Pre-reading previous critiques...

[Mister Micawber]

.. if that is not redundant.

I have noticed that some critiquers make a point of mentioning that they have not read previous critiques, while others freely refer to (especially, similar) comments by earlier posters and expand upon them.

(Parenthetically, I understand that we don't diss the other reviewers of course, hence the agreement, if any); but does anyone care to explain his/her rationale either way?

I will say up front that my own feeling is that those who don't read what came before are doomed to repeat it... or at least do not avail themselves of the opportunity to enlarge or diverge, but tend instead to become a sort of appendage.

[Rachel Lindley]

Repetition is not nearly so bad as being influenced by the opinions of others and subsequently abandoning one's own opinion. The reason some people don't read other critiques until after they've written their own is so that their own opinion is not muddied or overwritten by "majority rule". If you hate a poem that a whole bunch of respected critics rave about, and you read all of those raves, it's quite possible you just won't give your opinion. In fact, it happens quite a bit. We're social animals, after all. We like fitting in. A fresh take, therefore, is better than a censored take.

Rachel

[Monk Bretton]

I am one of those who, in the vast majority of cases, does not read the critiques that have gone before. I think that there can be a case made for reading other’s comments. But there is a far stronger case for coming to a poem unfettered by other people’s thoughts and insights.

To invent a case: A poet posts a poem entitled “B Specials.” Almost all the imagery in the poem concerns herons. Along comes SeamusOHoolighanM2 and crits it in the light of his specialist knowledge of the Irish Troubles. The five following critters, who, at first glance had no idea what B Specials were but have learnt from Seamus’ crit then proceed to look at the poem in the same light. No one comes along and says: “The title is obscure, don’t know what it means. This is a nice/nasty poem about herons.” That crit would actually be more useful to the poet-- they would learn that they have failed to draw out the Heron/Paramilitary connection explicitly enough, at least for the general reader. And if five critters out of six were to mistake the poem's intentions and think it was purely about herons then the poet would learn that he/she has a real problem on their hands.

The second point follows on from that. It is the fact that the critters are repeating themselves that is significant. If one critter finds the synecdoche in the sextet to be straining too far then the poet could well think, okay, it doesn’t work for him but no one else is complaining, I’ll keep it in. But if all six critters make the same point then the poet has some serious thinking to do. If the critters all read the other crits and think, oh the synecdoche in the sextet has been covered I won’t go over that again, then they are, inadvertently playing down a problem that needs to be pointed out.

There are a few cases where being told things several times is redundant (“there is only one s in fish,” for example) but in the majority of cases, where we are dealing with opinions and impressions made, it is the weight of opinion that counts. It is probably not worth labouring points about spelling and punctuation, unless they are obscure, if yours is the sixth crit on the list—it has probably been dealt with.

A similar case might be made for not reading previous drafts of poems. When a poet posts a revision they are not asking “how is this in relation to the previous draft?” they are asking “how is this as a poem in its own right?” Ideally a second or third draft would get comments from those who critted the previous draft(s) and comments from those who are coming to the poem for the first time. It would be really helpful to the poet to know which are which. I often stick in a line saying “I did/did not read the previous draft.” I think it would be helpful to me so I assume it would be helpful to others. For example if a poet posted a poem called “My ex-wife is so childish she set light to my teddy bear collection,” then posted a revision called “Teddies” the critters who had studied the poem previously would know that “Teddies” was about an ex-wife. But it would be useful to the poet to know, from those coming to the poem for the first time, if the newer version, with its reduced number of references to the ex-wife, still retained enough in it to be clearly a poem about an ex-wife. If you have read the first draught or if you haven’t then I think you should try and make it clear to the poet either way. [This is not to say that crits on revised versions, by those who saw the original, are not valuable. They are extremely valuable. And much appreciated. It is just that crits from those who are coming to the poem for the first time have a different kind of value.]

The key, I think is honesty. I would like all the crits on my poems to be honest. If you don’t know what something means then say so. If you only found out what something means by reading the other crits then say so. If you had to google sixteen of the terms in the poem say so. If you could have googled them but couldn’t be bothered (a comment on the poem in itself) then say so. If you have read the other crits then make that plain.

I appreciate that saying “I have not read any other comments upon this piece” comes across as a little bit pompous. I shall be looking for more inventive ways of putting it in future!

As I said at the start I think a case could be made for reading other crits beforehand. I would be interested to hear other people’s views on this too. Interesting topic, Mr Micawber. I think it has been touched on before but it is worth hearing some more views on it.

Regards,

Monk (doomed to be an appendage)

[Nanphi]

I like to come to the poem fresh and I try to get into a thread early; if there are already a great number of comments, I often decide not to intervene. If I'm planning an extended line-by-line critique, I don't read the previous comments, copy only the poem itself to study offline, and then write my crit. But before posting it, I usually do go back to the thread to see what others have said. Sometimes I edit my crit to remove needless repetition when another critiquer has already covered a point so thoroughly that I've nothing useful to add, but I might also insert agreement with previous critiques ("as So&So suggested"), because I think it can be helpful to the writer to know that several readers had similar reactions. In case of disagreement, I never mention the other comments.

- Nanphi

[cookala]

I generally don't read the crits until after I have written and posted my own crit - as a rule, I prefer not to be influenced by the crowd; and, I feel that if I do repeat something another critter has covered, than that's a bright red flag that tells the author that something needs to be done in that area of the poem. Consensus of opinion is a strong indication of a poems problem areas. The only time I'll read the crits prior to deciding to offer a crit is when I don't "get" alot of the poem after several reads. Then I'll give the other crits a quick scan to get an idea of what the poem is about. and if the other critters had a similar problem. When I do that, I also generally make a note in my crit about my not initially understanding the poem and having to read the other crits to get a few clues about it.

I don't generally read previous drafts unless they are posted below the revision (I'm basically too lazy to keep toggling back and forth between links, and I find it distracting as well because I can't see them both side by side to see their differences). I usually let the author know I'm looking at the rev with fresh eyes, and that I haven't read the previous draft. If my crit echoes anything from the crits on the previous draft, it's a signal to the author that they still haven't fixed "that" part of the poem yet, and that they will have to address it in the next rev.

[SarahJF]

I try not to read other crits, if possible. I tend to end up writing every crit offline. If I'm really struck by a piece, as opposed to one of the 'here's a new person who needs a good solid crit, but will have to make do with mine' analyses, then I'll usually let it settle for a few days in my head before attempting critique.

First impressions are helpful, too though. So I tend to copy it, stick it in windows, and do a 'first impressions' paragraph (although sometimes I'll do that online, if I'm pushed for time, or know I've engaged enough with the thing to want to come back).

Then I let it sit there, don't look at any other comments, and (maybe) come back to it. Then when I come back to it, I've a clearer idea of what has worked for me in it. And a better 'overview' of what the writer is trying to say, perhaps.

Anyway, I suppose what I do is try to mimic how I'd read a poem IRL. Because I dip in and out of poetry.

I don't sit and read it like a novel. I read it, go 'hmmm, nice image', go away. It sits, I think 'ooooh, actually, I've just thought of line two', and go back, ad infinitum, with pieces I really love, getting more out of them every time, as I become more sophisticated in my response to the poem, and as I gather more experiences to bring to the poem, I suppose. I think a reader has a job of work to do with poetry, and it's an enjoyable job. But it develops with time.

And that informs the way I approach critiquing here. The problem is that now my desktop is littered with first impressions, where I haven't gone back to the piece. Not a good thing, really. And I can't really go back to the pieces I was going to go back to, and say ooops, sorry, I forgot about it. God, that would be just the most awful thing to do, whether honest or not.

It's long-winded, but it's the way I enjoy critiquing. I might try for a rather more analytical approach in future, though, as the crits I read that seem the most helpful tend to be the ones where someone's taken a good step back and engaged with the construct of the poem in a kind of internal scaffolding way, rather than the more 'I've engaged with this image' wishy-washy way I read things.

Plus, if I get all scaffolding and properly analytical, my desktop won't be quite so messy.



Sarah
[SIZE=1]frantically googling synecdoche[/SIZE]

[sol]

The site mimics an actual workshop. In workshops, you don't get to read others critiques before you write your own.

[SarahJF]

I'm not (god forbid) doing a: "Move along please, the conversation has already happened". But thought a link to a previous debate on critiques, although with a different slant might be
appropriate (http://www.everypoet.org/pffa/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9962&perpage=15&pagenumber=1) .


Originally posted by Sol
The site mimics an actual workshop. In workshops, you don't get to read others critiques before you write your own.

Although I've never been in a poetry workshop, I've been in many 'group analysis' situations where one strong-willed person has said 'Pliggle' early on, and everyone else has then continued to pliggle, with slight variants in tone for the rest of the session, regardless of what they were going to say before bossybreeches stood up.

Is everything a bit more 'sealed envelope' in a real-life poetry workshop situation? Or, simply, does one have to write it down and 'read it out' rather than critiquing just after a reading, say?

Sarah

[Harry R]

I think that best practice is to not read the other critiques, although in practice I just crit things when something occurs to me to say; that's often in response to something said in a crit rather than the original poem.

Harry

[sol]

Is everything a bit more 'sealed envelope' in a real-life poetry workshop situation? Or, simply, does one have to write it down and 'read it out' rather than critiquing just after a reading, say?
From my limited experience, Sarah, everyone in the workshop gets a copy of everyone else's poem. Between sessions each person reads and critiques. Then during the session each poem is gone over in a dialogue form. Also, it isn't until the very end of the dialogue that the original poet says anything, which usually is a thank you, and that's it. Later each critique is passed back to the original owner for making appropriate revisions. No one ever gets to see individual comments of critiquers unless they voice them aloud during the dialogue. It's the same style the forums attempt.

[Darwin Cullin]

If you want to expand upon the ideas of others, there is no reason to read the crits first. Give a fresh critique, return to the thread, and then offer your comments…

Reading other people replies and commenting on them is just as helpful to the poet as your original comments about the work. Accepting or rejecting the ideas presented in other crits allows the poet to see his poem from multiple angles. Doing so creates an intimate and revealing “collective perspective” on the work.


This is how I try and do it...

[Rik Roots]

I know I'm supposed to read a poem with fresh eyes - as if I'd just come across it in a book of poetry - and offer comments on it on that basis.

But I almost always read other people's crits before offering my own.

To be honest, I rarely read poems nowadays - there's so few of them around that grab my attention from the starting gate and keep their foot on my neck until the race is over. What I do find interesting is how a group discussion can help open up what seemed to me on first impression to be a fairly routine work. Seeing the poem through other people's eyes brings an extra dimension to my comprehension, and (to be blunt) is more fun than reading the piece in the isolation of my windy garret. But I'll always offer my own opinions on the draft, even if they contradict everyone else's interpretation.

Does any of the above make sense?