Our rambling Rose
is a gal that knows
shit from shinola;
I guess it shows
that sanity
and vanity
make uneasy
bedfellows.

(gawd that's lame. Sorry, Rose... You do make sense, tough.)

(robt)

I'd have to disagree rose, at least a little bit. Why even say its getting unduly positive or negative reviews, unless to say 'my opinion matter more'. it's not really all that constructive, more like dismissive.

I still understand your point though; there's nothing inherently wrong with statement.

Why even say its getting unduly positive or negative reviews,
Because there is a scientifically proven tendency for people to follow on previous comments in a similar vein, to go along with a majority opinion, as I explained in my post above.
It seems to me pointless to pretend that we do not usually read other critiques of a poem before adding our own, so I can see nothing wrong in mentioning the fact that we are surprised by the previous comments - in a general way, without singling out any member, or descending to ad hom comments.
Are we under an obligation to treat all other comments with respect, as eaf suggests? If I am talking through my hat, I don't expect my comments to be treated with respect. A chorus of people talking through their hats is no more deserving of respect.
When we have been using poetry-boards for a while, we learn to discriminate between helpful and unhelpful advice, but an inexperienced author may not do so. I have seen some terrible advice given, with a tone of great authority, on various boards. I've sometimes winced at the thought of an author taking it to heart.
There is a well-known economic principle that bad currency drives out the good. The same is true of poetry-boards - bad critiques will overwhelm and drive out the good. I've seen it happen to several boards, which is why I think if a thread gets silly, it should be pointed out. The moderators of a board can't be expected to do all the work in policing standards.
Regards, Maz

I am in 150% agreement with Maz. Well put and well said.

Because a critter's opinion doesn't agree with you they're "talking through their hat"? Having different aesthetics doesn't automatically make anyone a liar or a simpleton--why assume it is so? What if they actually like the poem and you don't?

I see absolutely no value in breaking down the critiques of others. This isn't an exact science and an opinion is only an opinion, no matter how strongly it's held or whose it is.

I often disagree with crits. Sometimes I'll mention the reasons why I disagree, but I won't accuse someone of being a liar.

-eaf

I agree 175% with what Ethan said.

Really, it seems to be a matter of having the courage of your convictions. And, yes, enough respect to listen to differing opinions without implying the person you disagree with is an idiot. There is courage in speaking up, but there is also courage in shutting up.

This is in two parts.

First: The assumption that differences in aesthetics are entirely responsible for differences in critiques...comes from where, exactly?

Second: I think it's safe to say that every poem that has ever been written has had its supporters and its detractors. Every future poem will have its share of each. This is why I do not like crits which are comprised of an "I like it!" or "This is shit!" only. Duh. Someone's going to like it, someone's going to dislike it already. So this distinction between those critics who like a poem and those who dislike a poem is not germane on the basis of liking/disliking. (Who here comes to Erato only for the social aspects? The poet-writing-for-peers Poet?)

Here's a clue: Even the best written poetry of our time is not widely hailed; the rough drafts posted to Erato would fare much worse were they to be released into the general public domain. These are rough drafts, aren't they? Then why are they to be "protected" from savage critics especially when those critics do not join in choruses of praise? For these rough drafts.

Curtis, I would say that someone's reaction to a poem--favorable or not--is primarily dictated by aesthetics. Some folks can't stand poetry that doesn't "sing". Other folks like vivid imagery. Still others look for deep themes.

There is a lot more to critique than aesthetics, of course. I won't dispute that.

What I dislike is the assumption that I'm pussyfooting a critique if I'm not sufficiently harsh on a poet. So what if I liked the imagery? So what if it's rhythmically retarded and I didn't notice? Does that make me a suck-up? Absolutely not.

At no time was I advocating protection of rough drafts. However, you ought to know that savaging every poem you come across will only result in your critiques being largely ignored. I prefer the shit sandwich approach.

