NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/rec/arts/poems/11651

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-19 | 8.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!husc-news!nikolay
From: [e-mail] (Philip Nikolayev)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems
Subject: Re: A letter to a young critic
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Nov 92 05:04:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc11.NIKOLAY.92Nov19210438
References: <[e-mail]>
 <[e-mail]><[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Kremlin Wall of Harvard
Lines: 186
Nntp-Posting-Host: husc11.harvard.edu
In-reply-to: [e-mail]'s message of 18 Nov 92 00:51:36 GMT

I have made a few deletions so as to keep this down to
manageable size.

[e-mail] (CHAVALEH) writes:

AE
>>> Those criticisms drive away others who could be very good, but
>>> fear exactly that kind of cruelty.  I am well aware that to assume
>>> one is an inferior poet simply because another says so is not
>>> reasonable.  That is not the point: it does happen, and one would
>>> believe that since you are so in favor of good poetry, you would
>>> be most interested in encouraging them, rather than driving
>>> potential poets away.  You may argue that this is not your
>>> responsibility, and that may be true, but you said you had a "love
>>> of good poetry" -- not a "love for good poetry produced by artists
>>> with good self-esteem."

PN
>>There is no argument there. Evidently, irrational things do
>>happen. But consider then the following alternatives:
>>
>>(1) Instead of your good poet who is afraid of this kind of
>>cruel criticism, you have one who is terrified by the flood of
>>quasi-poetic diarrhea in this group to the extent that he leaves
>>immediately and never comes back.

>>(2) A gifted beginner without much experience looks at this group,
>>decides to his dismay that all modern poetry is and is indeed
>>expected to be like that, and quits writing for good.

>>(3) A good poet stays in this group, without even liking it very
>>much, but hoping in the long run to meet another good poet.  The
>>long run turns out to be disastrous: surrounded by the familiar ilk
>>and encouraged by their constructive, friendly criticism, the poet
>>meets no one of any worth, loses his notion of good taste,
>>irreparably loosens the formerly desired standards, and blends
>>naturally into the gurgling bog of the faceless rest.

>>What do you propose to do about these, keeping in mind that reason
>>is not the universal standard of human behaviour?

AE
> Nothing at all.  Your points are valid.  Those types of sensitivity
> *do* in fact exist.  I will merely say that I am not asking you to
> stop trying to rid the net of unworthy poets.  You believe that is
> your right, and it is.  The three examples you listed above even
> make it reasonable from a certain point of view.  What I am trying
> to do is convince you to modify your approach so that not only do
> you rid yourself of those poets, but you encourage the types that
> *I* described at the same time.

You are suggesting that I should take into account certain
kinds of irrational reactions; what I'm trying to tell you is
that by taking some kinds of irrational reactions into account
I thereby fail to consider other kinds of irrational reactions,
because there can be any number of kinds of irrational reactions.
This is getting really tedious.

Consider this, if you wish: I have no respect whatsoever for
irrationality.  I can't honour it out of some mystical expectation
that indulging certain kinds of irrational fears may result in a
certain amount of good poetry being written, because I rely on the
Kantian notion that humanity must always be treated as an end and
never simply as a means. Therefore, it is immoral to adopt the
attitude that you propose for the reason that you propose.

AE
>>> Further, it was made blatantly plain that Niko believes bad poetry
>>> cannot be much improved by criticism (as he explained to Kathleen
>>> O'Toole, he believes it merely moves from very bad to just bad,
>>> and, in fact, very bad is much easier to bear because it does not
>>> have the delusional factor).

PN
>>In that passage, I only discussed bad and very bad poetry, not
>>poetry in general.

AE
> All right.  Yes, that makes a distinction.

> However, you have here admitted that criticism can be useful -- I
> made several suggestions about how you could go about it, and
> encourage you to do so.

Thank you, but I set my own priorities.

AE
>>> and there are many who agree with him.  I myself would caution
>>> Niko: inferior writers do often produce one or two pieces (whether
>>> accidentally or as a result of much work) of stunning brilliance.
>>> You are cheating yourself out of some potentially excellent work
>>> by driving the less talented out of the circle.

PN
>>Alternatively, you are cheating yourself of the 'one or two pieces
>>of stunning brilliance' which might be produced by an otherwise
>>indifferent writer who is influenced by just criticism.  Note also
>>that I am not a literary editor. I fully understand that your
>>position requires a different approach.

AE
> We dealt with this above.  In summary -- I advocate a change in your
> approach, not your idea.  What I am suggesting would simultaneously
> deal with bad poets (by your definition) and protect the good ones
> whose growth you advocate.

To repeat, I can't protect anyone's growth. People should use
their own brains.

AE
>>> . . .followed by a crushing insult.  Crushing insults distract
>>> from the point and only invite flame wars.  There are other
>>> newsgroups for that.

PN
>>I have stated already that I only insult in response to personal
>>insults and to what I perceive as pernicious lies about significant
>>truths. Have you any objection to this?

AE
> I will not dispute you about the personal attacks.  To flame in
> response to a flame is indeed your right.  Just because it is not
> *my* way, does not mean it cannot be yours.

OK.

AE
> As to the "pernicious lies," (assuming you mean bad poetry) I do
> indeed have objections.  Well-mannered, reasoned, intelligent
> responses will work just as well, if done properly, to eradicate
> those lies.  Cruelty and insults are not necessary.

I have pointed out to you before that the points I have made
were more insulting that the words. You seemed to agree with that.
No, by 'pernicious lies' I don't just mean bad poetry. No one
seems to have noticed a system in my madness, the fact that the
statements against which I blazed up where of a certain special
kind, which amounts to an *ideology* of the graphomaniacal subculture.
All of them were general pronouncements *about* poetry. If someone
in this group wrote something to the effect that 'all blacks
are thieves and assholes', or that 'all women are vicious bitches',
the writer would  probably  bring upon himself an enormous
torrent of righteous abuse from others. Do you see the analogy?
The difference, however, is that the graphomaniacal subculture
does not give a pinch of snuff for poetry as such, only for
everyone's own beloved self in what they perceive as poetry.
Do you recall how perfectly the statements which I flamed
illustrate this point?

AE
>>> Also, let's see a few *positive* comments.  You have said to Doug
>>> that there are one or two poets whom you admire: do you tell them?

PN
>>Yes, I have told a few people privately. 'Admiration' is perhaps too
>>strong a word, but 'respect' is just good enough.

AE
> Excellent.  Well done.  I would suggest that to display it publicly,
> as you do with your negative comments, would benefit many people,
> both those whom you hope to dissuade from poetry and those whom you
> hope to encourage.

Thank you not at all for your good-natured condescendence in handling
a perceived madman, Mr Enoit. I think your gentle attempt to put me in
my proper place is quite noble, but also quite misguided. I have long
considered your prescriptions, doctor; I know quite well what I am doing.
I am only slightly disturbed by the mellow morass of received conventional
wisdom on this group, and by the fact that perhaps not one of the whole
lot here gives a positive flying firk about my opinions. Nevertheless,
believe it or not, I think I have been constructive enough, in a sense
that I wouldn't bother to explain to anyone.

AE
> I anticipate your reply, Philip.

There you have it.

> --
>             CHAVALEH               |  In your concept ofthe cosmos
>     [e-mail]     |  be aware of the stability
>  (Parenthetical                    |  that allows for individual chaos.
>                 Conversationalist) |       _Emmanuel's Book_ VI.92

Philip Nikolayev
[e-mail]