A letter

[twelveoone]

Just because I'm a writer does not mean I have to be a critic too, thank you

Well....true


You do exist on your own terms, in your own world...but you can try to keep it to yourself, instead of cluttering up bandwidth.


and sufficate in your own self absorption

 

[bflagsst]

I love brutal criticism, very neccesary...save when my own work is being dressed down lol

 

[Tzara]

Just because I'm a writer does not mean I have to be a critic too, thank you

Well....true

I can't tell, Lord 1201 (see, I pay attention), from where you've gotten this quote from. Doesn't matter, of course, as it reflects many writer's opinions about critical comment. The positive way of thinking about these comments is to think of them as saying something like "I have neither the time nor inclination to analyze other poets' work and offer comments."

The negative way of thinking about them is, well, negative.

For my part, someone who makes a comment like this is either not serious about writing poetry—skill in critical analysis is central to any MFA or MA program I can think of with anything to do with poetry, be it reading or writing it, and even if you reject everything related to MFA programs, the ability to analyze one's own work would seem to be really important—or self-centered to a degree that makes conversation with them irrelevant.

If there's a third position there, I'd really like someone to show it to me.

Does a poet always have to offer comment? Obviously no.

Does a poet have to be able to offer comment?

I'd say yes.

 

[twelveoone]

I can't tell, Lord 1201 (see, I pay attention), from where you've gotten this quote from. Doesn't matter, of course, as it reflects many writer's opinions about critical comment. The positive way of thinking about these comments is to think of them as saying something like "I have neither the time nor inclination to analyze other poets' work and offer comments."

The negative way of thinking about them is, well, negative.

For my part, someone who makes a comment like this is either not serious about writing poetry—skill in critical analysis is central to any MFA or MA program I can think of with anything to do with poetry, be it reading or writing it, and even if you reject everything related to MFA programs, the ability to analyze one's own work would seem to be really important—or self-centered to a degree that makes conversation with them irrelevant.

If there's a third position there, I'd really like someone to show it to me.

Does a poet always have to offer comment? Obviously no.

Does a poet have to be able to offer comment?

I'd say yes.

In Dreams Begin Responsibilities-Delmore Schwartz-William Butler Yeats-Old play

Let's just say, I have more respect for graffiti artists, than for people that constantly submit in new poems, threads and can't be bothered to comment. It's a community thing. A recognition of other people. I understand some of it may be fear or being wrong or making a lame comment. I've made enough of both.

Self absorption I just can't tolerate. Get out...
...buy the spray can, and spray something high and dangerous.

Now on to something more worthy of you, Lord Tzara.
Critical analysis - what type to you use most often?


...and did you ever read Anatomy of Criticism by Northrop Frye?
interesting, I'm on it for the second time. Really, I wish I could retain a quarter of what I read. Which means I have to read it three more times

 

[vrosej10]

I can't tell, Lord 1201 (see, I pay attention), from where you've gotten this quote from. Doesn't matter, of course, as it reflects many writer's opinions about critical comment. The positive way of thinking about these comments is to think of them as saying something like "I have neither the time nor inclination to analyze other poets' work and offer comments."

The negative way of thinking about them is, well, negative.

For my part, someone who makes a comment like this is either not serious about writing poetry—skill in critical analysis is central to any MFA or MA program I can think of with anything to do with poetry, be it reading or writing it, and even if you reject everything related to MFA programs, the ability to analyze one's own work would seem to be really important—or self-centered to a degree that makes conversation with them irrelevant.

If there's a third position there, I'd really like someone to show it to me.

Does a poet always have to offer comment? Obviously no.

Does a poet have to be able to offer comment?

I'd say yes.

I agree. You don't always have to comment but thinking critically about others work and commenting with constructive criticism can not only benefit the poet receiving it, but also helps you to analyse your own work for weaknesses. I am in the an Aussie university writing program and they deliberately foster this skill set. At first I was skeptical but it has helped. If you want to be a good writer, you can ill afford to be lazy.

