Critiquing Other Critiques: Yes or No?

[poetinahat]

What do you think about poem critiques that respond to other crits, rather than the original poem? For example:

Crit 1: "I thought the ending was weak; it was an anti-climax."

Crit 2: "You missed the point; it was a delightful irony."

How do you feel about it as:
- the poet?
- the author of the crit being critiqued?

[The Lady]

If it's a simple vote you're looking for, I'm good with critiques being critiqued.

Discussion is vital. People don't always express their point well and if a crit is to be valuable, the writer of that crit has to be able to stand over it and say what they meant (and occasionally recant). It's all got to be done in a civilised fashion of course but I can't see why a crit should be precious.

[wyzguy]

I don't think a crit should be more precious than the poem which caused it. However, I regret that the dialogue between Bret and myself hijacked the thread. I don't know the best path, but I don't think we found it.

[Pat~]

It seems that responses to poems are fairly subjective; they can vary widely. I think it's probably best to keep the crits focused on the poem, rather than critiquing someone else's subjective response. Not that crits can't counter one another, though. In the example above, Crit 2 could better say how he responded to poem differently, what he got from it, etc. That way Crit. 1 won't feel 'corrected' and won't be gun shy about offering a crit in the future.

[LimeyDawg]

I vote for addressing the work, not the person. Crits on the poems are all valid, even if they disagree. One may say "that is cliched" and the next might say "I didn't find that cliched." Really, crits should be aimed at the poem and if one disagrees with another's crit, simply address that disagreement in the form of another crit.

[dahmnait]

I have to agree with both Pat and LimeyDawg, gear the crits towards the poem.

[P.H.Delarran]

I agree also that the crit should be focused on the poem, but sometimes a I may feel strongly the opposite to. Like if someone said a certain word was out of balance but I really liked it, I would comment to that point only.

[kdnxdr]

I too believe that crits should be poem focused, however, I love the incredible dialogue that often ensues as we begin to dig into deeper meanings.

Sometimes, I wish there was just a thread that we could get into just for the purpose of philosophical dialogue where anything is fair game.

I appreciate everything that each and every person posts because even when I don't agree with them, I learn from them. Collectively, when it's all read through, it's feels like you just ate a 7 course meal, and then some!

[dahmnait]

Sometimes, I wish there was just a thread that we could get into just for the purpose of philosophical dialogue where anything is fair game.Sounds like you are going to have to start a new thread. I'm game.

[veinglory]

You can respond to a critique without rebutting it.

C: I intended the ending to be subtle and ironic. How do you think I could fine tune this approach to avoid the ending seeming too weak?

If you really aren't open to considering the comment as valid, why debate it?

[dahmnait]

Now I need clarification. Poet, are you talking about other people critiquing a crit, or the OP responding to one?

[wordsheff]

i don't think it's bad to respond to another's critique because disagreements allow for more insights to come out ... instead of someone saying "oh how delightful...really got me in the gut and i'll carry it with me all day" someone who would have wrote that will read "that wasn't good" and then they'll be driven to refute that.

[moblues]

What do you think about poem critiques that respond to other crits, rather than the original poem? For example:

Crit 1: "I thought the ending was weak; it was an anti-climax."

Crit 2: "You missed the point; it was a delightful irony."

How do you feel about it as:
- the poet?
- the author of the crit being critiqued?


I would think that discussing another's crit be would acceptable if the discourse served the original poem. If it opened up a greater dialogue with other critters, then that would be fine. Back and forth nits wouldn't serve any purpose.

I've seen this done correctly with class and respect in the SYW Science Fiction threads. There is a fine line. Just don't hijack the thread. I did this recently without any intention of doing so. All it took was three combined posts to accompish this. I won't let it happen again.




Mike

[ddgryphon]

I'm in the camp of critique the poem, disagree if you like, but state why in a helpful way. No need to get sidetracked with each others disagreement about the poem -- the poet is well capable of making their own decisions in what to listen to, and what to not listen to.

Clear?

[poetinahat]

Now I need clarification. Poet, are you talking about other people critiquing a crit, or the OP responding to one?
What I meant was the former. Thanks, damh.

