Critical comments

[Caliode]

Part of this site is used to provide a place where people can display their own work. It is made clear by the administrators that those who do so should expect other members to make comments on their writing. In other words it is space used not only for creative writing, but also for literary criticism.

One of my interests is how the general reader responds to literature. Generally this response is coloured by reputation, which sometimes means that responses are not always true responses, but are skewed toward what might be expected. It can therefore be very instructive to look at the responses to amateur writers ie those who are not part of any literary canon. If a reader responds to certain things in particular ways then lessons about reading can be learned, and if need be theories about aesthetic appreciation can be constructed.

After I had been a member for some time it became apparent that by and large responses in the Poetry Section were being driven by various prejudged criteria, which meant that there was rather an incestuous circle of writers and readers, who appeared to spend their time more or less fawning off each other. This is not that unusual on sites such as this.

Poetry was chosen because it is a genre, where some general rules about reading can be deduced fairly swiftly and easily.

I therefore produced some rather stilted verses in order to see what sort of comments these would elicit. My model was I A Richards' experiment in critical theory, which the interested reader can find in two books of his called: Principles of Literary Criticism and Practical Criticism. Richards circulated some poems by unknown hands to various readers and then used the responses to formulate various theories about the way we read. The experiment cannot be reproduced, because in the days of the internet all poems can be identified quickly, and thus the responses would end up being skewed by authorial reputation.

I was fascinated to read some of the responses to my poems, which seemed to illustrate many of the same failings and critical traps Richards discovered in his readers over 80 years ago. There were difficulties in making out the plain sense of the poems; there were mnemonic irrelevances - where the reader was reminded of some reverberations from things which had nothing to do with the poems, and various stock responses, where readers react according to prejudices built up in their mind. All of these things and others contrive to intervene between the reader and the poem thus as Richards says "starving the reader of the very food they crave". This does not mean that my poems had any literary merit whatsoever - the experiment was to learn how readers would respond.

When it became apparent that these problems and others were resulting in various highly-charged and sometimes very personal reactions to my poems, I decided to switch tack and apply some of Richards' principles to readings of other members' poetry. To a certain extent this made matters worse as there was a general feeling that I was treading on various toes and reactions became even more extreme. There was little or no attempt to counter the critical comments by reasoned discussion.

The conclusion I came to was that by and large readers on here do not take the trouble to apply objective criteria to their readings of other people's work.

I found this to be very worrying as it bodes ill for critical standards if readers are continually being blind-sided by poor reading habits, and especially so because this is happening on a site devoted to matters literary.

[miyako73]

I believe literary criticism is a form of writing and should also be under critical lenses. Some criticisms can be creative too like Island's. Most comments here are praises even though the works are problematic and questionable. I like how Hillwalker does his critiques sans occasional personal attacks. One can learn from his comments, and he does not force his ideas.

Some poems and stories seem perfect and flawless. One can still comment and write something meaningful about them. Explaining why you do like them is as important as explaining why you don't. Telegraphically saying "Brilliant!" or "The best!" is not literary appreciation or criticism.

Others use their standards in critiquing literary works. For example, someone read the "I" narrative as romanticist; maybe s/he did not know that Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, which is in first person narrative, is considered postmodernist. Someone also questioned disjointed words and images as if no writer did it before. Someone also refused to read a work because the antecedent of the pronouns in the opening paragraph was written at the end, as though a writer was not free to make his/her own literary device.

The point is: critique a work wholly not just based on your feelings and limited understanding. Do some research too. You just don't critique a painting using color theory or emotional impact alone. Also, like an artwork, a literary work should be critiqued within its genre, form, style, narrative, and context.

One thing I like about Stlukesguild's responses under art threads is that they're well-researched and thought out. Even though it's hard for me to agree sometimes, I still consider his effort intelligent, reasonable, and admirable.

I also notice your observation about back-patting. I did an experiment once. In a poetry workshop, we were asked to pick a poem (any poem but ours) we wanted to critique. I picked the poem everyone here thought to be brilliant. Oh, Boy, every line was questioned, and the questions were intelligent. It was so because our readings of the poem were not based on emotional affinity, reader's mood, or writer's friendship.

I suggest that if someone critiques a poem or a story other readers should not group themselves and attack that person. Attack his criticism with yours. I find groupthink boring and unproductive. I always go for variety and heterogeneity of ideas and opinions.

Also, forget the harsh tone of someone's writing or if his/her critique is inflammatory as long as it is not personal, as long as it has no ad hominem, and as long as s/he writes about literature. There are writers who are sarcastic, bombastic, acerbic, and angry. Being acerbic in your writing is a literary style too.

[Charles Darnay]

Seems there's been an influx of pseudo-psychologists lately. I'll be back when the spring cleaning washes away this ****.

[miyako73]

You don't learn literary criticism in psychology. Even Lacanian or Freudian criticism is now considered outdated and far-fetched. Lacan himself dismissed the use of his theories in literary criticism. I don't think Freud prescribed that his should be used either.

[hillwalker]

Much as I enjoyed reading the above, it's perhaps worth remembering that most of us on here are writers not critics. We don't pretend to offer professional critiques based on extensive study of literature over the years. We offer advice and opinion generally based on personal preferences and experiences purely as writers. Peer support - nothing else.

Personally I don't have the time or inclination to give such in depth analysis. Consequently I only seek out those new writers who I see making the same mistakes I made when I first began scribbling words and calling it 'writing'.

And I agree with you both - mutual back-slapping becomes tiresome to watch and is the least meaningful kind of critique. I'm also guessing it never got anyone published.

H

[DocHeart]

What is strange is that you actually felt it was necessary to do all this work in order to come to this conclusion. Of course most people are prejudiced. Of course their perception of work can be affected by what they think of the author as a person.

But I must strongly object to the use of the adverb "here" when you write:



The conclusion I came to was that by and large readers on here do not take the trouble to apply objective criteria to their readings of other people's work.


As if they do anywhere else?

Back when I was a first-year English Literature student, I remember enjoying the poems Ted Hughes, especially some items from his "Crow" collection. I had come across him in the library while looking for something else and was totally absorbed by his work, totally absorbed. I read a bit about him and found that he had been Poet Laureate, so I wondered why he wasn't included in my first semester "Poetry" course, so I asked my professor, a small, dark woman in her early fifties who could stare down God himself, how come we didn't study any of his poems. I'll never forget her answer: "Because he was a wife beater."

Even though I didn't know that Ted Hughes had been married to Sylvia Plath, and had no idea about the gossip that went on about the reasons she gassed herself, I did know the term "ad hominem", and its meaning.

Separately, I can't really stop myself from feeling that you are being rather unfair to the people in this forum who take time to read and critique a piece of work. I'm not talking about the folks who just write "Great!" or "I love this!" (and I don't think there's anything wrong with sharing the emotional response one had to a piece, even in very simple terms), but the ones that really make an effort to help by pointing out weaknesses. My own experience has been that they do in fact apply objective criteria when evaluating a piece of work. I really can't think of anyone who has criticized my work and made me think "hey, this guy is not really reviewing my work, he's just attacking me". Not one person.

Some critics, both in LitNet and out there in the real world, will adopt a certain style. Some of them will point out weaknesses using a neutral tone; some, at the other end of the spectrum, will be sarcastic and cutting. And some will be at any point in-between. Sometimes their opinions will be biased by what the think of the author himself / herself; sometimes they will be a hundred percent objective -- especially when reading the work of someone who has only recently joined, and there has been no time to get to "like" or "dislike" the avatar.

It seems to me this is just how humans work.



I found this to be very worrying as it bodes ill for critical standards if readers are continually being blind-sided by poor reading habits, and especially so because this is happening on a site devoted to matters literary.


While I admire your sensitivity to how "matters literary" are handled in this forum, I do ask you to review the reasons why you felt you had to do research, carry out experiments, and write an essay on why "LitNet critics are not objective". I would go as far as to challenge you to share your findings in this thread, but that may be taking liberties.

Happy Saturday night.

DH

[miyako73]

That most of us here are not critics is true. So, when critics show up, we should welcome them and their ideas. It's refreshing to read others whose reading, interpretation, and understanding are different from ours. One of my regrets in this forum is my rabid stance against Formalism. Now that biographical reading, over-thinking of subtext, and context-based analysis are rampant, I do miss Morpheus.

[cacian]

Ah the world of literary criticism. It makes me think.Time to write more and forget about those who worry about it. There is no pleasing in some people but what there is what you think must be written against those who do not think it is worth it. I guess there is no chip off the block just words and those against them can either enjoy it or write their own or don't.
Reading is as much about taking it in as rejecting it. Quality is beyond criticism so no matter how stressed critiques are over something it does not alter the fact that something is beyond dislikes or not.
Criticism is just another form of expression and one must remember that without the initial writer the critiques cannot be. So keep thinking that.
Indeed happy thinking or shall I say happy writing.

[miyako73]

Doc is right. Everything we have said is not unique to this forum. But we can also expect a change because most of us here are unpublished and newbies. And I like to think we are still raw, edgy, and idealistic.

