Criticism

How do you solve a problem like poetry criticism?

By Harriet Staff

That’s what Brian Henry wants to know over on the Best American Poetry blog. Henry cites Matthew Zapruder’s piece on the nature of poetry criticism, which sparked over 220 comments over in our articles section, as just one example of the way poetry criticism – and criticism of said criticism – tends to hit a raw nerve. The real problem, according to Henry, is that critics lack common ground when it comes to dissecting a poem. Should they concentrate on content or form? Style or substance? And just what is poetry criticism anyway – academic writing or explanatory prose? Shouldn’t poetry criticism illuminate precisely “what a poem is doing and how it works,” instead of acting like an untamed beast?

From the BAP blog:

Poetry criticism seems to be in a perpetual state of crisis. It’s not just that critics cannot agree on which poets or kinds of poetry are the best, but that poetry critics often have no common ground. They do not share the same aesthetic values, they cannot agree on common approaches. Critical writing about other art forms—say, visual art—is, or has been, in a similar position, but I’m not sure that art critics are constantly publicly worrying (in journals, on blogs and in comment fields) about art criticism. If they are, then maybe all critics (at least those who aren’t paid) should listen to Elvis Costello: “Writing about music is like dancing about architecture; it’s a really stupid thing to want to do.”

2010-07-30

Posted in Criticism on Friday, July 30th, 2010 by Harriet Staff.