From: abenoit@sumax.seattleu.edu (CHAVALEH)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems
Subject: Re: A letter to a young critic
Date: 15 Nov 92 23:55:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: sumax.5775
Organization: Seattle University


I have been watching the exchange between Philip and Doug for some time,
working to get a grasp of both sides.  I am now ethically forced to offer
the following.

Doug has taken a rather unique approach in trying to explain to Niko that
any effort to establish himelf by means of his inflated self-importance is
really rather irrelevant in that we are all nothing anyway.  This is
countered rather neatly by Niko's statement that he doesn't care what
other people think, never did, and therefore has no reason to impress
anyone.  He claims that his comments stem from something quite different: 
>. . .But you are right, I have no use for the respect 
>of the herd.  As far as my vituperations are concerned, they 
>result from my love of good poetry.

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 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.

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.

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.

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, 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.

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?

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. . . .

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.

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?  Surely you
are aware of the encouragement you would be offering to those producers-of-
superior poetry.  (Not to mention it would convince a number of us that
you are not merely pillaging poetry as an ego trip. . .but then, you don't
care about us, now do you?)

Niko has said:

>Let me just tell you that all I seek here is to contribute
>to the good life.


Let's see some follow-through.
C&C welcome and, indeed, invited; by post or by email.


&-------------------------------------------------------------------------&
|         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           |
&-------------------------------------------------------------------------&