|
Notices |
It's been a while, Unregistered -- Welcome back to Eratosphere! |
|
|
06-26-2002, 12:58 PM
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Federal Way, Washington, USA
Posts: 1,664
|
|
As a follow up to our "What is Criticism for?" thread, I'd like to ask people what, if anything, they've learned from criticism. Either as a poet or as a general reader, have you ever been instructed by a critic in a way that increased your understanding or appreciation of a poet? Has a critical essay or a review ever inspired you to get to know a new poet? I suppose even perverse instruction should count, the kind where you read a negative review and, knowing the reviewer rarely agrees with you, go out and buy the book. But because I'm always trying to make reviewing and criticism part of the big conversation, I'm most interested in postivie instruction, reviews or essays that threw light into places that had been dark.
Richard
|
06-26-2002, 04:37 PM
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Portland, Oregon, U.S.A.
Posts: 1,314
|
|
A critic articulates-- he puts it into words, concisely and exactly, and in the right proportions.
The most use I've gotten from criticism is after the fact: I've read some poet and been either sure I did or didn't like (approve?) him-- or, more rarely, still been unsure-- and then come across a critique that expressed my reactions better than I could have up to that point. This is a very valuable service.
This is why the way a critic expresses himself may be more important than the accuracy of his individual calls. A good or bad review of a particular poet may be inappropriate or unjust in the particular case, but serve quite well to sum up that kind of thing. Some say Houseman kept a notebook of caustic quips. Why not? When poems go wrong, they go wrong in characteristic ways. You could write bad reviews ahead of time, and wait for someone to merit one. You won't have to wait too long.
|
06-26-2002, 05:05 PM
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Missouri, USA
Posts: 1,018
|
|
Sometimes in a positive critique, if the critic is able to express his own perspective with panache, I am more delighted by that critic's passion than by whatever the critic might have to say about the work being reviewed. Case in point: Harold Bloom in Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. I, for one, do not believe that Shakespeare "invented" the human by any definition of the term; nor do I wholly agree with Bloom's opinion of cultural studies, etc.; nor do I see Shakespeare's plays exactly the same way Bloom sees them; but his passion is infectious. (He is more right than wrong about the plays, however..)
The passion itself can show me how the piece being reviewed can please a person even if that piece only pleases that one person. A well-written positive review might in fact make me curious enough to revisit a poet I'd already written off as unimportant. I am always extremely curious about why/how others love the things they love; I sometimes feel I am missing out on something if I can't find a way to love those things, too. Even if no love is inspired, admiration for the work and its effect on others might come from such a critical review.
Curtis.
|
06-27-2002, 08:52 AM
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Federal Way, Washington, USA
Posts: 1,664
|
|
It's striking that both of you put some emphasis on matters besides content. Spirit or passion, whatever we choose to call it, must animate criticism, maybe not to the same degree that it should animate poetry, but nonetheless. Perhaps it has some similarity to teaching, where one of the most important things a teacher can do is persuade students that the subject is worth caring about. (Of course, that assumes that the teacher has a reasonably good grasp of the subject to begin with; same goes for the critic, I guess.)
RPW
|
06-27-2002, 12:58 PM
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Russellville, AR
Posts: 1,004
|
|
One example that comes to mind, for me, is how much Randall Jarrell's criticism of Frost helped me appreciate that poet's work. Reading Hugh Kenner's *The Pound Era* was a great help in understanding literary modernism. I also had the good luck to study under the poet-critic Donald Davie, whose broad sympathies and humane understanding of poetry served as a model to me, in my reading, writing, and teaching.
|
06-28-2002, 04:19 AM
|
Lariat Emeritus
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fargo ND, USA
Posts: 13,816
|
|
In my teens I found Ellman helpful on Yeats, and Brooks helpful on Auden and 20th C. poetry in general. I recently had the good fortune of reading an essay on Murphy by Massachusetts poet Alfred Nicol which taught me a lot about Murphy. No, not Richard Murphy, but yours truly. Nicol argued that by granting "open mike time" to so many colorful characters, all of whom speak in rhymed trimeter, I was creating what one philosopher called a "community of souls." I'd never though about that as I rambled from poem to poem, and it taught me a lot about my own enterprise. Now I'd call that a significant critical achievement, to open a poet's eyes to what he's been unconsciously doing for years!
|
06-28-2002, 07:18 AM
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Iowa City, IA, USA
Posts: 10,090
|
|
Every enthusiastic reader has passions for certain writers, and it can be helpful to read a critic who can see beyond the thing you are passionate about. I still remember reading F.R. Leavis on Shelley, a writer whose sheer music had overwhelmed me when I first read him at age ten, and whom I had continued to cherish. Leavis was very critical of the degree of abstraction in much of Shelley's writing, and once he pointed it out, I had to admit it was there. I still love the music of his verse and still mourn a little for my earlier uncritical love, but I think a writer needs a clear eye as well as passions.
Susan
|
06-28-2002, 10:55 AM
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: London, England
Posts: 248
|
|
Christopher Ricks on Geoffrey Hill, Eliot, Empson and Beckett: with the first Ricks taught me to read him, with the others he revealed much I had not noticed. William Empson- even when he's loopy, Empson is worth reading- but especially, Milton's God.
|
06-28-2002, 02:05 PM
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,401
|
|
[quote]Originally posted by Paul Lake:
how much Randall Jarrell's criticism of Frost helped me appreciate that poet's work.
Ditto. Also Lionel Trilling on Frost.
Bob
|
06-29-2002, 12:00 PM
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Beaumont, TX
Posts: 179
|
|
I really enjoy reading criticism. Not too long ago I read a collection of Jarrell's, and like others here, he really helped me to understand Frost, and many other poets, much better. As someone whose education is really just beginning, I find that a good critic can really help. (I'm also lucky enough to be taught be a critic I respect. It makes for some great discussions.)
jason
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Login
Forum Statistics:
Forum Members: 8,399
Total Threads: 21,841
Total Posts: 270,808
There are 1521 users
currently browsing forums.
Forum Sponsor:
|
|
|
|
|
|