From: nikolay@husc11.harvard.edu (Philip Nikolayev)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems
Subject: Re: constructive criticism for Doug and Donosauria
Date: 17 Nov 92 05:54:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc11.NIKOLAY.92Nov16215453
Organization: The Kremlin Wall of Harvard
In-reply-to: petersm@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU's message of 16 Nov 92 09:17:17 GMT

petersm@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Marguerite Petersen) writes:

> In article <NIKOLAY.92Nov15143814@husc8.harvard.edu> 
nikolay@husc8.harvard.edu (Philip Nikolayev) writes:

MP
>>> I do not understand just what you are saying here.  I don't see
>>> anywhere that I denied anyone did not have the capacity for brain
>>> action. (And yes I did have to look that one up.  I guessed and was
>>> right but wanted to be sure.)

PN
>>See the end of your previous paragraph ('More than likely, they
>>will...'). By attributing such irrational reactions to your
>>proteges, you deny that they possess reason. Therefore, I wrote:

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.

>>PN
>>> If you were 
>>>>right, any criticism, friendly or not, would be quite pointless.
>>>>I am fully aware that tone is something of an ethical isse.

>>MP
>>> And this is where I disagree with you.  

PN
>>If you disagree, can you please challenge my specific reasoning,
>>rather than simply gainsay my statements?

MP
> I was disagreeing with you about criticism (especially friendly)
> being pointless.

I know what you were disagreeing with; you simply forgot to
explain why and how friendly criticism could help people
who are, as you say, completely irrational.

>>MP
>>>I take kindly to friendly
>>> criticism, have even improved on a few things (IMHO) because of
>>> such.  I have been writing poetry for over 30 years but had never
>>> tried any form of free verse.  When I first started posting last
>>> January I was hopelessly mired in 4-line rhymed stanzas with an
>>> iambic metre.  I was also extremely vague about painting images as
>>> I knew what I wanted to say and I thought that was enough.
>>> Because of some *friendly* criticism I was able to break out of my
>>> past mold and attempt more concrete images with a less rigid form.
>>> I would
>>> not have even bothered trying if I had just been blasted.

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?

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. 

MP
>>> There are two fallacies here.  One; that what worked for you will or
>>> should work for others 

PN
>>Methinks it's a fallacy to deny a common humanity. What makes
>>you think that human beings are completely irrational?

MP
> Experience

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?

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.

PN
>>>>I fail to see, therefore, why you say that there is 
>>>>nothing constructive about someone's 'giving up' if he or she
>>>>can't learn. 

>>MP
>>> And I would hate to see anyone who *wants* to write give up just
>>> because they are told that what they write is crap and yet some
>>> will
>>> do just that.  

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?

>>MP
>>> I won't, but that's because I'm obsessed with writing and just too
>>> darn stubborn to quit no matter what anyone else thinks.  Also
>>> what are you proposing that *they* should learn.  What
>>> you think is good 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?

PN
>>>>Surely, that would be more constructive than keeping 
>>>>one's standards comfortably low, and posting pernicious batshit
>>>>about how it makes no difference anyway, encouraged by a surrounding
>>>>morass of bland general friendliness.

MP
>>> I don't think that friendly criticism keeps one's standards low.
>>> Quite the contrary.  I know for myself that when someone tells me
>>> that parts of a poem of mine are good but others seem weak or not
>>> quite concrete enough, I often rewrite.  Sometimes for the better,
>>> sometimes not.  But I do pay attention.  And I have to agree that
>>> it doesn't make a hill of beans either way.  Noone is going to
>>> change the world with their poetry, but sometimes individuals are
>>> moved or
>>> touched.  That is really all that is important.
>>
>>This is what I call keeping one's standards comfortably low.

MP
> Well, suit yourself.

Yes, of course.

MP
>>> And I do resent your comment about bland general friendliness.  I
>>> have found many *good* friends in this group, nothing bland about
>>> them.  We don't always agree and our poetry styles differ greatly
>>> but we *all* have one thing in common; a need to write poetry and
>>> share it with others.

PN
>>Please note that there is nothing inherently commendable about
>>the need to write poetry and share it; but it is imperative
>>not to be a worthless poet. 

MP
> I think all poets are worth something to someone, if only to
> themselves.  I prefer worthless poets to worthless humans.

Perhaps most thieves and murderers are also worth
something to someone. What is your point?

>>>>[deletia]


MP
>>>>> I never officially ask for critiques of any of my poems.
>>>>> However, I feel an implied request exists by my merely posting
>>>>> them for public perusal.  Feel free to criticize my poetry
>>>>> whenever you see it.  I will not be offended even if your
>>>>> criticism is harsh as I can take it.  Actually, even harsh
>>>>> criticism is preferable to being ignored.  But that is just me
>>>>> and some others may be somewhat more delicate than that.  I
>>>>> think that you should consider that when you are
>>>>> making your comments, especially in a public format.

>>PN
>>>>I have considered that, Kathleen. I only make harsh comments when I 
>>>>come across self-indulgent public insults to significant truths.

>>MP
>>> I am not sure just what significant truths you are referring to.

PN
>>One such truth lies in the distinction between poetry and pap.

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?

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?

> Kathleen O'Toole

Philip Nikolayev
nikolay@husc.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems