[eaf]

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

[Henry Higgins]

It sure is a funny place, and getting funnier and funnier.
Now is there not a space between blasting someone's critique and ignoring it? I am sorry if I speak out of turn: I am new to this game in many ways. As I see it, in the forums that interest me (Non Metrical Verse and Fiction) this is how it goes:
A posts work
B,C,D,E, etc., give their opinion on A's work, kindly or not kindly, patronizingly or not patronizingly, competently or incompetently, - this is rather irrelevant -
A picks up bits and pieces from the sundry critiques and A) revises poem, often to make it worse, B) thanks politely the critics and moves on to another masterpiece.
In between, there is a nice parlor game being played: it is called mutual admiration for some and mutual hate for others, which is of course absolutely the same thing.
Could there not be a debate between B,C,D,E, etc., about A's work, which would be moderated by.. guess whom? the moderators. So there is no question of critting the crits or sh..ing the sh.it. being eraticaly correct or not. It should be the game itself. If B tells C why he disagrees with C's critique, it may just be useful to both of them and to the board, except if B and C are both stars in their own right. And perhaps that sort of dialogue might induce A to explain why he wrote this line that B thought fair and C thought rotten. So B and C together can agree it is ever worse than they thought...
Well, I am certainly too new in this game for my suggestion to be taken seriously. Thanks anyway to anyone who will have read it through.


------------------
'arry
- down to earth -

[eaf]

Henry, I don't think anyone has a problem with a well-reasoned disagreement with another person's critique. It's the wholesale dismissal of someone's critique as being "too easy" or "too dumb to get it".

Not posting edits doesn't mean that a person is ignoring critique. Some people prefer to put their poems away for a long time and revise them later, after they've gotten some distance from the original. Others might have revisions already in mind and all that's needed to trigger it is a few good comments.

-eaf

[Henry Higgins]

eaf, I completely agree with you.
There can be, however, no mechanical compulsion to edit according to critique, when the critique is felt to be slightly (or largely) out of the tracks. I, for one, would rather pretend I will not revise, than tell a bona fide and respected critic that he or she has completely missed a point that had been important to me at the time of writing. We do not all have the same cultural background, (not even the same language...)and we must make allowances for incomprehension. On all sides. When discussion becomes awkward, it becomes pointless, I think...
Well... this posting is becoming pointless too, probably!
Sorry!
No poet anyway will let a poem lie, until he/she is sure that he/she cannot make it better. And whenever he/she pretends to be sure of that, then I question that he/she is a poet. But each poem of each poet has its own life-cycle and bio-rhythm, to use expressions I abhor, and revision cannot be hurried. Some poems are never finished. I would like to add that, to the word "critique", I prefer the words "opinion", "suggestion" or "analysis". But that is just my own idiosyncrasy. Never mind it.
Best regards to all.

------------------
'arry
- down to earth -

[Terese Coe]

"I, for one, would rather pretend I will not revise, than tell a bona fide and respected critic that he or she has completely missed a point that had been important to me at the time of writing."

It's true, Henry, that our cultural (especially in the realm of what is "courtesy") backgrounds vary far more than our languages do (speaking of Anglophones).

But wouldn't it be simpler to divulge, in the above case, the elusive point, especially since no one can possibly second-guess everything that's on a writer's mind when she or he writes?

"And whenever he/she pretends to be sure of that, then I question that he/she is a poet."

Have to disagree here. There are times one knows one has completed the poem (or work of art) in question. At least for the present. You especially know, imo, when you've read it to an audience and you feel certain; when it's a shorter poem; when some time has passed since writing.

Also, when you say "pretend" in the above argument, you're weakening your own argument because you're trying to clinch it before the sentence is even completed.

Originally posted by Henry Higgins:
eaf, I completely agree with you.
There can be, however, no mechanical compulsion to edit according to critique, when the critique is felt to be slightly (or largely) out of the tracks. I, for one, would rather pretend I will not revise, than tell a bona fide and respected critic that he or she has completely missed a point that had been important to me at the time of writing. We do not all have the same cultural background, (not even the same language...)and we must make allowances for incomprehension. On all sides. When discussion becomes awkward, it becomes pointless, I think...
Well... this posting is becoming pointless too, probably!
Sorry!
No poet anyway will let a poem lie, until he/she is sure that he/she cannot make it better. And whenever he/she pretends to be sure of that, then I question that he/she is a poet. But each poem of each poet has its own life-cycle and bio-rhythm, to use expressions I abhor, and revision cannot be hurried. Some poems are never finished. I would like to add that, to the word "critique", I prefer the words "opinion", "suggestion" or "analysis". But that is just my own idiosyncrasy. Never mind it.
Best regards to all.

