THIS is PATHETIC

[interracial_sex]

This just reinforces my stance on critiques. Poetry is so deeply personal that it's in essence beyond judgment. Verse is thought and emotion put to paper. Who among us would dare voice our innermost feelings if they were met with such harsh rebuttal when shared? Prose is our souls laid bare. Who would pour salt in a bared soul just to watch it recoil in pain? Besides, more often than not, most unfavorable critiques are about ego, written in jealousy, rarely valid and hardly ever constructive.

 

[Guest]

so here is a unique case of a person (I assume) has more than qualified credentials, that gives his time in a snobbish manner. So we can not rebutle his style of remarks? I think that is what the topic is for, to shine the light of enlightenment so perhaps this critic may be nicer on another poem.

Exactly, MET!

And whatever credentials he has, it doesn't matter to me. I've read a lot of his "poetry" and it does nothing for me. His latest isn't too bad, but there are so many that just seem like statements more than poetry. That's my take on it. One person said they got a little bored reading it. That's how I felt when I did. I decided not to vote or comment because it didn't do anything for me emotionally. And I think this is what I'm going to do from now on, if anything at all.

 

[annaswirls]

Wow, who told you that? A critique from a teen is good if you are writing to a teen aged audience and certainly the response would very often be, to outstanding poetry, from that teen "This is awful" or "This sucks"

So... do you really want honest opinions on how people feel? What about the teen's credentials? If they say something like, "What the fuck man, get a life" or "I have no idea what epitome means, this sucks"

Why do you need credentials if it makes you feel .... (fill in the blank with not so nice feelings like awful or like sending you a spell checker) but you do not need credentials to say-- this is EXCELLENT. Not I like this or it made me feel like sunday morning etc. To qualify a poem as Excellent is not saying how you feel. It is assigning the poem a rating, a judgement. Like Awful.

If you want people's feelings then you have to accept ALL of the feelings of all of the people, not just the ones who throw roses....

And MET you know that people are not going to change their personality because lots of people yell at him and call him names. You should really know this.

<grin>

where's anna? There she is <grin...

Is the critic a Lit Maj, teacher, editor, publisher, author of many poetry books and or a poetry God! etc...etc... <learned that from SJ> I was told once that if you want a truely honest response to your poem, show it to a teen. They relay so well how words make them feel.

I do believe there is a large difference in telling some one how the poem made them feel or what they thought of the poem as in good or bad when you become a critic and suggest changes and/or in detail, those who do so with tact or polite I learn from. Those who have commented with snobbish remarks such as "Pathetic" "aweful" or "sorry" I dont believe very many will put a lot of stock into.

so here is a unique case of a person (I assume) has more than qualified credentials, that gives his time in a snobbish manner. So we can not rebutle his style of remarks? I think that is what the topic is for, to shine the light of enlightenment so perhaps this critic may be nicer on another poem.

 

[Guest]

A cat may look at a king.​

*nods*​

 

[My Erotic Trail]

Wow, who told you that? A critique from a teen is good if you are writing to a teen aged audience and certainly the response would very often be, to outstanding poetry, from that teen "This is awful" or "This sucks"

So... do you really want honest opinions on how people feel? What about the teen's credentials? If they say something like, "What the fuck man, get a life" or "I have no idea what epitome means, this sucks"

Why do you need credentials if it makes you feel .... (fill in the blank with not so nice feelings like awful or like sending you a spell checker) but you do not need credentials to say-- this is EXCELLENT. Not I like this or it made me feel like sunday morning etc. To qualify a poem as Excellent is not saying how you feel. It is assigning the poem a rating, a judgement. Like Awful.

If you want people's feelings then you have to accept ALL of the feelings of all of the people, not just the ones who throw roses....

And MET you know that people are not going to change their personality because lots of people yell at him and call him names. You should really know this.

<grin>

I know, it never changes, each of us are who we are and reply with our thoughts and FEELINGS. In order to get a good finish you have rub a lot of sandpaper.

the teen;
if you want to know how a poem made some one feel, ask a teen, they are less reserved. If you want a critic for grammar or correctness, make a thread ...I think that was how the line went. I am fairly sure you reflect your feelings and thoughts on a poem in a proper manner anna do you feel that this poet/critic did in this situation?

