"John" Lucas should read "George" Lucas, for what its worth. CP

"R.Gancie/C.Parcelli" wrote:

> Tim,
>
> I think we've run our course here. There simply are to few consequences for people
> living in this society as regards what they know about its driving elements be they
> scientific, geopolitical or what not. People don't need to know, so if you in turn
> 'need' these same people to justify the tale of the tribe aspect of an epic, John
> Lucas is our man.
>
> I've written a Tale of the Tribe (actually several) based on what I percieve as
> genuinely foundational in our culture. I've also included reasons for the
> disconnect with the majority population who are under the calculated spell of the
> Edward Bernays's and Robert Lovetts of the world. The matter of integrity here
> begins and ends with the materials. I mean how much Nash is in Opie's confection
> compared to one brief passage in the Millenary's Centos? Carlo Parcelli
>
> Tim Romano wrote:
>
> > Carlo,
> > I'll will readily admit that there can be a kind of drama, even an
> > intellectual exhilaration, in the juxtaposition of "primary
> > materials".  But a work that uses this technique overmuch is likely to be
> > inaccessible to a large group of readers.  I do not mean to imply that the
> > sole, or even the primary, measure of success of a work is to be found in
> > the size of its immediate audience, or that when the size of its audience
> > is indeed considered, that the consideration should be in monetary terms.
> > Yet one of the laudable goals of the epic is, I think, to be as accessible
> > as the poet can manage to make it -- to reach a broad and diverse
> > audience.  That said, there is certainly a place for compendious didactic
> > works chock-full of lore, which teach the adept, and a "failed epic" might
> > very well be a successful something-else when judged against different
> > criteria.  Ceterus paribus, a poem attracts its audience.
> > Tim Romano
> >
> > At 10:57 PM 12/26/01 -0500, R.Gancie/C.Parcelli wrote:
> > >Tim,
> > >
> > >Actually, I did mean obligation "of" the reader. The obligation is not to the
> > >text/poem per se but to that which the text addresses. If the text addresses
> > >something like game theory which it is agreed is fundamental to the culture in
> > >which the potential reader is operating, it seems that an obligation to
> > >understand
> > >its rudiments falls upon the reader as much as the poet. Then, as with
> > >Pound, there
> > >is the discovery of new elements. With game theory the new element has the
> > >salutory
> > >effect of being extraordinarily relevant and utile. More than occasionally
> > >I get a
> > >response thanking me for steering the reader to some scientific taxonomy that
> > >proves culturally, historically and/or epistemologically illuminating.
> > >This is the
> > >up side of the didacticism of the Cantos. They were an extraordinary
> > >teaching tool
> > >for me both contextuallly and structurally.
> > >
> > >Yes, I also like to find a dramatic context for illustration. Occasionalyy
> > >dramatic
> > >dialogue can be simply the unedited or edited conversation of principles.
> > >There is
> > >also considerable drama in unalloyed theory especially if you find
> > >juxtaposable
> > >materials. Building a dialectic with primary materials of all stripes whether
> > >mathematical, philosophical/historical, philosophical/methodological,
> > >epistemological etc. I find to be the most exhilarating, demanding and
> > >interesting
> > >way to work. Thus my sense of the dramatic encompasses more than you're
> > >implying,
> > >but there is ample demonstration of all of these techniques in my work as
> > >well as
> > >Pound's. I would also grant that these form the least accessible and animated
> > >passages for the reader who has not familiarized himself with the sources.
> > >Carlo
> > >Parcelli
> > >
> > >I again apologize in advance for any grammatical or spelling errors in my
> > >email.
> > >
> > >Tim Romano wrote:
> > >
> > > > Carlo Parcelli wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >My use of the notion of "arcane" was meant to be in contra-distinction to
> > > > >yours.
> > > >
> > > > Understood. I meant to give an example of something that was both arcane
> > > > and, paradoxically, all too relevant. With the example of "statistical
> > > > probabilities", following upon your example of Nash, the point I hoped to
> > > > make was that the poet who would use these mathematical facts of
> > > > contemporary life as the subject of an epic poem would do better to devise
> > > > a way of presenting the subject *dramatically*. Rather than holding up the
> > > > "raw and undigested" technicalities themselves, such as by embedding the
> > > > mathematical formulae into the work, or by alluding to Nash (for sake of
> > > > example) or quoting from his works, the poet should attempt to show their
> > > > *effects*.  This is, of course, merely an opinion of mine. I happen to
> > > > think Pound is at his best when he finds a way to dramatize.
> > > >
> > > > >[...] with the rise of hundreds of scientific and technical
> > > specialties not
> > > > >to mention specialties outside of these two general disciplines we have
> > > > >"arcana",
> > > > >if you will, which profoundly effect the utility of our everyday lives. In
> > > > >large
> > > > >part Pound sought, mistakenly, a return to a culture not as reliant on
> > > > >'specialties.'
> > > >
> > > > Not sure I would put it exactly that way, but yes, Pound sought to return
> > > > to a culture organized around crafts and trades where the principle of
> > > > *individual workmanship* still had meaning.  I doubt he would have thought
> > > > too highly of the work of someone who measured the probabilities of 50-year
> > > > weather patterns to arrive at a trading price for puts and calls on
> > > > degree-day insurance policies and weather derivatives.
> > > >
> > > > >I [...] sought to put myself in the center of the concern for the everyday
> > > > >arcana that
> > > > >is science and technology. Your email seems to suggest that to engage this
> > > > >arcana
> > > > >in its original forms violates some sort of communication with the poetry
> > > > >reader.
> > > > >Let's leave aside the obligation of the reader because, generally,
> > > this is one
> > > > >'obligation' the reader has no intention of meeting.
> > > >
> > > > Isn't there a typo above? Didn't you mean to write "obligation *to* the
> > > > reader..." ? Or did you?  "Of" or "to" -- is the crux of the
> > > > issue.  Thinking of the poet's obligation *to* the reader, I wrote that the
> > > > poet must subordinate exposition to drama.  Not because difficult
> > > > "technical" subjects are not valid subjects for poetry -- the effects of
> > > > science and technology upon our lives is, of course, a valid subject for
> > > > poetry-- but should readers *of poetry* find themselves reading a primer on
> > > > statistical methods?  Poems and primers both may instruct; poem must also
> > > > *delight*.
> > > > Or do you have in mind a modern equivalent to, say, those ancient poems,
> > > > little more than mnemonic devices really, that seek to fix in the memory
> > > > arcane (yet relevant!) lore on the medicinal powers of plants and stones?
> > > >
> > > > Tim Romano