Advice For Reviewing Poetry

[Sammi]

I thought I might post this to help people who are not sure how to review poetry. If you have an idea of a good way to review poetry, than please post it.

When reviewing poetry there are a few things you can comment on:

- A good poem does not use cliches (there are exceptions, such as the cliche used sarcasticly). Examples of cliches are: lost paradise, hand in hand, or any other saying.

- look at how natrual the poem sounds. If a big uncommon word is used, then it may not sound natrual, same with oddly worded lines, often used to creat a ryhme, or keep in rythem. An example of this is the lines:

His blood is frozen and curdled with fright.

Notice how curdled does not make sense, and is used to keep in rythem. Meaning is far more important that ryhme and meter. Even in poetry, grammer can be important, escpecally when double negatives are used to keep in meter.

_____

As for actually reviewing, keep the above list in mind.

I prefer to review each stanza, and pick out the cliches and odd lines, but we all have different ways of reviewing.

_____

When giving advice for poems, be tactful, don't rewrite it for them. You might want to make sugestiond for replacing an irregular word, but know that it is not your poem.

Also keep in mind that meaning is always something you should comment on. Pointing out cliches and odd lines is not the only thing one can do. If the meaning is very sterotyped and rather shallow, it does not mean the poem is bad, but it is worth commenting on. Sometimes a poem could have a great meaning but might not be written very well.

It is possible that someone may have a great idea but may not be able to write it. Don't bash poems for not making any sense, it is always possible that the meaning is simply not clear.

If you have any other advice or styles for reviewing poems, you can post them here.

[The Lacemaker]

Woah dude, I'd have to disagree with quite a lot of your interpretation of reviewing poetry. In fact, I would not use the term 'review' with poetry in the first place. For one, I consider poetry as something to be appreciated, as you would appreciate art, to be admired and construed, critiqued, but not something to be simply 'reviewed'. The very beauty of poetry is the poet's ability to shape and mould language to their liking, to convey what they want to convey. I have never found a real necessity for conventions such as grammar, sentence construction. Like I once said, 'Structures, templates, they mean so little to her. She sees them as constrictions and boundaries, so if we were to take, for example, writing. To be able to twist language into a way only you can, rather than conforming to structures, it gives birth to poetry.'

And as for cliches, it is true, we want to retain a level of originality and individuality with each of our works. However, I find no offput when it comes to a common saying, and we must remember there is a reason why these lines have risen to their infamy. Many hold the truth that perhaps a writer believes in with quite the strength. And if it were to be implied in a meaning, or heart sense, would you call Shakespeare's words of love, of passion, of infactuation banal? Cliches hold as much meaning as another similie or metaphor, they are not a lesser. Cliches are not to be looked down upon, and as much as distinctiveness and innovation are of merit, I have no problem with them.

When it comes to rhyme and meter, of course you should not compromise the message you are to express, to channel. It gives effect to the poem, but you should not in any way compromise the true significance of all poetry.

All these points are extremely minor against what I find is the key and defining feature of a poem - meaning. What is the inspiration of it, is it said with truth, with beauty, with heart? Stereotypes, shallow, if the poet feels these themes are of significance to himself, then it should not matter the slightest whether one would find it stupid or shallow. Love, hate, fear, joy, it it is portrayed with emotion that is what matters. You could write on the most hackneyed topic there is, but if you can make others feel what you feel as they read it, that is the true importance. I especially feel strongly about this when people comment on how overdone, say, a poem about unrequited love is. But that is not the case. Love is an amazing, profound emotion which only the greatest poets with the greatest heart can illustrate with the compassion and feeling the emotion embodies. I don't dismiss a perfectly good poem for an apparently 'stereotyped' meaning.

We must always remember that poetry is interpreted differently by each individual. We cannot truly place one piece above another, because each of our individual opinions is relative. Poetry...it's an arcane and profound expression but it can convey such power, such feeling, such strength. It's startlingly amazing how deeply moving a piece of poetry can be. With genuine passion, with a humanlike truth in each and every word, any piece could be brilliant. Again, poetry is not to be reviewed. It is to be appreciated, admired and construed, to each individual.

[The Lacemaker]

But like poetry, each man to his own views. xD

[Mistress Meerkat]

Woah dude, I'd have to disagree with quite a lot of your interpretation of reviewing poetry. In fact, I would not use the term 'review' with poetry in the first place. For one, I consider poetry as something to be appreciated, as you would appreciate art, to be admired and construed, critiqued, but not something to be simply 'reviewed'. The very beauty of poetry is the poet's ability to shape and mould language to their liking, to convey what they want to convey. I have never found a real necessity for conventions such as grammar, sentence construction. Like I once said, 'Structures, templates, they mean so little to her. She sees them as constrictions and boundaries, so if we were to take, for example, writing. To be able to twist language into a way only you can, rather than conforming to structures, it gives birth to poetry.'

