Join the Neopoet online poetry workshop and community to improve as a writer, meet fellow poets, and showcase your work. Sign up, submit your poetry, and get started.
On opting to enter the program, the member is to be presented with two poems, and to be asked "Which is appreciably better than the other?" The member can indicate one or the other, or can indicate that s/he finds 'no appreciable difference.' The member then is to be asked to select a criterion (from an accumulated list of previously established criteria) or to declare the criterion used in the critical judgment.
The 'critical judgment' is to have this effect:
In the event that one poem is judged 'appreciably better,' the better poem is to have one point added to its 'poetic value,' and the worse poem is to have one point deducted from its poetic value.
In the event that neither is judged 'appreciably better,' no points are added or deducted.
In either event, the poems' 'times tested' tallies are to be incremented.
The 'criterion declaration' is to have this effect:
A record of the linkage of the two poems to the criterion used in judging their quality is to be created. The data structure of the judgment record should include all relevant facts, as it is intended to build from these records a database that will support research into the actual practice of critical judgment by this group on some corpus of poetry.
The corpus of poetry should include any poem in public domain, and any poem volunteered by a member.
I anticipate that this program will generate numbers. The one that would be of most vital interest to members who volunteered their work for the study is the 'poetic value,' of course. And it is an inescapable fact that this program as outlined will drive the best and the worst poems forcefully away from the comfortable zero that all poems in the corpus would enjoy initially.
I anticipate that this program will generate a list of criteria that are practically meaningful---perforce, as they cannot enter the list until they have been used in critical practice, by a proclaimed critic.
The 'critical judgment' is to have this effect:
In the event that one poem is judged 'appreciably better,' the better poem is to have one point added to its 'poetic value,' and the worse poem is to have one point deducted from its poetic value.
In the event that neither is judged 'appreciably better,' no points are added or deducted.
In either event, the poems' 'times tested' tallies are to be incremented.
The 'criterion declaration' is to have this effect:
A record of the linkage of the two poems to the criterion used in judging their quality is to be created. The data structure of the judgment record should include all relevant facts, as it is intended to build from these records a database that will support research into the actual practice of critical judgment by this group on some corpus of poetry.
The corpus of poetry should include any poem in public domain, and any poem volunteered by a member.
I anticipate that this program will generate numbers. The one that would be of most vital interest to members who volunteered their work for the study is the 'poetic value,' of course. And it is an inescapable fact that this program as outlined will drive the best and the worst poems forcefully away from the comfortable zero that all poems in the corpus would enjoy initially.
I anticipate that this program will generate a list of criteria that are practically meaningful---perforce, as they cannot enter the list until they have been used in critical practice, by a proclaimed critic.