[Henry Higgins]

Oh dear, if someone questions my courtesy, I must immediately apologize. I do. I have probably been too hasty in my answer, and, of course, inaccurate. Therese Coe, I beg you to forgive whatever I have said that may have offended you. I had no reason for that.

Now what did I say? That sometimes, argument should be let aside when one of the arguers guessed, or feared, that it might me pointless or unpleasant. I still say it. I am sorry if that was not clear. My technique of expression is not quite up to yours.

"But wouldn't it be simpler to divulge, in the above case, the elusive point, especially since no one can possibly second-guess everything that's on a writer's mind when she or he writes? " Yes it would. And whenever a critic asks me "what did you mean?" I am very happy to simply explain what I did mean, and very ready to admit that I could have conveyed my meaning in different words. But when a critic does not ask any question, I am not volunteering an answer.

Now some critics think their job is to try to explain, to understand, or to question, what made the poet write something they do not like, they do not understand, or think absolute s..t. I am quite prepared to dialogue with that sort of critic, on board or off board. I think they ARE critics.

But when (we are of course talking about a purely hypothetical case) the critique is limited to: L1 wrong, L2 better, without any interrogation, then I feel justified in putting everything on the shelf for future revision, and give no explanation to someone who does not ask for it. Without any bad feelings I hope, on either side.

You disagree on the point that a poet is never satisfied with h. work? well, that's your opinion. It is not mine. I have a friend who is still editing poems he wrote forty years ago, and that I, as part of his audience, have accepted as perfect thirty years ago.

I think, and that is my opinion only, which you are welcome to share - or not - that a poem is NOT primarily meant for an audience. One of the great philosophers of the last Century (I mean the XXth) said "books are for writing only".

I don't know when a poem is finished. I don't think any poet does. This is why some hasten to publish, or to post, before they feel the urge to change something.

I do not know if I have been discourteous to you, Therese, or to anyone on this board. If I have, I apologize.

But, once again, a poet who says that h. poem is finished is no poet. And this should not be read as an offence to anyone.

Thanks for editing all my text. It was not, perhaps, necessary: I am not THAT important, and my answer came just a few lines above yours. I thank you for boosting my ego.

Best regards.

------------------
'arry
- down to earth -

[Terese Coe]

I'm afraid you've misinterpreted me! I wasn't referring to anything you said when I mentioned courtesy. It was a generalized comment.

You didn't offend me in the slightest. I simply disagree with one of your statements.

In fact, paragraph 2 of my post clearly stated that I agreed with you when you said "We do not all have the same cultural background."

One can travel to the Adirondacks of NY State, for example, and find the standards of courtesy are quite different from those in a large city a mere four hours away; no better, no worse, but different. I'm speaking of rural people without a great deal of education.

Where I went to college and universities, not to disagree objectively, when one felt it was warranted, would have been seen as laughable. No matter who was involved, and that held true for both Eastern and Western universities.

What's the point of having a discussion board if we can't disagree when we have reason to?

Best,

Terese

[Henry Higgins]

Sorry Terese

I misunderstood indeed your sentence, perhaps deep inside it touched at random some hidden guilt... For this misunderstanding I apologize too, as for my frightful temper and the spelling mistake I made on your name in my first message. (my! I've never apologized so much in my life... must be getting old!).

Best.

[Michael Cantor]

Henry -

There is a dustman named Alfred Doolittle I would like you to meet. Alfred has some wonderful theories on the need to aplogize, and I believe you would benefit from them.

Meanwhile - try to keep in mind that we are poets, not penitents, and poets are creative, and - at times - argumentative. That's how good workshops operate. Respect - but open and unfettered discussion. Stop worrying so much about how and what and when and why every comment is made, and start worrying about the writing. And, for God's sake, stop telling people you're sorry. It's becoming a drone.

Snarlingly,

Michael Cantor

[This message has been edited by Michael Cantor (edited June 07, 2004).]

[Robt_Ward]

Mr. Cantor,

Don't forget the alligator.

(signed)

Robt.