This is an open thread to debate the purpose of constructive criticism (or the lack thereof) in response to poems posted on the PF. (Or now, the PPF).
Please be open and honest, but decent. Any name calling of DF-esque 'roughness' will be moderated, if need be.
Topics open (but not limited to) for discussion here, are
Criticism
'Fawning'
The direction of PF, and it's use alongside the Workshop
'What makes a good poem'
Of course, Im sure there's more that I've failed to list.
Please post all thoughts on these lines here, and leave the poems and GD for their respective comments and discussion.
-James
"To run away from danger, instead of facing it, is to deny one's faith in man and God, even one's own self. It were better for one to drown oneself than live to declare such bankruptcy of faith." - Mahatma Gandhi, 1946
Posts: 3774 | Location: Disputed Zone | Registered: 01-10-05
I recently posted a mildly in-depth discussion concerning the content of a poem. This was deemed 'debating' by a certain member.
Are we allowed to discuss and critique (positively) content? Does a poem simply consist in its rhyme, rhythm and vague 'feeling'? Is content 'out of bounds'?
Suppose someone posts a poem on the procreational habits of Lepidochelys kempii and I happen to be an expert, is there something wrong with me responding to the content of the poem (perhaps they got something wrong, simplified something or maybe I just felt like adding to their knowledge), even though I do not regularly respond to poems posted in this forum?
There are places on this site for indepth philosophical discussions... even debates. The poetry forum is not the place for continued, back-and-forth discussions about the merits of philosophy... such discussions are for general discussion or debate... or have I been gone so long that I no longer understand the point of Poetry Forum. I THOUGHT it was for writers to post complete poems for the edification of others.
Waterlily's piece was in no means a treatise on Descartes, and anyone reading it should have been able to realize that.
Since BoH started by chortling with "Glee at the thought of the incoming Ladon-Twister entourage"... and KO commented on the turn the thread had taken with "It's great that debate forum has no limits. May be I should go to DB and write in rhymes. ", I wonder why I was called into a private discussion over MY comments. (PS - in the future, if you have something to say to me one-on-one, my email is posted.)
Furthermore, I take exception to the comments and the ideas that by enjoying a posted piece, one is "fawning". Anyone who has read my comments now or in the past knows that I rarely fawn. If I enjoy something I say so. If I think something needs corrections, I often say so - even if the piece is not on "workshop".
As for BoH's comments
quote: Simply put, my biggest criticism of the PF has been the 'fawning' of some, quite frankly, terribly thought out poetry using lazy language, cliched metaphors and do nothing to conjure up anything in the spirit
Again - I do not fawn. I also do not usually respond to pieces on "Poetry" that are terribly thought out and using lazy language and cliched metaphors. Why? Because when I'd done so in the past, I was told by these "poets" that they "wrote from the heart and never, ever edited." Also, there were many poets of various talents who posted to be seen, but did not wish for critique. As a matter of fact, that is the very reason the site broke into "Workshop" and "PF". Therefore, I tread carefully when suggesting edits on a PF work - especially when I do not know the writer. This is not "fawning" - it's a matter of learning that the stove is hot, so you keep your hands away from the fire.
-----
Well, you got secrets and scars you hide Well, you got closets with bones inside Well, that's ok baby, So do I I won't criticize Baby, I'll just share the ride
What we need is concrete examples of fawning to refer to. I'm at a disadvantage also not understanding which of my comments would be considered fawning as opposed to genuine appreciation. In my real life no ones ever accused me of fawning. If I don't think something has any merit, I just keep my trap shut about it. In the poetry forum I don't consider myself educated enough in poetry to be a credible critiquer. I've had recognition for one poem I wrote in a competition. Fourth prize and $50...... but this is the total extent of my poetic credits, so all I can offer is what feels right or wrong and what is purely uneducated opinion.
If more is required in response to poems here, I suggest all you young people formally educated in poetry and literature, actually put the time into responding consistently and writing high quality poems, than just basically walzing in and telling us our contributions amount to dead. What end does that serve?
Posts: 3724 | Location: Brisbane, Australia | Registered: 07-26-02
Rhon, I believe, who posted an argument amounting to "If a poem is about cars please refrain from discussing cars with its author, particular in any depth."
Posts: 5633 | Location: Aotearoa (New Zealand) | Registered: 09-22-02
C'mon. Do you little gang of thugs really think you're conducting yourselves with any shred of ethical discourse on this subject? Go back and look at the flow of Waterlily's thread. You seem to forget that everyone else has access to the sequence of posts that have led to this moment. You're kidding yourselves that your little gang has soared above the rest of us. You just have the confidence that no one'll stop ya 'cause y'all are the mods yourselves!
Posts: 3724 | Location: Brisbane, Australia | Registered: 07-26-02
Fuzzies and Twister: I don't know why you have a problem with me back on the boards. This feels personal, and if its a carry-over from my days as DF moderator, let me know now, and I will refrain from commenting on anything you post on this site from this point forward.
I NEVER said that there was no place for content. What I did say, and you should reread all the posts on Waterlily's thread, was that the back and forth discourse on the merits of Descartes' thought, was not poetic critique and/or appreciation (the whole point of THIS forum) but debate.
You object to being linked with Ladon and Twister. Fine. I'm sorry I included you in their club. Of course, you responded directly based on a comment Ladon made, and although on my first read (ergo my inclusion of you in the fray) I thought you were poking Ladon, I see now you were continuing his insult of Waterlily ("disgusting poem" "don't talk, write or think about it") but considering it "wankery" So you certainly could NOT be considered debating Ladon, since you were obviously agreeing with him and jumping in on the Descartes discussion.
Let's not forget the point is the poem - which, in some situations, is more important than the content. Do you partake of long threads on poems discussing romantic break-ups, with discourses on why the heart-breaker is such a rat and why the writer is better off alone? If not, why not? When I posted a piece about my son, did you jump in on the joys and fears of parenthood? Waterlily posted another piece - I do not see any discussions by you or the other "concerned members" discussing either the merits of her poem or the merit of her meaning. Why is content on those posts not worth your time, but it is "not a debate" for two pages of comments on Descartes.
Furthermore, if a writer (of any genre) is not allowed to mock common ideology, why are we even bothering?
-----
Well, you got secrets and scars you hide Well, you got closets with bones inside Well, that's ok baby, So do I I won't criticize Baby, I'll just share the ride
Rhon, of course it's not personal. I have nothing personal against you at all. I did, however, take umbrage at your categorizing my post as 'debate'.
quote:Nice poem and I agree with you entirely, although I think we should warn some people in this thread that you're not making a philosophical argument here. You're expressing a common reaction to Descartes and one that, I feel, is much stronger than Descartes' original point.
Note that in the meditations Descartes' method of doubt pulls his self away from his world. The 'I' that thinks is no more than the thinking self; that is to say, 'I think therefore I am that which thinks' -- trivially true, yet philosphically dangerous. Since Descartes we've had this terrible dilemma of reconciling this abstracted self and the empirical self (the real one). In actual fact, it doesn't even make sense to speak of some abstracted, pure thinking self.
Introspection is good and philosophical pondering is absolutely marvelous, but 'introspection' is a lay term. To draw metaphysical conclusions from everyday language is ludicrous.
"I live, therefore I am." You know, Descartes isn't the only philosopher - he's just the only one who lay in bed until the afternoon most days. Aristotle would agree with you, Wittgenstein would agree with you. There's a dangerous tendency in reductive science to force their findings onto our conception of the self. I think it's pretty important that some people do spend time pondering and writing on this issue, so that in 100 years time we will not consider ourselves to be Descartes' disconnected 'I's.
P.S. Poetically, Fuzzies made a good point. It's a thoughtful and poetic expression of your thoughts, but it doesn't quite get to the depths of artistry.
Show me where there is any attempt at debate and I will eat humble pie. To be honest, before I made that post, I thought very hard about how I could express my exact feelings on the poem without debating. I chose my words carefully -- and if there's one thing we can all learn from philosophy, it's to choose one's words carefully.
quote:Let's not forget the point is the poem - which, in some situations, is more important than the content. Do you partake of long threads on poems discussing romantic break-ups, with discourses on why the heart-breaker is such a rat and why the writer is better off alone? If not, why not? When I posted a piece about my son, did you jump in on the joys and fears of parenthood? Waterlily posted another piece - I do not see any discussions by you or the other "concerned members" discussing either the merits of her poem or the merit of her meaning. Why is content on those posts not worth your time, but it is "not a debate" for two pages of comments on Descartes.
I'm not a parent, I don't know exactly how each person feels in every situation that they write about...these are common emotions expressed in personal terms -- if I felt some desire to comment on the content, then I would. Frankly, I felt a desire to comment because I felt that my thoughts were important. I know Descartes' writings very well, and I know the feeling that Waterlily had towards Descartes. I have also come to rationalize that feeling and understand exactly why it is that I feel this way.
I felt a compulsion, which I don't need to justify.
[This message was edited by Twister on 06-01-07 at 08:39 AM.]
[This message was edited by Twister on 06-01-07 at 07:17 PM.]
Again, the point is that a critique should add something to the content of the discussion. I remember being schooled on the use of a thesaurus for my lacklustre choice of wording on a particular post. However, that particular comment was accompanied by objective suggestions for improvement of the work, as well as some well meant encouragement. That’s all in good taste and humour, and really only adds to my understanding of how other people view my work. Good, honest and open debate.
I take offence at someone telling an individual not to write on a certain topic because it isn’t cute or funny etc. I think that we should feel free to write about the things that capture our imaginations or spark our creative juices, and not feel that certain topics are off limit, because someone may become offended. This isn’t a police state, it’s a poetry forum for crying out loud in a bucket.
“By academic freedom I understand the right to search for truth and to publish what one holds to be true. It is evident that any restriction of academic freedom acts in such a way as to hamper the dissemination of knowledge.” ~ Requote Adapted From Einstein
Quoteland being an Academic resource (correct me if I’m am wrong).
Any person who contributes to or in, any academic environment (QL) or any one, any body or any group that speaks, writes, acts in public view is asking for criticism.
“Criticism, as it was first instituted by Aristotle, was meant as a standard of judging well.” ~ Sammuel Johnson
1 - If you want to make a point then make sure you have a point to make.
2 – With exception of the quotation forum (Where one can seek knowledge and need knowledge of the subject to reply or post to). There’s not another forum or topics that can be considered academic!
For any question or discussion raised “Gets the Treatment| by a bunch of illiterates, high on whatever it is they consume; degrading, humiliating, undermining, kicking, spitting, bullying, anything to get you to fear them. What difference between them and a bunch of imbeciles on the loose with paints pots.
3 – Debate is debate. Where personal prejudice enters or becomes the norm - you do not have a Debate: What you have or develops is something that has no place in public debate. Is that a problem NO.?
4 – Open a new forum e.g. Defend the indefensible / The speakers corner of Quoteland. Speakers Corner in London is where anyone can go and speak. All they need is a soap box to stand on, They can talk,shout, scream about anything and anyone, and anyone can tell them what they think about them and what they say.
Many an aspiring speaker has spoken there, to test and hone their skills. Its mud wrestling, bare knuckle fighting, anything goes.
Of course it mostly nonsense. That why its such good fun. For myself, I go there maybe once a year, I listen to the speakers, maybe for sixty or so seconds and then find those regulars, who go not to speak on soap boxes, but to argue. Which suites me fine as I also like arguing "with" people.
If such a forum were opened, would I visit? Of course, occasionally. Would I post to it? NO WAY. Would such a environment want rational and reason. I think not. I’d put myself right in it, the abuse that would follow I don’t what. The reason, I’d deserve it.
5 – I ain’t out to spoil anyone having fun – no way. And I’m certainly not going to let anyone spoil mine.
Someone was dumb enough to post their picture on the web with the caption “What are you going to about it” or something similar.
Now they can ask the same question of themselves. In other words:
Put up or shut up.
“What is objectionable, what is dangerous, about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents.” ~ Robert Kennedy
This posting of mine is also up for criticism.
Grasp the subject and the words will follow. ~ Cato the Elder (or censor) 234-149bc Roman. Statemans, orator and writer.
I think that the only thing that should be 'censored' here is how people treat each other. The only problem with that particular thread, for me, was the quote that started all this. He had a right to think my poem was disgusting, but to tell me I was ignorant and shouldn't write was way off base. (if it was some sort of odd joke, then it should have been noted as such)And FYI, I wasn't upset by this. I just felt compelled to respond to it. People can't be allowed to go around like that in writing or in life. That's why rudeness is so common. As for the others, they made their points civilly, and I responded.
Debate on topic is just as important as debating on form.
I found Twister's post [quoted above] to be very helpful to my understanding of Descartes. Even the things in the thread I didn't agree with, I am all the richer for understanding another's mindset, which will add to my ability to write.
