Yuku free message boards

If you manage to stay awake through this and get to the end, you win a prize!!

I believe one of the really key elements to be kept in mind in offering critique is that its purpose is to instruct and teach for another's benefit; to share our knowledge and allow the author to make their own improvements, rather than an opportunity to impose our own will, personal preferences, or individual style on another's writing. People learn in a variety of ways, and different people learn in different ways, but I think anyone who has ever done any teaching (or ever HAD a really good teacher) understands (or should understand) that hands-on DOING and repetition are how people learn best. In teaching piano, I can play a particular piece to show a student how it should sound, but their fingers are no closer to achieving success until I've stepped aside and allowed them to sit at the piano, giving them the opportunity to try ... and try again. I think crit is much of the same. When rewrites are offered by the critiquer, the poem may well be improved, and the original author may even be able to see HOW it's been improved, but it's doubtful that their next poem will show those same signs of improvement ... as they are not the one who made the improvements -- rather, the critiquer did. The person who's offered the critique is probably far more satisfied with the end result than the original author. I think proposed rewrites (of even the smallest passages) should be reserved for those times when the author has reached a sticking point and has requested alternatives be provided. Of course, nothing is written in stone, and there are times and scenarios when teaching is best done by example.

Critiquing form poetry is, by my standards, a different animal than critiquing free verse. (Although opinion does come a bit into play when scanning meter -- pronunciation and interpretation playing their roles.) Largely, we can base our suggestions on rules that apply to a given form or meter. (Although, again, interpretation of rules can come into play.) But, essentially, we can usually say a set rhyme scheme has or has not been followed, words rhyme or don't rhyme, a line of IP must have 5 feet with no more than 2 substitutions for the basic iambic foot, etc. All of these things provide a starting place before we delve into the realm of personal opinion. I believe free verse is far more difficult as there are no real hard and fast rules to follow outside of the basic rules of language, grammar, punctuation, etc.

I think if we are to suggest a change in a poem, we need to be ready and able to also say why we are suggesting this change. There is little I find more frustrating when receiving crit (except for, perhaps, others taking the liberty of rewriting my words!) than someone suggesting I change this or that without ever once giving me a reason for the change. So, I believe for every change we suggest we should also offer a reason for why we've suggested it ... and if it is nothing more than personal preference and opinion, we should say that! You don't think a particular word or phrase works? Why? And what would be gained by changing it? Is there a reason for it? Has it been misused or is its meaning obscure or unclear? Does it disrupt flow? Or is it just because it's not how you, personally, would have said it? Think a line break should be changed? Why? What would it do to enhance the resulting poem? Want to mention sonics, assonance, consonance? Give real examples of why they do or don't work! Quote lines from well known poetry, if you must, but don't just make general statements with nothing to back them up.

I think there are things we need, and are obligated, to consider when offering crit and that most things outside of these areas really fall into the category of being nothing more than personal preference and personal style. Of course, how we feel an author has succeeded or not in addressing each of these areas will be based on our personal opinions, for the most part. (Not to say the following is EVERYTHING that should be considered; more, it's just the basics I thought of off-hand.)

Grammar, syntax, spelling, punctuation -- For me, problems in these areas can destroy an otherwise great read (I'm VERY anal about them), and so this is the first thing I look at when I start a critique after my initial read and evaluation of the poem to get a general feel for it.

Sound and rhythm -- Does the poem flow easily or is it filled with clunky, irregular, or over-burdened lines? Point out the lines you feel don't flow. Tell the author 'too many hard sounds' or 'too many clunky words', but don't rewrite it for them. Give them the opportunity to work it out themselves with revisions. Line breaks and pace can also come under this category. Are the line breaks natural or forced? Does the pause of a line break disrupt flow? Or enhance meaning? Does the pace suit the subject matter? Have the word choices and line breaks created a tone, pace, and flow that fit subject matter and meaning?

Metaphor and abstraction -- Metaphor and abstraction can add layers of meaning and texture and offer new and interesting perspectives on old subjects. But poorly used or over-used metaphor and abstraction can entirely obscure the meaning of a poem or fall into the category of cliche. Did the meaning come across? Or was it too much of a stretch? Are the metaphors reasonably easy to pick up on and get what the author was driving at? Are the abstractions so abstract that only the author could possibly know what they mean?

Cliches -- Yes, everyone is guilty of using them from time to time. After all, they got to be cliche because they were such a great way of saying it! However, they get old and tired quite quickly. Has the author offered a fresh and interesting perspective? Or is it a regurgitation of that same old love/war/god/political/etc. poem that we've all read by a thousand different authors now?

Redundancy -- Redundancy makes for boring reads, plain and simple! Has the author fallen into the easy habit of using the same words over and over again to describe and explore their subject? Does each line play a part in the poem? Or is L3 just another way to say L1? Every line and every word should play a role, fill a need, or add something to the poem. If it doesn't, it probably doesn't belong there.

Consistency of voice, tone, etc. -- It's important to maintain a certain consistency of voice throughout a poem. Certainly there are exceptions and a change in voice, even a sudden one, can be used very effectively, but for the most part, a consistent voice, tone, etc. should be maintained throughout. It's usually not going to be very effective if the author has started out with a very contemporary style and voice and then closed with a very classical style and voice. Has the author maintained a consistent voice? Or are there variations that could be smoothed out to improve the poem?

Overall meaning -- When it's all said and done, did the poem mean something to you? I've read many poems over the years by people who can string together words that sound downright beautiful ... but they didn't mean anything to me. Words and phrases can sound good, look good, feel good, even taste good, but if they haven't said anything I can grasp, they haven't done their job by my standards. Of course, personal interpretation, experience, reference, etc. all play a role in this but I think if you've read a line 3 times and, although it flows wonderfully and sounds beautiful, you're still wondering just what the heck it was supposed to mean ... it probably could use a looking at by the author. I've seen many such pieces receive high praise for being beautiful but although, overall, they painted a lovely picture in mind's eye and left behind a nice feeling, I was still left scratching my head and wondering what it had all meant. I think we are right to question such lines (or even entire stanzas, poems, etc.) as it gives the author the opportunity to see their writing from a completely detached and objective perspective.

I also think it important we are able to keep an open mind when reading and, particularly, when critiquing poetry. We all have personal preferences -- styles and poetic devices we particularly like or dislike, subjects that will strike a chord or hit a nerve, etc., and I think it important to remember that just because something may not be to our personal liking does not necessarily make it a bad poem. Most of us read poetry on a personal level to some extent; we form opinions based on a variety of personal factors, but if you are not able to step back from your own personal feelings and offer objective and constructive comments for whatever reasons, I think you should refrain and let others handle that particular poem. I have certain subjects I just will not touch (because they incite me on a personal level) and certain styles of writing that I so dislike I know I could never be objective about them. I think we're all entitled to these things and need to be aware of what things we may not be able to be objective about.

Everyone obviously has their own style and techniques for evaluating a poem and offering critique and this is not to say that any of them are wrong. It is just my thoughts and ideas on some things that I think, although they may require a little additional time from the critiquer, make the critique offered more valuable, useful, and helpful to the person receiving it.