Chapter 2: How Should One Write Modern Poetry Criticism?
Often, friends who have read my modern poetry criticism provide me with substantive feedback. For example:
"Your modern poetry criticism is reasoned and well-supported. Reading it allows me to quickly enter the work’s artistic conception, and immediately understand which rhetorical techniques the author employed, which sentences contain syntactic or semantic issues, and the strengths and weaknesses of the author’s expressive techniques."
"After reading your poetry criticism, I discovered that my own works share some of the flaws you pointed out in the author’s work, which left me hesitant and reluctant to pick up the pen again for a time."
When I write evaluations of modern poetry, I follow these principles:
- Focus on the text itself for analysis and discussion, without digressing into irrelevant topics.
- Select appropriate critical methods according to the subject matter, never flaunting Western methodology or randomly citing Western literary critics out of context.
- Discuss only the evidence at hand, without speculating about the author’s original intent.
- Avoid flattering the author to curry favor or manage interpersonal relationships, refraining from including praise that merely appeals to the author.
- The primary purpose of criticism is for the general readership of poetry; feedback for the author comes second.
Next, I will introduce four common types of counterfeit or “shanzhai” modern poetry criticism seen in circulation.
Section 1: Four Common Types of Counterfeit Modern Poetry Criticism
In public circulation, four types are most frequently observed:
- Playing at the Margins
These critics excel at skirting the issue, talking only about their personal relationship with the author or gossip within the modern poetry community. They avoid substantial discussion of the text. Such criticism lacks academic substance and consists of irrelevant, trivial words. As the ancients said:
"Scratching the itch over the boot brings no benefit; carving deeply to scold is skillful."
This refers precisely to such superficial and ineffective criticism. - Excessive Flattery and Praise
These critics lavish empty praise or smooth over issues, avoiding serious discussion of the text, only choosing words that please the author. This mentality exists to curry favor and build relationships, turning poetry criticism into a socially palatable gift rather than a critical analysis. - Self-Justification
These critics write whatever comes to mind, following their own impressions, substituting personal intuition for formal critical methodology—this is typical “impressionistic criticism.”
The authors of this type of criticism generally possess a “gifted self-conceit” mindset; in plain language, they are self-satisfied, exhibiting an anti-intellectual attitude toward the study of literary criticism. - Random Nonsense
Regardless of the work’s subject or theme, these critics will forcibly apply theories that have no real relevance. For example: all works by female poets are labeled under feminist theory; obscure works without clear meaning are forced into psychoanalysis or postmodernism; political and socially realistic works are invariably analyzed through postcolonial discourse.
On the surface, these critics appear erudite and well-read, yet in reality they merely spout random, out-of-context ideas to impress lay readers.
The aforementioned types of criticism are essentially counterfeit and misleading—they mislead readers who do not understand how to appreciate modern poetry, or they pander to authors who cannot tolerate being analyzed or criticized, authors with an “allergic” disposition toward critical feedback.
Section 2: Steps for Writing a Work Evaluation
1. Select Critical Methodology Based on the Subject Matter
A modern poetry evaluation must first select an appropriate critical methodology according to the subject (theme). For example: if the author has written an ekphrasis or object-poem, one may adopt the immediate intuition approach advocated by objectivism to interpret the work. For poems with tone-jumping images, sentences lacking logical or causal chains (automatic language, “dream-talk poems”), one may use a surrealist or postmodernist perspective. For works with obscure imagery and vague semantics, one may adopt a symbolist or surrealist perspective. Most poetry works can be aptly interpreted from a modernist viewpoint. In other words, the poetry critic must be like a competent surgeon, selecting appropriate operations and treatments for different patients and symptoms, to avoid mismatches and superficiality—scratching the itch over the boot.
When discussing the theme of the poem on a spiritual or conceptual level, one should appropriately select corresponding critical methodologies, such as feminism or postcolonial discourse, to conduct in-depth analysis and exploration of the spiritual content. While a critic’s discussion of the spiritual dimension can help readers understand the work’s historical period, temporal and spatial context, and the author’s motivation, it does not substantially aid readers’ comprehension of the poem itself. Such background discussion can serve as an introductory guide at the beginning of a critique, but one should avoid straying from the text’s relevant time-space context or piling on Western scholars’ theoretical quotes, as doing so risks losing focus and obscuring the thematic center.
2. Trace Semantic Trajectories Based on Clues
Next, when interpreting the poem’s artistic conception, the critic must have hermeneutic training. Based on the limited textual clues, the critic should trace the semantic trajectory closest to the author’s original intent. Unless necessary, the critic should avoid subjective speculation or reasoning, in order to prevent misreading or misjudgment that may lead readers into semantic pitfalls, leaving them more confused after reading the evaluation.
3. Line-by-Line and Segment-by-Segment Close Reading
For the lines and imagery of a poem, the critic may adopt the New Criticism approach of line-by-line, segment-by-segment close reading. Using semiotic theory, the critic can deduce the possible meaning (signified) referred to by the text’s words and imagery (signifier)—the concepts generated in the reader’s mind—and, through rhetorical theory, identify distinctive rhetorical devices in the work, including synesthesia, symbolism, metaphor, hyperbole, and formal designs such as parallelism, anadiplosis, and intertextuality.
4. Identify Syntactic Errors and Semantic Obstacles
Regarding syntactic errors or semantic obstacles encountered in the poem, one should use grammar theory to identify the errors, and semantics to locate obstacles, then propose example sentences that resolve these issues, providing the author with tangible suggestions and feedback. This step is difficult; unless the critic has substantial creative experience, it is challenging to propose appropriate example sentences.
5. Apply Principles of Narratology
If a poem has a relatively clear narrative (story) structure, one may apply narratology principles, discussing narrative voice (first-person, second-person, third-person) and narrative perspective (omniscient, limited, peripheral), and sequentially analyzing its narrativity (storyline): opening → development → turning point → conflict → climax → resolution, thereby fully outlining the story. Many modern poems possess narrative structures worth analyzing through the lens of narratology.
Key Focus of Modern Poetry Evaluation
Modern poetry evaluation emphasizes analysis plus commentary, not mere “analysis without judgment” (work guides) or unsupported subjective impressions lacking theoretical grounding. Both analysis and commentary must be reasoned and evidence-based, with argument and demonstration complementing each other. These principles are equally applicable to prose, novels, and drama, though different genres emphasize different methodologies; for example, novels emphasize structuralism, narratology, rhetoric, and psychoanalytic theory.
Engaging in literary criticism requires a broad theoretical horizon and a certain level of scholarly cultivation to be able to penetrate deeply and hit the key points. The threshold for theoretical literacy is high; unless one is determined and methodically studies relevant critical theories, one should not approach the field superficially.
The position of a literary critic is inherently noble and professionally authoritative. In the Western world, after a work is recognized by the majority of readers, critics typically seriously analyze it using critical theory, summarizing the author’s unique features and charm, awarding literary recognition, and confirming the work’s place in literary history. Unfortunately, in the Chinese-speaking world, superficial impressionistic criticism and the habit of “presenting garlands and wreaths to the author” prevail. Literary creators often only accept praise, resisting criticism, while most readers are guided blindly by amateur reviewers, whether “pseudo-immortals” or semi-educated commentators, who produce flattering evaluations.
Meta-Creation Aspect
Literary analysis and commentary are themselves a form of meta-creation. The critic must have sufficient language proficiency; this is the basic requirement. Even with abundant scholarly knowledge, if the sentences are incoherent or awkward, the resulting critique may be more incomprehensible than a text written in an unknown script.
