Chapter 2: How Should New Poetry Criticism Be Written?
Friends often give me some substantive feedback after reading the new poetry critiques I have written (Feedback). For example: “The new poetry critiques you write are well-reasoned and well-supported; reading them allows me to quickly enter the artistic conception of the work, and also quickly figure out what rhetorical techniques the author has used between the lines, which sentences have grammatical problems, and what strengths and weaknesses the author has in terms of expressive techniques.” “After reading your poetry critiques, I discovered that my own works have the same flaws you pointed out in the author’s work, which makes me feel hesitant and uncertain, and for a moment I do not quite dare to pick up the pen again.”
When the author writes critiques of new poetry works, the following principles are observed: (1) focus on the text for analysis and discussion, without rambling about irrelevant matters; (2) select appropriate critical methods according to the subject matter, and absolutely do not show off by flaunting Western methodologies or indiscriminately quoting Western literary critics; (3) speak only as much as there is evidence, without speculating about the author’s original intent; (4) do not flatter the author or pave interpersonal relationships by choosing words the author likes to hear; (5) the primary purpose of critique is to address general poetry readers, and only secondarily to provide feedback to the author. Next, the author will introduce four common counterfeit types of new poetry criticism found in society.
Section 1: Four Common Counterfeit Types of New Poetry Criticism
Among the new poetry critiques written in society, the four most commonly seen types are as follows:
- Playing the Margins
Those who are good at skirting the edges only ramble about their relationship with the author or gossip and trivial anecdotes from the poetry circle, avoiding the main issues and neglecting substantive discussion of the text. This type of critique lacks academic substance and is merely harmless, irrelevant trash writing. As the ancients said: “What benefit is there in praise that merely scratches an itch through a boot? Even criticism that cuts to the bone is precise,” referring exactly to this kind of superficial writing. - Empty Flattery
Indiscriminate praise and muddling through, avoiding the main points in discussing the text, and only selecting pleasant words that align with the author’s preferences. This kind of conformist mentality aims to please the author and build interpersonal relationships, turning poetry criticism into a social gift for networking and courtesy. - Self-Justification
Writing whatever comes to mind by following one’s feelings, replacing critical methodology (theoretical principles) with subjective judgment—this is the typical “impressionistic criticism.” Authors of this type of critique generally possess a mentality of being “heaven-endowed geniuses,” in plain terms, having an inflated sense of self-satisfaction, and an “anti-intellectual” attitude that disregards the discipline of criticism. - Random Application and Fabrication
Regardless of the subject matter (theme) of the work, they will inevitably impose some irrelevant theoretical frameworks. For example, whenever the work is by a female poet, they bring in “feminism”; when encountering obscure, incoherent works, they bring in “psychoanalysis” or “postmodernism”; and for political and socially realistic works, they insist on applying “postcolonial discourse.” These critics appear to be well-versed in both Eastern and Western knowledge and full of learning, yet they merely misuse theories and ramble incoherently, deceiving readers who lack expertise.
All of the above critiques are in fact counterfeit products that pass off inferior goods as genuine, deceiving readers who do not understand how to appreciate new poetry, or pleasing authors who cannot tolerate being analyzed and criticized, as if they were allergic to medicine.
Section 2: Steps for Writing a Critique of a Work
- Select Critical Theory According to the Subject Matter
A critique of a new poetry work must first select appropriate critical theories based on the subject matter (theme). For example, if the author writes an “object-chanting poem,” one may adopt the intuitive approach advocated by objectivism to analyze the work; for “dream-talk poetry” where imagery shifts in tone and lines lack logic and causal connections (automatic language), one may adopt perspectives from “surrealism” or “postmodernism”; for works with obscure imagery and ambiguous meaning, one may adopt perspectives from “symbolism” or “surrealism”; for most poetic works, modernist perspectives are sufficient for appropriate analysis. In other words, a poetry critic must be a competent surgeon, selecting suitable operations and treatments according to different patients and symptoms, in order to avoid incompatibility and superficiality. - As for the themes referred to in the poetic text, discussions on the spiritual level should be based on the spiritual content encompassed or focused upon by the theme, and appropriate “critical methodologies” should be selected accordingly—for example, theories such as “feminism” and “postcolonial discourse”—to conduct in-depth analysis and exploration on the spiritual level. Although discussions of the spiritual dimension of poetry can help readers understand background factors such as the era of creation, spatial and temporal settings, and creative motivations, they do not actually provide substantial assistance for understanding the text itself. Such discussions may be used as guiding discourse at the beginning of a critique, but should not stray away from the time and space relevant to the text or pile up theoretical quotations from Western scholars. Otherwise, this will lead to neglecting the essentials and obscuring the focus of the theme.
Trace Semantic Trajectories Based on Clues
Secondly, when explaining the artistic conception of a poetic work, the critic must possess theoretical training in “hermeneutics,” and, based on the limited clues provided by the text, identify a semantic trajectory that approaches the author’s “original intent.” Unless necessary, the critic should avoid subjective speculation and inference as much as possible, so as not to produce self-conceited misreadings and misjudgments, which would lead readers into a “semantic misinterpretation zone,” leaving them even more confused after reading the critique. - Close Reading Line by Line and Passage by Passage
Regarding the lines and imagery of a poetic work, the critic may adopt the “New Criticism” method of close reading line by line and passage by passage. Drawing on semiotic theory, the critic examines each segment of the text to infer the possible meanings (signified) referred to by the imagery (signifier), that is, the concepts generated in the mind. Furthermore, through rhetorical theory, the critic identifies distinctive uses of rhetorical devices in the work, including expressive techniques such as synesthesia, symbolism, metaphor, and exaggeration, as well as formal designs such as parallelism, anadiplosis, and intertextuality. - Identify Grammatical Errors and Obstructed Expressions
For grammatical errors and obstructed expressions encountered between poetic lines, one should use grammar to confirm the location of grammatical errors, and semantics to identify where the obstruction of meaning occurs. Subsequently, example sentences that can resolve these issues should be proposed, providing the author with substantive suggestions and feedback. This part is relatively difficult in practice; unless the critic possesses considerable and refined creative experience, it is hard to provide corresponding example sentences. - Introduce Principles of Narratology
If a poetic work possesses a relatively clear narrative (story) structure, principles of “narratology” may be introduced to discuss narrative person (I, you, he) and narrative perspective (omniscient, limited, or objective). One can then proceed to analyze its narrativity (story progression): beginning → development → turning point → conflict → climax → conclusion, thereby outlining the full contour of the story. Many new poetry texts structurally contain narrative elements, which are worth exploring through narratological approaches.
The key point of new poetry criticism lies in “having both analysis and evaluation,” rather than being merely “analysis without evaluation” as in guided reading, or “evaluation without evidence (without theoretical basis)” as in impressionistic subjective discourse. Whether analysis or evaluation, both must be “well-reasoned and well-supported, with evidence and argumentation complementing each other.” These critical principles are equally applicable to the critique of prose, novels, and dramatic works. Of course, different literary genres emphasize different critical methodologies; for example, novels focus more on analyses from “structuralism,” “narratology,” “rhetoric,” and “psychoanalysis.”
To engage in the appreciation and critique of literary works, the critic must possess a sufficiently broad “theoretical horizon” and a certain level of “theoretical cultivation” in order to achieve depth and precision. The threshold for such theoretical training is quite high; therefore, unless one is firmly committed and willing to diligently study a wide range of relevant critical theories (methodologies), one should not enter this field with a superficial, casual attitude in hopes of standing out. The status of literary critics ought to be highly esteemed, carrying considerable professional authority. At least in the Western world, once a writer’s work has been affirmed by the majority of readers, critics tend to take these works seriously, using critical theories to analyze and summarize the author’s distinctive characteristics and charm, thereby granting recognition worthy of literary laurels and inclusion in literary history. Unfortunately, in the Chinese-speaking world, there has long been a prevailing trend of counterfeit “impressionistic criticism” and the bad habit of “presenting wreaths and garlands to authors.” Literary creators have also become accustomed to accepting only praise, unable to tolerate even the slightest identification of flaws and deficiencies in their works. As a result, most readers can only be led around in confusion by those pretentious, empty, amateur critics—“pseudo-sophisticated” or “half-baked”—through their flattering and exaggerated critiques.
The analysis and critique of literary works is itself a form of “metacreative writing.” Naturally, the critic must possess a certain level of linguistic expressive ability; this is the most basic requirement. If a critical essay is not smooth and coherent in its sentences, then even with abundant learning, the critique produced may be even more obscure than an incomprehensible “heavenly script.”
