blogs i think we need 1:

background to my thinking but arriving at the point eventually: its considered a foolish thing to do to reply to a negative review - even to correct facts - if the writers reply is published they look resentful, petty, oversensitive etc. if not published they probably get even more so. everyone thinks this (?) tho they make exceptions for themselves when they do it .. but i think theres a problem here aside from issues of critical value(s), poets psyche: & its this: that regardless of the tone & the un/favourable character of the review - it is a pronouncement: a judgment. there is no intention of creating dialogue - so when a poet replies they cant look anything rather than powerless, pathetic, uncool .. does it have to be this way? what about a review culture where those reviewed were encouraged to reply - & the reviewers to respond to the reply etc? so we dont have to 'sit in silence ... live in fear' etc. this wd be easier, more dynamic in a blog - assuming the age isnt going to adopt something like this. how much more interesting reviews would be then.. i like to read them, but theyre usually dissatisfying. in this scenario the reviewed poet wd be less defensive, able to ask questions of the reviewer - or perhaps better - reviewers - yes im 'talkin bout a conversation' .. ive been thinking about a blog that only publishes reviews for a while.. & blogstyle ud normally expect comments - but perhaps the reviews & reviewed/reviewer responses cd both be posted by the blogmaster, with comments reserved for the readers .. (reviewer & reviewed cd respond to these as well). would they do it? reviews themselves wd change, wd be less judgmental - & inconclusiveness/ambiguity wd no longer seem a weakness, but an opening for dialogue ..