&*(9)%46#$&
04-10-2001, 09:42 PM
I think that sometimes there is a difference between "bad poetry" and "poetry that is written badly". (Although,often they are the same thing.) Every now and again I read a poem that seems to show that a writer has a natural talent for writing,and with a bit (or a lot) of work the poem that he/she has written could fulfill its potential.
I usually find that it is the responses I get to my critiques of such poems that determines if my hunch was
right or not. If I get a "Yeah,yeah, whatever,poetry comes from the heart;I don't revise " response or an
abusive response,then it is not too long before I discover that my hunch was wrong and that the writer is
a bad writer who has just happened to,through dumb luck, come up with a piece that showed promise.
Writers with true promise are usually much more gracious and grateful in the way they receive
crits.
A bad poet feels that his/her work needs to be defended against ALL attacks.
A good poet knows that if a work can't defend itself then it is a weak peice and needs to be rewritten.
I usually find that it is the responses I get to my critiques of such poems that determines if my hunch was
right or not. If I get a "Yeah,yeah, whatever,poetry comes from the heart;I don't revise " response or an
abusive response,then it is not too long before I discover that my hunch was wrong and that the writer is
a bad writer who has just happened to,through dumb luck, come up with a piece that showed promise.
Writers with true promise are usually much more gracious and grateful in the way they receive
crits.
A bad poet feels that his/her work needs to be defended against ALL attacks.
A good poet knows that if a work can't defend itself then it is a weak peice and needs to be rewritten.