Do you read other critique first?

[Wildcard]

I find it very revealing to read the other members feedback when I am working on a poem for the first time. Many times I struggle with a certain phrase's meaning, but a clue I pick up in another member's feedback will connect me with the poem.

When people have already been discussing a poem in one of the critique forums, do you read all the other posts before posting your feedback? Do you read the other feedback after? Or at all?

[rayheinrich]

I make it a point to never read anyone else's critique first.
Reading anyone else's before I wrote my own would impair
my ability to provide objective criticism.

[Erthona]

"Reading anyone else's before I wrote my own would impair
my ability to provide objective criticism."

A statement that is in direct contradiction to your normal stance about such things, e.g., "that no one can know anything for certain about anything." The fact that one must make a case for whatever one may say, and despite that, at least half of the people will still disagree with you, speaks to just how much we are in agreement about the objectivity of any held idea as it relates to poetry.
There is no such thing as objective criticism. If you need proof, then I point you to the failed experiment that was "Modernism". Beyond that I can point you to the shaky ground upon which uneasily rest scientific determinism (physically, I believe it currently resides somewhere in the area of the Franco-Swiss border near Geneva), especially as it pertains to such things as a unified field theory, or the reality of the Ancient city of Troy. One's worldview is formed from all preceding experiences, how you responded to them, and how it affected you, in terms of how you see yourself in relation to the world (that is: "are you are a victim of the events that occur involving you, or are you their progenitor?") Picking up a few more viewpoints, or tidbits of information, will hardly change in any drastic way how you will perceive the piece. The mind of any halfway facile individual, can project outcomes that include and do not include any information that you might pick up. If one's mind cannot, then the claim to objectivity of any kind is so far beyond the pale as to make extreme egocentrism appear to be the norm (of course for some, it is exactly extreme egocentrism which they are referencing when they speak of objectivity).

Dale

[rayheinrich]

.
'A statement that is in direct contradiction to your normal stance about such things, e.g., "that no one can know anything for certain about anything." '

I was actually taking my normal stance, I just forgot to insert a sarcasm emoticon. Though the phrase "that no one can know anything for certain about anything" is a bit too severe. My stance is more like: "that no one
can know anything to a 100% certainty and most things to a 67% certainty
and a few things to a .01% certainty and that doesn't even begin to
take into account all the stuff you know you don't know and the even
more bunches of stuff you don't nothing at all, zip, 0 about so much so
that it don't even make the radar." But, yes, many of your points are
quite logical and funny as well. My ego, by the way, got so large it disappeared, i.e.:
"There IS no box."

[Leanne]

I do always read other comments, but that's because I'm nosey -- and NEVER before I read the poem thoroughly, usually several times over, and then complete my own (as objective as possible) critique. Exceptions to this rule are obviously in the misc/fun sections where if you don't comment on the comment series you've left the loop and it's really difficult to rejoin, sometimes with effects detrimental to one's inner ear or bellybutton.

[abu nuwas]

I take a slightly different view. I mean, I always take a slightly different view. So I now think that I should never comment, unless someone has gone before-- otherwise how will I know what to think? I might say any old nonsense. Like--

Red
Owl
Trousers

[Todd]

Usually, I read other's critiques after critiquing--not always. I don't like to be influenced. I want the writer to get my fresh opinion. If I read the other comments first I'm worried that something might come across to me there that may not be coming across in the poem, which would make my comments less helpful to the writer.

If I'm totally not connecting with the poem though I may read the other critiques first though usually I don't comment.

[Aish]

I try not to read others comments until after I drop my own critique.

[rayheinrich]

Oops, meant to post this here:

Attempts at increasing objectivity by limiting ones exposure
to external information (and opinion) invariably end up
increasing subjectivity. Obviously another instance of
owl pants! (In this particular case, I think they're caerulean.)

[abu nuwas]

Oops, meant to post this here:

Attempts at increasing objectivity by limiting ones exposure
to external information (and opinion) invariably end up
increasing subjectivity. Obviously another instance of
owl pants! (In this particular case, I think they're caerulean.)

Yep. Pants alright...

[Veil of Trash]

poem first, others second, will follow with anything (worthless)I consider relevant. I don't wish to bias my (worthless) feedback but I like to check I'm not making an ass of myself for the wrong reasons.
pro secret addition: sometimes I just read the comments #cause I like the gossip.

[Leanne]

Methinks the Veil doth protest too much -- worthless indeed, *insert snort of derision here*. Gossip is as good a reason as any