To crit or to leave be
 

I have sometimes wondered about the responsibility and limited usefulness of one's personal views when writing a crit.

I won't say which poem prompted my present rumination. It was a poem that engaged my imagination in an interesting way. It isn't a formal poem.

Because it's a forum I felt obliged to add my own constructive suggestion.

There were aspects of the poem that irritated me but the poem had engaged my imagination and attention. Who am I to tell a poet who comes from an entirely different background and has a lifetime of different experiences, how to "improve" his/her poem? My first care would be not to harm the good that already existed. I decided not to say anything at all.

Of course that's not how I feel at other times. I have profited from good advice and sometimes I feel close enough to a poem to be reasonably certain that my suggestion will be harmless at worst. But just as every actor on the stage has an aura which other actors respect, so does every poem come with an aura of otherness which we ought to respect.

If we know another poet fairly well we can let them have it with both barrels occasionally but then we must expect to have the missiles returned. Nothing new in this meditation. Just a refresher.

And when a new poster posts something which causes us to shudder do we wait or let 'em have it. OK! Cruelty can be fun.

Well, Janet, if it wasn't a formal poem, it must have been a non-formal one.

If you draw our attention to any instance at Non-Metrical where we have been cruel, it would be helpful for us, for the poet so treated , and for Eratosphere in general.

At Non-Met we strive to deliver fair and honest criticism in such way that the poet will improve his or her craftsmanship.

I suggest that it would be beneficial to the forum if you backed up your poet in a public way by posting a counter-opinion at the non-metrical forum.

"Whether Mr. John had been sent home with a diuretic or composing draught to some patient far gone in the poetical mania, we have not heard. This much is certain, that he has caught the infection. . . . For some time we were in hopes that he might get off with a violent fit or two, but of late the symptoms are terrible. The frenzy of the Poems was bad enough in its way; but it did not alarm us half so seriously as the calm, settled, imperturbable drivelling idiocy of Endymion … It is a better and easier thing to be a starved apothecary than a starved poet; go back to the shop, Mr. John, back to `plasters, pills and ointment boxes.”

This is part of the famous bad review of Keats’ work by John Gibson Lockhart in Blackwood’s Magazine.

In short, critics can be VERY WRONG sometimes.

And we shouldn’t forget how many famous writers have despised the work of other famous writers. James Joyce and D.H.Lawrence, for instance, both believed that the other was writing absolute garbage.

I have recently admitted how I sometimes criticize stuff for not the mortal sin of being written in my own style and taste. And perhaps this happens with others also.

I suppose all we can ever do is to try and give as honest a response as we can.

I hate when I make a suggestion and the poet gets all carried away and implements a "fix" that just makes things worse. But there's nothing you can do about that. Each author has control over, and is responsible for, his or her own work, and some are going to wreck their poems no matter what you do or do not say. Just say what you think and accept the fact that it's out of your hands.

Janice,
My point was about criticism in general and in no way referring to Non-Metrical. I mentioned that it was not a formal poem because many people here will have expected me to be discussing formal crits. I was talking about the wider theme of self-assurance and possible damage.
Of course I won't post anything under the poem now because it would unfairly focus the wrong sort of attention on a decent poem.

The topic at hand is not about a review of a famous person.That is another matter entirely.

It is about workshopping and perceived cruelty to a new member.

A person who puts their work up for workshopping is seeking advice to improve craftsmanship. No one will become a better poet by being praised for bad poetry.

Honesty is no guarantee for quality critique. But since a workshop is a public forum, there will hopefully be input from several members who look at the poem in several different ways. This is a cross-section of the same readership as the general public. At least of the general poetry reading public. The poet who is posting will get some useful opinions and some less useful opinions but all of them have to do with someone's perception of the poem and are as such valid.

The best and most useful criticism will focus on specifics. That gives the poet and others taking part in the discourse, an opportunity to object and say why they object. It is this give and take that one learns from.

However, I would like to hear a little more closely what Janet is objecting to as regards cruel critiques at the Non-Metrical forum.

The "let 'em have it" and "cruelty can be fun" comments illustrate the kind of approach that has diminished Eratosphere in recent years.

What made this site spectacularly successful was a combination of thoroughness, honesty and sympathy. Too many people have forgotten about the third consideration, and the same people often forget about the first.

I have sometimes wondered about the responsibility and limited usefulness of one's personal views when writing a crit.

