Learn to critique 2

[Julie]

Again, if you're comfortable offering critique to real people, please leave these exercises for those who aren't.

Thanks.

Untitled

Quiet the pressure that
Pounds in my brain,
The fission of thought and mind
Creates a light too intense.
Still it.

I know now why they drilled holes
In their heads, holes not for
This pressure to escape but for
Foreign atoms to enter in, to
Start the reaction just stilled
To catalyze my brain
Into a giant experiment of soul chemistry.

[michael.pracht]

This is a wonderful excerise, Julie. I hope lots of people join in.

[nyeldell]

I'm going to try and give this a go...

Originally posted by Julie:
Untitled

Quiet the pressure that
Pounds in my brain,

I think that this comma should be changed to either a semi-colon, colon, or a hyphen, depending on the effect you want to give the reader.

The fission of thought and mind
Creates a light too intense.

I don't gather a whole lot from these two lines. In this case, thought and mind seem to border on abstract. At best, I could interpret this to mean that you are overwhelmed by the thoughts you have, but why? The reader should not have to struggle to interpret your words.

Still it.

I know now why they drilled holes
In their heads, holes not for
This pressure to escape but for
Foreign atoms to enter in, to

This sentence starts to turn into a run-on at this point, and thus begins to lose clarity.

Start the reaction just stilled

I'm searching for some sort of punctuation after this line. Without any, the flow begins to stumble. Was the "reaction just stilled" your reaction, or "theirs"? Either way, why is it being intentionally started if you wish it to stop in yourself, which would make me assume it is something not pleasant? Again, try to be clear.

To catalyze my brain
Into a giant experiment of soul chemistry.

Soul is cliche. Again, without the punctuation, I can't be sure what is "catalyzing" your brain: the foreign atoms, the reaction, or the stilling of your reaction? One could make a likely choice, but then one should not have to. It is also unclear who is experimenting with your brain.



This poem leaves me wanting. I don't have a clear picture of what you are trying to stop, whether it is good or bad, or who "they" are (and how they are related to you). I could assume that "they" are neanderthals trephining, or I could assume that it is the cult that practices this in current times, and if either of these are correct, are you part of that group? Is this being forced upon you? I am left with more questions than answers. I also feel that this poem does not benefit from capitalizing each line, especially since this poem does not seem to be metered or rhymed. I feel that the readability would be improved and enjambment emphasized. I appreciate the word choice that carries a scientific sort of feel throughout the poem - it gives me the feeling that the choices were thought out and not random, but I still feel that this piece was mostly telling, and not showing. Imagery was scarce, and when it could be thought present, it was weak. As it stands, this poem doesn't move me at all, nor does it inspire me to think of anything in any new light. Like I said, I am left wanting. Thanks for the read, and I hope to see a rewrite - unless, of course, you're dead ;-)

Nathan :-)

[Vildecor]

To add to nyeldell's critique, here are two things that struck me:

Originally posted by Julie:

The fission of thought and mind
Creates a light too intense.

I'm wondering if fission should be changed to fusion. Are thought and mind combining (fusion) or separating (fission)?

In their heads, holes not for
This pressure to escape but for
Foreign atoms to enter in, to

I feel the line breaks here are awkward. I think they might work better this way:

"In their heads, holes
not for this pressure to escape
but for foreign atoms to enter in,
to..."



Vild

[Julie]

Originally posted by nyeldell:
Thanks for the read, and I hope to see a rewrite - unless, of course, you're dead ;-)



Ha. Very good, Nathan. My only hesitation with your critique, and it's a very minor one, is your use of "you." I assume you know this, but I'll say it for the benefit of anyone who may be lurking, the author and the narrator are not the same person. Be careful that you let the poet know that you aren't confusing the two. That way, when you *are* talking specifically about the poet there won't be any confusion.

Know what I mean?

Good job. You guys don't need me!

Julie

[Julie]

Originally posted by Vildecor:
To add to nyeldell's critique, here are two things that struck me:

Vild

You mention not liking the linebreaks, then offer your own suggestion. What do you feel your own suggestion improves? How is the original weak?

The fission/fusion question is a good one. Never be afraid to ask for an explanation if a word choice seems odd or out of place.

Good.

Julie

[nyeldell]

Originally posted by Julie:
Ha. Very good, Nathan. My only hesitation with your critique, and it's a very minor one, is your use of "you." I assume you know this, but I'll say it for the benefit of anyone who may be lurking, the author and the narrator are not the same person. Be careful that you let the poet know that you aren't confusing the two. That way, when you *are* talking specifically about the poet there won't be any confusion.

Know what I mean?

Good job. You guys don't need me!

Julie

Julie-

Thanks! As Michael said, this is a great exercise you have going here. Also, thank you for pointing out the need to keep the poet and the narrator seperate. That reminds me of Sexton and the confessional poets. It is, indeed, important to make clear that you understand that they are not necessarily one and the same. I hope you do at least a couple more of these so that we can get a feel for the different kinds of critique that each person can offer, and decide for ourselves what we feel is most important to make notice of. Also, if it is not asking too much, I would love to see an objective critique by you or some of the other moderators in this fashion. Thanks again!

Nathan :-)

[JohnBoddie]

A few words from the uninvited:

There is a danger, when starting out as a reviewer, to concentrate on the mechanics of the poem to the exclusion of looking at it first as a whole.

There is a point in doing a sanity check of the mechnics first, but only to save time that might be wasted in revewing a "poem" that is so sloppy that its presentation is an insult to the reviewer.

By far the most important part of reviewing is to first come to a conclusion about what you - the reviewer - think that the author is trying to communicate to you - his audience. Everything past that point in the reviewing process deals with the effectiveness of the poem in communicating that central message (which may be hard to pin down in those cases where the author is trying to communicate an emotion, moment or mood.)

As you start the review, tell the author what it is that you think the author is trying to communicate. This provides a context for the author to view your other remarks. Then move on to how whatever it is that is to be said is said. Look at the organization of the poem, the images, the word choices, the line breaks, the punctuation or lack of same, the meter (even in unrhymed pieces), and the rhymes. Continually ask yourself if what you see is effective. Praise what is good, identify what is bad, question what is unsure.

You will, over time, develop your own style of reviewing, just as you develop your own style of writing poetry.

Your objective in writing the review is to incent the author to think about what he or she is written and to re-examine the work in the light of your comments to see if it fulfills its original objectives. You are not re-writing the poem or making it your own.

Write what you are comfortable writing at first. At this point, that's likely to be comments on the mechanics because you can do so with some confidence. but push yourself in reviewing just as you would in writing.

Authors and reviewers join in a dance to improve the author's work and to improve the reader's enjoyment. That's why we're all here. Don't forget this.

I apologize for the intrusion and now return you to your regularly scheduled programme.

JB

[nyeldell]

JB-

Thanks for the pointers. I am glad to hear from you, and will be so bold as to say that you should be, and I think are invited :-) I've seen some great crits done by you in Schooner, and highly appreciate your advice, and the advice that other more experienced critters have to offer. I am sure Julie wouldn't mind some help in guiding us along the way, also :-) Again, I look forward to a few more of these exercises, Julie, if you have the patience :-) Thanks, all!

Nathan :-)

[Qyl]

Ok, I am giving this a try. I'll try not to repeat too much of what was already said.

Quiet the pressure that
Pounds in my brain,
The fission of thought and mind
Creates a light too intense.
I like image created by the connection between light and fission, but the fission/fusion thing as stated above got to me too. What I want to know is why is there fission, what caused it, or perhaps more description to define what is happening, since fission alone doesn't adequately describe it. I sense abstraction here that does not help the reader understand the message.

Still it.

I know now why they drilled holes
In their heads,
they/their is a generality, and I feel it adds additional abstraction. Would like to see some specifics, bring this down to earth so the reader can grasp the meaning.

holes not for
This pressure to escape but for
Foreign atoms to enter in, to
Start the reaction just stilled
To catalyze my brain
The use of "this pressure" and "reaction just stilled to catalyze my brain", right after "in their heads", switches between the narrator's and "their" head/brain. I don't grasp this switch easily, it seems awkward, not sure who you are talking about. Added to the abstraction of "them" above, I am getting lost.
Into a giant experiment of soul chemistry.
Ok, so the experiment is the atoms catalyzing the brain, but I believe soul is already pretty abstract, chemistry is general, so I am not sure what the point is, what are you trying to tell me?




------------------
Qyl