My minor is in critical theory (emphasis: arts and culture). For some reason, I always try not to join a chorus, and it's a very lonely endeavor. I'm paranoid even in the poetry section of this forum. I would rather not comment than be attacked by a group and end up banned.

[Pierre Menard]

Back when I was a first-year English Literature student, I remember enjoying the poems Ted Hughes, especially some items from his "Crow" collection. I had come across him in the library while looking for something else and was totally absorbed by his work, totally absorbed. I read a bit about him and found that he had been Poet Laureate, so I wondered why he wasn't included in my first semester "Poetry" course, so I asked my professor, a small, dark woman in her early fifties who could stare down God himself, how come we didn't study any of his poems. I'll never forget her answer: "Because he was a wife beater."



Goddamn, that is annoying. Foolish professor.

[cacian]

Goddamn, that is annoying. Foolish professor.

Ah well there goes to the matriarch when he or she is let to it. The issue with literate and people wannabe thinkers/artists is that they want to study everything and so there is nothing left for enjoyment or pleasure. Imagination is dubbed and the rest is well criticism.

[Paulclem]

Isn't it clear that the critical views expressed on the forum are merely member's opinions and that these are amateur in the sense that they are given freely? Hill is right in that he says criticisms are made from writers of the medium, and there is not always concensus about poems.

I find the idea that you were conducting an experiment interesting, and I can see, looking back over that thread, that you were questioning. It wasn't useful in the sense that it didn't fit the profile of what people usually post - they usually want feedback - and perhaps your questioning was interpreted as defensiveness. The interpretations still stand though. I realise that you couldn't test in the same way as the original experiment, and so you had to contribute your own piece.

Wouldn't it be interesting to compare those pieces you deleted with comments and see if they really are justified in the light of this?

[miyako73]

To be honest, I did not say a thing about "Lovers in the Woods" because of the confusion and ambivalence I had in my reading of the poem and the comments and responses of its writer. His comments and responses were more interesting and intelligent. I thought he "dumbed down" his poem for the sake of flaming and trolling. I did not think he experimented.

Now we have three experimenters in this forum: Wolf, Cacian, and Caliode. I did experiment once, but not in this forum. I was a victim of someone's experiment too, and he was banned a long time ago. He posted a poem not his and had fun reading the comments that followed.

[Paulclem]

I'll be interested to see what Caliode's responses are.

[cacian]

To be honest, I did not say a thing about "Lovers in the Woods" because of the confusion and ambivalence I had in my reading of the poem and the comments and responses of its writer. His comments and responses were more interesting and intelligent. I thought he "dumbs down" his poem for the sake of flaming and trolling. I did not think he experimented.

Now we have three experimenters in this forum: Wolf, Cacian, and Caliode. I did experiment once, but not in this forum. I was a victim of someone's experiment too, and he was banned a long time ago. He posted a poem not his and had fun reading the comments that followed.
Hi miyako73. What do you mean by experimenter?

[Caliode]

Three different strands of thought - one of which I offer as a possible subject for a thesis.

There are in the UK, and I have no doubt in the States, as well, popular editions of the classics produced for the general reader (or the common reader as Dr Johnson described him or her). Some of the best of these contain good scholarly apparatus including introductions in the form of small essays by learned academics. There is fruitful source of material here for a discussion- not so much on what is said in these introductions, but how their tone has changed over the decades these editions have been produced. This reflects or should reflect the way in which the general reader reads books. For instance if we take a writer like Walter Scott and look back at the various editions produced over the years in the Oxford World's Classics series it is illuminating to look at the different themes picked out in these introductions.

It is therefore the general reader which is the subject of my focus.

The next link in my chain of thought goes as follows.

Some years ago I was working at Liverpool University and became very familiar with the city. Liverpool is very much both a one off and yet representative in terms of the way we think or used to think about popular culture. I became fascinated while I was there by the small pieces of poetry published in the local press beside death notices. After some very perfunctory research I discovered that books of poetry were kept at the offices of the newspaper at the request of bereaved relatives who would consult these before making their choice. Now, as you know poetry, is not exactly to the forefront of people's minds in today's world and yet it was to poetry that ordinary people turned in times of emotional stress. Why should this be? and what values did poetry have that could not be found elsewhere?

What I was trying to suggest in my opening post is that I was trying to establish quasi-scientific rules for the process of how we read literature. This was Richards' aim as well.

Needless to say it is possibly a chimera, but it provides a great deal of interest especially in the field of amateur writing and how this is read.

[Caliode]

Here is a flavour of Richards:

He begins with the poem to be discussed. I shall not provide the author's name but no doubt you can find it out very easily.

