Learn More

Poetics and Poetry Discussion


Is there a book you just read, a piece of poetry news or a reading you just heard that you want to talk about? Here's the place to start a conversation.
Post a message

Click here to list all messages

Michael Shepherd Male, 85, United Kingdom (8/23/2005 2:53:00 PM)

(This massage was posted as a reply to that message)

I guess the word 'critic' is too limiting - but it's the one in common use. I tried to promote the word 'appreciator' in the press, but it didn't catch on -people enjoy the negative so much more...and 'appreciation' suggests a lack of integrity to the chattering classes...but it properly includes appreciation, assessment, and setting in artistic and cultural and social context. It shouldn't just mean arrogant destruction?

To post a reply to this message, click here
Replies for this message:

 

  • Rookie Cheri Leigh (9/8/2005 10:00:00 AM) Post reply
    0 person liked.
    0 person did not like.

    Hi Michael,
    One of the definitions for Critical (and its various and sundry derivations) in MW is: 'exercising or involving careful judgment or judicious evaluation.' The popular usage of the term has given it, in my opinion, an unjust qualification. When we critique someone's work, our aim should not be destruction, but rather the author's good, the improvement of his/her work or technique. If we aim only to harm or destroy, then we are, as you say, arrogant and mean. Perhaps some do this due to frustration with thier own lack of talent? I don't know, I can only fall back on the tried and true, mean people suck.
    Poetry is about beauty and/or truth (some truths being ugly, these may be mutually exclusive terms in some cases) Critiqueing it should be only about truth, as gently told as possible. Jealosy and mean-spiritedness (is this a real word?) should have no place, though, since we are human they will find thier way in.

[Hata Bildir]