PDA

View Full Version : Critique to Curiosity



clark
December 22nd, 2015, 12:12 AM
Fats -- Hi! Newcomer to WF and loving this Host and the people we've met immensely. Fats, permit me to describe my response to critiques of my poetry. I'm not saying it will work for you, but I find it helpful. Going in, I approach the criticism as comment on my poetry per se, what the critic has on the page in front of them. If I see a phrase like, "you must have had a lot of luxury in your life" OR "these images clearly come from your disturbed upbringing" OR "all you Canadians suffer from an inferiority complex"--I stop reading and put the 'criticism' aside, to review later, because this person has stepped outside the frame of art and presumed to criticize ME. Not acceptable Has nothing to do with the poem. If it seems appropriate, I might say,"this is a personal attack and has nothing to do with the poem. If you want to continue in this vein, send me a private note."

Assuming that the criticism is aimed at the poem, one word summarizes the attitude that I take to the criticism: CURIOSITY . I do my damndest to control my ego as I read a negative comment. Every word in that poem is a child of mine, so for me to send one away or authorize radical surgery, is going to take clear, sound reasoning from the critic. So I pay a lot of attention to the reasoning provided. Once, I used the word "blow" in a poem. A poet-critic took the word to mean 'fellatio' and presented an argument from the text of my poem that I could not deny and which took the rest of the poem down a path I did not want. Whoof! I was grateful for the criticism. So, curiosity works for me, though I sometimes have difficulty controlling the egotistical parental defence attitude--and by NO means do I take all the advice offered. But I am grateful to have it there in the first place,

Fats Velvet
December 22nd, 2015, 01:18 AM
Fats -- Hi! Newcomer to WF and loving this Host and the people we've met immensely. Fats, permit me to describe my response to critiques of my poetry. I'm not saying it will work for you, but I find it helpful. Going in, I approach the criticism as comment on my poetry per se, what the critic has on the page in front of them. If I see a phrase like, "you must have had a lot of luxury in your life" OR "these images clearly come from your disturbed upbringing" OR "all you Canadians suffer from an inferiority complex"--I stop reading and put the 'criticism' aside, to review later, because this person has stepped outside the frame of art and presumed to criticize ME. Not acceptable Has nothing to do with the poem. If it seems appropriate, I might say,"this is a personal attack and has nothing to do with the poem. If you want to continue in this vein, send me a private note."

Assuming that the criticism is aimed at the poem, one word summarizes the attitude that I take to the criticism: CURIOSITY . I do my damndest to control my ego as I read a negative comment. Every word in that poem is a child of mine, so for me to send one away or authorize radical surgery, is going to take clear, sound reasoning from the critic. So I pay a lot of attention to the reasoning provided. Once, I used the word "blow" in a poem. A poet-critic took the word to mean 'fellatio' and presented an argument from the text of my poem that I could not deny and which took the rest of the poem down a path I did not want. Whoof! I was grateful for the criticism. So, curiosity works for me, though I sometimes have difficulty controlling the egotistical parental defence attitude--and by NO means do I take all the advice offered. But I am grateful to have it there in the first place,

Your point being?

clark
December 22nd, 2015, 01:57 AM
I'm simply saying that I am curious about any criticism, good, bad, or indifferent, that focuses directly on my poem. The critic may bring to light a perspective on my own poem I had not noticed, OR the criticism may present a metaphorical layer that adds a rich new avenue for the poem OR the criticism may point out an anomaly in punctuation that I do NOT want in the poem......OR...or....OR. It's a win-win situation for the poet, as I see it. The poet is always 100% in control of their work. They are always completely free to set aside every comment made. I do think, however, that opening a dialogue between poet and critic is a healthy component in editing one's own work. I suppose , if one wished, a note could be attached to a particular poem or perhaps to ALL work posted by a particular member--PLEASE DO NOT CRITIQUE. Could that be done, Fats, within the WF guidelines ??

Fats Velvet
December 22nd, 2015, 04:54 AM
Don't ask me clark. I wouldn't use it.

Any suggestions?

mrmustard615
December 22nd, 2015, 11:16 AM
Anything posted in the creative forums is open (and meant) for critique in creative forums . In some creative forums it is stated, and in the other creative forums it is assumed. Thus a note would not be kosher. If you don't want critique for your poem, it is best not to post it in the workshop certainly, and you're taking your chances if you post in the general poetry forum. I hope I'm explaining this right.

