The question, "Do we dare criticize", implies that any so-called criticism involves some sort of fear, or it demands courage. Where does this fear come from? Well some people are personally laid back no matter if they want either to criticize or to praise. They simply lack the courage. This is a different psychological issue. However, those who are more seriously involved in criticism, whether literary or social, etc., they have to face two problems, or to overcome two difficuties: 1. Are they as the subject of criticism authentic, correct, and appreciable by those who will read or hear their criticism? 2. Do their object of criticism get offended (in this case the object is definitley a human subject)? If so, what should they do? Should they ever care or should they stop criticising? Thus, a critic stands between two limits, their subjectivity and the subjectivity of their object of criticism. The moment of criticism is the moment of decision, and eventually the moment of madness, the madness from which reason and rationality should evolve. And there is the rob!

Steve, I for one know no-one on WOL. I do not go to the performance nights and am unlikely ever to. I only know the names of the poets on WOL and their appearance if they deign to post a picture. From where I sit, I think the worst criticism is to ignore someone's work. much of what I read here is not to my taste but I can sometimes find a really clever word or two in almost anything. I don't like expletives although I'm aware that modern poetry often uses a lot. Criticism shouldn't be destructive. If you don't like something, work out why an say why. It must be difficult to criticize someone you know personally though.

Well, Cris and I had our differences early on about the role and nature of criticism on this board and, interestingly enough I decided to take a leaf out of his book and unconditionally praise anything I liked (even if I could see a way of maybe improving it) and, if I haven't anything good to say about something then say nothing.

Personally, I don't think we learn an awful lot from unalloyed praise, but I'll take it when I can get it.

Then something is posted of such monumental, egregious awfulness that, frankly, it would be dishonest for someone not to say so.

This recently happened here.

Oddly, if that poem had not already had a positive response from someone else, then I would probably have just ignored it and moved on. Similarly, if someone else had already knocked it then I would probably not have joined in, but as it stood there praised in all its non-poetic, un-poetic, anti-poetic, tawdriness, well, I'm sorry, but I, for one could not stand by and let that go unmentioned.

This, of course led to the age old debate about whether there are any rules in poetry (there are) and whether everything is just 'opinion' (it isn't) and all opinions are valid (they are not).

If there is nothing special about the writing of poetry that raises it up out of 'ordinary' writing then why are we doing it? Why does every word, every sentence, every beat, need to be beaten and wrestled into a shape. Why do we love poetry at all if it has no rules. There is definitely good and bad poetry. The goodstuff is crafted and wrought from the language and expresses thoughts, feelings, smells sounds and sentiments in ways that prose cannot. That's why we do it.

In answer to the question posted, TS Eliot asked 'Do I dare disturb the universe?' in one of the greatest poems ever written (IMHO)....I think it behooves us to try.

'We have lingered in the chambers of the sea
By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown
Till human voices wake us, and we drown.'

(The Love Song of J Alfred Prufrock).

Just my 'opinion'.

: )

Jx

hi chris-respect to you and your stunning poetry-but play the white and black man and allow others to pass their apprenticeships? don,t we all start at the beginning? and hopefully get better-go with the flow dude! no disrespect to you-ever!

hi again chris-was,nt bollockin from thicko me-just to say,don,t let your wrong colours show-it aint you babe! i look to you for top inspiration-don,t let me down top guy

I often say the phrase "You can learn more from a mistake than a success" and feel this is usually true (and not only in poetry and on this site) but only if there is criticism and it is constructive.

I encourage critique of my work but can't really learn from it if someone says "this is just crap" Why is it crap? how can I fix it or am I just exploring a pointless blind alley.

I love Ted Hughes but believe (as many others do) that he was at times barking up the wrong tree and I wonder if anyone told him so, or did they just say Ted you are amazing, whatever you do! who knows. hey ho

Win

Hi Steve, I admit I tend to post positive comments but I am honest enough to criticize, but giving an understandable reason if I feel a poem might benefit. Its important to remember its just one poets opinion to another. Like Graham in general I dont know the other poets either but I am amazed at the breadth of subject and style and in general the talent. I think the reason there are lots of positive comments posted is just that simply there are lots of good poems!

This comment/ Review is now on a different thread under Poetry Reviews.

One thing I feel can be added to the discussion is the age-old cop-out that I've heard so many times......"who's to say what's good and what isn't".

For me it is about audience. The best person to critique work would be someone in your target audience. They know what they enjoy and they know why they don't enjoy something.

Unfortunately, poetry is an activity that lends itself to the development of cliques. There are the intellectuals who feel that they know best because they get structure correct. There are those who feel that anything can be called poetry regardless of structure or content. It is this tendancy of some poets to identify with cliques that, I believe has lead to the popular appearance of poetry as something for the more odd.

Additional to this is that even the best writing/performance is not the most popular. So then the question to ask is what is a good poem? Is it the best, or the most popular? For me, a good poem is one that will be popular, one that will stand out and that many people will read or listen to again and again.

It is on that basis that I offer critique to people. I don't fear offering critique, because I know that when it is given to me it is not a personal attack, if anything it is the opposite. When someone offers you critique they think they can help you improve. That is good, (despite the popular belief among this country's powers that be that everyone is okay just as they are) if we are offered a chance to improve our work and make it better why wouldn't you?