Londongrey

I totally agree.

The above post by Jaideska proves that cliches are lazy, talking of the content of the poetry in a critique only serves one ppurpose, to improve the clarity of the piece. You imporve clarity by firstly the poem making literal sense, and by removing the cliches and abstractions.

Poetry is wirtten for the reader. If the writers intent is not clear and precise then it literally is bad poetry.

__________________
You are only as dull as the light in the room you occupy, everything else is just hearsay - Me, about five minutes ago.

mammamaia

...surely you don't mean that literally, do you alex?... a good critique of a poem also must consider the content, as many don't put across the content's intent as well as they thought they had...

...'construction' is, imo, the structure/shape of a poem... how it's arranged... how its content is presented to the reader... and not the word selection or phrase choices, as in the of inclusion cliches...

...'content' to me, is what the person is trying to convey to the reader... whether it be an emotion or an observation, or pov about some subject, or what-have-you...

...imo, 'construction' and 'content' are equal parts of a good critique... do you really think otherwise?... if so, can you tell me why?

__________________
For 100% free writing help/mentoring:
www.saysmom.com

"You must BE the change you wish to see in the world." Gandhi

Jaideska

I fully agree to that statement.

Ignoring content and concentrating on structure is replacing creativity with logic.

If you want to write haikus then you go right along and do that, However, I would suggest that content does have bearing on weither or not a sentence is cliche.

If the message were plain, bland and concrete the poem would be boring and simple, if the message is hidden and cleverly stowed in the body of the poem, to the point where only at the end does the reader truly realize what the message is conveying, then it is much more exciting and tantalizing.

The unknown is a very powerful creator of suspense, if the poem begins in vague flashes of "cliche" type sentences, yet near the end the entire poem comes together in a flurry of revelation, the reader is much more inclined to enjoy it than to have been told the message plain and straightforward from the beginning.

That's simply my opinion.

__________________

Come walk the agelong path that hails on a Gehenna wind.

Londongrey

See this is where critique gets into a more complex area when you start to look beyond the structure of a poem and the language used and how.

The point above is to make people understand what the largest complaint about writing is, that of the use of cliche and abstraction which detracts from all but the most experienced writers work. Cliche and abstractions can be used, but only when done well, I shall post that on another thread though.

When you start to critique the content's intent of a poem. You firstly have to look at whether what is before you makes sense. One of the biggest beginners mistakes is writing nonsensical poetry because that is what they believe you have to do. This then needs to be balanced with the writers ability to use imagery and other literary tools to inspire the reader.

When you critique your own or others work, it is always important to ask the question 'why'? Why did I/you mention that? Why have I/you placed this here? Does it help, or take away from this piece? Why did I use simile instead of metaphor?

There is a very subtle line, you use the content of the piece to produce a literary critique. But the critique is still based on the construction of the piece not on the subject or intent. You are providing thoughts, as to why the subject of the piece is not being portrayed properly from the writer's perspective, whilst maintaining your own objectivity to the subject itself.

To me, a bad critique will talk about the subject, and start pulling it apart and then calling it a critique, it is not. A critique is saying that the language used, does not portray the subject very well, hence the critique is still based on the structure and not the content.

Placing your thoughts into that context is what will help the writer the most. Let me give you an example:

'The quiet hall I stand in
ends with a view of rubble,
sandy bricks sink from my view
into the hankering noise,
men destroying my home.

Okay, so from one perspective. A critique of this piece would be that, firstly, it offers very little evocative images, the last line again does not really make the reader care, lazy writing on my part. The second is does this make sense? Well in fact in one way it does, it is possible for a hall to be quiet and for it to be noisy outside. But in another way you would think that if the hallway ended up in a pile of rubble the noise from outside would be filtering in through the open space. So again we come back to the lack of descriptive writing and the lack of language used to evoke a proper image or emotional response from the reader. The writer's intent is unclear because the subject is not aptly described. The destruction of ones own home.

So a good critique is based on the construct and not the subject and intention, we could just be playing with semantics here, but unless you have a literary argument behind your thoughts, then it is not a good critique. It is not informative to a writer as to how they should express themselves by simply saying 'the subject of this piece is bland'. Say why it is bland, is to generic in its description? Does it miss the acute observations needed to make the writer care and where should those observations be? Why why why?



No, that is the 'intent' of the writer not the 'contents' of the poem. The content of a poem is the literal phrasing and word use contained within it. The use of the word content before was used to cover both the intent and subject in response to another comment, perhaps I should have made myself clearer (there we go, there is a case of vague writing) as I used the word content in that sense.

However, the literal content of the piece is what should be given a critique, not the subject or intentions of the writer. As with a good poem, the subject and intention is very clear to the reader.

A critique is an aid to bringing clarity forward, whilst also balancing that clarity with writing that has the ability to inspire and evoke an emotional response. Which is why 'good' poetry is something that will escape the vast majority of people, including myself.

Take this poem, the real subject is not in the title:

The War Films

O living pictures of the dead,
O songs without a sound,
O fellowship whose phantom tread
Hallows a phantom ground-
How in a gleam have these revealed
The faith we had not found.

We have sought God in a cloudy Heaven,
We have passed by God on earth:
His seven sins and his sorrow seven,
His wayworn mood and mirth,
Like a ragged cloak have hid from us
The secret of his birth.

Brother of men, when now I see
The lads go forth in line,
Thou knowest my heart is hungry in me
As for thy bread and wine:
Thou knowest my heart is bowed in me
To take their death for mine.

Henry Newbolt - Published in 'Poems of Today: Second Series, August 1925 by Hazell, Watson & Viney Lts, London and Aylesbury.

This piece is evocative, it refers to WW I and almost takes the form of prayer. It proves that the subject and intent of the poet should not be the subject of the critique. But the literal 'content', is what is most important from a literary standpoint.

__________________
You are only as dull as the light in the room you occupy, everything else is just hearsay - Me, about five minutes ago.

Londongrey

No.

__________________
You are only as dull as the light in the room you occupy, everything else is just hearsay - Me, about five minutes ago.

Londongrey

If you understand the logic then there is no place for lazy writing such as the use of cliches. Reading alot of good poetry would open peoples eyes as to why there is no place for it. Unoriginality in writing isn't something to be applauded. it does not matter what the idea behind it is, because the reader has no clue as to the writers intention, because a cliche has lost any significant meaning!! Defending the use of a cliche is a bit like defending plagiarism, both are lazy, both are unoriginal, and both are not in the least bit creative.

Using the correct 'logic' forces creativity. Ignoring the 'logic' makes you produce stagnant work that very little thought has gone into.

If you cannot produce work under the rules that is original, inspiring and creative, I'm going to hazard offending alot of people by saying you shouldn't really call yourself a writer!! As you have no inclination to put the work in.

__________________
You are only as dull as the light in the room you occupy, everything else is just hearsay - Me, about five minutes ago.

mammamaia

...i beg to differ, alex... we cannot possibly know what the writer's intent was... we can only judge what the content is presenting to us, the readers... and that is what i referred to... however, because we can't, i should have added 'seems to be' before 'trying'...

...but i do agree that said content does consist of what words and phrases are used to convey the premise... so, perhaps we are not really disagreeing... not totally, anyway...

__________________
For 100% free writing help/mentoring:
www.saysmom.com

"You must BE the change you wish to see in the world." Gandhi

Londongrey

I don't think we are disagreeing, I just think we have different concepts of the words used like content, subject, intent etc.

But my point still stands, it is the 'literal' content that needs to be addressed in a good critique. Otherwise the writer is not going to learn or be able to improve in their craft. They can develpo and idea on their own through this advice.

__________________
You are only as dull as the light in the room you occupy, everything else is just hearsay - Me, about five minutes ago.

Jaideska

I agree with that as well, I can see where our ideas go together, and where they fade away, it's not particularly because we're not agreeing with the concept behind what we're saying, its more the wording of what we're saying, and the fact that either of us is seeying this wording in a different sense than that intended.

__________________

Come walk the agelong path that hails on a Gehenna wind.

Hand

Not so. I can spot cliches a mile away, and any that attempt to work their way into my writing are sliced into pieces, rubbed into salt and barbecued before being doused with petrol and being shot into a volcano.

-Hand, Cliche Hater

__________________
Once upon a time in the future ....

Dirkin

I am a firm believer that you as a writer don't have to worry about cliches, as long as you recognize that, yes, you are writing something a bit cliched, and yes, you can either put a different spin on it, or poke fun at the fact that its a cliche... (Like a Rich Merchant who always complains that he waylaid by bandits in tight green pantaloons) You can USE cliches in your writing as a step ladder, As long as you realize a cliche, you can build off it to something different.

Of course, this comes from a Prose writer, I have no idea about cliches in poetry. It may be different.

__________________
"As the celerity took its horrid grip on his body, he turned to the right to see the bullet coming. In his twisted sense of time he had hardly a second to duck out of the way. Before the second bullet could leave the chamber, Saede was feeding.

'How easily your life flows. The adrenaline only serves makes the sensation sweeter,' the assamite said through blood-soaked lips."

Londongrey

It is different in Poetry to Prose.

However using a cliche can be done well, but I never see it done well by those who don't put the work in to their writing.

It is not about emphasise, wither on the phrases or characters which may make up your work. It is about producing work which can be seen to have been written with 'conscious' effort. This is something that most new writers don't know about. They think just by writing you are being conscious. Not true, it in fact means that you are always aware of the various meanings of everything you write, and how many ways they can be interpreted. In other words, does your writing lack focus? If so, then no cliche is going to help you gain it.

__________________
You are only as dull as the light in the room you occupy, everything else is just hearsay - Me, about five minutes ago.

mswietek

For any "rule" of writing there are examples of excellent works that flout or break them. I am sure the same is true of cliche. What you need to keep in mind, though is that flouting established guidelines like this is no easy task. It takes considerable skill as well as a critical eye to make sure the rule warrants being broken.

I also think we are talking about two different kinds of cliche here. There are "cliches in the large" (i.e. commonly used plot elements, like the princess who needs rescuing from the dragon) and "cliches in the small" (i.e. tired or overused phrases "My heart tore in two").

Of the two types, Cliches in the Large are the "safest" to use because if the writing is well done and the plot engaging, people will overlook that they have read similar stories before.

Cliches in the Small (tired phrases) are VERY difficult to pull of, and usually only work in poetry when the cliche is the focus of the poem. Describing your female princess as having a "heart shaped face" is just plain tired.

And I agree with London as well, in that it's different in poetry. Because there are fewer words, any cliches will become even more noticeable.

Michael

__________________
"Don't imagine that the art of poetry is any simpler than the art of music, or that you can please the expert before you have spent at least as much effort on the art of verse as an average piano teacher spends on the art of music." - Ezra Pound

suzakugaiden

Heart-shaped face? WTFHROFLMAOBBQZOMG? What does that even mean?

Hand

It means she had veins and arteries poking out of her head.

__________________
Once upon a time in the future ....