»
Archives
»
Critical Analysis #2
»
Required reading
| Critical Analysis #2 |
|
Required reading |
|
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
I think you all know that I do not condone or participate in some of the brutal criticism that has recently found its way back into CA. Neither do I condone or participate in undeserved congratulations, pats on the back or other dishonest pandering. I also claim, although there will be some who disagree, that I strongly believe in honest, negative when necessary and sometimes even hard-hitting criticism. Some of the stuff we have seen recently, however, is not even criticism and certainly not constructive. It is, instead, rude and boorish behavior and serves only the purpose of inflating the ego of the critic in displaying his self-assumed vast superiority over the poet. This is just not acceptable in a polite society, particularly when aimed at a new member. Now I know that all the above is just my opinion and my opinion does not make much difference here or anywhere else. But when the owner of this site speaks out then that does make a great difference. I want to quote some specifically cited examples of what has been mentioned. quote: Honestly read the above with an open mind and then try to explain why it was necessary or even desirable to comment in this way. It has been claimed that we in CA exhibit a "hard-ass" attitude. These are much closer to "smart-ass" in my opinion and I suspect the opinions of many others. Guys, we are not highly paid New York Times arts critics. It may be their job to brutally rake artists who, in their opinions, do not measure up. They get paid for appearing smarter than those artists and for poking a certain amount of fun at their misguided efforts. It is not our job to do so. As amateurs ourselves, we must admit to ourselves that we may not know everything there is to know about poetry and that our opinions are not necessarily highly regarded by others. Until such time as we become one of those highly paid professional critics, it behooves us to keep the peace here in CA where we can at least exercise our feeble attempts at criticism. Accept it or not, we are critiquing our peers. Some may be a little more advanced than others but until we can go professional, I don't see how we can consider ourselves that superior to anyone else here. There is absolutely no reason why an honest critique cannot be delivered in a polite manner. I don't ask you to compromise you integrity or to give only pandering critiques. If that were the only way it could be done then I would be the first to lead you all out the door. What we must do from this time forward is stop the sort of thing quoted above. Give honest criticism when you feel the desire to do so. If you think a poem has potential then try to help the poet make it better. Even try to teach a little if you are so inclined. If you find one that does not interest you at all then just ignore it. If you find one so offensive that you can't ignore it then you need to be a bit more careful of your comments. I think it is perfectly acceptable to tell the poet you did not like the poem. If you can, it would likely be more palatable if you explain why. I know that isn't always possible. In any case though, the wording deserves careful consideration. Take, for example, one of the quotes from above. "Can we maintain our sanity if forced to read on?" and compare, "I found this uninteresting and was unable to read on." They both say essentially the same thing but the former presents a definite smart-ass attitude, a NY Times critic sort of remark. The latter is more acceptable at PIP. I think we can do better. Pete Illigitimi Non Carborundum [This message has been edited by Not A Poet (10-18-2003 07:43 PM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2003 Pete Rawlings - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Read, noted, and highly appreciated. Thank you, Pete. |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Dang you're fast  |
||
garysgirl  
since 2002-09-29
Posts 19237Florida, USA |
I thank you also, Pete. Ethel |
||
|
Susan Caldwell Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348Florida |
 |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
And the only thing wrong with that smilie is that it is not depicted as STANDING. Bravo, Pete! (Yer not only cute, but you are sensitive, intelligent, and a gentleman.) |
||
|
cynicsRus Senior Member
since 2003-06-06
Posts 591So Cal So Cool! |
Pete, I have to presume that this particular post is aimed at me. I must presume that because, of course, I’m the only one quoted here. At the same time, your intimation that the owner of this site seems to have asked you to read me the riot act leads me to assume, he’s either too timid or too inarticulate to do so himself. I have to assume this, because in all this time, I’ve received not one email or response from him, yourself, or any other moderator telling me I must “cease and desist,” or find a new site. So be it. I’ll state my case before I leave. I’ll leave it up to you whether to allow my words to stand or not. First of all, I made my case on this particular thread as it continued to expand. I always attempted to answer those who chose to criticize my critique one on one. I’m not taking it back now. As I stated before, I personally was put out by the “clichéd responses to a poorly constructed and equally clichéd poem. I felt my opinions were honest and accurate, however stinging. But, as I’ve stated on many previous occasions: They are opinions. Take them or dismiss them. It’s up to you. You and your superior had a chance to weigh in at the beginning of the thread and challenge those opinions. The fact that you chose to do this in an entirely new post tells me that at the time, you were not as offended as you appear to be now. Even as far into the thread as post #74, you gave absolutely no indication that you considered my comments, “boorish.” If your superior had let on from the beginning that such comments in a forum called—of all things—Critical Analysis, were so offensive, why not bring it up then? It could have been put to rest some time back. This makes me wonder why a forum that supposedly prides itself in a certain sense of decorum chooses the pillorying approach as you’ve now displayed. “A polite society?” Have you looked around lately? I don’t know where you live, but I’m in the LA area, and while people, for the most part are polite; society as a whole, is anything but that. To me, such remarks are right up there with “leveling the playing field,” “Everyone’s a winner,” “All you need is love” and other such disingenuous, socialist fluff. Nowadays, kids aren’t encouraged to compete like they used to because “they need to learn to respect everyone else’s feelings”. I pity such disillusioned kids when they grow up and find out that the real world is based on a totally different set of standards: “Get all you can and ‘can’ all you get” and never mind who you step on to do it. I never once implied that I was above anyone else here in talent, intellect, or knowledge of poetry for that matter. I’ve given my perspective before, regarding my initial reluctance to critique other’s poetry, since I myself have much to learn. I’ve tried to show this attitude in all my other critiques as well. But, one thing I have learned to recognize, as I’ve stated earlier in this thread, is bad poetry. And, while I didn’t come right out and say the poem is bad, as some on these board have said regarding poems on other threads, I did try showing why it didn’t work. You’re deluding yourself if you think you yourself aren’t above others here in experience and knowledge, to the point that you can point out the deficiencies in certain poetry, whether you wish to view them all as “peers” or not. I don’t see it that way. I’ve grown in recent years, and I’ve grown a lot. That’s not arrogance, it’s a simple fact. In my case, I began to see a more noticeable growth after I stopped being intimidated by the harsher criticisms of my poetry. I’m not implying that there aren’t many others here better than I, but there are also many much worse. I feel I have things to offer them—if they’re willing to accept it. If they’re not, I’m not offended. My point being that I just don’t buy your relativistic poetic views on the critiquing approach. The thing I’ve grown to dislike the most are the insincere comments. That’s exactly what many of these turn out to be. I know many others have stated to me personally, their opposing views on this before, but I’ve not changed my feelings on the matter. Since first posting on this forum I’ve stated my preference for straightforward, even brutal comments and suggestions over patronizing ones any day. As much as I’ve grown to detest the opinions of the NYT these days, I at least respect that they don’t quote as many comments out of context in one piece as you have done so here. My defense to all the “back-patters” who’ll soon be arriving: Go back and read each post in its entirety. quote: “Smart-Ass”; “hard-ass” “Tomato; tomahto…let’s call the whole thing off!” Sid @ www.cynicsRus.com www.primerhymeetc.com [This message has been edited by cynicsRus (10-19-2003 12:53 AM).] |
||
|
Always Lisa Member
since 2003-06-08
Posts 133 |
I don't think that any of what you list is brutal criticism, nor do I believe that it is rude and boorish behavior. This place is too much of a power trip of moderators. The only thing that keeps this website on track is the sugar, spice, oh golly gee what a nice poem. If someone cannot speak their mind, then this poetry website is just a wasteland for silly writing with "nice work" responses or "I loved your poem." That's pretty much all I've seen on other forums of this website. This website is a silly place where bad writers flock and expect positive attention. There is little room for someone to offer the reverse of nice if the work is bad. I don't read anyone saying... You're responses are too nice, stop that! That is what should be said, because there is a lot of nice things said on this website in response to bad poetry. All sweet and nice is not doing the author a bit of good. Where do we draw the line? I can only speak for myself; it won't be decided by some guy pushing off flashing ads in my face. Ads that pay for a bunch cheesy poetry to be posted. I'm a pretty fair writer and responder but I cannot be myself here because there are too many lines in the sand... Too many fat heads itching to restrict one's views. This is the reason why I'm seeing so much bad writing...Limitations for fear of making unhappy bad writers. I'll take a hard hitting forum over a mass of bad writers whose reason for posting is for "great job" attention and not for this art. An art that has room for every view, bad or good. Lisa |
