From: abenoit@sumax.seattleu.edu (CHAVALEH)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems
Subject: Re: A letter to a young critic
Date: 22 Nov 92 20:32:09 GMT
Organization: Seattle University

Again edited to include only the relevant pieces.


>You are suggesting that I should take into account certain
>kinds of irrational reactions; what I'm trying to tell you is
>that by taking some kinds of irrational reactions into account
>I thereby fail to consider other kinds of irrational reactions,
>because there can be any number of kinds of irrational reactions.
>This is getting really tedious. 
>
>Consider this, if you wish: I have no respect whatsoever for
>irrationality.  I can't honour it out of some mystical expectation 
>that indulging certain kinds of irrational fears may result in a 
>certain amount of good poetry being written, because I rely on the
>Kantian notion that humanity must always be treated as an end and
>never simply as a means. Therefore, it is immoral to adopt the 
>attitude that you propose for the reason that you propose.


Firstly, I believe we have only named two types of "irrational reactions":
those who take offense at the method you employ, and those whom you
believe will take offense if they encounter matters as they stand.

At the present moment, you protect those that would take offense at matters
as they stand. . . in fact, it is the philosophy upon which you base
your entire effort.  You have already admitted that to take offense at the
present state of affairs and run off is an irrational reaction. 
Thus, you *do* honor irrational reactions for the sake of good poetry.

Since you already honor the one type of irrationality, it would hardly
negatively affect you to honor the other in the pursuit of good poetry. 
My position is still quite intact.

>
>> However, you have here admitted that criticism can be useful -- I
>> made several suggestions about how you could go about it, and
>> encourage you to do so.
>
>Thank you, but I set my own priorities.

Indeed you do.  You have made your priority, by your admission, good
poetry.  It is quite true that you may discount the type of irrationality
*I* described while you honor the other, if you wish.  But you would be
discounting it simply on the grounds of convenience, not on the grounds of
irrationality, since those you *do* protect are equally irrational.  Of
course, I will admit that it is your right to rate things simply on the
basis of convenience.  It always is.  But it would hardly mesh well with
the fact that you are championing a moral cause.

>AE
>> We dealt with this above.  In summary -- I advocate a change in your
>> approach, not your idea.  What I am suggesting would simultaneously
>> deal with bad poets (by your definition) and protect the good ones
>> whose growth you advocate.
>
>To repeat, I can't protect anyone's growth. People should use
>their own brains.

I repeat -- you already are.  The entire basis for your approach is to
protect those people who might be offended.  To discard the people I
described is to discard half of the situation with which you are dealing.

Since you are already protecting half of the irrationals, it would hardly
cost you anything but a change in your approach to protect the other. 

What we are now discussing is a matter of degree: you are protecting one
half, and I have described a method of preserving both sides, ridding the
net of bad poets and encouraging potentially good ones.  Your goal would
be more perfectly met if you dealt with the entire spectrum.

>AE
>> As to the "pernicious lies," (assuming you mean bad poetry) I do
>> indeed have objections.  Well-mannered, reasoned, intelligent
>> responses will work just as well, if done properly, to eradicate
>> those lies.  Cruelty and insults are not necessary.
>
>I have pointed out to you before that the points I have made
>were more insulting that the words. You seemed to agree with that.

I certainly hope I did not.  If I did it was a grave error.  My position
does not hold if I did, since I am only questioning methods.  The ideas
you were trying to get across were that bad poets should leave. . . and I
refuse to disagree with you over it because it is your right to hold that
position.

I only question the manner in which you go about it.  If you feel it your
duty to tell a poet s/he is lousy, it is much more effective, in my
opinion, to do so in a reasoned, less offensive way.  If you offer your
reasoning, it is more likely the poet and others will listen to you, and
potential poets will have less reason to fear you.

>No, by 'pernicious lies' I don't just mean bad poetry. No one
>seems to have noticed a system in my madness, the fact that the
>statements against which I blazed up where of a certain special
>kind, which amounts to an *ideology* of the graphomaniacal subculture.
>All of them were general pronouncements *about* poetry. If someone
>in this group wrote something to the effect that 'all blacks
>are thieves and assholes', or that 'all women are vicious bitches', 
>the writer would  probably  bring upon himself an enormous
>torrent of righteous abuse from others. Do you see the analogy?
>The difference, however, is that the graphomaniacal subculture
>does not give a pinch of snuff for poetry as such, only for
>everyone's own beloved self in what they perceive as poetry.
>Do you recall how perfectly the statements which I flamed
>illustrate this point?

Ah, you have indeed made a distinction.
I am not referring to your various flame wars about poetic theory. 
Poetic theory debate is quite common here, and you are as welcome as
anyone else to state your views.  In some occasions the debate becomes
quite heated, and you are hardly the first one to flare up in righteous
indignation.  Of course, trading insulting ad hominem attacks is hardly
going to dispose anyone from listening to your criticisms, however well-
intentioned they may be -- whether a poet you are trying to dissuade, or
otherwise.

>Thank you not at all for your good-natured condescendence in handling
>a perceived madman, Mr. Enoit.

Oh, come now, Philip.  I hardly think you are a madman.  You seem
reasonable enough.  You have indeed proven that when courteously and
rationally approached you are quite prepared to reason publicly.

>I am only slightly disturbed by the mellow morass of received conventional
>wisdom on this group, and by the fact that perhaps not one of the whole
>lot here gives a positive flying firk about my opinions. Nevertheless,
>believe it or not, I think I have been constructive enough. . . .

I find this quite astonishing.  If no one listens to you, Philip, how will
you ever accomplish anything?  

I will await your reply.


-- 
            CHAVALEH               |  "Feel the gentleness of wind, 
    abenoit@sumax.seattleu.edu     |  not doubting its strength."
 (Parenthetical                    |  
                Conversationalist) |  -Ancient Inuit Saying     
Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems