Young Writers Society

Having the reputation as the "harshest critic" on the YWS is no easy task. As it were, I think some kind of forum for facilitating the discussion of critiques that irk you, why they irk you, and give the critiquer-in-question a chance to respond, is a good idea.

I note: if this becomes a board where users flame each other, I will delete it without hesitation. Keep it civil.

There are only two points I want to start the discussion with:

1) There has always been this complaint against me that "I haven't seen your poetry published, so how can I tell whether your critique is worth anything, like you claim it is?" As a general rule, this type of reply is rubbish. A good critic doesn't have to be a good poet and the inverse applies. There are numerous critics who write middle-of-the-road poetry at best, but they write excellent reviews of poetry. The same goes with online boards -- many people give excellent advice but have trouble applying it to their own work, while some write brilliantly but don't have the capacity to give work an in-depth critique.

There are some instances where this rule may not apply; for example, I'm not going to dig into a sonnet when I have no real understanding of formal poetry, and a formal poet should look for another formal poet for something more meaningful. But that doesn't preclude me from making good points about a formal poem's content or other aspects of it.

2) The YWS, as well as other po-boards, have been watered down recently by poets who have an aversion to honest, "harsh" critique and by poets who think one or two lines of generally vague critique is sufficient. Now I don't mind if a poet explains her/his intent or tries to justify something s/he did in the poem -- after all, these are rough drafts -- but all the defensive responses and attempts to discredit the critic are senseless. I'm not trying to be an old guy saying "boy, those were the days," but when there's a dearth of in-depth critique and a prevalence of poet's bristling when someone dare challenge their genius, it's hard not to get misty eyed for the past. I'm a firm believer that poets won't improve unless someone dissects their work and gives them the honest truth; good words only encourage complacency. And I also believe that learning how to critique is one of the best ways to improve your own work.

As a general observation, I think this workshop is becoming far too soft. There are some members who seem too easily wow-ed by anything, and as a result, the bar tends to be generally set too low. You can be very nice to everyone in a workshop and make a point of praising rather than making negative comments, and you'll probably be liked rather than disliked, but does this really further the function of a workshop, which is surely to improve our writing? The truth is often harsh.

Re: beginners, I don't think the YWS should be dumbed down for their sake. It isn't a board for people who want to "share" poetry (or over-sensitive loveys)--let them be directed elsewhere for gentler treatment. Personally I have always valued the 'rottweilers' in a workshop. They often get criticised, but they perform a sterling service in keeping standards high.


Enjoy!

Incandescence -

[In response to number two]

You've made some harsh critiques on my poetry before, and I might've been mad at you then, but I'm not anymore. Your critiques actually improved my writing the most of everyone on the site - it helped me really work hard on my most recent poem (No Words). I actually want to thank you for being harsh with me. If you hadn't said those things, I'd still be writing rather poor poetry without knowing it.

i have a miserable cold, so i'm not totally with it, but in my current state, at least, i agree with what you said. no one's critiquing on the site really stands out like yours does, at least in the sections of the site where i live. and as for being harsh, it's certainly a lot more helpful than 'yeah, it's ok, maybe you could do something with the second stanza...'. anyone who wants that isn't really worth taking seriously.

i have friends (and teachers, for that matter, but that is for another rant) who are 'wow-ed too easily' and it does set the bar irritatingly low. you can't get (or give) a useful critique from them. it's annoying.

oh crap. i just thought i saw a jellyfish in the sky. i think maybe i should go get some rest. maybe i'll be coherent in the morning.

that seems fair.

yeah that seems in order. I think they're reasonable ideas.

I'd have to agree with her^

AH! Seriously. I think maybe we should have 'Critique Guidelines' posted somewhere within rules posts [because, apparently it is too much to ask people to read outside the rules...and even that is often a stretch] so new members know what a helpful critique looks like. We could add in an example or something...I've just seen way too many pointless posts that seem to me as nothing more than an attempt to get high post numbers quickly.

Incandescence:
I am definitely in favor of setting a high standard. To be honest, I haven't posted on YWS in quite a while. But I will say that I never appreciate comments that resemble, "Way kewl poem! You totally rawk at writing!" I joined YWS in an attempt to improve my writing. Being harsh isn't always necessary, but I, like green_river, ultimately appreciate those replies more.

write me:
Offering "Critique Guidelines" would be a noble effort; but I doubt they would be followed, if they were read at all.

People are often impressed too easily because they haven't read enough of the good stuff. Others can't give critiques because they don't know how to, have never seen good critiques, or are afraid of hurting the author's feelings.
Storytime: It was September of my freshman year, and I'd just walked into my first literary magazine meeting, thoroughly frightened. God, there were upperclassmen there! And they were talking to me! Still, I'd wanted to be a part of this magazine ever since fifth grade when my father, a teacher at the high school, had brought home the annual edition to show me. "I'll never be able to write like that," I thought, skimming the black-and-white pages. "I'll never be able to draw like that," upon seeing the color art section. Still, I opened the door of the editor-in-chief's home that Sunday, and settled on a floor cushion, however awkwardly, and began the meeting. The first poem was beautiful, I thought, and was astonished when the seemingly kind upperclassmen began to pick it apart.
My attempts at comments were pathetic that first meeting; I shudder now, remembering them. My comments now, in sophomore year, are still mediocre. Still, I stuck with it. I'm one of the editors now, because I learned to give harsh criticism and to not be so easily impressed. Our magazine is always trying to attract new members/writers, but so many are scared away because they can't handle criticism. I didn't submit any of my writing freshman year, and this year, considering it greatly improved, I've submitted four poems and one short non-fiction piece so far.
We try to keep our comments constructive. We discourage people from saying, "This piece sucks. Nothing will help it." The goal of our little magazine is the same as the goal of this forum: to help people improve their writing through constructive criticism and analysis. An author cannot improve his or her piece from a nasty comment ("This sucks") or from a sweety nice comment ("Oh em gee I loooove this piece whoa amazing"). We go through a discussion topic by topic: these topics might be meaning, diction, use of the word "purple", whatever seems appropriate (our literary editors usually edit for grammar and spelling so that it doesn't waste time at the meetings).
We think that our magazine has a fairly high standard for high school writers, especially compared to others in the area. We attended a regional conference for school publications, and traded magazines with other groups. Ours was considerably scrawnier than some of the 100-page private-school full-color mags, but our poetry was excellent in comparison to their typical angst, cliches, and overused metaphors. Sometimes we wish we had enough money to publish more in color, or to have more pages, but in the end, we'd rather have quality than quantity (although more color would be nice, haha).
In the end, those who are the most successful writers are the ones who are able to appreciate and criticize the work of others, and to accept, not be insulted or hurt by what others appreciate and dislike about their own work.

Colleen

I agree with all said above. It's fine to admit to liking a poem, and to say it's good or nice, but it's not a critique unless you find at least two things wrong with it, or things that could be better, and point them out. Elementary and high school teachers are trained to give one negative comment for every five positive ones, or something like that (or so my art teacher tells me). I guess that's supposed to lower the teenage suicide rate, but it's also part of the reason it takes us twelve years to accomplish something that could be done in eight or nine. This isn't school, it's a place for people who want more than what they get in English class, and if they're asking for more, they better toughen up.

I'm one of the "Good critiquer, shoddy poet" variety, and though I'd rather it be the inverse, I see no reason why I shouldn't share my unavoidably-harsh honest advice with as many people as possible. If they don't appreciate it; if they can't take receiving actual help on their work; then I make a mental note to give their pieces a wide berth. No sense wasting my time only to irritate others.

But as to the actual meat of this thread, I wholeheartedly agree. The most reasonable reviews I received on a poem of mine came from yourself [Brad], and it was "Don't both editing this". The poem was crap. Someone had dug it up and it incurred a series of too-kind critics to give their sugared advice. That didn't help me. [And for the record- I never did edit it ]

^^
Deep agreement with all of the above.
There's nothing so more frustrating then putting up a piece you've been stewing and re-writing for a week or so now, and all you get is, "wow! Awesome! Love your work! Will you write a companion to this?"

That drives me crazy. I'm a good-writer, bad-reviewer type and I do make sure to point out the good, but if someone's story is so hopeless I can't even drag my eyes past the first couple of paragraphs, I don't bother commenting, unless it's pointing out *exactly* what is wrong with their work. (which explains how little I review....)

And I'll admit I cringe when I see long-winded review on whatever I wrote. But in the end, it's all "Thank GOD they pointed that out!"

So yeah...I basically agree with all of the above, though I am probably the 'tiquer who spends the majority pointing out how the cadence is off or something.

I agree that truthful critiques, however disappointing to the author at the time, are very helpful in the long run. I don't mind when people say they like my writing. I'm glad they enjoy it. But if that's all I get is vague compliments, it makes me feel like they haven't given much thought to my piece, and don't want to bother with giving advice.

And I know it's a funny thing that it's me saying this, since I'm one of the more timid critiquers.

There is a fine line between being frank, and being nasty. Showing people their mistakes is fine, but you can still keep from being rude about it. High standards are great, but people who are satisfied only by the best are hard to deal with. I'm all for giving credit where it's due, and if something's wrong with the piece, say so in a way that won't make the author cry.

Exactly, Goldie. :nods solemnly:

I'm also one of the more gentle 'tiquers, so it's somewhat hypocritical to post here....XD

I much rather having a harsh in depth crit where the critter tells you everything you did wrong. It has actually helped me improve my writing so much in the few months i have been posting.

Thanks to everyone who has Critiqued(sp) me and helped me imprve my writing