Necessary Elements of the Critical Comment: Initial Impact

...explaining my particular evaluating process and offering my humblest opinions to other judges.

INTRODUCTION

I don't claim to write the perfect critique. Nor do I mind you telling me so. In fact, if you were to ask certain writers on this site, they could prove to you that I am capable of gravely misjudging and misinterpreting. I simply feel that I follow a method that minimizes those less favorable results.

I should probably first reveal the elements I feel important in critically evaluating a poem. Here they are:
1- Initial Impact
2- Flow and Coherency
3- Form and Execution
4- Poetic Devices
5- Content and Subject



INITIAL IMPACT- 25 points

The element I chose to first focus on is initial impact. This strikes me as the least recognized and respected of my particular elements, often inciting less enthusiasm from entries because it seems unfair.

Some argue that evaluating a piece on its first impression is counter-intuitive because it may simply use emotional triggers to gain unfair advantage. Those people have their opinions, but I feel that most competent poetry readers don't easily fall into those traps. The old "knife-life-strife" rhyme and the "teardrops falling like rain" similie don't win over real judges. They may evoke something in the inexperienced reader, but it doesn't seem that an inexperienced reader should have any business running a contest, does it?

The first impression I refer to here may also fall into the phrase "wow factor." There are certain pieces that simply compensate for technical faults, upon the first reading, with outstanding language. And these pieces don't get their due credit.

Yes, this applies on the other front as well. Some pieces are so dull or unimpressive that I begin to dread fully criticizing. There is no reason they shouldn't be punished for not impressing.

This element is particularly subjective at its worst and richly rewarding at its best. The question on minds now is undoubtedly: How do I fairly evaluate this element, especially in situations where a poem doesn't suit me? I shall attempt to address this.

The trick is rewarding first what is unique, not experimental or "up-your-alley." Any bit of particularly effective anything deserves merit, especially if it draws the reader into the rest of the piece. As an avid poetry reader like most of you, I notice striking imagery and well-executed form. But its also important to note things like point-of-view and rhetoric. I find that clever pieces or complex structures at best recieve some praise, but they never seem to be rewarded point-wise in the formal evaluations.

To give an example, I refer to my first and most difficult contest. One of the requirements was that the piece contain the scientific name of a reptile. And one particular entry played on the name to create not only an endearing image, but also a thoroughly refreshing spin on the requirement. I could not simply let the piece go unrewarded for so clever a line and so unique a play on my own restrictions.

Focusing on initial impact tends to encourage well-structured or creative, gripping pieces, forcing out the dull pieces we all tire of.

On the downside, embracing this element may encourage very experimental, over-the-top pieces, because it is essentially a fight for the judge's attention.

I'm a firm believer in a somewhat flexible critiqing system. I feel it appropriate to reward or punish first impressions depending on whether they enhance or distract from a full understanding of the piece.

I'm not necessarily an advocate for this particular element. It often shows itself, to some degree, as the only qualification in some judging I've seen. It's more for contests that really want to get deep into the subject matter. It seems too often that these judges shift focus away from those striking lines or features of the poem, penalizing too harshly for slightly cliched subject matter. I simply request that you consider allowing the first impression to have a proper hold on your evaluation.






DS