Interpretation...is it valid critique?

[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

[ellajam]

---

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

For me personally, at a novice level, interpretation is a valid form of critique. I know what the poem means to me, but I am familiar with it and may be making leaps the reader doesn't see (probably because they're not there).

While the technical criticism helps because those errors are distracting for experienced readers, for me I would like to know if the total has landed where I intended.

I hope I understood your question, grin, it not feel free to ignore this post.

[Todd]

I think it is. I don't think it's the only critique we should do, but especially for obscure poems the writer usually wants to know if their meaning conveys. I've been on sites where they've separated out this function of critique. Poems have been posted and people have written what they think the poem means. It turned out to be very difficult for some. I think interpretation is how you get at the content so I have no problem with it. For the most part, anything beyond: Wow! cool poem is valid for me.

Just thoughts,

Todd

[rayheinrich]

Is interpretation a valid form of critique?

If I may offer a slight critique of your question
(supposing I have interpreted it correctly),
I'd say that saying that "critique" possesses a
"form" is very akin to interpreting interpretation
as critique.

The question I think you meant to state (again
supposing I have interpreted your question correctly)
is more like: 'If you interpret "interpretation" as
"critique" aren't you implying that "meaning" is
a type of grammar that may be correct or incorrect?'

It's reductio ad absurdum time in the pigpen!

Critique necessarily requires interpretation;
interpretation does not necessarily require critique.

P.S. My favorite example of trying to pass off
interpretation as critique is when some idiot
complains that a piece of writing is too much
like prose to be a poem.

[ChristopherSea]

Interpretation, when possible, has to be a component of critique for several reasons. Failure of the reviewer to properly interpret the poem results in them making incongruous suggestions, thereby wasting both party’s time. Line by line critique and word substitution alone often yields a different poem in focus, imagery and tone. Many edits suggested end up being ones to interpret the poem for the reviewer in the first place, rather than enriching the poem. Other queries and critiques, if followed strickly by the poet, will strip a poem of abstraction or bastardize the piece, especially when made for the purpose of clarity verses poetry. However, it is up to the poet to pick and choose any advice properly. If a multiple exchange occurs, this is less likely to happen. I welcome, enjoy and feel enriched with the back and forth that goes on with this site a great deal (especially, with the acumen and experience of this staff!), whether they are strictly technical or interpretational, but hopefully a measure of both. I find the most useless critiques are those that are all reaction with no suggestions. Finally, if I write an emotive piece and the reviewer fails to comment on the effectiveness at all, I would be less inclined to heed their suggestions, as opposed to a critique that said they were moved, but you need to correct this or change that in order to pull it off better.

[tectak]

Is interpretation a valid form of critique?

If I may offer a slight critique of your question
(supposing I have interpreted it correctly),
I'd say that saying that "critique" possesses a
"form" is very akin to interpreting interpretation
as critique.

The question I think you meant to state (again
supposing I have interpreted your question correctly)
is more like: 'If you interpret "interpretation" as
"critique" aren't you implying that "meaning" is
a type of grammar that may be correct or incorrect?'

It's reductio ad absurdum time in the pigpen!

Critique necessarily requires interpretation;
interpretation does not necessarily require critique.

P.S. My favorite example of trying to pass off
interpretation as critique is when some idiot
complains that a piece of writing is too much
like prose to be a poem.

Yes...there are predictable points in this which lead me to rephrase the question....I knew this would happen before I posed it.
Here goes.
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?

It seems to me that more and more ( I am almost guilty but I hope I have reigned myself in) we are getting speculative analysis, pretentious imaginings and hoplessness hopefully shared, instead of suggestions leading to poetical betterment....whatever that is. I only know what it isn't.

I conceed that the teen-angst, depressives, drug-abusers, self-harmers and, as someone else called them, crazy people, will always walk among us-- and long may they do so -- but I am not sure we do any of us a service by what ultimately becomes psycho-analysis by proxy.

As for the reducto ad absurdum tendency, I believe that this is symptomatic of the concern I am expressing...but of course, such concern is wide open to interpreatation. Now tell me I have a typo...thank god for that!
Best,
tectak

---

Is interpretation a valid form of critique?

If I may offer a slight critique of your question
(supposing I have interpreted it correctly),
I'd say that saying that "critique" possesses a
"form" is very akin to interpreting interpretation
as critique.

The question I think you meant to state (again
supposing I have interpreted your question correctly)
is more like: 'If you interpret "interpretation" as
"critique" aren't you implying that "meaning" is
a type of grammar that may be correct or incorrect?'

It's reductio ad absurdum time in the pigpen!

Critique necessarily requires interpretation;
interpretation does not necessarily require critique.

P.S. My favorite example of trying to pass off
interpretation as critique is when some idiot
complains that a piece of writing is too much
like prose to be a poem.

Yes...there are predictable points in this which lead me to rephrase the question....I knew this would happen before I posed it.
Here goes.
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?

It seems to me that more and more ( I am almost guilty but I hope I have reigned myself in) we are getting speculative analysis, pretentious imaginings and hoplessness hopefully shared, instead of suggestions leading to poetical betterment....whatever that is. I only know what it isn't.

I conceed that the teen-angst, depressives, drug-abusers, self-harmers and, as someone else called them, crazy people, will always walk among us-- and long may they do so -- but I am not sure we do any of us a service by what ultimately becomes psycho-analysis by proxy.

As for the reducto ad absurdum tendency, I believe that this is symptomatic of the concern I am expressing...but of course, such concern is wide open to interpreatation. Now tell me I have a typo...thank god for that!
Best,
tectak

[cidermaid]

As one of the frequent offenders of this crime, I am obviously going to contend that I think that this is still a valid form of critique. Both Todd and ChristopherSea have made comments that are well balanced and offer good examples of when & why this form of critique might be acceptable. So I do not think I can add much to what they have said.

Also I would second Todd's closing comment as I think the attitude of inclusion of all levels of ability and engagement with poetry best sums up the spirit of the site.

To my mind the flip side of this discussion is that, at what point does the site become too elitist and in doing so perhaps deters the novice poet. I would be more concerned with a trend that adopts a regimented attitude and a "My way or the high way" mentality. I think if we start inhibiting one style or method over another we are in danger of becoming sterile and homogenised into a one voice, poet alike site. (If this thought is followed to its most brutal outcome, then i think we arrive at a place where we will be nothing better than a cosy club of sycophantic lovies fawning over each other and playing follow the leader or possibly, the most opiniated voice).

For me it is the many voices aspect of the site that keeps it vibrant and keeps me coming back. I don't want to read repetitions of the same crit ideas on a poem written with ever more intellectually cutting and witty putdowns. I want to understand a poem on as many levels that my average intellect will allow for. I appreciate that we cannot all function at the same level, but for me this is the beauty of poetry. It has so many aspects and access points in how it is appreciated that there is plenty of room of all comers and all styles of comments. (Like with all things we need a balance and yes I would agree that if every comment was based on meaning it would be folly, but Basically I'm with Todd when he said "anything beyond: Wow! cool poem is valid for me").


Just some thoughts,
AJ.

[milo]

I have have received and read comments of both kinds and I find value in both. i think this site tends to currently have a positive balance of several different kinds of comments and it is the variation that provides value.

[tectak]

I have have received and read comments of both kinds and I find value in both. i think this site tends to currently have a positive balance of several different kinds of comments and it is the variation that provides value.

