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
|