Print

Print


----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Seddon <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: Form in TWL


> Rick
>
> 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
> Rick Seddon
> McIntosh, NM, USA
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> 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.
> >
> >
> >Regards,
> >   Rick Parker
> >
> >P.S. - An inside joke for a few listers:  I'm getting ready for the movie
> by
> >preparing to audition for the part of Phlebas.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>