Critique and writing

[bogusbrig]

I'm of the opinion that being a critic and being a writer are two different skills, not necessarily divorced from each other but different enough for someone to be good at one and no good at the other.

To be a critic one must have formed some opinion of what is good and what is not, though I think this starts as intuition and forms with experience. I think critics then build an intellectual framework on which they base their arguments, a framework that could well be inhibiting to the creative process of a writer. (This is my opinion but I'm willing to change depending on what I hear)

I'm quite well aware of my shortcomings as a critic, I know when I'm reading a good or bad poem but I struggle to translate my intuition into an intellectual reason that can be easily understood by a writer or a reader. As a writer I don't practice what I preach because I like to experiment and to have an intellectual framework in which to work, as I have already explained, makes me think it inhibits that process. Maybe I'm wrong on this level and an intellectual framework would be helpful.

It's also not unusual for a writer/artist to be blind to their own work and make the mistakes they so readily can point out in others.

I'm just wondering what other people think.

 

[Sabina_Tolchovsky]

I think my writing and my critiques have grown personally, the more time I spend reading others work and critiques the more knowledge I gain. The more I can express myself with a clearer and pointed view.
I do think they are different on many levels but important just the same...
you should read the authors (that is giving a critique) work, if you like their style and admire them as a writer perhaps the advice they give is worthy. I think you should be careful who you accept advice from. I don't think most serious critiques are meant to be personal jabs. Take it all with a grain of salt is my advice.

 

[wildsweetone]

critique and writing are two completely different things. i would suggest that writing comes from the right side of the brain (creative) and that critique comes from the left (analytic). one can be an excellent critic and a useless writer and vice versa.

in prose i am a far better editor than a writer. though i can now say after a few years experience i am learning how to translate my editing skills better into my own writing.

this is one of the reasons experienced writers tell novices to put their writing away until they are distanced from it. it's easier to see the inconsistencies. also i discovered that (if rushed) you can alter the font, size, or colour of your own writing and then run through an edit yourself. your eyes have been tricked into thinking it is not your own work and you will be able to pick up many basic errors your eyes/mind would normally 'assume' are correct.

in poetry i'm not sure where i am actually, but better at both writing and critiquing than i was six months ago.

to be a good critic it is helpful to know the rules of writing, those can be easily checked first. then personal opinion can come into play and yes, those with experience will have perhaps a store of indepth opinion that they can share. eg i might know when something doesn't feel right, but others here can pinpoint exactly what a problem is and also know how to fix it (that they allow me to do the work of fixing is also another measure of their skill as a good critique).

interesting thread bb

 

[My Erotic Trail]

I base 'my' opinion solely on critics here at lit. I think that is what you mean? I have seen many come and go. YDD for example never submitted poetry (well one) and then withdrew it when it was pointed out that they critic great but their poetry was in need of a few adjustments.

1201, critics more than he writes and I find his poetry hard to read or understand (not saying good or bad) there are a lot of that here as well. I find it even harder to rely on a critics views when I see two critics with two different opinions or even three or four critics views all become controversial or totally different.

So I assume a critique is nothing more than one person's opinion. I have a poem edited and perfected only to have (no name <grin) critic it and find faults from their view point. It has been expressed (by a critic) that a poem doesn't flow well when read but then they hit the audio and heard it read by the poet they changed their minds about their opinion.

Writing is one thing, being a critic is another (an opinion on a poem) and the person giving their opinion tends to lean towards what they as a person like. Which is not every ones opinion. That is why I find it hard to put any stock in a critcs remarks.

An edit is a critique as well only it is done before the final out come and an aid to the poet. Once the poem is submitted and displayed it is as an artists painting, to be observed and remarks commented. A critic of a poem on the new poems list is like reading a book and telling the author to change it reguardless of the edit. There are a few here who enjoy playing critic and it seems to be more of a passion and drive to play with poems than to simply enjoy some one's thoughts, feelings and or write.

