For what it's worth, this thread has re-awakened in me a concern I sometimes have about being a helpful critiquer. I still feel that some others gave the first draft of this poem a far kinder response than called for. I thought they went a very long ways in making assumptions, "filling in" and "correcting" a lot of what actually lay on the page.

But then your comment really struck me about how necessary those positive readings were to you. You said they showed you there was something that "spoke" to others in the draft that was worth developing. Obviously you NEEDED those positive reactions in order to be moved to improve the draft as you did.

So just a critic's dilemma, I guess -- I want to be the most helpful critic I can, yet I could not have honestly given a positive response to that draft no matter how much I wanted to be kind and helpful. (Makes me wonder, should I have pretended to like something or things about it? Or maybe just looked harder for what I could really like in it :)



This was a response to a poem and it's favorable responses that was posted on The Deep End. I thought about answering it there, but it didnt seem the place to ask questions or make statements, and so I am taking the liberty of moving it over here to General Discussion. What I have to say is not poem-specific, or even person-specific. It is a question (and some statements), plain and simple, about assumptions.

One of the reasons I always hesitate to comment on a poem of any sort is the distinct possibility of being mocked for it, or thought of as less-intelliegent or less-knowledgable than others who regularily wade in and fire away. Responses like the one above only serve to confirm that my trepidation is, at least, somewhat founded.

Someone once remarked in a similar thread that they *held back* on their comments so as not to influence others or to become the lone dissenter. They waited to see if anyone else agreed with "their" opinion before they voiced it. I found that sad, I still do, and yet I find it perfectly understandable.

Why should anyone find a positive response, which differs from their own, "far kinder than called for"?
Aren't we all entitled to our likes and our dislikes without being thought of as simply being "kind"? No two people read the same words and come away with the same sound in their head, no two people hear the same music, no two people like the exact same things for the exact same reasons. One is not more valid than the other. It seems it should be the author's choice to value one higher than the other, if at all.

When someone offers comments on something I've posted, I take it all into consideration....not the positive alone, not the negative alone. (as did the author of this poem, and wisely so, I believe) But I do not negate either and I do not consider any of it to be *flattery* or *kindness* or (God forbid) "pretending". I actually find those remarksto be quite insulting to those who made the comments, to be brutally honest.

People see what they see, they read what they read, they hear what they hear. Some people like rap, some people like soul, some like rock, some like Bach......doesnt make any of them wrong, just makes them different, and different is what turns the world and makes each of us able to fill a void in others.

If someone doesnt like a particular poem, I have no problem with them saying so in whatever terms they feel right and necessary in order to help the poem grow. However, I do have a small problem with someone critting the crit, so to speak. A response is not a poem, it doesnt need *help* it doesnt need *comment* it doesnt need *fixing* It is an opinion offered, and all of us are entitled to our opinions. If it is possible to have a "wrong opinion" then I am unaware of how that works. Isnt negating one personal opinion with your own simply more personal opinion?

I guess what I am getting at is this; Are there people whose opinion is more valuable than others? And if so, should those whose opinions are less valuable simply hush up and remain silent? Just who are we writing for in that case? There is always talk about how to get poetry to the *masses* and yet, who knows what the "mass" wants to read? It seems we are always a bit disdainful of them and their opinions and that we dont really want to appeal to them, we only want them to find us appealing. Truth is, there are way more of "them" than there are of "us", and they matter. They matter a lot if we want poetry to survive in more than just a small isolated area surrounded by the graves of dead poets.

Anyhow, now that I am quite done ranting, my question is this: Is it a valid assumption that if one person in particular doesnt like something that the something being discussed isnt good? Even if a whole bunch of someone's dont like that something, does that still make it not good? Or does it just mean it hasnt found the right audience yet? If you played Eminem at a Bach concert, you'd get boo'd off the stage, but if you played him to a different audience, you'd get footstomping approval. (however, of course, they'd do more than boo you if you played Bach in their backyard http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/smile.gif ) There's a lot of talk here lately comparing music to poetry, so I think the *audience* question is a valid one. Who we want to appeal to is our business, of course. How we do it is also up to us. I still think that we should be able to find a way, if not to appreciate all of it ourselves, to at least allow others their right to enjoy it.

In other words, I dont mind my poetry being torn to shreds, but when my opinions are questioned, I do admit to being a bit "miffed" http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/smile.gif

Wrong of me? (This one is ok to shred coz I am asking)
http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/smile.gif

Lo









[This message has been edited by Lo (edited May 17, 2004).]

Lo,

Is it a valid assumption that if one person in particular doesnt like something that the something being discussed isnt good?

No.

If I think a critter is way off base, I might send the author a private
e-mail telling her to ignore that crit, and why. Otherwise, I do my own
and keep my mouth shut.