In order for a crop of new poets to blossom you must not step on the rows when a poem sprouts. Fertilize well. When they are matured and hardy then you can smack them around a little bit and pick at their leaves and shape them.<grin

 

[Liar]

This just reinforces my stance on critiques. Poetry is so deeply personal that it's in essence beyond judgment. Verse is thought and emotion put to paper. Who among us would dare voice our innermost feelings if they were met with such harsh rebuttal when shared? Prose is our souls laid bare. Who would pour salt in a bared soul just to watch it recoil in pain? Besides, more often than not, most unfavorable critiques are about ego, written in jealousy, rarely valid and hardly ever constructive.

We could have a whole discussion about what poetry is. And my definition is not your definintion. Poetry is communication. Like all text. Just a different approach to it than your average prose.

It CAN be a soul-bearing voice to your innermost feelings. But so can a novel. Or a punk rock song. Or a private letter. Or grafitti on a bathroom wall.

And niether have to be.

 

[flyguy69]

This just reinforces my stance on critiques. Poetry is so deeply personal that it's in essence beyond judgment. Verse is thought and emotion put to paper. Who among us would dare voice our innermost feelings if they were met with such harsh rebuttal when shared? Prose is our souls laid bare. Who would pour salt in a bared soul just to watch it recoil in pain? Besides, more often than not, most unfavorable critiques are about ego, written in jealousy, rarely valid and hardly ever constructive.

Baloney. "Critique" is not "harsh rebuttal." Critique is careful examination of the effectiveness of the communication. Poems that do not effectively communicate emotion are not good poems and can be improved. That has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the feelings or the value of the person. Critique is not telling a poet they shouldn't feel sad about their partner leaving because she was a nag and a bitch, or saying they have no right to feel good about their writing. Critique is saying "this poem does/does not convince me that you feel sad/good, and these are the reasons why:"

It is very important that you remember that critique is not about poets or feelings, it is about poetry.

 

[annaswirls]

Originally Posted by interracial_sex

This just reinforces my stance on critiques. Poetry is so deeply personal that it's in essence beyond judgment. Verse is thought and emotion put to paper. Who among us would dare voice our innermost feelings if they were met with such harsh rebuttal when shared? Prose is our souls laid bare. Who would pour salt in a bared soul just to watch it recoil in pain? Besides, more often than not, most unfavorable critiques are about ego, written in jealousy, rarely valid and hardly ever constructive.

Poetry Therapy.

Yes.

You can get a degree in Poetry Therapy. I have considered it.

And I am guessing that the discussion in these Poetry Therapy groups is not about line breaks and punctuation and that such discussion would be prohibited in this form of Group Therapy, led by trained therapists.

Poetry is not just baring your soul etc etc etc if so why on earth would you do that for STRANGERS? If that is what people are wanting here, then no wonder they do not want to post. That is not what this place is. To voice their innermost feelings and have people say oh baby it's okay. I am not a therapist. I can be a friend, but I am not certified to give group therapy in the guise of a poetry board.

"Who among us would dare voice our innermost feelings if they were met with such harsh rebuttal when shared"

Certainly a poet can dig into his or her innermost feelings but if they try to write a poem with those feelings and then SUBMIT them to a "Literary" site (so be it an erotic site) then well, it will be viewed as a poem, not as Poetry Therapy.

Having said that, I have recieved some great therapy from friends I have made here

 

[interracial_sex]

Ideally that's what a critique is supposed to be but far more often than not it isn't. I still don't place much value in the process or think that it's worthwhile. For instance, if a critique had been done of James Frey's book it would have never been published. The writing itself is awful. But luckily, because of the story (whether true or not and that is a debate for another time), an editor chose not to critique or edit it. Therefore it was published in its rawness and, again whether true or not, people,especially addicts, can benefit from the read.

 

[champagne1982]

Well, I've read the whole thing and I've had the idea that people are people, no matter what role you cast them in, reinforced.

That is all.

 

[Tzara]

Critique is saying "this poem does/does not convince me that you feel sad/good, and these are the reasons why:"

It is very important that you remember that critique is not about poets or feelings, it is about poetry.

I would extend that to say "this poem does/does not make me feel/understand what you are expressing, and these are the reasons why."

There are, of course, a lot of reasons for writing poems. But writing a poem with artistic intent, however well or poorly executed, is about evoking experience or knowledge or understanding in the reader. Expressing your own feeling/knowledge/understanding is diary. There is nothing wrong with diary, as such, but it is not the same thing.

Having said that, my suggestion would be that if you are writing diary—that is, if the intent of your writing is primarily to give expression to your own feelings for the purpose of relief, venting, self-expression or whatever—you may either want to turn the comments off on your poem or at least indicate that you do not want "critical" commentary.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's just a different thing.

 

[bogusbrig]

Tzara and anna are right. Poetry is not about revealing ones innermost vulnerable feelings. It is as Tzara said, artistic expression, which is why we have all lost our sense of scale and this has blown up out of all proportion.

Senna Jawa gave a reasoned critique with a total lack of diplomacy and empathy for the writer in question. It's not a hanging offence. His social skills aren't the best and neither is that a hanging offence. There is something in me that believes he quite enjoys the discontent he ploughs and that he has something of a sociopath about him but let's leave that to the shrinks.

As for poetry as therapy, it sucks! At least to me. When I worked in the Probation Service I had to go along with these mindless, ill thought out theories of art therapy and poetry therapy and countless other therapies that were totally tosh and only succeeded in embarrassing everyone.

 

[Liar]

By the way, it seems like Una Ryce wasn't that terribly discouraged. She has new poems up today.

 

[TheRainMan]

This just reinforces my stance on critiques. Poetry is so deeply personal that it's in essence beyond judgment. Verse is thought and emotion put to paper. Who among us would dare voice our innermost feelings if they were met with such harsh rebuttal when shared? Prose is our souls laid bare. Who would pour salt in a bared soul just to watch it recoil in pain? Besides, more often than not, most unfavorable critiques are about ego, written in jealousy, rarely valid and hardly ever constructive.

I was going to say "Hogwash" to this, but "Baloney" covers it, as flyguy said.

As do the rest of the words he writes in the post I quote below, and as Tzara extends in the quote below that.

I put them there so I do not have to say them myself, since they reflect what I think as well as anything I could write right now.

Baloney. "Critique" is not "harsh rebuttal." Critique is careful examination of the effectiveness of the communication. Poems that do not effectively communicate emotion are not good poems and can be improved. That has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the feelings or the value of the person. Critique is not telling a poet they shouldn't feel sad about their partner leaving because she was a nag and a bitch, or saying they have no right to feel good about their writing. Critique is saying "this poem does/does not convince me that you feel sad/good, and these are the reasons why:"

It is very important that you remember that critique is not about poets or feelings, it is about poetry.

I would extend that to say "this poem does/does not make me feel/understand what you are expressing, and these are the reasons why."

There are, of course, a lot of reasons for writing poems. But writing a poem with artistic intent, however well or poorly executed, is about evoking experience or knowledge or understanding in the reader. Expressing your own feeling/knowledge/understanding is diary. There is nothing wrong with diary, as such, but it is not the same thing.

Having said that, my suggestion would be that if you are writing diary—that is, if the intent of your writing is primarily to give expression to your own feelings for the purpose of relief, venting, self-expression or whatever—you may either want to turn the comments off on your poem or at least indicate that you do not want "critical" commentary.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's just a different thing.

"Diary" is done with "the self" in mind.

Poetry belongs to the reader.

 

[TheRainMan]

By the way, it seems like Una Ryce wasn't that terribly discouraged. She has new poems up today.

Good for her.

Good for you, Una.

 

[bogusbrig]

