[James Brancheau]

Let's have General Talk, and General Talk: The Deep End. Where things get really, eloquently serious.

[Mark McDonnell]

Hi Jayne

"So how would removal of The Deep End improve this community? ... any more than removal of the also little-used Art and Fiction boards would?"

It's different. Above anything else, Eratosphere is primarily a serious Poetry workshop. That's its reputation and that's why people come here. The Art and Fiction boards are niche add-ons and doubtless there are other places on the internet that serve their purposes much more extensively. Along with Met and Non-Met, The Deep End is one of the three main Poetry boards, which are predominant at the top of the site and the first things a new member engages with. The current inactivity at The Deep End may lead a new member to think, after a few days of lurking, "well, the board for the most accomplished poems and most serious critiques is kind of moribund, so clearly the site is not what it once was". As Nemo said "it does no harm just sitting and gaping there. But neither does it serve as a great advertisement for the site, or for the word deep".

I think this is a shame. It seems to me that anyone who spends time on Met and Non-Met realises that they serve as their own deep ends. People on the whole don't hold back or go easy, or at least if they do that's just a function of their personality. It certainly isn't that they are deliberately holding back because of existence of The Deep End. An organic, unspoken hierarchy of critical and poetic ability develops here, inevitably. Everyone will have their own opinions about who the "best" poets and critters are. Of course they will. But it is right that it is generally unspoken. It is the basic human decency that prevents anyone from ever having started a GT discussion headed "Top 5 best and worst poets and critters on the Sphere". I agree with Rick that I'd like to see more extensive and rigorous crit on the boards, but it seems to me that if you post, say, four substandard poems in a row on the ordinary boards you will hear about it. The artificially imposed hierarchy of a Deep End seems unnecessary to me. That's my opinion.

The days of Alan Sullivan were way before my time and so I can't really comment on the arguments about why the current state of affairs is the way it is, though from reading others I get the gist. There has been some kind of culture shift, some easing of the obsessions of New Formalism, some change in tone, some disagreement about attitude to hierarchy. Something. Whatever the truth of the matter, the fact is that in the four and a half years I've been here The Deep End has been basically inactive and when it does have a little flurry of action the poems and crits seem indistinguishable in quality from those on Met. Hence my previous quick take that the simple answer to Rick's question is an obvious "No".

As to this being disrespectful to Alex, I don't understand that at all. I've gushed many many times about how the Sphere has changed my life and how much I owe to it. I give it money when I'm reminded and spend more time here than is probably healthy. I don't know Alex. Even when I was a mod I never exchanged more than a sentence or two with him. But that's fine; it's his prerogative to be a shadowy figure and I've no reason to think he's anything other than a lovely and reasonable man. If I ever met him I would shake his hand in sincere gratitude and buy his drinks all evening.

I don't see how discussing one aspect of the site constitutes disrespect. Whether they are arguing for the retention or the removal of TDE, both sets of advocates are, presumably, coming from the position of doing what's best for the health of the Sphere. I can't imagine why Alex, or anyone, would be offended by this.

People will argue and discuss. Especially writers. They're a notoriously opinionated bunch. Surely that comes with the territory if you run a serious poetry workshop.

All the best

Mark

[Jim Hayes]

But Nemo, what is it that thou dost truly protest?

That ”it’s a tool of ego inflation”? Well that’s highly pejorative and damning and patently untrue.

You are a confident and accomplished poet, the Pooh-Bah of Metrical with a loyal following, someone, I imagine, whose sensitivities would not be easily assailed.

If you categorize posters and postings to the Deep End in this vein, it’s no wonder there is little activity on the board, and no mystery at all why people are reluctant to post there.

Posting to the Deep End was never about putting on airs and graces nor was it ever polluted with Hi-Formalism dedicated to the pedantic and rigid construction
of a Triolet, Sestina, Sonnet, Cinquain, Villanelle and so on. Of course, such poems were posted but mostly in pursuit of a genuine artistic and intellectual goal. And no one was ever excoriated for falling short in execution, that old cant; “This doesn’t belong in the Deep End “ was very rarely employed and then only with someone who was blatantly inadequate, and not in skill, but in applied effort. It was never abused or used as a bludgeon of authority.

You have an apparent aversion to the intellectual concept attached to ‘deep’ end, an aversion you have singularly promoted, which is now widely shared and has become a deep rooted part of Metrical culture.

But the whole point of the Deep End is missed in this miasma of misplaced allegiance and misrepresentation of function.

Jayne, thank you for your kind comments, the Deep End will always be there and some day, in a less febrile atmosphere people will surely again resort to it and benefit accordingly.

Thank you James, it was not my intention to lose you.

[Max Goodman]

There's a human tendency to be nice to each other, and to sugar-coat criticism of work by people with whom we share an interest and with whom we want to be on good terms. Not a bad tendency.

Another tendency some workshop poets show is the posting of work they feel uncertain about. Feedback can help point them, when they feel directionless, even help them determine whether a draft is worth developing.

