Is any critique truly objective?

[ICSoria]

I have heard the question on several critique and self-described, critical analysis poetry forums. In my opinion, the answer is simply, no, although critique in its purest definition is surely meant to be so. However, in most of today’s online poetry forums at least, objectivity itself ends up coming across as overtly subjective. Each critic will have a different perception of a particular write and any problems therein. Sort of like (In my mind at least), the theory of relative light perception, posited by artist, Josef Albers. What is red, yellow or blue to one person, may not necessarily be thus to another. An observer may even perceive colors in muted tones. It depends on how his/her individual brain processes the same information.
I have heard all manner of argument against a seemingly harsh critique: "Just because you don't like this poem, doesn't mean it's a bad poem! It's written from the heart! They're all worthy of respect!" and (One of my favorites), "I have won several online poetry awards: How many have you won?" Such relativistic arguments are ultimately void of substance and attempt to obfuscate one fact: Certain parameters still exist in poetics, even free verse. Each critique however is after all only one person's opinion. How well a poet learns to adhere to the parameters will ultimately govern whether, and how long his/her creative attempts will be remembered.
Just my opinion. I would appreciate your take on it. Feel free to tell me where I am wrong.

Sid

[Todd]

Simply: No. Critique is filtered by the human critic. After a writer has gotten to a certain level of control they stop making basic mistakes, and their work achieves a certain polish it starts coming down to a matter.of personal taste. Not everyone is your reader but just because they're not doesn't mean you're bad, just as people liking your work doesn't mean you're good.

The true problem with critique is when people begin to like each other and they filter themselves because of the social connections they've made. So, IMO critique is never truly objective and we must stay diligent to care about the poetry more than the poet if our critiques are to mean anything.

[billy]

i think it should be as much as possible, is it in truth, mmm thats hard to answer. i think objectivity is relative. my objectivity is probably different than someone else's. i'm not sure either that a harsh critique makes a poem a bad one, so the people who cries when they're done should think twice before complaining. while we may struggle with individual critique being objective i think as a whole it could be seen to be so if enough people respond. not purely objective but the objectivity would be in their, unless of course it's a purely ego based forum.
i think what todd says has some merit but if we try and be honest we can do so without hurting (in the main) i like everyone here and i'll be the first to admit to tempering my feedback, what i don't or won't do is say well done if i don't think that's the case. i think we have lots of people here like that. i think it's one of the reasons why the forum isn't thousands big but i'd prefer a group wit a few who give honest feedback to a group of thousands that mainly spend time in feedback fawning over each other.

i try and look just at the poetry, i think that's the best way.

on another tack. it's hard to give object feedback if you haven't the tools to do so. if you think most the bad poetry out their is good, then that how you'll respond to it. jmo

[Todd]

I fully agree about not being harsh for harshness sake. I do see one reason to temper critique. When I was starting out there was only so much I had the tools to fix I wouldn't have known what to do with a thorough critique. I think of it like first aid: are they breathing?No. Then fix that before moving on to bleeding.

[ICSoria]

i think what todd says has some merit but if we try and be honest we can do so without hurting (in the main) i like everyone here and i'll be the first to admit to tempering my feedback, what i don't or won't do is say well done if i don't think that's the case. i think we have lots of people here like that. i think it's one of the reasons why the forum isn't thousands big but i'd prefer a group wit a few who give honest feedback to a group of thousands that mainly spend time in feedback fawning over each other.

i try and look just at the poetry, i think that's the best way.

In the last few years, I have come around to embracing more of a this particular view. When I began writing on internet forums shortly after acquiring my first computer, I belonged to one of the first forums on the net; AOL's Writer forums that covered various subjects. Poetry Corner was (as far as anyone knew), the only poetry group on the internet with hundreds of posts per day. This was 2001 and they had already been around a few years before that. There were lots of serious people on these forums and some professional writers. However, very few of them really had time or patience enough to give any really constructive criticism (I know, “constructive:” a relative term as well). Yet most felt inclined to give a personal critique on anything they didn't like...which was most of the newbie poetry. So, I had to listen to some really abrasive feedback, but I learned to take it--I didn’t have much choice--Most was spot on anyway. I also began developing sort of an attitude and when AOL, as we had known it, disbanded, I guess I sort of missed those diverse personalities and perspectives. Looking back, on some later forums to which I belonged, I now regret having been quite so frank in my comments to more than a few newbies. I guess I figured if I had become thick-skinned, everyone should.

So far, this place is just the right size.

Sid

[billy]

specially in the mild critique. if we all just give 1 or 2 pointers in there it's a manageable thing to deal with without being overloaded
i do like the line by line style in serious because it allows the poet to see where the feedback is aimed at. i do think it depends on the poet. i'll be honest again, i always try and draw new poets out of their zone of comfort at a slow pace. praising where i can. i think it so important to pick out what's right with a poem, sometimes more so than pointing out what isn't. as the poet grows i'll be more positive in the constructive feedback as to what doesn't work for me. coaxing is for me one of the most important tools we have for those new to poetry.
we don't spank a baby because it can't walk, we offer our fingers for it to hold onto as they take their first steps. and we do so while still being honest. jmo (or should i say we try to do it while being honest)

[billy]

I now regret having been quite so frank in my comments to more than a few newbies. I guess I figured if I had become thick-skinned, everyone should.

