howabout a "Once-a-Week Critique' thread?

[butters]

just a thought: once a week, each of us chooses someone's poem and does an in-depth review of it, call it critique or observations, thoughts, opinions or feedback, whatever you want.

this should result in at least four or five (maybe more) pieces a week receiving the more detailed kind of commentary authors are hoping for, as well as acting as a tool for the poster to learn and grow from as they focus on the hows and whys of a poem.

The lack of time a lot of people understand, and the lack of creative juices that we all experience time to time, shouldn't really be too impacted by a one piece weekly thing... if circumstances mean a couple don't get around to it, there should still be some pieces that get the feedback from someone else. If people have more time and more interest, then more than one a week would be great, too. might even stir our own inspirations

thoughts?

 

[butters]

of course, if anyone objects to having their work so reviewed, they can say so up front and then time won't get wasted on their pieces which can then be spent on someone else's writing.

 

[Angeline]

Feedback/critique is a great idea. Most of us here want it and are able to learn from it or at least see our poem from someone else's perspective. There's real value in that.

A few concerns I have:

1) Everyone has a different idea for what critique means or should be. Should we have some agreement about what constitutes it at minimum? For example, identify two things that you like, two you don't and two ways the author could make the poem better? That's just an idea off the top of my head. Otherwise I can see a few folks doing a lot of work and others not sure what to say.

2) Are we choosing one poem per week critiqued by all who choose to participate or can anyone pick a poem of their choice, so that multiple poems get feedback in a single week? I personally prefer one poem: the multiple approach seems too busy to me and I think it's valuable to see many readers' perspectives of the same piece. But then who chooses the poem?

3) Should the poet explain what they're trying to do with their poem? I think it helps to know how my intentions for a poem are or aren't met when others read it. And it would definitely help to know up front if the author is writing a form or in a specific meter.

Just some random thoughts!

 

[butters]

Feedback/critique is a great idea. Most of us here want it and are able to learn from it or at least see our poem from someone else's perspective. There's real value in that.

A few concerns I have:

1) Everyone has a different idea for what critique means or should be. Should we have some agreement about what constitutes it at minimum? For example, identify two things that you like, two you don't and two ways the author could make the poem better? That's just an idea off the top of my head. Otherwise I can see a few folks doing a lot of work and others not sure what to say.

some kind of framework might be useful, but sometimes i find myself at a loss to specify how to make improvements when i've read something really good! Perhaps some basic criteria along the lines suggested but with the caveat that all thoughts are welcome, in order to not put off people who aren't so confident about making comments. And maybe the whole once-a-week concept should be more something to be aimed at, a light-hearted idea intended to encourage and embrace rather than a hard-ball rule? Life has a habit of getting in the way, right?

2) Are we choosing one poem per week critiqued by all who choose to participate or can anyone pick a poem of their choice, so that multiple poems get feedback in a single week? I personally prefer one poem: the multiple approach seems too busy to me and I think it's valuable to see many readers' perspectives of the same piece. But then who chooses the poem?

hmnnn... i see the value in both, and have enjoyed participating in the one poem approach you're positing. You've been a mod here for a considerable time, now, Angie...have you noticed a pattern of more replies to a set poem? Do some find it hard to say something pertinent if half a dozen others have already mentioned about everything the later commentators might address?
Initially, when this thought first cropped up, i was thinking individuals choosing poems that spoke to them, or ones they felt they had something to say about...whether that was in the form of praise or suggestions for improvement, or simply letting an author know how their poem was received by a reader. It would also mean a greater variety of poems might see feedback, without limiting the number of people responding to the same poem if they opted to.

3) Should the poet explain what they're trying to do with their poem? I think it helps to know how my intentions for a poem are or aren't met when others read it. And it would definitely help to know up front if the author is writing a form or in a specific meter.

Just some random thoughts!

That old saying about a poet should never explain their poem has limited merit, imho Threads like this would be made for explaining and discussing. Now where that's done is another matter... as a footnote? (Re forms that'd be a very helpful note!) In response to pertinent comments made by reviewers? So long as it doesn't devolve into hissy-fits by either author or reviewer, it should all be good. You know how we all like to talk about our own stuff

Above all, i was thinking it might work best as something pretty organic... let it grow as it would. Encouraging eyes and minds and comments a too formal set of parameters might otherwise deter?

it's starting to sound a whole lot more complicated than i first thought

 

[Angeline]

Maybe you're right and just letting it be what it will is best. My experience has been that "critique" threads tend to be mostly ignored. A few people put in a lot of effort and others either aren't interested or maybe feel they'll do it wrong or don't know what to say or aren't comfortable saying anything other than praise. If there's an organic, lighter way to do it maybe more folks would participate.

And I see your point about not insisting on any specific way of providing feedback. I was thinking more of guidelines but I'm good with however folks choose to do feedback. My personal bugaboo is someone saying my poem sucks, but not being willing to articulate why. Even a general reason is fine lol, just help me understand!