I've always seen posting at the Deep End as a way of saying: this isn't something I feel uncertain about. And I don't want the sugar-coating.

When critting Deep End stuff, I've felt it less necessary (or even appropriate) to be nice. At least that's how I felt when the Deep End was in regular use.

[Andrew Mandelbaum]

What I find most annoying about these discussions is that equal weight is given to the arguments/suggestions of the people who have done the work of keeping the site afloat for the last *decade* by consistently posting and those who really don't have that much to do with the met forums at all. It is silly. Someone even posted some "love it or leave it" nonsense. If everyone who finds the forum sign on the mausoleum to be counterproductive left there would pretty much be no sphere anymore. That doesn't mean they are the only ones doing the work here but the voices of those actually working out on the equipment should mean something when they suggest changes. I am sorry your cool pommel horse is now just serving as a coat rack. I bet some neat tricks went down back in the day. But the best thing for the site would be excitement and lifesigns. Old dusty deadends are counterproductive. Of course most of the folks who champion the mausoleum don't care about attracting new poets. They are actually using this site to sharpen their work. They are visiting the dead. Which is cool. But it isn't workshopping.

Jayne, I recognize you are the exception among the keep the deep end crowd because you are present and do participate. But I think you are making a mistake in what is best for the site.

[Jim Moonan]

.
I agree that, just because there was a time when the Metrical Poetry/The Deep End served a purpose, there might also come a time when it may no longer serve that purpose.

But I agree, too, that there might be poets and critters who want a space devoted to the thorough combing and ferreting out of their poem’s metrical flaws, etc.

Perhaps the board usage needs an amendment. Maybe it would work better as a restricted use/private board. For example, "for published poets only of formal metrical verse" or something along those lines. Whatever best describes what the intent of the board is. Or move the board to "Classrooms".

While we’re at it…

• There seems to be much on Eratosphere’s menu/homepage that needs updating, to my eye. As a general means of staying current while still maintaining Erato’s unique culture, there should be some process by which to do that and consolidate/re-locate, etc. boards within sub-forums in the process.
  For example:
• The sub-forum “Poetry Contests & Workouts” could be separated into two, giving each better visibility.
• There could be more “Classrooms” included in the forum of “Poetry Contests & Workouts”. This might be a better place for “Metrical Poetry — The Deep End”. Redefine the rules of engagement to be something like "One submission at a time with a time limit (14 days) on critiquing." There could be a cue set up for those who want a particular poem (or series?) to be “group edited” in this "Deep End" classroom.
• Within the forum “Conversation” why can’t “General Announcements” and “The Accomplished Members” be combined?

This all could be done best, of course, with input from the members but decisions made by Alex and the board of moderators. Fine-tune the website to create better flow, wider appeal, stronger poetry, a more diverse universe of users, etc.

Why not? Why not take the time to take our temperature? Healthy minds want change when it's needed.

Probably not the can of worms you wanted opened, Jayne — But put the worms in soil and they may produce a revitalized place that produces better content.

Off the record and don't quote me, please... The site as it is has been a boon to me. If nothing changes I won't leave. I would leave only if I were told to leave. Please don't. (Ha!)
.
.

[R. Nemo Hill]

I am not "protesting" anything, Jim. I am merely acknowledging a fact, a hole, a gravestone. I do not agree with your characterization of the Deep End, but that is beside the point, because that place you eulogize has not existed for many years except as that stone slab with the words Deep End engraved upon it. I suppose I could be flattered that you give me so much credit as to have steered the culture of the metrical board singlehandedly, but that is a lot of bosh. As for the word Deep, well, I posit that depth can be found anywhere that one is willing to dive, that it need not be fetishized.

I also plainly stated that I do not really mind if it remains. I suppose it is a monument of sorts. And I fully understand that Alex, occupied as he no doubt is with many things, does not have time to dive into the technical work that suggestions like Jim's would entail.

I guess if I was protesting anything it was the complete dismissal of the discussion by Jayne. I have said my piece now. And it is time to go dive into my garden and get my fall bulbs planted.

Nemo

[Mark McDonnell]

Max, I just assume that anyone posting their poems in any forum here is looking for honest feedback. The description of Met is a place "for serious practitioners of poetry who have learned the rudiments of poetic technique and who can give and take serious critique — not a beginner’s Forum or a place for early drafts". One can be honest, even highly critical about a poem, and still pleasant. They're not mutually exclusive.

