Litkicks Message Board Archive
widespread generalizations serve no purpose
Yes, better is a value judgement but there must be some criteria upon which to base the judgement. An orange is "better" than an apple - because? Because it is higher in Vitamin C, is juicier, is sexier, has cuter dimples, whatever.
By what criteria are you elevating Ferlinghetti over Ginsberg? Because you like writing his name? That hardly seems like rationale enough to make some silly statement like "Ferlinghetti is better than Ginsberg".
How better? better at giving head? At driving a car? At roller skating? At cooking soft-shell crabs? At writing haiku? At running a bookstore?
And why extoll Ferlinghetti by putting down Ginsberg anyway? Why not just enrich us all with the reasons that you like Ferlinghetti? Ginsberg, himself, always refused to put someone down, or build someone up at the expense of another (despite being baited in interviews to do so). It's a compassion thing, an awareness thing.
And comparisons are NOT all there are. One doesn't have to make a comparison in order to appreciate something, to love something. If you fall in love with someone, are you doing so because you've compared them to everyone else in the world and decided on him/her? I doubt it.
One can observe the world and all its mad, elegant, beautiful, terrifying, remarkable phenomena and not have to compare it to something to comment upon it.
FYI: "odious" = hateful, detestable.