Cum criticam ?

Un tinar neprecaut a avut curajul sa solicite opinii asupra poeziei proprii (sub pseudonim, stiti alea cu "am o prietetena care crede c-ar putea fi insarcinata ce poate face ???!"). A primit. Sa citez :

Hai sa luam prima strofa la refec :

Jertfa din sărut

Soarbe psalmii de pe buze
Care-şi ard cenuşa-n stele,
Şi topeşte-ţi jertfa gurii
În altarul gurii mele.

4 figuri : psalmi pe buze (metafora), ard cenusa-n stele (nonsens), jertfa gurii (metafora), altarul gurii (metafora). Ultima figura raspunde antitezei din titlu, construind o simetrie obositor-fortata.

Modul de-a scrie in care se foloseste o abundenta [nejustificata] de metafore in paralel cu o oarecare frecventa de nonsensuri e tipic efluviilor imature ale celor recent alfabetizati. Nu asa se scrie, nu poezia, nu de catre omul civilizat : metafora e o regina a discursului, ca atare ea apare rar si intr-un final de crescendo. Abundenta o aplatizeaza, si cind e singura-ntre nonsensuri rezultatul nu e niciodata acceptabil, ci intotdeauna o incercare de adolescenta.

Cetateanul ar trebui sa renunte la opinia ca sentimentul si doar sentimentul genereaza poezie – e drept c-o inspira, dar nu-i drept ca-i suficient, si de asemenea la modul empiric in care incearca sa-si construiasca discursul, si sa puna mina pe-o carte-doua, ori de teorie a semnificarii, daca-i minte mai analitica, ori de exemple practice. Se prescrie ca penitenta lectura din Shakespeare, o suta saizeci de ore, dupa care reevaluam.

Aspru ? Mnoa, probabil ca ghiciti cine-i criticul, atunci. Critic care are o groaza de stalkeri (indiferent ca-s de genul feminin, tot stalkeri se zice), si deci a rezultat dialogul urmator :

stalker : you dont rly believe in criticism without should, do you? (is moreover an impression i should say, rather than something sharp i pick out specifically, before i get into trouble ;p) but i mean, rather than this sucks because x its this sucks because x and you should go suck on a worm and come back when youve gotten an answer sorta thing, innit?
Critic : criticism without should = wasted time.

stalker : aha
Critic : if there's nothing you can recomend you have no ideea what you're talking about. there;s no science without prediction nor any criticism without advice.

stalker : yeah, that makes sense, and i agree somehow should carries an extra negative association, but im sure thats my arbitrary application
Critic : well, why negative ? you should eat more pasta. whats negative ?

stalker : kinda implies that im bad if i dont
Critic : well you are.

stalker : whereas, you could eat more pasta to get more fiber doesnt carry the same thing
Critic : how about, you could eat more pasta to suck less ? [and ftr, theres no fiber inpasta]

stalker : hahaah its the judgement really, so even though that obeys the form i made up out of nothing, it still carries the negative bit. and yeah, criticism is judgement, so... but i guess the criticism seems like of the thing and the judgement of should seems of the person
Critic : why ? im just talking of the thing.

stalker : hm... where, do you mean? in the romanian? cause for instance above you said you could eat more pasta to suck less. that includes a judgement of the person ie they suck to some degree
Critic : [at poetry]

stalker : aha. well k than
Critic : everything is qualified by the scope. i guess its still a scoping issue. we're not talking about the person's ultimate salvation. just their poetic acumen.

stalker : hm. stalker : k.
Critic : but back to the issue : a judgement that tries not to be judgemental is nothing but proof the person isn't qualified to judge. this is what you deliver when you judge : a judgement.

stalker : yes. i never disputed this.

Traduceti voi ? Ca mie mi-i lene...