I have had PMs with members asking me what did this critic mean? I go and read the comment only to find I can't decifer their break down of some ones literary creation. jim breaks a poem down farther than most and it seems to go way deeper and (far out) from the poets simple thoughts. Reading more into the poem than the poet intended. Is this an example? or just a person's opinion? I know I have been tagged as a critic hater. not true, I ask several here for help and they give it willing and with polite teachings attached. Some think they can not learn unless the critique is harsh or cruel. I find that to be more of a personal preference than an honest helpful aid to MOST poets.

So when does a person decide to be a critic? I know a hand full of critics here that 'I' will take their opinion to mind. And a handfull of critics here that just seem to be tooting their own horns and scratching their ego. I don't think a list is needed for the obvious. On a grander scale (mentioned before) Mark Twain was pelted by the best critics of his day. They claimed he was a simple writer that writes nothing more than children's fiction. Boy were they wrong. His works became classics. Opra may not be a critic but what happened with her views of a book. It makes it hard to take a critic serious.

Critics tend to be harsh here at a public submission site with a vast amount of poets at different levels. Then again there are the few that comment with polite and insightful offerings. Obviously critics are needed in a literary world such as professional authors, book reviews and writes. But are we here at Lit, professional poets? It seems to be more of a training ground for critics to hone their skills and practice than to be an actual 'perfect' help to the poet.

 

[The_Fool]

I enjoy critiquing beer...while drinking it of course.

 

[Maria2394]

hi BB

what you said is absoluetly right on target!

I'm of the opinion that being a critic and being a writer are two different skills, not necessarily divorced from each other but different enough for someone to be good at one and no good at the other.


I agree with WSO and. her quote here,--i might know when something doesn't feel right

That is basically how I critique a poem. And offering crit based on the feeling a poem is not trivial just because it doesnt come from a trained person. Afterall, poetry is feeling, and causing feeling and reaction, so in that respect, most all constructive crit is valuable. I do not have a degree in anything except curiosity and that is self imposed.

ie--When Angeline gives me technical crit, I know that I should pay close attention. she has the brain for detail and count and all that good stuff, and she works it seamlessly into the emotional aspect of a poem. I cant give technical critique so I dont even try and I hope no one will hold that against me. 1201 is also excellent at this type crit as well as RainMan and a few others.

I try to make my poetry feel "right" but alas, I barely can explain what iambic pentameter is, so when I write, I focus on the sounds, the way the lines break off and how much emphasis that particular ending has on the next line, etc. I think you guys here call them enjambments, correct? I dont know. So when I read someone elses poetry, I try to get a feel for it, how it flows or doesnt....

I can point out spelling and glaring grammatical errors, but thats about it. That is why I am so guilty of leaving what seems like useless, kiss-up FB, but I believe that positive encouragemet is also very valuable especially to e newer poet. Establishing some type of confidence is so important in order to cause the poet to keep trying. But just don't go overboard, afterall, a "new" poet might have an excellent poem here or there, but usually, all of that new poet's work won't be flawless.

If I have something very pointed to say, I will send that in a PM or email, but that is rare. I will sit back and read the advice given by the ones here who are trained at that type of service. I am learning, but there is a marked difference in the 2 stypes of crit, to me anyway.

As MET has pointed out , there are so many different styles of writing here, there will probably never be total agreement on any poem regarding critique as long as more than one person offers advice. ( take my moonpie poem for example. some people liked the end, others didnt at all!!, same with the use of Miracle-Gro in one of my other poems). I try to be kind and helpful, but thats as far as I can go, unless the poet I am reading has a style similar to my own, then I may be able to help, but that also is very rare.

Also, as different as, lets say, 1201 and I are when it comes to style, he has been such an enormous help to me in seeing how to work with less words and maximize the impact.

The RainMan has helped me with my line breaks and gosh knows, I need a TON of help determining when to end a poem, and which line to use in order yto do that. It is a never-ending process, learning to write poerty, and I enjoy it so much, I believe it is what keeps me alive when you consider the state of my personal life right now....

