to critique or not and how

well i've given crits on this forum that run the gamut from a brief observational opinion to total deconstruction.

tone-wise, i've been gentle and encouraging, and brutally mean-spirited.

so, i guess the answer to your question would be to take each poem you choose to comment on as an individual case, and say your piece.

In general, here and elsewhere, when poems or pages are posted, I usually assume comments/critiques are - at the least- welcome, unless stated otherwise.

When I first started here at AW, the critique was the most important part of the forum. I try to return that for the new people. I love to get comments, otherwise why post??
Sometimes I just don't have anything to say, I just want to read.
I am glad this is here for me and everyone.
Paint

in theatre school, we had a whole class based on critique. the rule that always stuck with me was this:

instead of saying, "that scene didn't work"

say

"i am not sure if you made the right CHOICE with a certain character in that scene..."

by using the word choice, you are giving the artist a chance to consider his/her other options without feeling insulted. this method has been used by me and on me and i can honestly say that simple word can avoid a lot of misunderstandings.

Excellent question. Thanks for asking it. And to those who answer(ed).

Just found this thread. It needed a good bumpin'. Thanks, p.h.

What makes a good critique?
I just deleted a critique I did on a fellow poets work.
Why?
Because, I had spent about 2 hours offering amendments and suggestions and then realised I had rewritten the poem to suit my own style.
When I'd finished, I posted the critique, read it one final time to make sure I was happy with it and then thought, 'wait a minute, who am I to make such alterations to another's pride and joy?'
I realised that what I'd done was presumptuous and ignorant.
So I promptly deleted it.
Who was it that said ‘The road to hell is paved with good intentions?’
So, back to my original question:

What makes a good critique?

What makes a good critique?

Click to expand...

That is the question isn't it? I've had people basically rewrite my stuff in their own style, and you are correct that it isn't really helpful. I rarely critique poetry, but for prose I usually just point out spelling and grammatical errors, draw attention to things that are superfluous and could be dropped, or passages that aren't clear. I never rewrite passages because it annoys me if people do that to my stuff. Tell me what's wrong. Tell me what works, but don't rewrite my work.

Perhaps one should just tell the poster how it makes one feel. I know there are other folks who crit grammar etc. style, such things as these. However, since I write poetry simply to get the juices flowing-started to do that here-and know little of technique and such stuff, I refrain from this type of critting which is better left to the qualified. If I can smell it-feel it-see it-hear it-get inside it-or stay outside and simply stand in wonder-these are the things that I might say when responding to a poem.

Really I provide any feedback I have at the moment and try to come back with more if the poem requires more thought. I don't give equal attention to all because not all poems require a Line by line. Some just need a "first impression".
Some just need praise.
Give what you think needs to be given or what you have to offer each time, and between each of us, everyone will get what they need.
Jmho.

i think you say what you gotta say for each poem.

sometimes you might just have a word or two, or like william said a total deconstruction. if you have something to say about the poem, say it.

I agree with the godfather -what kind of feedback or critique I offer up depends on the poem. If I have something to say -I'll say it. If it just wasn't my cup of tea either way I'll move on quietly. How involved the feedback becomes really depends, there's no 'one solution fits all' for me though I always tend to a)go with my gut and b)try to avoid being hurtful. Also, as I said I don't offer feedback or critique on work that meant nothing to me. It doesn't make any difference if I can with my 'writer's spectacles' see that it's a great piece of work or utter crap, if it means nothing to me, I just won't comment. It's a matter of integrity in some weird Rivana way... *shrugs*

What makes a good critique... a question everyone asks at some point and few can always answer (I am not one of them but I do have a toe-hold on the lion-sized subject, lol)

The purpose of a critique is to deeply analyze the workings of the poem. Sometimes it calls for a massive re-write of the said poem (not often though), and at others it just requires those small tweaks where certain devices and phrases aren't used to their fullest.

If you are able/knowledgeable enough to academically break down the work then by all means do so, even if you think you are just modifying the poem to fit your style (critiquing is PART personal preference). The writer can then use the outside view of his usage to then decide whether or not to modify the existing poem or use the advice in a future work.

