oi! you'd left the arena. think i'm wheeling it on with you round here? Jeez, it's not safe!!
elegantly put, 1-leg.
sensible comments, Fish.
i think the line between 'dictating' and 'pointing out' is a blurred one though. really, i think it's just a matter of style. dictating is saying 'you should do X'. pointing out is saying 'i think, in my humble opinion, you should do X'. the net result is the same though. the critic believes that a piece of work would be improved if the writer did X. but whether the critic dictates or points out, the writer is always free to take or leave the criticism.
why is the canon necessary?
too much of critiquing on the site seems to take the following form: 'i like line X. i don't like line Y.' this is problematic. the next reader will quite probably come along and say 'i don't like line X. i like line Y.' where does this take the writer? well, nowhere in particular.
useful criticism takes the form: 'i don't like line X because...' and here some form of objective backing is required. if the writer is a poor one, that backing needn't be too hard to find. but if the writer is a good one, then some 'higher standard' can usefully be referred to. and this is where the canon is a help.
thus i produced the poem by Larkin to support my claim that what has been considered to be top-knotch personal poetry does not return the reader to the personal viewpoint at the end of the poem, but opens the perspective outwards, upwards - the technique of elevation.
you can, of course, disagree with the canon and say that you're innovating. but the canon is still a useful measure of standard.
as to the point about critiquing being the property of the academic, well, there are no literary academics that i know of on this site, so it's hands on criticism from all of us here.
i think the best lit crit does come from academics of course, because it's their job. it's what they do all day.
please don't reproduce the e-mail here, Liana. i think it would just add another strand to an already tangled argument that presumably we're all trying to set straight.
It is interesting to see some proper critiquing here. Of course the immediate level of any opinion is "did I like this" but in order to find out more about the work, and probably learn a little about your own writing, you do need to go a little deeper.
Now, with these poems in particular - are they readable, yes. Are they well-written ? Yes. Do they convey something interesting and in a way that is worthwhile ? Yes. Do they have something about them that is not repeating things we know but showing us something rather different ? Yes.
Now, so far we agree and those things are all elements that make a poem more than simply 'nice' and into something which begins to resemble a work of art. Now, what Chant goes on to say is that he asks another question, which is does this poem go on to say something which is true about the world rather than this person ?
He answers that with a qualified perhaps, but feels that the poem comes inward at a point where it ought to move outward. From the examples he gives, it is clear that a canon of work uses that as a model, and hard not to say that Larkin's work is exemplary here. Based on that, Chant feels that Alison could write something which is better (for me, that's high praise - if someone tells you that a piece of work is excellent but that YOU could write something better - not THEY - YOU, then that is worthwhile. )
Others here form the view that although Alison writes in a very personal way, she is also conveying something of the universal, or at least a common experience rarely voiced. Both two valid opinions and both giving the author some insight into the work and how things might be attempted.
I definitely agree with Liana that people can't tell Alison what work to produce, she isn't as Agatha Christie said "Just a damn sausage-machine", but there are directions writers can take, even if just experimenting with something new.
If we want proper criticism on this site, meaning something thoughtful, useful, fair and considered, not necessarily highbrow, then people have got to set aside the idea that some writers are above criticism. It's clear that Alison doesn't view herself that way, she is willing to think about what's been said, and her fan-club don't do her any favours by leaping to the attack.
I love a number of authors who are published and whose work I could never emulate, but I will gladly consider their work with a critical eye, because if we don't do that, we don't learn anything, other than "I liked that".
And I agree wholeheartedly with Chant - someone can love Pratchett intensely and I think Greene wrote some good stuff but don't worship him, but I'm sorry, Greene is a better writer than Pratchett and that's the end of it.
if there is a fan-club, can i have a badge?
is it up to a group of people on a website to have a say in what is good and what is bad? the fact that there are many strains of criticism arguing against each other, about literature is surely proof that despite all the book learning you can bring to bear on a literary discussion, the ultimate guide is still personal preference. Greenbaum might dislike Wilde,Bloom may love him to bits; they are both geniuses, so who gets to hold the flag for "the one true english criticism"?
i must say that i'm not really a fan of oneupmanship, and that's what it is when chant says no i don't think anyone else's opinions are valid, the (perhaps sad) fact of the matter is that noone here is any great shakes in the literary genius mode, nor any more intelligent than the next person. i think it's very rude to suppose your own opinion is any more relevant to anothers, unless it is a situation where one has more information on hand than someone who is completely ignorant, and that's not the case here, is it?
ah, logos. the voice of reason!
*has been quietly praying for the time when Andrew will get home from work.*
*disappointed that Andrew couldn't get any grotesque metaphors into his post!*
Liana: "snip
<>
so everybody elses contributions are invalid chant?"
Chant: "yup"
have given validity to the opinions of four other people.
so i am not saying:-
Richard: "i don't think anyone else's opinions are valid,"
you've got a great future as a journalist ahead of you, Richard!
"the ultimate guide is still personal preference."
ultimate guide to what? quality?
that's very encouraging, Richard. does that mean that if i prefer Fish to Keats, then Fish is better than Keats?
no point in literary criticism then. let's just chuck it out the window.
*starts 'Fish is better than Keats' campaign.*
or should we wait for the approval of 'geniuses' Bloom and Greenbaum first?
but what if they disagree?!
there was a time when i was a bit younger that because i had the advantage of a good education and book learning, i forced my own opinions down the throats of those who were too timid or unsure to postulate their own. as a result i lost a few good friends and gained the resentment of many others, which i fear you are in danger of doing Chant. it's not only my opinion that by the irrelevant marking down of the worth of a persons work you are getting close to destroying what the forums are for, by bullying and arrogance. it might seem to you that it projects an air of confidence and gamelan, but as i learned to my cost all it gets you in the end is intellectual barrenness and the dislike of others.
i think this thread ran out of worth around ten posts up at least, so maybe we could move on and learn from the chaff and concentrate on the wheat, agree to disagree &c
till next time (inevitably),
r
No Janus. I think you applied self criticism and ignored what your readership had to say. Your choice.
For me to finish off here..
I believe there is a role for criticism so long as it is not stifling.. ultimately the recipient is the judge of that.
However, my heart goes out to the creator evry time.. those who
really challenge themselves and occasionally leave us with treasures that enrich our lives..
This one has certainly got very heated, but I think not so much for what has been said, but what people have perceived has been said.
Of course ultimately no amount of criticism is going to sway anyone from did I like this or did I not, and I think it is worth recalling that Chant began this thread by saying very positive things about both the work and the writer - I don't think he would be bringing people like Larkin into the argument if he didn't think Alison had real potential as a writer. He says as much 'a critique of someone whose work I admire and consider as a professional writer'.
I've typed this next line about six times and deleted it - it is a tough line to tread between encouraging a writer who has self-confidence and is willing to listen to constructive ideas to appraise their work with a new eye and putting off those less confident.
Many of us have said to Janus, and I repeat it here - this site and these forums are not about elitism and the very finest writers. I'm very happy to have writers here whose work I deeply enjoy reading, but to an extent, they look after themselves. It is the people who are a bit more timid that the site is for, somewhere that they can gain a bit of confidence. Nobody here, not Alison, not Richard, not Chant, not Eddie started off writing the way they do now - their work changed and in my opinion improved because they kept at it and when feedback came along, they considered it - not followed it slavishly but looked at it with an open mind.
I don't think anyone here would embark on a public critique of someone unless they knew them well enough to know the person was up to seeing it in public. No criticism placed on those who aren't - I know my first reaction to any feedback is to get defensive, that's why I'm always going to be a hack - for a lot of people self-confidence is fragile and that has to be respected.
I don't see cause here for anyone to fall out with Chant. If you disagree with his opinions, fine. If you think he's applying too strict a criteria, that's your opinion. Doesn't make him a bad person, and this thread, although having ruffled feathers has made an awful lot of people read Alison's poems with a little more thought than the immediate 'that was good'.
Are we moving on now, or what ?
Fish is Fab. She is emotionally honest and is a skilled writer.
She never bores me, she always inspires me.
Unlike 'American Psycho' (binned after 10 dreary pages)
Murukami (does anything ever happen?)
Any novel that ever won the 'Booker'
Hotel Du Fucking Lac
Et fucking cetera.
If writing doesn't entertain and engage we might as well watch
endless videos of 'You've Been Framed.'
My publisher says that 80% of my writing is utter shite. I think that applies to most writers. Unfortunately, many writers make their living from that 80%. Fish is aiming at that extra 20%. Any writer worth their salt should be doing likewise.
(more later when sober)
Just appreciating wordSword for making that suberb change to the title of the thread. There was some pretty personal stuff in this thread. Having only seen it for the first time i read through all 66 posts and i appreciated there was some important discussions going on but there was also alot of 'slagging'. Not great to see, surely this site should always be friendly regardless of how serious the discussion is?
a typically fair and well-reasoned post, Andrew (apart from that nonsense about you always going to be a hack). what would the site do without you?
and i totally agree with wordsword's post. in point of fact, i 'enjoyed' Fish's poem more than the one produced by Robert, though Robert's poem was a very finely chosen example of the criteria i thought had traditionally been applied to top-knotch personal poetry.
Alison is a self-obsessive writer. There is nothing wrong with that at all because her work is so compelling. In most writers hands this becomes bland; but because Alison has all the technical tricks in abundance her work becomes vital. I think 'poetry of the self' is the most difficult because it can make you look like a conceited @!#$ (believe me I know). Alison is always aware of the reader and that is what makes reading her work an excellent experience.
Ralph
Pages