
That's an excellent critique, but it's not actually my poem


I've updated the author ref - it's not just good, it's the eighth wonder of the world (why does 'eighth' look so alien?) - so wondrous that I assumed it was one of Leanne's...but no, yes, that's seriously annoying. I guess my note regarding author attributions had some merit 'after all'.
I wish I could see your comments from this window - having just attended an unrelated toilet-seat incident, I've lost my bearings...

wonderful critique, which not only is pertinent to the poem but really helpful to other poets still learning the craft ...thank you. Wow this poem is really great.

Thanks Liz -- I thought it was messy, but that's entirely in character. I failed to appreciate much of what went on in this piece until I scrutinized and spewed my thoughts. I know poeple who feel that deconstruction 'spoils' a piece of poetry; when I revisited this piece a few weeks later, I still loved the poetry, and still appreciated how much I'd got out of it.

thinking...about 'good deconstruction' versus 'bad deconstruction':)
...thinking (what a rush).
...thinking (with some conviction) that a poem written with a dual accountability to both author and reader...is in a better position, no...is in exactly the right position to receive the appreciation of a well-done deconstruction. The carefully chosen components of an accountable poem are born and made for this kind of intimate appreciation, while a poem of parts loosely chosen is not yet a firm candidate for a penetrating readership or purpose-driven, proper appreciation.
(more later)....thanks for sharing.

...a dual accountability to expression with an objective awareness of its capacity for reception and comprehension.
Otherwise, why bother? Self gratification is not poetry, good or bad.

Reception as accessibility? Poetry that doesn't attempt to exclude the reader? I guess the extremes of exclusion are 'the statement' (this is what I want to say, and I'll use any means at my disposal to ensure you 'get it' according to my intention) and obscurity (there is no way anyone will 'get' this; how could they? It means nothing to me, beyond sating my literary sadism). And then there's poetic indifference (I don't really care if anyone else cares, as long as they care about me; pure self-indulgence aka the blog/journal syndrome).
Comprehension--that's an elusive concept. The ability to understand the language of a poem; to interpret the purpose and/or meaning of a poem? Which/whose interpretation? Is technique relevant to deconstruction? Does it matter? I imagine there are writers who revel in the various interpretations being derived from their stuff, and others that despair. Derma and Leanne had a long conversation somewhere on this site relating to the 'ownership' of a poem (does the author effectively relinquish 'control ' (for instance, in terms of interpretation) of a work once it is in the public domain; which extended into Barthes territory--readerly and writerly text--and on into the far reaches of the mind-fuck universe.
Meanwhile Laura suffers cortical meltdown, and wonders how Christy can be so succinct. Ignoring her imminent demise, the demented disciple of doom continues...
So, a dual accountability for the writer, but does that also apply to the relationship between writer and reader? Does the reader have responsibilities? And assuming such indefined (or ill-defined) criteria can't be enforced (at least in the 'free' world [another millennium of discussion here]), is poetry--creation, appreciation, criticism--safe in the second-hands of the SpaceBook netwank degeneration? Have I mislaid the subtext narrative?
I don't think I've had this much fun since discovering the joys of spoiling my ballot paper by smearing it with the blood of the local fascist candidate...
[Laura thinks: Christy thinks too much for my cognitive equilibrium]

While wondering what mystery precludes this occasion of first person self reference, Christy thinks with some more conviction that comprehension is so much less elusive in the presence of distinction(s).