[Janice D. Soderling]

If you have a problem about any of my posts make them to me directly, here or in an email.
I will be happy to argue the toss with you.

If it started as a public debate, i.e. in a public thread, then it should continue as a public debate. It doesn't make sense that one person (you Ross) should have an option to post opinions publicly and then insist that all disagreement (i.e. Roger) takes place--as it were--in some invisible space.

I don't see what the problem is. There are gazillions of places to send work and no one can write new poems to submit to all. Just choose among what you want to keep secret to send to the editors who (if they do) demand google-proof poems.

If someone has to post every single poem for help to make it a fair-to-middling or "good" poem, then that person hasn't yet got to the stage where submitting to editors should be an option. It might very well be that an editor would like to know if the poem in question is really the poet's own work, or if it is a collective effort. I don't think that should be hidden from view.

I'm not talking about small items that fresh experienced eyes will note (a line slightly off-meter, a weak opening/closing to a good poem, an opportunity to weigh the pros and cons from various perspectives.)

NO ONE has the absolutely correct answer about how the poem should be changed--no one except the poet.

This isn't a place to bring OLD poems to present one a week to get an audience. We see often see excuses for crappy postings "oh, this is an old one I took from my stash of fifty million written over the past twenty-five years (and now I have finally got an audience)".

All poems posted should reflect the current level of competence of the poet, i.e. it should be NEWLY WRITTEN and the author seeking, truly seeking, advice about improving not only that particular poem but improve his/her writing ability. After a few months of this, the poet should be able to stand on his own feet. If not, you are in the wrong forum.

We see a lot of pompous and silly comments and chit-chat these days in response to poems posted--rather than not helpful comments based on the prosody toolbox.

This has lowered Eratosphere standards.

That said, there are (thank goodness) still many (both newcomers and oldtimers) who comment in helpful ways, who know what they are talking about when they make a suggestion based on craftsmanship. And they are the ones who make Eratosphere a fine community.

Don't fix it if it ain't broken.

[Janice D. Soderling]

There are exceptions to all of the above. So I think those who know when it doesn't apply to them will know.

If you can't write a poem that would find a place in a magazine without collective effort, you aren't ready. Rather than establish a pattern of off-kilter poems and idle chit chat, go back to your chambers and work on the craft.

Don't try to fool the editors. They are smarter than you are. (And than I am.) They have their own rules and are entitled to them.

[Matt Q]

Hi Janice,

Your post makes a number of points that seem to me to be largely unconnected to the thread: No one is saying that they want to post every single poem for critique, nor is anyone worried about their fair-to-middling poems being found by editors. Ditto old poems that don't reflect current level of competence. Generally, I think the concern relates to posting one's best poems. Nor are we discussing standards of critique or talking about people using the forum to collectively write poetry, I don't think. I value work-shopping and the feedback from it very highly, but I don't let anyone else write my poems -- nor I think do Roger or Julie. I'm not saying you aren't making interesting points, just that I can't see their relevance to this thread.

What we are talking about is cases in which someone is specifically hoping to get a poem published in a particular magazine/venue or type of magazine (poetry for children in Roger's case). Nothing would make me happier than getting a poem published in Rattle, my favorite poetry magazine, to which I have a long-term subscription. It's really no solace to be told that there are thousands of other publications out there. Therefore I'm keen to comply with their requirements.

There are concerns too that don't relate to editors. Julie has expressed a preference for privacy in regard to the personal content of her work, and Roger has pointed to having his had work stolen, and a general desire not to have his work-shopped poems visible to all and sundry.

In general, what you seem to be saying is: if you don't like the way the forum works then don't post your poems here (if you don't like the rules, don't play). Whereas, what Roger and Julie are saying, I believe, is that this is exactly what they are doing already. There are poems they'd like to post, but are not doing so because of the way the forum currently works. If the way the forum works were tweaked slightly, they would feel more comfortable posting these poems. What I'd be interested to know is, how, if at all, would such changes impact on you? How would you or the Sphere be worse off?

Don't try to fool the editors. They are smarter than you are. (And than I am.) They have their own rules and are entitled to them.

For me at least, this is far less about trying to fool the editors as to try to do my best to comply with their requirements. Personally, I would prefer a policy of honesty. This is why I contacted the editor of Rattle told him what I was doing in terms of work-shopping, and asked him where he stood on it (see above). If possible, I'd rather be honest in my dealings with editors than pretend, despite Michael's misgivings in this area.

best,

-Matt

[Janice D. Soderling]

There are exceptions to all of the above. So I think those who know when it doesn't apply to them will know.

I hoped this little post-scriptum would keep the innocent from feeling shot at. Anyone who doesn't post old poems, etc., should not feel targeted, or insulted or feel they are being shown the door.

That said, what I do if I want to submit to Rattle and similar is to send a poem which is not workshopped. How hard is that?

I've had my work highjacked as well, so I don't put up the final version when I do workshop. Basically what I am saying is that since there is no solution that will suit everyone to a tee, why fiddle with it at all? It is just more work for Alex. If Eratosphere has worked for more than ten years (11, 12, I've lost count) why complicate things?

