Offering and identifying helpful critique

[unpredictablebijou]

Before I even start, let me say I am not necessarily the poster child for good critique on a poem. I love most of what I read; even "bad poems" sometimes move me.

But any time you write a poem that you feel like sharing with other people, you by definition have offered it to an audience, people who will each have a unique response to your ideas and the way you communicate them.

With that, and some of the eternal controversy here about feedback, critique and intelligent discussion about poetry, here are some tips for both offering and identifying helpful feedback. These are just a few beginning ideas, and I'm starting this thread so that others can offer their advice, both to those who want to help edit or discuss the work of others, and those who are brave enough to put their poetry out here in front of others and ask for feedback on their work.

These are merely MY ideas and standards. Not rules, not The Only Truth. I seriously want people to add to this list, perhaps even quoting examples of critique and feedback that truly helped them improve their work.

1. Positive feedback has its uses, and is a worthwhile thing to do.

There is nothing wrong with saying that you liked a piece just as it is. We all need and deserve positive feedback when we do something well.

It is even better, when offering positive critique, to say what in particular you thought was good. If you can, try to go beyond "this was great" and talk about lines, phrases or tone that you responded to. This helps the author know what they're doing successfully, so they can do it more.

2. Acknowledge your biases and the subjective nature of language.

You are only one member of an audience. You may not be the intended audience for a piece, and you may not have the frame of reference for a piece. If you've never been homeless, a poem about homelessness may not move you, whereas a homeless person may find a great deal of meaning in that same piece. This does not make the poem "good" or "bad" necessarily. This means only that the poem worked or did not work for you as a single member of an audience.

No one is an expert on poetry. Many have studied it, read it, written it, been published. That does not make them experts. Here's why: poetry is highly subjective. It discusses sensation and emotion, and is by definition an indirect form of communication, since what I'm doing is putting words on a page or screen, rather than hooking myself into your brain to give you my exact sensations or ideas. Allow for that necessary filter and understand that the whole field of poetry is inexact and personal by definition.

3. Avoid, and ignore, ad hominem attacks.

Saying "this just sucks" or "you're a fucking cunt" does not communicate information. It does not help the poet write more effectively. It is purely destructive. Save it for the GB.

If someone offers that sort of critique to you, treat it the same as you would treat any other verbal abuse.

And if you truly hate a poem, and it really doesn't work for you at all, (hey, it happens) consider staying silent. Let the people who see potential in it work with it, giving you time to dedicate your energies to things that might work for you.


4. Consider the source: evaluate the style, voice and goals (both poetic and personal) of the person offering feedback.

IF a poet writes work you admire, IF their style makes sense to you and seems congruent with your goals in some way, and IF a poet offers reasonable ideas about your work, then and only then should you consider adjusting your work. Style and voice are individual, and beyond a certain basic level of skill (grammar, spelling, skills with rhyme and meter, that sort of thing) every response to a poem is an aesthetic judgment from a unique personality.


5. Remember your history

For all of human history, artistic innovators have been vilified, abused and persecuted by the status quo in their particular field. That's not just the case in the art world; most "rational" areas like scientific research have been guilty of similar close-mindedness.

Getting panned and inspiring riots in the streets doesn't necessarily mean you're a genius. But it does mean that you're at least worth paying attention to, which is a damn good sign that you're doing something interesting.


6. Offer alternatives.

If you really think something isn't working, it's always good to offer a solution or at least a potential new direction. To say, "this line didn't work for me" is fine, but it would be better if you could add some suggestions about how it might be made more effective: "Maybe you could take out these unnecessary words, or change this verb." or "I found this word distracting - perhaps you could use this other word" or whatever.

If you can't figure out why you don't like something or how it could be improved, either leave it alone entirely or at least apologise for not being able to suggest a solution.

Similarly, if someone says they don't like something but can't offer a solution, don't get too frustrated. It may be merely an aesthetic judgment. Give it only the weight you think it truly deserves.



Okay, that's what I have at the moment. Please, add your own thoughts, and I'd like to particularly encourage people to post specific examples in which someone's intelligent feedback actually helped them improve a piece.


Alright. *sigh* Thanks for listening. And as is the case in all my threads, jacking and flirting are specifically permitted by the OP.

respectfully,
bijou

 

[champagne1982]

This entire linked thread is chock full of wonderful critique and feedback. It was a poem discussed on the now-defunct Poetry Discussion Circle, Thrown Clay.