Critiquing crits publicly is a bad idea, for, as Lo says, it could
discourage some critters, and every crit, no matter how naive or
misinformed, is worth something to me as an author.

Take the smiley at the end away, Lo--you're right.

Carter

The most helpful critiques I have received have been those which several people speaking their own minds independently told me approximately the same thing about a certain passage or word choice or the like. The second or third might have remained silent because the first had already pointed it out, but I would not have had the same benefit.

The least helpful I have received came when someone jumped in to straighten someone else out or to answer a question directed to me. In the first instance, the critter may have miscued because he just plain misread, but it could have been the fault of my poem and I needed to know it. In the other, I'm perfectly capable of speaking for myself.

I find it especially valuable when people tell me what images my poem gives them. If it's too contrary to my intentions, I need to check for some misdirection in the poem.

I say screw your courage to the sticking place. Tell the poet directly and honestly what you think. The more of it you do, the better you will become at it. If it's any help, Lo, I have always found your remarks intelligent, considered and articulate. If they hadn't been, I would have said so.

Bill

I for one opt for your 'audience' option. If I (or anyone else, really) deems a poem worthy to be posted up for critique, then there has to be something good in it. It's my personal belief that no poem is totally unsalvageable (though sometimes salvation seems to require altogether too much effort) and I really loathe it when people here (or elsewhere) tell someone else to scrap a poem. As far as I'm concerned, these claims usually indicate a failure to make the effort required to write a proper critique: it's the lazy man's way out of helping someone else. And in a way, this touches upon a problem I have with this very site: little or no attempt is made to help the uninitiated/more amateurish poets. There is no real way for a new poet to learn from the more experienced poets on this site, unless it is by lurking. And in the end, lurking can only take you so far. And this is this community's major failing: it in no way attempts to welcome new poets to the fold. Instead, it adopts a more conservative standpoint.


What really embarrases me, though, is when I think a poem means something and post accordingly, only to find out that the author and next dozen or so posters see it as being representative of something entirely different. All subsequent posts then only serve to ridicule my own. And so I ask myself: why did I see it as representing something totally different? And so you analyze it all over again, and I generally have a tendency to come up with the same interpretation. Sometimes the other interpretation makes sense, and sometimes it really doesn't. Anyhow, this is going virtually nowhere, I think. I'll just end by saying that I've learned that, once one has posted a critique, one is done one's job. There's little point reading the other critiques.

And, as an author, one also has to remember that those other critiques which may seem far-fetched/a total misinterpretation also have to be carefully considered.

------------------
If I'm not wasted; the day is.

Are there people whose opinion is more valuable than others?


Yes, I think so.

We're not just doing "subjective opinion" here, we're also doing "informed opinion about reasonably objective matters". Some of us are more informed, more experienced, more educated, more skilled, than others of us. Their informed opinions are more valuable to me than the opinions of those who are less skilled, less educated, etc.

Most crits contain both subjective and informed elements.

If it is possible to have a "wrong opinion" then I am unaware of how that works. Isnt negating one personal opinion with your own simply more personal opinion?

For subjective opinions, this is so.
For informed opinions about relatively objective matters, this is less so. Meter, cadence, rhyme, slant rhyme, diction, metaphor, allusion, are all reasonably objective matters, about which it is indeed possible, IMHO, to have what might be called a "wrong opinion".


And if so, should those whose opinions are less valuable simply hush up and remain silent?

No, of course not. How would we all learn anything that way???

The purpose of a crit isn't just to help the crittee, IMHO. I've gotten far more out of *doing* crits here than receiving them on my own work.

Is it a valid assumption that if one person in particular doesnt like something that the something being discussed isnt good?
Probably not.

Even if a whole bunch of someone's dont like that something, does that still make it not good?
Odds improve with every additional someone to the bunch.
Of course, there's also the audience element, as you mention.

The thing is that a good critique is more than "I liked it" or "I didn't like it". It's more specific and focussed than that.

One of the reasons I always hesitate to comment on a poem of any sort is the distinct possibility of being mocked for it, or thought of as less-intelliegent or less-knowledgable than others who regularily wade in and fire away.

I know things get brutal around here sometimes, but it seems pretty rare that actual mocking occurs. As for being thought of as less knowledgeable than some others, well, for me that's part of the cost of admission to learning. If I can't cope with appearing less knowledgeable than others, then I can't learn from anyone who actually IS more knowledgeable than I am. I take great comfort from the line from the Desiderata, "If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself."

Though, I suppose you are asking about the case where someone ELSE compares you with others. In which case, the desiderata would probably prescribe "Ignore those who compare you with others, lest you become vain and bitter." http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/smile.gif

Lo,
No matter how it's sliced--Critting someone else's critique is bad manners. PERIOD.

One of the reasons I always hesitate to comment on a poem of any sort is the distinct possibility of being mocked for it, or thought of as less-intelliegent or less-knowledgable than others..

