 |
 |
Peter: I thank you. What you gave me was very much in a way that was very much needed. Best, Gerald ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Howard" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 6:38 PM Subject: Re: A Responsibility to Awe > Thanks to everyone who took a look. I'm very glad the article and links > were useful, Candice. I shall be very interested to read the poem when > it's finished. The Updike poem I've known and loved for a long time, > except that the anti-science ending irritates me. I always mentally re- > write it as: > > ... - I call > It wonderful. You call it crass? > > I think there *is* more interaction between the arts and the sciences > these days, and more mutual respect. It's not only that (some) > scientists are, as you say, more modest about the scope of their > demesne, but also that (some) artists are more prepared (as you > obviously are, Candice) to take a serious interest in science. Ten years > ago, I gained the impression that most science poetry was either bad > poetry, bad science or anti-science. These days I'm reading much more > good stuff that draws effectively from science without feeling the need > to kick it in the nadgers. > > I'm not convinced that Sokal is a throwback, but that's probably a > different discussion entirely. > > Gerald, a couple of points about your poem. I think you'd be better off > using "synchrotron" rather than "cyclotron" as the latter tends to be > pint-sized. Synchrotrons are the big buggers. > > And although one can infer the presence of neutrinos from bubble chamber > photographs, you're very unlikely to see the actual track of one since, > as Updike says, they "...do not interact at all." > > Well, not very much, anyway. > > Best, > -- > Peter > > http://www.hphoward.demon.co.uk/poetry/ >