[momdebomb]

This keeps getting hashed out on the metrical board but it belongs here.

My position is, "This sucks" is not a valid critique, "This sucks because...." is.

[This message has been edited by momdebomb (edited March 15, 2001).]

[Richard Wakefield]

I agree, and I'll go a step further. Even "This sucks because..." seems to me to get off to a bad start. "This sucks" is a subjective fact trying to pass for an objective one. Poems don't have any existence out in the cold, hard world; they exist only when we hear them and feel something as a result of our hearing. So I think a useful critique should somehow make clear that this is the hearer attempting to express what happened inside himself, herself, as a result of the poem, and trying to identify the specific features of the poem that caused it to happen. My goal is to give critiques that all more or less amount to something like this: "This word (or phrase or metaphor or whatever) took me deeper into the heart of the poem; this one seemed to keep me out."
Richard

[wendy v]

Actually, Sharon, "critique", is not an act where helpful advice is laid out for an artist, but a studied and unabashed reaction to any given piece of art. It's true that "this sucks" doesn't make for much credibility, and certainly doesn't make for interesting reading, but it actually edges closer to the meaning of "critique" than say, "I wish you had more adjectives in your poem, and punctuation would help, too." We don't so much critique here as much as we do "workshopping". I actually prefer critique -- I know I'm in the minority, but I can infer, or internalize "advice" more meaningfully when it's blatant and directed to the poem, rather than to the personal me who wrote it. Advice often feels, both when I give it, and get it, somewhat presumptious. And strange.

I'm not defending "this sucks"; I'm making a distinction between critique and workshopping. (Okay, and furthering my crusade to make boards on Erato which also distinquish between the two). I think you're implying at the top of this thread that you want critique, but you actually want your poems workshopped, ie, you're looking for specific and helpful advice on how to better them. Nothing wrong with that, most folks do want that, but that's not really "critique".

There are fabulous essays (and poems) written on the subject of workshopping and the art of making poetry, and most of them aren't very complimentary to the general mentality of workshopping, per se. I think Erato is a huge exception to what generally goes on in workshops, but it sometimes falls in the holes, as well. Mediocre poems, politeness over substance, friendship and "feelings" over art, etc., etc. I recommend Thomas Disch's, The Castle of Indolence, or Dana Goia's, Can Poetry Matter.

Fertile subject for discussion.

wendy




[This message has been edited by wendy v (edited March 15, 2001).]

[Richard Wakefield]

Wendy, your distinction between a critique and workshop is probably a useful one, even if, like many distinctions, there are bound to be cases where it's hard to differentiate. My own bias against "workshop" (even more against the verb, "to workshop") is entirely subjective. The generation of poets who taught me were mostly men who seemed to need to prove that they were red-blooded and virile in spite of being poets; I think they were trying to prove something to their fathers. They wore blue jeans and work shirts with sweat-stains, smoked a lot, had sex with lots of coeds, and demonstrated their supposed membership in the working class by calling their classes and seminars "workshops," as if they were doing like their daddies done. It could be funny, but mostly it was depressing to see people who claimed to be in the honesty business being so phony. Then they did a big song and dance about "craft" but discarded anything that had signs of traditional craft, like rhyme and meter. Okay, as you can see, after twenty-five years I'm still a little sensitive about it. I have learned not to dismiss the comments of anyone who uses the word "workshop," even as a verb.
I got this off my chest in a poem that was published in Light and that is supposed to be in a couple of college anthologies published by Bedford/St. Martin's, although I haven't heard from them in the six months since they called to say they wanted it and so I have no idea when or even for certain if it will appear.