Only by people who haven't read your work or one of your critiques. I extend the invitation to anyone to comment on one of my poems. No matter the opinion. Even if they want clarification before giving a crit. The more diverse the comments, the merrier.

The only thing that I've noticed (Here and other boards) is if the first critter doesn't like your work and expresses a negative attitude toward it, a lot of people who follow pick up on those negative cues and are influenced by them.

Why should anyone find a positive response, which differs from their own, "far kinder than called for"?

Don't know who you're referring to (that started the ball rolling, as it were) but it implies that everyone else's comments were wrong compared to his/her so the answer to your question---a condenscending attitude.

And as to your audience for modern poetry (what the masses like)...walk down the aisles of the Hallmark store. See those people reading the cards? There you go.
Is that saying I'm a better person/reader/connoisseur of poetry? Nope. Just different tastes.

Michel,

Dude, I ain't picking on you but...

It's my personal belief that no poem is totally unsalvageable (though sometimes salvation seems to require altogether too much effort)

Effort on whose part? You seem to indicate later that you think the critiquer can somehow pull a magic trick out of their hat (or elsewhere) and help a poster turn around a poem that was questionable to start with. Yeah, I could take the same words that my 10 year old uses to write a poem, put a spin on them/ edit out the bad parts/ change the syntax/ correct the spelling/make sure that all the tenses agree/add some imagery/ slip in a really cool metaphor...(etc) But if I did ALL that, haven't I in effect written a new poem that really hasn't got anything to do with my daughter other than she originally penned the words?

and I really loathe it when people here (or elsewhere) tell someone else to scrap a poem. As far as I'm concerned, these claims usually indicate a failure to make the effort required to write a proper critique: it's the lazy man's way out of helping someone else. And in a way, this touches upon a problem I have with this very site: little or no attempt is made to help the uninitiated/more amateurish poets.

That's why in the introductions, everyone is informed that this board isn't for amateurs.

There is no real way for a new poet to learn from the more experienced poets on this site, unless it is by lurking. And in the end, lurking can only take you so far. And this is this community's major failing: it in no way attempts to welcome new poets to the fold. Instead, it adopts a more conservative standpoint.

Of course my poems are not up to this board's better standards, but as to your last comment--I was welcomed. Openly. I also took my lumps. Oh, and I lurked for about a 16 months.


------------------
It's a dog-eat-dog world and I'm wearing Milk Bone underwear.

Effort on the part of the writer, of course. The critiquer is there to help point the writer in the right direction, but it is up to the writer himself or herself to actually find and tread a path.


I hope you know that I realize that; I too read that warning. I'm merely lamenting the fact that this is so, and that there is no forum (for example) to help those who wish to learn. All this does is propagate the image of poetry as being an elitist indulgence with no relelvance whatsoever to the "common folk". It seems that poetry is becoming, increasingly, something reserved for a cultural elite, which it really isn't. We're just alienating both an audience and a future generation. But those are my opinions, nothing more.

And let me add that while more is expected of members than simply a 'trash this' comment, you need only read a few responses to see that the rule isn't always obeyed. Some people post saying that they'll return later and, in the end, never do come back. Seems like trolling to me, people choosing not to heed the warning issued when you join. But that's all to be expected, no?

Had you never written a poem before in your life? All I've seen here is 'friendly' hostility towards the uninitiated. And that's just an observation taken from my experience here, which is rather limited I admit. Of course lurking can help --- I did say so earlier. But it does not provide the same insights that would be available if the more experienced writers here could simply share their wisdom with the uninitiated, critiquing their first poems in a manner geared towards teaching them how best to write.

Having said that, I'll re-state the fact that I realize full well that this website is more of an online workshop than anything else. Workshops have their advantages and disadvantages, including the fact that they exclude those new to the craft. If we see poetry as an educational system, Workshops are probably at the CÉGEP/Undergrad level. I realize that. I just think it's a shame that we have no Kindergarten level, as it were.



[This message has been edited by Michel-Antoine Xhignesse (edited May 17, 2004).]

Michel, if you wandered into an advanced swimming class and couldn't swim from one side of the pool to the other, would you expect the class to stop and teach you face-float-and-kick? Or would you expect them to fish you out by the scruff of the neck, set you on the bank, and tell you you were in the wrong class? It's a matter of finding the level that is most helpful to you at your particular stage of learning. Perhaps you are confusing the concepts elite and advanced. There are many beginner and intermediate boards out there and plenty that don't set any standards at all--you just need to start where you are comfortable and work up.