I won't say which poem prompted my present rumination. It was a poem that engaged my imagination in an interesting way. It isn't a formal poem.

Because it's a forum I felt obliged to add my own constructive suggestion.

Cruelty can be fun

If it was not a formal poem, it was a Non-Metrical poem. You are not leveling a general charge, Janet, it is a specific one. You are saying that at Non-Metrical we have subjected a new member to cruel criticism.

It is our responsibilitiy as moderators to see that this does not happen. So I ask you to back up your charges by pointing out iin what instance we have been remiss. You needn't say so publicly if you don't wish to. You can contact Maryann or Alex or a Non-Met moderator.

Thank you for helping us deal with this.

My comment was making allowance for some entertaining comments by others of a kind which I personally don't practice and for which lack I am frequently reprimanded. Close reading is something to value, as is generosity of spirit. Some lively characters have added greatly to the alertness of the forum. Censoriousness is something else. As you know Michael, I look forward to reading your crits.

Thinking happy thoughts, lalalalala

Oh Janice! I was meditating and thought others might like to join in. It's not meant to be a court of law. I was merely starting a discussion. A pleasant discussion. Where did all these police officials come from?

Roll with it , baby!

Roll with what?

Actually, the way this well-intentioned thread developed kind of proves my point.

Duh.......

Well, this is a difficult sort of thread to step into. Some sort of behavior or habit in critique is being criticized or questioned, and the criticism is in the guise of a discussion about critique in general, although there are hints that it's really about (or was at least prompted by) something recent and specific, but I'm in the dark as to what that was.

To discuss anything sensibly, with a view to correcting what's wrong, we need examples. If there is a recent example, let's point to it. If that's awkward or embarrassing to do in public discussion, let's take it to PMs--with copies to me, please, so I can do something if needed.

Maryann,
I really did mean it as an introspective interrogation. A personal philosophical discussion about the nature of intruding into the work of other people. Nothing more than that. It may be that this is too far outside the square. I don't expect any conclusions to be reached. merely a bit of pleasant back and forth. "Wrongness" isn't in my mind. I don't know what is "wrong" and I have no complaints nor examples of bleeding corpses.

My surprise at seeing so many responses so quickly appended to what is (forgive me) a rather unfocused and uninteresting rehash of so many similar discussions we've had over the years is mitigated only by the fact that nearly half of those responses have been by Janet herself. Are we really ready for another Critiquing Etiquette war? Even when we all already know how the ones who will compound the postings feel about this issue? Please don't tell me this thread will end up being three pages long. Please.

This thread will end up being three pages long.

At least.

Sorry, Chris.

No it isn't meant to be about Etiquette or criticising as such. It's an abstract sort of discussion and I wish I hadn't started it.

Why did you join in Chris? No don't answer it. I'm out of here.

Well, if I may pipe in on this one, I have recently posted 1) a piece that was pulled from Metrical, rightly so, because I said "this is not a poem yet, I am just looking for feedback" and then 2) I posted a poem on the non-met board that received a lot of feedback, on and off-board, and a lot of it pointed out what was lacking. I appreciate this direct feedback, and I hope I responded directly to every crit, either publically or by PM, to let people know I can take it and I encourage straight talk. I've been watching this board, and I have seen newbies who couldn't take it, and I have seen folks push through all the weird dynamics here, and become valuable contributors. I don't like to hear that "cruelty can be fun." It has taken me a long time to get brave enough to post my work here, and if I thought people found fun in cruelty, I would have stopped paying attention to this board a long time ago. Janet, I am surprised to hear you say that. Publically, I must say it makes me as a new contributor very uncomfortable.

Oh Carol,
There are some old identities here (not me!) who like getting their juices flowing with a bit of fisticuffs. We all know who they are and we're all very fond of them in spite of everything. I have seen frightened young poets given the rounds of the kitchen. I don't do it and I don't care for it. Some people who are not prepared for exposure do suffer shock and the good ones survive and grow. Those who leave have probably made the right decision. I'm not advocating it. I was joking when I said "cruelty can be fun". I had hoped that was obvious.I said I was leaving this discussion which is not the one that I intended but I didn't want you to feel bad.

