Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems
Subject: Re: constructive criticism for Doug and Donosauria
From: nikolay@husc8.harvard.edu (Philip Nikolayev)
Date: 15 Nov 92 14:38:14
Organization: The Kremlin Wall of Harvard
In-reply-to: petersm@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU's message of 15 Nov 92 12:48:03 GMT

>>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:

PN
>>>>Time for some truly constructive criticism, addressed 
>>>>especially to Class Dinosauria and Doug Quarnstrom, who 
>>>>have expressed identical sentiments concerning the
>>>>perennial conflict between poet and critic. I simply
>>>>ask the author of the cited poem to consider my humbly
>>>>offered emendations; and I urge Doug to learn this text
>>>>by heart, so that it may facilitate his untiring quest
>>>>for a true identity.

[deletia]

MP
>>> I don't think the above mentioned individuals were
>>> expressing "identical sentiments concerning the perennial conflict
>>> between poet and critic" as you put it, at all.  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.

PN
>>More importantly, both of them insist on the pervasive
>>fecality of the creative self (in this day and age, or 
>>at least in this group); however, this firm conviction 
>>does not discourage them from their creative pursuits. 
>>I won't insist that what they are saying is necessarily 
>>identical, but the nuances of difference are quite minute.

>>[deletia]
>>

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.

PN
>>Well, Kathleen, I am not yet prepared to go as far as you do
>>in denying their capacity for rational cerebration. 

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:

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?

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.

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?

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

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*.

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?

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.

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. 

>>[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.

> In Light, Kathleen O'Toole

Philip Nikolayev
nikolay@husc.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems