Ross
ModPo student
Posts: 5
|
Post by Ross on Jan 7, 2023 13:24:41 GMT -5
So many terrific comments on here, all helping me access this poem a little better. Thank you!
What jumped out at me was the refusal to use the period as punctuation in this poem. There is a question mark, exclamation point, comma, slash, underline, all caps, but never a period (until you get to the abbreviation for "figure" at the end).
That refusal connects to the last three lines, where I interpret "surely you jest" to be directed (maybe not entirely, but at least in part) at THAT WHICH IS. "THAT WHICH IS" is such a defining phrase; you use that language when you are declaring the nature of something, or saying what something "is." Perhaps "surely you jest" is casting doubt on whether language can ever define things with such certainty. And to emphasize the futility of the THAT WHICH IS endeavor, the adjectives attempting to describe male and female are highly questionable. Male is "light" and "warm?" Female is "dark" and "cold?" Surely you jest that it is even possible to connect appropriate adjectives to the male and female ideas.
Similarly, a period denotes a definitiveness: "THAT IS THAT, PERIOD." Maybe the refusal to use the period as punctuation is a refusal to concede that language can ever facilitate a certain, definitive truth.
And, although this may be going a bit far, perhaps footnoting the form of the poem (the letter "Z") as "Fig. 28" is related. The letter Z is not, and never has been to my knowledge, the 28th letter of the alphabet. Perhaps the poet is attempting to make us doubt the content of the alphabet, the fundamental components of our language.
I also enjoy some of the puzzling lines in the poem. The exegetes generally agree that bees actually do see runways on flowers is an example. Exegetes are people who interpret a text. The line suggests that it is, or has been, a debate among those who interpret a certain text whether bees see runways on flowers. It's a funny, almost absurd (in a good way) line.
|
|
|
|
Post by ellaadkins on Jan 7, 2023 13:32:08 GMT -5
This post is mostly an echo of others, but hopefully with have some new ripples in it:
FIRST OF ALL: Wow, this discussion is JUICY.
THANK YOU to those who made some interesting connections to DNA and the ideas of sequencing that we see in our reality and prescribe to when attempting to understand the order of things.
SCALE: The changes in figurative scale within this poem that occurs when we arrive at the diagonal drifting/architecture of the lines seems to be a clear enacting of the previous line regarding histories many 'changes in scale'. As we move from "bees seeing runways on flowers" to "Troy excavations" I feel like as the reader I am a lens, being zoomed in and out, as well as experiencing a mouthful of history that is non-linear. The mentions of a more pedestrian history "books overdue at the library" and "garbage needs to go out", are comforting: they allow me, a pedestrian everyday Joe Schmo to feel seen, referenced and located in the poem.
LINE BREAKS/SEVERANCE OF WORDS: I am not sure what to make of these yet. Glitches as the historical matrix figures out its next sequence? Fractured fractals? The order of things trying to make sense of itself? Hearing Retallack read it made their awkwardness more apparent, more jarring. They do provide a stark contrast to the final section of the poem, which suddenly smoothes out to long phrases and addresses the overwhelming nature of the fractals of history and encourages us to try not to feel demoralized. I appreciated that. It felt warm and optimistic.
SHAPE: The poem's overall shape I am still sitting with. A Z? Or just a shape as a result of the pattern that if continued would repeat itself?
I will leave it there.
-Ella
|
|
|
|
Post by Barry Moffatt on Jan 7, 2023 18:22:23 GMT -5
Retallack begins with a question: 'Does fractal geometry really apply to history?' Then, with her 'why not!' appears to anticipate some denial of that application before finding in attributes and fragments of some history loose analogies to the nature of fractal geometry. Benoit Mandelbrot coined the term 'fractal' from the Latin 'fractus'; broken or fractured, to, among other things, construct mathematical descriptions of patterns in the natural world. A complexity arises when fractal shapes (geometrical) have dimensions exceeding the topological dimensions of our everyday geometrical shapes, cubes, spheres, etc. Perhaps the cover of Retallack's book, 'Procedural Elegies' hinted at his fractal complexity. And to apply the processes of fractal geometry to her history is indeed a procedure and even a lament for a whole fragmented.
