From: nikolay@husc10.harvard.edu (Philip Nikolayev)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems
Subject: Re: constructive criticism for Doug and Dinosauria
Date: 16 Nov 92 01:48:22 GMT
Organization: The Kremlin Wall of Harvard
In-reply-to: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM's message of Sun, 15 Nov 1992 04:06:30 GMT

Doug is again repeating himself; this time I'll answer his 
blatherings selectively.

daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom) writes:

> In rec.arts.poems, petersm@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Marguerite Petersen)
> writes:

[deletia]

MP
>> My impression of what they were trying to say is that criticism is
>> important, even necessary, especially if the poet is interested at
>> all in improving.  However, they were both making a distinction,
>> IMHO, between criticsm that is helpful and that which is just plain
>> mean.

DQ
> I certainly think that if improving beginning poets is the goal, Niko's
> critiques are worthless.  Of course that is not the goal.  These things
> are his form of self-aggrandizement.  He claims a love of poetry and
> demonstrates it by the bold and courages tactic of shredding poets
> who are not all that skilled.  We all hold our breaths in admiration
> at his skill.

Here for the first time you come up with something that vaguely
resembles reasoning from 'if' to 'then'. Now observe that your 
initial premise is false. 'Improving beginning poets' is no
purpose of mine, because it is every poet's own responsibility
to improve. Moreover, I suspect that most participants in this
group, most probably including you, cannot be improved. As to
my actual purpose, I have stated it to you quite clearly.

MP
>> Again, I don't think anyone was bewailing being criticised, just the tone
>> used in the criticism. Some criticsm can be *very* helpful, some very
>> hurtful.  I don't think anyone learned anything about improving by being
>> told what they write is crap.  More than likely, they will either just
>> give up or take the attitude of *screw you*, neither of which is very
>> constructive.  

DQ
> This is certainly true, 

I'll repeat that by maintaining that this is true, you deny
the rational powers of those in question, yourself included. 
(I'm tempted to ask, then, why you bother to discuss anything 
at all. Bored again, Doug?)

DQ
>but Niko is offended by the audacity of
> people who are not lit-feebs writing poetry.  The audacity is
> compounded by the fact that the poetry is not perfect and does not
> have the intent and end in mind that he assigns to poetry.

Yes, this is quite true. Will you bother to articulate what
exactly is wrong with the 'intent and end'?

DQ
> This debate has already happened so many times in this group it is
> pathetic.  Niko probably even thinks that he is the first clever
> fellow to come in and show how large his penis is by sticking it in
> his nose in public.  It's been done before, and it never matters.
> It drives some people out.  Eventually the person realizes that
> there is not much intellectual challenge to beating up on vulnerable
> beginning writers, and goes away.  

Don't you see how silly this is, Doug? Tell me something: what,
in your view, is the difference between a beginning writer
and a bad one? Which kind are you?

Regarding you assertion that things don't change. Ponder for
a moment the nature of evil. You may have observed that evil
is pervasive in the human world, in spite of all the naive 
darlings who have tried to oppose it. The analogy is complete.
Do you propose that it is stupid to oppose evil, my placid,
indifferent Ecclesiasticule? Even though evil is eternal, perhaps
opposing it may have *some* good effect? Mybe things *do* change,
after all?

DQ
> Things return to the way they
> were until the next buffoon who thinks he is the cleverest thing to
> walk up and down in the earth (I am alluding to the book of Job
> there Niko) comes in and starts browbeating people who have done
> nothing whatsoever to him other than offend his literary sense.

Not just my literary sense, but also my moral sense. Please
note that I am not saying that what I propose to do can be
done, only that it must be done.

DQ
> It is all so endless.

So what?

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.

DQ
> And criticism offers up the chance to fence with the good ole boy.

You haven't been fencing, just farting from afar.

> doug

Philip Nikolayev
nikolay@husc.harvard.edu