The question is on the table: how does one properly criticize a poem? The question has been responded to many times and will, for at least another millenia (or until people stop communicating), continue to receive attention. I can not address every school of criticism in existence, so I will limit myself to my personal favorite and consider the faults of opposing schools.
Like I said, the only method I'll address is my personal favorite: so-called "New Criticism." New Criticism advocates that a poem be read as a self-contained "entity", without regard to the poet's life, purpose, etc. Observations considering the poet's life and purpose can add something to the reading when considering his or her body of work as a whole. Considering these things is much less interesting, legit, and useful when applied to living authors. Thus I have repeatedly slammed the infamous "woe is me" poem. Some users, though, are seriously into group therapy and gossip circle methods of reading nearly everything, and they mute the living writer's authentic voice with their mindless drivel.
In part, we have already touched the core of understanding how to critique a poem. A poem's purpose is not to express an emotion, to make the readers "feel" something--these are sidelines. Poetry's purpose is far more tragic. As writers, we find ourselves inhabiting a world and tradition that is simultaneously welcoming and rejecting us. This limbo, this in-between space, is what we try to escape. Literature, in the strictest sense, is meant to articulate in some (perhaps minor) way the narrator's position within the world. The point of Poetry is not to make readers identify with an emotion; it is to make readers identify with a narrator. The beauty of poetry -- nay, of communication, at large -- is found in its ability to garner understanding and appreciation for the voice.
Moving away from this, let's ask what it means to be part of a workshop environment. There are many, many people here who believe responses to pieces should attempt to strike a balance between the good and the bad. They think a moderate amount of praise encourages writers to keep pushing. In large part, their argument stems from the claim that this is a website for young writers, and we should respond to them as though they are young'uns and in such a way as to encourage them to keep writing. For the most part, I find this specious: writers are writers are writers. Age does not affect anything but maturity, and it certainly does not hinder a person from taking criticism in stride and using that criticism to their advantage (or learning to do so). While the age of a user may be used to validly assess that user's progress as a poet, it should not dictate the way we respond to them. There is this great fear that being too hard on young writers will crush the writer out of them--what nonsense, I say. How many of us could stop writing, period? Could drop our pen and never return to the craft, to breathe fresh air into old words? Nobody here could truly give up writing. It isn't an addiction--it's a necessity.
So what is "a critic"? A critic:
* noun: someone who frequently finds fault or makes harsh and unfair judgments
* noun: anyone who expresses a reasoned judgment of something
* noun: a person who is professionally engaged in the analysis and interpretation of works of art.
The buck stops with the critic. He/she have done their job and provided comments based on their own reasoned judgements by analysing and interpreting the poems. They have no obligation to offer suggestions for improvement. All that is needed is truth, and trust is part-and-parcel of that need in workshops. This isn't published work; and 99% of the critics can be either "rivals" or comrades-in-arms for the poet. It's a personal choice. As for the non-poets who critique poetry, I would not buy their books on the topic, but I consider their input valid if it continually makes sense. It'd be un-American to bar them from commenting. After all, I do not make movies, yet I know a lousy movie when I yawn through one. I feel entitled to tell friends to buy the DVD and fast-forward to the love scenes, (yet I would never say of Nicole Kidman, "A little lipo before the next one, hey old girl?" but if her Irish accent sounds Scottish--a legitimate crit.)
In fact, one of the biggest problems we have today is that nearly nobody but poets reads and reviews poetry. Nobody expects the reviewer of every novel is a novelist! We need non-poets to read us, or we're irrelevent. So one now must ask: "As a poet, is your audience poets or non-poets?" It's a good point, but the fact of the matter is that for most of us, the question of "who is your audience" ia already answered. When you post at the YWS, your audience is here. It's relatively stable (to some a benefit, to others a drawback) and it consists of people who read poetry and wish to contribute in making promising poems better. My crits, though stinging at times, are usually brutal explorations of the qualities of a work that stay focused on the work. There are plenty of other writers here who are not afraid to wade into a bad poem and wallow around in the muck. I don't know if a writer could ask for more, particularly at the price.
Eveyone brings his or her background and biases, and there's no doubt that some critics are more astute than others when it comes to making suggestions that improve the chances of publication. There is a variety of styles and approaches to criticism, and I think that is also one of the great advantages of the YWS. Many members here are for the most part avid readers of poetry. We purchase poetry books. We read poetry in magazines and on line. We are still capable of being awed by good work. Just because that work rarely pops up here should we be slammed for expressing that desire.
The only real measure of a response's worth to a piece is whether or not that response addresses the piece, in some way, shape or form. The response does not have to suggest improvement--it can be as meager as an expression of the reader's reaction to the poem, what it made him or her feel. As young writers, it is important that they learn there is no recipe for a successful critique. Sometimes a sharp slap in the face does more good for a writer than a line by line analysis with built-in suggestions. And more importantly, users need to realize this startling truth: critiques are not weighted on their size, or depth, or breadth, and it is a risible demand that reviews of pieces here should include what was good--we are here to explain what was bad. What we do not include, a discerning user would be mindful to deduce is "not bad." A review must be weighted only so much as it actually addresses the piece at hand, and in that respect, any and all responses that do so are equally valuable. It is, at that point, up to the writer to take the discretion to determine which ones he or she will use in future revisions.
Now tell me, how do we plan on improving that?
Gender:
Points: 890
Reviews: 915