Writing Forums

Writing Forums is a privately-owned, community managed writing environment. We provide an unlimited opportunity for writers and poets of all abilities, to share their work and communicate with other writers and creative artists. We offer an experience that is safe, welcoming and friendly, regardless of your level of participation, knowledge or skill. There are several opportunities for writers to exchange tips, engage in discussions about techniques, and grow in your craft. You can also participate in forum competitions that are exciting and helpful in building your skill level. There's so much more for you to explore!

Should a poem of one's own be banned as Critical Comment on the poem that Owns the thread? (1 Viewer)

clark

Met3 Member
Staff member
Chief Mentor
Just to kick thing off--I say . . ..yes, f two reasons:

1. Any poem worth reading will have its own world and life-on-the page, its own aesthetic, if you will. Try as we might as critics of the OP, the temptation to comment directly on the 'comment poem qua poem, is overwhelming. We have had a few chaotic messes where it was hard to sort out whether comments were on the 'comments poem' or , properly, on the OP.

2. Any time spent in study, reflection, analysis etc of the 'comment poem' qua poem, is critical energy misdirected away from the OP, which should be the thread's fixed concern.

. . . . . . .jus' m-thoughts
 
Last edited:

Pamelyn Casto

WF Veterans
Right now my brain is fried from some other activities, but I know this is an important issue. I want to add to it so will give it a try (fried brain and all).

For the most part, it's best NOT to post one's own poem on someone else's thread. For one thing, it often will take the focus off the original poet's work and draw the attention to the poem that's been added. It's especially problematic if the intervening poem can be view as a personal insult. ((As most of us have experienced, trying to communicate online is difficult, subject to all sorts of misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and suspicions.

On the other hand (there's always another hand), someone recently "intruded" into a discussion on a thread I created. At first I was annoyed. But in reading the "intruding" poem it turned out to be outstanding for helping me better understand a concept I was struggling to understand. So I'm glad that veteran member took his risk (inserting his own poem). It worked great (for me) to have his poem to work with. Sometimes an intrusion can work out well.

But they're not always welcome and don't always work out so well. So as a general guideline I'd say don't do it.

You said: "Any time spent is study, reflection, analysis etc of the 'comment poem' qua poem, is critical energy misdirected away from the OP, which should be the thread's fixed concern."

Amen. Well stated. I agree. And my "other hand" comment is to also recognize that once in a while (not usually) it can work out so "stay out with your own poems" might be the general guidelines for a group (and we can also recognized there are sometimes reasonable times to do it-- as in using one's own poem to show OP what you mean about something you're trying to explain.) My "intruder" poet, wasn't reprimanded and didn't need to be.:-D
 

PiP

Staff member
Co-Owner
Goodness. All sounds complicated.
One thread per poem unless you are quoting a poem written by a third party to illustrate a point of reference for the OP. Yes, people do on occasions craft just a couple of lines (not a whole poem) of their own, but again that is to illustrate a point. I know this happens a lot in the WS areas.
 

clark

Met3 Member
Staff member
Chief Mentor
Pamela -- I'll see your 'exception' and raise you 'a suggestion' (I'm just trying to maximize focused gain for the OP) : As soon as the POET sees all that value in a comparison . . .why not do just that. Set up a separate thread, call it simply "TWO POEMS--A COMPARISON" or, if the concern is more pointed: "a LINGUISTIC (or STRUCTURAL or THEMATIC or HISTORICAL . . . . STUDY OF TWO POEMS . This stratagem would eliminate intervening comments on the OP, whose larger concerns would be met thru elimination of comment on the 'other' poem in the mainstream thread.
 

Pamelyn Casto

WF Veterans
Yes, Clark, a separate thread for the additional poem helps solve the problem. "No man is an island" (to borrow from your signature) but sometimes a man (or woman) might temporarily need his own island (thread) for furthering an idea he's working with. Works for me.
 

RHPeat

Met3 Group Leader
Staff member
Senior Mentor
Are cognitive abilities as realities limited only to prose when conceptualizing the intentions of any poem, example or otherwise denotation only. It also eliminates the possibility of the connotative part of creation and representation through emotional content as a means of real cognition beyond the norm. We are being asked that concepts should only be presented in prose and not poetry as poets. (there is something fishy there)

I don't really believe that is true of response to life in general, let alone poetry. But the owner of the thread should specify what is expected if he or she finds a poem being out of place on their thread. But beyond that, if any poem is meant to outwardly demean another it should be censored as any comment should be dismissed if it demeans another member.

