Are you suggesting that if someone posts a poem in CA and doesn’t take the time to critique more then one line replies, or none at all, that their poem should be removed since they didn’t participate in critiquing?
You have to go back to what I happen believe the “point” of CA is. It’s a learning forum, I prefer to think of it as a workshop, rather akin to an offline workshop where everyone sits in a circle and each person reads a poem and then all the group discuss it, each person putting forward their view of the poem in turn. In my view there are immense benefits to this mutual exchange as it encourages people to think about writing other than their own and in my experiece usually benefits both poet and critic (as poet) alike.
The point is, that without that mutuality, that giving of your thoughts on other’s work as well as the taking of people’s thoughts on your work, a learning forum like CA will gradually stagnate. The givers of thought gradually become disillusioned and drift away, the comments that do remain become of low quality, potential poets looking in from the outside see this and see no point in posting their work, and the cycle of deterioration continues.
So back to your question. It’s a matter of degree. My own view is that a newcomer should perhaps be given the chance to post one poem and receive comments. But yes after that there should indeed be a compulsion to critique others before posting another.
Just wanted to add, the online workshops you are talking about usually go down hill fast when there is a required amount of replies you have to make for each post.
I know of six workshops that require, for every poem you post, 3-6 replies on other poems. The problem that they are dealing with, at the moment, is in requiring replies they receive such remarks, ”I loved your poem, it has nice flow”, instead of in-depth replies that you are looking for. The reason that their having this trouble is everyone wants to get rid of their required replies so that they can post more poems.
And I know of several that work just fine with this criteria. The problem isn’t the rule, it’s the way it’s administered. At the end of the day, as Ron has said recently, “you can lead a horse to water ...”. Someone who is going to abuse the spirit of a workshop forum is always gonna do so no matter what you do. It’s how you deal with it and how that action is perceived by potential “punters” or, er, “clients” to use Ron’s dubious analogy.
I find that pip is doing just fine as it is
Well I’m happy that you do. Most of PIP is great. Up till a short while ago though, CA was a wasted opportunity, a dishonesty and frankly a mess IMO. Ron’s made a change for the better, though it still has a way to go IMO.
-Maybe the poet doesn't want to critique. I may have miss read yours, but this I don't like either.
If the poet isn’t prepared to critique then, with respect, what the hell is he/she doing in the CRITICAL ANALYSIS forum?
-Once again, What if the person admires the poem, but doesn't feel like making critique. I don't like that either.
If a person admires a poem but doesn’t have anything useful to contribute as to WHY he/she likes it then he/she should either say nothing or else e-mail the poet.
Juju, my views on what CA should be are set out above in my reply to StarGal.