Lo, as to your original question about critting the crits, in general it's a no-no. Mind you, there is nothing wrong with saying, "I disagree with So-And-So about line 13..." Just don't get personal. Address the poem, give your own opinion, tell why you disagree (or agree) with a particular point someone made, and don't be afraid of looking stupid. Especially if you feel strongly about the poem, and most especially if you disagree with all the responses the poem has received so far. It could be (and often is) the ovine thing working there. Besides, doesn't the poet deserve to know what a stupid person thinks? Or is he to be left with only the opinions of better-than-average and more vocal readers and critics who may be influenced by each other's better-than-average opinions? Collective response on a forum doesn't represent a fair cross-section of the opinion of individual readers. As a writer I want to reach the initiated, but I also want to know what the poem is going to deliver to the general readership looking at it for the first and last time in some magazine.


Carol

I assumed, after reading that the board is not for amateurs, that that warning was more of a way to get people in "serious poet mode" and be open for brutual critique. I'd say that the vast majority of poets on this site are indeed amateurs if we adhere to the definition of the word.

I too have reflected that the more experienced writers on this site tend to "stroke their own" and tear apart newcomers. It seems at times that, once a person has reached a certain level--an accepted member of the "workshop," say--their poems are generally accepted regardless of their quality. I've darted in and out of this site at various points (just call me Lurk) and have seen poetry that honestly deserves to be torn apart but receives high praise from the "non-amateurs" on the site. (Welcome to the club, great work, stroke, stroke, stroke...)

There are also a number of established personalities on this site who are permitted to ignore don't-crit-the-crit etiquette and take potshots at those they don't see as worthy of critiquing or receiving genuine critique. One gets the feeling that a few souls 'round these parts have spent so much time reading their computer screens that they just don't have the patience to deal with new and unfamiliar ideas. Rather than looking for what a poet's writing needs, they spend more time floating their ideas about the poet's worthiness.

The solution? Ignore those who are so full of themselves and their comments that they don't see poetential away from their inner-circle, pay attention to the poets who are trying new and uncomfortable things in their writing, and make commments as though the person receiving them could use your honest input.

Brent

[This message has been edited by bvanstaa (edited May 18, 2004).]

One thing I like about the Sphere is the way people feel free to disagree with each other's crits in a respectful way. I think such dialog is perfectly okay, and it's often helpful to me as a starting-off point. I might not have much to say about a poem until I see so-and-so raving about it, which inspires me to offer an opposing point of view.

I tried out another poetry site where the moderator was so rabid about enforcing the anti-critting-of-crits rule that he followed me around the site chewing me out after every post because I had said things like, "Unlike user-x, I don't see the flower as representing Peace so much as..." Needless to say, I didn't last long at that site. IMO a community of intelligent adults doesn't need to be that rigid about things.

Is it okay to crit someone’s opinion? no! Is it okay to say someone’s logic is incorrect? Yes, but you better offer evidence.

Are there people whose opinion is more valuable than others? no. Are there people whose crits are more valuable? yes, but it changes with each poem and each crit.

The best and most appropriate thing to do is to read the offered poem, submit your crit, read the other crits if you want to, and then offer an addendum to your crit to addresses disagreements/fallacies.

I lurked here for about 20 minutes before I posted, If I had waited any longer I wouldn’t have posted. Jump in the pool and see if you can swim; if you can’t, at least you jumped in with someone who can. Better yet, jump in a couple times to try different strokes: sometimes the breaststroke isn’t right for you, but your doggie-paddle is divine.

conflict is not a bad thing unto itself, abuse is.

Lamar

I critique critique all the time, and I'm amazed that anyone thinks it is an inappropriate thing to do in the workshop setting. Imagine if we were in a live workshop rather than a virtual one. Wouldn't it be expected that if Reader A said, "I don't think this line scans," everyone would be more comfortable if Reader B defended the meter, rather than having the poet do it?

Mind you, it's less productive if Reader B says, "that's because you nothing of prosody." But it is useful if Reader B can explain and justify the metrical substitutions that give Reader A troubles.

Similarly, if five people respond to a poem and say, "this speaks to me" and I read the poem and feel otherwise, I may well be motivated to tell the author that it doesn't speak to me and to explain why. The author is of course free to disregard the minority report, but if s/he is here to improve his or her writing, all information is useful information.

Some of the most interesting threads that I have read here involve wide-ranging discussions of matters that are occasioned by a discussion of a poem but not central to that poem. I find those discussions of lasting value, even if the poem may end up back in the shop.

epigone

I'm the one whose critique (of a poem originally posted at the Deep End) Lo took exception to and so started this thread here.

Lo, I'm sorry if my critique of that person's poem, during which I mentioned others' critiques, hurt you. I didn't mean to be unkind. (By the way, I was very moved to learn you had seen friends and family through radiation and you vowed to "walk" before taking it yourself. A scary topic to me.)

