Print

Print


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0038_01C0B78A.420EA600
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Pat:
=20
I was not intending to say that I found TWL to be structureless or =
formless.  I intended to say that an ideogrammic reading might find =
structure that was unusual.  That a person stuck by the Images and =
concentrating on interpreting the Images (since they as words are the =
actual substance of the poem) might find the poem structureless or =
formless since there is little to link those Images.  Another reader =
might very validly see and enjoy  5 acts of a play or opera with =
multiple scenes in four of the acts.  Another could read a series of =
speeches or sermons with a central thesis to all.  Another person who is =
willing to read the poem simply for the beauty of the word music and is =
content with the flashing images (little "i") as in a kaleidoscope or a =
strobe light will produce a reading just as valid and fulfilling.  I =
think my primary reading is just that sort.  Brooker and Bentley =
maintain that the poem does not reveal itself to a first reader during =
that first reading.  That the reader has to have first read the poem on =
faith in order to internalize a meaning as the final act of the first =
reading in order to then read the poem a second time with informed =
meaning.  I hope my paraphrase of them does them no injustice.  It =
certainly is not as well crafted a sentence as the ones they use.  As we =
all are well aware there are numerous approaches and readings to and of =
TWL most of which are valid and instructional.  I had not intended to =
suggest that the ideogrammic method was the only pure way to read the =
poem and as Nancy has pointed out my recollection of her posts on TWL =
and structure were flawed to say it politely.=20
=20
That said I think that an Imagist approach to the poem could be very =
fruitful given the poem's history and the poetics of two of its =
principle makers.  I do not know if Vivian was an Imagist.  I have not =
yet analyzed the poem from an ideogrammic method viewpoint.  Beyond his =
brief reference to the poem  as ideogrammic, Gefin does not.  His book's =
thesis is entirely  concerned with Pound's development of the method and =
that method's impact on modernism.  Since TSE does not use the method =
except for TWL Gefin gives TSE little discussion.  The fact that TSE =
does not use the ideogrammic method except for TWL does not necessarily =
put him outside the imagist tradition.  I find it very interesting that =
the poem which Pound has the most hand in Gefin calls ideogrammic.  I  =
hope to look more fully at TWL as an ideogrammic poem.  Reference =
suggestions are welcome.  Nancy:  I will look in the MLA and other =
suitable bibliographies I promise :>).
=20
Retreating into the shadow
Rick Seddon
McIntosh, NM, USA
    -----Original Message-----
    From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
    To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
    Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 11:55 AM
    Subject: Form in TWL (was Re: Stetson in The Waste Land)
   =20
   =20
    In a message dated 3/28/01 12:04:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, =
[log in to unmask]
    writes:=20
   =20
   =20
   =20
        Nancy has alluded to her problems with finding structure in TWL. =
 ( I hope=20
        I'm not putting words in her mouth but that has been my sense of =
what she=20
        has said in the past. )  An ideogrammic poem would properly have =
a very=20
        special structure that would fit no norms for literary  =
structure as the=20
        word is commonly used by critics.=20
       =20
       =20
   =20
   =20
    Rick,=20
   =20
    I think many or most people just don't notice that TWL has the exact =
form of=20
    a playscript, or a libretto for an opera. The one proviso is that =
there are=20
    no stage directions, leaving the question of whether the stage =
directions are=20
    implied.=20
   =20
    I think people realize, or one can maybe get them to realize, that =
what one=20
    actually sees on the page in a playscript or libretto is a series of =

    annotated speeches (the annotations are the stage directions). But =
then if=20
    one says "doesn't TWL, too, consist of a series of speeches?" they =
either=20
    don't see it, or  say it doesn't matter, or don't understand that a =
series of=20
    speeches is a form (they think of form being limited to metrical =
forms like=20
    iambic pentameter).=20
   =20
    It's maybe a good argument for the proposition that we do indeed =
make our own=20
    realities. If, for whatever reason, one can't or won't recognize =
that a=20
    series of speeches is a form (the form used, for example, in =
playscripts and=20
    operatic librettos), then one is always going to regard TWL as =
formless. It's=20
    a different proposition if a person can say, "O, of course TWL is a =
series of=20
    speeches. I hadn't noticed (and of course a series of speeches is a =
form)."  =20
   =20
    This suggests to me that the question of whether TWL is "formless" =
gets=20
    sandbagged early on by a lack of common agreement in literary =
studies about=20
    what the word "form" means. Probably this has happened because form =
hasn't=20
    been discussed for so long in this field. The New Critics got into =
it to a=20
    limited extent, and there might be an aversion today to valuing =
anything=20
    associated with the New Critics. I'm actually surprised that the =
question=20
    could still be asked of whether TWL is "formless." If one takes the =
position=20
    that form is something not worth talking about, why would it make =
any=20
    difference?=20
   =20
    I don't mean to put you on the spot. But why isn't a series of =
speeches a=20
    recognizable form or structure to you? Leading of course to the =
sub-questions=20
    of whether this is a randomized or non-randomized series of =
speeches. If=20
    non-randomized, the "stage directions" would be implied rather than =
explicit.=20
    If randomized, there would be no stage directions, whether express =
or=20
    implied. Is it that it doesn't seem "intellectual" enough to begin =
with=20
    something simple that anyone can see with his or her own eyes? Or is =
it that=20
    you think of form in terms of metrical form only? Or are there other =
factors?=20
     I'm not trying to convince you that a series of speeches is a form, =
if it's=20
    something you don't accept.  I'm just trying to get clear in my own =
mind why=20
    you'd be willing to think of a Chinese ideogram as a form, yet =
wouldn't be=20
    willing to think of a series of speeches as a form. And I guess that =
gets=20
    down to what you understand form to be, or how you'd define it.  =20
   =20
    pat=20
   =20


------=_NextPart_000_0038_01C0B78A.420EA600
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 =
HTML//EN">
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Pat:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>I was not intending to say that I found TWL to be=20
structureless or formless.&nbsp; I intended to say that an ideogrammic =
reading=20
might find structure that was unusual.&nbsp; That a person stuck by the =
Images=20
and concentrating on interpreting the Images (since they as words are =
the actual=20
substance of the poem) might find the poem structureless or formless =
since there=20
is little to link those Images.&nbsp; Another reader might very validly =
see and=20
enjoy&nbsp; 5 acts of a play or opera with multiple scenes in four of =
the=20
acts.&nbsp; Another could read a series of speeches or sermons with a =
central=20
thesis to all.&nbsp; Another person who is willing to read the poem =
simply for=20
the beauty of the word music and is content with the flashing images =
(little=20
&quot;i&quot;) as in a kaleidoscope or a strobe light will produce a =
reading=20
just as valid and fulfilling.&nbsp; I think my primary reading is just =
that=20
sort.&nbsp; Brooker and Bentley maintain that the poem does not reveal =
itself to=20
a first reader during that first reading.&nbsp; That the reader has to =
have=20
first read the poem on faith in order to internalize a meaning as the =
final act=20
of the first reading in order to then read the poem a second time with =
informed=20
meaning.&nbsp; I hope my paraphrase of them does them no =
injustice.&nbsp; It=20
certainly is not as well crafted a sentence as the ones they use.&nbsp; =
As we=20
all are well aware there are numerous approaches and readings to and of =
TWL most=20
of which are valid and instructional.&nbsp; I had not intended to =
suggest that=20
the ideogrammic method was the only pure way to read the poem and as =
Nancy has=20
pointed out my recollection of her posts on TWL and structure were =
flawed to say=20
it politely.&nbsp;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>That said I think that an Imagist approach to the =
poem could=20
be very fruitful given the poem's history and the poetics of two of its=20
principle makers.&nbsp; I do not know if Vivian was an Imagist.&nbsp; I =
have not=20
yet analyzed the poem from an ideogrammic method viewpoint.&nbsp; Beyond =
his=20
brief reference to the poem&nbsp; as ideogrammic, Gefin does not.&nbsp; =
His=20
book's thesis is entirely&nbsp; concerned with Pound's development of =
the method=20
and that method's impact on modernism.&nbsp; Since TSE does not use the =
method=20
except for TWL Gefin gives TSE little discussion.&nbsp; The fact that =
TSE does=20
not use the ideogrammic method except for TWL does not necessarily put =
him=20
outside the imagist tradition.&nbsp; I find it very interesting that the =
poem=20
which Pound has the most hand in Gefin calls ideogrammic.&nbsp; I&nbsp; =
hope to=20
look more fully at TWL as an ideogrammic poem.&nbsp; Reference =
suggestions are=20
welcome.&nbsp; Nancy:&nbsp; I will look in the MLA and other suitable=20
bibliographies I promise :&gt;).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Retreating into the =
shadow</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Rick Seddon</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>McIntosh, NM, USA</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: =
5px">
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><B>-----Original =