To be honest I'm more of a prose person but basically the idea is to give critique and not have to worry about getting your head chopped off. You can always discard it if you don't like the critique. After all, it's your work. Just remember, the person doing the critique probably means well and I hope that is taken into consideration.

Cran
December 22nd, 2015, 11:27 AM
Hi clark, welcome to WF.


I suppose , if one wished, a note could be attached to a particular poem or perhaps to ALL work posted by a particular member--PLEASE DO NOT CRITIQUE. Could that be done, Fats, within the WF guidelines ??

We've been doing all we can to not let that happen in the critique boards. We even put a warning sign over the door that says something like "poems posted here will be critiqued". For members who simply wish to share their writings, they can start their own blogs here, or post in the Lounge*; neither guarantees there won't be comments or suggestions about the work, but there is no expectation of critical feedback.

The creative area boards, and the workshops especially, are intended for members' original works posted for critique, comment, question, general picking apart to reveal the strengths and weaknesses. They were never intended for the faint-hearted or overly precious. That said, we do try to match the level of critique to the poster's experience and understanding.


*Or in the Tavern, for those who can access the Tavern.

Darkkin
December 22nd, 2015, 01:02 PM
One also has to take context into account. There is a difference between critique and rewriting someone else's work. In this case, it was the latter and something like that doesn't foster curiosity; it irreparably alters the construct and inherent meaning of a piece. Context matters as much as, if not more, in critique on poetry especially. Sometimes it is overlooked completely, and as such, the issue then becomes a problem with the critique and not the existing work.

Part of the writing learning curve is giving and receiving critique, which all boils down to the whole cycle of give and take. Take what one is given with a grain of salt and give back with that same grain of salt in mind. And if you can't handle critique or are just posting for sunshine and rainbows, there are designated safe areas like the blogs or private groups. If you have the chance, critique actively, constructively and detail your reasoning behind a suggestion. Why matters. By doing so, it broaden perception and the active thought process, allowing one to cull usable data and winnow out chaff. And it is context that determines chaff.

Just my opinion...


- D. the T.

BeanMcGrath
December 28th, 2015, 10:56 PM
Yep I think you have it right Clark- critique the poem not the poet. Anyone that has enough guts to dump their words on a public site should at least get the respect of not getting personally attacked for such a heroic act. :) glad to see you Clark!

BeanMcGrath
December 28th, 2015, 11:02 PM
I love rewriting people's work -sometimes the idea is something I just take off with- any writer that is afraid of getting their idea rewritten should not post in a public forum. The idea is up for grabs the moment it enters a public forum -real or internet... Imagine what the world would be like if innovation was not allowed to occur. Now if someone quotes without giving a source that is wrong - I always give credit in a quote, and most of the time when I am inspired by someone I give credit. I don't like plagiarism. But hey if you have a different take on my poem -go for it.

Darkkin
December 29th, 2015, 12:51 AM
I love rewriting people's work -.

How does this foster curiosity? Quite simply put, it doesn't. There is a difference between running with a similar idea and rewriting someone's existing work. By doing so, you piggyback on the foundations laid down by writers who took the time to define and refine their ideas, characters, and storylines.

In so doing, writers stand in danger of selling them selves short, stunting their ability to create constructs of their own making. Theme is one thing, but to actively take another writer's words, rearrange them a little and call it new hints at a lack of motivation.

The Hero's Journey is an idea, mythologies are ideas...Fairy tales have been retold countless times, but how many of them are as good as the originals? I don't know about you, but I still prefer the original versions of Grimm. These are formulas and themes that have been passed down since time immemorial.

Basic ideas and themes form the foundations of writing, but it is the voices of the writers that give them shape. Some may try to mimic an idea, but the voice of the writer cannot be rewritten, each is unique. Piggybacking or working out a concept for one's self, which fosters greater curiosity? Hmm...

How can you hone your own voice if you don't even know what it is? Where is the wonder in trying to create something with another writer's words?

It is a very fine line to walk...

Hairball
December 29th, 2015, 02:44 AM
I love rewriting people's work -sometimes the idea is something I just take off with- any writer that is afraid of getting their idea rewritten should not post in a public forum. The idea is up for grabs the moment it enters a public forum -real or internet... Imagine what the world would be like if innovation was not allowed to occur. Now if someone quotes without giving a source that is wrong - I always give credit in a quote, and most of the time when I am inspired by someone I give credit. I don't like plagiarism. But hey if you have a different take on my poem -go for it.

