Well, we clearly disagree. I had been polite throughout, took the time
to explain things at length and with much respect and sincerity, and I
don't think such a curt reply of judgmental nature you made is a good
example of "the concept of communicating with other people". This is
sheer rudeness on your part, I think.

Anyhow. This isn't the first curt reply I get on this Pennine mailing
list. It's the third so far, and this is enough. I don't think I'd
said anything disrespectful to anyone, and wherever someone
misunderstood my intention I apologised without hesitation and
explained without argument. But I have received at least three
disrespectful replies from here, from "free ride", to "balloons", to
this, from such a small mailing list. This is quite unusual, in my
experience. Quite unusual. I don't need this, at all. I'm leaving this
list after replying to the mail I got so far.

Regards.


On 10/11/06, Tammara Or Slilat <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I don't think you understand the concept of communicating with other
> people.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Pennine Poetry Works [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of biloxi andersen
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 6:16 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Please excuse me from "critique" duties
>
> To be honest, I don't believe in "critique", at all, and I'd rather
> not do any, as I explained to Andrew in an email between us. I think
> it's pointless. I never seek it. I felt pressured into making a
> critique last night as someone on this list said I'm expected to
> "contribute" and shouldn't expect a "free ride"; meaning, explicitly
> as he put it, that I should "critique" the work of others. That was in
> reply to a post I had made about some little pieces I added to the
> book, more like a news post, and I wasn't expecting a critique for
> them. This misunderstanding might've been my fault though, as I'd put
> a sentence on the site where the book is hosted implying a request for
> critique in imitation of someone's else. That's it; monkey see
> monkey do as I'd never shared my stuff before. I removed it today. I
> don't think I would've altered any of my pieces based on what someone
> else would've told me, in fact, I'm almost a 100% sure of this.
>
> See, for a long period of time this had been my attitude about verse
>
> Don't you please them
> Nor appease them
> Your words are yours alone
> For no one else to hear
> If anyone else would hear them
> If anyone else it would be
> Corruption of the mind
> The corruption of the mind
> The corruption of the mind
> The corruption of the mind
>
> And still is. There's nothing that I regard more pointless than
> thinking "I wonder what someone else would think of this piece? Would
> a reader like it? I wonder what an editor would think of it? would it
> be accepted? is it good enough?" et cetera. I think that's evil. I
> never sought to let an editor be a judge of something that I wrote and
> never, never will. I don't write for others and I would advise others
> to only write for themselves. I don't think anyone is in a position to
> "critique" my stuff, just like I'm not in a position to critique
> theirs. I think, as far as verse is concerned, that we learn best, if
> not only, through practice, inventing our tools as we need them, and
> if we're to learn from others or have anything to teach to others, I
> think it's best through example; reading their stuff, or offering our
> stuff to them to read. Even then, we forget what we're taught. In
> fact, so much so, that I don't really try to learn from others. I
> think it's best to be original.
>
>
> That piece we recorded for Andrew after his was done in mere minutes,
> perhaps a handful; from reading his piece, getting the gist of it, to
> us recording ours. We did it in one go, recited once or twice at most,
> not written or edited, without looking at his piece again after we
> first read it to get the idea of what it's about, and then recorded.
> Used the fingers of one hand to count the words and told it as they
> came out keeping to the finger count. See, critique is much about
> editing; we don't really edit, in fact, we don't even write. We just
> recite stuff. The best critique I could give to someone regarding a
> piece of his to tell him to throw it in the bin, because, that's what
> we'd do, so much so that we don't even bother writing, let alone edit.
>
> That's really the only "critique" I could give to someone. Just throw
> it in the bin. That's what we do. Whether it's good or bad, just
> through it in the bin. We only write something down to document it,
> when we'd moved on from it and it might be forgotten, but never when
> we're not sure about it. We make perhaps 6-7 pieces a day, so after a
> little while, months, we could have hundreds, too much of life to
> remember. We don't care for remembering the pieces themselves, we tell
> them anew each time, it's just that we forget the situations
> themselves that brought them up, and that's why we write them down.
>
> Of course, there are issues of craft, which I can articulate well, for
> example, how to begin a piece, how to end it, but, again, I think it's
> best if people find them out for themselves, or invent theirs
> according to their needs.
>


-- 
Her Lust is Wiser is a book of verse by Biloxi Andersen and Ziad
Noureddine. It is part of ongoing diaries.
http://inkatthedevil.blogspot.com/