-eaf

Unfortunately, the nice-nice attitude toward other crits allows the sort of mediocrity of both poetic craft and critiquing rigor evident on Non-Metrical (and to a lesser extent Metrical Non-Deep). Many of the critiques, including some by members of long standing, are frankly embarassing. There's a difference between simply slamming another critique because you disagree with it and pointing out when a reply is glaringly deficient in terms of effort or in fact demonstrably incorrect.

Edited to add: mindlessly positive and mindlessly negative critiques are both reprehensible. Carefully considered and well informed critiques of whatever tenor are what we need.

------------------
Steve Schroeder

[This message has been edited by Steven Schroeder (edited May 25, 2004).]

No, it makes you partial.

I'll reiterate: Someone, somewhere else, will notice the crappy rhythm and dislike the poem on that basis—perhaps the awkward phrasing will overwhelm any imagery in that poem. Another person will have an aunt who resembles the character in the poem and will love it. Another will love the dissonance created by the rhythmic burping.

I assume that everyone has partialities. Again, are we writing only for our peers on Erato, or do we wish to write poetry which can transcend the limitations of this smaller circle? If you'll admit there's a bias—call it partiality or call it aesthetics—can you also admit this is a valid response to another critique: Critic X's response is legitimate for Critic X, but many others may not respond in the same way for the following reasons: ?

I.e., if the response of Critic X is largely biased, what legitimacy will his critique have for the poem when Critic X is removed from the scene?

My problem with the protectionism being advocated is the danger that the partial will be given as evidence of the whole: I like the imagery! This is a great poem! This is especially problematic when large numbers of critics (in this small circle) have similar biases, and even more so when simple statements of liking are offered as “proof” that the poem works and will work for everyone. Their similar opinions might well be valid for them, but perhaps every one of them missed something which will stand out strongly for another reader or many other readers.

Knowing the subjective likes/dislikes of others—of any others—may be helpful, but imo only when those subjective evaluations are given reasoned arguments for the liking/disliking. [Or: BANNED POSTpossibly, also when those opinions have unspoken arguments already established through months of acquaintanceship, though this runs the risk of establishing a clique view, or a shared bias, which might exclude many other potential readers.] Reasoned arguments at least point the poet to an understanding of how the poem might affect another.

Your argument seems to be that all opinions are equal and/or deserve equal status, which seems odd to me (considering the many queer opinions I’ve heard before.) Supposing this opinion of yours is true, however, I’d question why you bother critiquing at all. Technically—and, I am here assuming—the poets who post their poetry here devised their poems to fit their own personal biases, chose imagery etc. according to their own aesthetic sense (at least in part). Why would you, as a critic, respond to a poem with “This doesn’t work” when the poet obviously thought, at some point, that it works? Do you value your opinion over the poet’s? On what basis?
I might be wrong about that. Now that I rethink my previous statement, I would say that the protectionism being advocated is protection of critiques. I think this is a symptom of socialism, actually, in which the parties don’t wish to do much work in offering reasoned critiques but desire the rewards of being accepted as critics. To some extent, reasons can be refuted; but it is my belief that spot-on arguments are usually quite difficult to refute—at least, difficult to refute in their entirety. Simple expressions of opinions (minus reasons) are so easy to argue over, They must be protected! by some rule of thumb or established law, I presume, lest the critics become devalued...devalued by having to compete with reasoned argument or with more loudly/frequently expressed opinions.

I also think that the threat of being largely ignored is bogus, for the same reason plus two:
[*] Many of those who come to Erato to display their great works of art and to receive praise plus only incidental “critique” are certainly going to ignore any critique—reasoned or otherwise—which is largely negative. [Even so, detailed and reasoned criticism is quite difficult to ignore, even for them.]
[*] If by “ignored” you mean that all offered suggestions will be ignored in any revision...Why is that my problem? Is it that I, if I were to savage every poem, would somehow lose the right to rewrite the poems by offering my one-word fixes? This is also a symptom of the aforementioned socialism: The idea that each offered poem is the community's to write and rewrite, and that losing that privilege is the natural result of not being "nice pleasant supportive." Ultimately, it's the poet's responsibility to decide which criticism he should take to heart in the revision process—not mine.





[This message has been edited by Curtis Gale Weeks (edited May 25, 2004).]