Interpretation...is it valid critique?

[ChristopherSea]

Is interpretation a valid SUBSTITUTE for critique?

In other words, is it enough for "crits" to ONLY interpret a piece of work whilst excusing themselves from any other comments on the grounds of inadequacy?
Best,
tectak[/b]

no it isn't, it is a valid part, or type of critique though. what we see and how a poem makes us feel etc gives the poet incite as to whether or not they've got their point across as they expected, or if what they wrote gives a completely opposite view of what was intended.

interpretation is a great entry level for would be critics to start out, it's easier and leads them in to some of the finer points of critique. hopeful they learn about poetic devices and if and when they've been used well or not, as well as other shit. i'd say interpretation in critique is almost an integral that either reinforces technical aspects or dilutes them

---

i have said "this is more like prose that poetry" before now so i'll put my hat on that one, not that i agree with you of course

The problem with that critique is that there is a prose poetry genera. However, it is not all narrative. It usually has very descriptive language and strong metaphor. Some that I have read lacks structure and meter like prose, but the imagery and word choices are poetic. Don't know if this is allowed, so just delete the link if you need to. Folks can look it up in wikipedia themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prose_poetry

while i think there is a prose poetry, isn't prose prose and poetry something else?

Yes, if it looks like prose and reads like prose it ain't prose poetry or poetry. However, I am sure bt-rudo would argue with you.

[billy]

Yes, if looks like prose and reads like prose it ain't prose poetry or poetry. However, I am sure bt-rudo would argue with you.

brudo like love don't live here anymore

the main trouble is, most of us haven't a real clue as to what the fuck is what.... while a few do most are learning, i know i am. i can't actually tell anyone what prose poetry really is or if it exists for certain, i give my pov. "this is prose poetry" or "this is prose" i know next to nothing about meter, but give my pov on what i do know...i get it wrong quite a lot but there are people on the site who jump in and say "actually billy is talking out of his bottom again"

[Erthona]

"Is interpretation a valid SUBSTITUTE for critique?"

Interpretation is valid to the degree that it aids the critique. All poems purport to have meaning, and interpretation can go to how clearly that meaning was conveyed and how deftly that was achieved. Interpretation also speaks to eloquence. Without an idea of what the poem is attempting to convey, how can one critique such areas as word usage. How can I state that I think this word would be a better choice over what was used, unless I can see that it would express the meaning more clearly, or have a greater impact in doing so. Once one passes beyond commenting on the basics of grammar, syntax, formal meter, et al., that is those things that are more or less objective and factual, everything else is based on an interpretation of the meaning. However, this usage of interpretation is completely different from the "book report" type of interpretation where we begin by saying, "This is what this poem means to me." If one wishes to know the validity of this "book report" approach, simply peruse some professional literary critiques such as those of Harold Bloom, or Northrop Frye, and see how often such an approach is used

Dale

[rowens]

When it comes back to the prose poem problem, somebody says: I want to write something in prose. I don't want to make a short story or an essay or a friendly letter. But I'll make a poem, by God, and it'll be in prose. It's almost as simple as that. Many books of prose poems have been published. I've read a few, and I like them enough to go ahead and call them prose poems too. You can refuse to acknowledge their existence; but I think they're worth reading, and being considered within their own standards.

[ScurryFunger]

---

There is an an increase in the use of interpretation rather than technical comment on the boards.
In the sense which we tend to understand or define critique, posters are discouraged from commenting in this vein.
I for one avoid commenting on translation except when I cannot understand what the hell is going on but essentially I want to get at those areas where some improvement can be expected. If all the crit does is speculate or perambulate over and around meaning I find that the response from the writer is never anything other than a) Confirmatory and glad you got it, or b) Well, that's an interesting wayof looking at it, but...or c) What the hell, how obvious do I have to make it?
So I ask the question. Is interpretation a valid form of critique?
Best,
tectak

I'd like to think that there is room for several different types of critique (I would eh) The educated amongst you should tell us under-eductaed people about where we are going wrong technically, you see, I know nothing about meter, hell , I still call them verses instead of stanzas.

I probably spell big words wrong, I almost certainly, put, a, comma, in the wrong, place, now and then.

I read a lot of poems on this site and when one of them inspires me to comment, I do. I comment almost certainly 'in the wrong way', I'm amazed you haven't banned me.

We can guide a poem to be better than we think it was before and then what, an edit or three and then what, it will fade into the ether never to be read again.

Any critique is better than no critique? <she paraphrased unashamedly>

Cor, look at me, all inspired to type a reply this long.

lol

[tectak]

---

There is an an increase in the use of interpretation rather than technical comment on the boards.
In the sense which we tend to understand or define critique, posters are discouraged from commenting in this vein.
I for one avoid commenting on translation except when I cannot understand what the hell is going on but essentially I want to get at those areas where some improvement can be expected. If all the crit does is speculate or perambulate over and around meaning I find that the response from the writer is never anything other than a) Confirmatory and glad you got it, or b) Well, that's an interesting wayof looking at it, but...or c) What the hell, how obvious do I have to make it?
So I ask the question. Is interpretation a valid form of critique?
Best,
tectak

I'd like to think that there is room for several different types of critique (I would eh) The educated amongst you should tell us under-eductaed people about where we are going wrong technically, you see, I know nothing about meter, hell , I still call them verses instead of stanzas.

I probably spell big words wrong, I almost certainly, put, a, comma, in the wrong, place, now and then.

I read a lot of poems on this site and when one of them inspires me to comment, I do. I comment almost certainly 'in the wrong way', I'm amazed you haven't banned me.

We can guide a poem to be better than we think it was before and then what, an edit or three and then what, it will fade into the ether never to be read again.

Any critique is better than no critique? <she paraphrased unashamedly>

Cor, look at me, all inspired to type a reply this long.

lol

Hi scurry,
I have always had difficulty sexing fingers...you have cleared that up.
Part of the problem, if there is one, concerns effort. Expressing an opinion is always easier than correcting a technical inexactitude...if only because opinions by their very nature, cannot be invalid. In fact, I would go further. The most valid opinions are based in ignorance. Once the experts say "in my opinion" be wary...they are about to give you a fact.
I hope that makes you feel better. It should, because the ratio of experts to the rest of us is about a telephone number to one against.
Worryingly, this opinion seems to be relatively unsubscribed to. Most posters seem to thrive on opinionated praise but wither under "expert" critique...and most opinionated praise seems to centre on the "interpretation" of the posted piece. I find this sad.
Best
tectak

[rowens]

I'm nothing but opinions and a point of view. If I didn't have a point of view, I'd might as well start voting again.

All of the above is no good. And I'm no good for them.

So fuck em. Fuck em right in they mama's eyeball.

The experts and the facts.

Nothing is valid in my opinion. So my opinion is not valid. And I wouldn't want it to be.

Interpretation is as valid as a man is stupid.

[Leanne]

Interpretation is as valid as a man is stupid.

Well sure, but that's just your opinion

I'm good with any kind of critique that helps me to understand how a poem has been read, because as a writer we sometimes find it very difficult to separate what we know from what we've written. I won't countenance personal comments when the critique is supposed to be about the poem, not the poet -- neither positive NOR negative comments are appropriate in that case. Guesses as to the poet's state of mind or motivation should really be kept out of it as well. Critique is about what's presented on the page, or in the thread in this case.

Once it's about ONLY THE POEM, then anything at all that shows me the commenter has read it thoroughly and made an attempt to help by either pointing out technical issues or offering possible interpretations is perfectly fine as a critique. Knowing how a poem's being read can be invaluable when it comes time to edit.

[ScurryFunger]

---

I'd like to think that there is room for several different types of critique (I would eh) The educated amongst you should tell us under-eductaed people about where we are going wrong technically, you see, I know nothing about meter, hell , I still call them verses instead of stanzas.

I probably spell big words wrong, I almost certainly, put, a, comma, in the wrong, place, now and then.

I read a lot of poems on this site and when one of them inspires me to comment, I do. I comment almost certainly 'in the wrong way', I'm amazed you haven't banned me.

We can guide a poem to be better than we think it was before and then what, an edit or three and then what, it will fade into the ether never to be read again.

Any critique is better than no critique? <she paraphrased unashamedly>

Cor, look at me, all inspired to type a reply this long.

lol

Hi scurry,
I have always had difficulty sexing fingers...you have cleared that up.
Part of the problem, if there is one, concerns effort. Expressing an opinion is always easier than correcting a technical inexactitude...if only because opinions by their very nature, cannot be invalid. In fact, I would go further. The most valid opinions are based in ignorance. Once the experts say "in my opinion" be wary...they are about to give you a fact.
I hope that makes you feel better. It should, because the ratio of experts to the rest of us is about a telephone number to one against.
Worryingly, this opinion seems to be relatively unsubscribed to. Most posters seem to thrive on opinionated praise but wither under "expert" critique...and most opinionated praise seems to centre on the "interpretation" of the posted piece. I find this sad.
Best
tectak

so, let me get this straight, you mean:

You really dislike how you are being perceived as the bad guy, on account of you knowing how this poetry lark works (or were you typing vicariously then?) and those of us who give (usually) misguided opinions are..... ok I bored myself then.

Can we not just agree that opinions are like....... and everyone has one.

[Leanne]

Tectak always types vicariously, it's the only way he knows how.

I'd say what gets under his skin, and the skin of many a tragically misunderstood poet, is that people tend to fairly clumsily ascribe authoritative meanings to poems as if they're indisputable fact, e.g.

"This is an excellent poem describing the tragic plight of the homosexual springbok in wildebeest-dominated territory -- twelve thumbs up, old chap, nobody could argue anything less."

For starters, telling the poet what the poem is about is kind of redundant -- which is NOT the same thing as giving your interpretation on specific phrases or explaining how the themes are drawn out or whether the central metaphor is holding its own. Non-specific "interpretations" are, as Tectak points out, fairly easy to do and take all of about 5 minutes, often just based on a single read of the poem (sometimes little more than a skim). Then they're padded out with some platitudes about how wonderful the poet is so that the only possible response is really "thanks so much, you're a champion, wow it's lovely to have such a fan club", because if you write "fuck off until you can give me an actual insight that you've used your own brain for", it's seen as you being a bit uppity.

You don't have to be an expert to offer quality feedback -- you just have to read and be thorough, especially in the Serious forum. If you see a device you don't recognise, or you're not sure why a poet is doing something in particular, then ask. It's a learning area for all -- sometimes the poet might be doing it on purpose, sometimes it's a mistake that they just didn't notice, so you've done them a major favour by drawing attention to it.

We don't ask much -- just that people don't treat feedback like a chore that they have to do and can get away with doing a half-arsed job. Feedback is a gift that benefits both parties, and the rest of the site community.

[milo]

If your writing is so obtuse or complex that the success of the poem hinges on people interpreting it, you should probably consider rewriting it for clarity, I would think before posting.

I should add that poetry isn't about what you said, that really is better accomplished through prose, it is all about how you said it. If you think your meaning is so important that you litter up verse with poor technique and think it is still good you are wrong. Poets are wordsmiths. They create enjoyable art with words.

[Leanne]

We've had a few people post in Serious and expect people to "decipher" their poems as if a poem is a cryptic crossword -- that's just plain irritating.

[milo]

We've had a few people post in Serious and expect people to "decipher" their poems as if a poem is a cryptic crossword -- that's just plain irritating.

Super annoying. I have enjoyed many poems when I really wasn't sure what they were /about/ just because well-written poetry is enjoyable. I don't need to know what davinci /meant/ to know the mona lisa is fucking beautiful.

[milo]

So what's wrong with saying, "this line (or poem) doesn't work for me because it's so obtuse that it hinges on my being able to interpret it", or, "this is more irritating than a crossword puzzle"? I think that qualifies as an explanation, it does for me at least.

---

Or even, "this is beautiful, I have no idea what it means, but I don't need to.

That is usually pretty good observation that comes from reading the poem. I was pooh-poohing summary crits which I almost always find pointless. And not just because internet poetry tends to be so ham-fisted as to render interpretation moot.

[milo]

Actually I remember Pinky saying something about a Sanders poem along those lines, in an essay; Lethe is whatever time sprinkles on everything, it's so perfect that you don't even need to know what Lethe means, but I think Sanders was combining a similar word from Latin with the well known Greek here....him being notable scholar and poet in Latin...

---

Of course most professional crits involve phrases like, "this seems to imply...etc...", but with internet poets it can be as simple as saying " this missing comma makes me wonder if nuzzle jazz is meant to modify the statue..."

I don't think anyone is providing or expecting professional crit on this site. You are reminding me that I still like that line. Perhaps I should keep it after all or at least build a different poem around it.

[milo]

I would hardly think that it's necessary to provide an in depth "interpretation" of the poem, but covering the lines you commented on hardly seems moot. How can you say a particular word doesn't work, and not give an explanation as to why, and expect the poet to gain anything from it?

Actually, I do agree with that and I think I usually do that unless I think it is obvious.

[ChristopherSea]

For instance, in brief crit of one of chris' poems, i simply said," this is too preachy and opinionated", and suggested a title change to fix the problem I was having with it. That's an example of interpretation; I was simply stating that the poem may be interpreted as a God's-gonna-damn-them-all-to-hell sermon.

Yes and thanks for that gift trueE!

[milo]

For instance, in brief crit of one of chris' poems, i simply said," this is too preachy and opinionated", and suggested a title change to fix the problem I was having with it. That's an example of interpretation; I was simply stating that the poem may be interpreted as a God's-gonna-damn-them-all-to-hell sermon.

this is not an example of interpretation. well, certainly not a good one.

[milo]

For instance, in brief crit of one of chris' poems, i simply said," this is too preachy and opinionated", and suggested a title change to fix the problem I was having with it. That's an example of interpretation; I was simply stating that the poem may be interpreted as a God's-gonna-damn-them-all-to-hell sermon.

this is not an example of interpretation. well, certainly not a good one.

Well, it may not be a good example of interpretation by definition. But the value is determined by its usefulness.

I would consider it more of a comment on technical merit (tone and voice)

[milo]

For instance, in brief crit of one of chris' poems, i simply said," this is too preachy and opinionated", and suggested a title change to fix the problem I was having with it. That's an example of interpretation; I was simply stating that the poem may be interpreted as a God's-gonna-damn-them-all-to-hell sermon.

Yes and thanks for that gift trueE!

You're welcome, chris (I'm wondering when or if milo will ever accept that I interpreted it as a baptist, which gave me an idea for a title-change, which you found to be a good idea (and a useful one) so therefore it was valid)

the idea is valid, but it is not a comment on interpretation. Yes, you /used/ interpretation, but that is not really the point in this thread.