From: abenoit@sumax.seattleu.edu (CHAVALEH)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems
Subject: Re: A letter to a young critic
Date: 18 Nov 92 00:51:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: sumax.5825
Organization: Seattle University

I have pared down the conversation for greater ease for fellow readers.



>Observe such comments as:

>>>>>OK, I hereby permit this guy to write whatever trash he thinks.

>>>>>. . .about beauties inimitable, et cetera - always such
>>>>>unpardonable trash?

>>>I admire your relentless fight for the rights of trashy pen-pushers.

>>>>> Self-aggrandizing graphomania undoubtedly results from a tender,
>>>>>romantic attitude towards oneself.

>> Evidently, Niko feels that to work in accordance with his love of
>             ^^^^ That's Philip or Mr. Nikolayev for you,
>                  Mr. Editor

Indeed.  I beg your pardon.  I have a nasty habit of contracting names.  I
will cease and desist, at your request.

>The above comments, although ripped out of context, make
>certain points. . . Perhaps you will find that
>their substance is more insulting than the words; but no one
>has so far challenged that.

They most certainly do make points.  I believe you are missing mine:
I do indeed find their substance more insulting. . .however, you *are*
entitled to those opinions, and are resolved not to change them, in that
you believe they serve your purpose: good poetry.  That is perfectly
legitimate.

I am merely pointing out that the methods you use may not be the most
effective, in that they also can be something of a detriment. . .which I
illuminated later.  I am suggesting you change the way you go about
putting forth your opinions: be less blatantly insulting and cruel.  You
have done this, as I pointed out with your comment about ordinariness and
banality.  It is a reasoned statement, worthy of consideration.  Indeed, I
could see a not-so-wonderful poet realizing that he does write that way and
quitting. . .or turning to another kind of poetry which he might be much
better at.

>
>> I am not going to bother with an argument over whether or not Niko
>> does/doesn't have the right to do so.  Wasted breath, I'm sure:

>>Doug:
>>>> You seem to think that all these people are guilty of some sort of
>>>> crime and that you are the sanctioned judge.  

>>Niko: 
>>Yes. What do you propose to do about it?

>> Unreasonable or not, Niko has this opinion, and is resolved not to
>> change it.  Thus, it would be pointless to try to convince him.

>Non sequitur.

Not at all, if connected with the previous statements:  I am not going to
bother convincing you that the ideas behind your method are wrong because
you will not change them, as demonstrated.  Instead, I am trying to
convince you to modify your approach so that it serves your purpose
better, incidentally dealing with what many of us find offensive at the
same time.

I realize that you are not interested in what we find offensive.  I do not
expect you to be -- these are *my* ulterior motives.  You could, I
suppose, take a "heh heh heh, so *that's* what abenoit wants-- I'll fix
her" attitude after this exchange.  I am trusting that you are honestly
interested in dealing with the issue and not in merely defeating someone
who happens to oppose you.


>> 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."
>
>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?


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.


>> 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). 

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

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.

>> 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.

>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.

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.


>> Along similar lines are the neophyte poets who have yet to discover
>> the form with which they work best.  Let them experiment with the
>> different forms and find the right one.  That's right.  Grit your
>> teeth and bear it in the hopes that they will discover the right
>> medium. It may be that poetry is the wrong medium altogether, but
>> who can tell?

>This is self-evident, but I think irrelevant.

I suppose it *is* irrelevant in that I know that this will not convince
you.  In your approach, you eradicate bad poetry on sight.  I was,
wrongly, trying to convince you that your basic philosophy is incorrect. 
Please ignore that argument.


>> Lastly, I would like to see more of Niko's positive (or at least
>> less-crushingly-negative, perhaps the word is constructive)
>> criticisms.  This type of comment:

>>>>>How unique, and how banal. This is not a contradiction.
>>>>>Everything is unique; most things are banal.

>> improvements, so I will simply say that it would also lend his
>> viewpoints a little more creditability.  Although Niko has also
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> said:

>>>I do not seek to establish any special credibility in this group,
>>>and care even less what you think about my credibility. . . .

>Credibility is a subjective quality; creditability needn't be.
>Parenthetically, please refrain from making generalisations on my behalf.

If what you are saying is that you are not working for credibility, and
that you have apparently caught me in a contradiction, allow me to
explain:

In the first instance you used, I was referring to the fact that you do
not seek credibility among the general reader/postership of r.a.p.  

In the second instance, I was referring to the credibility you have with
the poet whom you are criticizing.  If you truly wish a bad poet to heed
your opinions, you must establish a type of credibility with him.  I was
merely stating that coming across as a cruel and insulting person will not
establish that. . .the poet will simply write you off as someone who has
no interest in anything except ranking on other people. 


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

>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?

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.

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.


>> 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?

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

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.


I anticipate your reply, Philip.





-- 
            CHAVALEH               |  In your concept ofthe cosmos 
    abenoit@sumax.seattleu.edu     |  be aware of the stability
 (Parenthetical                    |  that allows for individual chaos.
                Conversationalist) |       _Emmanuel's Book_ VI.92
Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems