New to giving critique? Please read these tips.

[ellajam]

From our Help forum:

But I’m not qualified to comment on other people’s poetry:

Rubbish. If you can write, you can read. If you can read, you’re the audience the poet writes for. Make an effort. The more you read other people’s poetry, the more you’ll find other people reading yours. We are much more likely to share our time and thoughts with people who do the same.

The Ins and Outs of Critique and Feedback.

•    Remember that this is not your writing. Ask yourself what the author wants to achieve and how best that goal can be met within the existing framework of the piece. Do not attempt to impose your own style on another writer; a good reviewer will in fact impose the writer’s style on him/herself for the duration of the critique.
  

•    Consider that the speaker/voice of the writing is not always that of the author, even if it uses an I. It is a mistake to assume that anything written in the first person is always autobiographical, and to do so can in fact offend. It is possibly best to avoid giving “life advice” in a critique, other than as a direct requirement for interpretation of the piece.
  

•    Expect that every piece of writing posted may eventually be ready for publication, and do your best to help it get there. Even the tiniest word can make a difference – be thorough. This does not mean that you should look only for flaws – rather, ask yourself if what you are suggesting will really enhance the writing. Remove weaknesses, enhance strengths – at all times try to be balanced in your criticism and explain yourself when it is needed.
  

•    Examine all aspects: technical merit, possible meanings, aesthetics and effectiveness. A piece that is technically brilliant may fall short in aesthetics or originality; if it’s aesthetically pleasing it may not really make an impact. Try to work out why. If you are not sure of the technique used, it is often a good idea to find out before you write your review. This not only provides the most help to the author, it also increases your own knowledge.
  

•    Never use criticism of writing as a means to criticise the author. Never attack the critic. Conducting personal feuds via critiques and/or writing posts does nothing to nurture the written word and is detrimental to poetry itself. Be gracious in the acceptance of feedback, someone has gone to the trouble of reading and responding to your work. A 'thank you' goes a long way.
  

•    Equally, criticism of writing should not be used to ingratiate oneself with the author. Flattery is in fact very damaging, creating a false idea of one’s ability. Praise good work, certainly, but never with empty words. Make it clear that you have read the piece and explain why you appreciate it. No comments should be made in an attempt to solicit comments in return. A give-and-take in reviews is preferable but should never be demanded. If you respond with honest feedback to the works of others, you will more often than not get an honest responses to your own works in return.
  

•    Authors should not clarify the poem or its intent unless requested to do so . Answer salient questions by all means but giving the game away could lose you valuable critique.
  

•    Try and keep the poem as the main topic of conversation.
  

Thanks to Leanne for creating the content.

This is not a definitive guide, just something I've devised over the years and found to work.  Using the reverse weight to that of a debate:

Method:  The way the work is presented.  Structure and language especially.
Manner: How it's presented.  Imagery, sonics, metaphor.
Matter:  WHAT is being said, the argument/examples/information


Method:  Does the form of the poem support the content?
This is generally more rigid for structured poetry than freeverse.  For example, if someone writes in meter there are standard measures to decide whether it's been done properly.  Similarly  with cinquains, rictameters and other set forms.  There's no such requirement for free verse.  For either, though:

-- Look at line breaks, line lengths and punctuation.  Are these carefully placed or arbitrary?  Do they provide emphasis?  Do they contribute to mood?  

-- Is the language of the poem suitable?  Does the tone convey the appropriate mood?  Look at things like vernacular, archaisms, scientific discourse.  Do these "mesh"?  If not, does the language choice provide contrast/juxtapositions/irony or is it simply "wrong"?  

-- Does the poem appear fluid or does it seem forced?  Is the language stilted and awkward?  Do inversions of syntax and other grammatical oddities contribute to the piece or detract from it?  Rhyme will come into this as well -- any rhymes should seem natural and not overstated or obvious.  

Manner:  How "poetic" is the poem?

-- Is the phrasing interesting and original?

-- Are all metaphors etc clearly drawn and continued, or are they seemingly random and overblown?  

-- Does the imagery/symbolism make sense or does it seem too personal/closed?

--  Do individual sounds/words enhance the poem?  For example, lyric poetry is better served with softer, rounder sounds and sibilants.  Battle poems -- hard sharp sounds.  Consider how the sounds contribute to the speed of the poem.  This ties in closely with the method but also very strongly supports the "imagery" side.

Matter:  What is being said?

-- Is the topic of the poem interesting?  Bearing in mind that any topic may be interesting or dull depending on the way it's presented -- so, is the poet finding that required hook?

-- Is it logically presented?  This will obviously not come into play in certain kinds of poetry (surrealism defies logic deliberately, for example).  Further to this, though, consider whether the poem keep the reader's interest or is a bunch of non sequiturs that are unlinked by any devices.    


Remember: Whether you LIKE the poem is the very last thing you should consider if you wish to remain objective.

it is not hard, but like anything worth doing, it takes time.  Here are some useful tips.

1.  Read through a poem around 10 times before rushing to hit the "reply" button.
2.  On the first pass, try to enjoy the reading.  Note lines, expression, word choices, etc. that you like.
3.  On the second and third reads, try to pick out things that detract from your enjoyment (awkwardness, poor scansion, line breaks etc) weird grammar or syntax, poor spelling, cliches.
4.  On your fourth and fifth reads, try to analyze why the writer picked /specific/ words.  Are there double meaning?  Symbolism?  If the writer picked orchids at a funeral instead of irises, why?
5.  Use google.  There may be some words or concepts you are not familiar with.
6.  What is the central metaphor?  Does the word choice the author used complement it?  Does it contrast it?
7.  See #6 and consider if the writer was trying to use thesis/antithesis, perhaps for allegorical or satirical intent.  (note - all Shakespearean sonnets should use thesis/antithesis in the final couplet>
8.  Read once more to enjoy the poem.  Feel the rhythm, say the words out loud.
9.  Make a recording of the poem and listen back to it.  Note areas that give you problems in the reading.
10.  Comment"I liked this" and rush to post another poem of your own.  

Please don't be anxious -- just be honest.  If you like or dislike something, say so, but always with a reason.  We don't all have to critique in the same way (and it's really much better if we don't).