 

[champagne1982]

7. Critique the poem not the poet.

Poetry by its very nature is intensely personal. Never say that you don't like a poem because it's obvious the author has never dieted successfully in his/her life because you've seen their dinner menu. That has nothing to do with the poem, unless in fact it is the poet's dinner menu. (We see 'em in the Bistro all the time.)

BTW upbj, I agree with everything on your list.

 

[Angeline]

I think this is excellent advice, Bijmeister. Having edited for a living for many years, I see with every job that the author has an almost parental relationship with what they've written. It's important for me to recognize that as an editor. If I act as though the point of my review is to show the author that I know how to write whatever they've given me better than they do, they won't want to take my suggestions. But if the point of my edit is (and it should be) to help them improve the writing, then I have every reason to offer suggestions that are as impartial as they are (hopefully) helpful. In fact, if my purpose is anything other than trying to help improve the writing, then I shouldn't be offering critique at all.

Let me repeat that because it's the single most important point about critique. The purpose of critique is not to show someone else how much you know about poetry. It's to help the poet improve his or her poem!

And I always start and finish with the assumption that the author knows better than I do what they want to convey. If, in the course of a review, we discover that we are at cross-purposes in what we (the author and the editor) believe the author is trying to convey, then there's either something wrong with the way the author is choosing to say what he or she wants to communicate (and we work together to find the right words) or I am not the best editor for the project.

There's no place for "tough love" in critique. There's every place for honesty and specificity. As you point out, that's why it doesn't help to simply say "This is great" or "This stinks." That's, first off, just an opinion. And, more important, it does nothing to help the writer.

However, the absolute best reason (imho) for offering critique is that it will make the reviewer a better writer. When you're forced to think specifically about what does and doesn't work in someone else's writing, you will eventually transfer that knowledge to your own writing. Yes it's work to give good critique, but it benefits the reviewer as much as the reviewee.

And one more thing I've learned from being an editor: you may think you have the best suggestion or "fix" in the world and *gasp* the author disagrees and doesn't take your suggestion! Guess what? It's their poem, not yours, so get over it. The author, like the customer, always knows best. And if you, as a reviewer, disagree and think "Oh I could do that better," do it! Write your own poem.

 

[lorencino]

However, the absolute best reason (imho) for offering critique is that it will make the reviewer a better writer. When you're forced to think specifically about what does and doesn't work in someone else's writing, you will eventually transfer that knowledge to your own writing. Yes it's work to give good critique, but it benefits the reviewer as much as the reviewee.

The above should be bolded. One can learn so much from analyzing why a good poem works.

 

[Senna Jawa]

And I always start and finish with the assumption that the author knows better than I do what they want to convey.

But, when the poem is already out there, it's irrelevant whether or not they know what they want to convey (I mean--from the point of view of art).

Regards,

 

[UnderYourSpell]

What do you put when you want to say I have read your poem it's not that I haven't taken the trouble to comment but I don't know what on earth you are on about?!

 

[Angeline]

But, when the poem is already out there, it's irrelevant whether or not they know what they want to convey (I mean--from the point of view of art).

Regards,

True, but I guess I consider a poem that's "out there" here at Lit to still be at a developmental stage, probably because that's how I've always viewed my stuff here. And whether I consider it developmental or done or whatever, if I think it's beyond any help that I could give, I don't say anything unless I'm asked for my opinion.

And UYS, if I haven't a clue what a poem is about but it's still interesting to me (to the point where I want to find out or maybe help if I can), I just ask. But sometimes (ok lol mostly) it's incomprehensible because it's just poorly written. Then I don't say anything unless the writer asks for my opinion, in which case I try to find a kind way to say the poem doesn't seem to be working and the writer would be better off trying the same ideas in a new poem. I think that if a person asks for my opinion, it's perfectly ok to say that, but it's not the sort of thing I'd offer without an invitation.

 

[hmmnmm]

Well, first of all, since my thoughts have meandered on a related road, I've come to realize that - at least as concerning posting work on Lit - if someone, anyone, takes even a minute to look at it, that's a precious minute they've given that they could have given elsewhere. You can only hope it was for them a minute well-spent. Hope they might feel they even got back half a minute in change. If for some reason the meaning was not immediately got, and I am told so, well, that's yet another minute they spent that they could have spent doing something else, elsewhere. This is one significant drawback to the internet, because the usual response is the clasped-hands and bowed head of gratitude which would be better understood in a more tangibly personal setting.

 

[unpredictablebijou]

Originally Posted by LadynStFreknBed
Tree with raw, stripped bark
suffers the forest shadows.
Shielding its lost leaves,
fragile branches wavering
until wind’s refrain ceases.

