@aikoaiko - Wow. What a deadening experience. Instead of encouraging your creativity, that teacher just slapped you down (figuratively) because you didn't follow her creative 'rules.' Not one of your favourite teachers of all time, eh? Some people should never be let loose on children. How an adult treats a child can have long-lasting consequences. Imagine the difference, if she had praised your tendency to think outside the box instead. Maybe held you up to the rest of the class as an example of what creative thinking can accomplish. Maybe helped you with your grammar or something like that—if it was lacking—or suggested why certain bits of your story didn't make sense, but also suggested what could be done to make it better. Pointed you in the direction of other imaginative sci-fi to read. Maybe even got you started on reading books ABOUT writing. Wow. What a difference, eh? You'd have come away from that experience feeling validated, energised, and ready to write more.
Actually I did keep it, though I think I hid it for awhile, lol! I think it's somewhere in my mother's attic in a box of old papers.
Absolutely. Though I must admit that I had some very good writing teachers later on, who really did encourage creativity, and were careful to point out the shortcomings of a piece without impeding on the idea itself. I must say that you yourself do a great job of this in the workshop! It's a pleasure to read your critiques, and I never get the idea that they are about anything but the writing. Just a picture- perfect blend of reality and encouragement.
Here's another concern I have about critiquing in general. I was just critiquing a poem @Andrae Smith is working on, and I realized that my critique relied heavily on my interpretation of the poem. This made me think of some of the more abstract poems in the Workshop. For such poems, there are sometimes just as many interpretations as there are people. In such cases, the author of the piece might not get anything at all from the critiques because everyone is interpreting it incorrectly (perhaps I should write "incorrectly"). This made me wonder if it would be beneficial for everyone involved if the author of the piece provided a short interpretation; this might make the critiques more useable/applicable. I'm on the fence about this. What do you guys think?
That is a valid concern, but I think the author should wait to provide that insight until after a few comments. The reason for that would be to see how honest readers interpret the poem. If they "got it wrong," it should be a clue to the writer that (1) they might need to rethink their approach (2) you can't always control how what people take away from the art you create. After a few honest critiques, it might be valuable to provide some modest insight or explanation to help readers/reviewers see what you really wanted to do. Then, more ideas can come into play. For instance, say you' write a poem in which the speaker is a babysitter, but that is nowhere in the poem. Without that detail, I'll ask, "who is the speaker? why are we getting this imagery? Why is she in some house watching everything but suddenly i's not her house?" Then you'd know that there is a detail that you knew that might need to come into the poem. But say you tell us that before hand. My knowledge of the speaker might prevent me from noticing that you didn't identify her in the poem. Then again, that type of poem can be very specific and concrete. Abstract poetry is harder to pin down, but I think a similar principle still applies. That's not to say I'll lambaste anyone for providing me with some information. I just recommend they put it after the poem so the reader gets at least one viewing that is untainted. Thanks for the critique, btw, I haven't looked at it yet, but I will soon!
I see your point, but the goal of critiquing is to help you, the writer, improve your piece. Without knowing what your intention is, I can't be of much help. I would argue that there's a difference in critiquing a piece and reading a piece for pleasure/study. In the latter case, interpretation is great. But when I'm critiquing, I think I can do a much better job at helping the author improve his piece if he tells me that he has such-and-such a goal in mind. I can give opinions about how I think he should go about achieving those goals. Without knowing the goal, the person giving the critique can feel a bit lost. As I said, I'm still on the fence about this. I do agree with a lot of your points.
I think I'm a little on the fence about it, myself. I would like some insight after the reading because it definitely helps when providing "valuable" feedback. Oh! Here's the perfect example. In my 19th Century Brit. Poetry class, we looked at the poem "A Symphony of Yellow," by Oscar Wilde. While my professor illustrated how the poem was all about the color, the visual sense, the images, there was one particular student who declares it "not poetry" first because he didn't understand the authorial intent, and then because he disagreed with Wilde's intent. He insists that in order to be a poem, there has to be more than the image, some message, some point. That's a direct contrast to the reading that Wilde seemed to impose, which was art for art's sake, if you will. My classmate said a handful of other interesting things in a five minute rant, but that's neither here nor there.
