You and Nancy are right; language has sequence and therefore is temploral.
That said; Images (with a big "I") are not language. They are invoked by
charged language but are themselves beyond language. It is in the Image
(big "I") that temporality may be interrupted. Not always; in Vorticism,
movement within the Image (big "I") is essential. Sequencing of Images may
recreate temporality but if the Images are properly juxtaposed the poet may
be able to form ideograms of them that are lacking in a time sense. I do
not want to make to much of the potential lack of temporality within an
Image. I do not think that it is essential to Imagism or to the ideogrammic
method , though after a brief search I was unable to find an example of
Vorticism within the ideogrammic method. One last thing though. Think of
a brush stroke in a painting. The brush stroke is created in time. It has
a beginning to its creation and an end. After the brush stroke is made it
is now timeless. Our mind fits it and the brush stroke next to it into a
montage of meaning where the montage becomes the perception and the brush
strokes fade in perception though still there. As our mind works around the
painting sequencially and therefore is back in time we add more and more of
these montages together until, snap, in a single perception we see a little
boy in a blue suit, timeless and in one perception. The brush stroke now no
longer has much importance.
BTW word order in some languages is not so important. In an inflected
language a noun has negative or positive referrents within it that tell us
whether it is an object or a subject. A verb likewise has referrents to let
us know when(time!) its action(time!) takes place. It is not sequence
within the language that creates the time sense but rather the word itself.
One wonders why the ideogrammic method was developed within a non-inflected
language. Of course the developer was absolutely confortable in a variety
of inflected and non-inflected languages.
A final BTW. Nancy asked about timesense in the word "stone". Permanence.
:>) Much of Fenollosa, and Pound for that matter, does not hold up under
close, deductive :>), examination. A subject well explored by critics of
"Cathay" and gurus of various flavors.
comfortable in West Texan and New Mexican only
McIntosh, NM, USA
From: Rickard Parker <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, March 29, 2001 5:05 AM
Subject: Re: Form in TWL
>Most writing is linear. A is before B is before C. Compare TWL to a
>collage where any given image is next to a number of others and in an
>excellent work of art any two pieces may influence how one looks at the
>other. If a picture of a mother and child appears next to a war scene one
>might think the placing was a contrast between war and peace while another
>might see it as the sacrifice that may be needed to protect the family.
>The placing of another image next to those two may change the thoughts yet
>again. Examine some of the ways that Eliot manages to get us to see
>different images all at once. Ambiguity of the way to read a line is one.
>Having line X remind us of an earlier line Q and then influence the way we
>read line Y is another.
> Rick Parker
>P.S. - An inside joke for a few listers: I'm getting ready for the movie
>preparing to audition for the part of Phlebas.