[Roger Slater]

Originally Posted by N. Matheson

You tell me. I don't know why people have been reading Hamlet a dozen times but those same people couldn't identify John Milton to save their lives.

Yes, and most people can tell you that Albert Einstein was a great physicist, but fewer people will name Wolfgang Pauli.

This is getting a bit silly. I mean, do we really have to argue about whether Shakespeare rendered all non-Shakespearean literature worthless? It seems that N is the only person who thinks so, and the rest of us are arguing poetry and literature with a person who hasn't told us who he is, hasn't shown us a single poem of his own, and told us a few weeks ago he had never heard villanelles.

I don't know why we all (me included) get sucked into these conversations started by quasi-trolls.

[Michael Cantor]

Originally Posted by Roger Slater

I don't know why we all (me included) get sucked into these conversations started by quasi-trolls.

There's a really easy solution. Ignore him.

[N. Matheson]

This was not an attempt to troll or make a joke. It was a serious statement. But clearly the consensus was reached. We can consider the topic closed. Apologies if this disturbed or bothered anyone.

[Roger Slater]

No one was disturbed or bothered, N. I think the general feeling was mild astonishment that anyone could say such silly things and expect to be taken seriously.

[N. Matheson]

It wasn't silly to me. I meant that as seriously as I could possibly be. I realize now nobody really gets my thinking, but there was zero joking or trolling involved. I meant that as fervently as I believe in the divine.

[Roger Slater]

And, in turn, I believe you as fervently as I believe in the divine.

I think I understand your thinking perfectly. I just think it's the silly thinking of someone who is a largely uneducated beginner in a field he is entering for the wrong reasons. Tell us who you are, show us some of your work, and if you can last ten minutes here maybe then you can worry about lasting a few centuries later on.

[N. Matheson]

I have plenty of poems to share, I just am poor at giving critique, so I can't share them!

[James Brancheau]

What stands out, for me, is this obsession with being the best. It's an odd criterion for wanting to write poetry. It's kind of anti-poetry, really. There's this strange fetish about ranking everything lately, too, in pop culture, I suppose. Top ten side dishes with meat loaf, etc. Mashed potatoes and corn. I'm pretty firm on that. And, personally, I think Pope was a better poet.

[Christine P'legion]

Originally Posted by N. Matheson

I have plenty of poems to share, I just am poor at giving critique, so I can't share them!

Like writing poetry, writing critiques is also a skill that may be practiced. This checklist from John Drury may be useful to you: https://homepages.uc.edu/~druryjp/Ch...20a%20Poem.htm

Obviously it isn't necessary to hit every note in there when critiquing -- and you'll see around here that crits can vary widely in terms of length, scope, and general focus. But a reference like this can help you think through your approach to a poem.

[Roger Slater]

Giving critiques is easy. Just try to explain exactly why the poem isn't as good as Shakespeare.

Seriously, though. I presume you lend a critical eye to your own first drafts and try to determine what works and what doesn't. Just apply that same critical eye to other people's poems.