THE DANCE

[Alan Alda]

Anne wrote:

Lizzy, who are you to decide the appropriate way to respond to poetry, in here, or in any other place?

I don't need to read any of Lizzy's diatribes to know what she says. There is never anything new under the sun from that continent.

There is a flawed premise here that may clear things up. Lizzy doesn't say NICE things to poets because she believes they are fragile and need the support; Lizzy says the things she does to poets (and everyone else) so that SHE looks to be uber-nice, uber-understanding, uber-caring, uber-sensitive, yaddayadda-just as she is and Uber-fan of Leonard's that panders to the point of silly. It is all about her and not the subject at hand.

And who is she to be the 'decider'? Well as you can see by the very long response (diatribe) that she is the resident steamroller with a candy-coating.

It's not about the poetry or the poet, it is about her. And besides, she read a book on poetry....

Red Poppy- I admired Jimmy's poetry and not too long ago he got a bunch of oooh and aaaah responses to a poem that I thought was badly written, so I gave a 'nother' side critique and got slammed. I appreciate what you wrote above, but practicing what you preach comes to mind.

regards,
Laurie

[Red Poppy]

LIZZY
I'm not ignoring you, just under time pressure.

ALAN,
touche.
As we say here, You have me by the short and curlies - but I think there are subtle differences (I said I think!!!) between what I said then and now.

What I wrote then was:
"I agree with some of what Alan Alda says, I think the piece is over written in places and has a tendency to repetition.
But, equally, I think Alan's dismantling (in literary terms) of the piece misses the passsion of the moment about which Jimmy is writing.
What intrigues me is the fact that Alan takes umbrage at Jimmy's defending his own work.
Funny how that runs through critics (as a generality). They don't like to be criticised.
Can give but can't take.
Surely, Alan, you might continue to engage rather than going off in a huff?"

Moving backwards through that - I was castigating your goodself for not staying to fight your corner and I'm delighted to see you back.
In my defence, I had just had a play lacerated by two critics - Irish posters will attest to this - so I was holding my metaphorical goolies. But, often, when are critics we don't take criticism well ourselves
I believe writers should defend their own work BUT they should listen too and sometimes we (writers) become obsessed with the defence and miss the critical point.
And, yes, sometimes I think an analytical, literary (or scientific or anything) criticism can miss the passion. That's why I think the critic needs to look first at the whole piece for the writer's passion.

You can let the short and curlies go now, if that's ok!!!!

[Red Poppy]

Hi Lizzy
May I take your messages one at a time and try to answer from my perspective:

You write -
"Destructive criticism, likewise, has nothing to do with deconstruction for the purpose of reconstruction."
This is a sweeping generalisation. To destroy - to knock to pieces- is a prerequisite of putting together again.

"Destructive criticism is vague and attacking... destructive toward the piece and/or the writer. It is disspiriting and can result in someone's giving up on writing altogether."
Twenty five years ago I gave up trying to get on the ocal football team. Why? I wasn't good enough nd never would be. Lesson learned,
There is this assumption you have that criticism of the piece is criticism of the writer - simply NOT true.

Again, you say:
"Not everyone has the same mental/emotional level of combativeness."
Why do you assume criticism is combat? It isn't.

You say:
"Constructive criticism takes both the writer and the work seriously and treats each with respect. Destructive criticism is more self-indulgent on the speaker's part, a platform for them to 'show' their 'expertise' without benefit of specific suggestions to the writer related in a way that is respectful."

By the same token, you are hoist on your petard in that always seeking to praise can be totally destructive to a writer's development.


Lastly, you write:
"What I gave Damellon recently was semi-constructive criticism, but at least not destructive. I commented that [given others that had preceded it] it was simply too wordy. I didn't have any specific suggestions for improvement as the writing of the verses is the Goddesses' realm."
There are no Goddesses - writing is hard work

RP

[Red Poppy]

An attempt to answer your other two messages, briefly, Lizzy.

Firstly, wearing my critics hat - brevity would benefit us all here. Edit, Lizzy, for heaven's sake, for everyone's sake!

No one has defined rules here so you're assuming that your take is right and everyone else is wrong. A bit presumptive.

You say:
"Because some have had high-energy, high-spirited, healthy exchanges of critiqueing and discussion does not necessarily mean that this is what this space is all about. It doesn't mean that a person should "expect" to receive such reaction to anything they place here..."
So should people who don't want a critique put an asterisk by their verse?


