"I don't think anyone is in a position to 'critique' my stuff, just
like I'm not in a position to critique theirs."
I find that a close-minded & destructive attitude. of course a writer
should never attempt to tailor his work to an (imagined) audience's
generalised desires, but I couldn't ever imagine learning or
progressing as a writer without the input of others. 'input', meaning
the interpretations, connotations, sound-connections, tones that
someone reading my work finds him/herself tossing in their head. their
reactions aren't some rulebook I then consult & follow; I don't follow
advice I don't agree with. they're points of view. if a writer's point
of view never changes, the writing (or its quality) also never
changes. I'm of the opinion, as you are, that we learn most through
practice; but what's the point in practicing it from from vantage
point? sounds to me like practicing, for years, to paint a picture
from just one single angle. the lighting & the colours also can't
alternate that much, let alone develop, because it's a single space
from a single place. I know that analogies from visual art are used
way too often when speaking of literary theory, but it communicates
what I mean in this instance.
& when it comes to practice, isn't most gained through a _discourse_?
when one learns, teaches & re-learns all at once, the benefits are
notable; & that isn't possible without a position counter, or at least
dissimilar, to the writer's own.
of course, this all depends on whether the writer wishes to improve or
not; & whether the writer writes "for themseves" or not. I think
writing for oneself (ONLY**) is ridiculous, but I respect people who
can explain to me why they _don't_ think it is. I will very probably
not agree, but maybe the opinion I offer in return will make the
person consider some of the things connected to their practice of the
craft.
** I mean this in the sense that one writes a poem & never shows it to
anyone; I do write 'for myself', increasingly so, but language is
meaningless if it isn't used in a dialogue of SOME kind. one cannot
have a dialogue with oneself, that's a monologue (& it's monochrome,
in my opinion).
"That's really the only 'critique' I could give to someone."
here's my take. when one is able to write well, one is able to
identify connections & methods. this is a given. in being able to
identify these things in their own work -- before, during & after a
poem is written by them -- they will also be able to identify them (or
their lack) in the work of others. to point out the presence or lack
of those qualities, & the effect that it has on a/the piece, is
critique. one might deduce from this that to be able to write is to be
able to critique.
returning to the idea of being in the 'position' to critique: that
belittles the person reading the poem, making them separate from some
mythical 'realm' from whence the poetry is drawn, & it elevates the
writer of the poem to the position of Creator, who is also in a
separate realm & is also therefore untouchable. both extremes are
false & fruitless. that rings untrue with poetry itself, in my
opinion: everything separated.
if that piece (beginning 'Disposable scripture / In the moment..') is
the result of such thinking, I'm not surprised: it strikes me less as
poetry & more as nihilistic philosophising. one of my first & most
important lessons learned concerning the craft is that philosophy &
poetry are not the same thing, & seldom mix well.
this is all my POINT OF VIEW, to be ignored or acknowledged as your
management of _your_ point of view allows. I'm also open to discussion
on why & where you disagree with my disagreement. :)
KS
|