Quote:
Originally Posted by Julie Steiner
Welcome, Barry!
On forms of critique:
Sometimes rewriting someone else's poem to show what you mean is the most convenient way of communicating your point, but if you do this, it's best to do so sparingly--for example, no more than one or two excerpts of the poem at a time.
The point of workshopping is not to make the poem the best it can be. The point is to make the poet the best they can be, and that can't happen unless they struggle with things for themselves. It's like the old story of the well-meaning child kindly helping a butterfly emerge from the cocoon, only to find that the butterfly can't take flight because it needed that physical effort in order for the wings to deploy properly. So it's better to suggest possible directions that the poet might take things, rather than rewrite.
|
Julie's eloquence caused me to remember a comment made by Geoffrey Hill in an interview that a "perceptive critic" is not just a critic who's able to perceive and praise the positive technique and skill of a poet, but one who is also able to state how that poet is flawed and how those flaws can be rectified.
I'd advise you to be honest. If you find a poem exceedingly brilliant say so. If you find it exceedingly terrible likewise. Though rewriting I would accept, I think it is better to write up much of your thoughts in the most comprehensive manner, especially with an explanation of how you "read" interpreted the poem. I (mostly) try to be detailed whether that be positively or negatively. A one-sentence comment often isn't going to accomplish anything in line with the aims of a workshop: in that it isn't going to be helpful in providing critical commentary — most of the time!— But, I think, honesty is the most important factor. And irreverence.
Hope this helps.