The bigger point of the whole concept — is should the thread's owner have the authority to ask for what they want! And actually be justified in asking for compliance and full cooperation in reply to anything posted on their thread? Is another rule necessary? The restrictions in the affirmed rulings that already exist set the guidelines for all. If there be personal feelings involved when there is an intrusion this then should be brought up by the owner of the thread to the person they feel has intruded. Privately of course — as to please remove, reword, or re-present their thoughts in another manner— that they would appreciate it and they might grasp their concept in stronger way. Who is it that doesn't want to be understood? None of us. I think real politeness might change any situation. So ownership of the thread is where the judgement should be placed. Just like one's own home. The thread should be thought of as poet's home. And respect should follow.

a poet friend
RH Peat
 
Last edited:

Matchu

Senior Member
DR CRIPPIN: TESTIMONY FROM THE DOCK

Sometimes on-line I take that (kind of a) leap of faith - thinking here is an opportunity to make a friend - y'know, taking their poem, or story even, changing six words, hoping I will be embraced in his warm fug. Ha ha the fellow says and I'm dreaming he will play with me by return of post, bite back, and we dance among our drafts together (my pal for a year). Communication, I suppose. It's very risky, I shouldn't do it. Same with the edge of - nonsensical posts.

Although this (automatic) strategy, or versions of it, has had about a 50/50 success rate during the last decade. I have made only about one and a half enemies over the internet.

Perhaps the destruction and the wade into personal space is teasing? I have to be careful about that.

I can only say I am sorry while the intentions were sincere, kind, or so I think/and thought at the time in/and during this quest for like minds.

I'm not keen on rules, strictures. So...I say no to your proposition and death to fascism. Although I will have to go back and look up 'strictures,' such is rigour. The thread makes me a bit sad.
 
Last edited:

Olly Buckle

Mentor
Patron
I have a feeling I am Pamelyn's guilty party, but on the whole I would agree it is not a good idea. That was a thread in writing discussion and I wondered if I had understood a concept (I hadn't), but yes, the danger is that the thread is taken off track in crit of something the OP did not originate. The problem with any absolute rule is that there are always exceptions. I can imagine using something that is more of a mnemonic than a serious poem for example and makes a point about some poetic device. I would say that the only really valid absolute rule is that there are no really valid absolute rules, but be very careful, it is the OP's thread. If you are trying to display your brilliance it is better to go off and start your own thread, no reason why you can't quote, or even link to, the thread that provided the spark, that is polite.
 

Pamelyn Casto

WF Veterans
Guilty! Yep, you're the rascal.:-D Your "intrusion" worked out great, for both of us, I think. So I agree, there can be exceptions but it's usually better to start a new thread. I'm always trying to display my brilliance. But I can't find it. If you find it, please return it to me. Thank you.:-D
 

ritudimrinautiyal

Senior Member
DR CRIPPIN: TESTIMONY FROM THE DOCK

Sometimes on-line I take that (kind of a) leap of faith - thinking here is an opportunity to make a friend - y'know, taking their poem, or story even, changing six words, hoping I will be embraced in his warm fug. Ha ha the fellow says and I'm dreaming he will play with me by return of post, bite back, and we dance among our drafts together (my pal for a year). Communication, I suppose. It's very risky, I shouldn't do it. Same with the edge of - nonsensical posts.

Although this (automatic) strategy, or versions of it, has had about a 50/50 success rate during the last decade. I have made only about one and a half enemies over the internet.

Perhaps the destruction and the wade into personal space is teasing? I have to be careful about that.

I can only say I am sorry while the intentions were sincere, kind, or so I think/and thought at the time in/and during this quest for like minds.

I'm not keen on rules, strictures. So...I say no to your proposition and death to fascism. Although I will have to go back and look up 'strictures,' such is rigour. The thread makes me a bit sad.
I can't comment for others , but it always worked for me, the way you are like this, Although I too used my own selection of words and style for the revision part, but your version of my poems always helped me to understand shortcomings to come up with better version.
My comment here is not for generalisation, but yes poet's discretion is above everything, after all he/she owns that poem.

Ritu
 

Matchu

Senior Member
Ah, but that is a slightly different game…



All things considered it is a pretty good thing when you have a pal to correspond with…but then you have to read their “published piece” in the East Coast Lit. Review and lie about how you like it. Then maybe you don’t reply to their next e-mail coz their writing is depressing…

Just one of many wonderful friends.
 