I just appreciate all who bother with my poetry!!

 

[wildsweetone]

...
A critic of a poem on the new poems list is like reading a book and telling the author to change it reguardless of the edit. ...

i can honestly say i had never thought of this before.

(aside: perhaps it would be helpful if Manu/Laurel could add a button into the submission pages of prose and poetry that says 'yes/no' to wanting a critique.)

 

[Maria2394]

i can honestly say i had never thought of this before.

(aside: perhaps it would be helpful if Manu/Laurel could add a button into the submission pages of prose and poetry that says 'yes/no' to wanting a critique.)

I think by merely turing on the PC option, a person is inviting critique

 

[wildsweetone]

well that's a good point. thank god one of us has braincells that work.

 

[twelveoone]

I base 'my' opinion solely on critics here at lit. I think that is what you mean? I have seen many come and go. YDD for example never submitted poetry (well one) and then withdrew it when it was pointed out that they critic great but their poetry was in need of a few adjustments.

1201, critics more than he writes and I find his poetry hard to read or understand (not saying good or bad) there are a lot of that here as well. I find it even harder to rely on a critics views when I see two critics with two different opinions or even three or four critics views all become controversial or totally different.

So I assume a critique is nothing more than one person's opinion. I have a poem edited and perfected only to have (no name <grin) critic it and find faults from their view point. It has been expressed (by a critic) that a poem doesn't flow well when read but then they hit the audio and heard it read by the poet they changed their minds about their opinion.

Writing is one thing, being a critic is another (an opinion on a poem) and the person giving their opinion tends to lean towards what they as a person like. Which is not every ones opinion. That is why I find it hard to put any stock in a critcs remarks.

An edit is a critique as well only it is done before the final out come and an aid to the poet. Once the poem is submitted and displayed it is as an artists painting, to be observed and remarks commented. A critic of a poem on the new poems list is like reading a book and telling the author to change it reguardless of the edit. There are a few here who enjoy playing critic and it seems to be more of a passion and drive to play with poems than to simply enjoy some one's thoughts, feelings and or write.

I have had PMs with members asking me what did this critic mean? I go and read the comment only to find I can't decifer their break down of some ones literary creation. jim breaks a poem down farther than most and it seems to go way deeper and (far out) from the poets simple thoughts. Reading more into the poem than the poet intended. Is this an example? or just a person's opinion? I know I have been tagged as a critic hater. not true, I ask several here for help and they give it willing and with polite teachings attached. Some think they can not learn unless the critique is harsh or cruel. I find that to be more of a personal preference than an honest helpful aid to MOST poets.

So when does a person decide to be a critic? I know a hand full of critics here that 'I' will take their opinion to mind. And a handfull of critics here that just seem to be tooting their own horns and scratching their ego. I don't think a list is needed for the obvious. On a grander scale (mentioned before) Mark Twain was pelted by the best critics of his day. They claimed he was a simple writer that writes nothing more than children's fiction. Boy were they wrong. His works became classics. Opra may not be a critic but what happened with her views of a book. It makes it hard to take a critic serious.

Critics tend to be harsh here at a public submission site with a vast amount of poets at different levels. Then again there are the few that comment with polite and insightful offerings. Obviously critics are needed in a literary world such as professional authors, book reviews and writes. But are we here at Lit, professional poets? It seems to be more of a training ground for critics to hone their skills and practice than to be an actual 'perfect' help to the poet.

MET, here I congratulate you. This is largely confined to a discussion. This is your opinion, it is expressed with a minimum of "baggage".

 

[annaswirls]

When a poet comes to you wondering-- what did this commentor mean? I hope that anyone would suggest that they ask the commentor, and try not to speculate, because they are the only one with the answer

I agree that most of a comment is opinion, but not all. Technical errors should be fixed beyond opinion. Period. Unless the error was done on purpose.

And literotica is not generally an end all. People who have books published have been through editors. People who publish on literotica-- all they have to do to become published is click "submit."