Softly in the dusk, a woman is singing to me;
Taking me back down the vista of years, till I see
A child sitting under the piano in the boom of the tingling strings
And pressing the small, poised feet of a mother who smiles as she sings.

In spite of myself the insidious mastery of song
Betrays me back, till the heart of me weeps to belong
To the old Sunday evenings at home, with winter outside
And hymns in the cosy parlour, the tinkling piano our guide.

So now it is vain for the singer to burst into clamour
With the great black piano appassionato. The glamour
Of childish days is upon me, my manhood is cast
Down in the flood of remembrance, I weep like a child for the past.

Richards begins by saying that a mob of readers condemned the poem for its sentimentality - objecting to words like "cosy" or "tinkling". It was described as feeble and playing to the gallery. The sentiment was said to be nauseating and the versification puerile. There were many objections to the description of the child's position.

What these readers are doing seems to be is they are getting hung up on minor issues. There is a lack of what has come to be described as close reading eg there is an important and significant contrast between tingling and tinkling in the poem.

Irrelevancies also abound.

What difference to the poem does it make if a child cannot physically sit under the piano rather than under the keyboard?

i shan't draw this out too much . Obviously you can read Richards for yourselves.

However having drawn your attention to some of the pitfalls it might be an interesting exercise to provide responses to the poem in a similar way to the way it is done in the Poetry writing section of this forum.

[Scheherazade]

It is also important to keep in mind, I believe, that there is no one single way of reading/responding to a piece of writing; prose or poetry. Writers or poets can put their work into writing to the best of their abilities but cannot tell their readers how they should react to that piece of writing... Nor should they offended if they do not get the reaction they have been expecting.

I am not a writer; nor am I a critique. I am a "reader" - and I believe a very good one as well - so I usually respond to what I am exposed to with the mind set of a "reader". I look at the grammar and punctuation as well as context, form and structure. Sometimes what is on offer does not interest or attract me simply because it fails to tick one of those boxes for me.

Being a self-taught reader as well, I do not feel obliged at all to follow the advice of critiques either. It does not please my "intellectual" or "artistic" palate, I could not care less who else thought/said what, honestly.

[Caliode]

"I am not a writer; nor am I a critique. I am a "reader" - and I believe a very good one as well - so I usually respond to what I am exposed to with the mind set of a "reader". I look at the grammar and punctuation as well as context, form and structure. Sometimes what is on offer does not interest or attract me simply because it fails to tick one of those boxes for me.

Being a self-taught reader as well, I do not feel obliged at all to follow the advice of critiques either. It does not please my "intellectual" or "artistic" palate, I could not care less who else thought/said what, honestly".

This slightly feels like M Jourdain's remark that he had speaking prose for years without knowing it.

However, I am more or less of the same opinion - I recently read in a magazine that some point or other could only have been picked up by an academic reader. This horrified me and I wrote an article in protest as it were.

But, to argue against that point, it does seem to me that if we laud particular types of readers - be they academic or general- then we are saying there are different ways of reading according to background/education/ etc,. , which does start to muddy the waters more than somewhat.

[AuntShecky]

- the experiment was to learn how readers would respond.

The LitNet's counterpart to the "catfishers" who punked Manti Te'o?

All kidding aside, recently I heard on a news program a definition of "trolling" which included "posting outrageous material in order to get a rise out of unsuspecting commentators."

I'm not saying the OP was acting like a "troll," but was it fair
to track the responses of LitNutters without their knowledge? (Almost like websites which imbed "hidden" tracking cookies.)If you had objections to our comments, could you have notified us privately, as in a private message?

[Delta40]

I'm a writer. So what you're really concluding after letting us know how you selectively conduct unsound research to 'fit' your theories on unknowing participants, is that you're as flawed and as subjective as the rest of humankind.

That's brilliant and I agree. You're one of us after all. Welcome. :ciappa::ciappa::ciappa::ciappa::ciappa::ciappa::c iappa::ciappa::ciappa::ciappa::ciappa:

[WolfLarsen]

I think the OP makes too much sense. And if he's going to make too much sense he should do it in fewer words.

Stop making too much sense!

What we need on the site is more nonsense!

Nonsense is much more fun!

[cacian]

I think the OP makes too much sense. And if he's going to make too much sense he should do it in fewer words.

Stop making too much sense!

What we need on the site is more nonsense!

Nonsense is much more fun!

Haha how do you define nonsense in a literate term or expression?

[Caliode]

The LitNet's counterpart to the "catfishers" who punked Manti Te'o?

All kidding aside, recently I heard on a news program a definition of "trolling" which included "posting outrageous material in order to get a rise out of unsuspecting commentators."

