On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, Ally Kerr wrote...
>If you criticise
> someone who isn't on the list (like because they're
>dead) you'll probably get your head bitten off by some
> annoyed soul, so who's going to query even a word
>written by the named and living?
>
I don't think this need actually be a problem. I used to administer a
workshop on the CompuServe Poetry Forum called No Holds Barred. It was
specifically for hard-hitting criticism of posted poems. The rules of
engagement were that you were allowed to be as harsh as you liked about
a poem, but ad hominem comments were strictly verboten. I wondered when
I began whether the idea was asking for trouble, but in fact it worked
pretty well. There were far fewer flamewars than in other, more chatty
sections. I think that was because there was a clear focus on what was
expected, and it was also clear that if someone posted a poem and
someone else said it was a pile of crap, the poet wasn't going to get
any sympathy from me or anyone else.
I think if criticism of poems is to happen on this list, it needs to be
established (informally) that if a contributor asks for crit and
receives it, they haven't any right to complain about what they receive.
It would also be necessary to have a convention that if people wanted
criticism of a poem, they explicitly asked for it. People post poems
here for enjoyment and fun, and might not appreciate them being
'attacked' (as it might be perceived.)
One obvious point, but one that often gets overlooked, is that if you
want your own poems to be criticised, you'll need to make criticisms
yourself. (The 'you' in that last is not Ally, of course, but just a
generalised 'you'). That's not always easy to do, especially if you
don't feel on the same wavelength as the poem you're trying to discuss.
But you have to make the effort, or you won't get comments back on your
own work.
Regards,
--
Peter
http://www.hphoward.demon.co.uk/poetry/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|