[Quincy Lehr]

In a post on Cyn Neely's latest poem on Met, Alan Sullivan had the following things to say:

"Cyn? Short for Cynthia, I presume. Hello. I accidently clicked into Metrical, rather than The Deep End. Being here, I clicked on this. I have some TDE-level observations, but they won't be easy ones."

AND

"I don't think you're getting adequate crits, when people praise such inadequate work. It's not enough to put rhymes and iambs in appropriate places, or to deploy some words with lively sounds. To be worth writing and reading, a poem must do more than this."

I don't mean to criticize Alan's critique of the poem, which, though unfavorable, was fair, including by the standards of the Met board. Indeed, I have not noticed a great dip in the degree or severity of criticism between the Met board and the Deep End. I certainly don't go into the two boards with different ideas of how I'm going to proceed with a poem.

The underlying attitude in the quoted bits, however, may be summarized as follows:

1. The Met Board is a place where you can't say bluntly that something doesn't work for you. (Thus, pointing out relatively basic problems was a "Deep End" crit.)
2. The criticism on the board is not "adequate."

Point two would seem to be in some tension with point one. If Met isn't a "serious" board, then the criticism necessarily won't be adequate. Moreover, point two is based on limited data: to wit, crits by two poets, Mary Meriam (who liked the piece) and Maryann Corbett (who had reservations). The poem is recently posted, and most of us who frequent the Met board have yet to weigh in.

Normally, I'd just stew about this, but it speaks of a certain arrogance that strikes me as unwarranted. Many of us who don't post on the Deep End don't do so for what might be termed "cultural" reasons. We're relatively recent arrivals, aren't part of the Deep End Club, and don't feel a particular need to join. We don't mind harsh crits, but we've got our own posse on our own board. I've gotten excellent advice on poems from R. Nemo Hill, Stephen Scaer, Maryann Corbett, Duncan MacLaurin, Mary Meriam, Lance Levens, and other poets (if I didn't name-check you, please don't be offended; the list isn't exhaustive) who frequently post both poems (frequently quite good) and crits on the Met board. I've also gotten good feedback from many Deep Enders who don't seem to see the Met board as "slumming" and who don't feel the need to pull punches there. (Case in point: Michael Cantor.)

For what it's worth,

Quincy

[Maryann Corbett]

Thank you for posting, Quincy. I've just spend my whole commute home stewing about this matter and am glad to find it addressed. You've said just about exactly what I would have said.

It isn't clear to me that Alan has expressed disapproval of the general level of critique on Met, though he may have meant that. I do, however, read his post as calling into question my decision to express myself temperately on this poem--a decision I made because I'd been pretty hard on Cyn's previous one.

There is such a thing as a teaching stance that works on developing skills one at a time. It can be the right stance for some crits and some poets, and it doesn't alter the fact that our usual approach on Met is to be frank and demanding with each other.

Maryann

[Mark Allinson]

Very interesting, Quincy.

But are these two boards simply representing two discrete but equal cultures?

Consider the two blurbs:

Metrical Poetry

Post and critique metrical/formal verse. Metrical is defined as stress-based meter (accentual or accentual-syllabic). Syllabics and non-metrical forms should be posted in Non-Met.


Metrical Poetry -- The Deep End

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, post at Metrical. Your work may be moved at moderators' discretion.

The enboldened bits here seem to be saying: "this is where the big kids play, so watch out! If you can't take the rough and tumble, go back to the sand-box where the little ones play."

In short, it certainly looks like an hierarchical order - shallow end, and deep end.

[Cyn Neely]

Well if I wanted my poem to slide into obscurity, I guess that chance has passed (thanks a LOT Quincy LOL)

I post here at eratosphere because I know I will get honest crits. Alan has his opinion of my poem, and I can take it. Others may not agree with his take, but their critiques are then inadequate?

I understood that metrical was for those getting started in metrical poetry. Not for rank beginners mind you, but for those who may be well versed in other forms of poetic expression but not necessarily meter.