TL Murphy

Met3 Member
Staff member
Chief Mentor
"Banned" as expressed in the opening post is Strong Language among poets and raises the spectre of Free Speech. Granted, Writing Forums is not a democracy and thank God for that or we'd be at the mercy of the masses. It is, however, highly collaborative and I think the owners and staff do a remarkably good job keeping the domain as democratic as can be expected given the range of personalities and the absence of formal representation.

Notwithstanding the authoritative finality of banning any poem is heavy handed even though it is definately poor form to showcase your own work on someone else's thread. Quoting someone else's poem, however, is quite another thing and should not be taken as undermining or usurping the thread.

Having said all this, Ron raises a good point: i.e., responding in verse is as legitimate as responding in prose if it happens to be the way a critic feels that s/he can best make their point. That is not grandstanding as I see it.

So the point is, we can't make rules about these things since every situation is different. We must take these issues on a case by case basis and consider the context and circumstances of each action. This is the only way that justice can prevail, for no decree can possibly cover every circumstance.

We must, to a large degree, rely on the integrity and civility of our fellow poets. After all, this isn't Twitter.
 
Last edited:

Darren White

co-owner and admin
Staff member
Co-Owner
Having said all this, Ron raises a good point: i.e., responding in verse is as legitimate as responding in prose if it happens to be the way a critic feels that s/he can best make their point. That is not grandstanding as I see it.

So the point is, we can't make rules about these things since every situation is different. We must take these issues on a case by case basis and consider the context and circumstances of each action. This is the only way that justice can prevail, for no decree can possibly cover every circumstance.

We must, to a large degree, rely on the integrity and civility of our fellow poets. After all, this isn't Twitter.
This.
We have never disagreed on using (part of) one's own poem to illustrate a point. It's a valid, appreciated and good part of critique.

It's entirely different from someone who decides to post a totally unrelated poem to an existing thread just because it exists. That someone has to start a new thread instead.
 

Matchu

Senior Member
- It is a cruel practice and oppressive to softies - and should be discouraged as the principle.

- While on other occasions the 'interloper' is the more sensitive figure and we should be kind. Compassionate springs to mind.

- Othertimes - some pompous balloons should be pricked?
 

TL Murphy

Met3 Member
Staff member
Chief Mentor
As I said, circumstances are widely different. Context is everything. Sometimes it's okay to put a post a poem on someone else's thread. Sometimes it isn't. It depends. Either way, banishment is harsh and heavy handed, and should be the last resort.
 
Last edited:

RHPeat

Met3 Group Leader
Staff member
Senior Mentor
As I said, circumstances are widely different. Context is everything. Sometimes it's okay to put a post a poem on someone else's thread. Sometimes it isn't. It depends. Either way, banishment is harsh and heavy handed, and should be the last resort.
TL Murphy

Tim, you make a good point. But as I said in my original statement it should be left to the owner of the thread to send a private note asking the person to reword it another ways — if they found it disruptive or intrusive to them. That goes for any comment actually if it addresses the poem-author.

But as you say they could be losing responses if they started to clean house on anyone that told them something they didn't what to hear. And sometimes that's the best critique to read for deeper understanding concerning what another sees in the poem. Tim, I know that you've made me rethink my poems on many occasions, including the last one I just posted in Met3 concerning the metaphor of the confluence. And I've sent it out today after making several changes that came directly or indirectly from you and Katrina.

So if the thread owner starts to be negative to what's posted they could end up with no comments on the poem just out fear of reprisals by all others on the forum. And vis-very.

We all need to face facts, any good critique is there to make the writer rethink what is on the page. If the critique doesn't do that; it not worth having. While an actual attack demeans the poet while ignoring the poem. That needs to be removed from the thread in any circumstance, poem or otherwise, the faster the better. But a poem doesn't have to attack the poet-author and still make reference to the poem in question on the thread or even it's subject matter to carry a thought that the writer might find helpful.

Some things can be said figuratively better than any other way.

So with that in mind: it still sounds strange to ask poets not to speak poetically about poetry. When every poet out there has written such a poem about their own work.

And if you want to read a good one; try reading Marianne Moore's poem called "Poetry." Where she speaks about herself in the voice of the poem, starting out by saying she "dislikes poetry". And the culmination in closure is an absolute killer. How many real toads have you written, as poems? She's telling it like it is to every poet in her own time, and it still hits just as hard today.

