Critiquing crits instead of a poem?

[Shweta]

Trying to move general discussion off of the My Hands (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100263) thread.
If poetry discussion is for discussion, may we discuss? :)

Well, okay, it's tough not to be hypocritical, but for the sake and integrity of the forum, the crits need, must, be directed at the poem and the poem alone.

I guess it's also tough not to be defensive about this, but I'll try :)
It seems to me that it should be valid, when someone says a poem's topic isn't worthy, to argue that it is. After all, that's a comment on the poem, even if it isn't a specific one. Granted, we probably shouldn't have dogpiled, and I fear that we somewhat did (though I intended my initial post to be a "should I be asking the folks in charge to change the title" rather than an attack.) but where is the line between commenting on a poem in context of previous crits, and commenting on the crits alone?

And is it possible that different people are seeing that line in different places, rather than just thinking that anything goes in poetry crit?

Throwing this out for discussion, really. I claim cluelessness. I'd like to learn so as not to mess up in here :)

[Dichroic]

So if you say, "this isn't art" and I say "this is art, and here's a metaphor to explain why" then I'm still on-topic?

Oh, good :-)

[poetinahat]

We've discussed this idea before. Some people are fine with having their critiques pulled apart, but the convention here is to keep one's comments focused on the poem. (Naturally, that line blurs when one starts talking about appropriateness of topic, political context, etc.)

The question I'd ask, when considering a comment, is whether the conversation is derailing. If we can keep in mind (a) to crit the poem and not the poet, (b) to respond to the critique, and not the critic, and (c) to keep the conversation on the original topic, then we're doing well.

[Dichroic]

You are on topic, but are also probably wrong :D

'S OK, I'm used to that!

[Shweta]

We've discussed this idea before.
Which is to say, noob alert!
sowwy!

(Naturally, that line blurs when one starts talking about appropriateness of topic, political context, etc.)
Yeah, I guess that's my question. Where-ish is the blurry line drawn? I totally understand the need to keep crits on the poem, but we are also responding, sometimes, to other critters, even if we're doing so implicitly.

The question I'd ask, when considering a comment, is whether the conversation is derailing. If we can keep in mind (a) to crit the poem and not the poet, (b) to respond to the critique, and not the critic, and (c) to keep the conversation on the original topic, then we're doing well.

Ooh I like this :)

'S OK, I'm used to that!
But what if I say you're right? Which one of us wins, and are you used to being fought over? :D

[Stew21]

I've always believed that the ultimate goal of the crit forum is to be as useful as possible to the poet. Keep that in mind when responding to a poem in the forum, whether it is constructive criticism, praise, piggy-backing on another crit or stating an opinion which disagrees with another crit. Ask yourself if it is useful to the poet. I don't think you can go wrong if you do.

[Aiko]

I prefer to ignore other crits entirely unless I feel obliged to make an agreement.

If people feel their opinions/beliefs are being challenged,
then they usually get defensive and arguments occur,
which puts the OP in a very uncomfortable situation.

[HeronW]

often in a critique I try to remember that as with everything I write--I'm the only one inside my head, so the other voices tell me--so anyone outside doesn't necessarily get the connections comparisons vs contrasts that I make because of different experiences.

[Norman D Gutter]

The only reason a poem is posted in the critique forum is for the poet to receive critique on it. The only reason this is done publicly is so that others may learn from the exchange between the poet and the critiquers. Otherwise, the poem would be posted publicly and the critiques received privately.

That said, the primary purpose of the forum is not to be an educational forum; it's not really to help the poet become a better poet. Both of those are collateral benefits. The primary purpose of the forum is to help poets improve specific poems. The only way for that to happen, is to have a ready supply of critters willing to say publicly what they feel that they need to about specific poems.

But, what critter wants to take an hour to read, digest, and write a thoughtful critique of a poem, post it publicly, only to have other critters tell him how wrong he is, that his thoughts are idiotic, that he doesn't know what he's talking about? No critter wants that. No critter will purposely expose himself to that kind of abuse. So the critters quit critting, and the level of expertise on the forum atrophies and eventually disappears. Without a supply of crits, the poets are forced to look elsewhere to find help on their specific poems.

So a good rule of netiquette, and truly a good rule for a forum, is that critiques may not themselves be critiqued. A subset of this rule is that the poet should not argue with the critter, should not fail to thank him for his crit. This is not because the critter is always right. In fact, critters are frequently wrong because they have only the words the poet gives them. The critter cannot get inside the head of the poet, and thus cannot truly understand what the poet's intentions are for the poem.

So what do you do if you think the critter is wrong? As another critter, write a better crit or an alternative crit, but do so without referring to the previous crit. You think that's a difficult thing to do? That should be easier than writing a poem, the most difficult form of textual art. As the poet, if the critter is wrong because the critter misunderstood your intention, publicly thank the critter for the time it took to write the critique, then privately ignore the critique.

ETA: After reading this thread, I see HeronW and I had some similar thoughts.

NDG

[Haggette]

I did not miss the question but rather continued the thought through it's natural progression. What is the purpose of the critique? When does the critique stop being beneficial to the author? Is it only an abuse of the forum when a critter crits another crit or is it also an abuse to personally attack the author? I am quite sincere in my desire to further this discussion. It may have been unnecessary to include the example but it was certainly not without purpose.

[Haggette]

What is the purpose of the critique? When does the critique stop being beneficial to the author? Is it only an abuse of the forum when a critter crits another crit or is it also an abuse to personally attack the author? I am quite sincere in my desire to further this discussion.

I pose these questions again.

[dpaterso]

The poetry forums aren't my usual beat, but I'd like to see this needling stop completely, as of this moment. This behavior is of no benefit to members or the forum in general. If necessary, use the ignore option if you're having problems with another member's posts or attitude.

Please regard the above as a severe warning against continued antisocial or belligerent behavior. We have a range of remedies available and will use them if necessary.

I'm closing this thread (temporarily) to impose a cease-fire. Forum moderators will re-open when they so choose.

PM me if any problems.

-Derek

[MacAllister]

You know what? JBI, you're behaving like a complete little jerk. I don't know quite what it is with you that you can't engage in actual conversation on any thread you enter -- instead you strut and preen and bully and attempt to dominate the conversation with pompous and ridiculous attempts to sound like an authority that are both ludicrous and painfully transparent to anyone who knows anything at all about more formal studies of lit.

You've been warned before, and it clearly did you no good whatsoever. I tried hard to cut you some slack, because it's difficult finding the voice to participate in a thriving and vibrant community, sometimes, unless you're already pretty good with tone, and a talented reader as well. Unfortunately, you're neither.

It's time to go find some other board to act out on, okay? The grownups are actually interested in the conversations that you're so desperate to monopolize, and I'm out of patience with your tiresome crap.

I'm reopening the thread. JBI will be leaving the building. Hagette, please accept our apologies for the disruption.

[Haggette]

Hagette, please accept our apologies for the disruption.

I assure you that no apology is necessary save mine. I am sorry that I was part of the thread disruption. I must admit that I feel validated and that is a tremendously good feeling; Thank you.

Now, let's get back to the topic at hand.

[Ken]

I don't think we've heard the last of JBI. Despite his unruliness and lack of social graces, there were glimmers of insight and originality in his comments. If he continues to apply himself to his craft I think he'll produce an important work in years to come.

Perhaps he'd better not attend any book signing invitations, though, as he might wind up socking somebody out. Spirited lad, he. Good Luck to you if you're reading this and stay strong.

It's probably only a matter of time before I too get banned for good. I'm working real hard at getting along with everyone and fitting into the AW community, but as you know there is a bit of unruliness in my own temperament, as well, though unfortunately not a compensatory degree of intelligence or creativity.

God must've been in a rather stingy frame of mind back when I was born. Maybe he was just short of spiritual essences at the time and had to make do with shoe polish or something as a substitute in my formulation.

[veinglory]

As for the original topic, you can contradict a previous critique while still directing your comments to the poem/poet.

[Shweta]

As for the original topic, you can contradict a previous critique while still directing your comments to the poem/poet.

Okay, so I totally respect this position, and can try to do that, but my intent in this thread is to figure out how. Because I do not totally understand it. It seems to me like a really murky issue that several people have said "It's simple, just do X" about.

So let me try an example? Understand, I'm trying to figure out how to not address another critiquer in a manner acceptable in this forum, not arguing that I should be able to or anything like that. Part of what's fighting me here is that I have a fair amount of experience in general critting and very little here, so I have strong intuitions that may be wrong.

So.
I guess my question is... suppose critiquer A says something that I think is interesting but don't entirely agree with, and I want to mention why I think that particular part of a poem is a strength. My intent is not to argue with critiquer A or to put down their position, but to offer the poet a different point of view. But it's something that I wouldn't have thought to mention if not for critiquer A's comment.

The intent is still to help improve the poem.

Would it be okay if I say something like this?
"I actually think that while A's comment is interesting, the {jagged rhythm/use of familiar imagery/strong rhyme scheme/weak rhyme scheme} is a strength in this particular poem, because it echoes the content."

Or should I just say "I think the {jagged rhythm/use of familiar imagery/strong rhyme scheme/weak rhyme scheme} is a strength in this particular poem, because it echoes the content." ...without explicitly mentioning critiquer A?

Or should I say: "I really like the {jagged rhythm/use of familiar imagery/strong rhyme scheme/weak rhyme scheme} here, because it echoes the content." ...and pretend that my comment has nothing to do with A's, even if it does?

Or should I not say it because I wouldn't have thought of it if not for A?

Or... is there a better example? I had missed this aspect of poetry crit, and would like to figure this out before I screw up any more.

[Norman D Gutter]

Shweta:

I think it's best not to mention the prior crit at all (with an exception I'll give later). This is a question of word craft on the second critter's point. Let me try to construct an example from a well-known poem. Let's say that new member, Robert Frost, posts his poem "Stopping by the Woods on a Snowy Evening" for critique.

First Critter: Mr. Frost: You would be well advised to not post first drafts to the critique forum. While I haven't time to do this justice, here are a few thoughts:
1. The rhyme scheme follows no regular pattern I've ever seen; can you provide a source for this?
2. The meter is rocky, requiring considerable reading expertise on the part of the reader.
3. The personification of the horse in S2 is laughable.
4. The inversion in the first line is clunky and needs to be re-done.
5. The repetion in the last line is just plain stupid. Run out of rhymes? Or ideas?
Take some time for working on this and re-post. Good luck.

Second Critter: RF: I found this poem wonderfully exciting. You have used several innovations that are refreshing. Your unusual rhyme scheme is used with much skill. Your structure of the first line (Whose woods these are I think I know) invites the reader to dig into what your intentions might be. Why have you inverted? What does that say about the owner (or should I say Owner) of the house? In the second and third stanzas, I love the way you bring the horse in, making it an integral part of the story. This adds weight to your fundamental argument: if even the horse sees this as something strange, maybe it really is strange. However, I don't exactly understand the reason why you repeat the last line. Possibly you have intended a difference in meaning that I'm not getting. Could you clarify?

See how this is done? The second critter never refers to the first crit, but, through well thought out statements, with knowledgeable arguments, gives a counter opinion. The poet can take both opinions, weigh them against each other, decide which one seems to come from the greater amount of expertise and time spent on the poem, and which one more correctly addresses the poet's intentions with the poem. One will likely receive more weight than the other.

Then, let's say other critters come in, and have nothing new to offer, but want the poet to know that the new critter concures with one or the other--important, because the weight of critter opinion might be important to the poet. These critters could refer to a prior crit in agreement with some simple statement, as follows.

Third Critter: What Critter 1 said.
Fourth Critter: What Critter 2 said.
Fifth Critter: What Critter 2 said.
etc.

Or maybe a critter is in basic agreement, but needs to add a little bit new:
Sixth Critter: What Critter 2 said, but here's my take on the repeat in S4....

That's my take, and how I try to do crits. Perfection by the critter, however, is not always achieved, no more than it is by the poet.

Hope this helps,
NDG

[Dichroic]

Shweta:

I think it's best not to mention the prior crit at all (with an exception I'll give later). This is a question of word craft on the second critter's point. Let me try to construct an example from a well-known poem. Let's say that new member, Robert Frost, posts his poem "Stopping by the Woods on a Snowy Evening" for critique.

NDG

This seems awfully convoluted to me (clearly explained though - thanks!). If I were starting a forum like this one from scratch, I would simply advise others to crit the crit rather than the critter. In the Frost example:

"I disagree with Critter 1; certainly there is an irregular rhyme scheme here but it seems to me to be intentional and consistent. I think it adds a rhythm to a poem that is consistent with a ride along a wandering wooded trail."

It has not, however, escaped my notice that I am *not* starting a new community from scratch but rather inserting myself into an old and robust one, and if you oldtimers here have found that the convolution is necessary to maintain civilized discussion then so be it.

Next question: what if the poet him- or herself needs to disagree with a crit? I don't mean whining; I mean, for example, the poet has written a short piece about a day at the fair when he was six, and about the lollipop he had then that was the best thing he'd ever tasted. Then several crits come in saying, "This language is too simple, and I'm not convinced that anyone could think a lollipop is so tasty - have you tried single-malt Scotch instead?"

In that case, I do think that it's legit for the poet to say, at least, "Well, the POV is six years old, so the language needs to be simple and a lollipop really does taste that good to him. But obviously I'm not making that clear enough - any suggestions on how I could do a better job conveying the POV more clearly?"

Another example is where a poem requires slightly specialized knowledge that the critter doesn't have: to use a culture not my own as an example, if I write something that's a lover's dialogue between two introverted people of Scandinavian descent who have lived their entire lives in small-town Minnesota, and someone more voluble tells me it's not believable because it's too terse, then what? I could of course simply say "Thanks for your time - I really appreciate this crit." But maybe if I say, "Well, actually they're from a culture that really is that understated," then maybe we could discuss how to get that across in a way that works both internally and externally.

But I admit, it is a risk. I think it might be one worth taking, but once again, if the longtime members' experience has been that it has too often led to acrimony and the potential gain isn't worth it, then I will shut up and say "Thanks for the guidance."

[Shweta]

What Dichroic said :tongue

It does seem convoluted and sort of untruthful to me to address someone's points without being up front about it, but if that's how you guys do it, that's how I shall do it :)

[Norman D Gutter]

This seems awfully convoluted to me (clearly explained though - thanks!).
I guess I simply don't see it as convoluted; I see it as keeping the focus on the poem, rather than on the critiques. If you disagree with a critique, your disagreement must relate to something you see in the poem. Address the poem and say so. I don't see that as convoluted.

If I were starting a forum like this one from scratch, I would simply advise others to crit the crit rather than the critter. In the Frost example:

"I disagree with Critter 1; certainly there is an irregular rhyme scheme here but it seems to me to be intentional and consistent. I think it adds a rhythm to a poem that is consistent with a ride along a wandering wooded trail."
How is it convoluted to leave off "I disagree with Critter 1; certainly" and write the crit "There is an irregular rhyme scheme here, but it seems to me...."? That seems like a straight forward addressing the poem.

Next question: what if the poet him- or herself needs to disagree with a crit? I don't mean whining; I mean, for example, the poet has written a short piece about a day at the fair when he was six, and about the lollipop he had then that was the best thing he'd ever tasted. Then several crits come in saying, "This language is too simple, and I'm not convinced that anyone could think a lollipop is so tasty - have you tried single-malt Scotch instead?"

In that case, I do think that it's legit for the poet to say, at least, "Well, the POV is six years old, so the language needs to be simple and a lollipop really does taste that good to him. But obviously I'm not making that clear enough - any suggestions on how I could do a better job conveying the POV more clearly?"
This is an example of a tastefully written clarification. I don't see that poet arguing with the critter at all. The poet is saying, "I obviously haven't achieved my intentions, which are.... Can you help me?" I see that as fine. However, it would be wrong, IMnsHO, for the poet to come back with, "What part of 6-year old POV don't you understand?" See the difference?

The rule I go by is never argue with the critter. Clarify, if necessary; explain intentions for the poem, if necessary; never argue. I want that critter to come back and critique my next poem. What's the likelihood of that happening if I argue with him or her?

NDG

[Norman D Gutter]

What Dichroic said :tongue

It does seem convoluted and sort of untruthful to me to address someone's points without being up front about it, but if that's how you guys do it, that's how I shall do it :)
Shweta:

So far as I know, this site has no rules about critiquing the critique. In fact, this site works amazingly well with a minimum of rules. So it's not correct to say "if that's how you guys do it...." I'm simply stating what I think is a good practice. My main goal is to obtain good critiques. I won't get that if I argue with those who critique my work, nor if I engage in public disagreement with them on other people's work. So for me, this is a case of common sense of how to achieve my aims, not a question of rules or how we do it.

NDG

[Shweta]

Shweta:

So far as I know, this site has no rules about critiquing the critique. In fact, this site works amazingly well with a minimum of rules.
I wouldn't call "How you guys do it" a rule so much as fitting in with the culture here :)
What I was trying to say was that it's not what I'm used to, and reasoning based on what I'm used to, it does seem convoluted (as the OP I'd need to figure out whether a comment is a response or entirely independent, because those provide different information) but that's not a disagreement, more an "I might not do this right at first".

[Dichroic]

Shweta:

So far as I know, this site has no rules about critiquing the critique. In fact, this site works amazingly well with a minimum of rules. So it's not correct to say "if that's how you guys do it...." I'm simply stating what I think is a good practice. My main goal is to obtain good critiques. I won't get that if I argue with those who critique my work, nor if I engage in public disagreement with them on other people's work. So for me, this is a case of common sense of how to achieve my aims, not a question of rules or how we do it.

NDG

I think it's somewhere in the middle: not a rule, but not just your opinion, either. There do seem to be some generally agreed ways of working, of local culture, as Shweta said.

[Writer???]

*

[Shweta]

...Though not restarting threads that were closed is a spoken rule; might this be better in a PM to the OP?

-Shweta, worried.

[poetinahat]

Good to see you again, Jeff.

Shweta's right - if a thread's been closed, that should be the end of it. If you have something to offer the OP, a PM is the way to go. (Still, your comments are insightful -- why not make sure they reach the poet herself?)

I think there's a big difference between taking apart someone else's crit and asking them to elaborate. I can't remember seeing anyone saying that we shouldn't ask questions.

I'm not sure what you or the original poster meant by "we are not here to educate", but I'll step away and consider it for a while.

I'm saddened that this issue seems to be the source of such anguish; poetry writing and critique, of all the working forums, should be one of enjoyment and edification.

[Writer???]

Good to see you again, Jeff.

Shweta's right - if a thread's been closed, that should be the end of it. If you have something to offer the OP, a PM is the way to go. (Still, your comments are insightful -- why not make sure they reach the poet herself?)

I think there's a big difference between taking apart someone else's crit and asking them to elaborate. I can't remember seeing anyone saying that we shouldn't ask questions.

I'm not sure what you or the original poster meant by "we are not here to educate", but I'll step away and consider it for a while.

I'm saddened that this issue seems to be the source of such anguish; poetry writing and critique, of all the working forums, should be one of enjoyment and edification.


I'm not really sure either. I just know that whenever I've tried to imply that this was an educational or teaching environment, a place for people to learn and ask questions, I've been told that asking a question about a critique in a critique thread of a posted poem is improper and that we are not here to educate people, but to help the person who posted the poem, "So stay out of my crit..." and all I had asked was insight into how they picked up on something that I did not see at all.

