02-09-2011, 05:28 PM
In the recent spirit of change that seems to be about TPP, I would to propose the implementation of a few rules (gasp) which would, indubitably, be beneficial to the body of poets active on this website.
First rule: A stricter serious critique, with higher, more rigid standards.
In order to critique, one needs to read well. This means means reviewing, comprehending, regarding said poetry in a serious manner. "nice rite, mah duud!" Is NOT an acceptable critique, and imparts no insight to the poet whatsoever; in fact, it hurts the poet's development. It leads them to believe that what they're writing has less imperfections than it actually does. I propose that each written criticism in the SC forum should be, at minimum, two paragraphs. Anything less should be considered insincere, and out of place. Any critique written on this website should brim with insight and relevant information, and demonstrate the concise thought typical of an educated reader. I Hope I don't sound like a pretentious assclown. I'd just like to see Serious Critique become...even more serious; A place where people only post their most toiled-over poetry; The blood, sweat, and tears of their portfolios. This leads to true poetic growth, and nothing else will suffice.
Second: Each poet should be required to critique poetry, as well as write it. If you only write poetry, you're a parasite. If you only critique, you're not a poet. I don't think any number or ratio should be established, but I do believe that "He who posts poetry must also critique."
Actually, that's all that I have. My focus is to make us credible and more respectable (not that we already aren't!
). These changes, if implemented, will cause the quality of SC to shoot up exponentially. Thank you.
First rule: A stricter serious critique, with higher, more rigid standards.
In order to critique, one needs to read well. This means means reviewing, comprehending, regarding said poetry in a serious manner. "nice rite, mah duud!" Is NOT an acceptable critique, and imparts no insight to the poet whatsoever; in fact, it hurts the poet's development. It leads them to believe that what they're writing has less imperfections than it actually does. I propose that each written criticism in the SC forum should be, at minimum, two paragraphs. Anything less should be considered insincere, and out of place. Any critique written on this website should brim with insight and relevant information, and demonstrate the concise thought typical of an educated reader. I Hope I don't sound like a pretentious assclown. I'd just like to see Serious Critique become...even more serious; A place where people only post their most toiled-over poetry; The blood, sweat, and tears of their portfolios. This leads to true poetic growth, and nothing else will suffice.
Second: Each poet should be required to critique poetry, as well as write it. If you only write poetry, you're a parasite. If you only critique, you're not a poet. I don't think any number or ratio should be established, but I do believe that "He who posts poetry must also critique."
Actually, that's all that I have. My focus is to make us credible and more respectable (not that we already aren't!
). These changes, if implemented, will cause the quality of SC to shoot up exponentially. Thank you.