A simple question: If I were to critique a published poet's work, say a

[Buk]

specific poem, and I credit the poet..? ,,,by name, say, Robert Frost, and I post the poem and then proceed to explain why the poem is terrible (if it is), is this considered a critique or harassment?

You MUST know the answer, right?

Also, could I then explain to you why the poet was a complete fool for writing the poem?

Pick up a newspaper and read the op-ed section if you don't know the answer.

This is purely hypothetical, I have not yet done this.
I may never, but I know that it is my right to do so.

 

[DAHha]

You've got lots of good answers.
It's okay, as long as you credit the author, and yes, it is a critique.

 

[Joanne935]

uhm...cool..'.'

 

[Giggles]

it is critique. If you emailed a living poet constantly to tell them how bad their poems are, that would be harassment.

 

[The Genuine Mighty Iano]

"Feelings are not protected and should never be." Everybody remember those words the next time I critique anyone's poem as utter pants.

 

[Evelyn]

...may have the right, but why shear the sheep in the middle of winter ?

 

[SIN]

It's a right we all share.

 

[Kitty 2]

No it should not be harrassed. But really a work of art.I think it should be a critque. No one is perfect . I have had a lot of silly poems myself but i do it for the fun of it.

 

[Cilla]

It is called a critique analysis. Please remember to cite your sources in MLA format.

 

[catz]

It's a criticism, but I don't know why anyone criticizes any poetry, after all it's such a subjective thing, what one person likes another might not.

 

[Mykael]

Being a critic is a fine art, almost like poetry except that the critic will be rated on his objectivity. Of course most critics value little other than their own opinion when it comes to yahoo answers. I have a hard time being objective with religious poems that paint a bright and happy picture, to me they seem like a drug dealing peddling his lies of happiness, but some of these poems have merits so I look at those instead of my bigoted view. Of course a rebuttal is also freedom of speech.

 

[John D]

I agree that poetry is subjective -beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But like any art form you can develop and also analyze technique, and of course everyone has a different reaction to content.

I think that poems have the possibility speak to our different natures and evoke an emotional connection between the writer and the the reader. Some poems will work for the reader, and some won't. Some only work for the writer.

So yes, I believe that there is a little, heavily restricted space in the world of words for critics and that speech should be free.

Calling someone a fool in a public forum is rude -unless the person is a danger to himself and others -in which case it's a responsibility.

};-{>
>>>
Consider that poetry can be itself a form of critique. A critique of life.