07-20-2016, 11:27 AM
There are different types of poems and as such need to be critiqued differently. The are such poems as nonsense poems like "Jabberwocky" by Lewis Carroll. One would not try and correct the spelling on that poem and believe it a legitimate form of critique. In concrete poetry one critiques how well the image fits the written words, or how well the written words covey the image. One might critique the poem and say it is a negative trait that the writer has sentences ending within the body instead of at the end of the line. Not paying attention to that rule anyone of no talent or skill could create any image they chose. So firstly I think it is fairly easy to establish that the critique should fit the type of poem. Then that puts the onus on the critic to be able to identify what one is dealing with. So one should be somewhat conversant in the basic forms. Is it a formal poem? A sonnet? Free verse? and so on.
I do agree with Shem in that what I would consider the better poem would have levels, that is each time I read the poem I find something new that I did not see before (Blake referred to these as fourfold poems). All good pieces of literature have this attribute, one can call it inspired if one chooses, as a large portion comes from religious text: this is not to say that all religious text are inspired or multi-leveled. A Hallmark of this sort of writing is that one can return to it again and again and never really become bored. I just recently saw two of Shakespeare's comedies, "As You Like It" and "A Midsummer Night's Dream", both of which I have seen more times than I can count, but they are always fresh (one could wish to say the same of Bill's sonnet's).
As to the meaning question. Here is my thought. Why write something if one did not wish to convey something? If the piece does not convey anything due to the fact it is so convoluted, or simply poorly written, then the critique should point this out. Hopefully refraining from the use of such phrases as "this is rubbish" or other more vulgar thoughts that comes to ones mind when struggling with something that in fact conveys nothing. I say this as much for myself as anyone. I frequently feel that a writer is simply wasting my time and I would really like to lash out at them, especially when it seems their intent is to baffle with bullshit and expect no one to call them on it. They can still be called, just not name called.
Sometimes people think they are suppose to write this way (unclear) and others simply wish to be poets, yet have nothing to say, it is not as though all who frequent this site are going to be even moderate to middling poets, let alone good and most people are simply uninformed. So our job as critics is to offer the most beneficial feedback to the writer in a way they can hear (again, this is not one of my strong points).
However the one abiding truth for the critic is to never think that something is simply above your head. The clarity of conveying whatever is supposed to be conveyed rest with the writer, not the reader. Any piece of writing should follow the standard form (sentences, spelling, grammar, etc.) unless there is a tremendous and overwhelming reason to do otherwise. We write the way we do, and have the rules for writing that we have because they have been hammered out over hundred of years to make the writing the clearest it can be. Oftentimes the writer is trying to convey difficult ideas, or bring the reader to a different viewpoint through inventive use of language. Still the burden lies on the writer to make that work and not leave the reader with the impression of gibberishÂ
dale
I do agree with Shem in that what I would consider the better poem would have levels, that is each time I read the poem I find something new that I did not see before (Blake referred to these as fourfold poems). All good pieces of literature have this attribute, one can call it inspired if one chooses, as a large portion comes from religious text: this is not to say that all religious text are inspired or multi-leveled. A Hallmark of this sort of writing is that one can return to it again and again and never really become bored. I just recently saw two of Shakespeare's comedies, "As You Like It" and "A Midsummer Night's Dream", both of which I have seen more times than I can count, but they are always fresh (one could wish to say the same of Bill's sonnet's).
As to the meaning question. Here is my thought. Why write something if one did not wish to convey something? If the piece does not convey anything due to the fact it is so convoluted, or simply poorly written, then the critique should point this out. Hopefully refraining from the use of such phrases as "this is rubbish" or other more vulgar thoughts that comes to ones mind when struggling with something that in fact conveys nothing. I say this as much for myself as anyone. I frequently feel that a writer is simply wasting my time and I would really like to lash out at them, especially when it seems their intent is to baffle with bullshit and expect no one to call them on it. They can still be called, just not name called.
Sometimes people think they are suppose to write this way (unclear) and others simply wish to be poets, yet have nothing to say, it is not as though all who frequent this site are going to be even moderate to middling poets, let alone good and most people are simply uninformed. So our job as critics is to offer the most beneficial feedback to the writer in a way they can hear (again, this is not one of my strong points).
However the one abiding truth for the critic is to never think that something is simply above your head. The clarity of conveying whatever is supposed to be conveyed rest with the writer, not the reader. Any piece of writing should follow the standard form (sentences, spelling, grammar, etc.) unless there is a tremendous and overwhelming reason to do otherwise. We write the way we do, and have the rules for writing that we have because they have been hammered out over hundred of years to make the writing the clearest it can be. Oftentimes the writer is trying to convey difficult ideas, or bring the reader to a different viewpoint through inventive use of language. Still the burden lies on the writer to make that work and not leave the reader with the impression of gibberishÂ
dale
How long after picking up the brush, the first masterpiece?
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.