 

[butters]

looking at a work critically has to come second to reading it for its own sake, imo - but is an important tool that enables people to understand how poetry comes together and works (or doesn't)... important because it opens their eyes to their own foibles and flaws, so makes for better self-editing.

having said that, it's a place some feel uncomfortable standing in for all the reasons previously mentioned, or simply because their heads are not in that place right now of being able to stand back and look at a piece critically. as a newer writer, i certainly wasn't interested in looking at anything with a critter's eye - just wanted to write write write all these fabulous words and let loose a white-water of wordiness. it's not till your head IS in the right place that you can look at things in a more detached way. a natural part of maturing as a writer.

going back to my opening sentence: if there's one thing that spoiled Shakespeare for me in school till later on, it was the fact that we had to go through, line by line, pulling it to pieces, looking for all the techniques and ploys; it almost managed to ruin the experience of just reading his words, feeling them, their play on one another. we should have been allowed to read it as it stood first, and then look at why it was so wonderful. of course, the actual process of looking at the hows and why was incredibly useful. i always try to read poems first and foremost with a reader's heart, and then go in and look at it with the critical eye so as not to spoil my own selfish pleasures.

 

[bronzeage]

This thread is starting to read like the seven blind men who went to the elephant.

 

[butters]

This thread is starting to read like the seven blind men who went to the elephant.

but did anyone ever tell you how much the blind men enjoyed feeling up the elephant?


we're having fun

 

[bronzeage]

but did anyone ever tell you how much the blind men enjoyed feeling up the elephant?


we're having fun

But, what did the elephant get out it?

 

[butters]

But, what did the elephant get out it?

ask the bloody elephant... how would i know?

 

[bronzeage]

ask the bloody elephant... how would i know?

In the technical trades, there is a saying, "If you can't explain it, you don't understand it."

There are plenty of people who make a good living doing something they do not understand. The combination of luck, a good memory and limited options allows them to be correct often enough to stay employed. If you ask them why they did a certain thing, the standard answer is, "Because that's what usually works."

I don't know if this applies to poetry. A good knowledge of the technical aspects of poetry might be needed if one were to explain any particular poem. It would certainly help if one wanted to offer criticism.

I think is is much like tasting soup. Anyone can sip a spoon full and pronounce the soup too hot, too cold, too salty, too spicy, etc and on forever. Very few people can taste perfect soup and tell us what ingredients and in what proportions made it perfect.

 

[butters]

In the technical trades, there is a saying, "If you can't explain it, you don't understand it."

There are plenty of people who make a good living doing something they do not understand. The combination of luck, a good memory and limited options allows them to be correct often enough to stay employed. If you ask them why they did a certain thing, the standard answer is, "Because that's what usually works."

I don't know if this applies to poetry. A good knowledge of the technical aspects of poetry might be needed if one were to explain any particular poem. It would certainly help if one wanted to offer criticism.

I think is is much like tasting soup. Anyone can sip a spoon full and pronounce the soup too hot, too cold, too salty, too spicy, etc and on forever. Very few people can taste perfect soup and tell us what ingredients and in what proportions made it perfect.

some are born with an exceptional palate - others may work some way towards refining a mediocre one with practise and application. if it makes the soup taste better in the long run, it's worth it, no? why throw out a whole pot of soup when a little dash of this, a splash of that, a pinch, a twist, a ... you get the picture. i hope i make better soup now than i first did.

 

[fridayam]

In the technical trades, there is a saying, "If you can't explain it, you don't understand it."

There are plenty of people who make a good living doing something they do not understand. The combination of luck, a good memory and limited options allows them to be correct often enough to stay employed. If you ask them why they did a certain thing, the standard answer is, "Because that's what usually works."

I don't know if this applies to poetry. A good knowledge of the technical aspects of poetry might be needed if one were to explain any particular poem. It would certainly help if one wanted to offer criticism.

I think is is much like tasting soup. Anyone can sip a spoon full and pronounce the soup too hot, too cold, too salty, too spicy, etc and on forever. Very few people can taste perfect soup and tell us what ingredients and in what proportions made it perfect.