I'll comment only on the first line.

Tree with stripped bark

would be so much better! So why there is that useless, even harmful "raw"? Oh, but of course, it's for the sake of the form, to have 5 syllables. Thus the whole point of the exercise is missed. The form was suppossed to make you work harder.

One has to believe in poetry. One has to believe that poetry is not easy, that just adding a syllable is no poetry anymore. Poetry means that we meet certain requirements. That there is no excuse like "I wanted to fulfill this oh-difficult form". We have poetic forms to force us to write better, not poorer poems. Otherwise poetic forms would be harmful. And due to the common misunderstanding about meeting a form being a success, poetic forms are in a social sense somewhat harmful indeed.
__________________

Here's a really good example of a critique that is both wrong and right. Let's just look at a couple of lines.

I'll comment only on the first line.

Tree with stripped bark

would be so much better!

Good, except that you didn't actually limit your comment to the first line. And I'd actually say it's an excellent edit. So far, okay. Now:

So why there is that useless, even harmful "raw"? Oh, but of course, it's for the sake of the form, to have 5 syllables.

The word raw there might or might not be a good choice. One reader might even say that it harmed the piece. But not everyone would agree. That's a major judgment call, and it's harshly phrased. Already, you've probably lost the willingness of your audience to listen to you, since you're coming across pretty harshly. Remember, the medium must not get in the way of the message, if in fact the message is what's important.

And the second sentence is sarcastic, so you've scored another couple of negative points in terms of your connection with the person you're trying to critique. Frankly, you've probably already lost any authority or weight you have now, regardless of whether or not you're going to make any more worthwhile points.

If you've managed to keep your reader's loyalty to this point, which is iffy, your next two lines shoot it firmly in the heart:

Thus the whole point of the exercise is missed. The form was suppossed to make you work harder.

First of all, you're basically wrong in the assumptions of both statements, which are opinions, not fact. It cannot be deduced that your poet missed the whole point of the exercise, especially if all you're critiquing is the first line. Nor can it be deduced that this poet worked more or less hard based on that particular word choice. Quite the contrary, this probably represents harder work than someone who is completely ignoring syllable count. Whether or not one choice was better than another in this case is basically an aesthetic question, and cannot be stated as fact.

What's more, the implications are abusive and mean-spirited. You've just told your poet that she missed the whole point, and that she didn't work hard. You do not know, nor can you defend, these two statements. They are opinions, and abusive ones at that.

Now here's what's really sad. Watch how, after you've already lost any interest your poet has in listening to your ideas, you actually say some beautiful and worthwhile things:

One has to believe in poetry. One has to believe that poetry is not easy, that just adding a syllable is no poetry anymore.

Okay, it's a little incoherent, but I can see where you're going and it makes sense to say that something is not automatically a better poem just because it follows the rules of a form more exactly than another poem does. And the statement "One has to believe in poetry" is good enough for a t-shirt.

The rest of it:

Poetry means that we meet certain requirements. That there is no excuse like "I wanted to fulfill this oh-difficult form". We have poetic forms to force us to write better, not poorer poems. Otherwise poetic forms would be harmful. And due to the common misunderstanding about meeting a form being a success, poetic forms are in a social sense somewhat harmful indeed.

is again, a little incoherent. That hurts your message because in order to prove that we have something to say about writing that is worth hearing, we must consistently prove our own skills. You've paid less attention here, apparently, to your language and phrasing and basic understandability than your poet did in writing the tanka in the first place. So what then gives you authority? You see how sad that is; there are a couple of worthwhile pieces of critique here but they are completely obscured by the language problems and the generally harsh tone that alienates the reader.

If in fact the message is more important than anything personal, more important than tone, and urgent enough that you're bothering to write in the first place, then it is important enough to make sure nothing stands in the way of the message. That means using tact, differentiating between fact and opinion, being diplomatic, and establishing yourself as a worthwhile source for information by being impeccable in your own writing style.

This critique has a couple of good moments, but in general I'd suggest a pretty major rewrite, if the purpose here was to impart valuable knowledge, rather than to pontificate and perform for an audience, wherein you risk alienating your actual subject in the process. I make no assumptions about that particular set of choices here but if I read this review carefully, my impression is that the goal was more the latter than the former. As a reader, just one reader, that's my interpretation. As the writer, you have to decide, based on your actual goal for the piece, whether that feedback is important enough to edit the piece accordingly.

Hope that helps.

bj