It seems to me when we criticize a poem we tend to feel the need to intellectually justify our criticisms, yet for the most part our intellectualization is spurious because there are few concrete criteria on which one can back up a criticism on an intellectual level. In form poetry there are the traditional forms that everyone understands and one can with some detachment say if a poet has fulfilled the criteria. There is also grammar but beyond that, we are once again back to opinion. Most critics if you study their critiques closely are basically intuitive and hide behind intellectual scaffolding. We are basically intuitive and reflexive creatures and the biggest man made horrors in this world are when we are too pre-occupied with theory and intellectual rigor because most of the time the foundation of theory is spurious and we are blinded by our intellectual arrogance. We need intuition to make judgments.
We learn by experience and therefore you should seek out a mentor to which you are suited and avoid those that you disagree with. I asked Senna to intellectually prove something that really can’t be proven. His opinions are formed through experience and reinforced through the consensus of his peers and his pupils (being liberal here). This experience is then given intellectual foundations on which all things are judged, yet really this all encompassing judgment is illegitimate because it is a self proclaimed church. Rather like Rome bringing the wrath of the church down on heretics but their wrath is laughable to all but believers now Rome doesn’t have any temporal power.
If we want to study literature at University we know we have to bow to what academics believe literature to be. After all, they have the power. If we don’t wish to study literature at University who gives a damn anyway? There really is no need to. Their view of culture is getting smaller and smaller anyway. The most vibrant poetry events I’ve been to are poetry slams and they are totally heretical and have packed audiences but ordinary poetry readings are pretty low key affairs.
I suppose this is a long winded way of saying if you don’t agree with someone’s view of poetry, avoid them. They aren’t right and neither are you.

 

[interracial_sex]

It's been interesting, thus far, to read the differing opinions and theories as to what constitutes poetry (and what doesn't). Some of the posts seem to have been made with authority and clarity, implying that there is a definitive answer. However, there isn't. Poetry is undefinable and is innately at the interpretation of an individual. What might be considered poetry to one person might not be by another. It is completely individual and left to the judgment of the reader. Or at least that is my own opinion, which is no more "right" (nor wrong) than any other.

 

[Sabina_Tolchovsky]

Tzara and anna are right. Poetry is not about revealing ones innermost vulnerable feelings. It is as Tzara said, artistic expression, which is why we have all lost our sense of scale and this has blown up out of all proportion.

I'm not sure I agree with this statement, I feel some of the best poetry I write is the stuff that comes from deep down. Those raw momments that are locked away inside me. I don't particularly care if someone leaves harsh critisim of my work. I gain something from critique no matter if it is good or bad, life is 10% what happens and 90% how you deal with it.
Structure is structure, you can write a perfectly structured poem and it can be a peice of shit if it lacks imagery and deepth of feeling.
Academic poetry and artistic poetry are horses of different colors but if you don't believe in what you are writing they are just old gray nags.


Th

is just reinforces my stance on critiques. Poetry is so deeply personal that it's in essence beyond judgment. Verse is thought and emotion put to paper. Who among us would dare voice our innermost feelings if they were met with such harsh rebuttal when shared? Prose is our souls laid bare. Who would pour salt in a bared soul just to watch it recoil in pain? Besides, more often than not, most unfavorable critiques are about ego, written in jealousy, rarely valid and hardly ever constructive.

I pour salt on slugs every night in the spring with a glass of wine in my hand and a smile on my face.
Sympathy is hard won here...if your poetry sucks I will try to find a diplomatic way of telling you but I am not a diplomat so you take what you get.

 

[interracial_sex]

I would also offer that, more than likely, no amount of discourse is going to change our own held perceptions or beliefs as to what poetry means, or is to us, individually. I did read with interest (and an open mind) the noted differences between "diary" and poetry. I believe, personally, that poetry is about expression and emoting and therefore originates and begins, obviously, with the poet. Therefore the expression of his or her thoughts or feelings being put to pen (or whatever other means) connotates emoting of a personal thought or idea. Thusly, I believe that diary, if that is even an accurate definition or term, can be and is poetry.

As far as the idea of critique, I remain unconvinced and skeptical of its uselfulness as a constructive tool. If it were used as it is ideally intended to be then by all means it would be of major benefit to the writer receiving the well-meaning evaluation. However, more often than not, as has been my experience, it is a device that matriculates ridicule, derisiveness, jealousy, envy, hatefulness, ugliness and animosity. I am not speaking as one who has been critiqued because quite frankly, for these very reasons, I seldom offer anything to be read. I am speaking about what I've read in terms of critiques offered to other poets/authors on other sites. Rarely do you see a critique that offers tips for improvement on pentameter, punctuation, rhythm, line breaks or theme. Instead it is usually a diatribe of blanket insult, ripping the submission for no offered reason other than "it sucked" or that was terrible."

