"And yet there is a considerable amount of constructive criticism."
I disagree with that. I think it's closer to 'a limited amount'.
at a poetry discussion/sharing site I frequented for many years, a
constant problem was (& still is, as far as I know) that 'comments' on
other people's work were always exceedingly brief: "well done", "great
work", "not bad", "powerful" &c. these praising comments were followed
closely, in quantity, by critical comments that were equally short;
the praise, because it was brief, turned out hollow -- & the critique,
though it was generally accurate, was interpreted by thin-skinned
poets to be hostile & by way of an attack (I'd still prefer short
critique than short praise). and the thing that I & others tried to
get through to some people was that to be thorough in critique is
definitely the way to go, but so is being thorough with praise. a
writer NEEDS to know why/in what ways a poem of his doesn't work; but
he also NEEDS to know why/in what ways a poem of his _does_ work.
I'm one to talk -- I know my comments on this list have been brief in
the extreme as well from time to time. in fact, at the site I
mentioned I only managed about ten comments a month (at best) because
I took so much time with each of them. they turned out more like
essays than comments, often times. :p
I think we could all benefit, as readers as well as writers, from
amping up the specificity of our opinions & concerns when it comes to
our work. it isn't a tall order, I'm just saying it can be done even
with limited time & limited energy. or at least it can be attempted.
KS
On 09/02/07, Joseph Duemer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> And yet there is a considerable amount of constructive criticism.
>
> jd
>
> On 2/9/07, MC Ward <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > You're right, Kasper. In all my years on Petc (with 2
> > years off), there's been an unspoken rule about not
> > trashing one another's poems front-channel. After all,
> > we come here not just for the usually favorable and
> > encouraging responses to our poems, but also for
> > constructive criticism that doesn't denigrate the
> > work.
> >
> > Candice
> >
> > He's not the kind of wheel
> > You fall asleep at
> > (Tom Waits)
> >
> >
> >
> > --- kasper salonen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > > "--and made me even happier to be back on Petc."
> > >
> > > because as we know, this place is good for that
> > > praise-dose!
> > >
> > > KS
> > >
> > > On 09/02/07, MC Ward <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > > Many thanks to all who responded to my snap.
> > > You've
> > > > made my day--and made me even happier to be back
> > > on
> > > > Petc.
> > > >
> > > > Candice
> > > >
> > > > He's not the kind of wheel
> > > > You fall asleep at
> > > > (Tom Waits)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________________________________
> > > > Don't pick lemons.
> > > > See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
> > > > http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________________________________
> > Don't pick lemons.
> > See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
> > http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Joseph Duemer
> Professor of Humanities
> Clarkson University
> [sharpsand.net]
>
|