I have often wondered if the personal comments were the place to put suggestions, and in the case of most publications, I would say NO, but I see Literortica not as a publication, but as a forum, even the new poems, because there is no other editorial process, anything gets put up (even announcements to poetry contests ) I have made ridiculous errors, like repeating a word, missing a word, spelling errors, etc. These would not generally get past a regular editorial process, and if they would I would expect that a reader make a statement.

And there is a big business in book critics, open any newspaper and you can read all about it. MET, I think that where your book is sold, there is a spot for "reviews" of your book, even though it has been released, people can fill in their opinion, good bad or indifferent.

Heck, people review poems and books about those poems ad infinitum that are hundreds of years old.

I am sure that any highly recognizable writer (actor, singer) gets critiques right on the street, like it or not.

 

[twelveoone]

hi BB

what you said is absoluetly right on target!

I'm of the opinion that being a critic and being a writer are two different skills, not necessarily divorced from each other but different enough for someone to be good at one and no good at the other.


I agree with WSO and. her quote here,--i might know when something doesn't feel right

That is basically how I critique a poem. And offering crit based on the feeling a poem is not trivial just because it doesnt come from a trained person. Afterall, poetry is feeling, and causing feeling and reaction, so in that respect, most all constructive crit is valuable. I do not have a degree in anything except curiosity and that is self imposed.

ie--When Angeline gives me technical crit, I know that I should pay close attention. she has the brain for detail and count and all that good stuff, and she works it seamlessly into the emotional aspect of a poem. I cant give technical critique so I dont even try and I hope no one will hold that against me. 1201 is also excellent at this type crit as well as RainMan and a few others.

I try to make my poetry feel "right" but alas, I barely can explain what iambic pentameter is, so when I write, I focus on the sounds, the way the lines break off and how much emphasis that particular ending has on the next line, etc. I think you guys here call them enjambments, correct? I dont know. So when I read someone elses poetry, I try to get a feel for it, how it flows or doesnt....

I can point out spelling and glaring grammatical errors, but thats about it. That is why I am so guilty of leaving what seems like useless, kiss-up FB, but I believe that positive encouragemet is also very valuable especially to e newer poet. Establishing some type of confidence is so important in order to cause the poet to keep trying. But just don't go overboard, afterall, a "new" poet might have an excellent poem here or there, but usually, all of that new poet's work won't be flawless.

If I have something very pointed to say, I will send that in a PM or email, but that is rare. I will sit back and read the advice given by the ones here who are trained at that type of service. I am learning, but there is a marked difference in the 2 stypes of crit, to me anyway.

As MET has pointed out , there are so many different styles of writing here, there will probably never be total agreement on any poem regarding critique as long as more than one person offers advice. ( take my moonpie poem for example. some people liked the end, others didnt at all!!, same with the use of Miracle-Gro in one of my other poems). I try to be kind and helpful, but thats as far as I can go, unless the poet I am reading has a style similar to my own, then I may be able to help, but that also is very rare.

Also, as different as, lets say, 1201 and I are when it comes to style, he has been such an enormous help to me in seeing how to work with less words and maximize the impact.

The RainMan has helped me with my line breaks and gosh knows, I need a TON of help determining when to end a poem, and which line to use in order yto do that. It is a never-ending process, learning to write poerty, and I enjoy it so much, I believe it is what keeps me alive when you consider the state of my personal life right now....

I just appreciate all who bother with my poetry!!

One of the things I like about this site is you, people like you. You have an excellent sense when it comes to writing, it is much more important than memorization of technical jargon, parroting of truisms. I consider you and Tathagata (surprised?) to be consistently two of my better critics, because of that general "sense" of impact, and partly because you ignore the fact that I am a huge deliberate violator of truisms.
Conversely, I learned much from looking at and critiqing TaraBlackwood22's work, because she is was one of the best linear writers and largely follows a standard set of accepted pratices, while maintaining that "sense".
There should never be agreement as to what constitutes good poetry, good critiques, the choices are limitless in the constuction of a poem. Poetry is without limit. But an analysis of why it "works" is an immeasurable help in increasing the effectiveness of your writing. Breaking it down, every word should have a sense of interplay with every other word. Perhaps, even further, every component of that word. Every disruption in pattern should be there for impact.
Something well written should not leave you, it should haunt you, ask you to return to it. An analysis of why it is "missing" is even better. And , paradox, sometimes it is the "missing" that does the haunting.
Without looking at what someone else has written, you fail yourself in the constuction of your own writing.
Writing from one organ limits yourself, the best teases all of them.
Right anna?

 

[Tzara]

Let me start by looking at a definition (from www.m-w.com):

critic

Pronunciation: 'kri-tik
Function: noun

1 a : one who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter especially involving a judgment of its value, truth, righteousness, beauty, or technique b : one who engages often professionally in the analysis, evaluation, or appreciation of works of art or artistic performances
2 : one given to harsh or captious judgment​

I think that much of the argument here over "critics" and "criticism" is the result of a conflation of the two, quite separate, meanings of this word and its relative forms (criticism, critical, criticize/ise). Those who see critical comments as a good thing are using the first definition; those who see critical comments as a bad thing are using the second. This is complicated by the fact that sometimes commentators intending to offer the first meaning may use language that is interpreted by readers (the author of the work being commented on or their "defenders") as the second.

There. I think that muddies things up considerably.

I'm of the opinion that being a critic and being a writer are two different skills, not necessarily divorced from each other but different enough for someone to be good at one and no good at the other.

I'm going to both agree and disagree with this. First off, criticism is writing as well. Critical books and articles are often themselves the subject of criticism, though typically the focus of the critique is more about their logic and conception than their style or mode of expression. For example, Leslie Fiedler's famous essay "Come back to the raft ag'in, Huck Honey!" has been called everything from a work of genius to unadulterated crap.

I would also make a distinction between critical analysis and editing. Critical analysis is commentary on the effectiveness, consistency, success, etc. of a written work—the kind of thing that would be found in a bookstore in the "literary criticism" section. Harold Bloom's The Visionary Company, which is his analysis of the English Romantic poets, is an example. Bloom comments on the work of these poets largely as explication of their work, as an aid to readers of his book in better understanding the work of Wordsworth, Keats, et al. Obviously, Bloom is not writing to help Keats improve any particular poem.

It is my opinion that a good literary critic may not have any skill whatsoever as a creator of poetry or fiction. Some may. Coleridge is considered, I believe, to have been one of the preeminent literary critics of his day. Certainly he could create important poetry. My guess would be that someone who combines both skills is likely coming from the creative side rather than the analytical one. But, that's a guess.

Editing commentary is intended to help the writer improve their work—correct spelling or punctuation, remove superfluous words, suggest better word choices or line breaks, etc. Almost all "critical" commentary here at Literotica is of this type.

Are these suggestions just the commentator's opinion? Of course. But so what?

I have found all comments of this nature that I have received to be useful, more or less regardless of what I may think of the commentator's own skills as a poet. For one thing, I quite often see from comments that I have not been as clear or precise in my choice of words as I should have been, and consequently I am not communicating what I thought I was—at least not to everyone. That is useful information. I may decide to alter the poem or not, but it gives me feedback that helps with the decision.

In my own commentary, I am usually trying to point out things that I as the reader found confusing or which I think could have been improved. Whether the author pays any attention to my suggestions or not is, of course, their business. While I hope I am providing useful feedback, I usually find thinking about someone else's work in this manner useful to me, helping me to understand why I liked or didn't like how something was expressed.

Finally, about "critical" (meaning 2) criticism. Sometimes I find this quite useful. For example, I think my favorite among the comments my poems have received is this one that Fly left (I'll pick on him because he seems impervious to embarrassment):

Ouch! The first three strophes are wonderful, but then in the fourth you abandon all of the poetic restraint you have shown....​

Not quite calling my poem "pathetic," but close enough for government work.