Well, Janet, your comments can't make any new member feel good. As much as you say this was just supposed to be a light-hearted discussion, it doesn't come across that way. So give some specifics. I have nothing but respect for the feedback I have received. If you mean for this to be an introspective interrogation, ask direct iquestions. "Abstract sort of discussions" never do seem to go smoothly in an online world. You've been around this site much longer than I and I'm sure you've seen them spin out of reason. I shouldn't even be engaging with this, but it hits close to home for me, having recently been participating on the non-met board and receiving a lot of good crits. -- Carol

My remarks had nothing to do with anything on Eratosphere. They were not personal. They were philosophical and had to do with personal discovery if you will. I really don't want to continue. I was wrong to start the thread.

Basically I wanted to discuss the responsibility inherent in critique. No more than that. I now realise that this forum is not a good place for such a discussion.

Janet, as a very new member I'm grateful you did at least try to start a thread I would have found extremely helpful if it had gone the way I think you wanted.

In the very short time I've been here, I've already posted crits I have grave doubts about--on the one hand you hope it helps to point out something a writer may have been unable to see, but on the other hand how do you know that what you see matters at all!

Pat

Thank you Pat. It's not that I think we should change our methods or become opaque, it's just that I think it useful to occasionally remind ourselves that we may be going where angels fear to tread. I think that if we do say anything at all it must be our genuine thoughts, remembering that our genuine thoughts may do unintended harm to the poem. If we keep that in mind we may achieve a higher level of critique. It's easy to say that the poet has the final say but no poet who was totally secure would post a poem on this forum. Insecurity is not always justified.
I have long believed that telling a poet that you enjoy a poem, if you genuinely did, is a valuable piece of information for that poet. The rest fans out from that central point.

I'm sure you all remember Thumper the rabbit in Bambi. 'If you can't say nothing nice don't say nothing at all'. I am sure this is a good rule. I never post without saying something nice. Then I might add something else. But a poem I don't like at all I keep quiet about. There was that.... shush!
I may say I have an alter ego with another name who is very rude indeed and entirely destructive on UK political blogs. You should try it. Excoriating Gordon Brown is good for the soul. I can't think WHAT I'll do when he's gone.

Janet said
The genuineness of one's thoughts is not worth a fig. Honesty in itself is not worth a fig. There are many genuine and honest thoughts floating around which are flighty, silly or quite detrimental: I think we should send the foreigners home. I think a poem should be about something pleasant. I think we should say something nice or not speak at all.

(B]Edited in:[/b] John. we crossposted, the above is not a snide remark triggered by your Thumper post, but it is my opinion so I will let it stand.)

Critque of a poem is valuable when it is couched in polite terms-- no ad hom--when it is not based on personal idoiosyncracies or beginner's handbooks (a poem should bring up one of the five senses, therefore this is not a poem), takes up specifics that can be agreed to by other members, (this poem is successful because the refrain changes the interpretation of each preceding stanza), or can be opposed by other members (this is not a sonnet because it has rhymed and unrhymed end lines of which there are only 13).

Ideally there the critique will be encouraging when caution is needed (i.e. tell a a new member but not a seasoned old-timer like Michael Cantor that the crit is meant in a positive way)--and this is more than a routine tag at the end "I hope this helps". As in cooking, the sensitive critter knows when to add a pinch of salt, a dollop of mustard or the juice of one lemon. Or a tablespoon of sugar. A diet of sugar is not good for anyone.

It is true that crit can go awry, I try to to make nice if I perceive I have offended. I try to put signposts throughout saying, "this is not about you, this is about your poem for which you requested comments to help you improve your craft". I try not to be dogmatic and always say that there is more than one way to write a poem. I try to be jocular sometimes and sometimes that backfires. I try to learn from my mistakes when I have inadvertantly offended, for instance, if I list shortcomings with 1,2,3 I take care to say that it is only for the sake of convenience or discussion because I once offended a member by doing this, I don't remember who, I was a new moderator then, but I had a PM exchange to try to make nice, and hopefully we are not on bad terms.

Let's face it. For all of us a poem has nearly child status, it is our brain child. Bad parents will stop speaking to the neighbor suggests who that their child ought not kick cats. The good parents will teach the child not to kick cats.

Janet, I encourage you to be a public counterbalance at Non-Met when you think perceive injustice. We don't like gushiness for its own sake, but a variety of opinion is an excellent way to help the poet, newbie or oldtimer, remember that workshop criti consists of the diverse voices of mortals and are not proclamations from Olympia.