Anyhow, as I understood, you started this thread by saying I critiqued your critique and going on to ask everyone else if that's an okay thing to do. By the way, I just must say I think it's a stretch to call what I did "critiquing another's critique." No critique was ever my focus; I only mentioned others' comments in passing, in support of a larger point I thought was majorly important and hoped might help the writer improve his draft.

Anyhow, as I said, I felt that first posted draft on the Deep End was extremely weak because it was heavily dominated by cliches and incomprehensible abstractions. (Yes, I do assume SOME objective poetic standards, not that everything we want in a poem can be measured in those terms, but I take it for granted, for example, that good poets tend to agree that those two things at least -- the overuse of cliches, and piles of abstractions that don't work together -- as major flaws.)

Yet in reading the critiques of that draft, it dismayed me that, rather than responding to the poem itself, that is, attempting to pinpoint the draft's strengths and weaknesses for the benefit of the writer, some seemed to offer what I called "overly kind" praise (meaning unearned by the poem itself), perhaps due to their personal connections with its subject matter or other non-poetic issues. I believe such reactions, while well-intended, can be misleading and a great disservice to the poster. It is very tempting to happily settle for such comments and not see the poem through to its best revision.

In this case the writer did revise the draft to great effect, I thought, in large part due to his massive cliche-slaying and the more limited and meaningful use of abstractions. The result was a tremendous improvement and I can't help wondering whether such cautionary comments as mine may help the writer in such a situation not settle too soon.

Some comments in this thread seemed to suggest we shouldn't be commenting on each other's crits. In any critique the focus obviously needs to stay on the draft being posted for discussion, but I certainly don't understand I should not mention, compare and disagree with previous crits in a thread, again assuming the aim is constructive with the focus on helping the original poster improve his poem. If I am mistaken about this so I should be sure and avoid this practice, I guess someone will have to enlighten me.

On that same point I will offer a final suggestion to anyone interested, which I sincerely hope will not be construed as offensive.

Everything you do on this forum offers a chance to become a better poet and critiquer, twin skills which greatly feed on each other. So why allow yourself to be more sensitive about your critiques than your poems? Surely both can always stand improvement. Both types of writing offer the opportunity to get valuable feedback. So what if someone looks more knowledgeable than you? So what if someone IS more knowledgeable than you? So what if you write a critique, then someone comments about it, which leads you or maybe the whole world, who cares, to believe that that particular critique of yours may have had something foolish or unsupported or mistaken about it? I'm NOT saying that happened in this case, but what would be the horror if it ever did? That's called learning, isn't it? You'll just do it better next time.

[This message has been edited by Susan Vaughan (edited May 19, 2004).]

Susan--

Your last paragraph makes a lot of sense, but I still think there are
dangers involved in critting critiques.

Lo quoted you as saying this: "I still feel that some others gave the
first draft of this poem a far kinder response than called for."

She (or he--I don't know) then said: "One of the reasons I always
hesitate to comment on a poem of any sort is the distinct possibility of
being mocked for it, or thought of as less-intelligent or
less-knowledgable than others who regularily wade in and fire away.
Responses like the one above only serve to confirm that my
trepidation is, at least, somewhat founded."

Perhaps Lo is overly sensitive, but she said she'd be discouraged by a
comment like the one you made. I've been told that I worry too much
about that sort of thing, because writers must have thick skins.
Actually, in my experience writers are quite thin-skinned, especially
when they are new at the game, and maybe Lo's right--maybe some
people would take such a comment as a personal criticism.

I don't know how she would have responded had you simply said her
poem needed a lot of work, and explained why, without mentioning
the other critiques. I've been in your position more than once, and I
prefer not to mention the earlier critiques, even if I consider them
weak. The earlier critters will see mine, and they can make up their
own minds as to whether they were right and I was wrong, just as the
author can.


I try to operate on what I think is "do no harm" principle. In a case
like this, I see no advantage in mentioning the earlier crits, so I
wouldn't mention them--I'd simply contradict them, and give my own
opinions about what's wrong with the piece in question. But
respectable people disagree, so you may be right and I may be wrong.
We share an objective--to make better writers.

Carter

If you decline to post your honest opinion because you are afraid of being considered stupid by others, you aren't contributing much to the workshop, are you? If you only post when you agree with the majority opinion, you are operating in yes-man or me-too mode. If you only post when you disagree with the majority opinion, you may be more interested in critiquing the other critique than in critiquing the poem, operating in a somewhat arrogant naysayer (am-I-the-only-one-who-sees-the-light?) mode.

A workshop works best when each critic feels free to express his frank opinion, stupid or not, for whatever good it may do, letting the poet decide "this is stupid" or "this makes sense." Even clueless people get it right some of the time, and even respected and knowledgeable critics get it wrong some of the time, and once in a while those two phenomena coincide. Sometimes there is no right or wrong to the point under discussion at all, only preferences.

Being people, we are swayed by the opinions of others and the comfortable feeling of being among people with the same tastes or opinions as our own. But if we are going to carry our weight in a workshop, we have to consider that our own opinion counts, fools or not. "The word we had not sense to say--Who knows how grandly it had rung?"

It is best to read the poem and form an opinion about what works or doesn't work in the poem first, before reading what everyone else thinks. Then if after reading the other comments you still think the same way, say so, for pete's sake! Addressing a point made by another critic and disagreeing with it isn't critiquing the critique.

A workshop does not work best when Critic A says to Critic B: "You're all wet" or "It's a sonnet, you asshole" or "If you think that, then you just don't know much about poetry." That is critiquing the critique, or worse still, critiquing the critic.

I think people are more likely to look stupid when they are more concerned about building their credibility as critics than when they post their reasoned opinions and admit that an opinion is all they have to offer. Critique is opinion, after all, whether it is educated opinion or simple gut feeling. Why should we be offended or threatened because someone else has, or expresses, a different opinion?

Carol

Unfortunately, I have seen specific instances where those very words--or pretty close to them--HAVE been used. I am not sure why someone would think insulting someone would be a persuasive argument, but it is happening on this site with greater frequency--with, in some cases, nary a word from those nominally administering the site. I myself have been insulted in a similar manner--again, with not a word from the administration here. C'est la vie. Again, I am not sure what this kind of "critique" is supposed to accomplish. It may be persuasive--but perhaps not in the manner one might expect from its original intent.

A critique is simply an opinion. Some opinion may be better informed, at least on a technical level, than others, but all critique is simply an opinion you can take to heart or ignore. The credentials of some people here can be intimidating--but that does not render anyone's opinion of a particular piece of work any less valuable.

If the best argument a person can come up with to counter someone's opinion about a poem or the work of a poet is, in essence, "You're an idiot," or "You'll never be a poet" or, indeed, "If you think that, then you just don't know much about poetry," then that critique isn't worth a moment's notice.

[This message has been edited by nyctom (edited May 20, 2004).]

But then your comment really struck me about how necessary those positive readings were to you. You said they showed you there was something that "spoke" to others in the draft that was worth developing. Obviously you NEEDED those positive reactions in order to be moved to improve the draft as you did.
Lo,
Forgive me for coming in late and going back to your opening post.
I think you have raised a very important point.
As I see it the point of workshops is to help us improve our writing. To improve our writing , we need sensible, informed comment. Are some opinions more useful than others? Of course. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, but, like everything, we take more notice of people who know what they are taking about, in terms of the craft of poetry. Is every poem posted potentially a good poem? - of course not. It is not helpful to be reverent about poor work and to encourage people to continue writing poorly.
Poetry boards can be good or bad, depending on the quality of the members posting. If there are a lot of beginners and inexperienced critiquers posting, a board, let's be frank, can become plain silly.
There is a well-known psychological experiment, in which a group of people are gathered together. A bell is sounded a number of times and each person has to say how many rings there were. Unknown to him, the last person to be asked is actually the sole subject of the experiment -all the other people are told to give an answer one less than the actual number of rings. The majority of people,having heard 16 rings, then hearing everyone else say '15', will themselves say '15', even though they think the answer is 16. It is not easy to dissent from a majority opinion. It is human nature to feel safe and follow the herd. Basically, silly comments tend to draw more silly comments.
Of course we should not indulge in ad hom comments like saying someone's comments show what a fathead s/he is, but I cannot see anything wrong with a general comment that a poem has been over-praised in a thread - this can be necessary to balance inexperienced comments, and salutary when a thread becomes 'silly'. Unmerited praise does not help us to write better, after all.
(By the way, my comments are about poetry-boards in general, not about the board from which the opening comments were taken. TDE is one of the most UN-silly boards I know, with amazingly well-informed and accomplished critiques.)
Regards, Maz



[This message has been edited by grasshopper (edited May 23, 2004).]

I think a dismissive wave at a group of critiques is unnecessary and potentially damaging. We ought to treat everyone's opinion with a certain base amount of respect. Why imply that a group of critters is a bunch of suckers or sycophants? That's not constructive.

-eaf

Well, a lot depends on how you say it. In general I agree with Maz that there's nothing wrong with saying you feel a poem's been getting unduly positive or negative reviews. It doesn't mean you think the other critics are idiots - it just means you disagree with them about the poem.

Sincerely,
Rose "All the other critics are insane" Kelleher

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).]

Ok, here I go...

Steve, I agree with what you're saying.

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.

Yes there is. I'm talking about the former.

Mindlessly positive and mindlessly negative critiques are both reprehensible. Carefully considered and well informed critiques of whatever tenor are what we need.