I'm not saying the OP was acting like a "troll," but was it fair
to track the responses of LitNutters without their knowledge? (Almost like websites which imbed "hidden" tracking cookies.)If you had objections to our comments, could you have notified us privately, as in a private message?

What I was trying and failing to do was to reproduce I A Richards' method. I don't think with today's technology his experiment can be successfully carried out as it is all too easy to identify the writer, which then colours judgement.

Writing poetry which is uneven should draw responses from a selected audience of people who are reasonably sensitive to literature. That in turn should create a debate about what does or does not make a good poem. That was my aim.

On another site (non-literary) there is an interesting discussion raging about Sylvia Plath and Ted Hughes (it's the fiftieth anniversary this year of Plath's suicide). The discussion is revolving around how we read either of these writers objectively ie without being skewed by the affective fallacy.

Very very difficult in this case.

But the discussion is interesting.

It would also be interesting if someone provided a view of the example I provided used by Richards.

[Mariner]

"My opinion is: I hate it."

"I mean, you haven't even read it."

"If it's bad, then I'll hate it because it's bad writing. If it's good, I'll be envious and hate it all the more. You don't want the opinion of another writer."

Midnight in Paris, Hemingway and Bill Ponder discussing writers critiquing each-other's work.

Here's the clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw9spMYA-XU

Humor aside, it's the internet. Would you expect anything different? Go find a real-life group or buddy to discuss your work if you're serious about producing profitable writing. Besides, some people suck at writing, and they need to know that.

Nobody achieves universal approval, especially online.

Edit There's no such thing as "objective reading." I believe it's impossible to read objectively. Try developing thicker skin.

[Caliode]

"My opinion is: I hate it."

"I mean, you haven't even read it."

"If it's bad, then I'll hate it because it's bad writing. If it's good, I'll be envious and hate it all the more. You don't want the opinion of another writer."

Midnight in Paris, Hemingway and Bill Ponder discussing writers critiquing each-other's work.

Here's the clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw9spMYA-XU

Humor aside, it's the internet. Would you expect anything different? Go find a real-life group or buddy to discuss your work if you're serious about producing profitable writing. Besides, some people suck at writing, and they need to know that.

Nobody achieves universal approval, especially online.

Edit There's no such thing as "objective reading." I believe it's impossible to read objectively. Try developing thicker skin.

Er, I have just expended a reasonable amount of time on this thread in explaining my various points of view, and lo and behold in you wade with your size 10s, and simply manage to prove that not only have you not understood one word I have said, but it appears as though you may not have actually managed to read any of it.

There is no other way I could otherwise understand your comment.

My purpose was to look at critical comments because I am interested in the way people read. I am not the least bit interested in producing pieces of creative writing. Though I am interested in all forms of amateur writing and in criticism produced by non-academics.

[hillwalker]

I am not the least bit interested in producing pieces of creative writing. Though I am interested in all forms of amateur writing and in criticism produced by non-academics.

The fundamental problem is that most of us on this particular thread are interested in creative writing and offer advice/feedback to those who post here assuming they share the same interest.

Using us as unwitting guinea pigs, then expecting us not only to read through your long-winded thesis on why you decided to dupe us but also inviting us to partake in meaningful discussion is expecting a bit much. I certainly have better ways to spend my time, and judging by the responses you have received so does everyone else on here.

H

[Caliode]

The fundamental problem is that most of us on this particular thread are interested in creative writing and offer advice/feedback to those who post here assuming they share the same interest.

Using us as unwitting guinea pigs, then expecting us not only to read through your long-winded thesis on why you decided to dupe us but also inviting us to partake in meaningful discussion is expecting a bit much. I certainly have better ways to spend my time, and judging by the responses you have received so does everyone else on here.

H
I have no problems with anyone being interested in creative writing - it simply does not happen to hold any attraction for me whatsoever. It has always appeared to me, in terms of Literature, to be the equivalent of an unloved, redheaded, step-child.

With regard to guinea pigs, unwitting or not, the essence of what I was attempting to do was to discover whether or not reactions to unknown poetry would be of interest or perhaps instructive. Regrettably they appeared to be driven by the same kind of errors, and poor judgement discovered by Richards over 80 years ago, which at least told me something.

This being a literary site I would have expected better.

If you cannot grasp that it is of importance to make an attempt to understand why people like to read a particular poem or novel, then that is even more lamentable than having poor reading skills.

It is extremely easy to write a a piece explaining why you think a novel by George Eliot is a good thing, but to be able to say coherently why you decry a piece of poetry by Joe Bloggs is rather more difficult, but could prove to be of value.

And if you are measuring value by popularity then that again is even more illuminating - sadly.

