Interpretation...is it valid critique?

[Spikerider]

---

There is an an increase in the use of interpretation rather than technical comment on the boards.
In the sense which we tend to understand or define critique, posters are discouraged from commenting in this vein.
I for one avoid commenting on translation except when I cannot understand what the hell is going on but essentially I want to get at those areas where some improvement can be expected. If all the crit does is speculate or perambulate over and around meaning I find that the response from the writer is never anything other than a) Confirmatory and glad you got it, or b) Well, that's an interesting wayof looking at it, but...or c) What the hell, how obvious do I have to make it?
So I ask the question. Is interpretation a valid form of critique?
Best,
tectak

Interpretation is entirely dependent on one's own life experiences, age, maturity, intelligence & stage of life at the time the poem is read.
Some poets like to present clues for the reader to deduce the "meaning" or intention of the poet's writings. Other poets attempt to present a neon sign of their wordy intentions; this offends some readers because the "sport" of reading poetry is squashed when the subject matter is crammed in your face. A few select poets use metaphors to force the reader to compare "a" w/ "b" to arrive at "c" w/ some "talent" needed by the reader. Lastly, a few poets approach poetry as a science w/ many borders, boundaries & rules
that must be respected at all means..!!! I personally feel that poetry is a form of art w/ words. Art has no boundaries or rules; it is a form of expression. Some of our users have a talent toward technical use of words, definitions or grammar in general; other users have a talent with punctuation uses. Many of our poets just long to share their "thoughts" properly & effectively w/ others in the art of words used with talented expression wielded w/ skill unusual.

---

As one of the frequent offenders of this crime, I am obviously going to contend that I think that this is still a valid form of critique. Both Todd and ChristopherSea have made comments that are well balanced and offer good examples of when & why this form of critique might be acceptable. So I do not think I can add much to what they have said.

Also I would second Todd's closing comment as I think the attitude of inclusion of all levels of ability and engagement with poetry best sums up the spirit of the site.

To my mind the flip side of this discussion is that, at what point does the site become too elitist and in doing so perhaps deters the novice poet. I would be more concerned with a trend that adopts a regimented attitude and a "My way or the high way" mentality. I think if we start inhibiting one style or method over another we are in danger of becoming sterile and homogenised into a one voice, poet alike site. (If this thought is followed to its most brutal outcome, then i think we arrive at a place where we will be nothing better than a cosy club of sycophantic lovies fawning over each other and playing follow the leader or possibly, the most opiniated voice).

For me it is the many voices aspect of the site that keeps it vibrant and keeps me coming back. I don't want to read repetitions of the same crit ideas on a poem written with ever more intellectually cutting and witty putdowns. I want to understand a poem on as many levels that my average intellect will allow for. I appreciate that we cannot all function at the same level, but for me this is the beauty of poetry. It has so many aspects and access points in how it is appreciated that there is plenty of room of all comers and all styles of comments. (Like with all things we need a balance and yes I would agree that if every comment was based on meaning it would be folly, but Basically I'm with Todd when he said "anything beyond: Wow! cool poem is valid for me").


Just some thoughts,
AJ.

Ditto...!!!