Yes, I agree with you. Non-Met definitely suffers from a lack of thoughtful, well-reasoned critique. Line-by-line is rare. On Poetry Free-for-All, members are actually required to do a detailed critique (I agree with this somewhat, but it can be tedious when people are posting terrible poems). Don't get me wrong: a detailed critique isn't necessarily going to be "correct" or "good", but at least there's some attempt at rigor.

Curtis, I tend to agree with you as well...

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.

Yes, it's good to provide reasoned arguments. It can be hard, however, to always identify why something works or doesn't work (I have difficulty doing this in my own crits). But I think we should try to do that more often.

To me, what it boils down to is that all we've got is an opinion and a set of personal biases. I'm not sure we should be trying to provide anything but our subjective opinions. I can venture a guess that some folks may hate a poem for its sentimentality, but how can I be sure, especially if I like it?

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?

This is probably where we disagree the most. My own assumption is that a poet is writing for an audience of more than one. Otherwise, why post it in a workshop? (Course, there are problems here that you touch on; I'll get to those later). When I post my own poetry, it generally works pretty well for me, although I might have some concerns about various bits that may not work so well. In any case, I am trying to reach a larger audience and see how it works for others. A lot of times they'll pick up on problems I didn't realize existed. If the same thing "doesn't work" for everybody, then I've got a problem that I may need to fix.

Sometimes I think the critters are way off base and I ignore them. But not before I consider what they have to say. To me, that's the way this place is supposed to work.

I think most people value their own opinions over others. That's a human nature thing. Sometimes I try to see it from the poet's point of view, but like I said, it's hard to get into someone else's head.

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.

This is true, and I generally stop offering critiques to folks who do this. Or I'll just spend less time with my comments.

Ultimately, it's the poet's responsibility to decide which criticism he should take to heart in the revision process—not mine.

Yes, but I don't want to be dismissed out of hand. I get the distinct impression that some poets think I've got a grudge against them. Other poets don't respond well to negative crits; if I'm going to put forth the effort to make comments, then I'd like those comments to be considered...so I end up trying to emphasize things I liked (or at least didn't think were too bad) while at the same time voicing my concerns. Sure, it's not perfect, but I'd rather not see my efforts go to waste.

Funny place, Eratosphere.

-eaf

It sure is a funny place, and getting funnier and funnier.
Now is there not a space between blasting someone's critique and ignoring it? I am sorry if I speak out of turn: I am new to this game in many ways. As I see it, in the forums that interest me (Non Metrical Verse and Fiction) this is how it goes:
A posts work
B,C,D,E, etc., give their opinion on A's work, kindly or not kindly, patronizingly or not patronizingly, competently or incompetently, - this is rather irrelevant -
A picks up bits and pieces from the sundry critiques and A) revises poem, often to make it worse, B) thanks politely the critics and moves on to another masterpiece.
In between, there is a nice parlor game being played: it is called mutual admiration for some and mutual hate for others, which is of course absolutely the same thing.
Could there not be a debate between B,C,D,E, etc., about A's work, which would be moderated by.. guess whom? the moderators. So there is no question of critting the crits or sh..ing the sh.it. being eraticaly correct or not. It should be the game itself. If B tells C why he disagrees with C's critique, it may just be useful to both of them and to the board, except if B and C are both stars in their own right. And perhaps that sort of dialogue might induce A to explain why he wrote this line that B thought fair and C thought rotten. So B and C together can agree it is ever worse than they thought...
Well, I am certainly too new in this game for my suggestion to be taken seriously. Thanks anyway to anyone who will have read it through.


------------------
'arry
- down to earth -

Henry, I don't think anyone has a problem with a well-reasoned disagreement with another person's critique. It's the wholesale dismissal of someone's critique as being "too easy" or "too dumb to get it".

Not posting edits doesn't mean that a person is ignoring critique. Some people prefer to put their poems away for a long time and revise them later, after they've gotten some distance from the original. Others might have revisions already in mind and all that's needed to trigger it is a few good comments.

-eaf

eaf, I completely agree with you.
There can be, however, no mechanical compulsion to edit according to critique, when the critique is felt to be slightly (or largely) out of the tracks. I, for one, would rather pretend I will not revise, than tell a bona fide and respected critic that he or she has completely missed a point that had been important to me at the time of writing. We do not all have the same cultural background, (not even the same language...)and we must make allowances for incomprehension. On all sides. When discussion becomes awkward, it becomes pointless, I think...
Well... this posting is becoming pointless too, probably!
Sorry!
No poet anyway will let a poem lie, until he/she is sure that he/she cannot make it better. And whenever he/she pretends to be sure of that, then I question that he/she is a poet. But each poem of each poet has its own life-cycle and bio-rhythm, to use expressions I abhor, and revision cannot be hurried. Some poems are never finished. I would like to add that, to the word "critique", I prefer the words "opinion", "suggestion" or "analysis". But that is just my own idiosyncrasy. Never mind it.
Best regards to all.