And he was right. It was a pretty shitty last verse. But just saying "well, the last strophe could perhaps be improved" doesn't say it right—I needed him to kick me in the head to make his point.

The problem is that there's still a bruise on my temple and it makes my Seahawks hat tilt oddly to one side.

 

[champagne1982]

<snip>I think that much of the argument here over "critics" and "criticism" is the result of a conflation of the two, quite separate, meanings of this word and its relative forms (criticism, critical, criticize/ise). Those who see critical comments as a good thing are using the first definition; those who see critical comments as a bad thing are using the second.</snip>

I think you have hit this nail, right on its hard head, with the metaphorical hammer of logic. I would like to remind poets and readers that all criticism should be taken in the spirit it is given and not how it is perceived.

If you believe all harsh critique originates from jealousy or personal dislike, then you think too highly of your art and had best begin to use it to make money because, according to your feelings, you're that good.

The same as accolades should be accepted within the boundaries of common sense. We have seen plaigiarized works of the masters get torn to shreds here on this site, so if they can be that bad in the eyes of the masses, what makes you think the masses are right when they place you so high in their sight?

I guess, the main point I'm pounding here is, don't confuse encouragement with critique and really, don't confuse insult with harshness. We're all adults and I'm sure as such, we can distinguish the differences amongst these.

 

[twelveoone]

Let me start by looking at a definition (from www.m-w.com):

critic

Pronunciation: 'kri-tik
Function: noun

1 a : one who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter especially involving a judgment of its value, truth, righteousness, beauty, or technique​

How close is this to the writing of poetry? All right, let's cut out the truth and righteousness crap.
one who expresses
a reasoned opinion
involving a judgment
of its value, beauty, or technique
Sounds (or should) like the same for the writing thereof.

If you do not attempt to see what others are trying to do, the best you can do for yourself is reduce yourself to following formulas. True if you follow the right formulas, and are quite good at doing it, you become passable, maybe even passing on to be a Pulitzer winner.
It is the thinking behind what works, what fails, that pushes it past the mere passable. Makes it fresh.

Let me rephrase as a non-sequitur:
You are to be exiled, you may take the collected poetical works of one of the following and nothing else to read:
Thomas Hardy
Robert Graves
Charles Bukowski
Who do you chose?

Grim, huh?​

 

[Liar]

I think you have hit this nail, right on its hard head, with the metaphorical hammer of logic. I would like to remind poets and readers that all criticism should be taken in the spirit it is given and not how it is perceived.

If you believe all harsh critique originates from jealousy or personal dislike, then you think too highly of your art and had best begin to use it to make money because, according to your feelings, you're that good.

The same as accolades should be accepted within the boundaries of common sense. We have seen plaigiarized works of the masters get torn to shreds here on this site, so if they can be that bad in the eyes of the masses, what makes you think the masses are right when they place you so high in their sight?

I guess, the main point I'm pounding here is, don't confuse encouragement with critique and really, don't confuse insult with harshness. We're all adults and I'm sure as such, we can distinguish the differences amongst these.

Oh, I woulda loved for you to be right about that. But the more I study about it, the more I've come to realize that miscommunication is the norm. The communicator has far better tools than the reciever, and a responsibility to think the communicative situation through properly. If he doesn't ask himself who the reviever is, what they are likely to expect, and what risks for miscommunication there is ... and then make the effort to adapt not the message in itself, but the deliverance of it, does he even deserve to be understood? I say not.

But yeah, we can choose not to, but then we'll have to realize the fact that we will most likely be misread, time and again.

But I do agree with you that in this context, perhaps of this forum, here we can affect the climate and jargon of the communication to put more responsibility on the reciever. By, like you do here, reminding them that they need to take critique the right way. By personally telling every new member of this "subculture" that this is the climate we have in here, please adapt.

 

[Liar]

ps. Interresting thread. Kudos to BB for starting.

