From: nikolay@husc8.harvard.edu (Philip Nikolayev)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems
Subject: Re: A letter to a young critic
Date: 16 Nov 92 02:19:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc8.NIKOLAY.92Nov15181903
Organization: The Kremlin Wall of Harvard
In-reply-to: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM's message of Sat, 14 Nov 1992 21:38:50 GMT

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

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

PN
>> Warning: I don't edit postings to which I respond. The following
>> exchange is rather long, through no fault of mine.
>> 
>> yydaq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom) writes:
>> 
>> DQ
>> > An exchange involving Mr. N.
>> 
>> >>FT 
> I'd suggest Philip to not suggest.  Please let this guy
>> write >>what he thinks.
>> 
>> PN
>> >>OK, I hereby permit this guy to write whatever trash he thinks.
>> 
>> DQ
>> > Ah, as if one non-entity need acquire the permission of another to
>> > shit on the ground.

PN
>> Before you prove me to be an non-entity, your rather pathetic
>> irony has no weight whatsoever.

> I have not proven you anything at all sir.

Quite true.

PN
>> Despite that, you may shit on the ground without my express
>> permission.

DQ
> Thank you.  I do so appreciate it.

>> 
>> >>FT 
>> > Poetry like every other form of art does not deserve to be
>> >>suggested by others.
>> 
>> PN >>OK, I also permit you to believe in whatever nonsense you you
>> >>choose.
>> 
>> DQ
>> > Please sir, grant it me so's I can sleep at night.

PN
>> Sleep all you like, but please don't presume to bother me
>> with your nonsense.

DQ
> You choose to be bothered, much in the same way I choose to be
> bothered by YOUR nonsense.

But I argue, and you make allegations. Whenever I write nonsense,
it is merely due to an intellectual failure. Your nonsense
seems to be caused by ants in your pants.

>> DQ 
> Of course, somehow our clever critic seems to have missed that
>> fact > that the misuse of a word through ignorance of its
>> definition is not > typically defined as a Fruedian slip.  Look it
>> up Phil, a Fruedian > slip is something else.  I would not point
>> this out were it not for > the rigorous and sloppy hypocrisy of
>> your comment.

PN
>> I said 'Freudian', not 'Fruedian'. Look it up, along with 'metaphor', 
>> 'irony', and 'hypocrisy'.

DQ
> Indeed.  You are still wrong.  You misused the word, and your petty
> arrogance will never allow you to admit it.  That is quite ok.  We
> have seen it all before.

You seem prone to be misled by false analogies.
 
>> PN 
>>Why is all poetry _about_ the uniqueness of anything - about
>> every >>moment being unlike any other; about any new home being
>> something >>different; about beauties inimitable, et cetera -
>> always such >>unpardonable trash?

>> DQ
>> > A reasonable question punctuated with typical self-righteousness.

PN
>> I admire your relentless fight for the rights of trashy pen-pushers.

DQ
> Do you?  Good.  That warms me in places you can never guess.  I did
> so wish to win your admiration.
> But my fight is not relentless.  Stupidity and tediousness will
> eventually make me stop, and you are doing an admirable job so far.

Please abstain from groundless allegations, or you will
prove that Kathleen O'Toole is correct in denying your
ability to think rationally.

DQ
> Yes, and we also are rather tired of meaningless, moth-eaten >
>> criticisms.  You have established exactly zero credibility in this
>> > group, and yet you come in with Joe Green's hostility, but
>> without > the humor and flair that made him fun, interesting, and
>> instructive > (at least to me.)

PN 
>> I do not seek to establish any special credibility in this group,
>> and care even less what you think about my credibility, or why
>> you choose to speak on behalf of the entire group.

DQ
> I could have scripted this paragraph for you.  It is so typical of
> the style.

PN
>> >> Universal human functions have
>> >>no inherent aesthetic value.

DQ 
> Oh really?  Perhaps you would deign to stop ragging on
>> neophyte > poets long enough to explain why.  Of course, I doubt
>> that you will > or can.

PN
>> Because they are universal, nitwit. If you think otherwise,
>> it is your business to prove that eating, sleep, sex, shitting
>> or speech have inherent aesthetic value.

DQ
> I think that they do to you.  I am quite sure that you admire them
> secretly in your own secretions in some dark closet or other.  I
> would bet money on it.

I accept. I bet you $ 100. Now proceed to prove that
you are right, or let me know that you give up, and
I'll let you know where you can send the dough.
 
PN 
>> Self-aggrandizing graphomania undoubtedly results from a
>> tender, >>romantic attitude towards oneself.

DQ
>> > Yes, I suppose it does.  So what?

PN
>> Draw your own conclusions.

DQ
> Your every command is my only wish.  

Go fuck yourself.

DQ
> My conclusion is that you are
> guilty of self-aggrandizing graphomania yourself.  You just don't
> like to admit it.

I am not interested in coclusions without proof.

DQ 
> You seem to think that all these people are guilty of some
>> sort of > crime and that you are the sanctioned judge.

PN
>> Yes. What do you propose to do about it?

> Nothing of course.  I will trade words with you for awhile and then
> grow weary.  These sorts of exchanges never accomplish anything.
> But they can be amusing.

I have already grown weary. These sorts of exchanges accomplish
as much or as little as you want them to. But I know better
amusements.

DQ 
> The problem is that > you have given no one any reason
>> whatsoever to care about your > opinion.  Joe was well-hated in
>> this group, but at least he gave a > FEW of us a reason to care
>> what his opinion was.  Part of this > process involved posting his
>> poetry.  HINT HINT.

PN
>> I post whatever I please, and do not intend to make anyone care
>> about my opinions.

DQ
> I see.  Of course there is most likely not a single person here who
> believes this.  Still, you do not care what we believe.

I care about some people's considered opinions. But ad hominem 
allegations have no relevance to truth. If truth doesn't matter
to you, why are you wasting my time?

PN
>> But if you don't care about them, why have you posted your
>> mile-long dribble?

DQ
> I was bored.

This is no excuse for posting thoughtless pap.
 
DQ 
> Also, you seem to have this idea that your opinion means
>> something.  > Phil, saying that you are equal to zero would be
>> granting you an > identity that you do not deserve.  You, me, and
>> everyone here are > less than nothing.  We are the pieces of filth
>> churned out by the > mechanism of thousands of years of
>> civilization.  We are robbed of > even the dignity of being one in
>> five billion.  We are less than > that.  You can claw your way to
>> the top of RAP by insulting everyone > here, PERHAPS, and you will
>> still be far below the level you would > have to achieve to even be
>> considered NOTHING.

PN
>> Your say-so on this score is hardly good enough; I am not,
>> however, interested in discussing this matter with you.

DQ
> I am not, however, interested in discussing this matter with you.
> I love that phrase.  Do it again.  It sounds so pompous, but I like
> it.

At least I'm glad you tacitly admit you say-so isn't worth much.

PN
>> Let me just tell you that all I seek here is to contribute to the
>> good life.

DQ
> Learn to do it well then.

Probably not from you, Doug.

DQ
> And you have yet to do anything whatsoever to convince even an
>> > objective observer that you are even as good as the worst poet
>> here.  > Insulting is easy, and your art pales compared to those
>> who are > really good at it.

PN
>> One lives and learns. But try harder, maybe you'll annoy me enough.

DQ
> Actually, I agree one hundred percent.

DQ 
> Your chest thumping would lead one to suspect that you know
>> the > secret for rising above the less-than-nothingness that we are
>> all > caught within.  Perhaps you would be so kind as to write it
>> down on > a piece of toilet paper.  That way, I can read it and
>> then wipe my > ass, thus assuring that I get at least one good use
>> from your > efforts.

PN
>> Leave your ass unwiped, and look for a solution inside your
>> scatological self.

DQ
> Thanks for the advice.  I happen to like my ass clean, and knowing
> that it was impossible for you to reveal what you do not know, I did
> not wait around for your knowledge.

But you can take another cue from me. Unlike me, you often
don't know what you are talking about. Avoid that.

As to looking for a solution inside your scatological self, it
may actually be a helpful idea. Consider it.

DQ 
> What I suggest that you do is make an effort to get a grasp on
>> the > REALITY of your own relative importance, and then perhaps
>> come in > and change people's work by superior example.  And if you
>> insist in > insulting to no apparently productive purpose, at least
>> be amusing > when you do it rather than so tediously pious.  Your
>> piety has been, > thus far, entirely mundane.

PN
>> Unlike you, I don't give a fuck about my own relative importance.

DQ
> Actually, I do not really give much of a fuck about my relative
> importance either.

Then why did you bring up the issue of comparative personal 
importance in the first place?

PN
>> But if you want to amuse yourself in the face of perceived piety,
>> buy yourself a gerbil. That way, you'll have no need for toilet
>> paper.

DQ
> I have found that gerbils are not durable enough.  I need something
> tougher.

That's ok, I'm sure you know your needs best.

DQ
> I still suspect from what I have seen that you are quite
>> intelligent > and discerning.  But the mistake you make is in
>> assuming that you > can demonstrate this by excoriating people who
>> are marginally > talented (or not talented at all) at poetry.  Many
>> of the posters > here probably are engaged in a rather sad little
>> fantasy, an attempt > to add meaning to existence by interacting
>> with others through > poetry (often bad poetry), but exactly what
>> purpose of yours is > served by simply savaging their efforts?  It
>> is quite safe to say > that many of us will never amount to much of
>> anything as poets or > writers or artists or whatever, but the same
>> is very likely true of > you for all we know.