OK, this is off-topic, but my definition of poetry doesn't include intent, image, or message. It's a form that's primarily defined by the style it's written in. So your classmate was way wrong.
There are many ways to "define" poetry, as I think we've seen on this forum; none are mutually exclusive imo. What's funny is that my professor didn't call on him during the rest of the lecture.
Well, that student's definition is too broad. Prose has intent and message and all that good stuff, too. Where prose and poetry differ is the style in which they are written. On a related note, I have absolutely no idea what prose poetry is and how it differs from a short prose piece. Can't say I blame your professor.
You're right. There is something in poetic form that makes poetry, traditionally. But this idea is broadening. My classmate would largely agree with your point, but e would likely include the meaning, and function of the poem. I might as well. I mean if E.E. Cummings can give us "A Leaf Falls on Lonliness" and call it a poem (click the link to see the poem and you'll know what I mean) then, I'm lead to believe anything can become a poem of sorts. I don't understand "prose poetry" either. Maybe it's in the rhythm and the way the language works? I couldn't say. Prose and Poetry are two very different forms, despite one's ability to write prose poetically and poems prosaically... in that sense prose poetry should be possible, but the whole blurring of the lines teases me out of thought like Keats's Grecian urn. Although, I did find this neat article "explaining" it a little: http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/5787 The main site has explanations of a handful of poetic forms: http://www.poets.org/page.php/prmID/197
I would be inclined to go with @thirdwind's idea, that it's helpful for authors to tell us their intent when they post something in the Workshop for critique. As critique givers, we're not only playing 'reader' on the forum, but we're also acting as writers, in that we're trying to help the original writers achieve their goals. If we don't know what those goals are, we can get sidetracked by our own vision for the piece. We risk sending the author away knowing something is wrong, but not sure what. BUT ...I can also see @Andrae Smith 's point, that it's helpful to the author to find out if the reader 'gets' what they were attempting to do, without colouring their perception before they start. So... I think, if I post anything in future, I might write out my 'intention' for the piece as a Spoiler.* That way the person doing the critique doesn't have to read my explanation—but they can if they want to. In fact they probably should, AFTER reading the piece. Then they can make it clear what did and what didn't work, and help me achieve my intention for the piece. A compromise? There is also the advantage that if we have already stated our goals before the critique happens, our responses won't sound defensive. More honest all the way around? ............................. * The Spoiler option is now hidden, along with the Quote and Code option inside the Insert function, located in the same wee box as our Smilies.
That's the perfect middle ground, iffin you ask me. I'll follow your lead and start doing that myself. If not in a spoiler, then in a section directly below the poem. It keeps us from coloring the initial reading, but allows us to contextualize the poem anyway.
This is an excellent idea and one I fully support. This way, anyone who doesn't want to know how the author interprets the piece can skip the spoiler.
I think the spoiler tag idea is a good one. That in itself would be helpful when critting. Do a dry read through first, then comment, read the content of the spoiler to see whether the piece worked as defined in the objective and comment further. Another thing. I don't write poetry myself. I'd love a bit of extra insight as to how others go about it.
Even in a spoiler, you can pollute the critiquer's assumptions by explaining your intentions. Once they read it, they cannot unread it. Let the writing tell its own tale of your intentions, and don't even confirm whether the reader picked up on it. The next critiquer might see the story differently, as long as he or she doesn't KNOW what you're trying to convey. It's bad enough, abeit unavoidable,that the critiquer can see other readers' interpretation, which is why I usually try not to read other responses before formulating my own response. I may look at other responses before I hit the submit button, but I try to avoid biasing my first impressions. Why tempt fate (or critiquers' self-discipline). Keep your intentions to yourself. That's how you learn whether you were as clear as you intended to be.
Aye, but you might want to get suggestions about how to make your intentions clearer and get closer to your goal—rather than just discovering that you weren't clear in the first place. The Spoiler tag might tempt a few people, but this means everybody knows where any extra information lies. It's easier to skip it altogether, if that's what you prefer. No author has to use it, and no critique-giver has to read it. I do like to know a bit more about the author's intentions before I start a critique (NOT the first read-through, but the actual critique itself.) It would suit me to have the Spoiler additions available. I also think it might be helpful to the author to articulate exactly what he or she wants a piece to convey. This could help them focus on potential problems or gaps themselves. I see the Spoiler as the best compromise between our opposing points of view.
