Interpretation...is it valid critique?

[milo]

This polemic is largely bullshit. Judgments about the aesthetic quality of an art object cannot be had without judgments about its meaning. In the case of poetry, it is easy to see how this is true. The form a poem takes, or even a line within a given poem, can have profound consequences for what the poem means. Within the context of this forum, line-by-line critique, IMO, seems to serve as an excuse to not dwell with a poem, to let it enter into one's heart and mind. And to be honest, I suspect that there are not all that many readers on here who care enough to sit and dwell with a poem, particularly those written by people who they don't know or who are new to writing poetry. Beyond that, it seems to me, the anonymizing function of an online message board doesn't help us to offer each other credence. To read and offer an insightful reading takes time, patience, meditation, all of these qualities that interaction on the internet is't conducive towards.

This is all the more reason why it is important to offer such careful readings of each other's work. Hesse has a wonderful line that I think is relevant: "The creations of the poets are more real than the poets themselves." Every poem is an effort, no matter how dullwitted, sloppy, improper, technically ugly, etc., on the part of its writer to get beyond him or herself. If we can keep that in mind when reading each other's work, we will be able to see wonders in the most unlikely places. To be concerned merely with technique, on the other hand, is inhumane, as much as a particularly obnoxious form of pretense and posturing.

Did you even bother to read the 6 pages of discussion?