||
|
River Senior Member
since 2003-09-16
Posts 627my own little world |
. [This message has been edited by River (10-19-2003 01:36 AM).] |
||
|
River Senior Member
since 2003-09-16
Posts 627my own little world |
I applaud you for pointing this out. i havn't been here long, but i realised that i recognised some of the above comments that where made...I can't believe i didn't say anything about how rude they where...(maybe i was too sleepy to notice?) it reminds me a lot of Simon from American Idol. I'm sorry that people are saying these kind of things and i hope that it ends. but at the same time, i do recall reading something on this site about free speach, and not having to choose to listen if you so desire? I for one will try very hard as a beginning critic to be as polite as possible...since...yeah...i'm not that smart and i don't need to pretend to be...but at the same time...there should be some sort of balance between brutal honesty and commin curtisy. - River Love hurts as bad as it feels good. |
||
|
cynicsRus Senior Member
since 2003-06-06
Posts 591So Cal So Cool! |
quote: If, by some quirk of fate, you had Simon's intellect and wit, then had the chance to use that wit to cast a few stinging barbs of truth and make good money at it--I have no doubt...you'd go for the money! Sid @ www.cynicsRus.com |
||
|
River Senior Member
since 2003-09-16
Posts 627my own little world |
no, i'm one of those crazy people. i don't take money for things that i believe are wrong. even if it was a million bucks. |
||
|
Always Lisa Member
since 2003-06-08
Posts 133 |
What is this place, a cult or what? Reminds me of the witch trials. Yup, he/she's a witch all right. I'm not smart so if you say so, she/she's a witch. I couldnt tell he/she was a witch untill you pointed it out. I'll try to do better to spot those witches. |
||
|
cynicsRus Senior Member
since 2003-06-06
Posts 591So Cal So Cool! |
quote: Oh, I believe you. And I also believe you were the State Spelling Bee champ. Sid @ www.cynicsRus.com |
||
|
River Senior Member
since 2003-09-16
Posts 627my own little world |
if you are referring to my post, Always Lisa: i wasn't intending to imply that i was going to hunt down all rude comments and bash them for being rude. far from it indeed...cynicsRus himself said "If your superior had let on from the beginning that such comments in a forum called—of all things—Critical Analysis, were so offensive, why not bring it up then? It could have been put to rest some time back." ...why get the superior involved when all a person could say is "i thought your comment on this was kindove rude and could be said in a politer manner...just a thought" ? sure, it's not our job neccisarily to do this, but it would make everyone's day a whole lot easier if we tried to stick up for one another every once in awhile...i wouldn't like it if someone said something like that about my poem in that manner...even if they had reason to. what about you? [This message has been edited by River (10-19-2003 04:40 PM).] |
||
|
River Senior Member
since 2003-09-16
Posts 627my own little world |
believe what you want to believe. you do not know me one bit and cannot begin to understand what kind of person i am since you have never met me. sure, we can both argue about wether or not i would do this, but do we need to? the point is, wether or not i would, i still think that getting paid to be a smart ass is not a virtuous job at all. end of story. |
||
|
Ratleader
since 2003-01-23
Posts 7026Visiting Earth on a Guest Pass |
The whole point of criticism is to offer someone the opportunity to improve his work. That means giving pointers that the recipient will be able to implement at his current strength, and presenting them in a way that he'll accept. When I originally read the comments that Not A Poet mentions in the initial offering of this thread, it seemed clear to me that the person who made them was more interested in making himself feel good than in giving any help to the person who wrote the poem. CynicsRus, if that's the best you have to offer, if you are unable to perceive a person's skill level and temperament and address them in an appropriate way, you shouldn't be in here writing criticism. Snide remarks are easy. Coaching is hard. If you're going to insist on doing this, you really ought to try the latter, unless as I suspect, you're just doing it for ego. In that case you should find some other amusement that doesn't do damage. You're a smart guy, maybe you're up to it -- but you didn't show it in the words of yours that are quoted here. ~~(¸¸¸¸ºº> ~~(¸¸¸¸ºº> ~~(¸¸ ¸¸ºº> ~~~(¸¸ER¸¸ºº> |
||
|
renathon Junior Member
since 2002-06-09
Posts 23 |
Hitler had strong ideas and so do some posters on the forum. If you had the chance to meet with Hitler, would you try to change his mind about racism or would you whap him with stones? Well, you can't throw stones online. So stop complaining about harsh posts. No, really. 50% of posts now are about why you should be nice when posting. Please. -Renathon |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Sid, Though the post was not aimed specifically at you, you are right in that your recent comments are what prompted it, the final nail, so to speak. You are the only one quoted becauseyou happened to be the one who caught Ron's attention. And Ron, the owner, did not ask me to start this thread although it was bcomming clear that something had to be done. I would also caution you to never think Ron is either too timid or too inarticulate to do this himself. I rather suspect that he would have been much harder than I was. No, I do not want to single anyone out but it is time we get back to the original intent of this forum. I am not asking or even suggesting that you leave. You have been a valuable contributor since joining. That is the real reason I was reluctant to step in at the beginning. Your criticism has always been pointed and even hard-hiting. That is fine. It is only in the last couple of times that you have stepped over the line. I suppose I was just hoping that new trait would go away on its own. Reinforcing remarks throughout the thread have made it apparent it will not. I step in now to try to save a valued member. I am not asking for an apology or an admition of any wrong doing or anything else. I am simply asking that we all be a little more careful when giving negative criticism. Yes, you did expand on your original critique as the thread developed. And that is part of the problem. Your expansion was always in the form of another sarcastic remark. I understand that you were "put out" by not only the poem but also some of the responses. We do get some of those comments and, you are right in that they don't belong in a critical analysis forum. But neither do some of the comments you made. It is perfectly all right to disagree with that sort of comment but it is not acceptable to do so in a manner that attempts to belittle the poster of the comment or the poem. I won't quote those again but every one of them was a truly sarcastic remark that contributed nothing to the critique. Instead, every one read as an attempt to belittle the poet and to display your self-assumed superiority. It's not the words but the attitude that is offensive. As for a polite society, I understand that LA is not. Much of the world is not. But PIP is not LA and it is not much of the world. I know there are plenty of other sites out there that allow and even encourage brutal and sarcastic criticism but PIP is not one of them. One of the founding principles of PIP is that it will be a polite society. I don't think that will ever be allowed to change as long as Ron pays the bills. It is not our goal to educate kids in the evil ways of the world and how to survive out there. There is no dog eat dog here. There are no stabbings, no gangbangs and no drive-by shootings. Your argument vis-a-vis the "real world" simply falls short. You say you never implied that you are above anyone else here. The attitude expressed by your words, however, says differently. I can't argue against the honesty or even accuracy of your critique. I thought it to be a pretty bad poem too and for many of the reasons you stated. I didn't comment on this particular one because enough had been said already. And I often do not comment on one I find to be hopeless. Were you actually trying to help the poet there? It certainly looked otherwise. Again, the only reason I can find for most of that tirade was the feeding of your own ego. I have seen enough of your poetry and your criticism to know that you recognize bad as well as good poetry. I know you have learned a lot. I have seen you write some pretty darn good stuff and hope to read much more of it in the future. Sure there are others who are better and others who are worse, some of them significantly so. Sid, I say we are all peers because not a damn one of us is making aliving writing poetry or criticising it. In short we are amateurs and most, if not all, of us are destined to remain such. Yes, you have much to offer and some will be willing to accept it and some won't. That's life and human nature. Those who do will probably grow and those who do not, well, that's their loss. But I can assure you that damn few will be willing to accept remarks like those quoted above. Although there is actually somne good information expressed, it is so entangled in the sarcasm as to be almost inaccessible. Yes, I did quote you "out of context." That was deliberate, sort of. All had at least some accuracy to them and, had you made just one or maybe two of them, it likely would have slipped right on by and been excused as male menopause or something. But every one appeared in the same critique. Every one was sarcastic and self-serving. The whole thing, taken together, was just way over the line. I understand that you dislike the insincere comments. I do too. In fact I think most of the CA regulars dislike them and are quick to say so. But, unfair as it may seem to you, they have as much right to post their views as you or I. In no way does that give us the right to attack the perpetrators though. We just have to live with it but I think you will see numerous and strong complaints when it even hints at becoming a problem. I don't know what you mean by relativistic poetic views but all I am trying to say is what I think is and should be appropriate behavior at PIP and the CA forum in particular. Pete And Lisa, I'm sorry but your comments are pretty much irrelevant. Your only participation in CA ever has been to bitch about the constraints. Of course, you are free to comment and bitch all you want. That is, as long as you do so within those constraints. But don't expect your words to carry any weight until you prove that you are capable of conributing something worthwhile, something other than assuring us what a good poet you are. |
||
|
BluesSerenade Member Patricius
since 2001-10-23
Posts 10549By the Seaside |
something other than assuring us what a good poet you are. Back to your thread....cough, cough! The few times I have been in here (lurking of course) I have been fortunate enough to pick up some good advice. I don't mean to say I have made it work for me...I am not really a poet either, and I know I don't belong here. But I got two cents...  The mean spirited behavior goes right over my head, I don't like it or want to spend my time reading into the flames. I can instantly tell a critique that pertains to the poem, not the person or the thread above.Your advice is sound and to the point, 'cept for where I quoted you up top. Why come down to that level? I hate to see anyone get run off, or have their creative endevours nipped at the bud because someone on the internet made them feel they weren't good enough. I mean come on, if we were all getting paid for writing our poetry maybe we could have coffee sometime and discuss it further. Boy this is going to kill the OP... No wonder the place is so slow. I'm sticking to my story though, there is something nice to say about everyone's poety, whether it be a critique or not, And lastly, there is a way to say it nicely. [This message has been edited by BluesSerenade (10-19-2003 03:18 AM).] |
||
|
cynicsRus Senior Member
since 2003-06-06
Posts 591So Cal So Cool! |
quote:. With all due respect; if you look up the meaning of the word you’ve just used, in a common Webster’s College Dictionary You’ll see, you’re totally wrong. But, hey perhaps that’s just my ego seeing what it wishes to see. quote: You obviously didn’t read any of my other critiques either. I’ve never conveyed what you are implying here. I simply didn’t think this to be a poem worthy of the insincere flattery it got early on. I made my opinion known. You and everyone else had the opportunity to weigh in at the time as well. quote: How do you coach someone into turning a worthless project into something beautiful? I challenge you to do so without dismantling the entire piece and starting from scratch. Unfortunately, what I’ve seen in too many supposedly helpful critiques is someone basically tearing it up in their minds—as they attempt to rewrite it for them, while with their lips, they’re telling the authors what a good job they’re doing. I’m just tired of playing that game. I felt this particular piece should be dumped and I said so. If I had said it your way, how long do you think this thread would have gone on? I’m figuring about two more posts, max. Because everyone would have gone away feeling really good about themselves, while the poet went on to write similar “poems”. At least this way everyone had their say in this. Some came out early and debated hard against what I said, and I respect that. I respect it more than others who choose to hit me long after it’s gone off topic. But, if you’ll bother reading the beginning of the thread, you’ll also see that some actually defended me. Do you think this might have led me to believe that what I was saying was indeed appropriate in this forum? Sid @ www.cynicsRus.com |
||
|
merc Junior Member
since 2003-10-15
Posts 35 |
I don't think the point is wether or not the poem had any merit. I don't think the point is that you didn't sugarcoat your post. The point is simply that a poem with no merit actually does has merrit based on the fact that there is SO many example of what to improve on. As I posted on a previous thread "This poem sucks" is not criticism. "This poem sucks because...and you can fix it by trying." is criticism. I don't think this forum would be better off for having some of it's posters leave as offence to this thread. I simply think we would be trading one set of problems for another. Course that's just me, I could be wrong. |
||
|
cynicsRus Senior Member
since 2003-06-06
Posts 591So Cal So Cool! |
quote: This is the part that’s been bothering me. You seem to imply that you were annoyed by my remarks at the beginning, yet you gave absolutely no indication to me—at least none that I could hope to recognize at that time. If it was “rude and boorish” in your opinion, why didn’t you come out and say so? It may very well have ended there. At the very least, I would have ceased posting then, since I have no interest in posting the kinds of remarks that so many of these “evanescent” posters seem to favor. quote: Fine, keep bringing up the ego thing. I will submit to you that every poet on these boards, no matter how good and no matter how poor, has an ego that needs to be fed. They wouldn’t be here otherwise. Furthermore, the ones with the greatest egos are usually the ones on critiquing forums. At the top, you’ll find the Educators, Professors, failed screenwriters and frustrated novelists. You claim I’m feeding my own ego; I say you’re unnecessarily feeding the egos of every pathetic poet who’ll never learn to accept honest, albeit abrasive criticism in order to improve because he doesn’t have to on this sugar coated forum. Yes, I guess it’s time for me to accept my ego. I’ve been writing now for about three years. Some of my initial offerings were so extremely pathetic that I’d never show them to anyone again. I hang on to such works simply to cannibalize a line or two now and then to use on a more current work. I’ve come a long way, Pete. That’s my ego speaking. I feel I have potential to eventually get things published. It won’t matter to me if it takes me ten more years, because in the interim I’m enjoying what I’m doing. At least though, I can accept a more experienced writer’s harsh opinion of anything I need to change along the way. On the other hand, my ego tells me when I should allow it to stand as written. Yes, I have an ego. So do all of you. quote: See, Pete, Here’s your own “Moderator/Member Elite ego shining through. Is this what you mean by: quote:? Sid @ www.cynicsRus.com www.primerhymeetc.com [This message has been edited by cynicsRus (10-19-2003 04:25 AM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Don't you wish. Your assumption only accents your lack of experience here, I'm afraid. Understandable, but nonetheless ironic, because that inexperience is why this conversation is necessary. The delay between the two threads from which you were quoted and this one was a result of a fairly lengthy discussion about the direction of Critical Analysis. It's unfortunate, in my opinion, that you were the only one quoted above, because you certainly weren't the only one discussed. You just happened to be the most recent, and the most visible. Your critiques in this thread and in this one were easy pickings, pretty much making my arguments for me. And I did have to argue my case, leaving all of us feeling unfree to act or comment until a consensus was reached. Ergo, the delay, for which I really do apologize. This issue should not have been deferred so long. That's my bad, though, not Pete's. quote: I'll admit to a wide streak of idealism, but one would hope that ANYONE can recognize the foolishness of setting our standards based only on the worst society has to offer. We should strive to act not as others act, but as we would wish others acted. Politeness isn't socialistic. It's simple respect, offered in the expectation it will be returned. Frankly, an argument against politeness seems wholly asinine in an environment like this one. If we're here to help others become better writers, an arguably altruistic motivation, why should simple respect be a stumbling block for any of us? quote: There's two REALLY important points here, both of which I think are critical if we are to communicate beyond the stage of just throwing stones at each other. First, it's apparent that you see writing ability laid out on a linear scale, running from say, one to ten. I'm guessing you see yourself at, what, Six? Seven? Perhaps even an Eight? When you see someone come into this forum who is operating at One, or maybe even Two, it doesn’t make you happy. When you see that poet get a few positive comments, what you call fluff, it seems to make you downright antagonistic. I don't know if you're unable to help someone at that level, because of your own inexperience, or if you're simply unwilling, but it doesn't really matter once you allow emotion to rule your response. Your critique, at least judging by the two in question, becomes nothing more than a reflection of your ire. You're not trying to help them learn to write better, Sid, because you're smart enough to know there's not a snowball's chance in Hell anyone is going to listen to an intentionally offensive tirade completely devoid of constructive suggestion. You're not even really being honest. Not with them, not with us, and especially not with yourself. What if I told you that scale doesn't run from one to ten? If you're an Eight, after all, that wouldn't leave much room for Thomas or Frost or Keats, now would it? The scale runs from one to infinity, and from where I sit, the difference between One and Eight is hardly even discernable. You're dang near