NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/rec/arts/poems/11500

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 6.7 KB | 188 lines

Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU!leela!jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU!petersm
From: [e-mail] (Marguerite Petersen)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems
Subject: Re: constructive criticism for Doug and Donosauria
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 17 Nov 92 11:21:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: leela.1992Nov17.112122.5730
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet programs owner)
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University
Lines: 174
Nntp-Posting-Host: jacobs.cs.orst.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Philip Nikolayev) writes:
>[e-mail] (Marguerite Petersen) writes:
>
Lots deleted.
>
>MP
>> I see.  If people don't react the way you think they should then
>> they are acting in an irrational manner.
>
>Not necessarily. But if they react the way *you* say they *do*,
>they react in an irrational manner.

This is again your opinion of what is irrational behaviour.
>
>
>PN

>>>I am not interested in making the distinction between very bad
>>>and just bad, and don't think that progression from the one to
>>>the other in poetry can be called an improvement. In fact, I
>>>prefer the very bad to the 'not-so-bad', because the former is
>>>usually informed by lesser delusions than the latter. Doug, for
>>>example, is in the 'not-so-bad' category, and he probably got
>>>there by pursuing the path of learning, encouraged by friendly,
>>>constructive criticism. If this is a difficult paragraph,
>>>please reread it before you respond.
>
>MP
>> No, the paragraph isn't too difficult for poor little ole me.  I got
>> your drift just fine.
>
>Good. Have you also considered it?

I considered what you wrote; I just don't consider it worthy of a
response.

>PN
>>>>>But I believe I have learnt something by being told elsewhere that
>>>>>I write crap, and I don't see why others can't. There is always a
>>>>>very good reason to avoid writing crap: love of good
>>>>>poetry.

I'm not entirely clear on what you have learned by being told that you
write crap.  If your response was to never write *anything* again, then
my condolences.  We all *might* be losing something by you not writing.
If, instead, you simply mean that you have improved; well, I've never
ascribed to the philosophy that harsh and negative criticism yields
positive results.  I had a similar discussion with a Marine sergeant
once.  He learned to change his attitude.  Perhaps you can too.

Much deleted.

>If you are completely irrational, how can you *think* that
>you are completely irrational? How can you *think* from experience
>to generalisations? Less importantly, what irrational purpose
>do you seek to accomplish by communicating with me?

Perhaps I'm not communicating at all.  But you keep answering me and
my muse has temporarily deserted me, so why not?

>MP
>>>> and two; who is to decide what is *good*
>>>> poetry.
>
>PN
>>>Reason.
>
>MP
>> Your reason.
>
>Mine for me, yours for you, theirs for them. All in
>varying degrees imperfect, but applying logic, which
>is universal.

"Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end."  :-)

More deleted.

>PN
>>>Giving up writing because you are told that you are worthless
>>>is an irrational reaction. But if one realises that one is a
>>>worthless poet, giving up becomes a *moral need*.
>
>MP
>> We're all worthless, some more than others.
>
>That's a nice paraphrase of Orwell. Who is more worthless,
>then, Shakespeare or Dante?

I don't think *I*, or anyone else has ever compared themselves to
either Shakespeare or Dante.  However, I do write pretty good sonnets,
and my SO thinks I'm the reincarnation of Emily Dickinson.  And if
you were wondering if I have ever read anything of theirs, the answer
is yes.  Many times.  Repeatedly.  Always and always.  But yes, I will
still write my own poetry.

>PN
>>>I have not read any of your poetry, but I find the 'anything goes'
>>>relativism of this paragraph mildly disturbing. How do *you* determine
>>>what is good poetry and what isn't?
>
>MP
>> Well, that's your loss then.
>
>What is?

That you haven't ready any of my poetry.  You probably wouldn't like it,
but that's fine with me.  The definition of good poetry, IMO, is a very
personal one.  What I don't like, I might comment on, but in as
constructive a manner as possible.  After all, I may be outvoted and
everyone else thinks it's quite wonderful.  I've been there before.
I have never suggested that you are not entitled to your own opinion
of what is *good* poetry or not, just that when you do make that
decision, you should temper it with a modicum of kindness and goodwill.


More deleted


>MP
>> Again, in your opinion and I acknowledge your right to it.
>
>If you disagree, why don't you state your own opinion? Do you
>think that the distinction between good and bad poetry is an
>untruth, or and insignificant truth?

Where poetry is concerned, I don't think there is any universal truth.
What some think is wonderful; I may think putrid.  What some think is bad,
I may think is good or has promise.  It is a *personal opinion* and only
that.


>PN
>> I do
>> think, however, that with your caustic attitude you will have little
>> opportunity to effect any changes.
>
>At long last, perhaps you'll explain why?

And we have at last come full circle.  (Reminds me of the hole-in-the-
bucket song.)  Because as I stated previously, the probably reactions
to such criticism is either 1) Ignore you (those who are *quite stubborn,
like me  :-)   or 2) quit writing (those who are extremely sensitive to
criticism).  Either way, you will have achieved not much.   I know that
you consider this as irrational.  I don't.  It's human nature.  And
considering the dearth of poems on this newsgroup lately, it is my
contention that my #2 possibility is in full sway.

>Philip Nikolayev
>[e-mail]

I won't say this has been pleasant (because it hasn't been) but it has
been interesting.  I will now take my leave of you as I hear my muse
calling (loudly, as I have been ignoring her/him for too long and he/she
is a jealous muse.)  :-)

    Out, out, brief candle!
    Life's but a walking shadow; a poor player,
    That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
    And then is heard no more; it is a tale
    Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
    Signifying nothing.

                -Shakespeare  (Macbeth: Act V, Scene IV)

Kathleen O'Toole,
Bringer of Light


--
*************************************************************************
"Insufficient facts always invites danger, Captain."- Spock in Space Seed
    Marg Petersen    [e-mail]
*************************************************************************