its nearly universal acclaim.

The bottom line is that you have to take comments here with a grain of salt, while respecting that people bothered to comment at all. There's a tacit assumption that all critics here know what they're talking about, so at least some respect and credit is due, but you won't see such things enforced, because that's just not possible.

Edited to add: I plan on this being my last post on the matter, as I truly think that, to quote Robinson, "there is nothing more to say."