From: petersm@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Marguerite Petersen)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems
Subject: Re: constructive criticism for Doug and Donosauria
Date: 16 Nov 92 09:17:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: leela.1992Nov16.091717.21431
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University

In article <NIKOLAY.92Nov15143814@husc8.harvard.edu> nikolay@husc8.harvard.edu (Philip Nikolayev) writes:
>>>In article <NIKOLAY.92Nov14225820@husc10.harvard.edu> 
>nikolay@husc10.harvard.edu (Philip Nikolayev) writes:
>
>>>>petersm@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Marguerite Petersen) writes:
>
>>>>> In article <NIKOLAY.92Nov14172922@husc10.harvard.edu> 
>>>nikolay@husc10.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.)
>
>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:

I see.  If people don't react the way you think they should then 
they are acting 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 issue.
>
>MP
>> And this is where I disagree with you.  
>
>If you disagree, can you please challenge my specific reasoning,
>rather than simply gainsay my statements?

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

>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.
>
>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.

No, the paragraph isn't too difficult for poor little ole me.
I got your drift just fine.

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

Experience

>MP
>> and two; who is to decide what is *good*
>> poetry.
>
>Reason.

Your reason.

>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.  
>
>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*.

We're all worthless, some more than others.

>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?
>
>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?

Well, that's your loss then.  

>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.

Well, suit yourself.

>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.
>
>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. 

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

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

Again, in your opinion and I acknowledge your right to it.  I do
think, however, that with your caustic attitude you will have little
opportunity to effect any changes.

Kathleen O'Toole




-- 
*************************************************************************
"Insufficient facts always invites danger, Captain."- Spock in Space Seed
	Marg Petersen	petersm@jacobs.cs.orst.edu
*************************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems