1. Start every critique with what you like about the poem or writing and end with reiterating the same points.
2. Balance your critiques and suggestions with positive observations.
3. Be sensitive to the writer. The point of a critique is to help improve the poet, not insult their ideas and creativity.
4. Include a disclaimer that says you recognize the poet has the right to throw your critique into the nearest dumpster. "Take these for what it's worth." is a very common way to say "This is what I have to say, but you don't have to listen."
5. Label the critiques by line number if they are line-specific.
Before writing the critique:
•Read the poem several times, including once or twice out-loud.
•Find out what the poet's purpose is.
•Decide which poetic form is used. Keep it in mind when critiquing.
What to critique on:
•Clichés.
•Redundancy, is anything repeated one too many times?
•Weak emotional venting.
•Rhetorical questions to the reader.
•Little variation between syllables or meters.
•Simple vowel rhymes.
•Originality. Be very careful with this one. Just because it's the same topic and same form doesn't mean the writing is unoriginal.
•Bad selection of words.
•Emotion, does the writing give an aesthetic experience?
Check the file for (a) This is a list of elements used within the writing of poems. (b) different categories
Of course the poet should tell us what type of poem he has written e.g. free verse, limerick, ode etc. Explanations are in the file.
In-house prof says I should state that these are just suggestions on how to critique a poem.
Those were good parameters to remember Daf. Thanks so much for showing them to us. I for one had no idea how one should critique. One thing I didn't quite understand was "weak emotional venting" What is it you look for there???
Some Revision questions
from Dorianne Laux
What is being said?
Is there joy, depth, muscle, in the music of its saying?
Is there more that wants to be said?
Does it want a more deeply living body of sound?
Is it true?
Is it ethical?
Does it feel?
Does it follow its own deepest impulses, not necessarily the initial idea?
Does it know more than you did when you started it?
Are there things in it that don't belong?
Are whatever digressions it takes in its own best service?
Are there things in it that are confusing?
Are there things in it that are cliched or sentimental?
Is it finished?
6 months later is it finished?
Six years later, is it still finished?
Is it self satisfied?
Is it predictable?
Does it go deep enough?
Far enough?
Is it particular?
Is the grammar correct?
If the syntax is unusual is it for a purpose?
Are the transitions accurate?
Is it in the right voice?
Is it in the right order?
Does the diction fit?
Could any of its words be more interesting? More surprising? More alive?
Do its rhythms work?
Does the music work?
Does the shape/form work?
Does each image work? Each statement?
Does it allow strangeness?
Does each of its moments actively move the poem toward its full realization?
Should it go out into the world?
Is it a seed for something else?
Thanks Nicky1927 - for adding the revision questions that allow us to learn so much more!
I hope all members take advantage so that we may be able to critique or comment on our members poetry constructively.
If you allow yourself to be conformed by how others think you should have written it....then you shouldn't be writing but trying to find gainful employment as a script boy.....
write from your heart not your mind........I think.... is no way as good as ...I feel......
and lastly
write for yourself and when you decide to release it ...that means you are satisfied with it ...let the critic's worry about meter or flow or transition......that's what they do best....Criticize
Yes that's understandable.
But here on EWC the purpose of delving into critiquing of poetry is for members here (this sister included) to learn about what to look for and not just stick to 'I like it' or 'It is wonderful, beautiful' especially when a poet asks for critique. He or she should be given the respect in the critique of at least some basic knowledge on the construction and elements of the particular type of poem written.
A few random thoughts on Critiquing a poem:
I agree with Daff. When I ask for one of my pieces - poetry or prose - to be critiqued I first off want an overall imperssion of the piece i.e. did it touch you in some way and how.
After that I want every error or problem brought to my attention - I don't want it glossed over I want an HONEST opinion. If something is not understood I want to know that - It maybe my intent to make it vague but how will i know anything if the critiquer isn't honest. I learn from people's honest critiques.
Encouragement is always nice but not what I want in a critique except maybe at the very end and even then not overly done as if you are trying to salve your good nature by gushing on and on about how wonderful the poem.
Honesty doesn't have to be cruel - you don't need to use words like "it sucks" instead "it doesn't work" - in a word tact but HONEST tact.
How am I to trust a critique if I don't feel it's honest and if I don't trust the critique then all things are suspect - good or bad.