 

[Angeline]

Oh, I woulda loved for you to be right about that. But the more I study about it, the more I've come to realize that miscommunication is the norm. The communicator has far better tools than the reciever, and a responsibility to think the communicative situation through properly. If he doesn't ask himself who the reviever is, what they are likely to expect, and what risks for miscommunication there is ... and then make the effort to adapt not the message in itself, but the deliverance of it, does he even deserve to be understood? I say not.

But yeah, we can choose not to, but then we'll have to realize the fact that we will most likely be misread, time and again.

But I do agree with you that in this context, perhaps of this forum, here we can affect the climate and jargon of the communication to put more responsibility on the reciever. By, like you do here, reminding them that they need to take critique the right way. By personally telling every new member of this "subculture" that this is the climate we have in here, please adapt.

I agree with you that the onus is on the communicator to find the right style of getting it across, but I also think some people don't want to get it.

 

[twelveoone]

I think all you (what is the plural of Dufus? Dufi?) Dufuses should get off the threads until you leave some comments. Communication in action, I say. Go trod on some eggshells. Letting the Raiman do all the work, tsk, tsk. Or are you all part of that PM crowd?
Here's three roses, so you don't get too PO'ed.

 

[annaswirls]

there I said it

i love you
​

I think all you (what is the plural of Dufus? Dufi?) Dufuses should get off the threads until you leave some comments. Communication in action, I say. Go trod on some eggshells. Letting the Raiman do all the work, tsk, tsk. Or are you all part of that PM crowd?
Here's three roses, so you don't get too PO'ed.

 

[Liar]

I think all you (what is the plural of Dufus? Dufi?) Dufuses should get off the threads until you leave some comments. Communication in action, I say. Go trod on some eggshells. Letting the Raiman do all the work, tsk, tsk. Or are you all part of that PM crowd?
Here's three roses, so you don't get too PO'ed.

What? Soiling my pretty hands with real work? Surely you jest, sir.

 

[Angeline]

I'm part of the pms crowd, so watch it.

And I did comments on poems and weekly comments on the new poems thread for two years. I'm on hiatus.

I think all you (what is the plural of Dufus? Dufi?) Dufuses should get off the threads until you leave some comments. Communication in action, I say. Go trod on some eggshells. Letting the Raiman do all the work, tsk, tsk. Or are you all part of that PM crowd?
Here's three roses, so you don't get too PO'ed.

 

[My Erotic Trail]

Go trod on some eggshells. Letting the Raiman do all the work, tsk, tsk.

politely I ask... is this how you see the comment section of the new poems list??? A place to break eggs? a place to go trodding? (0_0) certainly an eye opener. Have a quality day 1201.........

 

[twelveoone]

politely I ask... is this how you see the comment section of the new poems list??? A place to break eggs? a place to go trodding? (0_0) certainly an eye opener. Have a quality day 1201.........

I believe this is more like how I see it:
Let me start by looking at a definition (from www.m-w.com):

critic

Pronunciation: 'kri-tik
Function: noun

1 a : one who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter especially involving a judgment of its value, truth, righteousness, beauty, or technique
How close is this to the writing of poetry? All right, let's cut out the truth and righteousness crap.
one who expresses
a reasoned opinion
involving a judgment
of its value, beauty, or technique
Sounds (or should) like the same for the writing thereof.

If you do not attempt to see what others are trying to do, the best you can do for yourself is reduce yourself to following formulas. True if you follow the right formulas, and are quite good at doing it, you become passable, maybe even passing on to be a Pulitzer winner.
It is the thinking behind what works, what fails, that pushes it past the mere passable. Makes it fresh.
Excuse me if I repeat myself

Kudos to Raiman, Tzara, Flyguy69, WickedEve, etc. - I've seen some of your comments, I thank you.

P.S. To anna, I love you too​

 

[twelveoone]

I'm part of the pms crowd, so watch it.

And I did comments on poems and weekly comments on the new poems thread for two years. I'm on hiatus.

I don't quite know how to take that "pms" so I will watch it
Ah, come on Liar, where is that Viking spirit? Get the Axe out!
Apologies to Rainman for countless misspellings of his name