[Claudia Grinnell]

Bob, along with ideas about the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, I have rejected the notion of anything even remotely resembling your description of "my reader."

I am grateful for any kind of feedback, and I respect and acknowledge the reader's effort that went into that feedback; to dismiss someone's response as "crazy" would, to me, indicate a lack of the very kind of responsiveness that one is trying to foster in one's readership.

[Alan Sullivan]

Visiting "The Eye" today, I'm finding several related threads.

Here I would like to observe that it is often difficult for someone offering a critique to gauge correctly what the threshold of irritation might be for a given person on a given day, especially if that person is also a newcomer. I recall one exchange I had with someone whom I had offered too many particulars all at once. After receiving a testy reply, I apologized for overloading his syapses, and we parted on good terms. On another occasion I offered momthebomb too terse a comment, and found myself embroiled in a quarrel of the opposite sort, which played out on an adjacent thread. In this instance I had done what Bob Clawson complains of: I had not given my reasons.

But the giving of reasons is sometimes curtailed by time constraints, and at other times I may misjudge the accessibility of a particular comment for the recipient. Just this morning I had a private message from one of our more accomplished members, asking what exactly I had meant when I referred to a line as "metrically thin." I had expected him to understand, but he wanted confirmation, and I gave it by return mail.

I guess where I'm going with all of this is to ask for a little more understanding from those members who do less critique. It is a tricky business negotiating the work of the various quirky individuals who post here, and I was never famed among my friends for personal diplomacy. My objective is always to help people improve their poems, using the editorial skills I have developed over many years' practice.

Alan Sullivan

[momdebomb]

Alan,
I can see that this is a minefield sometimes.

Commenting on other's work is difficult (and even more difficult for the newcomers, I might add, who don't have the knowledge required and must resort to I like it or I don't like it, but are still expected to reply to two threads to every one of their own).

However, "boring" is just as easy to type as "clap trap" or "irredeemable", so are "trite", "fussy", "pedestrian", "disorganized" and "monotonous".

I have been thouroughly convinced of your expertise by the many posts about it. "The editor From Hell" was very convincing. I am still going to ask you for clarification sometimes, as I did on "Bedtime Story" and on "Bedtime Story (retold)". I don't think that's out of line at all. What are we here for anyway?

If you would prefer questions to be in pm that's fine with me.

Sharon P.

[Alan Sullivan]

Hello, Sharon. Actually I was quite surprised to receive that message. I had assumed the sender would understand what I meant by my comment on his thread, but he wanted confirmation. Normally I am content with open discussions.

Alan

[Terese Coe]

Bob

Yes, that seems to me an eminently practical and straightforward way of going about reading critiques, and I appreciate your setting it out. I like the rhythmic pace too. Thanks.

Terese