critiquing poetry

there really is no secret to critiquing poetry.

i used to be of the poetry cannot be edited set. not so any longer. i understand the poet cannot always see a flaw, just as a writer cannot always find the typo in his prose. it is no different.

i do not edit work for sport. i do it for those who request it and can handle it. show me once you cannot handle it and i will recuse myself the honor.

responding honestly is the key.

there is no right or wrong in poetry. it is utterly subjective. i know there are forms and styles and big ten dollar words we can throw about, but aside from all that, does the poem speak to you? what is it saying? how could it be said better, differently to your ear?

of course, the poet may not take to this suggestion, but suggestions are not offered with the maxim, this is gospel. otherwise it is not a suggestion, it is a mandate. and who needs that?

when i respond to a poem, i simply tell the poet what they have stirred up in me. what their lines are reminiscent of. or if those things do not congeal into anything solid i can stand upon, i simply say, yes.

yes is a great word. an understanding. an affirmation. an applause, together at once.

if there is a repetition in words, sometimes this lends itself to the poem. it serves the poem, that is verbiage i use a great deal.

does it serve the poem?

if my desire to cut your lines does not serve the poem. ignore it.
if my cleaning up your phrasing does not serve the poem, forget about it.

there is no rule that one must revise.
though there is no rule that one must not revise.

it is the happy union of the two that matters. finding the balance between honoring your voice (which, first you must know without doubt), and trusting the reader.

as a critical reader, i can offer a few suggestions. but my suggestions come only from my subjective pool. the more subjective pools you can draw from, the better, perhaps your poem will be (or the more watered down, one could argue).

there have been poems that only a select few get.

i'm willing to let those poems be misunderstood. this serves the poem.

there have been poems that i've clearly flubbed the delivery. and must be edited, this serves the poem.

there have been poems i'm so committed to, i will not change a word. this serves the poet. but we are not without passion, are we?

though i love to hear what you have to say as long as you remember a suggestion is merely that. a suggestion.

i do not offer poetry critique as a mandate. no one should.
there is no authority on the subject. there are only greater and lesser subjective pools from which to draw.

i have the works of a dear poet which is full of potential edits.
i love these works and cannot, will not, for the life of me, edit them.

will they ever be published? i hope so.
will they need to be edited? probably.

does that make the poem better? perhaps. but i don't think better is the issue. i think accessibility is the issue.

a finely edited poem is more accessible than an unedited poem, in many cases.
though, i would rather have a forum, a place where poets hone their voices and do not need perfection.

are these the works that would be published? can they be published?
perhaps not. but we ask too much of the muse, if we ask only for publishable works. for monetary gain, for fame.

i ask only for poetry. undignified. undiluted. unedited poetry.

through the process of time, and life, the works refine.
they will not all be worthy of acclaim, but that is not the point.

the point is, poets are writing poetry.

that has only ever been the point.