>There's a complete breakdown of
> logic operating here, in other words, and since I know David isn't stupid,
I
> wonder if it's the very political agenda Peter linked to "L.T." that's
> robbed him of his wits and--as a logical consequence of his own position
on
> poetry and stupidity--brought David to the brink of writing a poem!
>


Phew! Dear Candice, I'm glad you told me that. I was wondering where I was
(apart from Leicester station that is) and now I recognise it: logical
breakdown equals the edge of writing poetry.

Love that.

All the Best

Dave



David Bircumshaw

Leicester, England

Home Page

A Chide's Alphabet

Painting Without Numbers

www.paintstuff.20m.com/index.htm

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/index.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Candice Ward" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 6:44 AM
Subject: Re: Back on Planet Earth - theory in literature


> on 11/29/01 4:06 PM, david.bircumshaw at [log in to unmask]
> wrote:
>
> > I have a similar unease about L.T., not that I'm inclined to a
conservative
> > position. As you say, it is not 'predictive', unlike S.T, well, I can
accept
> > that, where I get very suspicious is that it doesn't seem to be
descriptive
> > either. I mean, say, in the sense that Darwinian or thereafter biology
is.
>
> And earlier:
>
> >>> Now what I'd like to hear, as I believe you have a background in the
> >>> sciences, are your views on the status of what is peddled as 'theory'
in
> >>> literature.
>
> I couldn't get my head around this question's science/literature relation
> until Peter answered it, when I realized that David meant "theory" as what
> related them--or rather, not, as in "not 'predictive'. But Peter doesn't
> seem to be implying any science/literature parallelism when it comes to
> predicting "what will happen in the future"--as David seems to be faulting
> literary theory for not doing--because what scientific _theories_ predict
> isn't what will happen in _science_ any more than literary _theories_
(which
> are as various and specific to their objects as those of science) could
> predict what will happen in literature. There's a complete breakdown of
> logic operating here, in other words, and since I know David isn't stupid,
I
> wonder if it's the very political agenda Peter linked to "L.T." that's
> robbed him of his wits and--as a logical consequence of his own position
on
> poetry and stupidity--brought David to the brink of writing a poem!
>
> Candice
>
>
> Peter wrote:
>
> >> I don't know enough literary theory, and don't know enough *about*
> >> literary theory to be able to say much that's very helpful. I don't
> >> think literary theory has very much in common with scientific theory. A
> >> big part of the point of the latter is its ability to predict what will
> >> happen in the future, but I'm not sure that literary theory is very
> >> strong on prediction, is it? I tend to be suspicious of L.T. because
> >> it's so often inexorably linked with some political agenda. Not that
> >> S.T. is dissociated from politics (as Galileo will probably point out
> >> over coffee at my next dinner party) but it tends not to have an overt
> >> political intent.
> >>
> >> I'm also unconvinced that L.T. is likely to be very helpful in either
> >> increasing my enjoyment of poetry, or enabling me to write better
poems,
> >> which are the things that really interest me.
> >>
> >> But I'm speaking from a position of ignorance, so if anyone wants to
> >> correct me, I'd welcome it. I always get irritated when people say
> >> they're not interested in understanding the technical language of
> >> poetry, and stop their ears when the a word like "dactyl" is mentioned,
> >> so I may be pontificating in a similarly urticarious manner.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> --
> >> Peter
> >>
> >> http://www.hphoward.demon.co.uk/poetry/
>