sitting in that poor guy's lap, and this poem, which also saw its share of "fluff," really isn't noticeably any better than the ones you ripped apart. There's a reason the pot doesn't get to call the kettle black, after all. There is nothing wrong in telling someone -- politely -- that you don't like their poem. But you don't get to tell them it's not a poem. Ezra Pound wasn't good enough to define poetry, Wordsworth wasn't good enough, Emily Dickinson wasn't good enough, and YOU sure as Hell aren't good enough. You don't have that authority. Not here. I suspect the only reason you tried was because you let your anger influence your words. Well, that ain't going to fly any more either. Not here. Here's the second critical point, maybe the most important one. I'm glad you recognized, Sid, that harsh criticism of your poetry could lead to growth as a writer. That's an important step to take, one that many will never reach. I hope, first, that you'll realize that not everyone has learned that lesson. Critiquing poetry is not a one-size-fits-all sort of thing, and if you can't differentiate and act accordingly, you will continue to do the writer and yourself a disservice. They will learn very little from you, and you will learn nothing at all from them. I hope, second, and perhaps most of all, that you can now take the next step. You will never learn to be good at critiquing poetry unless you can first accept that you aren't perfect and don't have all the answers. You appreciate honesty? Well, here's a big dollop of it. What you did in both of those threads was NOT a critique and was, in fact, reprehensible. You used these forums as a platform for your own personal agenda, with absolutely no intention of helping anyone except yourself. You've commented that it's not your job to give a writer suggestions? What, then, do you think the job of the critic should be? Telling someone their poem needs work is just a little redundant, don't you think? They already know that, else they wouldn't be posting it here. Without suggestions, either direct or implied, the critic serves absolutely no purpose, except perhaps their own. Very honestly, Sid, if you can't take a really, really bad poem and still critique it constructively, then you just don't know what you're doing yet. You're making the all too common mistake of thinking the poem will only be salvageable if it can be rewritten to meet your own standards. But that's an egocentric view that does nothing to help someone below your own level. The critic's job isn't to make a poem as good as "he" could write, but rather to make it better than it was. If you only offer help with a single line, the writer is given the opportunity to learn something new. The poem will still suck. But the next poem just might not suck quite as badly. I will NOT see beginning writers discouraged and chased away because you don't yet know how to critique poetry. You want to help writers become better? Brad, Kamla, Amy, Craig, Pete and others with more experience can help you learn how best to do that. But that's only going to happen if you realize -- as you claim you did once before -- that you don't already have all the answers. Can you take criticism and learn from it, Sid? Or do you only expect that from others? The behavior you've demonstrated, as a whole, over the past few months will continue to be encouraged in this forum. The behavior you've demonstrated over the last few threads will no longer be tolerated. It's really not any more complex than that. |
||
|
cynicsRus Senior Member
since 2003-06-06
Posts 591So Cal So Cool! |
quote: Ron, Very true, my lack of experience on such a forum has indeed become evident. Nevertheless, I stand by what I said to Pete; that no indication was given early on and had it been even hinted at by you or any of your moderators through email or otherwise, this thread wouldn’t have been started. “I’ve seen people post on this forum who’s opinions were essentially given a pass because, as someone later explained: That’s their style; they’re just blunt.” I came back and argued with bluntness, and I’ve offended you and everyone who seems to relish seeing all those stars after their name. Frankly, I didn’t come here for gold or silver stars. quote: You see, I can’t be expected to know this. All I see is a new thread that’s been devoted entirely to quotes of my comments. How did you expect I’d react to that after having gone back and forth defending prior opposing opinions? quote: Now, you’ve misstated my position, for my argument wasn’t against politeness. Rather against the increasingly politically correct ways that determine how we must now raise “polite” citizens in this society. I raised two beautiful children without ever once allowing them to make excuses for their behavior. If they did something wrong, they learned early on that it wouldn’t be tolerated. I realize as I’m writing this that you can easily turn this argument against me. Feel free, but I won’t have you misconstruing my words on society as I see it. This is not exactly an in depth analysis anyway, so one shouldn’t read too much into it. It was merely a response to Pete’s remark. quote: If you’re alluding to envy here, though I like to think you’re not: Not a chance. quote: I’ve been quite forthright on several occasions regarding my experience and how long I’ve been writing. I have no illusions about how much I know. I have never once claimed to be a professional by any means. Anything I’ve learned so far has been by reading poetry, reading poetry forums and discussing it with poets who have no qualms about speaking honestly about poetry. OK, Ron, I’ve allowed you and Pete to blast me with your assessments of my character. I’ve already found out I’m on an ego trip, and have argued that everyone here is as well. Now allow for my opinion on something that seems to offend everyone rushing to get on the “burn Sid at the stake” bandwagon: I first posted on Open, as I’m sure you’re aware. I entered this site by the rules, posting my responses before my poetry, then replying on occasion to comments on my work. I have to say, I eventually found it quite disturbing. I felt I was being dishonest because I know, as do you that folks go there for positive reviews. Please, prove me wrong. I consider it disingenuous to attempt to answer every post in a positive way. There is poetry there that wouldn’t pass a sixth grader’s scrutiny, being told it’s great, with every possible adjective. That’s all well and good. This is your site that you’ve created, but in my opinion, there is indeed a place for more “direct” critique such as what has been seen here—and you know I’m not merely referring to mine. Perhaps another forum is in order. Who cares if it only attracts those such as myself on the bottom of the scale? quote: Now see, this is at least a good argument. I can’t possibly disagree. But, I can pose a question: How many of the great poets were actually considered great in their lifetimes, and conversely, how many didn’t really achieve popularity, or renown until they were dead? Sometimes that’s all it took to make them great. I’d venture to say some are still overrated, but because they died, they received instant fame. It’s the same way with artists. You may know one up your street living in his mom’s basement struggling to get by. No one even looks at his work. The next day he gets hit by a cement mixer, and his family makes a fortune selling his work through Sotheby’s quote: Anyone who’s posted around me knows how I’ve taken criticism. If, however you’re asking me to be Brad, Kamla, Amy, Craig, Pete or someone else; that’s not going to happen any time soon. quote: I’ve truly enjoyed CA and being a part of such an eclectic band, but I have to tell you honestly and with all due respect—and I do respect that you came on this board personally to explain things directly: I don’t live and die by the PIPs forums. I didn’t go through withdrawals last week when you lost your data and had to close the forums. Though I missed them, I kept writing. I kept attempting to craft poetry. Do what you feel you need to do. This is after all, your site. I’ll go on posting poetry with or without CA. Sid @ www.cynicsRus.com www.primerhymeetc.com [This message has been edited by cynicsRus (10-19-2003 06:16 AM).] |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
My turn to jump on the bandwagon, Sid. Just a few things - it's basically been said and firstly - I'll add my support to the words from Pete, and from Ron. I don't know you as a writer, or critiquer, particularly well. I've been on a pip-hiatus and only just come back. To a maelstrom ~smile~. I'd like to address a couple of the points you've made. Food for thought firstly: quote: Now, I'm just going to turn this around quite a lot but keep the concept intact. Let's say you're a new poet, a weak poet even? A poet who doesn't yet know what it is to be a poet. Hasn't written much poetry, perhaps they're young...and they come here. They post a poem that is probably quite precious to them...and come back to find the kind of things you wrote (and others who have said similar)... Can you now put yourself in their shoes and feel that? How do you expect a person to react to that? No, it is not your job, your duty or anything like that to make a person feel good. I would however like to think that perhaps you could attempt to present your opinion in a way that honours yours belief in hard-hitting critique without the sarcastic, actually quite mean, method you've used recently. It really doesn't feel nice to be attacked, Sid. If you believe you weren't attacking in your posts, then please - read them again. Objectively. Now, secondly. If you must know, in the long discussion of which I was a part involving CA, there was much discussion of the critiquer's individual style. I'm in favour of hard-hitting honesty. I do make a point of sussing out the poet and if I feel the poet might not handle brute force lol - I'll go gentler. I've read some others of your critiques. I like what I see. I like your style. I know that all you have had directed at you seems to challenge your very style. Why critique at all, you might think, if I can't be 'me' while I do. Going gentler, refraining from sarcasm and adding some respect is NOT doing a poet, or an irredeemable poem, a disservice. People learn in the oddest of ways sometimes. Little sparks of light can open up huge doorways. You don't have to scream into someone's head 'your poem is trash, take it away' for them to learn to write better the next time. People learn better from encouragement - meaningful, honest encouragement. That is stastically proven my friend. I'm a very sarcastic person by the way. I'm cynical, often bitter and absolutely sarcastic. Therefore, Sid, I truly believe that you can retain your style and refrain from sarcastic, potentially hurtful methods. I know that - I'm a living example. I hope you do too. To me, you are a valuable member of the team. Lastly, this issue of the moderators throwing their moderating weight around and collecting stars. Well - you don't see me with stars right? I've been here for over four years. I've worked bloody hard - this place has kept me up at nights (like the other night in fact), it's had me in tears, it's brought me dear friends. Changed my life. This is not a power-trip for me. Or the others that I'm aware of. It's a place that matters though. A lot. You know, due to recent life-events I've taken a big step back from my involvement here. I wasn't emotionally traumatised when the forums were down either lol...I would just like to say to you that I believe it unfair to rant against the collective mass of the moderators, Sid. They do a hell of lot more here than you might realise. That's it for now,  K[This message has been edited by Severn (10-19-2003 07:26 AM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I don't really care if you're me. Just mellow a bit. Do you want to make better poem or not? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Sid Critics must amend Critics. We have seen you deviating to some wrong; showing undue contumely in some recent posts, and therefore by respect and duty make you aware of it and hope you see that it has been undue. This is not something that is ever off topic. Manners shall always be on the table in a respectable gathering of people. Those that forget their minds others amend by way of expostulation. If I forget my mind about manners I hope that other shall amend me too. While you are at a barbershop getting your haircut, you should probably keep awake through the whole cut and tell the barber if he is cutting too little or too much, too vigoursly or too slender; but it is more up to the barber to take precautions and question it before doing his deed. If done unheedy of the customer's will the cut shall be ugly to him no matter how surpassing it might be in the barbar's skill or society's fashion. He may never come back and the barber shall get a bad reputation if he does not decline his bad habit. The one in the chair should always be heedy; but the one in the hair MUST be. [This message has been edited by Essorant (10-19-2003 01:20 PM).] |
||
|
merc Junior Member
since 2003-10-15
Posts 35 |
I'm sorry but this thread is coming off like a pair of 6th graders with good vocabularies. "meet at the bike-racks at 3 o'clock" Seriously, Cynic, I don't think anyone wants you to leave the forums. There's really no need to martyr yourself. Why don't you just not post on poems you know your going to rip to pieces. wow, that would be simple. I think everyone concerned is taking this way too far, it's not a be-all end-all scenario. I'm having visions of you walking down a lonely dirt road with a spotted red kerchief containing all your worldly possessions tied to a stick and hanging over your shoulder. "Every rose has it's thorn" is playing softly as you walk farther and farther away downtrodden and solitary. You see, it's absolutely silly. This thread needs to end right now so you guys can get back to writing and evaluating poems. |
||
|
cynicsRus Senior Member
since 2003-06-06
Posts 591So Cal So Cool! |
Merc, Now this is the best argument I've read so far! How can I argue with it? There's an awful lot of beauty in simplicity. Thanks for the laugh, Sid Sid @ www.cynicsRus.com www.primerhymeetc.com [This message has been edited by cynicsRus (10-19-2003 02:16 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
It is a shame if we may not at least all agree that respect is needed in a critique. We may do generally whatever we wish here, as long as we have respect. That doesn't seem too complex. If respect is agreed upon, which I hope it is, than I am in favor of getting away from this issue as well. [This message has been edited by Essorant (10-19-2003 05:08 PM).] |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Damn if merc doesn't make a good argument. Some if it was maybe a bit "colorful" but he certainly has one thing right. Nobody wants you to leave. |
||
|
Robtm1965 Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263 |
I recently wrote this to a friend: "about CA - I do like the place, but I also feel there's a basic incompatibility, or at the very least an unhealthy tension, between the Ron’s underlying philosophy and the environment needed to critique poetry honestly and seriously. I think to some extent Ron put his finger on it - PIP does not have very much to do with the real world. By fairly rigid guidelines and a heavy moderator presence Ron has managed to create a little utopia where people can largely escape the rigours and occasional nastinesses of real life. As I’ve said before many times I actually agree with the philosophy and by and large like the camaraderie and friendship and the sort of people they attract. I find myself in some difficulty occasionally when one tries to critique poetry within the parameters of that rosy environment. To put it crudely I sometimes find it restricting. For instance I find myself worrying not so much about what I’m trying to say about the poem but more about HOW I’m saying it. Which is all well and good if I’m thinking how better to communicate the message I’m trying to put over, but some of the time I’m not, I’m wondering if this is going to be “approved of”. As you know I’m especially sensitive to this after the R affair and even more so now I’ve completely lost faith in a moderator to acknowledge a moderating mess up and try and put it right. Enough of that though, there are other basic incompatibilities I think between the environment of PIP and a serious critical forum. One of these was highlighted by this whole Persona thread issue and the reason it started in the first place. As I saw it (as the person who “supported” him) Sid wasn’t so much hitting out sarcastically at the poem as using sarcasm as a weapon to highlight the inappropriateness of the first three replies and particularly the first one. I guess in retrospect I wasn’t so much supporting Sid’s rather biting reply as, foreseeing trouble arising for him, showing my support for his historic contribution to CA and his style of critiquing generally. (I actually agree with Ron’s summation of the position). Yet still the fact that Sid did what he did was a reaction in my view to one of the incompatibilities I mentioned; this is simply that to be at all credible CA should be honest and should revolve around serious critique. With the moderators in CA hamstrung as they are by the general PIP guidelines there is absolutely nothing to stop a reply being made along the lines of the first made on the Persona post. This is regrettable in my view. Newbies generally come to a forum entitled boldly “CRITICAL ANALYSIS” with trepidation. Quite often I believe that novices who post there mainly want to hear from so called experts (j/k) that they are budding poets and that their poetry shows great promise. If people who have talent as critics simply ignore the poem a novice posts (as has been repeatedly suggested in Pete’s thread) then this leaves the field clear for other less experienced critics to carry weight as the only repliers. Unfortunately in PIP this often equates to either other new members and novice critics, or to “migrants” (and I don’t apologise for that word - “aliens” however was in fact a joke which Serenity and Capt apparent didn’t get The opening replies received by a novice to CA will likely be regarded as near to Gospel (I certainly know that’s how I regarded them when I started out ). So here we are in an environment that places huge store on positive “kind” interaction. And moreover this environment that has been “artificially” created along lines proscribed by Ron and is maintained by a stalwart band of moderators. And now we find a kind, encouraging, incredibly positive comment on a novice poem with very little merit and riddled with grammatical errors spelling mistakes. Is that really what participants in a critical analysis forum want to see happening on a regular basis? And moreover pertinently is it REALLY kind to the poster to let them think that their very deficient poem has been lauded in a “serious” forum? And finally is it really kind for more experience critics to sit on the sidelines and let silence vainly speak their negative thought? As for me you’ve seen my mails back and forth with the mod in question. I like PIP, I like CA (even with the deficiencies you know I think it has) but I just can’t be doing with somebody in a position of authority behaving in that way. I was accused of “prodding” and then when challenged the person in question did an ostrich act. In the SimplyGold thread I put many hours of effort into contributing and trying to teach someone and to have it wrecked by an idiot and then closed by a panicky moderator without checking the facts and with a patronising comment is not kind, encouraging constructive or honest. Until I’m at least listened to I won’t post constructively in CA again." [This message has been edited by Robtm1965 (10-22-2003 06:10 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Have you noted well the way the forum behaves while we have these parliaments afoot. Perhaps we should make it a point to encourage more discussion and debate on the side here. It seems to whet our critical craft and keep us to be keen. Just an observation |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Rob, Why don't you just write what you are pleased to write; the moderators will let you know if you make the wrong kind of mischief [This message has been edited by Essorant (10-22-2003 10:45 PM).] |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
