 |
 |
I know. I know. That's not a rejection. I just do know it. But it focusses me. Ta I may come back to it. (I am treating this very much as a workshop space. I can sometimes get away with it, the problem we've touched on that I *was born mid 20th century... and cannot therefore think as though I am in any part of the middle ages I got away with it in what *I call the second Steven poem when I speak of farmers and sailors -- vague recollections of axioms, of Hesiod, of Vergil but honestly any farmer who said Oh it's spring I'd better do something is doomed I was on my favourite farm a few weeks ago, short days, overcast etc; and they were working like madmen so they'd be ready for spring It occurred to me when I posted it that this is probably unequivocal proof whether I planned it or not (not) that Elidius knows nothing much of such trades; but one can't so easily absorb the present of a startrek tricorder in the 18th century, which is the sort of territory I am getting into with the diction you refer to so I get away with it as someone might dab in a bit of green for trees and draw the eye foreground to something he *can draw It can be done better, I am sure. Robert Harris has written two impressive novels on Cicero through the eyes of his amanuensis which do not clutter us with intrusive authentic artefact placement; and maybe I can go in and alter the vocabulary. When I said _I know I know_ I am not sure that I *had focussed on the economic diction as such; I just knew the whole thing is a modern exchange; and maybe I could go for other terms that get round that without bogging me down in historical novel minutiae One thing Harris gets very nicely is how Roman bigwigs have enormous cellars full of gold... Harris's books for instance show exactly these kinds of ethical stress without sounding overtly out of tune, to quote your phrase -- a specialist in republican Rome might disagree but... I'll look at that and thank you for the focus -- of course the other way is to adapt Cage's advice to keep doing what doesn't work until it does; but maybe not. I could put it elsewhere. In another book; but I didn't want to lay all the weight of the problem on the bondsman. (It's quite novel for me doing plot. I usually just throw another disjuncted metaphor on the page and have a snooze) The advice itself comes from someone -- can't remember who -- in this space when _we_ began going into Afghanistan; I shouted about it and someone said several combats down the thread that if principles don't deliver their intended dividend (my words) change the principles (his word) It still outrages me L On Wed, February 22, 2012 16:19, Douglas Barbour wrote: > Well, we are getting into his 'situation,' here, Lawrence. In the three > of tis title: but this one: feels a bit out of time/tune, a kind of > anachronism in that economic language? I like the point, & how it works > here, but...? > > Doug > On 2012-02-21, at 11:33 AM, Lawrence Upton wrote: > > >> Before all this, one I had thought a friend >> came to me and said: “For God’s sake, do talk to him. He wants you on his >> side. I asked >> “For God’s sake”? >> “For your own sake, fool! >> He’ll exile you or else he’ll kill you here. >> You’ll die elsewhere. >> You are his counsellor >> but unofficially. You are not safe.” I replied: “All I have done is speak >> out on matters of principle. Where is the harm?” And he, who cannot write >> the word easily nor without much hesitation and breath said: “Principles >> are of importance. Yes! How could I not agree? But say, my friend, >> what assistance have they been to you, careerwise? >> >> None, I see? >> I thought so. >> They never are >> unless chosen carefully under guidance, as with anything. Principles, if >> unproductive, should be abandoned, exchanged, for ones that work. Audit >> your ethical profitability every few months and set yourself targets >> which are achievable; and good guidelines which do not inhibit social >> progress.” I thanked him. He went away. >> I worried. >> >> > > Douglas Barbour > [log in to unmask] > > http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/ > http://eclecticruckus.wordpress.com/ > > > Latest books: > Continuations (with Sheila E Murphy) > http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=664 > Wednesdays' > http://abovegroundpress.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-from-aboveground-press_10 > .html > > > The day will come when this will be given as a curious illustration of > the blindness of preconceived opinion. > > Charles Darwin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- UNFRAMED PICTURES by Lawrence Upton 42 pages; A5 paperback; colour cover Writers Forum 978 1 84254 277 4 wfuk.org.uk/blog ----