POETRY
BY Marianne Moore

I too, dislike it: there are things that are important beyond all this fiddle.
..Reading it, however, with a perfect contempt for it, one discovers that there is in
....it after all, a place for the genuine.
........Hands that can grasp, eyes
........that can dilate, hair that can rise
............if it must, these things are important not because a

high-sounding interpretation can be put upon them but because they are
..useful; when they become so derivative as to become unintelligible, the
....same thing may be said for all of us—that we
......do not admire what
........we cannot understand. The bat,
..............holding on upside down or in quest of something to

eat, elephants pushing, a wild horse taking a roll, a tireless wolf under
..a tree, the immovable critic twinkling his skin like a horse that feels a flea, the base—
....ball fan, the statistician—case after case
........could be cited did
........one wish it; nor is it valid
............to discriminate against “business documents and

school-books”; all these phenomena are important. One must make a distinction
..however: when dragged into prominence by half poets, the result is not poetry,
....nor till the autocrats among us can be
........“literalists of
........the imagination”—above
..............insolence and triviality and can present


for inspection, imaginary gardens with real toads in them, shall we have
..it. In the meantime, if you demand on the one hand, in defiance of their opinion—
....the raw material of poetry in
........all its rawness, and
........that which is on the other hand,
............genuine, then you are interested in poetry.


===============

So to think that poetry can't show something to another poet is ludicrous. Like I said in my original statement there is something very fishy about telling poets not to use poetry to speak about a poem. There is nothing wrong with writing a real toad in anyone's imaginary garden. as a genuine critique. — (AS SHE SAYS!) I might add.

One final thing. In a forum you have to be able to trust the people you're working with, and if you find they are not trustworthy, cut them loose, move away from them. They disrupt the forum and will try to control it for themselves at the expense of other devout members.

a poet friend
RH Peat
 
Last edited:

RHPeat

Met3 Group Leader
Staff member
Senior Mentor
An aside; Yesterday I was clearing a bit that had got overgrown when I saw something scuttle out of the corner of my eye. I thought a huge spider, "Has a tarantula escaped?", but when I looked a tiny toad. Why are they denigrated? He was lovely.
Oily

You'd have to ask Marianne Moore. Good luck on that one. Are you sure it wasn't a tree frog? They ave different, you know. But scuttle sounds like a toad.

Frogs have long legs, longer than their head and body, which are made for hopping. Toads, on the other hand, have much shorter legs and prefer to crawl around rather than hop. Frogs have smooth, somewhat slimy skin. Toads have dry, warty skin. Maybe that will help define what you actually saw in the garden. My guess is that Marianne Moore wasn't too keen on warty old toads, but don't worry. I think she respected them nonetheless. You, Oilly, are definitely the frog type hopping about here and there on the forum.😇

I know you're on a different side of the planet than I am. We have a tiny frog here that lives in the trees. They like to mate in the spring is small pools under the trees between the roots. When they sing at night they make a loud and beautiful cricket like noise to call their mate. When the woods are full they are quite the chorus. On their face they have a little mask of brown around their eyes. They are all of about an inch in length when squatting. Stretch them out and they might make close to 3 inches. That's part of the difference between frogs and toads. Personally I love the little critters singing at night in the spring. Their Latin name is Hyla, so Hyla always has a place to stay on my acre and a third amid the tall oaks.

a poet friend
RH Peat
 
Last edited:

ritudimrinautiyal

Senior Member
Oily

you'd have to ask Marianne Moore. Good luck on that one. Are you sure it wasn't a tree frog? They ave different, you know.

Frogs have long legs, longer than their head and body, which are made for hopping. Toads, on the other hand, have much shorter legs and prefer to crawl around rather than hop. Frogs have smooth, somewhat slimy skin. Toads have dry, warty skin. Maybe that will help define what you actually saw in the garden. My guess is that Marianne Moore wasn't too keen on warty old toads, but don't worry. I think she respected them none the less. You, Oilly, are definitely the frog type hopping about here and there.

I know you're on a different side of the planet than I am. We have a tiny frog here that lives in the trees. They like to mate in the spring is small pools under the trees between the roots. When they sing at night they make a loud and beautiful cricket like noise to call their mate. On their face they have a little mask of brown around their eyes. They are all of about an inch and a half in length when squatting. Stretch them out and they might make close to 4 inches. That's part of the difference between frogs and toads. Personally I love the little critters singing at night in the spring. Their Latin name is Hyla, so Hyla always has a place to stay on my acre and a third.

a poet friend
RH Peat
Wow!! I felt like, I was standing there, near the tree, trying to find that singing Hyla. Loved your description of that Hyla.

Thanks
Ritu
 
Top