Interpretation...is it valid critique?

[ChristopherSea]

Interpretation, when possible, has to be a component of critique for several reasons. Failure of the reviewer to properly interpret the poem results in them making incongruous suggestions, thereby wasting both party’s time. Line by line critique and word substitution alone often yields a different poem in focus, imagery and tone. Many edits suggested end up being ones to interpret the poem for the reviewer in the first place, rather than enriching the poem. Other queries and critiques, if followed strickly by the poet, will strip a poem of abstraction or bastardize the piece, especially when made for the purpose of clarity verses poetry. However, it is up to the poet to pick and choose any advice properly. If a multiple exchange occurs, this is less likely to happen. I welcome, enjoy and feel enriched with the back and forth that goes on with this site a great deal (especially, with the acumen and experience of this staff!), whether they are strictly technical or interpretational, but hopefully a measure of both. I find the most useless critiques are those that are all reaction with no suggestions. Finally, if I write an emotive piece and the reviewer fails to comment on the effectiveness at all, I would be less inclined to heed their suggestions, as opposed to a critique that said they were moved, but you need to correct this or change that in order to pull it off better.