quote: Rob, I must point out to you once again, it is only your opinion that there was a "moderating mess up." The moderator in question does not agree. quote: Again, your opinion. There obviously are other, conflicting opinions. quote: At least on the first part, we do agree. But I cannot agree that the moderators are hamstrung in any way. True enough, there is nothing to stop a rosy response. But there is also nothing to stop a more serious critic from questioning or calling to task such a response. I agree with Ron, that is far preferrable to sarcasm and belittlement of the poet or the other critic. quote: And just what skin does this scrape off your nose? Are you truly harmed if some less than adequate poet leaves here feeling good about himself? I think you can be well assured that any such euphoria will be short lived. quote: BS! quote: See above. You may see poems of little merit slip by. After all, that is a subjective judgement. How often do you see anything "riddled with grammatical and spelling errors" go unscathed? quote: Since you are into sharing emails, they are all available for reproduction. The rest of this diatribe is, to put it mildly, your own ridiculous opinion again. quote: If, by this remark, you expect me to reverse the earlier dicision, then all I can say is, we'll miss you but maybe not as much as you think. But I will caution you on your "constructive" comment, if it was intended as a threat. You may refuse to post entirely and that's all right. You may choose to post only negatively and that's acceptable too. You will not, however, be permitted to carry out any personal vendetta against CA or any of its members, including the moderators. Not A Poet Moderator [This message has been edited by Not A Poet (10-22-2003 11:17 PM).] |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Good observation Ess. The forum certainly has been active the last couple of weeks. Maybe we should start a fist fight next or something Pete |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Robert, quote: Isn't that all that Ron, Pete, Severn, Brad and anyone else that comes from any other forum to post in here, is asking? My only question is, why does anyone think that honesty or seriousness has to be sarcastic? A serious, honest discussion of what can be done to improve a poem, and assist a poet, is what I've always thought Critical Analysis should be. Is that a utopia? I would hope so. Thanks. |
||
|
Robtm1965 Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263 |
"Rob, I must point out to you once again, it is only your opinion that there was a "moderating mess up." The moderator in question does not agree." Pete Of course it’s my opinion, and I know you don’t agree. What, in my opinion, is wrong is that you waded into something and suggested that a very longstanding and prolific contributor to the forum was partly responsible for a situation. If it was just any old petty situation I wouldn’t be making an issue of it, but by your wrong action (MY opinion) you ended what (in my opinion) was virtually a first for CA, viz a constructive sustained attempt to work with a relatively inexperienced poet to try and produce something worthwhile. Then for one reason or another none of my very extensive e-mails were responded to. Then finally when I come back to try and sort things out you refused to discuss the matter at all. Saying effectively: “Not interested I was right in what I did, you “prodded” and were therefore 50% responsible” When asked to show me WHERE I “prodded” you refused to do so despite the fact that I offered to show you every single interaction between me and the other party. I don’t have any problem with differences of opinion AFTER the evidence has been fully explored by both parties, but for one party to jump to a judgement and then say I’m not interested in evidence is wrong (in my opinion). One last suggestion to get this sorted out. To save you having to do anything why don’t we both submit this to a mutually acceptable third party let him/her judge whether I was to blame for what happened on the basis that if the “verdict” goes against me I’ll freely give you a public apology and then do my best to carry on a constructive role in CA. On the other hand if the verdict is that you acted precipitously then you will delete any replies which suggest I was at fault together with any other “flame” replies, and maybe even open up the thread again! What do you think? R PS I'll reply to your other points later [This message has been edited by Robtm1965 (10-23-2003 06:42 AM).] |
||
|
Robtm1965 Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263 |
Pete I’ll just run through your responses in the same order: quote: As I saw it (as the person who ““supported”” him) Sid wasn’’t so much hitting out sarcastically at the poem as using sarcasm as a weapon to highlight the inappropriateness of the first three replies and particularly the first one. Again, your opinion. There obviously are other, conflicting opinions. >>> Obviously there are, and I even prefaced my opinion with the words “As I saw it ...”. You seem to have a real problem with me stating my opinion otherwise you wouldn’t keep mentioning that it IS ONLY my opinion. I mean practically everything I say in this forum is just my opinion. Is this a broad hint that you want me to shut up completely? ... lol quote: ...to be at all credible CA should be honest and should revolve around serious critique. With the moderators in CA hamstrung as they are by the general PIP guidelines there is absolutely nothing to stop a reply being made along the lines of the first made on the Persona post. This is regrettable in my view. At least on the first part, we do agree. But I cannot agree that the moderators are hamstrung in any way. True enough, there is nothing to stop a rosy response. But there is also nothing to stop a more serious critic from questioning or calling to task such a response. I agree with Ron, that is far preferable to sarcasm and belittlement of the poet or the other critic. >>> well Pete I built my argument carefully to suggest that moderators are there to enforce the PIP philosophy, and the PIP philosophy doesn’t necessarily provide the best environment for critical forum. I actually agree with you that if a moderator is happy to operate a critical forum within those guidelines then there is no problem, but I was merely pointing out that it might be possible for some moderators of a critical forum operating within the PIP framework to feel restricted. I say this because I happen to know that the situation has in fact (not opinion) occurred several times. And that last is FACT not opinion . quote: ... this leaves the field clear for other less experienced critics to carry weight as the only repliers. And just what skin does this scrape off your nose? Are you truly harmed if some less than adequate poet leaves here feeling good about himself? I think you can be well assured that any such euphoria will be short lived. >>> oh dear! Maybe this epitomises part of our differences. You truly surprise me with that comment, or maybe you miss the point entirely. The other day I was driving home through country lanes when an oncoming driver hit a pheasant in front of me and vanished up the road without stopping. The bird lay on the verge flopping around and as I was late for tea I thought : “well dammit, the other driver obviously didn’t care, somebody else will come along after me and sort it out, and anyway it’s probably a simple fracture and will heal by itself, it won’t harm me to leave it.” Or perhaps more easily understood would be the story of how years ago in the “bad” 1970's one of my closest friends who was a potential international runner was offered performance enhancing drugs and accepted them. He bounced from crooked supplier to crooked supplier for years living in false hope and delusion about his potential while people around him turned a blind eye. Mind you, it didn’t harm ME at all of course. I was just fine  .quote: The opening replies received by a novice to CA will likely be regarded as near to Gospel (I certainly know that’’s how I regarded them when I started out ). BS! >>> well I guess it depends whether you are religious or not ... lol. Perhaps I should modify and say that a reply in CA for a beginner is gonna be taken a whole lot more seriously that one in Open, and yes indeed for some people (like me) very seriously indeed. Frankly when you see people of the calibre of Brad, Hush, Trevor, Craig and even - shock horror - Sid, critiquing it seems to me self evident that their opinions will be taken to heart and it follows that their posting colleagues in CA, whoever they might be, will retain some of that kudos in the eyes of a newbie who doesn’t know the personalities. >>> it actually worries me that you dismissed that comment so glibly. It suggests to me that you don’t hold CA in particularly high esteem yourself or that at the very least you aren’t aiming high. But maybe I’m being unfair there as it sure can’t be easy to keep an eye on the forum day in day out for years on end, and I certainly admire your tenacity in that respect (another opinion ).quote: And now we find a kind, encouraging, incredibly positive comment on a novice poem with very little merit and riddled with grammatical errors spelling mistakes. See above. You may see poems of little merit slip by. After all, that is a subjective judgement. How often do you see anything "riddled with grammatical and spelling errors" go unscathed? >>> Ok I exaggerate to make the point but if you deal with the R issue I’ll take the time to trawl through and find you a large number of examples. quote: ... you’’ve seen my mails back and forth with the mod in question. I like PIP, I like CA ... but I just can’’t be doing with somebody in a position of authority behaving in that way. ... when challenged the person in question did an ostrich act. ... to have it wrecked by an idiot and then closed by a panicky moderator ... Since you are into sharing emails, they are all available for reproduction. The rest of this diatribe is, to put it mildly, your own ridiculous opinion again. >>> yep, that ridiculous ole opinion quote: Until I’’m at least listened to I won’’t post constructively in CA again." If, by this remark, you expect me to reverse the earlier dicision, then all I can say is, we'll miss you but maybe not as much as you think. But I will caution you on your "constructive" comment, if it was intended as a threat. You may refuse to post entirely and that's all right. You may choose to post only negatively and that's acceptable too. You will not, however, be permitted to carry out any personal vendetta against CA or any of its members, including the moderators. >>> I frankly don’t care whether you miss me or not. I WILL however miss CA and some of the people who post here. >>> No Pete I am not into and have never been into (if you check the record ) mischievous behaviour for the sake of it. I meant by that comment simply that I wished to give myself the latitude to respond to replies such as the one you made, or to participate in other “what is this forum about discussions”. “Constructive” in a CA forum is tantamount “in my opinion” to posting poems and receiving critiques of them and discussing both.