[Michael Juster]

We need to change because the technology has changed AND--whether there is causation or not--the culture here has changed dramatically for the worse. I don't agree at all that what we have had here the past few years is working.

I do want to acknowledge Alex's heroic Eratosphere efforts for more than fifteen years, which were not part of his original plan. The original plan was to run a first-class online literary journal--Eratosphere was originally a minor adjunct to that vision. He has adapted before at great sacrifice and I believe he would do it again if he thought it would better implement his vision.

As for consensus, I don't see that as a goal or a precondition to change. It's Alex's choice, and in fact the odds are that we would be better off if he embraced a model that caused a few of the bullies here to leave.

[Janice D. Soderling]

I've been to see what Tim said in the post you quoted earlier, Matt.

This is from his FB post.

After much deliberation, I've decided to change our definition of "publication" to the industry standard: Self-publishing to your blog or posting PUBLICLY on Facebook, etc., is now considered previous publication.

Eratosphere is not a blog nor is it Facebook.

Tim is a writer-friendly editor and he exemplifies further in the thread where he first announced the policy change.

Otherwise, I am in general agreement with what Mike Juster wrote. If I am numbered among the bullies, just say so and I'll leave.

[Matt Q]

Janice,

I wasn't offended by what you said, I just couldn't see it's relevance to the topic at hand, though I think perhaps I'm a little clearer now.

This is what I take you to be saying: A good poet shouldn't need a workshop, and only uses it to iron the odd metric bump or weak line. So it should be very easy not to workshop a poem should one be wary about privacy/security issues. However if one does feels the need to workshop the poem, then one is getting some added value, and this puts one at an unfair advantage and it's only fair that an editor should know this. Is that right?

Originally Posted by Janice D. Soderling

That said, what I do if I want to submit to Rattle and similar is to send a poem which is not workshopped. How hard is that?

I must say that this reminded me of an old joke. A man goes to the doctor and says, "My arm hurts if I do this" and the doctor says "Well, don't do that then" Personally, I find work-shopping my poem is a very useful part of getting it ready for publication, rather like test-driving it. I don't need anyone to tell me what to write, but I do find feedback from others invaluable in assessing what isn't working as well as it could be, or what isn't coming across. I don't think this is unfair, as anyone who wants to can join a poetry forum if they wish to (or show a poem to friends etc), and it's still my work when it's finished: it's not a poem written by committee. So, if I want to submit a poem to Rattle, I'd want to workshop it first. (And incidentally, there's currently no security-related reason I shouldn't, in case I've given the impression that there is -- see below. Rattle was just my example.)

Basically what I am saying is that since there is no solution that will suit everyone to a tee, why fiddle with it at all? It is just more work for Alex. If Eratosphere has worked for more than ten years (11, 12, I've lost count) why complicate things?

I guess I find myself wondering why you say that there's no solution that will work for everyone? So far no one has raised any concrete objection to changes. Perhaps there is an alternative way of doing things that suits Roger and Julie better and doesn't inconvenience others? Take the password-protecting and creation of Deep Drills, for example.

As for work for Alex, I imagine he's the best judge of what's too much work for him and what isn't. For all we know, adding password protection might take five minutes (it might not, of course!)

Regarding what Tim said, I've corresponded with him on this: see post #58 on this thread. He said, that technically anything publicly accessible counts as published, but what he doesn't know about won't hurt him. So basically, workshop away, but make sure your poem can't be found. I'm happy that I can take steps to do this for future poems that I workshop on the Sphere.

Best,

Matt

[Roger Slater]

Again, to quote Matt, "What I'd be interested to know is, how, if at all, would such changes impact on you? How would you or the Sphere be worse off?"

It's one thing to make light of the concerns that I have expressed, and it's all well and good if you do not share them, but why not indulge those concerns if there's no skin off your nose?

And of course it's Alex's decision. No one suggested otherwise. It very well may be that in his judgment the impact of my suggestion would discourage new members from joining, and, as I've said a few times, that is obviously a valid concern which may trump all the other concerns that I have mentioned.

Apart from membership, however, I can't see why anyone feels it would be better to make it as easy as possible for any of the earth's seven billion people to stop by and read non-final drafts of poems you post for critique.

[Michael Juster]

I am in full agreement with Roger.

Size should never be a goal in and of itself. IMO, it is part of what killed West Chester.

I believe that critique is far more important to poets than just tweaking meter. Many times we get too close to our original vision & can't see that the poem on the page is different than the poem in our head. Also, we have many psychological defenses that push us toward the easy poem rather than the poem that is honest but hurts to write. Sometimes I start with an interesting premise but take it somewhere dull with great conviction. When Eratosphere was working well, we would have those types of discussions in a professional way.

[Ed Shacklee]

Perhaps this question is irrelevant to the issue at hand, and if so, please forgive me. But I wonder how active members are attracted to the Sphere, and if our current level of accessibility has something to do with regular infusions of new blood, as one by one we older participants drift off or wither away? I can see the possible benefits of increased privacy, but I'm not sure we know at this point what the potential downside may be. I do know that I, for one, stumbled across a poem by Rick Mullin while googling something unrelated, which led to me joining in. I wonder if that is a common occurrence?

Best,

Ed