OP responding to crits -- that's another issue altogether. I believe the SYW forum here follows the convention that the OP doesn't dispute a crit, but accepts it with a "thank you" and uses it, or not, as the OP wishes.

I'll go find the link and add it here.

[dahmnait]

That is what I thought. :) I’ve been thinking about this and would like to elaborate a little on my initial response. A critique has two potential factors, one is hard rules and the other is personal opinion. It is one thing to correct someone when the give wrong information. E.g., crit 1 posts incorrect information and crit 2 brings up the correction in a respectful manner. To me, that is ok.

When I say keep the crit focused to the OP, I am referring to personal opinion. Everyone reads a piece differently. Not everyone will like, not everyone will "get" it. Take your example. There is no reason for crit 2 to invalidate crit 1's personal opinion. It is up to the OP to decide whether or not the crit has feedback they can use.

Now if your example read:

Crit 1: "I thought the ending was weak; it was an anti-climax."

Crit 2: "I didn't get that. I thought it was delightful irony. Would you mind elaborating on what you saw as anti-climatic?"

(Ok, not the greatest rewrite of your example, but hopefully you get the idea.)

In this example crit 2 is not invalidating crit 1's opinion. This opens it up for discussion in which the OP will get useful information. The other option should be to just state your opinion. There is no reason to tell the person that they don't get it, that they are wrong, or that they missed a point. It doesn't help the OP, or anyone else, which is the reason we crit, right?

[Bret]

Focus first on your opinion of the piece. Not someone elses. Form a reply before you read the other responses.

Even so, a discussion forum will naturally engender "discussion." Thats kind of the point.

I have no problem with someone's honest disagreement with my POV. If I can't defend my position, maybe it isn't worth having. If being challenged over your assertion is a daunting prospect, stay away from people with opinions other than your own.

I am one person with one way of seeing poems. Right, wrong, whatever. My opinion is fairly insignificant. Its only "what I think" at best.

[aspier]

What do you think about poem critiques that respond to other crits, rather than the original poem? For example:

Crit 1: "I thought the ending was weak; it was an anti-climax."

Crit 2: "You missed the point; it was a delightful irony."

How do you feel about it as:
- the poet?
- the author of the crit being critiqued?


Those who want to talk about ... eh whatever, there are boards for that, no? Reader-writer relationship is a precarious one and poetry boards are a most specific , needed and welcomed by both 'personal' meeting ground. I cannot imagine that poets would appreciate it when crit-dicussions turn into post-flares in their threads. Altough I dare say the idea has some merit. A better idea would be to put up a crit school of some sort. As it now is, its only the examples that are set re crit that inspires ... this however does work in a small way, don't you think?

[Rivana]

Critique the poem. If one disagrees with another person's comment it's an easy thing to do to just convey this to the author of the poem, not the author of the critique. Critiques -no matter how well educated, are always subjects of opinion.

For example

a:poem

b: You should stay away from religious themes.

c: I don't think you should stay away from religious themes, I found this poem very insightful.

Thus focus is put on the poem and not the various critiques or the people giving them. This should avoid unnecessary debates mid-thread and leave the spotlight on the poem -where it belongs.

[veinglory]

What I meant was the former. Thanks, damh.

OP responding to crits -- that's another issue altogether. I believe the SYW forum here follows the convention that the OP doesn't dispute a crit, but accepts it with a "thank you" and uses it, or not, as the OP wishes.

I'll go find the link and add it here.

SYW doesn't have a hard policy except that there should be no personal insults and I tend to step in when a writer and critique just hammer the same point over and over without progress in a you're wrong/no you're wrong sort of way (frequently leading to breaking rule #1 )

Writers may certainly respond to crits in SYW but I agree that it should be with an open mind not just to refute the criticism and say how it is outright "wrong".

IMHO (not as policy) the overall tone of the complete response should be able to be summarised as 'thank you'. That is more likely to make the whole interaction a positive one.

[veinglory]

A recent example here has the poet just name the critiquer and say 'I totally disagree' -- I don't see the value or point of that. It's like taking a gift and tossing it in the bin before the giver has even left the room. Even if the gift was the most hideous thing you have ever seen that just isn't polite.

