"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