>>>as for a personal vendetta Pete - revenge attacks and blood feuds aren’t my style either. Seeking a fair hearing from someone in a position of authority is. If that’s a problem for you, well, I’m sorry. R |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Why? A response in either forum is still "just an opinion," and if we are to ascribe the weight of an opinion by the knowledge and skill of the person giving it, I honestly can't see any basis for privileging one over the other. I've seen some really good advice offered in CA. I've also seen some really inane and even stupid advice offered. None of it is Gospel and all of it should be examined just as critically as the poetry posted. |
||
|
Cpat Hair
since 2001-06-05
Posts 11793 |
"Unfortunately in PIP this often equates to either other new members and novice critics, or to “migrants” (and I don’t apologise for that word - “aliens” however was in fact a joke which Serenity and Capt apparent didn’t get ) from Open. Migrants, or perhaps I’m being inaccurate maybe another ornithological term would be more appropriate, say, Occasional Visitors from Open often (NOT always) post one or two line very positive comments regardless of the merit of the piece." For the record...I got the joke and understood it was meant in part as humor as in part, was my response. Your humor did in fact cause in me a twinge of resentment, at being refered to as an alien. Whether you know it or not, or care or not, I happen to know there are several people who are in here often, read, note what is said and apply or try to the constructive parts of a critique to their own works. The fact I have rarely or only in sporadic fits of energy, attempted to comment on others poems myself, does not make me a migrant or an alien to this forum... humor is a wonderful thing..and sometimes it has teeth.. yours seems to trend towards a biting sort.. and mine, to the dry understated sarcasm that is generally lost on the people it intended towards.  |
||
|
Robtm1965 Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263 |
Ron I think you are right and wrong , but more wrong than right.You are right perhaps about what SHOULD be the case, but I think you are wrong about the reality. The reality is that a new poster sees a forum entitled critical analysis with fewish responses some comprehensive and some as you say, uh, rather less than comprehensive. He or she also sees an Open forum moving like greased lightening (whoever thought of that wonderful metaphor?) and with the vast majority of the replies focussing on “person” as much as “poem”. Maybe if he/she was fortunate an occasional more weighty response might be evident, but not often. (And btw Ron as an aside here, yet again let me say that I am NOT being derogatory about the poets or poems in Open, I know full well (to my cost once or twice ... lol that there are some incredible talents there). I’m talking about PERCEPTION here Ron that is what, in my opinion, is important, and the perception is that in CA a poster is gonna get heavyweight advice and comment if he/she is gonna get it anywhere at PIP. I simply think that we need to try and ensure that CA lives up to that perception. You know the rest. R |
||
|
Robtm1965 Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263 |
Yeah Capt You are no doubt right entirely. I do need to be more careful. I'm sorry if I offended you .Regards R |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: No, we need to change the perception. There is no such thing as "heavyweight" advice. While the comments in a critiquing forum should certainly be more in-depth than elsewhere, the "weight" of those comments is still dependent on the source, not the venue. |
||
|
Robtm1965 Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263 |
“There is no such thing as "heavyweight" advice. While the comments in a critiquing forum should certainly be more in-depth than elsewhere, the "weight" of those comments is still dependent on the source, not the venue” Sorry Ron maybe we are at cross purposes or one of us isn’t listening. I completely agree of course that source is all important - in fact that’s been the underlying presumption in all I’ve said. But that’s the point I’m making - the perception as the site is structured is that in CA heavyweight advice (i.e. advice from more competent critics) will be received. In what arena such advice from such people is received is I agree largely immaterial ... BUT, and it is a big but, in my opinion, the way you’ve structured the site, it’s home page and the way the bulk of the site operates where, as I say, person is as important as poem (NOT an adverse criticism merely an observation) to change the perception now is some task. Mountains and moving come to mind. But then again perhaps it could be done with a complete rethink and restructuring. Off the cuff I’d venture an opinion that maybe the first casualty should be the name “critical analysis”. Second, while I agree that the venue for receiving advice may not be important, venue IS important in the sense of a newcomer needing to know where he or she can post a poem to receive help. But then again perhaps it could be tackled in another way by making what I personally would think (and this is only an opinion) would be better use of the star system. Instead of simply getting stars for the number of posts made - members might obtain stars only on the basis of “weight” of replies. Before you ask, I have the solution :- appoint Brad as autocratic star allocator. Then newcomers could clearly see how experienced a critic any one person was simply by referring to their star rating whether in Open, CA, Workshop or anywhere else for that matter. Neat eh? ... but impossible to administer probably.Why not simply tighten and modify CA guidelines along the lines of: 1 Three coherent responses to someone elses poem BEFORE posting yourself 2 ALWAYS always saying thank you to each and every response within 48 hours 3 Subsequent posts at a ratio of 10 replies for each poem posted 4 One line responses discouraged 5 Posted poems generally free of glaring grammatical or spelling errors (policed by moderators) 6 Responses to threads to be largely "on topic" 7 CA moderators given autonomy to moderate entirely as they see fit 8 Other forum moderators barred from editing any CA posts or replies Controversial maybe, but as always, just a suggestion, opinion, observation etc etc R [This message has been edited by Robtm1965 (10-23-2003 01:25 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I thought your complaint was against the tightness of the guidelines. Now you are trying tighten them more? [This message has been edited by Essorant (10-23-2003 02:38 PM).] |
||
|
Toad Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
For what it’s worth my opinion regarding the Radrook incident runs pretty much along the lines of Rob’s version of events – it wasn’t handled very well. It could be said that I’m slightly biased being one of the contributors to that thread who ended up having a post edited and being allocated a proportion of the blame for Radrook’s diatribe - that I have a fairly blunt axe to grind. The reality is that it didn't bother me that much. We all make mistakes, if we didn’t we wouldn’t be human so although I felt I had done nothing wrong I stayed silent and classed it as an unfortunate incident that annoyed and disappointed me but wasn’t that big of a deal. Rob however had much more invested in the events surrounding the incident and I don’t blame him one bit for feeling aggrieved. He had after all, as has been mentioned, struck up an interesting and in my opinion highly commendable interaction with a novice poet only to see it ruined by another member and being partially blamed for the whole thing. My version of events is that Radrook was picking verbal fights with anyone and everyone, with no moderator intervention and none in sight Radrook pushed harder until some people started to push back. When a moderator did turn up (Pete I believe) the thread was edited in such a way that made it seem that those questioning Radrooks remarks were somehow responsible for the situation. Replacing counter arguments to Radrooks crazed assertions with ‘Edited by moderator. Irrelevant discussion.’ Was a personal affront when the posts were extremely relevant in context and only there in the first place because, without a moderator in sight, people were left to defend, and fend, for themselves. As to what to do with CA I think it should be closed. CA is superfluous if ‘Open’ type replies are allowed to proliferate here and critical replies are accepted in Open – there is no difference between the two - if that is the case CA is simply a waste of space. Those who wish to accept some critical analysis could use their ‘Encourages Constructive Critiques’ flag and those aliens from CA who give constructive replies would have no complaint that some replies are simply fluff, it wouldn’t after all be open without them. With regard to Sid, I have to say that I believe his input has been at least honest and on the whole perfectly valid although I accept his delivery method does wander slightly west of constructive on occasion. His question regarding the events is valid however and seems to have parallels with the Radrook incident – if he was doing something the moderators didn’t agree with why didn’t they step in and tell him at the time and save all the hassle? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