PN
>> Stick your royal 'we' up your unwiped ass, Doug, along with all 
>> the revealed knowledge you blissfully presume to have about me.

DQ
> There isn't room what with all the dead gerbils and all.

You know the solution, Doug. Compress them with something tougher.

DQ
> Ok, I am sorry that I implied you were discerning and intelligent.
> It merely seemed so from your posting.  But I really meant to say
> that you are a drooling, moronic megalomaniac.  Does this make you
> happier?

No, when I suggested that you stick your revealed knowledge
up your ass, I meant *all* of it.

DQ 
> I am not even suggesting you stop criticizing.  If some
>> purpose of > yours IS served by this public flogging, you are
>> welcome to it, but > as I told Joe, you are unlikely to teach
>> people about good peotry by > flogging them although you are more
>> than welcome to try, but it is > likely futile to hope that you
>> will gain respect for your opinions > through this method.  Of
>> course one as great as yourself certainly > has no interest in the
>> respect of the herd.

PN
>> If I had any claim to greatness, I would not be reading this
>> newsgroup. 

DQ
> EXACTLY!

My purpose is much humbler than greatness. It is known as
full humanity. Consider that, Doug.

PN
>>But you are right, I have no use for the respect of the herd.

DQ
> Now how did I know this?

Who cares?

PN
>>As far as my vituperations are concerned, they result from my love
>>of good poetry.

DQ
> I even knew this.  And as I said, there are plenty of people here
> who write bad poetry.  SO WHAT?

It is the moral duty of any rational reader of this group who
cares enough about poetry, to chastise this thriving graphomaniacal 
subculture, and thereby contribute to the good life. (Should you be 
tempted rashly to reduce this proposition _ad absurdum_, try to 
figure out the difference between perfect and imperfect duties 
before you do so.)
 
DQ 
> An eagle flying about > his home on the edge of the abyss does
>> not hear the cries of the > herd, right?  So one is forced to
>> wonder why you choose to flap your > wings about our heads to make
>> us bleat rather than exploring the > heights and depths where your
>> interaction would suggest that you > belong.  (Yes I am alluding to
>> Nietzsche.  I only point this out to > avoid being accused of
>> stealing the rhetoric.)

PN
>> Good for you, Doug. Please make sure you always mention your
>> sources. 

DQ
> You are such a tiresome fellow.

It's just a matter of perspective.

PN
>>To answer your point, let me say that I have varying
>> degrees of respect for a few who post here. It is presumptuous
>> of you to claim that no one in this group is above the fecal
>> matter that you vigorously profess to be.

DQ
> I claim this for most everyone.  There isn't anyone here writing
> poetry that is likely to go down in history as great.  Of course, I
> may be wrong about that.  Speaking relatively to great artists, we
> are all nothing.  

I am less concerned with greatness than with the distinction
between good and bad poetry.

DQ
> You seem to think that in claiming this I am
> denigrating my own aims and efforts.  I am not.  Think of me as a
> special olympian if you must.  I am dim, and a little slow, and
> never as good as someone who is not.  But there is a certain
> existential heroism in my effort.  The fact that I am nothing does
> NOT mean I cannot strive to be something even if the effort fails.

Where have I said anything contrary to this? But the fact that you
have a right to 'strive to be something' does not make you
immune to the criticisms of those who find your existential
heroism to be misapplied. It is only in that context that you
have your right, if you exercise it at all. (Don't forget that
this, too, needs to be demonstrated.)
 
DQ
>> > I myself will quite possibly grow to like you if you really are a
>> > man of ideas.  I can see through the hostility, but, being a bit of
>> > a fool, I will slap you around regardless of how much better you are
>> > than I at prose or poetry, because I do not bow, and one can grow
>> > and improve by slapping one's betters.  Assuming you are my better,
>> > I will grow from the experience of opposing you.

PN
>> I really care very little about all that.

DQ
> I knew you would care little.  Actually I am rather surprised you
> did not attack me for saying it.  But I do mean it.  Already I enjoy
> the sparring.

I haven't seen any sparring yet. So far, you have simply wasted
my time by making allegations, affecting ironies, and avoiding
reasoned argument. If you you wish to engage in any sort of
dialogue with me, quit babbling and start talking. If you care to
have an opinion, learn to present an argument. I give you one
last chance. If nothing changes, I shall simply ignore you.

DQ
> I just wish I had something with which to wipe my hands.  Perhaps
> you could lend me one of your gerbils.

You are the victim of the imitative nature of your meagre imagination.

> doug

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