Interpretation...is it valid critique?

[ChristopherSea]

Is interpretation a valid SUBSTITUTE for critique?

In other words, is it enough for "crits" to ONLY interpret a piece of work whilst excusing themselves from any other comments on the grounds of inadequacy?
Best,
tectak[/b]

no it isn't, it is a valid part, or type of critique though. what we see and how a poem makes us feel etc gives the poet incite as to whether or not they've got their point across as they expected, or if what they wrote gives a completely opposite view of what was intended.

interpretation is a great entry level for would be critics to start out, it's easier and leads them in to some of the finer points of critique. hopeful they learn about poetic devices and if and when they've been used well or not, as well as other shit. i'd say interpretation in critique is almost an integral that either reinforces technical aspects or dilutes them

---

i have said "this is more like prose that poetry" before now so i'll put my hat on that one, not that i agree with you of course

The problem with that critique is that there is a prose poetry genera. However, it is not all narrative. It usually has very descriptive language and strong metaphor. Some that I have read lacks structure and meter like prose, but the imagery and word choices are poetic. Don't know if this is allowed, so just delete the link if you need to. Folks can look it up in wikipedia themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prose_poetry

while i think there is a prose poetry, isn't prose prose and poetry something else?

Yes, if it looks like prose and reads like prose it ain't prose poetry or poetry. However, I am sure bt-rudo would argue with you.