There is also a conversation of sorts, from the initial question and response to the final 'surely you jest'. Does that conversation pick up on the prefactory poem with Aesop's confused Tortoise and contrary Hare? I don't know, but the fragments of the Tortoise's question are confused, false, according to the Hare and the Tortoise is concerned those confusions will grow, although the Hare, practicing a different sort of geometry, perhaps Euclidian, does not linger to elucidate. One reader found the form of a hare in Retallack's'28'. At first I could not see it, but looking at the text at about forty five degrees from the bottom right perhaps I can see a hare's head with its long ears. If so is '28' just some of the stuff over the horizon over which the Hare seems to disappear? Jesting, suggesting, but who can deny the turbulence of history, its replications, breaks, changes of scale. And that on another day Tortoise may ask different questions of Hare, or Hare's answers may differ. History is a haze of probabilities and what is realized at any moment depends on the procedure applied.
|
|
|
|
Post by vijaya on Jan 7, 2023 19:49:05 GMT -5
I am really noticing the fractal elements here. I think of fractals as shapes which retain their form even if you zoom in or out. For instance, zooming into a tree shows you a branch which has a similar structure to the tree itself, and then you can zoom into a smaller branch, and then a twig, all of which have the same branched structure. And zoom out and see the whole network of the forest. So it's like things that are the same but at different scales. Miranda, I loved your analogy of the tree and its branches. This is such an intricate poem and makes you want to really explore how she brings all the different elements together |
|
|
|
Post by vijaya on Jan 7, 2023 20:09:21 GMT -5
I am fascinated by the conversations going on here. It is so much fun to unravel along with others. The way JR reads the poem and how it is printed on page is also discussed. So maybe they are two distinct poems. After the human voice adds a different dimension to the content. There is rhythm, there is cadence, there is the texture of the voice all of that is impossible to capture on the page. But I just wanted to add my two cents about the Z. It is the last letter of the English language. We have come to the end of the boundary. And by creating something new JR is putting forth the idea of pushing boundaries. I also like to think of this letter representing passivity, after the word lazy has this one in it. We have to come out of the sleepy haze, of accepting what is given.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul K on Jan 7, 2023 21:54:37 GMT -5
Is the text arranged to make a shape or is it suggesting the recursiveness of fractals in the very act of reading left to right and back again and then the line itself clipped and being pulled incrementally to the left. Minimalist gestures that accumulate to create a tableau more than the sum of its parts. Thank you, JG, for this suggestion about the recursiveness of the shape of the poem. - Paul |
|
|
|
Post by Paul K on Jan 7, 2023 22:41:44 GMT -5
One example is the interpretation of male and female at the end of Western Civ Contd. 28. They are from the traditional descriptions of yin and yang, they are completely devoid of value judgement, there is no good and bad included in the pair, no better or worse. In fact they each contain the seed of the other and are constantly shifting and changing one into the other. Very hard for a culture that is based on oppositions and duality to even fathom that. Thanks, Lynn Maria, for providing the referent for those characterizations of male and female that end the poem--or that lead into the ending, "surely you jest".
Others have written well about the recursiveness of history. Garbage must be taken out, again! Troy is folded under layers (of garbage!). But a large part of my reaction to the poem was annoyance at those gender characterizations. I have never resonated with lists of supposed male/female characteristics, and I must confess that these two lists in particular did not resonate. "THAT WHICH IS"--what an emphatic (promising, pompous?) statement! Am I "light warm rare fire" and not "dark cold heavy dense"? Surely you jest! And yet we certainly do keep coming up (have kept coming up?) male and female, generation after iterative generation.
Of course, JR's tortoise/hare story also references gender. The dismissiveness of hare's response to tortoise feels ugly to me. My sympathy is all with tortoise who, however confused about hare, wishes to be in the "joint-stock company" of the world (Melville); and, as hare runs off, still wants to learn more about hare and her(?) own confusion.
But you raise the interesting possibility that JR is questioning/entertaining duality as she questions/entertains (why not?) the fractal nature of history. After all, the shape of the poem can be read as 2, as well as Z, zigzag, and other interesting interpretations presented by other commenters. After the mind-numbing addition of 10,000 places to pi each year, and the frustration of gophers in gardens, JR writes, "hard not to feel demoralized but try". This leads immediately to the two THAT WHICH IS lines. Does JR regard the characterizations of male and female as one more demoralizing iterative trap to be resisted, as she resists with "surely you jest"? Or do the yin-yang provide some new way for us to "try"?
I feel a tension between "why not!" see the fractal nature of history/life and "surely you jest."
I recognize that I've written only barely uses your information (from a better understanding of yin and yang than mine) that "they each contain the seed of the other and are constantly shifting and changing one into the other." Is this a kind of fracticality (is that a word?)? Or does it overcome fracticality as well as duality?
Given, as you write, that it may be "Very hard for a culture that is based on oppositions and duality to even fathom that", how do you read "surely you jest"?
Just thinking... and with thanks,
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul K on Jan 7, 2023 22:57:22 GMT -5
Geometries of attention – to be able to observe in many different ways at once, to be able to see both figure AND ground at the same time, to hold conflicting ideas together in paradox and overcome cognitive dissonance. Or the attempt. To essay. To see the words within the letters. Jim, this brief on geometries of attention feel highly useful. Thanks, Paul |
|
|
|
Post by Liliana Lopez on Jan 8, 2023 6:33:53 GMT -5
After partially defining fractals—many replicating breaks, many changes of scale--Retallack hangs her images on a framework of opposites organized with random (according to line meaning) and not random (creating a shape) line breaks. Here are some of her opposites: Huge—history Tiny—bees and the garbage needing to go out Turbulent—gophers Calm—the experts agree Frozen in time—excavation Ever changing—adding decimals to pi (although the idea of adding to the infinite is quite funny) Done—garden is beautiful Undone—those recurring gophers! Male and female stereotypical attributes—maybe circling back to turbulent, knowing that her audience will react to those statements Although this poem doesn’t specifically mention combinations and permutations, the idea of replication pointing back to disconnected points in personal and cultural history may also imply that the combinations are infinite--like people, people’s lives, poetry. (Outing myself as one of those people who believe that all poems are metapoems). I’m not a huge theory buff, what’s the framework to find those opposites? |
|
|
|
Post by afilreis on Jan 8, 2023 8:22:59 GMT -5
What do you make of the little inserted story about how “you” make your lawn and garden beautiful but you seem to be growing gopher mounds? And of the bees who actually see runways on flowers? How does that connect with the general abstract topic of Western Civilization? In what way does the torqued allegory of tortoise and hare (in the poem’s epigraph) relate?
|
|
|
|
Post by Adrian French on Jan 8, 2023 8:32:31 GMT -5
Within a geometry of attention is three days too short for close reading? Or merely incommensurable? Can I claim a fractal of co-performance?
|
|
|
|
Post by jennifer on Jan 8, 2023 9:01:24 GMT -5
I'm intimidated by this poem and/or by this forum but my response so far is: 'hard not to feel demoralized but try' I'm genuinely taking as poet encouraging the reader to persevere with this poem. I had an overdue library book but was procrastinating about returning it so came here instead to read the poem. What are the chances? Is this why I feel an uncanniness about this poem? Anyway, it made me focus on the library book line. People who live orderly lives don't have overdue library books. There's a certain shame associated with returning a book late to the library. The speaker of the poem seems like a disruptor, maybe like someone undermining the values of Western Civ, which include a love of orderliness, domestication. This poem is not orderly, it doesn't abide by any discernible rules, it's chaotic. THAT WHICH IS felt to me like a pun, THAT WITCH IS (someone with overdue library books and a messy garden who writes chaotic poetry). Especially so close to 'fire is male'. Then that FIG brought to mind the fig leaf. That's all I've got. |
|
|
|
Post by jennifer on Jan 8, 2023 9:02:34 GMT -5
Seems like a very useful start to me. Thank you for making these connections.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sandy on Jan 8, 2023 10:06:22 GMT -5
“Western Civ Cont’d/” what do you make of the little inserted story about how “you” make your lawn and garden beautiful but you seem to be growing gopher mounds? And of the bees who actually see runways on flowers? How does that connect with the general abstract topic of Western Civilization? In what way does the torqued allegory of tortoise and hare (in the poem’s epigraph) relate?
1) Neighbors expect you to have a nice lawn - this is a literal interpretation but society expects you to behave in a certain way, accomplish certain things to keep up with everyone else or to fit in. Growing gopher mounds seems to illustrate that you don't have control of this situation - this is what happens despite your best efforts towards achievements, goals
2) The bees see a large unobstructed path to their paradise - like seeing an oasis in the desert - starts to look better than it is
3) We are caught up in trying to achieve so many things, competing and being better than your "neighbor" or peer. Seeking happiness by accumulating wealth and having beautiful lawns of course
4) the hare is trying to win the race but the tortoise is wondering why - we are going through life together
|
|
|
|
Post by mirandaj on Jan 8, 2023 11:53:52 GMT -5
What do you make of the little inserted story about how “you” make your lawn and garden beautiful but you seem to be growing gopher mounds? And of the bees who actually see runways on flowers? How does that connect with the general abstract topic of Western Civilization? In what way does the torqued allegory of tortoise and hare (in the poem’s epigraph) relate? I hadn't thought of this before now but this feels like a reference to another duality to me - nature vs human (ie the so-called 'civilisation'). We try to 'cultivate' and shape nature to make a lawn and garden 'beautiful' (to human eyes) - but nature, chaos and 'dirt,' is irrepressible. Bees have their own ways of looking at flowers, characterised by text interpreters as the very human invention of runways. The exegetes are reading nature like text, but the 'though' suggests that despite this attempt to impose interpretation and order on the world, other concerns intervene - from overdue library books to the unceasingness of time and number. I'm not sure about the Tortoise and the Hare - Aesop's fables are obviously a classic of the Western canon, so perhaps we are being invited to deconstruct and reinterpret the authority of literature? |
|
