Actually, Sharon, "critique", is not an act where helpful advice is laid out for an artist, but a studied and unabashed reaction to any given piece of art. It's true that "this sucks" doesn't make for much credibility, and certainly doesn't make for interesting reading, but it actually edges closer to the meaning of "critique" than say, "I wish you had more adjectives in your poem, and punctuation would help, too." We don't so much critique here as much as we do "workshopping". I actually prefer critique -- I know I'm in the minority, but I can infer, or internalize "advice" more meaningfully when it's blatant and directed to the poem, rather than to the personal me who wrote it. Advice often feels, both when I give it, and get it, somewhat presumptious. And strange.
I'm not defending "this sucks"; I'm making a distinction between critique and workshopping. (Okay, and furthering my crusade to make boards on Erato which also distinquish between the two). I think you're implying at the top of this thread that you want critique, but you actually want your poems workshopped, ie, you're looking for specific and helpful advice on how to better them. Nothing wrong with that, most folks do want that, but that's not really "critique".
There are fabulous essays (and poems) written on the subject of workshopping and the art of making poetry, and most of them aren't very complimentary to the general mentality of workshopping, per se. I think Erato is a huge exception to what generally goes on in workshops, but it sometimes falls in the holes, as well. Mediocre poems, politeness over substance, friendship and "feelings" over art, etc., etc. I recommend Thomas Disch's, The Castle of Indolence, or Dana Goia's, Can Poetry Matter.
Fertile subject for discussion.
wendy
[This message has been edited by wendy v (edited March 15, 2001).]
|