[aspier]

IMHO (not as policy) the overall tone of the complete response should be able to be summarised as 'thank you'. That is more likely to make the whole interaction a positive one.

Yes appreciation yet poetry is also 'playing ball' - the toupher (omg how does one spell taffer!) the opponent the more one is libel to respond better. Not relly compitition but if one gets crit that's fundamental and points can be proved (I differ a bit from Rivana that seems to hold the opinion that crit is only subjective) then this is really valuable to the person who posted the poem. The critter anyway should have the insight to crit the individual 'write' - firm and fair yet always to the appealling towards the 'higher'.

I wonder if I am making a point here at all...

[dahmnait]

You are making a perfect point. :)

(is the word you are looking for "tougher"?)

[aspier]

tnx + when the tougher gets going the poet goes to bed with his wife ... this is not an a) religeous comment b) nor an extremist-a-la-al-kaaida of one. (Just for the record in case there are critters lurking in here to crit what I said about crit.)

[Godfather]

man, i think it's a good thing to discuss or challenge other crits. if you disagree with a crit, make a point of it. why the hell not? it's an indirect crit of the poem.

[JAlpha]

I'll offer up two real examples where my lone, descending crits regarding small elements in the poems of two AW poets ended up being discussed and or criticized.

In this first example I felt my contrary opinion had been of some benefit–food for thought if you will–to the poet and the other posters and readers.
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=500543#post500543


In this second second example, I felt I was about to be eaten alive.
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=500942#post500942 (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=500942)

In face to face critique groups as well as on-line forums, contrary reactions to my critiques often come down to personality and writing style clashes; I accept that. But in the case of on-line forums, sometimes it does bother me when I come back hours or days later and find my opinion being criticized or made to be proven wrong, especially by people who have no knowledge of my history of commitment and level of success in supporting and helping other writers get recognition for their work.

Here’s my honest and personal point of reference that fuels my negative reaction to having my critiques critiqued . . . I have judged several poetry and writing contests. I have also won a number of them too. And I've been an editor of an on-line literary journal as well. In those circumstances there was no necessity for me to have my opinion debated, the judgements and or spoils were mine to make and or take. In the case of contests with multiple judges, a scoring sheet is suffice to weigh the cumulative value of each judges opinion. In other words, when I’m in a judging or editing mode, the theme, tone, efficiency, level of craft etc. of a particular piece I am presented with either connect with me quickly or not.

I have also participated in a number of university level writing workshops, were all the participants debate and or defend ad nauseam all the finer points of a particular piece for hours on end, week after week. In that sort of environment of face to face give and take, I actually love to debate, defend and blather on and on about the finer points of craft.

But my preference of critiquing styles for on-line forums is to get in and get out, react to the piece quickly, exactly as I would if I were judging it for a contest or considering it for publication and then move on.

Admittedly, it's a method that works better in face to face round robin styled critique groups, where each individual critter speaks in turn about their reaction to the poem, and not their opinion and or reaction to the previous critique. The writer is left to tally the opinions.

Now, after several years of participating in several on-line and face to face crit groups, I've pretty much decided my crit style and emotional temperament are better suited for face to face groups, and lengthy academic workshops. Which is why I haven't offered up many crits recently on the AW forums.

Great thread Poet :idea:

IMHO the practice of critiquing crits is a fluid situation that evolves with the dynamics of the group at any given time. But it’s always a good idea to shine a light on the subject from time to time, if for no other reason than to encourage a healthy balance–a comfort zone–for the posters and the critters.

[aspier]

A very good input Jalpha ... tilts the level of the thread to its height. Serious reflection re crit, its expected level, the nessaccity of it, etc. is an absolute must for members of a board that aspires to be a worth it one.

Tnx for the post!

aspier

[kdnxdr]

I'm jealous JAlpha for those "face to face, lengthy adcademic workshops"!

kid

[Pat~]

Which is why I haven't offered up many crits recently on the AW forums.


This is to our loss. And I think this is why I prefer that critiques stick to critiquing the poem. Critiques can still disagree with one another, but potential critiquers won't be discouraged from participating when critiques stay focused on the poem.