~ The Poet's Place Cafe~

TITLE: I stink at titles and get criticized for them often. There is an 'expectation' that the title is just a line ripped from the poem, and sometimes I think that works. Other times, it feels completely appropriate to name it something relevant but not exact. I have no business critiquing other people's titles, though I do pay attention to how they do it.

I mean, reviewing for me is as much a selfish endeavour as it is a helpful insight for the reader. If I'm not learning from the review (good or areas of improvement) then why review in the first place? You can learn something from everyone. Maybe that's not selfish. Maybe it's good practice. It feels selfish .

IMAGERY My second favourite part of a piece, and one I want to work on myself. I've worked very hard to get from 'tell' to 'show' in my prose, but my poetry lags behind somewhat. When I find some great imagery either in writing or poetry I sneak it into my journal, which is essentially a hot mess of unintentional Cento . I always tell people when they've nailed this section.

My favourite part, which I think belongs here, is the actual language - the words- an author has chosen. It's not only the similies and metaphors or interesting turns of phrase that get me all wound up, it's the actual word choice. A weak word in the middle of a powerful poem cuts it at the knees (unless it's intentionally doing so). "dancing swallows obscure the trees" is one way to describe the massive flock, and it's nice. "Vortex of swallows consume the sun" for me paints a more accurate picture. But that could just be me.

RHYMING & REPETITION This is another one where I'd like to do better, so I'm always on the hunt. Again it comes down to strong words, unless the point is the simplicity of the piece. We've all seen the "cat, bat, rat, mat"-style end rhyme, and I have no problem with monorhyme. Monorhyme is one of those tricky ones where the depth of the pieces seems highly reliant on strong word choices.

Internal rhyme impresses the heck out of me.

RHYTHM This is where I find a lot of writers get tripped up, especially in free verse. I find this in prose as well. When I read, I read with cadence (which is why my own form poetry frustrates me so much, because I know it's missing the mark). I only found recently that not everyone does this (especially with prose). I've done it since I was I kid. Great prose and poetry has that 'sing-song' quality to it (I don't mean 'happy-go-lucky'), with the exceptions of the ones that intentionally don't because they're meant to be jarring and those freak me out in the best way.

It's why I rarely write or review haiku and similar. I cannot pick up the cadence, or lack thereof, in meaningful way, and it's not fair that I say much beyond 'this was good'.

STRUCTURE & FORM I try to help here, but I am mostly unqualified, short of checking syllables. I can sometimes offer suggestions if a stanza break could be in a more impactful spot or if a line would read better broken up differently.

OVERALL IMPRESSION: I always start out with this, because no matter what the rest of the details are, poetry is often a very personal thing and I want the reader to know I felt something. Sometimes what I felt is not what they intended, but that's also important to know, because what is in our heads doesn't always translate to paper the way we think it does. What the writer does with that info is up to them. Some want their message to be straight up what they intended. Others are fine to have a reader define parts for themselves within the realm of a given emotion (I fall in the latter category).

Overall, how I structure the review depends on how well I know the poet, and what the poet's level of skill seems to be. Slaughtering someone's first post on the site because you deem it 'too simplistic' is just - well it's just a word I can't post in this forum. I've seen it done, and I've had people email and say thank you because of they received so many harsh reviews.

On the other hand, I don't think we do anyone any favours by not pointing out where things aren't working. So I use the 'sandwich approach'. My overall feeling, something positive, something negative, something positive to end on. Sometimes I come on a piece that I really can't find anything to improve. And if I come upon a piece with lots of room for improvement, I usually start with a few items and offer to review a second time.

I'll be the first one to admit that getting a review that is on the 'you need to fix this' side is not my favourite pastime. Sometimes I get my knickers in a knot, especially if it was a particularly personal piece. I don't respond to those for a few days, until I have a chance to let my initial reaction subside and go look my piece with a sort of clinical detachment. If it was written by someone else, what would I say to them?

90% of the time I know where the critique is going to be, but I haven't figured out how to fix it. A few times I've been wrong, though, which is why I'll post a piece anyway.

I've received a few "you suck at this" reviews and I just ignore them. As long as someone is being constructive, it's a helpful review.

I don't review as much as I should, because I am very slow at going through things. If I'm going to give an opinion, I prefer to put some thought into it.

TL;DR: I like strong words and imagery, and I use the sandwich method for reviews. I also don't review enough.