Hi Mike. As I said I understand the sentiment I am just a little wary of
ascribing attributes to things that one would not expect to have the said
attribute in the first place. I note you say the day does not have a
conscience and that is your defence. But doesn't the remark suggest that
some days might have a conscience just these days don't. Else I might say,
these days don't suck humbugs nor read newspapers which would be true but
then should I expect them to do either??
Not to make to much of an issue of this Mike but it is something I
personally try to avoid.....not sure that I always do so. Regards Arthur.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Horwood" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 9:48 AM
Subject: Re: New sub: Early autumn - Arthur
> Hello Arthur,
Thanks for your comments. Yes, many people are disturbed by
this kind of projection of human emotion onto the most unlikely objects. And
what with talking chairs, knowledgable trees and days full of awareness, I
have to say that it has become something of a habit of mine just recently.
It would be just my luck that my favourite type of fallacy goes under the
title `pathetic´. I mean, it could have been called the `grand fallacy´ or
the `mad, bad and dangerous to know fallacy´. Instead it´s the pathetic
fallacy which is not exactly the description a writer would wish upon his
work. I can see some sort of defence is called for, so here goes. Well,
actually as you quite rightly say, a time unit like a day cannot have a
conscience and now I look carefully at the line in question I notice that
this accords precisely with what I´ve written; `these days have no
conscience´, so we seem to be agreed on that. And then the birds leave no
solace behind them. I wonder if this requuires any kind of intentional
purpose on the part of the birds. Can´t the observer watch the birds´
departure and discover that there is nothing left from which he might derive
comfort and report the fact by saying that the departing birds have left no
solace behind them? Hmm, less pathetic than might at first have appeared,
perhaps. Have I managed to wriggle my way out of this, or am I still firmly
stuck on the hook? Or to put it another way, how pathetic does it have to
be, to be fallacious ;-)
Best wishes, Mike
> From: Arthur Seeley <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 2003/10/08 Wed PM 01:38:17 EEST
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: New sub: Early autumn
>
> This is a nice quiet meditative poem Mike. I understand the sentiment but
I
> am always worried when a poet feels that poetry allows him to ascribe
things
> like 'conscience' to a thing like 'day'. Can a time unit have a
conscience?
> The same might be said about 'solace' and 'birds'. Do you think the birds
> care that you are left to survive a Finnish winter? Arthur.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Horwood" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 9:16 AM
> Subject: New sub: Early autumn
>
>
> > Early Autumn
> >
> > The day breathes
> > through an open window.
> > These days are clear
> > as water and as silent.
> > They have no conscience.
> >
> > In the slow afternoon
> > a red sail crosses the bay.
> > Birds gather on their way south.
> > They leave no solace
> > behind them.
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike
>
|