Patrick said
Patrick, you will recall that I PMed you to welcome you and let you know that that your first crit was an exceptionally useful and well-formulated comment. A rule of thumb is that if you have grave doubts, you should think again. But if you deliver a crit that gravely offends i.e. ad hom, we will take it down. In my judgement, you are doing splendidly.

Janice, I believe Janet was suggesting there is a "moral dimension" to what we do here. Because your words may be more than just useful or useless, but actually harmful or helpful, they ought to be words you are prepared to stand by. That may be obvious; it may also bear repeating.

*

I worry about the same measuring stick being held up to poems with very different goals. (Holy mixed metaphor, Batman!)

I wonder if Yeats would be told he was overwriting and some of his logic was faulty. I wonder if Clark Coolidge would be told there was a nice phrase here & there but overall his poems just don't make enough sense! Really, I can just picture it!

And it's not even a question of whether you, the critic, are right, exactly, but whether there is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your poetics...

Pat

Patrick, I hope that my concern with the "moral dimension" permeates my responses both in this thread and in my critique-giving. I reiterate that it behooves us to remember that we have all been novices, started with nothing but the desire to write. The next step is the acquisition of skills.

I think you can worry too much about these things. There seems to be an impression that the critter/critted relationship is totally passive, that the critted sits there and takes it. Well, speaking for myself, I take and leave crits as I see fit. If I think someone's just being mean for sport well, I would probably tend to disregard what that person is saying (it doesn't happen here, but on another poetry forum I frequent where some people seem to delight in being vicious). If I think the person hasn't "got" my poem, well, then that's probably a fault in the way I've expressed myself. If I think a person doesn't really know what they're talking about (again, it hasn't happened here but on that Other Forum), I take what I can from their crit but tend to give it less weight than someone who DOES seem to know what they're talking about.

When I crit these days, I try and be positive about at least one thing to encourage the person, but I don't believe in the "shit sandwich" approach (nice, nasty, nice) to criticism.

Anyway, thems me thoughts.

Heavens Janice. I'm not talking about "niceness". I'm talking about modesty. Caution. Refraining from strident certainty. It's like restoring a painting or practising medicine. Do no harm. I agree that "sincerity is no excuse". I never thought it was. I said that about genuineness to fend off assumptions that I was advocating flattery. I am sometimes accused of that.

I was never at any stage talking about injustice. I've already said so several times. I say it again. No injustice. None. Absolutely not ;-)


John, I too prefer not to tangle with a poem which I don't find rewarding. An exception is if it's a simple metrical hitch in a poem which aims to be simply metrical. I did recently go OTT with an old friend but he knows I respect him and he has often unpicked my favourite samplers. Still...in retrospect, I wish I hadn't.

Pat, you say it so well. Thank you.

Clive, of course we take what we need. I have seen poems revised to death. The poet's fault? Yes and no. I have also seen poems improved out of sight so of course you are right. But so am I;-)

So are we all cried Thumper.

I have to disagree, gently and respectfully, with the notion that if you don't have anything nice to say about a poem you should be silent. (Janet, I realize this may be different from the stance you were asking about, but John has put it this way.)

To some extent we all espouse, in our social lives, the dictum that "if you can't say anything nice, you shouldn't say anything." That makes it hard to comment on unappealing poems. But poems are posted for critique and we're not worth much as a board if we don't provide critique. So we've got to do the hard thing.

Certainly we can comment on why the subject matter appeals to us particularly. We can (and should) express sympathy with the sentiment if we feel that. Certainly we can welcome a newcomer regardless of whether the poems are good, and we can note that we've all been there. We can say nice things to the poet, even if we have nothing but criticism for the poem.

It's not destructive to point out the elements in a poem that are ineffective. It's necessary.

Sorry to deliver this homily yet again!

In Janet's original post she wrote: every poem comes with an aura of otherness which we ought to respect. I think that's her real point here. Yes, Janet? Too often we see a crit trying to re-write the poem in the critter's own image, or in the collective image of the board itself (which is even more egregiously tyrannical and detrimental to poetry as a whole). As far as I am concerned, the first and foremost responsibility of a critter (and a reader) is to try to get inside the head of the "other" poet, not to cut that head off and replace it with one's own. That crucial moment of empathy is, I think, what Janet is addressing. Yes, Janet? Without it, the rest (other than the sort of technical discussions that are possible on the metrical forums) can too easily degenerate into mere showboating and jerking off.

