Welcome to Gaia! ::

The following paragraphs are the result of an encounter with several of the regulars at another online poetry forum. These were my concluding remarks (before being banned, actually, for these very words :O ) in a discussion centered around whether or not beginning poets should be discouraged from editing their poetry immediately upon receipt of feedback and whether or not a continuance of poet-critic interaction on a single piece in the early revision process is effective.

I feel, as will be seen, that young poets should not be discouraged from getting their hands dirty, and I feel that the process of criticism is not a simple matter of leaving a critique--no matter how in-depth--and disappearing. It is the process of revision itself that young poets are learning, and I feel that it can only be learned by actively delving into their own work.

The people on the other side of the argument felt that a critique begins and ends with the critic's posting and that no interaction is needed. They also seem to feel that immediate edits and interaction upon receipt of a critique is generally useless. Even those writing a poem for the first time, in their workshop system, are expected to work through the revision process on their own.

I'm posting this in the hopes that it might be helpful to someone. Those of us affecting to help young poets--and young writers of prose the same--must always consider what we're teaching them and how we're teaching it to them.

Feel free to comment on or question anything here, and definitely let me know if anything seems out of context.




Eh. The vast failure of the majority of you to provide a form of rebuttal separate from this site's own posting guidelines and inbred philosophy is, to say the least, disappointing. I heartily thank those of you who have responded with better than that. And with that, a few last words.



This site claims to be a spot for helping people write better poetry. It's a respectable end, in and of itself, but it's painfully obvious that the house methods for bringing out the best are downright pitiful. Poetry is not elitism, and it makes me laugh to see s**t tossed Felix's way for what he said. "College" was a poor reference point for his argument--simply because it’s an easy target for ridicule--but the sentiment that rules and regulations should not stifle the individual idiosyncrasies that arise with personal experience with the art of poetry is entirely valid. A single critique is a multifaceted interaction and not an in-and-out action that can be properly digested with a simple "thank you." When the two-way exchange is lost, the critique is no longer what it's meant to be. Consider the "neighborhood" and telephoned workshops of which Anne Sexton was so fond and that are so representative of a strong poetic community and tell me it isn't so.

No, poetry is not elitism, and that's pretty much the bug up my a**, right now. Making imbecilic broad statements about the way things should be done is a detriment to one’s self and to others. Developing a creed that is opposed to art in any way is a crime against art itself, and it’s the foundation of elitism. Prescriptivism, even if somehow supported only in theory, is the highest form of elitism. When you begin making blanket statements, art begins to suffer, and that’s why I ask you to weigh every phrase that leaves your mouth or fingers in response to another poet.

If you purport to offer help to beginning poets, consider what you’re saying to them, and consider exactly what it is they’re learning. They’re learning the art of poetry at the most foundational level. The art of self-reflection and the ability to grow in skill in and understanding of what the process of writing and revising a poem actually is are things that you appear to be taking for granted. That’s the bottom line. Those are the things we’re trying to help young poets develop--not the hopeless work they present to us. Giving them a load of information on the piece itself and kicking them out the door teaches them nothing. It merely throws them into the stage of self-reflection and revision without a guide--precisely at the point where they need help the most.

Of course, you might try to tell me that all the information in the world is available and that they’re free to find it, and that’d be very true. But let’s be honest with ourselves: What the ******** is the point in having a workshop situation for beginners if we don’t address the actual needs of the poet? If you said, “Then there is no point,” you’re absolutely correct.

You might also try to tell me that everypoet simply isn’t the place for every poet. Again, you have the right to say as much, but let’s be perfectly clear on one thing: Placing the establishment before the individual is elitism at its finest. If you lose sight of what it means to offer help to beginners on a site dedicated to providing a workshop setting meant for all skill levels, you’re building an ivory ******** tower, folks. You’ll have a nice view, maybe, but it’ll only be straight down.

The way beginners learn is through experimentation. It ain’t through self-reflection, and it ain’t through any long (or even short) amounts of time spent doing whatever mystical practices or rituals you seem to assume take place between revisions. The way we learn--right, we, not they--and they way we actually make our work better are through the process of tinkering. The only thing any given poet is doing at any given time is manipulating devices for effect, and, in the early stages of one’s poetic career, this manipulation is a main key to developing the sense of craft. We best learn the means of manipulating language and poetic device through hands-on, back-and-forth tinkering. Beginners learn self-awareness and the ability to properly revise their work by crudely hammering at the bare parts of their early work. I’ve seen it in every single poet I’ve had the opportunity to watch grow, and it’s the way I learned when I began writing poetry. I’d bet my left leg it’s the way almost every single person who read this learned. And that’s why I’m absolutely aghast to see a philosophy that spurns, in any way, a hands-on, interactive approach to workshopping a poem.

As a veteran of real-time workshops and an online workshop forum that sees--quite literally--at least ten to fifteen times the daily volume of work that this site does, I am unable to accept that a more dynamic mode of interaction between poet and critic is not possible in the online setting. I’ve seen the results of this heightened interaction, and I can say without any qualms that it leads to a quicker understanding of the basics and a quickened ability to manipulate our language via poetic devices in the creation of high-caliber material. Simple as that. I don’t care whether you feel this works for your system or not. Do recognize, however, that discouraging an early and active desire to revise, to jump in and play with words and poetic devices, is entirely counterproductive to the building of poets and poetry itself. There’s no getting around the value of simply ******** around with things. You harm yourself and other by prescribing doctrine to such things.

I have, on many occasions, referred people to this site, thinking it might be of use to them. The concerns I’ve developed involving this place, though--which were actually brought to my attention, in large part, by some people who heard about this place from me--leave me with a lot of reservations, though, about sending anyone else this direction. Now, feel free to be snarky about that and not worry about what one faceless person on the Internet has to say. Feel free to mock it or link me to some other in-house thread offering a contrary opinion without bothering to consider the weight of what I’ve said. Just remember, though, that failure to really think things through bites you in the a** a lot more often than not.

Thanks again, everyone. Y’all have a good afternoon.

Well, from my personal preference, I'd rather somebody work through with me through a continuous editing process. That way I can get more feedback, and fix it right, rather than fixing it wrong and having to come back later and fix it again because I didn't know better. I'd rather somebody explain to me rather than tell me once and leave.

Now as far my poetry is concerned, I'm not to much into editing it, mainly because I'm not trying to be a poet. Mostly I'm just trying to make a little joke or something cutesy. But, I'd have to agree with you. You're not going to learn unless you A. get told what your mistakes are. B. learn to fix them.

You're absolutely right that interaction is an almost necessary form of critiquing.

Unfortunately, there is a recalcitrance growing amongst many poets to spend this amount of time with in depth critique with budding poets because of certain habits that become all too frequent amongst many of the younger poets. There's come to be a certain Laissez-Faire feel to the act of writing poetry. People feel that anything is poetic if you call it a poem and present it to people. This begets defensiveness that hinders the critiquing process. In my experience, many young poets who would benefit from an otherwise consistent critiquing process have been too defensive of their own work to actually accept this. The resistive nature of young poets is all too common not only in online forums such as Gaia's and others, but also in workshop settings. In a recent poetry workshop I was in, the "teacher" decided to force anonymity onto the group in order to keep people from arguing against the criticisms of their poetry. This of course had the unfortunate side effect of no true progress being made because they couldn't discuss the problem with the people who saw it.

In summation, I agree that true progress is much easier attained through an interactive poetic relationship; however, the more experienced poets are not the only ones standing in the way of this.

Mind?


I would be honored. :O



Klaark: This isn't meant as an indictment of the site where this occurred or any other site. You're observation is valid, to at least some extent, but this is aimed at anyone who actually does purport to offer actual help and guidance to the inexperienced.



Krause: That's very true. I considered broaching that subject when I first wrote this but decided against it. Poets who balk at criticism and the revision process are the ones that, I feel, we have the luxery of simply not bothering with. Prose-writers, too, because I've had them in real-time workshops, which I'm sure many of us know is even worse than having them on the 'Net. We can either not critique their stuff (the healthiest of Internet options, by far) or critique their stuff and leave it at that. That's all you can do with them, pretty much, but it's certainly no hindrance to carrying on an active process of criticism and revision with those who aren't opposed. In fact, it pretty much just frees up time, and only requires us to have enough discretion to weed the good apples from the bad.

But, yeah, there's going to be s**t no matter who's doing what. That deal with your prof sounds pretty shitty.

Good insights, man. Thanks.

3nodding "Where it's at" is really the only right way to address a poem. One thing that strikes me about my creative poetry professor, Carol Quinn, is that she is always willing to address a poem with respect, at any skill level. She also has fancy terms like "crack open the tautology" (for what we've been saying about generalities in the OP/L) and anecdotes galore; if you handed her the twelfth poem on eyes, and mirrors, and souls, she could probably tell you about the literary and historical significance of those three themes and give you (ding ding!) ideas to bounce your poem off of.

For one, Maj wins a cookie—no, let's make it a packet of cookies—for the creation of this thread.

For another, I'm uncertain how your comments managed to get you banned. I'm guessing some people just wouldn't recognize good sense even if it was to move in with them and bear their children. neutral

Cool, we need more rants in here biggrin

Yeah, my buddy Bernstein was just talking about Ezra Pound and his reading lists, and that reminds me of how on everypoet they'd just throw a list of twenty or so books with authors at somebody rather than giving them a critique.

Ah, isn't kind of ironic that they spoke about saving poetry, yet by favoring "mass communication" they turn poetry into a dumbed-down news report.