Originally posted by Asher
A. Also, anyone can be a literary critic. You don't need to take some exam to qualify as one.
B. Anyone can also write poetry, which is why most of it is utter crap.
C. How do you define good and bad in an area such as poetry where there are no rules? Where there is no right and wrong? Where there is no good and bad...
D. downright insulting, obnoxious, and childish.
A. Also, anyone can be a literary critic. You don't need to take some exam to qualify as one.
B. Anyone can also write poetry, which is why most of it is utter crap.
C. How do you define good and bad in an area such as poetry where there are no rules? Where there is no right and wrong? Where there is no good and bad...
D. downright insulting, obnoxious, and childish.
In your case even a passing familiarity with the works in question might help- perhaps you could consider that a 'qualification' or an 'exam'.
B.
Anyone 'could' write poetry. Anyone 'could' paint. Anyone 'could' sculpt. Not everybody does, and this is not a valid reason for dismissing 'most' poetry- because you don't have even the slightest acquaintance with 'most' poetry.
C.
Oh dear, imagine not having a set of rules to define what's good or bad. How awful for you. Still, doesn't seme to stop you dismissing 'most' poetry as 'bad', does it? If anyone's arrogant it's you, silly little boy.
Ther are 'rules' in literature by the way, and in criticism. That you don't know them is no great shock.
D.
Now your powers of precis and self-examination have truly kicked in. Perhaps instead of doing the literary or cultural equivalent of a baby's dummy spit, or an infant's tantrum on the carpet, you could spend usefully spend some time acquainting yourself with some of that poetry you display such a profound ignorance of.
Comment