[hillwalker]

I have no problems with anyone being interested in creative writing - it simply does not happen to hold any attraction for me whatsoever. It has always appeared to me, in terms of Literature, to be the equivalent of an unloved, redheaded, step-child.

With regard to guinea pigs, unwitting or not, the essence of what I was attempting to do was to discover whether or not reactions to unknown poetry would be of interest or perhaps instructive. Regrettably they appeared to be driven by the same kind of errors, and poor judgement discovered by Richards over 80 years ago, which at least told me something.

This being a literary site I would have expected better.

So we're a bunch of illiterate philistines and didn't even know it. Well, how good of you to lower yourself from your ivory tower to let us know.

I can feel another Yawn coming on.

H

[DocHeart]

With regard to guinea pigs, unwitting or not, the essence of what I was attempting to do was to discover whether or not reactions to unknown poetry would be of interest or perhaps instructive. Regrettably they appeared to be driven by the same kind of errors, and poor judgement discovered by Richards over 80 years ago, which at least told me something.


What *did* it tell you? That, in many ways, the internet functions similarly to the physical world? Wow. You'd better get the results of your research published somewhere, it'll change the flow of history.



And if you are measuring value by popularity then that again is even more illuminating - sadly.


Bloody hell, with all this illumination going on you must be looking like the Rio-Antirio bridge on Christmas day by now. How do *you* measure value? By whether Richards likes it?

[YesNo]

I think the OP makes too much sense. And if he's going to make too much sense he should do it in fewer words.

Stop making too much sense!

What we need on the site is more nonsense!

Nonsense is much more fun!

Yeah. I'm afraid to admit it, but you're right. Too many words are used to make too much sense.

[Caliode]

How do *you* measure value? By whether Richards likes it?

Everyone who ever reads a book operates a scale of values. We all have some standard or other that we apply as to whether something is a good experience or not. I don't believe for one moment that these standards are set in concrete. They change and alter from reader to reader. But, we should be interested in acquiring the equipment for discernment- what are the tools of analysis for assessing through the writing the quality of the mind which produced it.

[osho]

What we call criticism is opinions on things, literary jargon apart or some theorization of a particular idea. At the base if you can fathom, it is somebody's response to our imaginative thought and the rest is the bulk of our impressions, secondary things.

[hillwalker]

Everyone who ever reads a book operates a scale of values. We all have some standard or other that we apply as to whether something is a good experience or not. I don't believe for one moment that these standards are set in concrete. They change and alter from reader to reader. But, we should be interested in acquiring the equipment for discernment- what are the tools of analysis for assessing through the writing the quality of the mind which produced it.

But sometimes over-analysis takes away the pleasure. I enjoy reading things that entertain me, intrigue me, and show a degree of writing skill and respect for the reader's intelligence.
I apply the same criteria for my enjoyment of music and the movies.

I can't see that being given more 'equipment for discernment' would enhance the pleasure I might get from my experience. It seems like something the tweed-jacket set with doctorates might pursue. Those sad, lifeless individuals who feel the need to chest thump their egos on the page with grandiose waxing and profound verbiage. Ultimately it's nothing more than literary masturbation.

H

[Caliode]

But sometimes over-analysis takes away the pleasure. I enjoy reading things that entertain me, intrigue me, and show a degree of writing skill and respect for the reader's intelligence.
I apply the same criteria for my enjoyment of music and the movies.

I can't see that being given more 'equipment for discernment' would enhance the pleasure I might get from my experience. It seems like something the tweed-jacket set with doctorates might pursue. Those sad, lifeless individuals who feel the need to chest thump their egos on the page with grandiose waxing and profound verbiage. Ultimately it's nothing more than literary masturbation.

H

D W Harding wrote as follows;

"With people who assert that they know what they like, the one hope is to demonstrate to them is that in point of fact they don't, that according to standards they themselves recognize elsewhere, their judgment here is mistaken".

Criticism of literature is the central humanistic discipline, and its principles and methods are worth discussing in some detail.

[Delta40]

At what point do we put aside discussion that is worth discussion, the acquiring of discerning skills and tools of analysis to allow enjoyment for pure enjoyment's sake? Finally, at what point can we tell you to shut up and get a life man?

[Caliode]

At what point do we put aside discussion that is worth discussion, the acquiring of discerning skills and tools of analysis to allow enjoyment for pure enjoyment's sake? Finally, at what point can we tell you to shut up and get a life man?

Criticism of any piece of writing should involve a process of the intelligence. That force of intelligent thinking used in a strong and disinterested way has the power to create intelligence in others.

That would seem to me to be one of the purposes of life.