Can I get another thing off my chest? I think some people need to elaborate a bit more on their critiques. Saying "I loved it! It reminds me of [insert famous writer here]. Good job!" or "I didn't like it. The flow is bad, and your use of language leaves something to be desired." isn't very helpful. Give reasons to support your opinions. That's the most important thing IMO.
Totally agree with this - in fact I find lousy advice- this dialogue could use a snappy adverb like chortled - better because at least they're trying. It's nice to get a compliment but it doesn't further the writer or even the critiquer. I think sometimes, but not always, the writer can intimidate or give the critiquer an easy out by asking for specifics - Is my character believable? which instead of going indepth it's easy to just give a yes and no answer especially if you're a newbie eager to post your own stuff. I spent four hours on another site critiquing someone's work in depth - I pointed out fluky sentences, tense issues, grammar, spelling, the lack of sentence variation, confusion, stilted dialogue, missing words, and words that muddled meanings. I used examples sentences to show the writer how to tighten and pull things together, how to cut the redundancy etc. And instead of a thank you the author lambasted me for not telling them whether or not I liked it. lol. The truth of the matter is you can't please everyone. It's best to realize as a critiquer if you take the easy way out, you're only doing yourself a disservice. I learned a lot from that critique whether or not the author did.
Hear, hear! I suppose it's a compliment of sorts when a critiquer says, e.g., "the flow is bad" or "your word choice doesn't move me" or "your deep third isn't deep enough" and simply expects the original poster to know what he or she is talking about. It presumes that the OP will reread their piece and say, "Oh, yeah, I missed that! You're right!" But these generalized problems aren't necessarily obvious. Often, the OP will be so deep into their story and how wonderfully it comes off in his or her own head they don't have the perspective to notice the issues the critter did, even post-critique. Or maybe the OP doesn't recognize them as problems at all. More helpful? Cite examples. Quote the OP word for word and say, "This came off as . . . (whatever it is the critiquer thinks isn't working)." (Q--Is there some way to get at the mini-quote tool? Heaven forfend it's gone forever-- Ah! found it, under the Insert button). This helps the OP see what's at issue and gives them the chance to straighten it out. Or maybe they'll think, "Well, actually, I was going for that effect. But I guess I'd better work harder at justifying it." Ergo, still a useful critique. Maybe, to address the initial question on the point of critique, I'd suggest it's to help the poster more effectively say what he or she is trying to say; sometimes, it's letting them know you can't tell what they're trying to say; but it should never be to make their piece say what you want it to say.
I try to be mindful of this when I approach a piece for critique. When a person goes to offer critique they bring their own personal idiosyncracies to the table, and there's a fine line between giving helpful suggestions and unhelpful interjections which essentially dismantles and swaps one personal style for another. I think this is all the more important when a writer has an original or unique voice, because to fiddle with his or her work sentence by sentence inevitably will change the style or 'vibe' of the piece to the extent that it is unrecognisable...I think you've hit the nail on the head Thirdwind with your James Joyce post. If I were to approach say a rich piece of writing by Nabokov, it would be ridiculous of me to start chopping and changing his elaborate prose because that particular rich or 'purple' style is not to my own personal tastes. Ultimately I think there are two planes of critique. One is to deconstruct the piece word for word and point out changes here and there, and the other is to point out general impressions as a reader. Unless the piece is a rather basic one by a young beginner, I think the former approach is a dangerous one because it will affect the uniqueness of that particular writer. In the case of a beginner writer, such an approach might be okay because the analyser in this instance may be merely pointing out elementary changes that need to be made that will be obvious to most readers. When a piece is a bit more sophisticated or developed then imo this needs a more delicate, sensitive approach by the reviewer because he or she needs to acknowledge the artistic ambitions of the author, which may be different to their own personal preference.
Some people have a tough time knowing when a piece is sophisticated and when it isn't. Of course, quality in literature is subjective. But there's something even more important than that: literary experience plays a huge role. If I spend my whole life reading 19th century novels, someone like David Foster Wallace is going to seem completely alien to me. There are various literary traditions one has to be aware of to be an excellent critic IMO. That's why I think it's very important to read books from different time periods and cultures and from different genres.