Jim Hayes, I'm genuinely trying to imagine what it would actually be like, assuming the current demographic of regular posters stayed the same or similar, if The Deep End were suddenly to have a resurgence of activity. Wouldn't it simply result in two virtually identical metrical boards, but on one of them a critter would feel some obligation to provide lengthier, more detailed crits? To me, this wouldn't necessarily mean better crits. (It would probably mean fewer though). Sometimes a poem doesn't need a lengthy crit. Sometimes I read long, detailed crits here that seem to say very little, whereas other times I read one sentence that gets to the heart of what is working or not about a poem. I struggle to see how the Sphere, with its current, fairly active mix of in-depth crit, drive-by comments, praise, trashings and jokes on Met and Non Met, would be improved by the resurgence of The Deep End. If a person feels like writing an in-depth crit they are able to do so at Metrical and people frequently do. And if there were a sudden resurgence, inevitably someone would have to decide whether a poem, or indeed a critter, was worthy of being at The Deep End and nobody seems to want that job. Who would decide who got to decide? It can't help but lead to a sense of hierarchy. Maybe there was something genuinely extraordinary about the days of Alan Sullivan. I don't know, I wasn't there. But those days, whatever they were, are over. I think it's eminently healthy that brand new unpublished poets are mixing with and being critiqued by poets with half a dozen books to their name, and equally healthy that the reverse can be true, that an established and accomplished poet can be critiqued by a newcomer, who is perhaps unaware of the reputation of the poet they are critiquing. I remember my naive astonishment when I joined the Sphere that some of the people I was interacting with had their own Wikipedia pages. You've spent a lot of time telling us what TDE isn't, but I'm still unsure of your vision of what it is, or what it should be right now, that is so different to what already happens on the other boards. A rare poem was just posted at TDE and got fairly trashed. I don't think any of the critters would have treated it any differently if it had been posted on Met.

So yes, I suppose TDE does no real harm. It doesn't do much of anything. I do wonder if keeping a museum piece in such a prominent position is the best look for a healthy poetry forum. But it's just a discussion. Nobody is threatening to boycott the place if it isn't removed!

Over and out.

Mark

[Julie Steiner]

I plan to send my suggestions to Alex when I send in my annual financial contribution. Not as a bribe or anything--I don't expect my $$ to influence his decision--but as a way of getting his attention. I suggest that others do the same. Even a small contribution communicates that we appreciate what he does and are invested in seeing the site thrive. (He spends thousands of his own $$ to keep the site afloat.)

That said, I recognize that a thriving site attracts hordes of opinionated people. And of course the drama that hordes of opinionated people inevitably bring along with them is an administrative headache, especially with such a small staff of moderators to support Jayne in riding herd. Alex delegates pretty much all of that interpersonal admin. So any plans to make the place more lively and vibrant will need to be accompanied by additional volunteers for moderator roles, people to coordinate Bake-offs and special guests, and other time-consuming stuff that used to happen and doesn't anymore. I've tried wearing the moderator hat twice and was a disaster both times, and I also got tired of coordinating various Bake-offs and other Distinguished Guest events, so I'm out. But I'd like to suggest that others could volunteer to take on a small project here and there, if they aren't interested in a longer-term moderator gig.

[W T Clark]

Originally Posted by Jim Moonan

.
I agree that, just because there was a time when the Metrical Poetry/The Deep End served a purpose, there might also come a time when it may no longer serve that purpose.

But I agree, too, that there might be poets and critters who want a space devoted to the thorough combing and ferreting out of their poem’s metrical flaws, etc.

Perhaps the board usage needs an amendment. Maybe it would work better as a restricted use/private board. For example, "for published poets only of formal metrical verse" or something along those lines. Whatever best describes what the intent of the board is. Or move the board to "Classrooms".

While we’re at it…

• There seems to be much on Eratosphere’s menu/homepage that needs updating, to my eye. As a general means of staying current while still maintaining Erato’s unique culture, there should be some process by which to do that and consolidate/re-locate, etc. boards within sub-forums in the process.
  For example:
• The sub-forum “Poetry Contests & Workouts” could be separated into two, giving each better visibility.
• There could be more “Classrooms” included in the forum of “Poetry Contests & Workouts”. This might be a better place for “Metrical Poetry — The Deep End”. Redefine the rules of engagement to be something like "One submission at a time with a time limit (14 days) on critiquing." There could be a cue set up for those who want a particular poem (or series?) to be “group edited” in this "Deep End" classroom.
• Within the forum “Conversation” why can’t “General Announcements” and “The Accomplished Members” be combined?

This all could be done best, of course, with input from the members but decisions made by Alex and the board of moderators. Fine-tune the website to create better flow, wider appeal, stronger poetry, a more diverse universe of users, etc.

Why not? Why not take the time to take our temperature? Healthy minds want change when it's needed.

Probably not the can of worms you wanted opened, Jayne — But put the worms in soil and they may produce a revitalized place that produces better content.

Off the record and don't quote me, please... The site as it is has been a boon to me. If nothing changes I won't leave. I would leave only if I were told to leave. Please don't. (Ha!)
.
.

I'm sorry Jim but I find your first suggestion strange in the extreme. Why does "published" mean "quality?? Bye-bye all the emily dickinsons and blakes out there. Without new blood any community will die. By turning the community into a secretive private clique new members (such as myself) would never have a chance to join.

Regards,
Cameron