Critiquing crits instead of a poem?

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

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.

JBI said:

You are on topic, but are also probably wrong

Click to expand...

'S OK, I'm used to that!

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.

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.

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.

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

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I pose these questions again.

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 said:

Hagette, please accept our apologies for the disruption.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

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

Norman D Gutter said:

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

Click to expand...

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."

Convoluted? Nay, but more straight-forward

Dichroic said:

This seems awfully convoluted to me (clearly explained though - thanks!).

Click to expand...

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."

Click to expand...

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?"

Click to expand...

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

Shweta said:

What Dichroic said

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

Click to expand...

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

Norman D Gutter said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

*