Do not be cross with poetry

[Lizzie]

---

I think surrealism is meant to give the audience alternate, perhaps even clearer, ways of viewing things. If a surrealist piece has no effect on you, at its most basic a visceral "what the fuck?" moment, but at its best a whole "my way of thinking has been forever expanded", then the piece has failed. They're not really meant to be treated as puzzles -- to treat them as such is the work of the critic, but only when the critic needs something to sell -- but they must end up creating some, in the audience's mind, if they are to be any good.

Or if the critic is us. That's the thing, we can't passively read here. So, we have to work out the puzzle whether we like it or not.

---

But any poem can be critiqued by anyone if they just guide the poet through their individual read. That's one reason that crit that claims the posters above them have said it all feels like bullshit to me. Each read is its own.

So, ideally everyone would be able to crit everything, yes? Even if it's only to say, this makes no sense to me?

---

well, I disagree.  I think understanding a poem is key to enjoying it. Not understanding a poem is like being unable to see porn, just hearing random groans and being generally confused as to what is actually going on.

Ok, but maybe some people like hearing the sounds of sex and that's what does it for them; maybe some people write poems that feel good to say or sound lovely to the ear, and that's their only goal.