It is in my knowledge of writing, that if you do not understand it you should learn about what you are reading before either commenting or, do not comment at all. When I read Milton for the first time, I learned about what I was reading, I did not just say 'hey, I do not understand it therefore I give it an 8/10!' That would be missing the point of literature.

There is nothing of any use, within a statement based totally off subjectivity, such as stating that you do not understand the work etc. Maybe it makes you feel a form of exaltation. However, any artist, in any medium will not care about such a statement because it is a statement of pure relativism; it does very little for the artist.

George Orwell wrote an essay called "Politics and the English Language”, wherein, he states that people use bureaucratic words (meaningless words) such as 'feeling' because it adds a vagueness to what the critic, writer or speaker really means, and leaves the critic's meaning in a state of non-confirmation. Saying that you cannot feel the writing is a worthless statement that does not make sense. Why is this? Well, people do not actually feel the writing, their cognition allows for understanding, and then they decide if they like it or not.So what is not to like, and what is so confusing? Why people intentional muddy there true notions, I think is because people believe it is more 'artistic', and in turn, they believe it pre-emptively saves them from possibly being wrong. Perhaps some kind of quasi-sense of civility is involved. What really is implied is that the critic or reader has not taken the time needed to fully understand the piece, and instead hopes that his or her insipid idea of self-entitlement will suffice argumentatively, in the sense of pulling wool over someone's eyes. So, why commit the fallacy? I believe people continue with this phenomenon, because their is great emphasis placed upon personal opinion, to the extent that some reviews consider their own opinion above reproach. I use a term for this fallacy, it was coined by C. Wright Mills called the 'failure of nerve'; which I will explain later in the third part of my 'personal guidelines for writing critiques'.

I use a set of guidelines (that I developed from Orwell's essay) when reviewing any art or writing:

1) Critiques must be objective and subjective; objectivity deals with the 'facts of poetry', rhyme, meter, and theme. Objectivity helps to maintain equilibrium in the critique. Meaning that subjectivity does not become relativism, and objective theme does not become lost in jargon. Secondly, as Eliot shows in his collection of essays "Sacred Wood", the critic should address the poem itself, and not try to fill in "what the author was thinking when writing"; there is no such thing as omniscience, therefore we comment on the thoughts that the writer has put in front of us. Writers and critics must stave away the fallacy of the soothsayer. Traditional art (paintings etc), is more subjective, but one must still look objectively at technique and 'the facts' of the piece.

2) If one does not understand a particular piece, it is best to try to learn the implications, historicity and metaphors. If it is beyond ones abilities to comprehend a piece, other than a few objective comments, it is best to leave the piece alone (then perhaps try again sometime later). Logically, if one admits to not understanding the piece, then one does not have the knowledgeable authority to criticize the piece. It would be like a blind person walking through the Boreal forest, hoping to 'feel' there way through a situation that they will never be truly aware. A better example may be Plato's allegory of the cave from 'The Republic', where a person is chained in the cave in front of the cave wall. The sun splays shadows on the wall, and that person sees nothing but the shapes of objects on the wall, never the true image.

3) If the reviewer understands the piece of literature, or artwork, if the criteria for a proper critique is a possibility and the reviewer decides if he or she likes the piece or not. Then commence the review. When writing a critique it is seemingly best to base, ones dislike or like as the thesis (for the sake of honesty). When writing a critique, honesty must always be the main criterion.

There is a certain 'failure of nerve' within the pallets of many on this site. I reiterate the fallacy that I discussed earlier, which involves self-entitlement concerning the works of others. The need for self-exaltation can be thought of as a need for action, where the reviewer feels as though they must act out with purely self-deceptions and biased motives, a chest puffing action that involves the many ways of saying ‘I don’t feel your writing’ or ‘I don’t understand it; here is a random ratio out of twenty’. The failure of nerve is the way reviewers hide their true thoughts on a piece, they employ baseless ratios, and subjective redundancies and seemingly hope that an evocation of ‘personal feeling’ will spare them from making a moot point. Moreover, this fallacy serves as a way for the reviewer to doublethink themselves out of a corner, it is used in the equivalent fashion of saying 'I understand the piece,because I don't understand it'. Obviously such a statement is a contradiction, still people imply it in many different forms.

There is certain irresponsibility, especially when writers commit to a failure of nerve. It is irresponsible because writers depend on other writers and their readers for a certain level of support. When someone says hears an ‘8/10, I don’t get, I don’t feel it’ there is nothing contained in that sentence that is relevant for the writer; all it does is halt the conversation pertaining to the piece in question. A failing quantitative mark with a decent critique would be better than a decent mark and a moot point. In fact, quantitative marks without a known structural framework, are supercilious. Who cares if you do not get it, the piece is not going to change to your whim. Therefore why bring up the ‘understanding’ of the piece at all? It is meaningless comment; especially when written for a writer who writes because writing is who they are, more so than what they do.

The final part of my personal guidelines:

-Read, or review the piece at least three times before writing the critique.

-A critique’s thesis should be either optimistic or pessimistic, but a critique must point out both negative and positive aspects dealing with the critique.

- If a review is optimistic then explain what makes it so, consider the objective aspects and implement the subjective notions, while keeping in mind the theme of the piece.

- If a pessimistic review, explain what does not work in the piece; explain the particular parts of the work that do not work, and the aspects that do work. Again, consider the objective aspects and the main theme.

-Be truthful; put some backbone (nerve) into your vernacular and do not cower behind baseless ratios. Say what you want to say. Be prepared for a response from the artist in question, it is only fair that they explain themselves, this is how free speech and intellectualism works, it is reciprocal discussion that keeps mentalities from stagnating. Compare these rules to the failure of nerve fallacy, and consider which method of review is better.

* On the notion of poets being pretenders: Well, it looks like 'someone' does not know what an atomistic fallacy is. The statement implies that all poets do not write about their own pain or feelings, and what they do is a hoax. Now, I think ‘someone’ did not reason through that statement very well.