I expect the crtiques to be honest but in some way helpful to someone trying to learn, and certainly not to discredit some one else's critique.

What makes one person's opinion better than someone else's here? The number of times they have posted? The strength of their convictions? The number of times they have been published and by whom? If Alan's critique is worthier than Mary's I might as well just pack it in right now, right?

This is not to say Alan did not have the right to his opinion or to state it, or that I will not consider it.But just because it's from the Deep End does that mean I should heed it any more than any one else's assessment of my poem?

Just so I get the rules straight.
Cyn

[David Anthony]

I've never noticed much difference in standards between Deep End and Met postings: it's more that they are populated by different groups of people. You see a wide range of quality on both, as you would expect when there are no qualitative restrictions.
I post occasionally to Deep End when I particularly want comment from that community of poets. However, I know a lot of them pretty well, and they know me, and I can mostly predict the comments. Therefore I post the majority of my stuff to Met (not that I'm writing much at the moment) since I don't know the people so well and tend to get a different range of insights.
Also there's more modesty among Met people, IMHO, and I respect that.
Best regards,
David

[Maryann Corbett]

Originally posted by Quincy Lehr:

Many of us who don't post on the Deep End don't do so for what might be termed "cultural" reasons. We're relatively recent arrivals, aren't part of the Deep End Club, and don't feel a particular need to join. We don't mind harsh crits, but we've got our own posse on our own board.

This point, I think, is the real heart of the discussion, since it's the point that goes beyond the "advertised" distinction between Met and Deep End.

Maryann

[Quincy Lehr]

Cyn--

Sorry about putting you under the spotlight, though to be fair, you did post on a public board, and I don't really see how I would have helped matters by launching the discussion on your poem thread on Met. But we're cool.

As for Maryann's points (and David's as well), they more or less jibe with what I've noticed. There are simply different people on the boards, and somewhat different cultures. I know from rich anecdotal evidence that many longtime Deep Enders throw their poems on that board out of habit, even if they're quite rough, whereas at least some of us who frequent the Met board will generally put up relatively polished drafts. Though the distinction Mark makes is the advertised one, it's probably more apparent than real at this point.

And to be perfectly honest, I think it's okay for the different groups of regulars to tend to post on different boards. I simply object to the implication that Met is the "amateur" (no one's used exactly this word, I know) board--there are far too many good poets there for such a view to wash.

Quincy

[Mark Allinson]

With one change to the current practice, all on-board conflict could be eliminated at a stroke.

If posters of poems were not allowed to respond to crits until a week had passed, at which time all their collected responses to crits could be posted, the fights would end.

Most conflicts are the product of exception being taken to certain crits, and if the on-going inter-change was eliminated, so would the conflict be stopped.

This would enable the poster to sift all comments for helpful suggestions without the inevitable defensive reactions which lead to conflict.

All too often, I feel, critters await changes they have suggested for poems, and when those changes are not made in revisions, they come back with more fervent instructions.

The downside would be a reduction in the fun of posting and interacting with critters.

But just out of interest, Mods, is there at present anything to stop a poem-poster waiting until all crits are in before responding?

Is there an expectation that critters deserve a response to their points while the poem is still up?

I think that I could possibly return to posting under those conditions, since interactions with critters caused all my woes.



[This message has been edited by Mark Allinson (edited October 30, 2006).]

[Quincy Lehr]

Mark--

Not driving angry always makes sense, and waiting to respond to negative crits, or posting a "clearly you don't like it; will think it over and decide whether I agree" is a useful delaying tactic when one's blood is up.

But I'm really more concerned with group dynamics here--namely an assumption about the dynamics of the site at present that really doesn't pass muster.

Quincy

[Cyn Neely]

And I am more concerned with the fact that the critiquer should just critique the poem, not pass judgement on another's critique of it if it does not agree with his own. What made this a tad offensive was the insinuation that the critters on Met do not give hard hitting critiques and I can tell you from experience that of course they do.



[This message has been edited by Cyn Neely (edited October 30, 2006).]