We need to influence people to critical craft, not try to force them with crotchety clauses. |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Nicely said Ess. |
||
|
Robtm1965 Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263 |
Essorant Maybe i've been confusing. To clarify: I simply think that the overall PIP ethos(which i like btw) may not be an ideal environment for a critical forum to operate within. (is that english!?). As for "tightness" or otherwise, establishing firm rules about numbers of replies might be interpreted as "tightening" i guess, but on the other hand moderator autonomy would certainly be a "loosening". Craig I'm very grateful for your contribution. Thanks R |
||
|
Robtm1965 Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263 |
"We need to influence people to critical craft, not try to force them with crotchety clauses." It usually doesn't work. Either they don't want to be influenced, or, if you do happen to find someone who is willing to listen, the thread gets sabotaged and then closed. If that sounds a mite bitter it’s coz I am a mite bitter. I expect it will pass though . |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"To clarify: I simply think that the overall PIP ethos(which i like btw) may not be an ideal environment for a critical forum to operate within." Rob, But don't you think it is ideal for a group of diverse forums to work in? I think if we wish to have a more critical ethos here, in this forum, that is up to this forum--all of us here--to show our critical mettle by our own will. Extending the general rules to clauses that try to say how people should give, share, and take critically shall probably result in the worst decline of all three of those. I hope we may (including you ) do it by our our own desire and discretion, and influencing people by setting good examples of our will for a more critical "ethos" in this forum. [This message has been edited by Essorant (10-23-2003 10:06 PM).] |
||
|
Robtm1965 Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263 |
Ess I've been around CA for a good long while - a lot longer than you I suspect. There's really only been one period when what you suggest started to happen and that was when there was a particularly strong moderating presence of a kind which went wayy beyond mere mediation or policing (Brad was much more active) and about 10 or so very regular, very prolific, quite experienced critics and posters. Even then there were huge debates of the type we are having now, leading to some disillusionment. Since then there have been better periods and worse periods but it’s carried on long enough for me to be convinced that nothing much is going to change unless something in the governing structure changes. It ain’t enough to rely on “all of us here--to show our critical mettle by our own will”. For a start, who are “all of us here”? R |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
But if we let these things get in the way of our own critical effort, that shall probably make the least of it whatever this forum may be. For ex. it is not helping if your not going to be here anymore, or Sid. That is taking it out on all of us. |
||
|
Robtm1965 Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263 |
Ess You are sweet (lol ... I hope you are female). Whatever, you are still sweet. Also more of an idealist than I have become. 20 years ago I would certainly have agreed with you - sad eh. Anyway I'm not saying you are wrong (heaven forbid! all I ever say, as by now I am sure you know, is only MY opinion), I'm just saying that my experience so far suggests that what you are suggesting ain't going to improve CA in any way. I'm not posting critiques in CA for a very specific reason. I've made a constructive suggestion (effectively third party arbitration)in Pete's thread for matters to be resolved so that one way or the other I continue posting but so far Pete has maintained a stony silence. I think he must be too busy right now, but no doubt in time he will address the issue .I hope Sid stays too .R |
||
|
Jamie Member Elite
since 2000-06-26
Posts 3168Blue Heaven |
quote:Yes, we have missed you in philosophy.... JThere is society where none intrudes, by the deep sea, and music in its roar. |
||
|
cynicsRus Senior Member
since 2003-06-06
Posts 591So Cal So Cool! |
I had been prepared to simply let this all go and walk away without further comment. Others, however, keep adding to this discussion proving the topic to be a timely one. Since my name continues to be brought up, I feel a final comment from me is in order. Ron, Pete, I've come to the conclusion your “polite society” is simply not for me. I feel such a term is at best oxymoronic, and at worst disingenuous, when applied to a forum you’ve obviously miss-labeled: “Critical Analysis.” While I don’t expect that the standard of this forum be molded “after society’s worst offerings,” one should at least come here expecting that those standards reflect intellectual honesty. But, they don’t. In fact they more closely resemble Orwellian “Doublethink”. Pete, I once referred to you as one of the more temperate critics I’d seen on a forum. This past week, you’ve shown me what kind of person you really are by the way you handle disagreeable threads. I don’t mind being told my opinions are “rude" or "boorish” but have the decency to say it while the thread is fresh. You simply proved to me that you’re not willing to think for yourself in these matters. Ron, you have every right to run this forum as you see fit. But, you’ve proven me right, in that we all have our egos to contend with. You’ve shown that yours is every bit as big as mine, if not bigger while expressing melioristic ideals for this faux utopia of yours. You said that what I wrote was reprehensible. That it amounted to a personal attack. Yet, you came out attacking my credibility with every bit as much sarcasm as what was in my post. When I first wrote these particular critiques you highlighted, I was just getting to the point of having had my fill of some other so called “critiques” on a forum that for all intents and purposes is supposed to encourage more meaningful dialog. I purposely wrote these to “stir the waters” and hopefully elicit more meaningful criticism. You know as well as I that such vapid comments as those three prior to mine don’t belong on this type of forum. You, yourself have admitted that one or both of these highlighted posts was “…a really, really bad poem,” although I still disagree that either one is even a poem at all. And, I never once thought the “poem” was “salvageable…wishing to rewrite it.” That’s exactly what I argued others were attempting to do. I’ll admit my comments were very sarcastic, but they were at least honest and, in fairness, I did point out those lines I most disagreed with. You never explained how to critique such a “…really, really bad poem” constructively, BTW. My opinion was that it should be put away; used only for parts. I was told, I was merely trying to promote my own personal agenda. That may well be. Apparently, my agenda doesn’t seem to be in sync with that of the majority here, for my agenda is about being honest enough to tell someone when their writing is truly pathetic. Trust me, there are plenty here who could use that particular “dollop of honesty” including more than a few Moderators. Maybe if they were to hear it once in awhile, they’d cease writing the same lines day after day; week after week. They might even actually begin to grow as writers and poets. To tell someone that what they’ve written is bad, has nothing to do with self promotion. You don’t have to be a New York Times critic to be able to form such a conclusion. You certainly proved it with your rather clichéd comment regarding, “… calling the kettle black”. Although once again, you took your shot long after it really mattered, I let it slide by, since I hadn’t as yet looked up all your poetry to see where you might be coming from… I’m still searching. Such an attack on my one poem, saying it’s no better than any of those which I commented on is something I, as well as any objective critic can easily disprove and you know it. A passing shot after the battle has long ended, hardly qualifies you as a heroic marksman, does it? I would have been more than happy to have you post, to the thread, your helpful suggestions on how to make it better—after all, I did post it on CA—but for some reason, you chose not to comment on it then. Did you think I wouldn’t accept an opposing opinion? I’m sure you’ve checked the archive to see how I’ve handled real critiques before. Why did you not post those threads as examples as well? I simply refuse to accept your “law” which says I can’t opine that what someone’s written is not a poem. There are many guidelines to writing poems of all styles—some simple, some more complicated, but there are definitely rules involved. Even free verse has standards—but all have paradigms. Of course, there is much that I’m still learning about poetry—I freely admit that. I’m sure Ezra Pound, Wordsworth and Emily Dickinson continued learning. But, while they may not have been able to quite define it, you must admit, Mr. Coleridge certainly went a long ways to sum it up by saying: "Poetry: the best words in the best order." What you, all too often, seem willing to excuse are the most mediocre words in the most inferior order. Feel free to prove me wrong. Sid @ www.cynicsRus.com |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
quote: Sid, I am truly sorry to hear that. I think we had started a pretty good relationship. I will miss your poetry as well as your criticism. I know you can be and have been an excellent critic. I sincerely hope you will reconsider. Pete |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