[hillwalker]

OMG - I feel another yawn coming on. How can you make reading literature or enjoying any other artistic pursuit seem so soul-destroyingly boring?

I suggest you and D W Harding go off together somewhere quiet and boil your heads.

H

[Caliode]

OMG - I feel another yawn coming on. How can you make reading literature or enjoying any other artistic pursuit seem so soul-destroyingly boring?

I suggest you and D W Harding go off together somewhere quiet and boil your heads.

H

"Whoever comes into this world to trouble nothing merits neither respect nor patience". Rene Char ( French poet)

[miyako73]

Caliode, there are three connoisseurs of arts--those who are after of beauty, those who are after of knowledge, and those who are after of both beauty and knowledge.

Most people in the poetry section of this site focus on the beauty of language--images, rhythms, and metaphors. Leave it at that. Maybe later they will encounter Bloom or Vendler or Perloff and learn how to intellectualize poetry.

[islandclimber]

This thread is rather tedious. I spent enough time in literary theory and criticism classes during University to be somewhat bored by your myopic view of this subject Caliode. You seem eager to reduce literary theory to your own personal ideas on the subject; yet it's quite an expansive field and that is certainly a bold statement to call it "the central humanistic discipline", especially considering the obfuscatory message you put across here.

Reading can be done critically, both from an academic and non-academic perspective. To suggest otherwise is nonsense. Enjoyment of a work is certainly the most important aspect of the reading process, but this does not mean it has to be separated from a critical process of the intelligence, regardless of academic background in literary theory. Most of what I read in both fiction and non-fiction could be deemed pretentious literary masturbation, yet I enjoy it for the work itself and for the ability to delve deeper through a process of deconstruction. All that being said, enjoyment is my primary concern, if I don't enjoy a piece why would I read it?

[Scheherazade]

~

W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Posts containing off-topics and/or inflammatory comments will be removed without further notice

as well as earning infraction points for those who are involved.

~

[cacian]

"Whoever comes into this world to trouble nothing merits neither respect nor patience". Rene Char ( French poet)

Interesting quote but I would have thought that whoever comes into this world to find nothing have failed all respect and patience. The nature of life is such that one finds something to do before even contemplating life let alone trouble.
Sorry Caliode I just needed to add this comment.


Caliode, there are three connoisseurs of arts--those who are after of beauty, those who are after of knowledge, and those who are after of both beauty and knowledge.

Most people in the poetry section of this site focus on the beauty of language--images, rhythms, and metaphors. Leave it at that. Maybe later they will encounter Bloom or Vendler or Perloff and learn how to intellectualize poetry.

Beauty and knowledge is fair enough but where does inspire both when all around you is desolate and depressive. I guess poetry must intellectualize reality first before entertaining perfection. There is nothing better then a poetry that speaks for a reality that is lacking standards of beauty knowledge and whatever else. Speculative poetry is what I really like.

[Caliode]

Reading can be done critically, both from an academic and non-academic perspective. To suggest otherwise is nonsense. Enjoyment of a work is certainly the most important aspect of the reading process, but this does not mean it has to be separated from a critical process of the intelligence, regardless of academic background in literary theory. Most of what I read in both fiction and non-fiction could be deemed pretentious literary masturbation, yet I enjoy it for the work itself and for the ability to delve deeper through a process of deconstruction. All that being said, enjoyment is my primary concern, if I don't enjoy a piece why would I read it?

Somewhere in another part of this thread I was attacking the notion that the academic reader has skills different from the general reader, which would enable them to read in a different way or better way.

What I have been at pains to suggest throughout this thread is that when we read we make decisions as to value. Do we like what we are reading? If we do - then why? and likewise if we do not.

So if we come across a piece of bad poetry why is it bad? What makes bad poetry different from good poetry? What indeed does good or bad mean?

And can we separate the author from the text? Or filter out our own personal likes and dislikes?

What Richards was trying to do was to examine a piece of poetry as objectively as possible. He was working out how to apply scientific criteria to a work of art.

Now I do not believe he thought that could be done He wasn't as daft as that, but he did believe that a lot of readers read in some very sloppy ways, and he was trying to construct a system, which would lead to better reading habits. He also thought it possible that differences of opinion arose from errors of approach. If those who made such errors were made to realise them, then progress would have been made.

The influential English critic F R Leavis put it like this:

"In making value-judgements (and judgements as to significance), implicitly or explicitly, the reader ... aims to make fully conscious and articulate the immediate sense of value that places the poem".

[hillwalker]

I still fail to see how this ^^^ makes the experience of reading more rewarding. Maybe that's the point - readers/writers like to read/write, critics like to tell us how it should be done because due to their myopic view of life they are unable to discern any pleasure in either pursuit.

