Critique is not the same as writing a poem. You don't need to be able to write at the same level as what you critique. It simply requires that you have an opinion and commit. Holding back because you're concerned about being wrong is shortsighted given how subjective critique is. I think most people fail at critique not because they don't have a technical understanding, but they have too big of an ego to be wrong (hidden behind false humility). They don't engage the poem. They don't commit. They don't work to understand it. Their critique then comes off as vague and unhelpful.
I think milo's point is well made. Dull poems are the problem. You can't breathe life into crap. The poem has to have some spark that makes it interesting. Sterile crap is still sterile crap--even if perfectly executed. I'm actually not even looking for perfect or near perfect poems in Serious. I'm looking for something that makes me want to love it. Sometimes the problem with critique isn't that you don't know the terms or methods, its that you don't have the confidence to read a poem and shrug. You need to be able to shrug and say why you did it. Or let the poem die alone and find one that interests you.
I think milo's point is well made. Dull poems are the problem. You can't breathe life into crap. The poem has to have some spark that makes it interesting. Sterile crap is still sterile crap--even if perfectly executed. I'm actually not even looking for perfect or near perfect poems in Serious. I'm looking for something that makes me want to love it. Sometimes the problem with critique isn't that you don't know the terms or methods, its that you don't have the confidence to read a poem and shrug. You need to be able to shrug and say why you did it. Or let the poem die alone and find one that interests you.
The secret of poetry is cruelty.--Jon Anderson