 |
 |
Candice: While I know your question was directed to Peter, I'd like to chime in with a poetry-of-science/science poetry selection, Scenarios for a Mixed Landscape by American poet, John Allman (1986, New Directions). Not exclusively brimming with "science poems", the volume houses poems attempt, at one level, to look back to the changing, "mythical" universe of Lucetius' of benign random change. But he does more: his work brings insights cast in the words of science, evolution. There ARE awesome possibilities in what he's made. Gerald ----- Original Message ----- From: "Candice Ward" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 12:53 PM Subject: Re: A Responsibility to Awe > Let me add my thanks to Gerald's, Peter, since I found your comments on his > poem instructive too--and I'll definitely be asking you to vet my own poem > eventually, if you can spare the time when the time comes. In the meantime > (ahem!), can you recommend any other science-poetries as highly as Elson's, > or at least point us toward some of that "good stuff" you say you're reading > "these days"? > > To clarify my point about Sokal being a throwback to the "two cultures" > school of (mutually alienated or estranged) thought, remember that his > _Social Text_ hoax began with his own inability to penetrate the language of > critical theory and his assumption on the basis of his own limitations there > that it wasn't comprehensible or substantive at all. That indicates to me > such a profound arrogance about one's own normative status and an equally > profound disrespect toward specialized knowledges other than one's own as to > leave Sokal way behind, out of step with, the spirit and the letter of > art/science interplay happening now. (What his reputation is as a physicist, > have no idea--but I have my doubts!) > > Finally, thank you, Gerald, for that beautiful post on Lucretius, which I > printed out and have reread several times now with great pleasure! > > Candice > > > > on 1/11/02 8:38 AM, schwartzgk at [log in to unmask] wrote: > > > 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/ >