What makes a full critique good is the level of depth that the criticism reaches both for the good and the bad (remember you are looking at both sides while critiquing) and the constructive advise offered.

"Ok, so what if I can't do any of that?" Then, by all means feel free to just say how the poem made you feel, and find out if that was the purpose or not. If so then say it; if not, then ask what the writer was aiming for. Maybe you would get enough information then to better critique the work, or maybe someone else reading the same info will benefit from it. Either way it never hurts to share your opinion politely.

I always ask for opinions, and always accept whatever level of criticism with a smile (even if they tore the work to pieces and stomped on each one carefully, lol). Share away, fellow writers, share away!

Interesting thread. It caught my eye because I recently started a thread regarding crits. I don't know that there is much I can add to this thread though.

What I like to see in a critique

There are three things I like to learn from a critique of my work.

1. Did the reader really get it? Poetry is often allusive and symbolic, sometimes (or many times) the reader just misses the point. Or sometimes they understand part but not all of the work. When I see a critique that says "I liked this" or "I hated that" or whatever, I'm left wondering how much of it they actually understood.

2. How did the poem make the reader feel? Did I have the emotional impact I was looking for?

3. Did the structure and language work? I generally see more of this type of thing, and less of numbers 1 and 2. Generally I don't want a line by line critique of my language. Only if the poem is working for you, but there are one or two points that would make it stronger is this really helpful. However if you aren't getting the poem in general, or it's not having any emotional impact then doing part 3 is pretty meaningless.

The first thing I look for when critting is whether or not the poem makes sense. Then I go for technical aspects, such as showing versus telling, development of abstractions for clarity and so forth.
I think what is important is that any crit be directed at the poem only, not the author. I also believe it to be disrespectful of the critics time if the crit receives a pithy reply because the author disliked the crit.

This has been bothering me since I arrived at AW. I love wandering about in the Writing Poetry Studio, looking at all the stunning art work here, but I am so conflicted on critiques. I see a poem as a painting, complete or at least, representing the artist's vision completely. Who am I to say the artist's vision is wrong or incomplete or not my cup of tea even? That feels like arrogance to me.

In terms of the mechanics of poetry, I'm tabula rasa. I can't comment on technique because of an enfeebled knowledge base. So there again, I have to remain mute.

I could go through and say how much I enjoyed the small journey that the poet has taken me on, but after fifty or a hundred times of "I loved this! It caused me to climax right there in front of my computer!", well, it starts to sound a bit shallow (even if it was true.)

Maybe I should just rep the poet and say "Thanks" and leave my relative moisture level out of it.

Yeah, that's what I'll do...

Me, I approach critiques the same as I do poetry. I know little, but try to learn from what I see. I'm under-qualified to do either, but one has to start somewhere.

So I offer what I can -- what occurs to me, and what I think will help, whether it's a pat on the back or a deconstruction -- and let others decide if I have any clue what I'm talking about.

As with anything else, things work best for me if I combine doing and learning. I may cringe at what I've said in the past, but you have to start somewhere. Otherwise, there's nothing on which to look back.

Thank you for this post, screenmom; you've opened up an important issue here, in my view the most important one in the Poetry Forum right now.

I speak only for myself, but I don't think I'm alone -- if I've posted a poem, and you've read it, I want your feedback!

I'll be grateful for whatever comment you have. Feel free to leave the barometric reading out of it, but anything from "Did nothing for me" on up (or down) is helpful. The worst result is no comment at all.

screenmom said:

This has been bothering me since I arrived at AW. I love wandering about in the Writing Poetry Studio, looking at all the stunning art work here, but I am so conflicted on critiques. I see a poem as a painting, complete or at least, representing the artist's vision completely. Who am I to say the artist's vision is wrong or incomplete or not my cup of tea even? That feels like arrogance to me.

In terms of the mechanics of poetry, I'm tabula rasa. I can't comment on technique because of an enfeebled knowledge base. So there again, I have to remain mute.

I could go through and say how much I enjoyed the small journey that the poet has taken me on, but after fifty or a hundred times of "I loved this! It caused me to climax right there in front of my computer!", well, it starts to sound a bit shallow (even if it was true.)

Maybe I should just rep the poet and say "Thanks" and leave my relative moisture level out of it.

Yeah, that's what I'll do...

Click to expand...

Hah. Now this thread is going somewhere...

screenmom said:

Who am I to say the artist's vision is wrong or incomplete or not my cup of tea even? That feels like arrogance to me.

Click to expand...

Who are you? You are the most important person in the poets world: you are the audience.

Poetry and, indeed, all art is communication. A poet seeks to tell a story through the use of poetic devices and language. Artists try to communicate through the interaction of the pallette and the subject matter. Sculpters communicate by bringing out the form within the material (truth to materials technique.) Every single one of them is doing it for an audience. Perhaps not everybody out there, but at a minimum, they are trying to communicate their vision to somebody. If a poet, for example, says "Oh, I just wrote this for myself," or "I'm the only one who understands it" then it IS NOT poetry. It is a diary or a journal entry and has no place in a critical forum.

Communication requires a few basic elements. It requires a sender (our poet), a clear message (the poem), a medium of communication (here, the www), and a receiver (you.) Take any single element out of that equation and it fails.
Two of those elements are fixed. They don't change for the message. These are the poet and the medium. I say the poet because once the poem is written, there is nothing the poet does to change the message once it is posted (okay, he can revise but for the sake of argument, lets say its about the first version of the poem.)
The poem and the receiver are not fixed for these reasons: The poem, although the same in form with regards to the order of words on the page, is not received the same way by everyone who reads it. The receiver is perhaps the most variable because a poem will be received a myriad ways based on the receiver's experience, background, whether the subject matter is interesting, etcetera, etcetera.

So (finally) this leads us to the poet's obligation. The poet has to be clear. This does not mean that we throw out all the poetic language, metaphor and simile. No, what it means is that when a poet uses these things, at some point he clears up his meaning for the reader if it begins, say, as too abstract.

Your obligation, in a critical forum, is to tell the poet why you feel he needs work, why you liked the poem and how it affected you or made you feel. You don't have to do all of these. The most critical thing is for you to explain why. Doesn't require a set word count to do so; just throw it out there. Something as simple as "I like the way you address the emotion through the broken glass metaphor" might suffice. Of course, if you can offer more in-depth crits then by all means do so. It is important that anything you add helps the poet improve, even if it is merely a suggestion. As you learn, you'll be able to offer more on the mechanics of poetry, but at least start with whether or not the poem resonates with you and why.

Finally (I promise) there is an obligation on both parties, but moreso on the poet with regards to crits. First, always thank the critic for the time they spent, even if they felt the poem suuuuuuucked. All feedback is valid. All feedback is valid. All feedback is valid. Secondly, never address the poet, only the poem. Third, never address another critic's crit. It's rude. It's none of your damned business what someone else thinks about a particular work. Forthly, as a poet, never get pissy if you get a crit you don't like. Its rude and ungrateful in the very least.

LimeyDawg said:

Your obligation, in a critical forum, is to tell the poet why you feel he needs work, why you liked the poem and how it affected you or made you feel. You don't have to do all of these. The most critical thing is for you to explain why. Doesn't require a set word count to do so; just throw it out there. Something as simple as "I like the way you address the emotion through the broken glass metaphor" might suffice. Of course, if you can offer more in-depth crits then by all means do so. It is important that anything you add helps the poet improve, even if it is merely a suggestion. As you learn, you'll be able to offer more on the mechanics of poetry, but at least start with whether or not the poem resonates with you and why.

Finally (I promise) there is an obligation on both parties, but moreso on the poet with regards to crits. First, always thank the critic for the time they spent, even if they felt the poem suuuuuuucked. All feedback is valid. All feedback is valid. All feedback is valid. Secondly, never address the poet, only the poem. Third, never address another critic's crit. It's rude. It's none of your damned business what someone else thinks about a particular work. Forthly, as a poet, never get pissy if you get a crit you don't like. Its rude and ungrateful in the very least.

Click to expand...

Limeydawg, whoever you are, this post is a great gift to the likes of me. Previously I've never felt either adequate or invited to comment on a creation to the creator, but here you say that the impressions of a lone reader have merit. What wonderful madness this is. Thanks.