Message-----</B><BR><B>From:=20
    </B><A href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A> =
&lt;<A=20
    =
href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A>&gt;<BR><B>To: =
</B><A=20
    href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A> =
&lt;<A=20
    =
href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A>&gt;<BR>=
<B>Date:=20
    </B>Wednesday, March 28, 2001 11:55 AM<BR><B>Subject: </B>Form in =
TWL (was=20
    Re: Stetson in The Waste Land)<BR><BR></DIV></FONT><FONT=20
    face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT face=3D"Arial Narrow" lang=3D0 size=3D3 =
FAMILY =3D=20
    SANSSERIF><B>In a message dated 3/28/01 12:04:28 PM Eastern Standard =
Time,=20
    <A href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A> <BR>writes:=20
    <BR><BR></FONT><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3DArial lang=3D0 size=3D2 =
FAMILY =3D=20
    SANSSERIF></B><BR>
    <BLOCKQUOTE=20
    style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"=20
    TYPE =3D CITE>Nancy has alluded to her problems with finding =
structure in=20
        TWL. &nbsp;( I hope <BR>I'm not putting words in her mouth but =
that has=20
        been my sense of what she <BR>has said in the past. ) &nbsp;An=20
        ideogrammic poem would properly have a very <BR>special =
structure that=20
        would fit no norms for literary &nbsp;structure as the <BR>word =
is=20
        commonly used by critics. <BR><BR></FONT><FONT color=3D#000000 =
face=3DArial=20
        lang=3D0 size=3D3 FAMILY =3D =
SANSSERIF></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></FONT><FONT color=3D#000000=20
    face=3D"Arial Narrow" lang=3D0 size=3D3 FAMILY =3D =
SANSSERIF><B><BR>Rick, <BR><BR>I=20
    think many or most people just don't notice that TWL has the exact =
form of=20
    <BR>a playscript, or a libretto for an opera. The one proviso is =
that there=20
    are <BR>no stage directions, leaving the question of whether the =
stage=20
    directions are <BR>implied. <BR><BR>I think people realize, or one =
can maybe=20
    get them to realize, that what one <BR>actually sees on the page in =
a=20
    playscript or libretto is a series of <BR>annotated speeches (the=20
    annotations are the stage directions). But then if <BR>one says=20
    &quot;doesn't TWL, too, consist of a series of speeches?&quot; they =
either=20
    <BR>don't see it, or &nbsp;say it doesn't matter, or don't =
understand that a=20
    series of <BR>speeches <U>is</U> a form (they think of form being =
limited to=20
    metrical forms like <BR>iambic pentameter). <BR><BR>It's maybe a =
good=20
    argument for the proposition that we do indeed make our own =
<BR>realities.=20
    If, for whatever reason, one can't or won't recognize that a =
<BR>series of=20
    speeches is a form (the form used, for example, in playscripts and=20
    <BR>operatic librettos), then one is always going to regard TWL as =
formless.=20
    It's <BR>a different proposition if a person can say, &quot;O, of =
course TWL=20
    is a series of <BR>speeches. I hadn't noticed (and of course a =
series of=20
    speeches is a form).&quot; &nbsp; <BR><BR>This suggests to me that =
the=20
    question of whether TWL is &quot;formless&quot; gets <BR>sandbagged =
early on=20
    by a lack of common agreement in literary studies about <BR>what the =
word=20
    &quot;form&quot; means. Probably this has happened because form =
hasn't=20
    <BR>been discussed for so long in this field. The New Critics got =
into it to=20
    a <BR>limited extent, and there might be an aversion today to =
valuing=20
    anything <BR>associated with the New Critics. I'm actually surprised =
that=20
    the question <BR>could still be asked of whether TWL is=20
    &quot;formless.&quot; If one takes the position <BR>that form is =
something=20
    not worth talking about, why would it make any <BR>difference? =
<BR><BR>I=20
    don't mean to put you on the spot. But why isn't a series of =
speeches a=20
    <BR>recognizable form or structure to you? Leading of course to the=20
    sub-questions <BR>of whether this is a randomized or non-randomized =
series=20
    of speeches. If <BR>non-randomized, the &quot;stage directions&quot; =
would=20
    be implied rather than explicit. <BR>If randomized, there would be =
no stage=20
    directions, whether express or <BR>implied. Is it that it doesn't =
seem=20
    &quot;intellectual&quot; enough to begin with <BR>something simple =
that=20
    anyone can see with his or her own eyes? Or is it that <BR>you think =
of form=20
    in terms of metrical form only? Or are there other factors? =
<BR>&nbsp;I'm=20
    not trying to convince you that a series of speeches is a form, if =
it's=20
    <BR>something you don't accept. &nbsp;I'm just trying to get clear =
in my own=20
    mind why <BR>you'd be willing to think of a Chinese ideogram as a =
form, yet=20
    wouldn't be <BR>willing to think of a series of speeches as a form. =
And I=20
    guess that gets <BR>down to what you understand form to be, or how =
you'd=20
    define it. &nbsp; <BR><BR>pat=20
<BR><BR></B></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0038_01C0B78A.420EA600--