Tact attacked

One of the more challenging problems that a workshop has to face is
how to deal with poets who repeatedly present bad poems. The usual
guideline is to be tactful. The benefit of this to the group is that it
creates a
more socially relaxed atmosphere, giving people a chance to learn in a
supportive environment. The democratic, non-elitist mix of poets
guarantees variety in the group. Tactfulness and honesty need not be at
odds and after all, individuals can ask for honest comments either privately
or to the whole group if they want. Moreover, newcomers to the group
won't be scared away by fears of being adversely criticised. The guideline
also makes it easier to stamp out gratuitous insults.

However, there are disadvantages as well, for the group and the
individuals. To accurately express one's opinions is never easy, but to
express them tactfully is harder still. In some groups even calling a poem
bad constitutes a tactless insult. Tact too easily leads to bad poems being
welcomed by

• Silence - soon filled by well-meaning comment from others


• Coded praise - praise that the inner circle know is derogatory
  (damning with faint praise)


• Diluted adverse criticism


• Hypocrisy - saying initially that it's ok then finding fault with most
  aspects of the poem.

All of these maintain the polite veneer. However the desire not to risk
hurting the poet's feelings can spread beyond the lowest echelons.
Reducing the range of critical comments can devalue the currency of
criticism, producing wheelbarrows of "Great work!". Even if it doesn't, it
leads to the strange situation of bad poetry getting fewer adverse comments
than good poetry. The consequent development of false self-images and self-delusion
can't be good.

Before we proceed further a distinction needs to be drawn between
workshop comments and more academic criticism. The latter is concerned
with quality for the benefit of buyers or readers, an exercise of comparing,
contrasting and theory building. A workshop is in part a support group
with improvement of the poem and poet as the purpose of quality
evaluation, not the establishing of a pecking order. All kinds of people join
workshops and for a variety of reasons. A workshop needs to decide how
many of these reasons are within its scope to satisfy. Quality is not always
foremost in the poet's mind. Catharsis or a political agenda may be more
important to them. They may just want a shoulder to cry on. This variety is
reflected in the response to deprecation. When a poem is adversely
criticised

• the group may react to the critizer, rushing to the defence of the
  victim.


• the victim may have written a poem with sensitive personal content
  and may become very upset if their whole being is felt to be devalued.


• the victim may be unhinged enough to take obsessive revenge.

These are dangers that the workshop critic is more likely to encounter
than is the academic critic because the risk of a poet identifying with
his/her work is greater. Sometimes the critic makes such identification is
more explicit. Of course, one should criticize the poem not the poet, but a
consistent run of poems lead to plausible inferences. Also, while some good
poets (e.g. Auden) can write awful poems, there are bad poems that only bad
poets can write. Distinguishing between types of bad poems is a useful
critical function. Sometimes the most direct way to improve the poems is to
improve the poet. Perhaps they should be advised to take a break for a
while, or read more, or think about why they write. It's even possible that
the person might be more fulfilled in another field of creativity. It's worth
taking the prospective poet aside to see how they feel about the comments
their poems are receiving, because it's easy to miss the hints when they are
presented through the smoke-screen of tactfulness.

I knew someone who he did a 60 mile round trip each month rather
than go to his local workshop whose tactfulness, he claimed, delayed his
initial progress for a year or so. He was led to believe that the odd line
or so
needed tweaking. In fact, as he later realised, a radical overhaul was
needed. He felt in retrospect that he was being patronised, that the people
who at the time wrote better poems were getting direct, honest
complimentary comments from him while he was getting watered down
white lies, that he was not being treated with respect.

Some say that one should never discourage a poet: a poet might always
improve, and artistic judgements may always be wrong - look at Hopkins,
people say, look at Van Gogh! But both of these men survived
discouragement, and if Van Gogh hadn't been discouraged from being a
pastor, he might not have progressed as an artist. Workshop tutors
(professional ones in particular) should bear in mind their responsibility
to the person and not just the poetry in the same way as a good sports
trainer would evaluate whether athletes are in the discipline that will give
them the most fulfilment, though care should be taken when heeding the
advice if the trainer gains financial benefit from a particular choice by
the athlete. Money complicates things, something of which those who pay
for writing courses should be aware.

Of course, if a poet knows that s/he is no good and still enjoys going to
workshops, that's fine. Where would we be without Sunday joggers? The
problems arise when they neglect their family or risk their health in the
belief that they have a realistic chance of qualifying for the Olympics.
There's also the risk of the bad driving out the good.

Tact is not the risk-free option that it's often assumed to be. It has
consequences for the group but more seriously the lesser poets get less
than a fair deal. They have as much right to honesty as anyone - it's wrong
to equate naivity of poetry with emotional naivity. In the end, the decision
whether or not to insist on tact depends on which poets (bad and good) the
group wants to
keep. Personality rather than quality are likely to
determine who will feel uncomfortable enough to leave. Tact will hurt the
listeners with delicate artistic sensibilities (because there'll be more bad
poetry) and critical integrity (because comments won't be so honest). It
will slow the progress of some beginners. It won't impress the newcomers
who come expecting an honest evaluation of their work. It will protect the
mentally unstable and the egos of those who think they're better than they
are.