Such harsh and unfair treatment only results in the stifling of a person's poetic ambition and that is where the harm is present. You have to be thick-skinned to be a writer, that is a given, but to a new and shy person offering a submission for our perusal to only be insulted in turn without benefit of explanation may prevent them from sharing, or even writing, further and that is unfortunate. I cite Sophia Jane as someone this could have potentially happened to. And why? Because someone has the audacity to feel entitled to make such harsh statements under the "protection" of critique? It's a wonder that as many people expose themselves and their writing as they do given this type of treatment.

That may not take place here, I don't know, as I admittedly do not read the critiques for stated reasons (I do read the poems though). I mean my example isn't even a critique-it offers no suggestion for improvement nor does it cite what it is that is problematic in the poem-it just blanketly insults. That is my problem with the idea of critquing-that the example I give is far more often than not the norm of online criticisms that work under the guise of critique or constructive criticism. Those rare offerings of fair and helpful judgments are always beneficial and it's idealistic but I wish that such critique would become the norm rather than the infrequent.

I also apologize for the length of this post--I sometimes get caught up in the moment and the subject matter and tend to ramble. I merely wanted to better clarify my position(s) on the issues being discussed.

 

[flyguy69]

Is there a pill for prolixity?

I would also offer that, more than likely, no amount of discourse is going to change our own held perceptions or beliefs as to what poetry means, or is to us, individually. I did read with interest (and an open mind) the noted differences between "diary" and poetry. I believe, personally, that poetry is about expression and emoting and therefore originates and begins, obviously, with the poet. Therefore the expression of his or her thoughts or feelings being put to pen (or whatever other means) connotates emoting of a personal thought or idea. Thusly, I believe that diary, if that is even an accurate definition or term, can be and is poetry.

As far as the idea of critique, I remain unconvinced and skeptical of its uselfulness as a constructive tool. If it were used as it is ideally intended to be then by all means it would be of major benefit to the writer receiving the well-meaning evaluation. However, more often than not, as has been my experience, it is a device that matriculates ridicule, derisiveness, jealousy, envy, hatefulness, ugliness and animosity. I am not speaking as one who has been critiqued because quite frankly, for these very reasons, I seldom offer anything to be read. I am speaking about what I've read in terms of critiques offered to other poets/authors on other sites. Rarely do you see a critique that offers tips for improvement on pentameter, punctuation, rhythm, line breaks or theme. Instead it is usually a diatribe of blanket insult, ripping the submission for no offered reason other than "it sucked" or that was terrible."

Such harsh and unfair treatment only results in the stifling of a person's poetic ambition and that is where the harm is present. You have to be thick-skinned to be a writer, that is a given, but to a new and shy person offering a submission for our perusal to only be insulted in turn without benefit of explanation may prevent them from sharing, or even writing, further and that is unfortunate. I cite Sophia Jane as someone this could have potentially happened to. And why? Because someone has the audacity to feel entitled to make such harsh statements under the "protection" of critique? It's a wonder that as many people expose themselves and their writing as they do given this type of treatment.

That may not take place here, I don't know, as I admittedly do not read the critiques for stated reasons (I do read the poems though). I mean my example isn't even a critique-it offers no suggestion for improvement nor does it cite what it is that is problematic in the poem-it just blanketly insults. That is my problem with the idea of critquing-that the example I give is far more often than not the norm of online criticisms that work under the guise of critique or constructive criticism. Those rare offerings of fair and helpful judgments are always beneficial and it's idealistic but I wish that such critique would become the norm rather than the infrequent.

I also apologize for the length of this post--I sometimes get caught up in the moment and the subject matter and tend to ramble. I merely wanted to better clarify my position(s) on the issues being discussed.

 

[TheRainMan]

Is there a pill for prolixity?

Yeah.

Rybka's AV.

 

[flyguy69]

Yeah.

Rybka's AV.

Leaves me speechless!

 

[Rybka]

Yeah.

Rybka's AV.

Now just wait a minute!! What does my AV have to do with verbosity?

Anyway, I will go back to my fishes after I know that Boo has seen this one.

 

[flyguy69]

Now just wait a minute!! What does my AV have to do with verbosity?

Anyway, I will go back to my fishes after I know that Boo has seen this one.

I know you're working a poem into a gooey wad on your tongue right now!

 

[TheRainMan]

Now just wait a minute!! What does my AV have to do with verbosity?

Anyway, I will go back to my fishes after I know that Boo has seen this one.

Hurry up.

Send out a posse.