Well said, milo
Best,
tectak

[ChristopherSea]

Balance seems to be the concensus! sp consensus

[Leanne]

I'm not sure where the document on critique and feedback ended up, but here are two excerpts from it that might be worth adding to this thread:

The speaker/voice of the writing is not always that of the author, even if it uses an I. Don’t assume that anything written in the first person is always autobiographical (this can cause offence). Avoid giving “life advice” in a critique, unless it’s part of your interpretation of the poem.

and

Examine all aspects: technical merit, possible meanings, aesthetics (how beautiful it is) and effectiveness. A piece that is technically brilliant may fall short in aesthetics or originality; if it’s aesthetically pleasing it may not really make an impact. Try to work out why. If you are not sure of the technique used, it is often a good idea to find out before you write your review. This not only provides the most help to the author, it also increases your own knowledge.

Meaning is very important to poetry -- even if it's not just one single meaning -- and there's no point making technical suggestions that will alter the meaning beyond what the writer is comfortable with. To that end, if you really don't get it: ask.

(And then people like me will tell you that they don't explain poems...)

[ChristopherSea]

[quote='Leanne' pid='139209' dateline='1379015750']
I'm not sure where the document on critique and feedback ended up, but here are two excerpts from it that might be worth adding to this thread:

[quote]
The speaker/voice of the writing is not always that of the author, even if it uses an I. Don’t assume that anything written in the first person is always autobiographical (this can cause offence). Avoid giving “life advice” in a critique, unless it’s part of your interpretation of the poem.
[/quote]

Thank you for the above quote! Many got their panties in a twist (and they were all men) over my Mardi Gras poem's voice that I had to put in my signature: The poem is not the poet.

[Leanne]

Yep... people who only write diary-entry type poetry don't seem to realise that "I" is a literary device... bloody hell, you'd think they'd never read a novel either... oh wait! They possibly haven't.

[ChristopherSea]

I'm not sure where the document on critique and feedback ended up, but here are two excerpts from it that might be worth adding to this thread:

The speaker/voice of the writing is not always that of the author, even if it uses an I. Don’t assume that anything written in the first person is always autobiographical (this can cause offence). Avoid giving “life advice” in a critique, unless it’s part of your interpretation of the poem.

and

Examine all aspects: technical merit, possible meanings, aesthetics (how beautiful it is) and effectiveness. A piece that is technically brilliant may fall short in aesthetics or originality; if it’s aesthetically pleasing it may not really make an impact. Try to work out why. If you are not sure of the technique used, it is often a good idea to find out before you write your review. This not only provides the most help to the author, it also increases your own knowledge.

Meaning is very important to poetry -- even if it's not just one single meaning -- and there's no point making technical suggestions that will alter the meaning beyond what the writer is comfortable with. To that end, if you really don't get it: ask.

(And then people like me will tell you that they don't explain poems...)

Both good points!

Hey, I bought your book and you've got some explaining to do on a couple pieces therein and I'm not even halfway through yet!

[Leanne]

Just ask and I'll tell you how to figure it out for yourself

---

Actually, I think trueenigma started a thread demanding I explain some of those poems...

[billy]

My favorite example of trying to pass off
interpretation as critique is when some idiot
complains that a piece of writing is too much
like prose to be a poem.

[/font]

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

[milo]

Just ask and I'll tell you how to figure it out for yourself

---

Actually, I think trueenigma started a thread demanding I explain some of those poems...

I believe it was Brownlie with the Q & A on Ghost Dreaming

[ChristopherSea]

My favorite example of trying to pass off
interpretation as critique is when some idiot
complains that a piece of writing is too much
like prose to be a poem.

[/font]

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

[Leanne]

Just ask and I'll tell you how to figure it out for yourself

---

Actually, I think trueenigma started a thread demanding I explain some of those poems...

I believe it was Brownlie with the Q & A on Ghost Dreaming

So it was, thanks milo -- I'm getting old you know.

---

It can be prose-like and still poetry -- as Chris rightly points out, you just need to have some poetic devices. If it's devoid of both poetic device and structure (not just arbitrary line breaks), then it really ought to be called prose.

[billy]

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

---

My favorite example of trying to pass off
interpretation as critique is when some idiot
complains that a piece of writing is too much
like prose to be a poem.

[/font]

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?