I understand this. I re-write song lyrics, as if cats wrote songs. For instance, "Sweet Home Alabama" became "Sweet Bowl Of Tuna."

I wrote a poem about one of my cats which was loosely based on Lewis Carroll's "Jabberwocky." Here:

THE TIGGER

Stalking stealthily down the hall
Alerting at dangers large and small
Comes the Tigger as fierce as can be
The terrible tailless Tigger!

Slipping silently across the floor
Watching warily at every door
Claws unsheathed and ready to pounce
The ominous awesome Tigger!

Tritting and trotting on little paws
Stopping and sharpening little claws
Jumping and playing with catnip and toys
The wonderful whimsical Tigger!

Purring and kneading on the bed
Curling up warmly by your head
Blissfully snoozing in sweet Tigger dreams
The magical cuddlesome Tigger!

See what I mean?

You can take an idea of another's work, and make it your own without it being plagiarism.

For clarity, here is Lewis Carroll's "Jabberwocky:"

Jabberwocky


BY LEWIS CARROLL (http://www.poetryfoundation.org/bio/lewis-carroll)

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

“Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!”

He took his vorpal sword in hand;
Long time the manxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the Tumtum tree
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

“And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!”
He chortled in his joy.

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.



See what I mean? We are all inspired by others' works, are we not?

Keep writing, dear. You will very soon find your own style and you'll appreciate others' works even more. Make sense?

Darkkin
December 29th, 2015, 03:05 AM
Hairball, your poem is entirely your own, quatrains with an aa rhyme scheme, whereas the Jabberwocky is written in rhymed quatrains, a pattern of abab for the most part. I've used the rhymed quatrain format myself on numerous occasions. Does that make those poems reworking of Carroll's Jabberwocky? And what of Shakespeare or other forms like the villanelle, triolet, ghazal, even a simple trecet poem. How one is like the other is akin to asking: 'Why is a raven like a writing desk?'

Look up the term found poetry and I think you'll get a little closer to the meaning, or at least what I took to be the meaning of my quoted reply. Fan fiction falls into a similar category as does the critique that spawned this thread. There is a difference between utilising a similar form or basic concept and reworking a writer's existing work. It was the reworking of a writer's existing work that is a cause for concern not the use of a format or poetic device.

BeanMcGrath
December 29th, 2015, 03:07 AM
I disagree Darkkin - I think you are going down a road of ownership that I can't follow. The only way to make absolutely sure none of your work is copied or innovated upon is to not show it at all- and then, well, it's not really a work of art. Art requires audience -even of at least one. As an artist you cannot control what others do with it. It's it's own means to an end. You are just going to make yourself bitter if you try and control what others do with it, how they receive it, how it touches them... Control and ownership are the opposite of art. Am I getting too deep for you? Tesla for example... Some of the greatest creative minds were not thinking "how much money can I make off of this." They were thinking how can I make enough to create something else. http://youtu.be/F03oZFq4yqw this is a biography on Levon Helm called "I ain't In it for my health.

If if you look at art as "for profit" it's really production not art.

besides mimicry is the best form of flattery.

Darkkin you have a romantic vision of creation -remember, left to his own devices, Doctor Frankenstein created an abomination.

Darkkin
December 29th, 2015, 03:15 AM
There are concepts and there is cloning. Concepts develop, clones fade with each cycle...One fosters curiosity, the other, well...Look at Dolly the Sheep.

As for Frankenstein's monster, he was a product of his environment and a flawed mind, gorgeously illustrating my point. Cobbled together with nothing original, how could the monster develop as a normal human would? He didn't stand a chance because of his origins. Used parts, decaying even as he lived.

RHPeat
December 29th, 2015, 03:20 AM
Darkkin

Make the work a legal document if you want to protect it. But protecting it won't stop others from copying it. To make a legal document is very easy:
1. print your name/
2. date it/
3. use a copyright mark or say "copyright"

like so (written on the work): ( RH Peat 12/28/2015)

then print it out and have it witnessed by two people.
It then is a legal document like a will.

Is it worth your time and patients. Only if someone rips it off and then makes 10 thousand dollars somehow. Then it would it be worth going after them. It would probably cost that much to go after someone legally. So weigh it all out. It could be more costly to go after someone than it would be to just let it ride. But you could give them a very bad name on the internet by showing your copyright. So you can discourage such things by using an unregistered copyright. (copyright mark , your name, & date.) That is an accepted document.

The other thing is to get into a closed workshop where only members can enter. You become friends with the others in the group who are trustworthy. Then you don't have to worry about getting ripped off, and you end up growing in the process through the workshop.

a poet friend
RH Peat.

Darkkin
December 29th, 2015, 03:27 AM
We now return this thread to its originally cast subject of curiosity and critique.

(Disappears into bottom of pond...Simon and Grafunkel's The Boxer plays.)

BeanMcGrath
December 29th, 2015, 03:37 AM
Cran lol "overly precious" :tickled_pink: That is just too funny! All of my poetry is overly precious -that's why it needs to be critiqued -heh! Nothing like knocking a good piece around in a mosh pit of art critics to build it some character... Otherwise how are you really going to know if the poem has integrity. I had to squeeze out a few tears for my lovely little word babies til I understood that, once it's public, the art is separate from the artist.

Then I had to put on my grown up pants and get down to the business of the rewrite. (Writing a poem is so nice you get to do it more than once).

I don't get it -maybe you need to make an art therapy board where poems get posted with no one able to publicly express an opinion on what they see? Because that is just a psychological back pat for the poster and has nothing to do with the art and craft of writing... No one comes to the table without needing refinement in craft... Unless, of course, they are a sevant of some sort. And even then it's hit and miss. It's not like any of us here touch the keyboard and have golden words flow through our fingertips at ever precious hour. Nor does everyone even agree upon what is good and what is not.

Darkkin I think it's pretty audacious for anyone to assume that they only think original thoughts... We are an amalgamation of what we experience and what we learn from others- thereby all works are intrinsically collaborative. Ironically what connects an audience to a work of art usually has to do with them identifying something they can relate to or impress themselves upon (i.e. Not something completely separate and unique). I think control, manipulation, and ownership of words are better forms for advertising, and propaganda- not poetry -But hey that is my opinion -and everyone has one.

If you can't suffer a rewrite of a poem or the comments of a few online critics how can you ever hope to enter the world of the real artist? Art is supposed to make a person think- and feel. If you can't be curious about how people think and feel about your work, you are in for a long hard haul if you hope to be an artist. The very essence of art is provocation to have an opinion. Why wouldn't you want to know what the audience is thinking and feeling? This includes a rewrite. What if someone can write it differently and better? Why would someone care enough to rewrite something they hated?

just some thoughts to ponder.

And one last word to counter your boxer:
"Do not go gentle into that goodnight/rage, rage against the dying of the light..." -Dylan Thomas

Hairball
December 29th, 2015, 07:38 AM
Hairball, your poem is entirely your own, quatrains with an aa rhyme scheme, whereas the Jabberwocky is written in rhymed quatrains, a pattern of abab for the most part. I've used the rhymed quatrain format myself on numerous occasions. Does that make those poems reworking of Carroll's Jabberwocky? And what of Shakespeare or other forms like the villanelle, triolet, ghazal, even a simple trecet poem. How one is like the other is akin to asking: 'Why is a raven like a writing desk?'

Look up the term found poetry and I think you'll get a little closer to the meaning, or at least what I took to be the meaning of my quoted reply. Fan fiction falls into a similar category as does the critique that spawned this thread. There is a difference between utilising a similar form or basic concept and reworking a writer's existing work. It was the reworking of a writer's existing work that is a cause for concern not the use of a format or poetic device.

Okay...I see your point, but everyone who has seen my poem says, "Ooooohhh! Jabberwocky!" I think it's pretty obvious.


I disagree Darkkin - I think you are going down a road of ownership that I can't follow. The only way to make absolutely sure none of your work is copied or innovated upon is to not show it at all- and then, well, it's not really a work of art. Art requires audience -even of at least one. As an artist you cannot control what others do with it. It's it's own means to an end. You are just going to make yourself bitter if you try and control what others do with it, how they receive it, how it touches them... Control and ownership are the opposite of art. Am I getting too deep for you? Tesla for example... Some of the greatest creative minds were not thinking "how much money can I make off of this." They were thinking how can I make enough to create something else. http://youtu.be/F03oZFq4yqw this is a biography on Levon Helm called "I ain't In it for my health.

If if you look at art as "for profit" it's really production not art.

besides mimicry is the best form of flattery.

It can be, and as I showed you with my poem, you can write something very different that brings to mind another poem. Make sense?


Darkkin you have a romantic vision of creation -remember, left to his own devices, Doctor Frankenstein created an abomination.

Well, I wrote a book about talking cats. Creation is what it is, and creativity blossoms within the person and manifests itself in his/her works.


There are concepts and there is cloning. Concepts develop, clones fade with each cycle...One fosters curiosity, the other, well...Look at Dolly the Sheep.

As for Frankenstein's monster, he was a product of his environment and a flawed mind, gorgeously illustrating my point. Cobbled together with nothing original, how could the monster develop as a normal human would? He didn't stand a chance because of his origins. Used parts, decaying even as he lived.

Sometimes new poets take a page or two from another's book, then they find their own style. I did.


Darkkin

Make the work a legal document if you want to protect it. But protecting it won't stop others from copying it. To make a legal document is very easy:
1. print your name/
2. date it/
3. use a copyright mark or say "copyright"

like so (written on the work): ( RH Peat 12/28/2015)

then print it out and have it witnessed by two people.
It then is a legal document like a will.

Is it worth your time and patients. Only if someone rips it off and then makes 10 thousand dollars somehow. Then it would it be worth going after them. It would probably cost that much to go after someone legally. So weigh it all out. It could be more costly to go after someone than it would be to just let it ride. But you could give them a very bad name on the internet by showing your copyright. So you can discourage such things by using an unregistered copyright. (copyright mark , your name, & date.) That is an accepted document.

The other thing is to get into a closed workshop where only members can enter. You become friends with the others in the group who are trustworthy. Then you don't have to worry about getting ripped off, and you end up growing in the process through the workshop.

a poet friend
RH Peat.

I did my book getting a copyright through the right channels and have the copyright from the Library of Congress and I have an ISBN number. The ISBN is very important and it is needed if you want to publish.


Cran lol "overly precious" :tickled_pink: That is just too funny! All of my poetry is overly precious -that's why it needs to be critiqued -heh! Nothing like knocking a good piece around in a mosh pit of art critics to build it some character... Otherwise how are you really going to know if the poem has integrity. I had to squeeze out a few tears for my lovely little word babies til I understood that, once it's public, the art is separate from the artist.

Then I had to put on my grown up pants and get down to the business of the rewrite. (Writing a poem is so nice you get to do it more than once).

I don't get it -maybe you need to make an art therapy board where poems get posted with no one able to publicly express an opinion on what they see? Because that is just a psychological back pat for the poster and has nothing to do with the art and craft of writing... No one comes to the table without needing refinement in craft... Unless, of course, they are a sevant of some sort. And even then it's hit and miss. It's not like any of us here touch the keyboard and have golden words flow through our fingertips at ever precious hour. Nor does everyone even agree upon what is good and what is not.

When you post a work, it's open to critique. People can and do critique anything posted.


Darkkin I think it's pretty audacious for anyone to assume that they only think original thoughts... We are an amalgamation of what we experience and what we learn from others- thereby all works are intrinsically collaborative. Ironically what connects an audience to a work of art usually has to do with them identifying something they can relate to or impress themselves upon (i.e. Not something completely separate and unique). I think control, manipulation, and ownership of words are better forms for advertising, and propaganda- not poetry -But hey that is my opinion -and everyone has one.

If you can't suffer a rewrite of a poem or the comments of a few online critics how can you ever hope to enter the world of the real artist? Art is supposed to make a person think- and feel. If you can't be curious about how people think and feel about your work, you are in for a long hard haul if you hope to be an artist. The very essence of art is provocation to have an opinion. Why wouldn't you want to know what the audience is thinking and feeling? This includes a rewrite. What if someone can write it differently and better? Why would someone care enough to rewrite something they hated?

just some thoughts to ponder.

I'm not really sure if actually re-writing a poem is good. I re-write song lyrics as if cats wrote songs, but that's just fun. I have never thought of actually re-writing a poem, but now that I think about it, if you want to re-write a poem and you do so, you will be subject to some criticism from our original poets here.

But keep on! Try to better yourself, and we mentors are always here to help you.

Darkkin
December 29th, 2015, 01:57 PM
Sometimes new poets take a page or two from another's book, then they find their own style. I did.

I'm not really sure if actually re-writing a poem is good.



My point. Concepts, not the cloning or rewriting of another writer's existing words...You picked up and ran with a concept and developed it. That is curiosity. What happens if I do this...

And as to how Jabberwocky and The Tigger are similar, well, if one breaks it down as science does the genome, one finds the basic structure of a narrative quatrain. Beyond that they are separate entities. From a linguistic standpoint Carroll's Jabberwocky is written almost entirely in cant terminology he developed.

On a flip side, Carroll's Wonderland is a work that is often rewritten with lukewarm results by authors seeking to turn a profit. The Wizard of Oz is another such case. Both are worlds of the authors' imaginations, which when broken down become another basic concept. The possibility of other worlds beyond our own.

I suck at math, but everything comes down to the lowest common denominator. e.g. The Hero's Journey. Basic formulas that have existed within the construct of storytelling since its inception. It is similar to Phi, a pattern that recurs again and again throughout the natural world.

It is the voice of the writer that fills in the details and it is in the details that a voice either develops or stagnates. That is where creativity resides. How an individual perceives and reacts to the world around them. Do they observe and take action: Create. Or do they remain inert? Art remains in the hands of the individual, what they do with their creative capacities depends entirely upon them.

Critique helps to hone edges and instincts. Disagreements will occur, but do offer a view into another's thinking. Perspective matters.

Just some thoughts from the bottom of the pond...

D. the T. of P.B.

Fats Velvet
January 4th, 2016, 01:14 AM
I'm simply saying that I am curious about any criticism, good, bad, or indifferent, that focuses directly on my poem. The critic may bring to light a perspective on my own poem I had not noticed, OR the criticism may present a metaphorical layer that adds a rich new avenue for the poem OR the criticism may point out an anomaly in punctuation that I do NOT want in the poem......OR...or....OR. It's a win-win situation for the poet, as I see it. The poet is always 100% in control of their work. They are always completely free to set aside every comment made. I do think, however, that opening a dialogue between poet and critic is a healthy component in editing one's own work. I suppose , if one wished, a note could be attached to a particular poem or perhaps to ALL work posted by a particular member--PLEASE DO NOT CRITIQUE. Could that be done, Fats, within the WF guidelines ??

You conflate commentary and criticism. Dialogue differs depending on which is being engaged in. With commentary, the "opinion" of author and reader can be considered on equal footing, regardless of the poem's construction and point of view. Mutual elucidation may follow. So might mutual antagonism, but so it goes. That's what happens when ideas and experiences are exchanged. With criticism with an eye to work shopping, the author's prerogative is in choosing which suggestions carry the most weight according to their vision of the work. The critic's prerogative is complete freedom of candor without defensiveness on the part of the author (insofar as it relates to the work being criticized), and the expectation that their suggestions will at least be seriously considered.

Emulating (re-writing) another author's work does not necessarily constitute a form of criticism, particularly in cases where the re-write, according to the author, would irrevocably change the poem way out of conformance with the author's original intent. Then, the exchange becomes a form of commentary that falls somewhere outside the original work's purview, and should not be treated in the same way as criticism.

I hope you are clear now on what went on in the original thread.

clark
February 24th, 2016, 06:45 AM
Fats -- Apologies for the protracted delay in responding to your post. I must visit this site more often.

Thank you for the mini-lecture on commentary and criticism. It was not required, but clearly you wished to make it, and I am pleased that you took this opportunity to elucidate. My post--the section you isolated for your direct comment--was concerned solely with textual exegesis. Please re-read the first sentence.

I did not even mention Commentary.

Your penultimate paragraph on re-writing also puzzles me. I have never sanctioned re-writing another poet's work and avoid the practice when I critique. I'll point out a weakness, I'll criticize a word or phrase as inappropriate, I'll make suggestions, but I avoid actually rewriting. What is puzzling is that you bring it uo at all in responding to my post.

I did not even mention re-writing..

Yes, Fats, I am, and was, clear on what went on in the original thread. Thank you for asking.

clark
February 24th, 2016, 10:51 PM
Darkkin and Bean -- Bean, where are you on this one? Darkkin makes excellent points, points I know you share, but your post is less than clear. I'm confident you meant that you don't hesitate to take a concept, idea, thought as an inspirational springboard into your own unique rendering. Darkkin would have no problem with that. Good grief, if that were unacceptable as creative impetus, we'd have to throw out 3/4 of Shakespeare! it's clear that Darkkin has construed your post to mean you would take another poet's actual language, shift it around, dress it up, then present it as your own. You would never do that.........but it takes YOU, my friend, not me, to respond to Darkkin's legitimate concerns.