Senna Jawa
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- May 13, 2002
- Posts
- 3,272
Cordelia's questions
DISCLAIMER. I did on this forum as much concrete critique as anybody. When sometimes I limit myself to a short comment like "Junk", it means that there are too many problems with the text, that the problems are too standard (cliches, lack of content, superficial and inefficient language, triviality...), that it doesn't make sense to write another repetitious, long critical essay, which was already written a million times. The author should start reading and thinking what poetry is about. However, if I were asked for more comments I would most likely provide them. Of course, when participants just want to attack me and don't care for a follow up, then sure, be my guest, each of you.
** ** **
Cordelia: Is it possible, Senna, that poems you consider poor may be considered good by others?
Not only that this is possible but it's happening all the time, on Literotica too (while experts would not have any doubts, they would agree).
Cordelia: Is it possible to nod to someone else's opinion, then present your own as an alternative?
When a text is below a certain level and it is still considered seriously as a "poem" or even praised then I can either say nothing or I have to disagree without any intellectual respect for an ignorant opinion.
Examples:
For the Love of Luna's Light
4.31
Ghosts
4.11
Love Lies in the Rain
4.67
Romeo Is Bleeding: a hypersonnet
4.42
http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=59926]Severed Time In A Row
4.83
The harm related to such texts is more than just wasted time on writing them, reading them and discussing. They damage your standards, they damage your good taste, make you overly tolerant of junk. For instance, because I know the authors I start telling myself that the last piece above was not as awful as the rest, its starting and ending parts were just poor and meaningless but not worse, they had some melodic/moodic pluses; and Eve's part was at least somewhat concrete, not like the rest--it is still poor poetry).
But all such considerations as above, trying to find something "good" in something hopelessly poor, are nonsensical, it is a waste of time, and it makes you less sharp. It is better to breathe fresh air and let piles of garbage be admired by home cockroaches. One should be constantly surrounded and challenged by the best art or at least by sound art, profound. Here, on Literotica, several participants have committed themselves to accepting (and praising) junk as a big part of their artistic environment. And that's artistically harmful.
If you want newer examples, also the two new poems, selected & praised by Angeline, are weak beyond any discussion:
Show & Tell
Jezabel
To praise them is artistically harmful to all involved parties.
Think of sports or of dance. You need to see around you efficient and beautiful movements virtually all the time. Then you absorb them even subconsciously. But when you are surrounded by ugliness, you absorb it too, it becomes a part of you. That's how people are made, that's what your survival and herd instincts do to you (the herd instinct is a part of the survival instinct). You have to distance yourself, truly distance yourself from ugliness if you don't want to be affected by it yourself.
Cordelia: is it possible that your definition of poetry is merely one of many?
We are not talking here about any advanced or subtle issues. Experts with different practice and views will all agree about the above poems. Be it Ezra Pond or haiku experts or winners of the Noble Prize in literature for poetry or the superb Internet poets--they will all see through, immediately and by instinct, the lack of content, generality, cliches/tritness, ... (But don't confuse superb Internet poets and experts with the visible ones; a correlation can go only so far). Experts may differ about advanced poems but not about the seven poems listed above. Junk is junk.
** ** **
A final remark about the herd instinct. It helps to learn what others are learning (and by the very fact that they do it, the subject becomes subconsciously important to the individuals which are a part of the herd). When you are learning good stuff then that's good, the herd instinct does something positive. But when you're learning trash then herd instinct is harmful.
This has implications for education. It takes very devoted parents to teach a child at home. They have to create an equivalent of the "herd importance". It is much easier to teach a child when it belongs to a "classroom herd". But, of course, you need a right kind of a school, impossible under the present bureaucratic education system.
Best regards,
DISCLAIMER. I did on this forum as much concrete critique as anybody. When sometimes I limit myself to a short comment like "Junk", it means that there are too many problems with the text, that the problems are too standard (cliches, lack of content, superficial and inefficient language, triviality...), that it doesn't make sense to write another repetitious, long critical essay, which was already written a million times. The author should start reading and thinking what poetry is about. However, if I were asked for more comments I would most likely provide them. Of course, when participants just want to attack me and don't care for a follow up, then sure, be my guest, each of you.
** ** **
Cordelia: Is it possible, Senna, that poems you consider poor may be considered good by others?
Not only that this is possible but it's happening all the time, on Literotica too (while experts would not have any doubts, they would agree).
Cordelia: Is it possible to nod to someone else's opinion, then present your own as an alternative?
When a text is below a certain level and it is still considered seriously as a "poem" or even praised then I can either say nothing or I have to disagree without any intellectual respect for an ignorant opinion.
Examples:
For the Love of Luna's Light
4.31
Ghosts
4.11
Love Lies in the Rain
4.67
Romeo Is Bleeding: a hypersonnet
4.42
http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=59926]Severed Time In A Row
4.83
The harm related to such texts is more than just wasted time on writing them, reading them and discussing. They damage your standards, they damage your good taste, make you overly tolerant of junk. For instance, because I know the authors I start telling myself that the last piece above was not as awful as the rest, its starting and ending parts were just poor and meaningless but not worse, they had some melodic/moodic pluses; and Eve's part was at least somewhat concrete, not like the rest--it is still poor poetry).
But all such considerations as above, trying to find something "good" in something hopelessly poor, are nonsensical, it is a waste of time, and it makes you less sharp. It is better to breathe fresh air and let piles of garbage be admired by home cockroaches. One should be constantly surrounded and challenged by the best art or at least by sound art, profound. Here, on Literotica, several participants have committed themselves to accepting (and praising) junk as a big part of their artistic environment. And that's artistically harmful.
If you want newer examples, also the two new poems, selected & praised by Angeline, are weak beyond any discussion:
Show & Tell
Jezabel
To praise them is artistically harmful to all involved parties.
Think of sports or of dance. You need to see around you efficient and beautiful movements virtually all the time. Then you absorb them even subconsciously. But when you are surrounded by ugliness, you absorb it too, it becomes a part of you. That's how people are made, that's what your survival and herd instincts do to you (the herd instinct is a part of the survival instinct). You have to distance yourself, truly distance yourself from ugliness if you don't want to be affected by it yourself.
Cordelia: is it possible that your definition of poetry is merely one of many?
We are not talking here about any advanced or subtle issues. Experts with different practice and views will all agree about the above poems. Be it Ezra Pond or haiku experts or winners of the Noble Prize in literature for poetry or the superb Internet poets--they will all see through, immediately and by instinct, the lack of content, generality, cliches/tritness, ... (But don't confuse superb Internet poets and experts with the visible ones; a correlation can go only so far). Experts may differ about advanced poems but not about the seven poems listed above. Junk is junk.
** ** **
A final remark about the herd instinct. It helps to learn what others are learning (and by the very fact that they do it, the subject becomes subconsciously important to the individuals which are a part of the herd). When you are learning good stuff then that's good, the herd instinct does something positive. But when you're learning trash then herd instinct is harmful.
This has implications for education. It takes very devoted parents to teach a child at home. They have to create an equivalent of the "herd importance". It is much easier to teach a child when it belongs to a "classroom herd". But, of course, you need a right kind of a school, impossible under the present bureaucratic education system.
Best regards,
Last edited:
