PL's Peak: Guide to Poetry and Critique (feedback/discuss!)

Why are you here?

I'm here for the poetry guide!	45.1%	[ 594 ]
I'm here for the critiquing guide!	18.8%	[ 248 ]
I'm here because someone else pointed me here.	6.1%	[ 80 ]
I'm here for the gold. Didn't it say it had a poll?	30.0%	[ 396 ]
Total Votes:			[ 1318 ]

[Oxxidation-12]

Poetess Laureate

Oxxidation-12

I believe Hoodi tried that. It didn't work out very well.

Do you mean Inkblotters? That was more a poetry guild than critiquing guild. I mean, it was a guild for people to give crit, but not to learn to give crit.

That said, if you mean something else that he tried that flopped, why did it flop and could the idea be salvaged do you think?

The regs are famous for their crushing shiftlessness. It's the main reason why I'm convinced that the other Ministry will never really take off.

You can't lead them to water and you can't make them drink, but cleaning out the trough every now and then with topics like these can't hurt. Just don't expect anyone to do WORK.

[Poetess Laureate]

What are the advantages of line-by-line or stanza-by-stanza critique?

That is to say, all other things being equal, is line-by-line/stanza-by-stanza still to be preferred to a more general critique (even a general critique that does address the main issues with the piece)?

I'm asking this because I tend to go for line-by-line/stanza-by-stanza when I have the time, because I see it as necessarily more detailed and focused. But is it? Or am I giving in to my own biases?

[Oxxidation-12]

Poetess Laureate

What are the advantages of line-by-line or stanza-by-stanza critique?

That is to say, all other things being equal, is line-by-line/stanza-by-stanza still to be preferred to a more general critique (even a general critique that does address the main issues with the piece)?

I'm asking this because I tend to go for line-by-line/stanza-by-stanza when I have the time, because I see it as necessarily more detailed and focused. But is it? Or am I giving in to my own biases?

Piecework critiques are only effective as part of a unifying whole. Pieces have to be taken in their entirety - this is pretty much inarguable. If one evaluates a poem one bit at a time it's got to be with the overarching idea in mind, i.e., they had better follow those comments up with a full statement and summarization of their recommendations of the poem as a whole.

Line-by-line and general are two halves of the ideal critique. Everybody wins, in a sense, but because of that shiftless thing it doesn't happen often. =P

[Poetess Laureate]

Oxxidation-12

Poetess Laureate

What are the advantages of line-by-line or stanza-by-stanza critique?

That is to say, all other things being equal, is line-by-line/stanza-by-stanza still to be preferred to a more general critique (even a general critique that does address the main issues with the piece)?

I'm asking this because I tend to go for line-by-line/stanza-by-stanza when I have the time, because I see it as necessarily more detailed and focused. But is it? Or am I giving in to my own biases?

Piecework critiques are only effective as part of a unifying whole. Pieces have to be taken in their entirety - this is pretty much inarguable. If one evaluates a poem one bit at a time it's got to be with the overarching idea in mind, i.e., they had better follow those comments up with a full statement and summarization of their recommendations of the poem as a whole.

Line-by-line and general are two halves of the ideal critique. Everybody wins, in a sense, but because of that shiftless thing it doesn't happen often. =P

That's a good point. I tend to either indeed do the microscope and mention the basic principles behind whatever specific issue I'm talking about (and sometimes add a few "overall" general comments at the end) -- ideally.

Less ideally, I mention things more generally but include at least a few examples, or offer to if they want some or aren't sure what I mean by how i phrase something.

Much less ideally (as a helpful critique) -- but more fun if I see the person has already been ignoring every thoughtful critique they're getting -- I settle for sarcasm. I just make sure I'm still making legitimate (and helpful if they'd listen) points in among it. >_>

[Oxxidation-12]

Hilarious.

One habit that's even got under my skin among the critics is a tendency to focus on the idiots who will not, under any circumstances, take advice - this is even worse among the OS/P. The underlying principle's probably just a need to flame, which is what I do, but I never claim to be a critic. Most other people chug around either patting each others' asses or focusing on the utterly hopeless. Pretty much everyone associated with zero falls into the former group and a healthy percentage of the other regs are included in the latter.

It can really be quite vexing, at times.

[Poetess Laureate]

Oxxidation-12

Hilarious.

One habit that's even got under my skin among the critics is a tendency to focus on the idiots who will not, under any circumstances, take advice - this is even worse among the OS/P. The underlying principle's probably just a need to flame, which is what I do, but I never claim to be a critic. Most other people chug around either patting each others' asses or focusing on the utterly hopeless. Pretty much everyone associated with zero falls into the former group and a healthy percentage of the other regs are included in the latter.

It can really be quite vexing, at times.

So a critic needs to recognize the signs (should we post a serious list of those somewhere? haaa) that someone simply will not hear a word they say -- and learn to let go and pass over that sort of thread (quicker) if their purpose really is critique?

The problem with continuing in that sort of thread, is the critic tends to end up losing credibility for engaging in the same behaviors as the stubborn writer -- not listening, needing to have the last word, flaming instead of supporting their actual argument, etc. So it's kind of a death trap.

[Oxxidation-12]

Poetess Laureate

Oxxidation-12

Hilarious.

One habit that's even got under my skin among the critics is a tendency to focus on the idiots who will not, under any circumstances, take advice - this is even worse among the OS/P. The underlying principle's probably just a need to flame, which is what I do, but I never claim to be a critic. Most other people chug around either patting each others' asses or focusing on the utterly hopeless. Pretty much everyone associated with zero falls into the former group and a healthy percentage of the other regs are included in the latter.

It can really be quite vexing, at times.

So a critic needs to recognize the signs (should we post a serious list of those somewhere? haaa) that someone simply will not hear a word they say -- and learn to let go and pass over that sort of thread (quicker) if their purpose really is critique?

The problem with continuing in that sort of thread, is the critic tends to end up losing credibility for engaging in the same behaviors as the stubborn writer -- not listening, needing to have the last word, flaming instead of supporting their actual argument, etc. So it's kind of a death trap.

Not really, because the critics tend to be inherently better than the people they're critiquing. This is a mentality some people will shy away from, and it's at least partly responsible for the target-practice mentality among most of the regs, but the concept of "critic etiquette" is imbecilic. Advice is advice, and the context in which it's delivered is irrelevant.

And besides, the all-out flames tend to kick up when advice is outright rejected - and that usually happens with OP's who wear their idiocy on their sleeves. You know, the Torn Heart brigade. It's not DIFFICULT to avoid stuff like that, you know.

The really epic flame wars come from the crazies who don't show it; it bubbles up, takes people by surprise and suddenly everyone smells blood. Those are happily inevitable. The others, though, get dull fast, and tend to be a waste of time and effort.

[Poetess Laureate]

And here I will lol because you were right.

And I realized (which I also said elsewhere): I think I (can't really speak for anyone else) tend to do that when the poem involves a subject I care about for whatever reason. That aspect of that sort of reaction probably just needs a step backwards and a couple breaths while rolling one's eyes.

In general, I think you're right: blood-scent. Which is kind of sad.

Edit: Come to think of it, I have a second or alternative hypothesis as well: It's easier.

Which takes more effort: Telling a piece completely devoid of poetic or literary devices that it's not a poem (despite the truthfulness of the statement) or picking apart the imagery and deeper techniques of a well-crafted piece?

[Oxxidation-12]

Poetess Laureate

And here I will lol because you were right.

And I realized (which I also said elsewhere): I think I (can't really speak for anyone else) tend to do that when the poem involves a subject I care about for whatever reason. That aspect of that sort of reaction probably just needs a step backwards and a couple breaths while rolling one's eyes.

In general, I think you're right: blood-scent. Which is kind of sad.

Edit: Come to think of it, I have a second or alternative hypothesis as well: It's easier.

Which takes more effort: Telling a piece completely devoid of poetic or literary devices that it's not a poem (despite the truthfulness of the statement) or picking apart the imagery and deeper techniques of a well-crafted piece?

Eheheheh, that's also probably the case sometimes. I just took the "shits and giggles" route because it's pretty much how I do things.

[Follow My Lied]

Poetess Laureate

a well-crafted piece

That.

That's the b***h in my kitchen.

Any time I think about going into someone's work, I always wonder how much time was spent on it. It's impossible to say in these parts, because, most of the time, I can never really tell what a poem's about. If I don't know what the poem is trying to say, I can't tell how well it's been said.

It may be just a matter of preference -- that I prefer poetry that has a foundation in things, rather than whimsical word play (which is why you'll never see me in Felix's threads for any other reason than to be obnoxious.)

A person may spend hours or days on a piece, and it'll still look as though it were crapped out in moments.

My question would be:

What are we looking for when we get into it? How can we tell if a person's really trying or just wanking?

[Caffeinated Mini-Rawr]

Follow My Lied

What are we looking for when we get into it? How can we tell if a person's really trying or just wanking?

Insofar as I know, there's no way to tell. For example, I've written a lot of poetry over the years. Some of it is good, and a lot of it is bad (there's this whole .doc file I don't look at without wincing).

For the most part, it never really takes me more than 10-15 minutes to write a poem. Sometimes I whip a really stunning one out in about 30 seconds. It's really a matter of mood, for me.

...but were we talking about 'inexperienced' writers or all flavors?

Lacking telepathy, the best way to find something like that out is simply to ask.

"Hey, how long did it take you to write that, out of curiosity?" Would probably work just fine.

[Ivyana]

Follow My Lied

What are we looking for when we get into it? How can we tell if a person's really trying or just wanking?

I usually look at the language being used and the meaning first. If the person is an amateur poet, I'm less concerned with form unless it will enhance the poem. A person can learn form but no one can learn how to be creative. Personally, the meaning is the core of the poem. I cringe when people believe that poetry doesn't have to mean anything.

If the poet wrote in a specified form, I start with that and move on to the things listed above. I think a person isn't serious when they don't defend their work or just quickly suck up all the constructive criticism given. The time it took for someone to write a poem means nothing to me since the poet will end up revising it anyway. It does nothing for their credibility to say they wrote it in such a time frame.

[Follow My Lied]

Quote:

The time it took for someone to write a poem means nothing to me since the poet will end up revising it anyway

When I say "writing", that includes revising.

Obviously.

I think we should encourage revision before posting around here.

[Ivyana]

Follow My Lied

When I say "writing", that includes revising.

Obviously.

That's Timeless. There is no perfect poem so the time a person took to write and revise it means nothing.

[Follow My Lied]

Ivyana

Follow My Lied

When I say "writing", that includes revising.

Obviously.

That's Timeless. There is no perfect poem so the time a person took to write it means nothing.

What?