You say:
"Lambasting someone accomplishes little, so far as I've been able to tell."
You assume those who don't share your reactions are lambasting - most unfair of you.

I believe your attempt to equate a literary discussion with a personal falling out is disingenuous and ill considered.

You write:
".. we are not rubbing elbows with Leonard, nor should anyone expect that they must present their writing in such a way as though they were."
I absolutely disagree. ALL writers should set out to rub shoulders with the best by being the best they can. That is the ambition of the writer,to be very good, to be up there with Hemingway and Salinger and McEwan and whoever they admire. Otherwise they are wasting energy.

You say:
"Leonard .... can be an extreme critique'er... when it comes to that, he is his own harshest critic..."
My point exactly - each writer is his/her own first critic but there are others. Leonard has an editor.

Then:
"Over the years, we have experienced many warm and wonderful sharings... It didn't matter whether they ever planned to be "A Writer."
THIS discussion IS about writing. Again, you're going off on a tangent.

I said I believed that everyone who writes wants to be a writer.
You disagree.
I stick by my point - and I'm not talking about writing message lists. Those who write and put their work in the public domain want to e published.

I also said and you quote: "Being published involves getting past yourself, your agent, if you have one, and a series of editors before you get close to readers or critics."
Then you write: "This, however, simply isn't true."
I bow to your knowledge and experience here LIzzy. (But with a heavy degree of irony.) Journal keeping, diary writing, are not what I'm talking about and well you now it. Again,you're going off on a tangent.

RP

[jimbo]

I GUESS you better open a new forum for virgin poets..............I cant handle all this agro over a post to the girls

peace jimbo

[Alan Alda]

RP~

Hehe. Dropped em. Stepped back. Said, Ewwww.

I don't want this to turn into a long discuss, but your humorous and thoughtful reply deserves a response....

I'm not above a Huff but that was not the case in this instance. Like I said, I had a lot of respect for Jimmy's writing (don't know 'him' from a hole in the ground) and he knew this from past experience. When I saw the piece that *I* thought was a real step back in quality AND I saw that he was basking in the light of what I perceived as ill-gotten positive feedback I thought it worth the effort (considering the source:Jimmy) to maybe give him something else to ponder. Instead of 'pondering' my feedback, he justified bad writing and ignored at least some stuff that is indisputably "wrong" in the handbook of the Craft of writing poetry...it went beyond a personal opinion (IMHO). His response told me he was not the writer I thought he was and it was afterall a waste of efforts on my part (totally my fault). Does this help explain?

regards,
Laurie

[Red Poppy]

Laurie -
15 all!
Jimbo -
stick with it here.
Lizzy-
come in.
RP

[Byron]

Laurie, it's good to see you in here. You bring a freshness and insight into the game we call 'Spin-The-Alphabeta.' Many endeavour to do a chef's creation by using the twenty six letters we are allowed, and like any family get-together, the starters, main course, puddings, sweet, and choice of coffee, cheeses, biscuits, fruits and ice cream, will always fail to please everybody. What must be pointed out is that there is more than one chef in this kitchen and although there is the main man, we have to allow a few side-orders to appear at our place settings.
I hope this use of similes, metaphors and bullshit, will meet with some approval around the kitchen table. For example, If we don't like the pudding, say so, and say why, otherwise the cook will continue to produce soggy rice pudding.
I agree with Red Poppy and with Laurie concerning the honesty which has to be honoured in discussing poetic offerings. If anyone doesn't like what I just wroted, say so. Literature and a living language are our greatest gift. From others to us, and from us to others. Language alters and evolves and is a living thing. I could give an example but I'm late for Mass and must dash...

[lizzytysh]

Hi Red Poppy ~

Since your last comment was a throwaway, I'll simply acknowledge it and move on.

Well, I thought it was simply a matter of semantics, but it may be more than that.
There is a difference between positive feedback/negative feedback and constructive criticism [a legitimate and accepted term]/destructive criticism [perhaps, my own term... no idea, really]. This is where I thought the semantics issue was at hand.

If we can never come to agreement on our terms, we won't ever come to agreement on anything. We'll always become lost in the semantics.

However, this causes me to think otherwise, as to whether it's just semantics.

You write -
"Destructive criticism, likewise, has nothing to do with deconstruction for the purpose of reconstruction."
This is a sweeping generalisation. To destroy - to knock to pieces- is a prerequisite of putting together again.

For me, your last sentence is the sweeping generalization. Beautiful old homes are restored and renovated all the time. Those doing it keep and preserve what is good and remove/reconstruct the rest. It's not necessary "To destroy - knock to pieces - [as] a prerequisitie of putting together again." If it's that bad and there's nothing salvageable, yes, maybe... but it's rare that there's nothing worth holding on to. Since you've used your own play as an example, when it was bashed by the two critics, did you feel it would have been warranted for them to tear it to shreds and suggest that, really, you just need to start all over, if you hope for something good to come of your idea. Or, would you feel it was more legitimate if they had acknowledged that which they felt was worthy about it, and been specific about what areas could use improvement? Which set of critics might you be more inclined to listen to and be inspired to make some changes as a result?

A segment of what I wrote was:

destructive toward the piece and/or the writer

Your comment was:

There is this assumption you have that criticism of the piece is criticism of the writer - simply NOT true.

Please take note of the "and/or" ~ which means it could be toward the piece only; it could be toward the writer only; and it could be toward both. It varies and I've seen cases of each possibility.

People are drawn to Leonard's words and voice and music. Some all three. Some primarily one. For those who contribute in this section, I feel it's fair to say that they are at least drawn to his words. It seems that with that being the case, they might decide at some point to give it a try themselves.

Well, I need to quit mid-stream here. My neighbour has kindly taken it upon herself to mow my lawn [my mower won't start], so I'm going to go clear debris for her.

I'll continue answering you later [which is much easier than continuing with my own diatribe ]. Before I go, though, giving helpful suggestions to someone can be very good, if done with respect, and if it's desired on their part. That was the point of the thing I quoted in that other thread. It's a two-way relationship; not a herding of cattle, where everyone is up for slaughter. I need to quote the second thing from there, that I'd intended to long ago, as I'm sure it will garner your agreement, as it did mine.


~ Lizzy

Ha ~ Well, I quit mid-stream, but then walked off without submitting it.

[Alan Alda]

Dear Byron~

Thanks for the kind words and making my stomach growl.

I find trying to eat and cook in this particular kitchen a labyrinth of a task that is mostly not fun. Most of what I haved cooked has not been palatable to most. It is a table I set.

knives and forks,
L

[lizzytysh]

Well, I have somewhere to go and some things to do prior, so I'm going to get those done and then return. I know how time flies here, so if there's time left before I leave, I'll write a little more in response. Then, if I run late, I can just get up and rush off.

Before I go, though, I want to introduce the idea to you that you are the one who is speaking in absolutes, telling me the way things are... the things I'm saying have been qualified any number of ways, with intention.

You took out of context the point I was making about what happens with regard to writers/publishers/editors/readers. When I said that, my point was made immediately following it that this is excellent, if publishing is what the person has in mind. If publishing is not what they have in mind, then publishers/editors/readers [as in book buyers] are a moot point. My point is that these roles are not factors in every person's life who writes, not even in their desires. Perhaps, I need to put my qualifiers in italics or caps, so you don't miss them. I'm not sure if you're trying to respond to what I'm saying with a broad brush intentionally, or whether you're really missing what it is that I'm saying.

I try to make it clear that I DO understand the distinctions between critiqueing a work and criticizing the writer... and that the former CAN be done very effectively, without even beginning to do the latter. Perhaps, it might be good to remember how and why it is that this entire discourse began.

I've not gone off on any tangents and I would appreciate it if you didn't try to diminish the points I'm making by minimizing them in that way.

More later... since you feel I need editing and that you know about that realm, feel free to edit what I've written, and I'll get an idea of whether you do slantwork with your editing. So far, your understanding has been slanted.


~ Lizzy

[Alan Alda]

This is definately a tangent, but it irks me that someone would quote a writer and not cite the source.

Oscar Wilde is the source of:
Be yourself. Everyone else is taken.

There. I feel much better now.

L

[lizzytysh]

Thank you for that, Laurie. I remember that when I added that, I spoke about it in the content of my posting when I first added it, commenting that I had read it somewhere and, now, I'd have to find my posting to know whether I cited who said it [which I'm sure I did, if I knew it]; or if I knew it [which it seems I must not have]; or what the deal is. It reads better for me with the word "already" in there, so not sure how to do that. No slight intended to Oscar Wilde.


~ Lizzy

[lizzytysh]

Okay. I think that does it on the paraphrase.


~ Lizzy

[Alan Alda]

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/be_your ... 41131.html

So you thought that adding one word discounted the original author? I think that is called plagerism. Although I cannot trust that the "already" was added as your own original bit.

It was a simple request to cite the author. All this other stuff is nonsense.

L