From: nikolay@husc10.harvard.edu (Philip Nikolayev)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems
Subject: Re: A letter to a young critic
Date: 23 Nov 92 01:25:08 GMT
 <5825@sumax.seattleu.edu><NIKOLAY.92Nov19210438@husc11.harvard.edu> <5902@sumax.seattleu.edu>
Organization: The Kremlin Wall of Harvard
In-reply-to: abenoit@sumax.seattleu.edu's message of 22 Nov 92 20:32:09 GMT

abenoit@sumax.seattleu.edu (CHAVALEH) writes:

> Again edited to include only the relevant pieces.

PN
>>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.

AE
> 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.

Not in the slightest, Mr Enoit. I simply cited alternative
examples of irrational behaviour as a piece of reasoning by
analogy. Such people as I described would possibly benefit
from my diatribes; this possibility, however, has nothing to
do with my position, and nowhere did I write anything that 
would suggest otherwise. Golly Goodness forbid I should seek
to 'protect' any post-pubescent bashful witless babies.

AE
>>> 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.

PN
>>Thank you, but I set my own priorities.

AE
> 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.

To repeat, I honour *no* species of irrationality; I believe I made
that quite clear in my previous posting. When I say 'good poetry',
I mean pre-existent good poetry, which I see as a basis or yardstick
for further good poetry.

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.

PN
>>To repeat, I can't protect anyone's growth. People should use
>>their own brains.

AE
> 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.

As I said, I am not deliberately trying to 'protect' anyone.
If indeed some darling mindless souls benefit in any way from
my postings, this result is purely accidental.

AE
> 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.

I told you that I find the method you described to be immoral, and 
made a reference to Kant, which you deleted. According to the
principle that I rely on, one must always regard humanity in one's
person and in that of another always as an end, and never simply
as a means. Think about the ethical implications of this maxim.

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.

PN
>>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.

AE
> 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.

To remind you, here is a passage from your previous posting:

*******************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems
Subject: Re: A letter to a young critic
From: abenoit@sumax.seattleu.edu (CHAVALEH)
Date: 18 Nov 92 00:51:36 GMT
Organization: Seattle University

[....]

PN
>The above comments, although ripped out of context, make
>certain points. . . Perhaps you will find that
>their substance is more insulting than the words; but no one
>has so far challenged that.

AE
They most certainly do make points.  I believe you are missing mine:
I do indeed find their substance more insulting. . .however, you *are*
entitled to those opinions, and are resolved not to change them, in that
you believe they serve your purpose: good poetry.  That is perfectly
legitimate.

[....]

**********************************************************************

AE
> 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.

I don't mind arguing when asked for an explanation. Out of
a kind of charity, I have already responded to miles of private 
email messages. But I also believe that it is everyone duty to do
their own reasoning; and I can't possibly do the job for someone
else, nor must I attempt to.

PN
>>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?

AE
> 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.

I don't know what you mean by 'poetic theory debate', but I'll 
say that I make no distinction, for my purposes, between pernicious 
lies articulated in prose and in verse.

[deletia]

PN
>>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. . . .

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

By performing a moral duty. Whether anyone listens matters
only on the pragmatic plane; the act of duty itself matters
in the absolute moral sense. Besides, who knows, perhaps 
someone will listen.

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

Philip Nikolayev
nikolay@husc.harvard.edu