There's a delightful sketch in Potter's Lifemanship2 that inverts the classic Freudian analysis scenario. The analyst reclines in comfort while the client prowls up and down 'feverishly', getting to loathe the analyst. I suspect a similar relationship may easily build between the poet and the professional critic.

Unless we're dealing with a 'competition careerist' who writes to form on demand, a poet generally starts from the desire to communicate an idea of apparent personal importance – they know what they're trying to say and it matters to them. The unknown, therefore, is merely how best to say it. So the question is not one of concept but of technique. And that's where the critic can provide valuable guidance (provided of course that said critic is competent and unbiased). Intelligent feedback on technique from experienced fellow poets is one of the ways we advance in our craft.

But for several decades there's been a very obvious tendency for critics to ignore craft in favour of supposedly teasing out hidden meanings or nuances that the poet quite probably never intended, or to render judgement on the validity or legitimacy of ideas expressed. When such analysis is applied publicly to the work of deceased poets, it can bias their readership due to the apparent authority of the critics. And because many of the critics are ensconced academics, it can also indoctrinate their 'creative writing' students with detrimental effect on their perceptions and future work. But while neither of these outcomes is ideal, they're not as disastrous as the potential effects of such 'thematic' criticism on the work of independent, living poets. In the case of mature poets, these effects may generally accord with those in Potter's scenario – the client gets more and more feverish and gets to hate the analyst, which stressful and annoying (and it could also affect book sales). But in the case of the inexperienced, such criticism can be far more damaging. The ostensible authority of the critic is likely to persuade the poet under scrutiny to align their thinking to comply with the critic's views at the expense of their personal voice.

So, quite apart from any internal conflict experienced by the individual, thematic criticism tends to have a homogenising effect that suppresses originality for the entire art. But it's important to recognise that much of such criticism is mere bull (sorry – 'a matter of opinion') so it can be ignored. In many avenues of life, careers are built on telling people what to think and feel (viz. advertising), but we don't have to succumb. As the High Court judge supposedly said to the repeat offender in the dock 'have the courage of your convictions!' So by all means seek advice on form and style (and even semantics) – these are tools of your craft, and can never be considered fully perfected. But your ideas are your own and are sacrosanct. Preserve them with your life against all challengers.

 [1] Here I use the terms analyst and critic interchangeably, as the type of criticism in question amounts to thematic analysis

 [2] 'Psycho-synthesis' in Stephen Potter, Lifemanship, Henry Holt New York 1951 (pp 35-36)