Critique of critique

[scooter2b3b]

As important as good poetry is good critique. This is lacking in many posts. The following critique appeared in merciless back in march and is a good example of a badly written crit. After you have read it I will tell you why.


“Oh my. A cliched title for a book of cliched poems. How original. I'll show you why this poem isn't any good.
Beneath the sacred oak filled with mistletoe
%% How is the oak sacred? When do oak's bear mistletoe? How are they 'filled' with it? Does someone drill a hole in the trunk and load it up with mistletoe?
Moonlight reaching through the branches
%% This is very, very cliche.
Standing on the Ancient Mother Earth
%% This is just a horrible line.
My breath catches
%% Your lack of punctuation is very annoying. Who told you poems couldn't use periods and commas? Whoever it was, they were wrong. Also, why do you capitalize the first letter of each line? Habit?
It's extremely
Annoying
To capitalize
The first letter
Of each li-
Ne.
I reach up as you embrace me
%% He shoots, he scores! Another 2 points for the cliche team!
Feelings flood through me
%% It looks like a landside here folks, the cliche team is just killing originality.
Waves of emotion
Always known
Within this dance
Purity
Eternity
%% Yawn.
So many things fill my soul
%% What exactly is a soul? Can you feel it? How can you fill it if it is not there? How am I supposed to empathize with it if it does not exist?
Did you know?
%% Yep. I knew. You didn't (and still haven't) read the posting guidelines, read other poetry in Merciless, and given a good thought to what you are doing. This is the last time I will critique your poetry. Have a nice day.”

Criticisms of this critique:

“Beneath the sacred oak filled with mistletoe”
‘%% How is the oak sacred? When do oak's bear mistletoe? How are they 'filled' with it? Does someone drill a hole in the trunk and load it up with mistletoe?’

Gee love the sarcasm here. Perhaps this critic could check his/her facts before spouting off. Mistletoe can indeed be found around Oaks. It lives on a variety of trees, growing its roots under the host trees' bark where it taps into the trees' nutrients.

“Moonlight reaching through the branches”
‘%% This is very, very cliché’

Perhaps this line is cliché and perhaps it is not. How do we know? All the critic offers is an opinion with no evidence or reasoning to back it up.

“Standing on the Ancient Mother Earth”
‘%% This is just a horrible line.’

Why? I am not interested in the critics personal taste unless a reason is given to back it up. (some people may indeed like this line). Give reasons for your opinion.

“My breath catches”
‘%% Your lack of punctuation is very annoying. Who told you poems couldn't use periods and commas? Whoever it was, they were wrong. Also, why do you capitalize the first letter of each line? Habit?
It's extremely
Annoying
To capitalize
The first letter
Of each li-
Ne.’

A criticism on style/technique. At last our critic is beginning to give us some substance. Note how few specifics are given and also note how the critic simply lapses back into subjectivity. Does it matter if the critic is annoyed? An explanation should be given as to why it is annoying. Lazy critique.

“I reach up as you embrace me”
‘%% He shoots, he scores! Another 2 points for the cliche team!’

More sarcasm and more inaccuracies. This is not cliché. This is a description of two actions. 1st action “I reach up.” 2nd action “you embrace me.” Had the author written ‘you embrace me with wild unrelenting passion.’ The critic may have had a case. As it stands these actions fulfil no criteria by which they can be labelled cliché. If you don’t understand a word don’t use it. Or at least look the word up in a dictionary.

“Feelings flood through me”
‘%% It looks like a landside here folks, the cliche team is just killing originality.’

The critic is possibly correct in regards describing this phrase as a cliché. Yet again no evidence is given to support the opinion. This critic appears to believe that if he/she thinks it so, then it is so. Well I’m afraid not. Evidence must be given to support an opinion or else that opinion is worthless as critique.
Also the critic misspells landslide.

“Waves of emotion
Always known
Within this dance
Purity
Eternity”
‘%% Yawn.’

The same could possibly be said for this remark. The only people interested in unqualified opinions are your family and friends. Please restrict these to them.

“So many things fill my soul”
‘%% What exactly is a soul? Can you feel it? How can you fill it if it is not there? How am I supposed to empathize with it if it does not exist?’