In a Poetry Workshop

Let us begin with the basics of modern verse.
Meter, of course, is forbidden, and lines must be,
like life, broken arbitrarily
lest anyone mistake us for budding Wordsworths
(don’t be alarmed if you’ve never heard of him).
Rhyme is allowed, but only in moderation
and preferably very slant. Alliteration
and assonance must only be used at whim
so the reader doesn’t think we’re playing God
by sneaking in a pattern of sounds and echoes.
As for subjects, the modern poet knows
that modern readers prefer the decidedly odd,
so flowers, except for weeds, are out, and love,
except the very weed-like, is also out.
So thistles and incest are fine to write about
but roses and happy marriage get the shove
into the editor’s outbox with hardly a glance.
Now note that language matters, so “I” must be
in lower case, thus “i,” to show that we
don’t put on airs despite our government grants.
This also shows we’ve read our Marx and know
the self is a bourgeois fiction. We understand
the common speech, and so the ampersand,
pronounced “uhn,” replaces “and,” although
judicious use of allusions to classical thought
will keep the great unwashed from getting our drift,
while those outside of Plato’s cave will lift
a knowing eyebrow, declaring our work “well-wrought.”
And speaking of work, this is not a “class”:
We modern poets roll up our sleeves and write
our verse in “workshops,” no place for sissies, we fight
to find “a voice,” and only the fittest pass.
I’ve summarized these rules in a convenient list,
it’s wallet-sized, laminated, so keep
it handy, use it, recite it in your sleep.
First poems are due tomorrow. You’re dismissed.

[Len Krisak]

Richard, see my Able Muse Interview (forthcoming)
on workshops, but...

your poem is dead-on and brilliant.

(Does the name of Fightin' Phil Levine ring
a bell?)

[momdebomb]

I am responding to something on the "Bedtime Story" thread because it's how this thread started in the first place and because I'd like us all to let that thread fall of the board. Please?

First I would like to compare two comments about that poem. Both are "bad" crits and by that I mean they are about how the poem is bad. I had asked the following questions because the second half of the poem had been called "irredeemable":

"1. Why, exactly, is it irredeemable?
2. Why is the first half not irredeemable? (that's the part I thought
would get slammed)
3. How does one express angst by removing the angst?"
(note, I was only slightly pissed off at this point)

The first response-

"1. I will answer with a quote: Turmoil floods and grips my brain because the world's gone quite insane and there's no answer I can find to ease the worry in my mind. This is not poetry, it's blather.

2. The first quatrains, though extremely cutesy, could be redeemed by a harshly undercutting title.

3. Sometimes you say more by saying less. In fact, half the art of poetry is the unspoken."

The second response-

"The problems here are:
1-you're reporting your feelings, not causing us to experience them. This is antithetical to a poetic experience;
2-pedestrian rhyme words;
3-unsupported hyperbole; I don't agree that the world is insane, and you haven't convinced me of it;
4-awkward use of words (can a turmoil grip? why is the world "quite" insane, other than to fit your meter? where else would a worry be but in your mind?).

I hope that this is of some use to you."

Critiquing vs. workshopping aside, isn't it clear that the latter is a more valuable comment than the former?

Charles' comments made me realize that even though those I showed this poem to in person actually paled when they got to the second half, and responded with comments like "wow", or were crying, it wasn't my poem making them respond like that. Those I showed this to all live in San Diego and are parents. The feelings were already in place.

Now I have been acused of not liking a "bad" crit-

"There are plenty of sites where the medicine is sugared, I prefer to take it unadulterated, in the long run it's less painful."

Yet I have already said:
"I'm not saying my poems can't stink. They probably do. That's why I'm here..."

One person actually complained that I prefered Charles' "bad" crit to theirs-

"Sharon, the art of the unsaid applies to critique also. Sometimes people feel that I deploy it too liberally. Charles has precisely delineated the problems, but you should have been able to do that for yourself. You might have reflected "Why would anyone call this blather? Could it be true?" Had you been honest with yourself, rather than indulging your hurt feelings, you might have arrived at the same conclusions Charles has explained for you. And it really is better to think these things through for yourself."

and in the very same post accused me of the opposite:

"But if you prefer unmerited praise, there are sites where it can be had in abundance."

Go figure. I give up.


And to the person who said-

"Jim Hayes and I once had a very heated discussion of a highly technical matter, during which we both crossed the borders of civility. Afterward, we shook cyberhands and walked away from it.

Can you do that, Warren? And you Sharon, whom I have also offended?"

Glad too! Believe it or not I actually look forward to crossing swords again sometime.

Finally, Ewrgall, I am responding to you here because, like I said, I'd like that other thread to fall off the face of the earth but I wanted to thank you publicly. I am humbled that, with just a nudge and a snip you have improved the last two lines 1,000%.

"It's six AM now, hushed and cool.
Time to wake the kids for school.

Six AM....it's hushed and cool
And time to wake the kids for school"

I can see I have a lot to learn. It's good that I'm among such talented people. Leave the bar right where it is.

Sharon P.

[This message has been edited by momdebomb (edited March 15, 2001).]

[Alan Sullivan]

I'm glad this discussion has come over here, and it has already elicited some thoughtful responses. First I'd like to ask Sharon a question. As the "one person" mentioned above, I am wondering how you construe my comments as a complaint that you preferred Charles' crit. This is a bizarre way of reading my phrase "Charles has precisely delineated the problems."

This kind of miscomunication seems to occur rather often in the atmosphere of overcharged emotion that sometimes results from frank comments. In this instance I provoked the emotion when, having quoted the four lines from your poem, I chose to critique them rather than workshop them, as Charles did subsequently. I used a qualitative and judgemental word: blather.

I stand by that word. I am well aware that many people nowadays regard such language as personal attack. Still, I dislike the vitiation of speech and thought that excess of sensitivity imposes on everyone else. And I will not be bullied from my stance by the word "abuse," later directed at me by Warren on that same thread. If referring to four lines of metrical maundering as "blather" constitutes abuse, then the threshold has been set way too low, and needs to be reconsidered.

Now, with a sigh of relief, I'd like to tell Richard that I love his workshop poem. I have not really thought about the distinction between workshop and critique that wendy v. elucidates. Some people who post here for the first time seem shocked if someone points out a run-on sentence or an unmetrical line. Others are willing to endure a great deal of "workshopping" so long as the discussion is strictly technical, but go ballistic when their themes or ideas are questioned.

But it is obvious that judgemental terms like "blather" are the real tripwires. Only the hardiest handle such language calmly. I usually make a point of praising something else about a poem before and/or after I engage in such strong critique. Yesterday I neglected to do that on three occasions, and I left a trail of hurt feelings.

I would be interested to see what others have to say about this tricky issue.

Alan Sullivan

[laryalee]

Sharon -
This has been quite a ride - two days here, and I'm almost dizzy!
I hate to see people cut down - along with their poetrees (sorry, couldn't help it)...but I have an idea this whole kafuffle may result in a better understanding, all around.

Great idea, starting this thread!

Richard, sure love that Workshop poem! And I'd like to expand a little more on what you noted re subjectivity...

Wendy re the critique/workshop issue:
While I somewhat agree with the definition of critique as "a studied and unabashed reaction"....
IMO, it's too often based on one person's subjective view. They may proclaim it's objective, but that precludes any hate/love reactions.
As Richard said, "This sucks" is subjective. ("I hate it")
I think objectivity begins to arrive with "This sucks because...." Then the reason for hating it is revealed, and on the basis of that reasoning the victim (suckee?) can judge whether or not to accept/validate the crit.
And of course, saying "I think this sucks" means the person is admitting subjectivity.

I am interested in objective (technical aspect) criticism, but I also want subjective reactions, because that's when you know a poem has spoken - or not.
"Your metaphors are dead" - objective
"I can't stand the smell of your dead metaphors" - subjective
And I appreciate it when subjective comments include that all important 'IMO'.

This is such fun - looking forward to learning more!
Lary





[This message has been edited by laryalee (edited March 15, 2001).]

[wendy v]

Richard, your poem is hilarious, but sobering, too. Mostly what we're talking is poetical politics here, which always makes me laugh and despair in equal parts. Well, sometimes more equal than others. I'll spare you my own poetic/politic equivelant, "Alas, I Do Not have Cachet."

Sharon, I get a little queasy when poets start telling their critics how to word their commentary -- not because I think critics shouldn't be accountable, but because I trust and appreciate honesty over politeness, and oddly, always have. I also worry about folks tip-toeing about in poetry halls using bland or politically correct language. Steep in too much politeness, and the vital flavor of honesty goes. That may be nice to poets, but I don't think it so nice to poetry. That said, I'm not sure how I'd respond if somebody called my work, blather. I'd probably ask in my o so witty way if it tasted good in his mouth, then set about writing a better poem.
That's it in a walnut shell. I know, I know, I've been to the rodeo. You gonna survive, I know it.

Alan, my thoughts aren't original, but they are very deeply ingrained. I read way too much Disch and Joseph Epstein (Who Killed Poetry), during my formative years. Scarred for life.

Lary,

"While I somewhat agree with the definition of critique as "a studied and unabashed reaction".... IMO, it's too often based on one person's subjective view."

Much of it is subjective, of course,but I don't think you can really argue the definition of the word, "critique". It's nothing to do with helpfulness, and everything to do with review. Check your dictionary. But I like what you say about objectivity beginning to arrive when justification reveals itself.

"And I appreciate it when subjective comments include that all important 'IMO'."

Ha ! That's funny, because I detest the phrase. Does the obvious, " this is my opinion" really need to be said ? Everything's gotta come with a disclaimer !

We all learn, and communicate differently.

Can I rest my case now about two boards on Erato -- one for Unabashed Critique, and one for Helpful Advice ? I don't care if you guys call it the Bluebirds and the Vultures, the Beautiful and the Ugly, the Chain Gang and the Nuns, just so long as the distinction is pretty clear UPON ARRIVAL, and we can avoid the sort of back biting and hurt feelings that happened on the board today. Folks would know what sort of feedback they're looking for, know what they're getting into, and post accordingly.

Simple as blackberry pie.
wendy




[This message has been edited by wendy v (edited March 15, 2001).]

[momdebomb]

Hi everyone,

Richard, I agree with you totally. I wish you could write some basic guidelines about comments. If Wendy's idea for splitting the board into different types of crits/workshops happens, they will need some.
I also thought your poem was a hoot, especially,
"judicious use of allusions to classical thought
will keep the great unwashed from getting our drift,
while those outside of Plato’s cave will lift
a knowing eyebrow, declaring our work "well-wrought.""

Wendy, I looked up "critique" and it said, "The act or art of criticizing." I like the art choice best but that's just me. Now, I don't give a damn if someone isn't polite. I have not said one word about manners throughout this whole thing. I haven't told anyone how to word anything either. However, if anyone drops a one-word bomb like "irredeemable", I'm going to ask "why irredeemable?", and if their answer is no answer I'm going to say so. What's the point of that afterall? Just to vent frustration? Why waste time waiting for the reply page to load?

Any critique happening here is still happening within the context of a workshop, not a review. (by the way, I like your idea about dividing the board almost as much as I like mine)

As you all probably know, Carol doesn't pull any punches, but, her comments are so informative that I have started copying them into my notes. Here is an example:

"To answer your second question, a rhyme has to occur on the stressed syllable of a word, whether it's true rhyme, consonance, or assonance. MORning doesn't rhyme with BRING. CREvice doesn't rhyme with HISS. creVASSE/HISS would qualify as consonance, ITS/HISS would qualify as assonance, and CREvice/CREdence would be alliteration (not rhyme but a useful substitute). But AM/ROBin isn't even close, nor is ARCHes/imPAtiens or OILas/deLIVers."

Alan, to answer your question, I did not make that inference from your statement, "Charles has precisely delineated the problems". I made it from these statements, "...but you should have been able to do that for yourself. You might have reflected 'Why would anyone call this blather? Could it be true?'". It's as if your crit should have been enough. If I am wrong I apologize.

Everyone thinks I got upset that my poem wasn't recieved favorably. Well, that's just not so (well, I would have preferred 20 publishers ringing my phone off the hook, but it's not what made me angry). I was upset because you wouldn't tell me why. My position on that still stands. If you think something I've written is blather and you are prepared to tell me why, c'mon down. If you are not prepared to tell me why, keep it to yourself. If I'm not going to learn and improve in here I may as well go hang out in chat rooms.

Lary,Hey girlfriend I think you're right about the better understanding, and about this being somewhat fun, although I hate to admit it. Thanks for turning me on to that other website.

Sharon P.