This is where we talk shop.

First question: How do you review a poem?

Here's your first primer:

William Packard, founder of the New York Quarterly, defines Criticism as: "The art of evaluation, judgement or analysis of a literary work." in his book, The Poet's Dictionary, published by HarperPerrenial, a Division of HarperCollins Publishers in 1994.

He goes on to say this:

"What follows is a checklist of technical points that pertains to any poem, giving specific points one can question, step by step, in the attempt to criticize by description. The checklist is more practical than theoretical.

OPENING OF POEM:

Is the poem titled or untitled? Does it seem apt?
Does the poem have a strong enough opening?
Do the first few lines establish appropriate tone?
Would any later part of the poem make a better opening?

SIGHT DEVICES:

Are there enough specific image details in the poem?
Are the metaphors and similes apt?
Do any figures or conceits need further development
Are any sections of poem weak in visual images?

SOUND DEVICES:

Is there any strong assonance–vowels sounds?
Is there any strong alliteration–consonant sounds?
Any problem with scansion or rhythm in poem?
Anything special about texture of sound in poem?

SENSE DEVICES:

What is voice or persona or point of view in poem?
Is diction consistent? Any odd word choices?
Is syntax appropriate? Sentence structuring?
What is totality of tone in poem?

CLOSURE OF POEM:

Do last few lines seem right for ending of poem?
Does the closure seem artificial or overwritten?
Could poet get of poem in any better way?
Should poem be left suspended, with no closure?

PLACEMENT ON PAGE:

Do the line breaks seem right? Enjambments?
Does poem have left-hand capitals? Why? Or why not?
Can any punctuation in poem be stripped away?
Could line placements be arranged in a better way?

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS:

Can this poem be tightened in any way?
Is there any rhetoric, generality, abstract words?
Could any parts of poem be developed more?
More proper names, place names, concrete particulars?

The chief virtue of this checklist is that it tries to cover the entire range of technical considerations that go into the making of a poem.

But as we said at the outset, this checklist is simply meant as a practical guide to arrive at an objective description of what is already there on the page. To be sure, the answers to the various questions on the checklist will require considerable judgement and deliberate choices on the part of the poet or reader or whoever is trying to apply the checklist to any particular poem.

But that's all part of the training one has to go through to be able to see what kind of a poem one is trying to describe.

And as we said, the best criticism is always description."

Thanks, Maggie, for this post, which is a great check list to be applied both critically to the work of others and to one's own.  I would only add a general question, which is embodied in all of this, but through its simplicity might be a most important one for any writer to ask of their own work is: " Is this boring?"

Cheers

milner

Good point, Milner.  Maggie

I'll add something my father-in-law told me. He's an abstract artist and saw me fumbling for something to say about his paintings. He said "You don't have to judge anything. Just tell me what happens to you when you look at it. If something confuses you, say so. If it makes you think of Aunt Millie, say so. If it makes you sad, say so. It's like test-driving a car. The guy who build it just wants you to tell him exactly what happens when you drive it."

That's a good point, too, Tom. For paintings. But we're talking about a helpful critique of a poem.

If you just talk about the emotional reaction to the content of a poem, how do poem and poet benefit?

Maggie

The poet benefits by finding out if the poem works as intended or not, in the emotional sphere.

Having thought further, with due respect for Mr Packard, I think I prefer this:

Ars magnetica
                          Pablo Neruda

From so much love and travelling come books,
and if they don’t contain kisses or regions,
if they don’t contain a man with full hands,
if they don’t contain a woman in each drop,
hunger, desire, anger, roads,
they’re useless as a shield or bell:
they have no eyes and can’t open them,
they have the dead mouth of a statement.

I loved the tangling of genitals,
and from blood and love I carved my poems,
in hard earth I planted a rose
fought over by the fire and the dew.

Thus I can go my way singing.

Cheers

milner

So, are you both saying, as reviewers, standards of craft are secondary to the reader's emotional response to a poem?

Maggie

One of my favorites of his, Milner. Every line a gem.  Maggie

It needs craft to produce emotional response, at the higher level. But there are times when I've felt that some poets, with superb technique, write too well. In other words, their concentration on technique and craft stifles the emotional content. I feel like saying " I want to hear a shout, a scream." It's a question of craft being your servant, never your master. I  think I'm frightened of essaying any truly and proper analytical approach, feeling it would inhibit my own work, though, as I hope always to improve my craft, I welcome and respect that critical assessment on my own work by others. I fear I'll never make much of a critic. The best I have to offer is fruit from the tree of my experience. I've a woolly mind, and the most I can attempt is to comb it to as fine a fleece as I'm able.

milner

"It needs craft to produce emotional response, at the higher level." - Milner

I think I fall on Maggie's side of the fence. As reviewers, we can enjoy a poem; react to it emotionally; but should focus on how we can help the poet improve their technique.

No fence here, I think, Lavonne, just that some will be better at it than others. We'll all try our best to focus.

Cheers

milner

Here, here. :)

O my.  Just saw reference to this in "submit" & am just now reading.  Looks awesome.  I'll catch-up.  I can see already, I need need need to.

Thanks so much for this post,
cheryl