------------------
'arry
- down to earth -

"I, for one, would rather pretend I will not revise, than tell a bona fide and respected critic that he or she has completely missed a point that had been important to me at the time of writing."

It's true, Henry, that our cultural (especially in the realm of what is "courtesy") backgrounds vary far more than our languages do (speaking of Anglophones).

But wouldn't it be simpler to divulge, in the above case, the elusive point, especially since no one can possibly second-guess everything that's on a writer's mind when she or he writes?

"And whenever he/she pretends to be sure of that, then I question that he/she is a poet."

Have to disagree here. There are times one knows one has completed the poem (or work of art) in question. At least for the present. You especially know, imo, when you've read it to an audience and you feel certain; when it's a shorter poem; when some time has passed since writing.

Also, when you say "pretend" in the above argument, you're weakening your own argument because you're trying to clinch it before the sentence is even completed.

Oh dear, if someone questions my courtesy, I must immediately apologize. I do. I have probably been too hasty in my answer, and, of course, inaccurate. Therese Coe, I beg you to forgive whatever I have said that may have offended you. I had no reason for that.

Now what did I say? That sometimes, argument should be let aside when one of the arguers guessed, or feared, that it might me pointless or unpleasant. I still say it. I am sorry if that was not clear. My technique of expression is not quite up to yours.

"But wouldn't it be simpler to divulge, in the above case, the elusive point, especially since no one can possibly second-guess everything that's on a writer's mind when she or he writes? " Yes it would. And whenever a critic asks me "what did you mean?" I am very happy to simply explain what I did mean, and very ready to admit that I could have conveyed my meaning in different words. But when a critic does not ask any question, I am not volunteering an answer.

Now some critics think their job is to try to explain, to understand, or to question, what made the poet write something they do not like, they do not understand, or think absolute s..t. I am quite prepared to dialogue with that sort of critic, on board or off board. I think they ARE critics.

But when (we are of course talking about a purely hypothetical case) the critique is limited to: L1 wrong, L2 better, without any interrogation, then I feel justified in putting everything on the shelf for future revision, and give no explanation to someone who does not ask for it. Without any bad feelings I hope, on either side.

You disagree on the point that a poet is never satisfied with h. work? well, that's your opinion. It is not mine. I have a friend who is still editing poems he wrote forty years ago, and that I, as part of his audience, have accepted as perfect thirty years ago.

I think, and that is my opinion only, which you are welcome to share - or not - that a poem is NOT primarily meant for an audience. One of the great philosophers of the last Century (I mean the XXth) said "books are for writing only".

I don't know when a poem is finished. I don't think any poet does. This is why some hasten to publish, or to post, before they feel the urge to change something.

I do not know if I have been discourteous to you, Therese, or to anyone on this board. If I have, I apologize.

But, once again, a poet who says that h. poem is finished is no poet. And this should not be read as an offence to anyone.

Thanks for editing all my text. It was not, perhaps, necessary: I am not THAT important, and my answer came just a few lines above yours. I thank you for boosting my ego.

Best regards.

------------------
'arry
- down to earth -

I'm afraid you've misinterpreted me! I wasn't referring to anything you said when I mentioned courtesy. It was a generalized comment.

You didn't offend me in the slightest. I simply disagree with one of your statements.

In fact, paragraph 2 of my post clearly stated that I agreed with you when you said "We do not all have the same cultural background."

One can travel to the Adirondacks of NY State, for example, and find the standards of courtesy are quite different from those in a large city a mere four hours away; no better, no worse, but different. I'm speaking of rural people without a great deal of education.

Where I went to college and universities, not to disagree objectively, when one felt it was warranted, would have been seen as laughable. No matter who was involved, and that held true for both Eastern and Western universities.

What's the point of having a discussion board if we can't disagree when we have reason to?

Best,

Terese

Sorry Terese

I misunderstood indeed your sentence, perhaps deep inside it touched at random some hidden guilt... For this misunderstanding I apologize too, as for my frightful temper and the spelling mistake I made on your name in my first message. (my! I've never apologized so much in my life... must be getting old!).

Best.

Henry -

There is a dustman named Alfred Doolittle I would like you to meet. Alfred has some wonderful theories on the need to aplogize, and I believe you would benefit from them.

Meanwhile - try to keep in mind that we are poets, not penitents, and poets are creative, and - at times - argumentative. That's how good workshops operate. Respect - but open and unfettered discussion. Stop worrying so much about how and what and when and why every comment is made, and start worrying about the writing. And, for God's sake, stop telling people you're sorry. It's becoming a drone.

Snarlingly,

Michael Cantor

[This message has been edited by Michael Cantor (edited June 07, 2004).]

Mr. Cantor,

Don't forget the alligator.

(signed)

Robt.