[Siham Karami]

Just to finally weigh in here, Nemo was right in that I was trying to soothe the poet re the fact that reviewers are by definition almost supposed to consider the harder aspects of possible weak points in the work of art (poetry or otherwise) they review, and that merely being reviewed itself is a good thing.

You also are right, Rory, in that "reverse world" implies critics are in some sort of other dimension where the rules are bent in the other direction. But it was never meant to reply specifically to the reviewer, any reviewer but to the process of critique.

As this thread amply shows, the most respected reviewers are those who are "not afraid" to call out the artist on weaknesses or negative points. If they don't do it, who will? But I disagree that a poet may be obligated to gush lest other poets-turned-reviewers take it out on him/her in return. On the contrary, I think a tough reviewer actually makes others respect their work more and fear being on the receiving end of said toughness.

The most respected reviewers are probably on the tough side. It shouldn't be an insult to imply there is an expectation and even respect for toughness, since I never said or implied that any critic is dishonest in so doing. This is, like poetry, a subjective art, and all pretense at universal standards is merely a useful stance but not "pretense" in any morally objectionable way. Picasso said "art is a lie that helps us to see the truth." Are all accusations of "lies" then insults?

Even here in a workshop, when we act as reviewers we are expected not to gush and to enter instead the reverse world of the critic. It's a world I respect and without it art would have no backbone. It makes the occasional words of praise all the brighter, and gives greater value to art in general by positing standards.

Siham