I can't speak for my poetry (or anyone else's) but this rings true for me in my day job. I direct TV drama, and I'm damned if I could tell anyone why I chose to shoot this scene like that, or ask an actor to rethink how to say a line, or ask the DOP if he could make the background look fuzzier--you see I don't know what depth of field is, I just know how I want it to look and how I want it to sound.

When I watch some other directors' work I keep thinking this is too technical, and isn't right for the material and it doesn't feel real. Technicalities are often unrealities because they miss the point, which is to express a thought or a feeling in as few multifaceted images (or words) as possible.

 

[bronzeage]

some are born with an exceptional palate - others may work some way towards refining a mediocre one with practise and application. if it makes the soup taste better in the long run, it's worth it, no? why throw out a whole pot of soup when a little dash of this, a splash of that, a pinch, a twist, a ... you get the picture. i hope i make better soup now than i first did.

There are few things which do not improve with hard work. Most of writing, whether poetry or other stuff is in the work. Ideas are easy. They are all around us. The final product is the result of the work. There are millions of very talented people who have never written more than three sentences worth reading. That is the point where they quit.

Cooking good soup is a much different process from reviewing soup. Once the soup is in the bowl, no one but the cook really knows what is in it.

I can't speak for my poetry (or anyone else's) but this rings true for me in my day job. I direct TV drama, and I'm damned if I could tell anyone why I chose to shoot this scene like that, or ask an actor to rethink how to say a line, or ask the DOP if he could make the background look fuzzier--you see I don't know what depth of field is, I just know how I want it to look and how I want it to sound.

When I watch some other directors' work I keep thinking this is too technical, and isn't right for the material and it doesn't feel real. Technicalities are often unrealities because they miss the point, which is to express a thought or a feeling in as few multifaceted images (or words) as possible.

As I said, one does not have to understand a thing to be able to do it. Understanding is only necessary if you have to explain it to someone else.

It is one thing to want a fuzzy background and another to know why it is fuzzy.

 

[fridayam]

"It is one thing to want a fuzzy background and another to know why it is fuzzy."

Yes, but the fuzzy background can be important even if you don't understand how it got there. Who do we prefer? Artists or technicians? It's an important question, but one that has no clear boundary.

 

[Palba_Noruda]

If a person is inclined to rationality, then they should write criticism in response to poems.

If a person is inclined toward irrationality, then they should write poems in response to poems.

No?

 

[bronzeage]

"It is one thing to want a fuzzy background and another to know why it is fuzzy."

Yes, but the fuzzy background can be important even if you don't understand how it got there. Who do we prefer? Artists or technicians? It's an important question, but one that has no clear boundary.

An interesting question. Technical is critical to technique.

 

[vrosej10]

in the early part of my uni course, we were taught that first you develop technical skill and when that has been absorbed the point it has become as automatic as holding a pencil, then that's when creativity really kicks in. I agree with bronzeage when he said, 'if you can't explain it, you don't understand it'.

 

[ninianne]

Interesting discussion.

In order to write poetry well, I think we have to understand the rules behind it. I don't mean that a poet must memorize long lists of literary figures. That is just the jargon that poets and critics use to talk to each other. But somehow, whether instinctively or with meticulous planning, a poet must learn where she should use a particular set of words, because that's what she needs right there, to make the poem work.

But at the end of the day, we are left with a poem that works (or doesn't work). A good poet wants to learn and to grow (yes, that's my opinion and bias--I realize that some poets are seeking other results from their poetry--I would hesitate to critique a poem by someone who was using it as therapy, for example). So she shares that poem with the world through a workshop or over the internet.

The critiquers have two phases of reaction to the poem.
First: as a reader. "This poem is ______" (good/bad/emotionally gripping/long/pithy/disturbing/etc). This is their reaction as a reader. When the poem was over, this reader had this specific reaction. If the critiquer shares the reaction with the poet, that poet can consider the reaction and decide if the poem worked. Did this reader have the desired reaction from the poem? Some critiquers only go that far (which can be frustrating). However, if the reader does not know how to write, this may be the only reaction she can give.

