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
) 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"
Wrong of me? (This one is ok to shred coz I am asking)
Lo
[This message has been edited by Lo (edited May 17, 2004).]