And as for cliches, it is true, we want to retain a level of originality and individuality with each of our works. However, I find no offput when it comes to a common saying, and we must remember there is a reason why these lines have risen to their infamy. Many hold the truth that perhaps a writer believes in with quite the strength. And if it were to be implied in a meaning, or heart sense, would you call Shakespeare's words of love, of passion, of infactuation banal? Cliches hold as much meaning as another similie or metaphor, they are not a lesser. Cliches are not to be looked down upon, and as much as distinctiveness and innovation are of merit, I have no problem with them.

When it comes to rhyme and meter, of course you should not compromise the message you are to express, to channel. It gives effect to the poem, but you should not in any way compromise the true significance of all poetry.

All these points are extremely minor against what I find is the key and defining feature of a poem - meaning. What is the inspiration of it, is it said with truth, with beauty, with heart? Stereotypes, shallow, if the poet feels these themes are of significance to himself, then it should not matter the slightest whether one would find it stupid or shallow. Love, hate, fear, joy, it it is portrayed with emotion that is what matters. You could write on the most hackneyed topic there is, but if you can make others feel what you feel as they read it, that is the true importance. I especially feel strongly about this when people comment on how overdone, say, a poem about unrequited love is. But that is not the case. Love is an amazing, profound emotion which only the greatest poets with the greatest heart can illustrate with the compassion and feeling the emotion embodies. I don't dismiss a perfectly good poem for an apparently 'stereotyped' meaning.

We must always remember that poetry is interpreted differently by each individual. We cannot truly place one piece above another, because each of our individual opinions is relative. Poetry...it's an arcane and profound expression but it can convey such power, such feeling, such strength. It's startlingly amazing how deeply moving a piece of poetry can be. With genuine passion, with a humanlike truth in each and every word, any piece could be brilliant. Again, poetry is not to be reviewed. It is to be appreciated, admired and construed, to each individual.

A truley poetic argument. I agree with you, LM, cliches are cliches for a reason, and can merit a piece if used in a fitting circumstance. Poetry is each to one's self.

[Peeki]

Woah dude, I'd have to disagree with quite a lot of your interpretation of reviewing poetry. In fact, I would not use the term 'review' with poetry in the first place. For one, I consider poetry as something to be appreciated, as you would appreciate art, to be admired and construed, critiqued, but not something to be simply 'reviewed'. The very beauty of poetry is the poet's ability to shape and mould language to their liking, to convey what they want to convey. I have never found a real necessity for conventions such as grammar, sentence construction. Like I once said, 'Structures, templates, they mean so little to her. She sees them as constrictions and boundaries, so if we were to take, for example, writing. To be able to twist language into a way only you can, rather than conforming to structures, it gives birth to poetry.'

And as for cliches, it is true, we want to retain a level of originality and individuality with each of our works. However, I find no offput when it comes to a common saying, and we must remember there is a reason why these lines have risen to their infamy. Many hold the truth that perhaps a writer believes in with quite the strength. And if it were to be implied in a meaning, or heart sense, would you call Shakespeare's words of love, of passion, of infactuation banal? Cliches hold as much meaning as another similie or metaphor, they are not a lesser. Cliches are not to be looked down upon, and as much as distinctiveness and innovation are of merit, I have no problem with them.

When it comes to rhyme and meter, of course you should not compromise the message you are to express, to channel. It gives effect to the poem, but you should not in any way compromise the true significance of all poetry.

All these points are extremely minor against what I find is the key and defining feature of a poem - meaning. What is the inspiration of it, is it said with truth, with beauty, with heart? Stereotypes, shallow, if the poet feels these themes are of significance to himself, then it should not matter the slightest whether one would find it stupid or shallow. Love, hate, fear, joy, it it is portrayed with emotion that is what matters. You could write on the most hackneyed topic there is, but if you can make others feel what you feel as they read it, that is the true importance. I especially feel strongly about this when people comment on how overdone, say, a poem about unrequited love is. But that is not the case. Love is an amazing, profound emotion which only the greatest poets with the greatest heart can illustrate with the compassion and feeling the emotion embodies. I don't dismiss a perfectly good poem for an apparently 'stereotyped' meaning.

We must always remember that poetry is interpreted differently by each individual. We cannot truly place one piece above another, because each of our individual opinions is relative. Poetry...it's an arcane and profound expression but it can convey such power, such feeling, such strength. It's startlingly amazing how deeply moving a piece of poetry can be. With genuine passion, with a humanlike truth in each and every word, any piece could be brilliant. Again, poetry is not to be reviewed. It is to be appreciated, admired and construed, to each individual.

Let's make poetic love