Second: as a writer. "This poem is ______ because . . ." After the first reaction, the reader (if they have written poems or studied poetry or read a lot of poetry) can step back and think about why the poem made the reaction it did. The critiquer doesn't even need to know the literary terms (although it's shorter to say enjambment than to say "you know, when you stuck those words together") to give their interpretation of why the poem works. What did the poet do well? What could they have done better?

The poets who grow in their craft learn the why of what they are doing (even if they never learn the jargon). That's why it's useful for poets to learn to critique. It's easier to pick out flaws and virtues in someone else's writing. But after considering those outside poems, a poet can turn that same critical eye on his own writing.

 

[twelveoone]

going back to my opening sentence: if there's one thing that spoiled Shakespeare for me in school till later on, it was the fact that we had to go through, line by line, pulling it to pieces, looking for all the techniques and ploys; it almost managed to ruin the experience of just reading his words, feeling them, their play on one another. we should have been allowed to read it as it stood first, and then look at why it was so wonderful. of course, the actual process of looking at the hows and why was incredibly useful. i always try to read poems first and foremost with a reader's heart, and then go in and look at it with the critical eye so as not to spoil my own selfish pleasures.

Close reading? Which is close to what I do.

What I'm saying is I don't want to hear that cop out, well I'm a writer...I'm too busy... bullshit. This place is very freewheeling..so you can get away with...I liked it, after a while you begin to see why, and you can comment further.

A poem is not complete without someone reading it. A mechanism is in place for communication i.e. a feedback loop. Trust me that is the only place you'll see me use that C-word in reference to poetry.

So when I see 10 poems by a person, and no comments by that person...really...why should I waste my time? So when I'm tromping over on new poems, from here on out, cut 'n' paste poem goes in the comment, take a look at YOURSELF, enjoy YOUR SELF.

 

[twelveoone]

Interesting discussion.

In order to write poetry well, I think we have to understand the rules behind it.

liked what you said, except there are no rules, there are tools that are free to use.

or chose to ignore them, it just makes it harder, on the writer and the reader

so to paraphrase ...
In order to write poetry well, I think we have to understand the assumptions behind it.

 

[twelveoone]

In the technical trades, there is a saying, "If you can't explain it, you don't understand it."


I don't know if this applies to poetry.

Damn, I like you.
I've heard that credo from really brilliant people in science.



and yes it does apply
You must be able to justify every word. If you can't, you made a mistake. If you can justify every word, and it doesn't go over well...

well that one's tough to sort out

 

[bronzeage]

Damn, I like you.
I've heard that credo from really brilliant people in science.



and yes it does apply
You must be able to justify every word. If you can't, you made a mistake. If you can justify every word, and it doesn't go over well...

well that one's tough to sort out

You can't please everyone, all the time.

There is no poem, however well crafted which can't be hit with some perfectly true technical criticism. One comment I have heard too many times is "It's just prose, broken into lines of poetry."

What the fuck does that mean? Is there a prohibition against grammatically correct lines?

 

[twelveoone]

You can't please everyone, all the time.

There is no poem, however well crafted which can't be hit with some perfectly true technical criticism. One comment I have heard too many times is "It's just prose, broken into lines of poetry."

What the fuck does that mean? Is there a prohibition against grammatically correct lines?

I agree, but there are many types of technical criticism. Two of the more common and useful would be close reading and generic (Genre-based)

As far breaking prose into lines, if there is something going on besides a bland cliched story, I'll except it as poetry.

As we both agree there is no set definitions for any of this, but where and how we draw the lines.

If a poem is a machine, it has to work or it's junk.


grammatically correct lines?
this is tricky also, and complex and a real war
Google: Pinker vs mavens

Point is we all process information differently, what I see, you might not, what you see, I might not. Most of the time it's just an interesting point of departure. But you might see a rattlesnake by my leg, that would save me some grief if I pay attention.

 

[butters]

...

Point is we all process information differently, what I see, you might not, what you see, I might not. Most of the time it's just an interesting point of departure. But you might see a rattlesnake by my leg, that would save me some grief if I pay attention.

if he's relying on peripheral vision and having hallucinations as his sight breaks down... then we have to question the presence of the snake. of course, if the snake's real, wasting time questioning its presence might see you well and truly *starredandbleeped*