The most interesting part of the crit so far. At last our critic gives us something to sink our teeth into: The critic is attacking the use of a specific word. The critic challenges the meaning and nature of this word and obviously does not like abstracts. A valid point (though there is a great deal of poetry that exists within the realm of the abstract). This at least gives us something to think and argue about.

“Did you know?”
‘%% Yep. I knew. You didn't (and still haven't) read the posting guidelines, read other poetry in Merciless, and given a good thought to what you are doing. This is the last time I will critique your poetry. Have a nice day.’

Perhaps a good result would be that this critic refrained from reviewing any work until he/she offers us a little more than unqualified opinion, sarcasm and inaccuracies.

This poem and review is currently available in Merciless. I do not know nor have ever posted to the people involved.



[This message has been edited by scooter2b3b (edited 04-06-2001).]

[&*(9)%46#$&]

scooter2b3b,
This site has a policy of not "arguing with the critics" whether the critic is criticising your work or that of others.
The reason for this policy,I believe, is so that people are not discouraged from submitting critiques for the fear that they might say "say the wrong thing" or that their critiques might not be "good enough".
This being said, I agree with your claim that
"As important as good poetry is good critique." (*** or A good critique or good
criticism) and I think that you will find that all of the moderators and serious posters on this site will agree with you.
(They may not,however, all agree as to what
constitutes a "good" critique.)
Evidence that there is a commitment to good
criticism on this site can be seen every time
someone (usually a moderator) admonishes a critic for being to "harsh" in the lower forums, to "fluffy" in the higher forums, or
for not giving enough detail in the learning forum.
The very fact that this site has a learning
forum (Charon's Schooner) is further evidence of this sites commitment to to improving poets' writing and critiquing skills. One can not have one's poetry scrutinized in the
way that it is in "Charon's" without learning something about the art and craft of criticising. Also, I think that you will find that the exacting standards that you set
are the same standards that are set in "Charon's"
And then there are Julie Carter's "learn how to critique" threads.

The fact that there is "many" (meaning 1, 10,
100?)posts that a lack a good critique may be
a true one. All too often I find that the reason that these critiques are "lacking" is because they are written by inexperienced
critics who are trying to imitate the
wit/wisdom/controlled sarcasm/"cruel but true" critiques of the more experienced
critics. I did in fact read once a moderator
tell a poster "You don't have the writing skills to use sarcasm". It is not that uncommon to see posters who are just themselves venturing into the higher forums
severely and harshly chastising "newbies" for
the very same mistakes that they (the novice critics) had been making themselves only
a month or two earlier.

I would just like to end by saying that although I agree,to a degree, with what you
say, I do not agree with HOW you said it.
Your greivances with the critic should have been stated directly to the critic via email.
(If the critic has not provided an email address then a posting along a lines of,
"Dear X, I wish to discuss your critique of
Y's poem. Please email me at abc@123.com would be sufficient.)

Remember,scooter2b3b,a good way to critique a critique is to post a better one.

(9)


[This message has been edited by &*(9)%46#$& (edited 04-06-2001).]

[scooter2b3b]

Dear &dy (Hope you don't mind the Abbr)

Thanks for your post. Very helpful. I have re-read posting guidelines for the umpteenth time and still see no reference to critiques of critiques. I am happy to delete this post if asked (or have it deleted) but I would like to wait and hear what the moderators have to say before doing so. I re-visited 'CS' and see exactly what you mean. How's Melbourne? Not too cold I hope (snicker snicker)

cheers
Scott


[This message has been edited by scooter2b3b (edited 04-06-2001).]

[JohnBoddie]

The best way to counter a critique you feel is inadequate is to write one that improves on it.

It's also useful to consider whether each poem posted deserves the time and effort required to create a good critique. The critique presented raised several significant points, even if it didn't cite chapter and verse for each claim of cliche. It contained information that the author might have applied in improving his or her poem. The author, of course, will use, misuse, or ignore critique as he or she sees fit.

The issue of quality in critiques has been raised many times on this site. The standard answer is that you are getting what you paid for. There are sites on the web that offer critique that is, on the whole, better done than you find here. Those sites are also substantially more restrictive in the matter of controlling the work that is presented for review.

JB

[scooter2b3b]

Hi John

Thanks for your feedback. I've taken what you said on board.

Cheers

Scott