So far, this place is just the right size.

Sid

i think you bring up a great point, what good is objectivity if it scares would be poets away from writing poetry. beating them with solid truth can be too harsh. i know what you say about the site being just the right size Sid and i agree to a point. the thing is; if a couple of people are away we're struggling to get new/fresh work up.

personally i'd like to see another 5 or 6 competent poets and another 10 or twenty who are fairly new to poetry who want to improve. i think we need more news than competent poets so we keep as much objectivity as possible. what i do hate is when a site begins to have cliques, for me that's the breeding ground for back patting poetry and the loss of any objectivity anyone has.

[ICSoria]

personally i'd like to see another 5 or 6 competent poets and another 10 or twenty who are fairly new to poetry who want to improve. i think we need more news than competent poets so we keep as much objectivity as possible. what i do hate is when a site begins to have cliques, for me that's the breeding ground for back patting poetry and the loss of any objectivity anyone has.

You make a good point and I must agree the site could use more from that perspective. In past posts, I have alluded to my own aversions to the fluff type of poetry critiques and they do indeed follow behind the cliques. Well said.
Todd, I will also attempt to keep in mind your implied Breathing/Bleeding rule when critiquing.

Sid

[billy]

i like the breathing/ bleeding rule hehe.
mainly because it holds out hope for those new to honest critique.
so often i hear, i can't.don't know how to give proper feedback.
the only good way, is practice, just be honest but try not to be hurtful
it's a fine line but in general it can be done. (jmo)

[Leanne]

I think of it like first aid: are they breathing?No. Then fix that before moving on to bleeding.

Could not agree more, Todd. As we gain experience as critical readers -- and bearing in mind that "critical" does not mean "censorious" -- it becomes easier to figure out if a poet is writing poorly because he/she is new to poetry or if the poem really was just ill-considered (which happens to the best of us) and needs serious attention. For the newbies, I generally try to start out with obvious things that are easy to fix, like wiping out cliches or not trying to jam something into rhyming couplets, so that they can have an immediate sense of achievement and at the same time learn something they probably never thought about before.

Once those easily-fixed-but-terminal-if-unchecked problems are out of the way, then we can move on to the more complex stuff.

Oh, and the original question, I suppose I should address that: no, it's really not possible to be completely objective when reading any artistic text, but that certainly doesn't mean we should stop trying. Whether we like a poem or not, we should still be able to give a reasonably balanced critique of it.

[abu nuwas]

In my opinion, and there is nothing humble about it, our universe is objective, and our lives are spent trying to comprehend it the only way we can, subjectively. How can one trust J Albers? There is something very fishy about a man who spells his name with an 'f' -- like Fritzl, for example. Anyway, I was wrangling about precisely that point of perception when I was a kid/teen -- it was a good one, you could while away hours with that.

So, poetry -- it is no more than a sub-sub-sub division of all else. Can men say, objectively, that a nuclear reactor conforms to certain standards or designs? Get 10 to-gether, and no doubt, with just a hint of a reservation here and there, they can. After Fukushima their memory of those memories may be heightened, but if objective, in the real world, is to mean anything, it must include a soupcon of the subjective.

On this basis, I can say: it is not a fucking anapaest. It is of no consequence that in Kwa Zulu, the word in question is pronounced as an anapaest. I speak of my English. I can also apply the same rule, if required to the English of Kwa Zulu. Then it might be a fucking anapaest.
I can,therefore, establish some building-blocks.

There is more. Leaving spelling and grammar aside -- everyone else does, after all-- there are certain things which seem to resonate with humans, or certainly English-speaking ones, for reasons unclear: for example, the long, open syllable, at the end of a line especially, ('you' 'woo' e.g.) has the effect of creating a warm feeling (use your double entendre inhibitor please). Some sounds are apt to have a flavour: 'sk' as an initial, as well as school, which one might argue over, produces 'scuzzy', 'skanky', 'scum', 'scream' and so on. Using rules and basic understandings of this sort, there seems to be no reason why, provided they are of similar intelligence, and blessed with similar education, ten men would not reach the same conclusion on a brief piece of poetry as they might, differently educated on the state of our nuclear reactor. Which said, the longer and more complex either is, the greater the likelihood that that subjective part of their objective judgments will come to the fore, and their opinions come to differ

I therefore think the answer is a highly annoying yes--and no.

All this avails itself of the Interpretations Act 1889, which provides that the term 'men' shall include 'women'.

[Touchstone]

No.

Attempts to be objective are merely attempts to set aside personal preferences in favour of voicing ones idea of what "most people would think".

Obviously, there is a "what most people would think," and some people will be better at guestimating what that is than others. That really is what we mean when we say a review was objective.

[billy]

No.

Attempts to be objective are merely attempts to set aside personal preferences in favour of voicing ones idea of what "most people would think".

Obviously, there is a "what most people would think," and some people will be better at guestimating what that is than others. That really is what we mean when we say a review was objective.

i agree with the above, i have to because it's right, but i have a but....
i think some have a true to self objectivity which is what you say above in some way.
for me it would be so easy to simply say, well done or croon praises. and sometimes it's hard not to fall into that trap. but i try to put the urge to one side. and while yes, my feedback is only based on how i feel about the poem it's often true to me.

i doubt anything can be truly true. but in relative terms i think it can be objective