Nemo

Thank you Maryann Corbett, for cutting through the dither and saying what had to be said, clearly and directly. The function of this site is for poets of a reasonable level of competence and experience to critique each other's work, honestly and directly, under the assumption that we are all (a) competent, (b) experienced, and (c) emotional grown-ups who are here for feedback, not pats on the back and praise. At least that used to be the function. If nobody "tangled" with poems they did not "find rewarding", then the primary function of this site would disappear.

Nemo, as you know, technical discussions of FV are also possible. An FV poet has all the poetic tools at his or her disposal that the metrical poets have, except received forms.

The issue at hand is not empathy but whether the Non-Metrical moderators have allowed or perpetrated cruel criticism on one or more members. That is what Janet said

and

"aura of otherness" was a meandering sub-thought to the topic at hand.

Again, the purpose of workshopping is to allow the poet access to the thoughts and suggestions of a diversity of compeers--some of whom are qualified, others less so, just like the general readership in the real world.

The developing poet (and the oldtimers) must be aware that both pros and cons, when politely worded and grounded in specific elements of the poem, are the purpose of workshipping.

The role of the moderator is to maintain, to the best of our ability, an atmosphere that takes consideration to this "aura of otherness" while promoting a learning environment. That is what I strive to do as moderator and what my excellent partner (who has taught me nearly everything I know about moderating) strives to do.

Our goal is to promote a good learning envrionment that has room for everyone's "aura" and all types of poetry.

If we are charged with having failed to support those goals, we welcome specific instances of how we have failed and we will do our best to remedy it.

I strongly disagree with your characterization of Janet's original post, Janice, and think you have let petty defensiveness about "your" board obliterate her more general concerns. The meandering sub-thought is what you are giving all the attention to.

Exit.

Nemo

I think the problem with Janet's post, Nemo, was the same problem I see in some critiques - Janet was trying so hard not to offend any living thing that it was almost impossible for most of us to figure out what the hell her point was - the post was hints and nudges, philosophical wanderings, mysterious allusions to a thread that could not be identified, dither and thither. So everybody heard what they wanted to - responded to what they thought they heard and away we went!

I have this bad habit, which probably stems from my engineering and numbers/management geek background. If I am critting a poem I try to first provide an overview of my reaction, but - if I think there are a number of problems with the poem - I will bang-bang-bang - go through them with comments and suggestions. I make the assumption that that's why the poem was posted. And I also make the assumption that the individual posting the poem is competent enough and capable enough to evaluate my comments and decide which are worth thinking about, and which are nonsense and don't apply to the poem they want to write. And that I can crit in a businesslike way, and it's not necessary to mechanically insert a sentence of praise before each critique.

It is primarily the responsibility of the poet to decide which critiques to heed and which to ignore; and not the responsibility of the critic to worry about whether the crit will wrongly influence the poet. It is assumed that the critic is intelligent and experienced enough to understand what the poet is trying to do, and comment accordingly; and that the poet is experienced and capable enough to sort through critiques and deal with them without overreacting. As our Guidelines state, this is not a beginner's site. We should be worrying about improving the quality of critiques, not toning them down to make certain that nobody is damaged by being trated like an adult.

so does every poem come with an aura of otherness which we ought to respect.

The same can be said for every critic. We comment in our styles, thankfully. Some of my greatest awakenings came from 'unfriendly' crits.
And one of the comments that bothers me the most on this site goes like this; "I didn't mind the crit, I minded how it was said." I think that's self deception.
Get over how you want people to present themselves and learn from what they're offering.

I don't think it's the moderators' job to make sure all the crits are nice and supportive.
If you feel someone was too rough, then follow up with a more positve crit.
Thanks, Dee

Nope, Maryann and Michael, I don't agree. I like some poems better than other poems. I think the following poets wrote nothing but shit: Hart Crane, Allan Ginsberg, Ted Hughes (pretty well), Sylvia Plath, John Ashbery... You see, I prefer some poets to others. About these guys and gals I have nothing to say. Unless I like SOMETHING in a poem I don't want to comment. If it is just bad, bad, bad then others will say so. It MIGHT be that some Spherean seemed to have a high reputation and I thought ALL the rest of you were mistaken. But that hasn't happened yet.

Oh, and Walt Whitman. I forgot about him. Every now and again he ALMOST says something good. But he never QUITE manages it. I'd trade everything he ever wrote for the libretto to The Mikado.

Duh?


Duh.