 

[butters]

perhaps we should avoid the actual word 'critique' entirely

i'll let you mods sort it out and see you over there in the feedback forum

 

[Angeline]

perhaps we should avoid the actual word 'critique' entirely

i'll let you mods sort it out and see you over there in the feedback forum

Welp I was just offering my thoughts as a longtime pobo denizen. Pretty sure I can't sort this one out in any capacity ; people have such different opinions about it.

Annaswirls had a very good workshopping thread years ago. I'll see if I can track it down and bump it. At the very least there are other perspectives there.

ETA: It was Pat Carrington's excellent thread and here it is.

 

[butters]

nice one

 

[cascadiabound]

This seems like a worthy idea.

I know I am not a particularly good poet but would I would participate in this venture.

 

[Angeline]

This seems like a worthy idea.

I know I am not a particularly good poet but would I would participate in this venture.

Au contraire. I think you are a very good poet. The more I read of you the more impressed I am with your talent for poetry.

 

[Mrtenant]

I like it. It's a good idea.

In reading much of what has been posted before on this thread, I hope I am not restating too much, I think about the following when I entertain critique:

It should be constuctive critique

Some poets may request a critique on a specific piece that can be addressed

Those offering critique should refrain from insults and name calling....

........as should those receiving critique

I prefer a balanced critique. Say something you like about my work, say something you dont like, and why. I am open to suggestions, not demands.

Any counters to critique by a poet, should be equally graceful. Saying nothing is better than whining about it.....

..........However, I for one do not appreciate critiques that are condescending or bullying whether directed at me or anyone else and will not be shy about returning the favor.

In all, to anyone that posts a poem of any kind here in this forum or anywhere, I thank you, for your time and effort, for putting yourself out there, for sharing. The same goes for a well done critique.

I say this stuff, because I have seen some really horrific critiques. Some people just don't know how to behave. Even the best of poets and writers write flops on occasion. They don't need to be crucified for it.

I like to think of a poets work as a development, a growth towards being the best they can be. Sometimes we are brilliant, sometimes we are trying things, and it doesnt turn out like we would have liked- but its still growth. Critiques by our peers and friends can be a great influence in that growth. Its not always about just the one piece.

Maybe a critique can sometimes relate one work to another as constructive.

 

[butters]

I think of it more along the lines of a 'poetic conversation', though I am familiar with how to do a more formal critique. Seems to me that authors often respond better–are more forthcoming about their intentions for a write and open to discussion of their work–when a less formal approach is the route. I, for one, find I learn more from the author this way than through formal critique: the author is less likely to feel patronised or belittled, even if that was never the intent (nor general consensus of others reading the critique), and each conversation can be tailored to the individual. A bad critter is a bad critter, where their ego matters more. Critique should never be used to tear a writer down, only to discuss points in a poem, and is all too often seen as a personal attack on the author when it isn't, because we're all snowflakes at times

Angie knows she can go in hard and direct on mine, because I respect her opinion, know her intent, and never see it as anything other than valuable feedback about the piece. I can nitpick hers the same way but if I did it that way with someone else maybe less confident or newer to writing, closer to their creation, they might perceive it as a personal attack. SO I go with informal because it's the way I feel I can give and receive information the best.

We've made a start over on Not for the thin-skinned, with cascadiabound's 'Black cat' piece.

 

[champagne1982]

I think of it more along the lines of a 'poetic conversation', though I am familiar with how to do a more formal critique. Seems to me that authors often respond better–are more forthcoming about their intentions for a write and open to discussion of their work–when a less formal approach is the route. I, for one, find I learn more from the author this way than through formal critique: the author is less likely to feel patronised or belittled, even if that was never the intent (nor general consensus of others reading the critique), and each conversation can be tailored to the individual. A bad critter is a bad critter, where their ego matters more. Critique should never be used to tear a writer down, only to discuss points in a poem, and is all too often seen as a personal attack on the author when it isn't, because we're all snowflakes at times

Angie knows she can go in hard and direct on mine, because I respect her opinion, know her intent, and never see it as anything other than valuable feedback about the piece. I can nitpick hers the same way but if I did it that way with someone else maybe less confident or newer to writing, closer to their creation, they might perceive it as a personal attack. SO I go with informal because it's the way I feel I can give and receive information the best.

We've made a start over on Not for the thin-skinned, with cascadiabound's 'Black cat' piece.

I prefer the NFT-S approach. If a poet wants critique and review on a particular poem, then they can offer it up and set their own parameters. NO ONE SHOULD QUOTE THE ENTIRE POEM other than the original poet. That way if they hone it and ready it for a different market, then they can obscure it from Microsoft and Google searches. That being said, if all they want is praise, then show it to the audience for whom they wrote it, or submit it to the Main archive, and open it for votes. Seriously, everyone, if you are looking for excellent advice on poetry and how to make it better, accepting constructive review from other poets can be a rewarding and educational experience.