From: nikolay@husc11.harvard.edu (Philip Nikolayev)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems
Subject: Re: A letter to a young critic
Date: 17 Nov 92 07:20:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc11.NIKOLAY.92Nov16232036
Organization: The Kremlin Wall of Harvard
In-reply-to: abenoit@sumax.seattleu.edu's message of 15 Nov 92 23:55:38 GMT

abenoit@sumax.seattleu.edu (CHAVALEH) writes:

[deletia]

> Rather than waste time in a discussion of whether or not Philip has
> the problem Doug describes, I would rather discuss just exactly what
> it is Philip intends to accomplish.  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

> good poetry is to exterminate all traces of what he feels to be
> inferior poetry by posting nasty and insulting criticisms in an
> attempt to convince the poet as to his lack of talent.

The above comments, although ripped out of context, make
certain points. If you think they are unduly insulting, would
you rephrase them in such a manner as to make them less 
insulting, but keep the points? Perhaps you will find that
their substance is more insulting than the words; but no one
has so far challenged that.

> 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.

> However, if, indeed, Philip Nikolayev is for the defense and
> propagation of good poetry, as he claims, I would like to point out
> several ways that nasty and insulting criticisms actually do more
> harm to your purpose than they help.

> 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."  In sum, good poetry is out
> there, but if you want to see any
> of it you had better be a little more careful.

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?

> 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).  Obviously, Doug believes to the contrary,

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

> 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.  Yes, it's true that
> you do have to wade through a great deal of garbage to get there. .
> .as the editor of a literary magazine, I understand there is a great
> deal to endure.  But hell, life is pain.

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.

> 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.

> 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.

> is particularly insightful (at least I found it so), and could help
> the poet to make vast improvements.  Of course, Niko does not expect
> 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.

> I would point out that if he is for the defense and propagation of
> good poetry, and hopes to make any headway in that direction, he
> *must* want people to listen to him.  Whether it is the poet he is
> trying to dissuade from writing or others whom he hopes to persuade
> to any of his views, his opinions will carry a great deal more
> weight if it is reasonable, supported by evidence, and is not
> 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?

> 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.

[deletia]

> &-------------------------------------------------------------------------&
>|         CHAVALEH                | "You fear humiliation.                |
>|                                 |  Your fear to be wrong.               |
>| abenoit@sumax.seattleu.edu      |  You fear                             |
>|                                 |  that if your knowing                 |
>| (Parenthetical                  |  is brought into your human experience|
>|                                 |  it will dissolve."                   |
>|              conversationalist) |  _Emmanuel's Book_  VII.108           |
> &-------------------------------------------------------------------------&

Philip Nikolayev
nikolay@husc.harvard.edu