• Recent Links


  • Poetry Reviewers and Poetry Reviewing


    Email us your pet peeves about poetry reviewers and poetry reviewing and if we think you’ve got something worth reading we’ll place it here.
    info@tgaps.net

    1. ‘One of our most important poets’

    If you use this phrase, you say absolutely nothing meaningful about a ‘poet.’

    Categorize the concept. First you have the category of ‘poet.’ Then you would have ‘a poet’ ‘an important poet,’ ‘a more important poet,’ ‘a most important poet,’ ‘one of the important poets’ ‘one of the more important poets,’ and ‘one of the most important poets,’ ‘one of our important poets,’ ‘one of our more important poets,’ and ‘one of our most important poets.’

    What is the difference between these categories of poets by which poets could be categorized and characterized?

    You can’t tell until you first define the word ‘important’ and know what it means when a writer uses it to describe, characterize and categorize ‘a poet.’

    But the word ‘important’ is undefined and to use it with poet in the two-word phrase ‘important poet’ is to make an obscure subjective characterization that actually says nothing about the poet but says a lot about the writer of the phrase.

    What does the use of the word ‘important’ actually import to the reader?

    It tells the reader that the writer thinks that a poet is for some reason or reasons important to the writer and should be important to the reader.

    And the writer is assuming an air of importance by acting as a self-appointed spokesman for another undefined category referred to by ‘our,’ probably a group called ‘we’ or ‘us’ which may mean poetry writers, poetry readers, poetry teachers, poetry reviewers, or some other undefined group of people such as ‘Americans,’ or ‘humans,’ or possibly even living and dead poetry afficionados from inner and outer space and time.

    Any writer who uses the phrase ‘one of our most important poets’ or one of its cousins is propagandizing the reader to agree with the writer about something unsaid.

    Using this phrase is a pure and simple intellectual cop out.

    Here’s another one: ‘one of the world’s most-admired poets’

    How does the writer of this comment know this? Of course the writer asked the world, right? And, naturally, the writer has documentary proof that the writer was appointed by the world to speak for the world, or as above, for ‘us’ by using our?

    These statements are arrogant hubris lies. Full honesty requires the writer
    to speak only for the writer’s self and not pretend to speak for anyone else.

    Okay, now I’ve got it. Let’s call these lowdown lowdog lying-thru-the-fangs statements – hyperbolesms! And just call these writers hyperbolests. And if these doggone dogs want to speak for the whole pack and for every pack everywherre, let them flrst prove they’re world-class alpha before coppin’ the ‘tude.

    Comments by Honk – Wednesday, November 19, 2008.

    2. ‘This is poetry. This is good poetry. This is bad poetry. This is not poetry. This is a poem. This is a good poem. This is a bad poem. This is not a poem. The writer is a poet. The writer is a good poet. The writer is a bad poet. The writer is not a poet."

    Deos it really matter whether the piece of writing is or is not poetry, whether good or bad?

    And does it really matter whether the writer is or is not a poet, good or bad?

    What difference does it make what you call the writing or the writer?

    You could call the poetry writing ‘shorts’ and you could call the writer of ‘shorts’ a ‘shorts-writer?’

    What really matters is whether the writing is good writing or bad writing, is entertaining and/or enlightening or not , is fun to read or boring and a drudgery to read, and is worth reading and remembering or not.

    Does it really matter what you call the writIng and what you call the writer? Actually it does becasue if you call a piece of writing ‘poetry’ before examining the writing itself, you give an aura of ‘specialness’ to the writing which would color and prejudice any analysis afterward.

    WHAT REALLY COUNTS IS THAT THE READER HAD A FUN READ — A GOOD OR GREAT READ! — AN INTERESTING, FASCINATING, EXHILARATING, CAPTIVATING READ!

    A REVIEWER OR A CRITIC SHOULD ADDRESS THE WRITING AS A READER LOOKING FOR A GOOD TIME AND SHOULD FIRST ADDRESS THE WRITING FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, MEANING – IS THE PIECE OF WRITING WORTH READING, REREADING, REMEMBERING, SAVORING AND RECOMMENDING AT ALL WHETHER ACTUALLY POETRY OR NOT!

    Comments by Alice from Dallas…..Friday, November 21, 2008

    Email us your pet peeves about poetry reviewers and poetry reviewing and if we think you’ve got something worth reading we’ll place it here.
    info@tgaps.net

    No Comments »

    Comments