From: nikolay@husc10.harvard.edu (Philip Nikolayev)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems
Subject: Re: HELP NEEDED (Is poetry luxury?)
Date: 13 Nov 92 05:52:13 GMT
 92Nov9220257@husc10.harvard.edu><1992Nov11.225750.125351@zeus.calpoly.edu>
Organization: The Kremlin Wall of Harvard
In-reply-to: wprovinc@zeus.calpoly.edu's message of 11 Nov 92 22:57:50 GMT

wprovinc@zeus.calpoly.edu (William E. Province) writes:

> nikolay@husc10.harvard.edu (Philip Nikolayev) writes:

>>wprovinc@zeus.calpoly.edu (William E. Province) writes:

>>[much stuff deleted...]

WP
>>> Let's see how far I can push this metaphor : I write poetry for
>>> the same reason that I learned how to speak.  I listen to/read
>>> poetry for the same reason that I learned how to understand the
>>> spoken words of others.
>>>   -- bill

PN
>>Arrrrghhh! Aren't you people sick of meaningless, 
>>moth-eaten metaphors?  

WP
> Meaningless?  Unexplained at this point,
> perhaps, but hardly meaninngless.  By what definition of meaning
> does this metaphor lack meaning? 

If you extend it to poetry other than your own, the
metaphor is false. If you confine it to your own writing,
and if your self-awareness is reliable, the metaphor
simply describes you as a trashy poet. In neither instance
does it convey any valuable meaning.

WP
> Moth-eaten?  Well, I personally
> have not heard this metaphor expressed in this way.  Granted, it is
> rather vague, and that gives it the air of being cliche', but that
> does not mean that it is not new (at least not in my experience.)

I, on the contrary, have heard it from many a self-assured, 
compulsive scribbler.

PN
>>Universal human functions have no inherent aesthetic value.

WP
>    Be careful, Philip.  I did not claim that my reasons were
> universal, only that _I_ "write poetry for the same reasons that I
> learned how to speak".  

The same causes produce the same effects. This means that your
poetic exercises are not cardinally distinct from the rest of
your speech, each of your productions being an ordinary 'speech act'.
Your claim, if true, means either that your everyday uses of language
are as good as good poetry, or that you are a compulsive pen-pusher
without any notion of aesthetics. The former possibility is not
confirmed by your postings, therefore the latter must be true.

WP
> Furthermore, I was not trying to be ascetic
> with this metaphor, only insightful.  

You probably mean 'aesthetic' rather than 'ascetic'. 
Any genuine insight has aesthetic value; but it seems 
that your bold assertion only offers an insight into
the paltriness of your own literary effort.

WP
> The question that my point was
> arguing was a question of "Is poetry a luxury?".  If it can be shown
> that there exists a case where poetry is a necessity then the answer
> to the question must be anwered in the negative.  I was (in a very
> loose manner) attempting to provide that existence proof.

It makes very little difference that you made your assertion
in response to a silly question. I am certainly willing to grant
you that your poetic activity is no luxury. What I find mildly
disturbing is your presumption that it deserves the name of poetry.

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

WP
>    I am self-aggrandizing.  I am an arrogrant sonofabitch.  I make
> no claims to the contrary.  

At this point I am not interested in discussing arrogance 
as such. I only object to self-aggrandizing graphomania and
to any pronouncements in favour of it.

> Do I hold a "tender, romantic attitude
> towards [my]self"?  I do not know.  I work very hard at being
> realistic.  However, I do not believe that the self is fully
> available to introspection, so the possibility of maintaining a
> "tender, romantic attitude towards [my]self" does exist.  Still, I
> believe that my notion of self is set to its appropriate place.

For the purpose of this thread, I grant you that your initial
statement about your poetic activity is true. It follows, therefore,
that your poetic productions are dribble. However, the fact that
you refer to them in answering a general question about poetry,
shows that you take those productions to be representative of
poetry in general. Therefore, unless you hate poetry in general, 
you probably like what you write. I will only agree that this does
not result from your amorous cult of your self if you declare,
under the pains and penalties of perjury, that your self is not
the primary source of your poetry, or if you acknowledge that
you are unable to distinguish between good and bad poetry, and 
that your favourable opinion of your own _opera_ is a matter
of innocent delusion.

>    respectfully, 
>                  bill

Philip Nikolayev
nikolay@husc.harvard.edu