[Maryann Corbett]

Originally Posted by Elise Hempel

What's the point of entering a workshop if you think your poem is already perfect and you're just going to dismiss everything the teachers say?

It's telling that you use the word "teacher." In some cases it's correct; the person posting is inexperienced and looking for instruction. But in other cases, the person posting wants the reaction of peers.

In those cases, it's perfectly reasonable to reply, politely, that a critic has misunderstood. A poem may use specific terms that are meaningful to a narrow audience; if a reader doesn't belong to that audience, that reader will misread. The poet might eventually decide to aim the poem less narrowly. Or not.

And there are other points to posting. One is to say to the world "I'm still working." That might be the case for an experienced poet who's been quiet for a while. As long as the poems are unpublished and the poet offers crits to others, this is legit.

Another is to resolve doubts about whether anybody will understand. If nobody understands, it isn't wrong to reply "This is what I was attempting," and leave it there, waiting to make a private decision about whether to trash the poem or revise it.

It's tempting to believe the critiques we give are the ultimate wisdom and to want to see them followed. I think we have to resist the temptation. I think we have to be wise enough to just offer our thoughts and move on.

[Elise Hempel]

But the "inexperienced" aren't welcome here, right? Someone just reminded me that this isn't a forum for beginners.

The last poem I posted I wasn't sure of, and said so, and someone criticized me for posting a poem I wasn't sure of. So are we to post poems we're completely sure of (and for what reason, if this is a workshop?) or poems we're not sure of?

[Maryann Corbett]

Originally Posted by Elise Hempel

But the "inexperienced" aren't welcome here, right?

If that were true, I would have been in terrible trouble eight years ago, when I first started posting. There's a difference between "beginner" and "inexperienced." Eratosphere is short-tempered with absolute beginners, but it was very good indeed with a poet who had the basics down and was looking for reassurance, encouragement, and observations about the fine points.

The last poem I posted I wasn't sure of, and someone criticized me for posting a poem I wasn't sure of. So are we to post poems we're completely sure of (and for what reason?) or poems we're not sure of?

"Not sure of" is ambiguous, isn't it? If it means "this is a first draft," then it may be true that it's too soon to post.

But if it means "I could have made different decisions about a lot of these lines, and I need to see how these decisions will fly," then of course one should post if one wants to test them and has faith in the people who read here. And if it means "I don't know whether this will make sense to people," then it's reasonable to post. It's also reasonable to test the poem privately with somebody whose judgment you trust.

So while I haven't read the thread you're referring to, I think that particular criticism may have been a bit overbroad.

[W.F. Lantry]

Originally Posted by Elise Hempel

But the "inexperienced" aren't welcome here, right? Someone just reminded me that this isn't a forum for beginners.

Elise, this is mere vanity on the part of the people who say this kind of thing. The truth is we're all inexperienced, we're all beginners. Nobody knows anything. Some people pretend they know.

You say you wish for rules. But the rules are vain and silly, developed with all the wrong motivations, in a process which was questionable at best. It would be much better to look for a 'sense of the community,' which is stronger than any rule.

Originally Posted by Elise Hempel

"I now don't know what to post -- poems I'm sure of, or poems I'm not sure of.

People get awfully silly about this. One simple idea: post what you're testing. You know the old saying about test pilots: if you're not crashing, you're not testing hard enough. But everyone tests differently. Some people endlessly revise *before* they post. Me, I usually just type things straight into the window here. Both those approaches are extreme. They're both equally valid.

And guess what? People object to both approaches. They say 'you shouldn't do this,' or 'you can't do that.' Since you're going to be criticized either way, you may as well just go ahead and do what you do. It may be the path that works best. For you. And do you really care what works for someone else?

Best,

Bill

[Julie Steiner]

Perhaps this will be a helpful way of looking at the subject of rules.

On one of the autism sites on which I lurk, there is a thread hundreds of pages long discussing "unwritten social rules" that neurotypical people all seem to have picked up on, and will penalize you mercilessly if you violate them.

For example, there is no official rule against answering honestly and in excruciating detail when someone asks me about my plans for the weekend. However, the unofficial, unwritten rule is that I should keep my answer brief and uninformative, because the ugly fact is that most people who ask questions don't really care about the answer.

Such questions usually gets asked only because a lot of people feel uncomfortable standing next to another human being in silence, each thinking their own thoughts. "Doing anything special over the weekend?" is regarded as a good opening ambit for neurotypical people's favorite type of conversation--the vacuous, mindless kind that is not about the content at all, but about assessing whether the other party is making the right eye contact and facial expressions to successfully impersonate a "nice" human being. There's a whole non-verbal thing that's supposed to be going on simultaneously with the small talk, to strengthen the weak social bond between two people who barely know each other.

Or, in my case, between myself and someone I've sat next to in the church choir for twenty years, but for whom I have no glimmer of recognition whatsoever when I bump into them in the grocery store. (I'm so faceblind, I didn't even recognize myself when a picture of me and my daughters appeared in their school newspaper last month. I assumed that the adult in the photo was a teacher. And I only recognized one of my two daughters, before I read the picture's caption, because she has since changed her hairstyle. Yes, I really am that bad. And if I ever meet you in person, don't expect me to remember that we've ever met, if you walk away and come back a few minutes later.)

Anyway, the unwritten rule is to keep one's answer to small-talk questions as brief and uninformative as possible. Even a dishonest non-answer like "Oh, not too much" is preferable to an honest, lengthy reply. Because, besides providing ample opportunity for the other person to notice and dislike weird quirks, like my failure to fake good eye contact and appropriate facial expressions...the fact that my actual weekend plans involve nerdy obsessions with niche subjects is not going to go over well, either.

It would therefore seem counterintuitive for someone like me to prolong the conversation by asking them about their weekend plans. Oh, no. How wrong that would be. (Has been.)

See, there's an even more important unwritten rule: No one really cares about the minutia of anyone else's daily life--how they're doing, how they'll be spending the weekend--but they care immensely about anything relating to their own wonderful selves. So questions of this sort must always, always be reciprocated. Always. However little they care about my weekend plans and however little I care about theirs...if someone asks me about mine and I fail to ask about their plans in return, it's the end of the friggin' world, socially.

A lot of life has unwritten social rules like that. Unfortunately, the only way to find out what they are is to break them, and then try to figure out what went wrong.

And, yes, sometimes other people seem to be able to break the exact same rule in the exact same way, and somehow get away with it, due to another whole layer of unwritten rules about who is allowed to break certain rules, and under which circumstances.

It's all very mystifying, and unfair, and frustrating. But that's life in this social species. Even neurotypical people can't figure it out a lot of the time.

[Roger Slater]

Elise, here's a selection of some of your comments on the thread so far:

#4 "I thought there was an Eratosphere rule about accepting crits."
#6 "I thought there was a rule about accepting crits on Eratosphere"
#9 "I guess I'm wrong about there being a rule about members accepting crits. I don't know where I got it from."
#13 "I just wish I knew why I thought there was some particular etiquette/rule about accepting crits."
#21 "What I don't understand, then, is why I've seen poets get scolded for not accepting crits."
#24 "I thought there was some rule about members accepting/not accepting crits,"
#36 "I'm coming back on to say, yet again, that I thought there was a rule about accepting crits"
#47 "I actually, really thought there was a rule about not dismissing your crits. "
#49 "I actually don't know what the real rules are at this point."
#53 " I'm just wondering what the rules actually are."
#55 "I'm trying to find out what the rules are here, because I've heard varying things."

At this point I'm beginning to suspect that you really thought there was a rule about accepting crits on Eratosphere. Am I correct, or am I unfairly reading something into your remarks?

And here are a few more of your comments:

#4 "What's the point of an accomplished poet posting a poem here if he/she never intended for it to be critiqued in the first place?
#6 "I'm also wondering why I, or anyone else, should spend the time critiquing if the writer merely says, "You didn't understand my poem.""
#9 " I still don't understand, though, why members post their work and then don't take any crits into consideration. "
#15 "My main question is why post a poem at all, if you don't want help with it, if you reject all help, all responses?"
#18 "It only feels as though a lot of members don't accept any crits at all, and I wonder about their motive for posting in the first place. "

Let me get this straight. Is it your contention that it's hard to understand why a poet posts a poem if they are unwilling to accept critiques?

To paraphrase someone I once knew: It only feels as though you are not accepting any answers at all, and I wonder about your motive for asking your question in the first place.

[Jeanne G]

Ses~tin~a, Ron~deau, round and round we go~oh.

There now someone crit my pome so I can agree w/ and do everything they say.

Jeanne

[Shaun J. Russell]

This thread seems to have run its course, and in light of Elise's request to let it lie, not to mention PMs from others to the same effect, I'm locking it.

[Elise Hempel]

I appreciate all the responses. I guess I was merely confused, because there seemed to be certain written rules -- like don't respond too often and bring a certain thread back on top; someone had said that that wasn't good etiquette and had scolded another member for it. I suppose I should review the written rules; I was just going by what other members said. I apologize for the thread. Time to let it lie.

[Simon Hunt]

Originally Posted by Elise Hempel

I suppose I should review the written rules;

I endorse this idea--and sorry if it seems like I'm being a wise-ass. It would probably be good practice for all of us to review them periodically...