Personally I believe life is too short to obsess about such trivia.

H

[Caliode]

I still fail to see how this ^^^ makes the experience of reading more rewarding. Maybe that's the point - readers/writers like to read/write, critics like to tell us how it should be done because due to their myopic view of life they are unable to discern any pleasure in either pursuit

H

There are at least four different kinds of meaning which the reader uses. Sometimes these operate at the same time in the reader's mind.. Generally these are best explained by discussing examples, but here are some signposts as supplied by Richards :

1. Sense: The writer sets out what he is trying to say.
2 Feeling: What lies behind the writer's words.
3. Tone; presentation to the reader
4. Intention: what is the writer's aim.

In one of Hopkins's poems he writes: "Pitched past pitch of grief".

There are different and very distinct levels of sense contained in these words: this is a physical place beyond where grief could operate, and the gloom in which he finds himself is blacker than the blackness of grief. What is also present is a sense of violence which increases the idea of deprivation - as though something were being physically taken away as a result of this emotion.

This feeling of misery is reinforced by the obvious alliteration at the beginning and more subtly at the end. There is a starkness and brutality to the words at the beginning, which fades away at the end conveying a sense of deep and abiding loss that powerfully suggests a permanence of desolation.

The words are rich and complex, which provide a powerful effect on the reader.

[jayat]

I read almost all the messages on this section and, quite frankly, I agree with some people who assures what it looks to be unread users come freely to give their opinion about not only the poems or stories but upon any subject or debate that other more sensitive, concerned users might suggest.

I’m quite new on this website. I get into it this February. Maybe I ought to be the last to speak and the first to listen but, about de criticals issue, I need to share something what looks to me quite obvious: Shouldn’t we need a canon? Call me pretentious, even typical, but once we’ve seen literary criteria is not a strong point in this literary forum, and some of us are yearning for it (because we adore literary arts) why don’t we realise there is a lack of premises, rules or ideas by which we should go or which we should bear when criticizing? A problem could be, the work it would represent, not only when thinking how to write them but also and even harder to come to an agreement, without coming in how idealistic it sounds.

Honestly I can say I fancied remembering my college studies when I read Hillwalker constructive criticals, for instance. I know I’m not the best reader and take into account some comments on the page let me favorably impressed of the level, which in some cases I consider quite higher than mine. But it’s not enough in complaining. Perhaps it’s a matter of egos.

To add new things, I can tell you what I‘ve done so far. It’s going to be useful for me or even for somebody else, who knows. U. Eco says we do not know how things are until they are written in a paper. To begin with, I’ve been trying ten times in twenty years to write a story (not the same one, else the fact I tried to write in prose ten times) and I haven’t achieved it. In all the cases, I didn’t need a critic who told me what was wrong because after putting the stories down for some time they came to me disordered, incoherent, ‘weak and boring’, instead of related, coherent, ‘strong and catchy’. I did this distanced, third person reading, as if I had found the text on a sidewalk, and I noticed all the frustrating points. Now, a year later from my last artistic attempt, I’m reading. And I’ve begun by Shakespeare, the first and foremost writer in western society.

Finally, the triggerto begin by the greatest one, in my opinion, was H.Blooms’ “Western Canon”, which has strongly influenced me. I haven’t read it all yet, just the first fifty pages. However, I can’t agree more with his contents, at least in what the English author refers. It may sound a rabid topic but Twelfth Night’s author is a good scale: figures of speech, plot, narrative rhythm, double meanings, characters evolution along the stories, dramatism…everything is brilliantly achieved by, in addition, a very approachable author, who talks to us as closed and powerful as if these four hundred years had no gone by (timeless dramaturgic). Well, that’s all. Please, take your own conclusions and give proposals.

[jayat]

Caliode, there are three connoisseurs of arts--those who are after of beauty, those who are after of knowledge, and those who are after of both beauty and knowledge.

Most people in the poetry section of this site focus on the beauty of language--images, rhythms, and metaphors. Leave it at that. Maybe later they will encounter Bloom or Vendler or Perloff and learn how to intellectualize poetry.

I am a friend of images, rhythms and metaphors as well as a friend of the rest of figures os speech; friend of narrative resources, plots well built, enriched* characters,...and a long etc. If anybody is able to use them 'smartly' (like W.Sh.), my hat's off to him for his skill. Let the intellectualism flows by another river while we read or write (great if we can do both) literature. Just an opinion.

P.S. I doubt, not sure, but i would say H. Bloom defends arts for arts' sake. Feminism, marxism, and all the "resentful" -isms should have another platforms which weren't literary issues. I'm just sharing a view.