As for the critique, sorry. I didn't really think the thread had been shut down for honest, thoughtful and hopefully helpful critiques. I thought it had been shut down for all the bickering back and forth. And one of the most recent posts to this thread is from the author of the poem in question so I thought that she would in fact see it and perhaps benifit from it as hopefully others might. It was not my intention to offend anyone, break any of the rules, or hijack this thread. I will remove the offending post now. Sorry.

[Shweta]

Goodness. From my point of view, this thread is there because the culture here is a bit different from other SYW areas and I didn't want to step on anyone's feet. Seems like that didn't work.
Oh well :)

[poetinahat]

I'm not really sure either. I just know that whenever I've tried to imply that this was an educational or teaching environment, a place for people to learn and ask questions, I've been told that asking a question about a critique in a critique thread of a posted poem is improper and that we are not here to educate people, but to help the person who posted the poem, "So stay out of my crit..." and all I had asked was insight into how they picked up on something that I did not see at all.

And I repeat:

I think there's a big difference between taking apart someone else's crit and asking them to elaborate.

There's no forum rule about asking questions -- quite the contrary. Again, I've never seen anyone object to questions. This sounds like it's more an issue between two people, not a Forum issue. Perhaps that's how it would be best settled. Good luck.

[Steppe]

Well I for one have learned much from reading this thread, and will be guided by what I understood of it. I do learn from crits of my poems, but as Norman implied it is a sort of by-product and not really the first concern of the critiquer. Very informative.

[LimeyDawg]

Guilty. I've objected to crits of my crits on several occasions, but only because I felt it was a shot at me or my input. Then again, I'm pretty sensitive to that type of stuff. I guess it really comes down to how the critter feels about it. I'm less likely to get offended now, but I try to stay away from commenting on crits I disagree with.

[Shadow7]

For once, I agree with LD. It is hard not see your opinions disagreed with in a later crit. FWIW, I have been guilty of critting the critters on some occasions, especially when I was new to this forum. I felt it was important to provide encouragement to poets, especially new ones, that may have been a bit intimidated by some of our more formal critters. Most of the time, I tried to say to them that they shouldn't be discouraged if NG or LD sounded negative [there I go again!].

LD got on my case right away and he made his points, many of which I agreed with. So I backed off a little, and I think he will agree.

My point is only that sometimes a less experienced writer may feel intimidated by a stern crit, so what is the harm in saying "Don't worry about it, you're on the right track and with some further work, who knows?"

I want to add the NG and LD are very skilled technicians who often go to great lengths to provide a thoughtful crit. I am pleased that they are with us and I firmly believe their input is essential to the growth process.

At the same time, I disagree with NG when he suggests that the purpose of a crit is not to make the writer a better poet but only to make the poem better. IMO, the broader process of critting is to improve the writer when he moves on to a new subject, and for that, we are all better off.

[LimeyDawg]

For once, I agree with LD.
Zoiks! It's official. Hell has frozen over.

LD got on my case right away and he made his points, many of which I agreed with. So I backed off a little, and I think he will agree.

I have a tendency to do that. I have, however, decided not to from this point forward (actually, the point occured some time ago). If I get tweaked, I'll just stay out of the convo.


I want to add the NG and LD are very skilled technicians who often go to great lengths to provide a thoughtful crit.
NDG, yes. Me, I'm an ass (I have it on good authority). I'm coming to terms with my limitations, but if you want to discuss a crit with me, it'll be okay as long as it helps the work in question.

[Norman D Gutter]

NDG, yes. Me, I'm an ass....

Not me. All I learned I learned from Laugh In.

NDG

[skelly]

LD's an ass, though. Surely we can all agree on that.

:D

[Shadow7]

Thank you Lord, finally a sense of humor in here !!!

[LimeyDawg]

No doubt about it. I vote for yes.