What happened to Debisa

[Dunc]

Debisa's thread The weight of his skin ended up in Outside. I'm not sure why. Her poem may not have been perfect (same as much of Hughes, Heaney, Howard or Harry, let alone me) but despite a respectful attitute, and what seem to me to be fair questions, a weight of cries for Order! Order! descended upon her, when a touch more sensitivity about where she was coming from might have been more to the point.

This site is its mods. They're not just good, they're bloody good, and the centre holds [Yeats]. I write only to express a sense that this one seemed a bit harsh, the precise crime hard to detect. Regards / Dunc

[Debisa]

Hey thanks Dunc. I found myself asking the same question but in fear of questioning their authority and being banned I have accepted their punishment.

I do agree that moderators on boards such as this do a marvellous job and excel in all that they do.

My appreciation to boards such as this is tenfold as I would not be at the level that I am now without the learning experiences and knowledge available from the more experienced writers and poets.

My only request when I register to sites is that dialogue is encouraged between the poet and the reviewer, and that respect is evident on the same level as each other.

If that is not available here then I made a mistake.

:(

Deb

[Scavella]

Dialogue is encouraged here, Debisa. However, what we don't encourage is overlong discussions that grow tangential to the poem under consideration. If you look around, you'll see that while we discourage too much non-poem related discussion/dialogue within a thread, we do have forums for that: the Watering Hole for kicking back and relaxing, Voyage of Discovery for craft-related discussions, and this one, for asking the kinds of questions Dunc has done, or for offering congratulations.

The kind of discussion that we welcome in poetry threads here is specific, focussed discussion that deals with details that are particular to a poem, rather than the kind of discussion that is a defence of what is written. One probes to try and get a better understanding of what a critter has said; the other attempts to convey more fully what the poet has aimed for. We work on the premise that if it is not clear what the poet is aiming for, he or she has failed, and further discussion is often redundant. Not always, obviously, but (in our experience) more often than not.

We discourage overmuch discussion in poetry threads for two main reasons: 1) such discussion, with the sort of software PFFA uses, hogs the top of the board, and focusses readers' attention on a single piece to the detriment of others' pieces, which may be just as deserving; 2) we are really interested in the poetry, not the poet, or the poet's goal, or the poem's pedigree, or anything beyond the words presented on the screen. In this way we are less flexible than other workshops; on the other hand, we get quite a bit of work done because of this stringency.

I'm not sure you've posted in the wrong place. However, take a moment to look around and get some idea of our culture, and how we work. PFFA (despite what people would say about the mods) has some of the fewest number of Personalities of any poetry site I've belonged to.

I like it like that. I come here for the craft, not for the company. The company can be an added bonus; we mods do our best to keep it from being a distraction.

Hope this helps.

Cheers

Scavella (mod)

[Debisa]

Thanks Scavella,

I understand and acknowledge and accept all that you have said however I also read in one of your guidelines that it is expected that the poet complete at least one revision and it is customary to put some thought into that revision.

If the reviewers comments are not understood (even after reading the long list of blurbs) then how is it possible to carry out any revisions with that reviewers trouble spots in mind?

Anyway after spending a leisurely Friday afternoon mosing around the forums I do believe that I can benefit from this site. There is certainly a lot of activity and it also seems to have some very knowledgeable members floating around.

I am not here for the company and I feel if I hang around long enough you may find yourself agreeing with me. I am a sponge for information but I am also a practical person. Reading the blurbs will provide me with the knowhow I may need, but putting that into practise shows me that I know how.

All I can ask is that my individual way of learning to improve my craft is also taken into consideration when I ask questions and that it is not always in defence of my work or in judgement of the reviewer.

Thanks

Deb

[HowardM2]

When you post comments such as the following--

"Ask an abstract question and receive an abstract answer."

"Your critique seemed to imply I had no craft without any suggestion on how to improve it except for removing what you consider to be "abstractions" or "vagueness" when singled out of context from the rest of the piece."

--you are in effect telling those who have critted you work that you essentially are rejecting their comments; that is in strict violation of "Posting Guideline #1." That may not be your intention, but that is the implication of those comments, and it was in part because of those comments that I moved your piece into "Outside" to begin with. Perhaps you need to spend more time more carefully formulating your responses in the future.

Further, evoking the responses others have had to your work elsewhere is entirely irrelevant here because it has nothing to do with the comments those here are making; such evocation simply comes off as defensiveness which, as has been pointed out to you, is totally out of place. This was in fact the other reason I moved your thread to "Outside."

"All I can ask is that my individual way of learning to improve my craft is also taken into consideration"--Wrong. It is up to you to adapt to PFFA, not the other way around.

Perhaps the fastest way for you to get a clearer idea of what is expected--and what isn't--would be for you to study the following thread in detail:

Nasty Criticism (http://www.everypoet.org/pffa/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9932).

One of the points made there--that in fact we often make to those who have difficulty adapting to PFFA--is that PFFA isn't for everyone, and it may not be for you.


Howard

[Scavella]

Originally posted by Debisa
If the reviewers comments are not understood (even after reading the long list of blurbs) then how is it possible to carry out any revisions with that reviewers trouble spots in mind?

Let me see if I can answer this.

1) Revision should be carried out to make the best of the poem, not to please the reviewers. Therefore reviewers' trouble spots are not necessarily all that relevant to the revision, beyond making the poet realize what has not yet been communicated. Have a look at some of the critiques and responses in Merciless to see how it works.

2) If there's something you really don't understand in a critique, then you can certainly ask for clarification. But if a lengthy discussion is called for, take it offline; use private messages or emails. That's what they're there for. Engaging in long questioning of arcane critical points is more than likely to be regarded by mods and regulars as drawing undue attention to oneself.

Cheers.