More in Criticism - Guidelines
Criticism - Guidelines
| << Previous | Next >> |
ON COMMENTING: well here's my attempt at adding what I think again, although I don't have quite the initial burst of energy I had to make the lost comment.
Primary is that I think a comment should 1. let the person really know you are closely reading the work 2.Say anything you can say about what you understand about what the author is saying. What comes across? This is wonderful feedback. Rather then suggesting changes-- it gives a writer some information with which to change himself if he so desires. (Exception: if the author asks for suggestions about change.) Most serious writers have intent about what they are doing, and they like to know what comes across. Most writers (in my opinion) do not need anyone to tell them what they think they should do or change. (Is this an unusual view?) I think the effort to have something critical to say is an over-reaction to superficiality, and thus makes it even harder for people to comment properly. The idea of "tolerance levels" is so obviously misplaced in the sense that if people did what I am suggesting... a huge amount of information is exchanged, and anyone would be terrifically interested in such feedback, and it does not require tolerance at all! The idea of being "tough" in giving or receiving commentary is just dumb in my opinion.
*** I think what you have said about not taking poems autobiographically is great. That is another primary. One comments on the poem as a fiction (unless the poet specifically says in an authors note that it is real-life based, and even then, one takes this cautiously.) That ensures one is commenting ON the poem, not being tempted to give life-advice responses. Bravo.
Primary is that I think a comment should 1. let the person really know you are closely reading the work 2.Say anything you can say about what you understand about what the author is saying. What comes across? This is wonderful feedback. Rather then suggesting changes-- it gives a writer some information with which to change himself if he so desires. (Exception: if the author asks for suggestions about change.) Most serious writers have intent about what they are doing, and they like to know what comes across. Most writers (in my opinion) do not need anyone to tell them what they think they should do or change. (Is this an unusual view?) I think the effort to have something critical to say is an over-reaction to superficiality, and thus makes it even harder for people to comment properly. The idea of "tolerance levels" is so obviously misplaced in the sense that if people did what I am suggesting... a huge amount of information is exchanged, and anyone would be terrifically interested in such feedback, and it does not require tolerance at all! The idea of being "tough" in giving or receiving commentary is just dumb in my opinion.
*** I think what you have said about not taking poems autobiographically is great. That is another primary. One comments on the poem as a fiction (unless the poet specifically says in an authors note that it is real-life based, and even then, one takes this cautiously.) That ensures one is commenting ON the poem, not being tempted to give life-advice responses. Bravo.
by Kath on Feb. 5 2007