I very much appreciate the generous attitude here, but it makes me feel
I need to be more clear. I do not think I have been unwilling to get
along with anyone. I am very tired of and, frankly, very offended by
personal remarks made about me regularly by members of this list who
respond to commentary on poetry by attacks on the person who comments.
I do not think that allows for getting along. I also do not identify
artists any more than critics with lyric outbursts and effusive
enthusiasms. Unless one means Shelley, artists may be objective or
critical or restrained or even constrained, as can anyone else.
Consider T. S. Eliot, for example, who was hardly described by his
friends as effusive or prone to outbursts. I like Virginia Woolf's
promise to a friend that if she came to tea, Tom would be there in a
And it should occur that academics (who are often artists also) do not
appreciate being sneered at (which is accurate on this list) for being
reasonable. Reason and art are not at odds: some art is very
rational; some is non- or irrational. One can reasonably discuss the
irrational. Consider just defining surrealism or dada.
As for wikipedia, it is not the purpose of an encylopedia to be liked or
not liked but to provide accurate information. I am genuinely confused:
are you saying you like false statements? What has liking to do with
whether or not it is true? I really do not understand what your point
is on that. Using a "source" that is false is simply transmitting
falsehood; it is not even a "source," which in this context means "A
book, document, or other record supplying primary or firsthand
information." Wikipedia does not do that; it supplies views that may or
may not be information and are neither primary nor firsthand. So I
think no one should rely on anything in it because it does not even
pretend to provide accuracy and its creator does not even pretend it is
reliable. Obviously some of it is accurate, but there is no way to
judge that unless you already know how to find accurate information, in
which case, it is pointless.
I do not agree that there is any tendency at all for artists and
academics to be at odds. Whatever is the coded idea about academics in
this? All it means is that someone spends a lifetime searching for
understanding and knowledge. Art is one of the many things academics
seek to understand. Why should they be at odds with what they love and
I assume we could easily get along if the discussion stayed on poetry
and criticism rather than sniping and the creation of what I assume can
only be called cliques who share a desire to mock others, in this case
anyone who thinks differently.
Dear Nancy: I hope you will not withdraw your erudition and insight from
the TSE list. Some of us like Wikipedia and some of us do not. A
consensus on the issue is not necessary; those who choose to use it as a
source should do so, as those who find it's information unreliable
should, if they see fit, avoid it.
Artists and academics have a naturally tendency to be at odds sometimes.
Lyric outbursts and effusive enthusiasms can always be challenged as
unscholarly, and those who emit them will always feel resentful about
being asked to act in a reasonable manner at all times. I expect even
academics who are artists experience that conflict within themselves.
Can't we all just get along? Diana
>>> Diana Manister <[log in to unmask]> 05/26/07 5:46 PM >>>