People who post poetry to this forum shouldn't be suprized, when people have an OPINION about their work. After all, it is just an opinion. No one can force you to change anything. It does say on here somewhere that all authors retain the copyright to their work. If you like your stuff the way it is say so.
I do agree that that is just being over-sensitive.
Also, and forgive me for being repetitious (I just wrote this thought on another post), but published writers think their work is done too, then their editors send it back for rewrites. So get over it.
It seems to me that when ever you put your work out there, you are saying. "Hey, do you like this. Is this something you want to read. What do you THINK about this?"
Authors here at QL, get something that published authors don't often get...feedback. The kind of feedback a published author gets is that their book doesn't sell or from critics, who seem to be more popular the harsher they are whether they know anything or not. Here at QL we get specific ideas to improve our work. Appreciate it. At least, appreciate that they took the time to try and help you.
And everyone else needs to realize, its ok for people not to agree with them. It's those differences that make our discussions so lively here. We can agree to disagree, when no amount of discussion sways the other posters.
People may say, I don't care what anyone thinks about my work. But its all about the audience, and what they take away from your work. And, being people, we will have an opinion. If you don't really want people to read your work and thus make conclusions [have opinions], what is the point of having an audience at all?
I care what people think about my craft. Not to say I will change my voice, but I do take your comments into consideration and use what I can.
"Our differences are what make us interesting."
"The more I experience the world, the less I realize I know."
[This message was edited by Waterlily on 06-01-07 at 12:41 PM.]
Posts: 260 | Location: Scranton, PA USA | Registered: 05-04-07
I have always used the Workshop before posting works in Poetry (except where for personal reasons I do not wish to explain myself)- to my mind that was the whole point of having that forum. I rarely reply to poetry in this forum because I'm not interested in people's responses that often begin with a 'glad you liked it!' I like seeing the development of work and I like dissecting pieces critically to examine the choice of diction or rhythm or literary technique, I have never found this forum satisfactory in this matter albeit with very rare exceptions to poets who I know personally would appreciate it.
If you want to improve, post in the workshop. You might actually learn something.
Stella Splendens December 22, 1985 - March 27, 2003 RIP ...Always.
Posts: 1773 | Location: Devon, England | Registered: 02-04-02
The best known poem by Archibald MacLeish (1892-1982) took its title and subject from Horace's work. His poem "Ars Poetica" contains the line "A poem should not mean/but be", which was a classic statement of the modernist aesthetic. The original manuscript of the poem resides in the Library of Congress.
Ars Poetica
A poem should be palpable and mute As a globed fruit, Dumb As old medallions to the thumb, Silent as the sleeve-worn stone Of casement ledges where the moss has grown-- A poem should be wordless As the flight of birds. A poem should be motionless in time As the moon climbs, Leaving, as the moon releases Twig by twig the night-entangled trees, Leaving, as the moon behind the winter leaves. Memory by memory the mind-- A poem should be motionless in time As the moon climbs.
A poem should be equal to: Not true. For all the history of grief An empty doorway and a maple leaf. For love The leaning grasses and two lights above the sea-- A poem should not mean But be.
"Our differences are what make us interesting."
"The more I experience the world, the less I realize I know."
Posts: 260 | Location: Scranton, PA USA | Registered: 05-04-07
I was wondering what the big debate was all about in the PF this morning. So I decided to read Waterlily's poem. I liked it because it was cute, simplistic and at 3 am while delving in and out of R.E.M (rapid eye movement)sleep; quite deep. It was deeper than I ever want to think as I turn over for the first time in bed that night to go back to sleep.
It seems that Descartes must have been a complicated and extremely deep philosopher. However; we have evolved to so much since he discovered himself so long ago. “I Think, Therefore I Am.” expressed by Descartes fails to address to the depth and breadth and height, my soul can reach (Browning). Personally, I just think he was just a man who just had an orgasmic discovery that day and he needed to get some stuff off his chest.
FYI: REM sleep in adults typically occupies 20-25% of total sleep, lasting about 90-120 minutes. During a normal night of sleep, we usually experience about 4 or 5 periods of REM sleep;
In other words; “I Think, Therefore I Am.” – Dreaming!
Posts: 198 | Location: Lafayette, LA | Registered: 06-04-03
![[ACLU Execution Watch Counter]](https://www.aclu.org/graphics/dpcounter.gif)
