Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems

In rec.arts.poems, nikolay@husc10.harvard.edu (Philip Nikolayev) writes:

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

I repeat myself, because you seem to be completely unwilling
to grasp what I have said to you.

> 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.

Very well, my premise was false, and you will note that I stated
the premise was false.

I know that it is your intent to drive bad poets out of the group.
You do this to 'contribute to the good life.'

Phillip, I am going to make an attempt to dispense with the
play despite the fact that I am still very angry with you.
But perhaps, as you suggest, a more reasoned discussion will be
useful.

Your statement about the good life and subsequent arguments
suggest to me that you attach a high moral value to literature.
I would be interested in an elaboration on this, and 
a suggestion as to how this moral goal excuses extreme verbal
hostility towards others.  Please note that if I have misrepresented
you in any way here, I am willing to be corrected.  That is polite
as I can be.


> 
> 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?)

I deny that my assertion that the above is true means what you claim
it does.  All it means is that I recognize that people can improve
and that they sometimes will do so by denying the naysaying of people
who try to belittle them.  Also, in granting the above paragraph
as true I imply that I believe that standards of art are so relative
in the twentieth century that one would be a fool to listen to one
opinion regardless how forcefully stated.
 
> 
> 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'?

I simply do not agree with what I THINK you believe, that being
that art has the power to morally improve the world.  Am I
wrong in assuming that is your end.  I have stated it quite simply,
so I doubt I am representing the subtlety of your argument.  Please
inform me.

> 
> 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?

Which kind am I?  I have told you many time already.  The basic answer
is that I do not KNOW.  I do not think I am especially good right now,
but I still hold out the hope of improving.  Is this irrational?

Are you suggesting here that the first efforts of any writer are
a perfect reflection of their potential?  You may be right.  

> 
> 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. 

Yes, I recognize this.  And I do NOT mean it as an attack when
I suggest that many of these naive darlings probably shared
your attitudes about the moral value of art.  I do not believe
that literature and poetry can effectively eliminate evil.

>The analogy is complete.
> Do you propose that it is stupid to oppose evil, my placid,
> indifferent Ecclesiasticule? 

Absolutely not.  Evil must be opposed, and I do recognize that
you can try to fight evil through literature.  I think the
effort is somewhat futile, but perhaps you are right that it
is a responsibility to try.  Actually, I begin to see 
some deeper meanings in your words.  This message has been
delivered to the group before, but it occurs to me for the 
first time that perhaps you are suggesting that the
scribblings of bad writers are an evil, because they
dilute the power that literature has to combat evil.
Am I close?  That seems a very interesting idea, but
it is tenuous enough that I am not really sure I accept
the very real (evil) damage that you do to the spirits
of bad writers by trying to make them stop.  Do you have the
time to elaborate?

>Even though evil is eternal, perhaps
> opposing it may have *some* good effect? Mybe things *do* change,
> after all?

This is an interesting proposition, but I do not grant it out of
hand.  I would need to see evidence that this is the case.

Phillip, I think that I HONESTLY devine a bit of your meaning here.
Could you let me know if I am wrong about this?

> 
> 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.

Before this post, I did not understand your use of the word moral.
Perhaps I understand a little better now.  I am not sure that I
agree, but perhaps I begin to understand.

> 
> DQ
> > It is all so endless.
> 
> So what?

I merely recall that Joe made many of these same points, although
I think he was much more subtle about some of them.  And although
he started me down the path to thinking about purposes for poetry
other than self-aggrandizing graphomania, I think that he did not
accomplish much other than that.  But he did infect my mind.

> 
> 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.

I disagree.  I certainly have been as confrontational as you, but
I have been posting ideas.  I have merely been doing so in 
a confrontational style.  I have made an effort to step aside
from that to offer an opportunity for rational discussion.
Are you interested?  I am.
 
doug
Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems