|
Post by afilreis on Jan 7, 2023 9:28:18 GMT -5
We now turn to the title poem of Retallack's book How to Do Things with Words. If you google that phrase you will of course find yourself reading about J.L. Austin's famous book about speech-act theory. In her poem, which is obviously a response to Austin, Retallack writes a kind of poetry that she believes enacts an idea about what words do. Ponder that for a moment: a poem which is itself about what words do but is also made in a way that also enacts that idea—the idea of words doing things. When you think conventionally of "doing things," you mostly don't think about writing about it—you think, rather, of doing something. What kind of doing is making a thing? Isn't the original idea of poetry—poesis—that it is a making?
HERE is a recording of Joan Retallack performing this poem.
HERE is a copy of the text of the poem.
Here are some questions to which you might respond as you write and post your comments:
1. Why pair J.L. Austin and Jane Austen (a linguistic theoriest and a novelist)? 2. What is the field or area of rhetoric in the poem's writing? Consider this phrasing, for instance: "Thirdly, let us consider the question whether it is true that..." 3. In what way can "precisely" be distinguished from "exactly"? 4. What is to be gained, if anything, from "the continual discovery of fresh types of nonsense"?
As always, I look forward to reading your responses! Please don't ever think that what you say here needs to be definitive! Perhaps you can just choose a line or phrase or passage and attempt to "translate" it into other words--to paraphrase. Or perhaps you should just ask questions.
Enjoy this, please!
—Al
|
|
Will B
ModPo student
Posts: 19
|
Post by Will B on Jan 7, 2023 10:17:10 GMT -5
[It's confusing to me that Retallack's reading bears little resemblance to the printed poem. I know this is part of her performative style, but this is so wildly different. I hope to get to this later.]
|
|
|
Post by afilreis on Jan 7, 2023 10:32:35 GMT -5
[It's confusing to me that Retallack's reading bears little resemblance to the printed poem. I know this is part of her performative style, but this is so wildly different. I hope to get to this later.] Yes, Will — we can ask Joan about this (she might remember....) but my sense is that the poem was in formation when she gave that reading. The reading is 1991 and the book was published in 1998.
—Al
|
|
|
Post by Vijaya Maddali on Jan 7, 2023 12:57:55 GMT -5
Jane Austen is and will remain my all-time favorite novelist. So I love the playfulness JR engages in setting her with J.L. Austin and the difference in their last names. I like also the fact that he has an 'I' in his name. Austen has this ability to use language to slip into the interiority of her characters and she illuminates what is true and real about human nature. Whereas Austin 'theorizes' about words and language only to further confound us. I am so enjoying your questions Al- they give me a way into the poems. And this is a difficult one. And for your second question, my answer is Logic. I might be wrong. She could be using Mathematics/Algebra but in any case, she is using the field of logical reasoning. I am still figuring out my response to the 3rd question. We have all gained a lot from the "continual discovery of fresh types of nonsense" in Mod Po so far. We discover that the rules of grammar are arbitrary, and that language is linked to political power, Imperialism, and colonization. We gain an insight into this crazy journey we as human beings have taken and what has brought us to this place- the brink- here and now today.
|
|
|
Post by Denny on Jan 7, 2023 14:21:24 GMT -5
It has been amazing to learn the close engagement with Austin’s language philosophy & of his posthumously published essay ‘ Sense and Sensibilia’.
At first I’d thought it simply playful of Retallack to conjoin the two Austin’s but it was Austin himself who had done so. Austin also had ideas that sound downright conceptually poetic like this….
Austin proposes some curious philosophical tools. For instance, he uses a sort of word game for developing an understanding of a key concept. This involves taking up a dictionary and finding a selection of terms relating to the key concept, then looking up each of the words in the explanation of their meaning. This process is iterated until the list of words begins to repeat, closing in a "family circle" of words relating to the key concept.
Joan Retallacks work repeatedly references and engages philosophical concepts with a near flippant brevity that often belies her incisiveness.
Here’s a JL Austin quote….
"Sentences are not as such either true or false" - Sense and Sensibilia (1962), p. 111
And here is a reference to a humorous incident involving Austins attempts to logically categorize language ….
During a lecture at Columbia University attended by American philosopher Sidney Morgenbesser, Austin made the claim that although a double negative in English implies a positive meaning, there is no language in which a double positive implies a negative. To which Morgenbesser responded in a dismissive tone, "Yeah, yeah."[27][28] (Some have quoted it as "Yeah, right.")
|
|
|
Post by Laura De Bernardi on Jan 7, 2023 15:09:08 GMT -5
Why pair Austen with Austin? Because she can! Aristotle is the author of "Sense and Sensibilia" which is about what can be sensed. I presume that Austin is referencing Aristotle and not Austen with his question, "Where and what exactly is the surface of a cat?" In a nod to Aristotle, I take Austin to be suggesting that the surface of a cat can only be determined via the sense perceptions.
It's a stretch, but Austen could be described as a moral philosopher. She certainly understands moral reasoning. But I doubt that there is any other relationship between Austen and Austin, other than the fact that their names sound the same, and their book titles look similar, ie sensibility and sensibilia. Austen was making the distinction between 'good sense' and 'excessive feeling', while I suspect that the 'sense and sensibilia' argument is fundamentally different. But since I know nothing else about Aristotle or Austin, that's where the argument ends.
This goes to one of the problems I have with experimental writing involving arbitrary pairings of obscure non-related words and themes about which most people know nothing about. It seems to me that the post-modernists invite the criticism of 'obscurantism' with this kind of word play. Yes, poets play with words - that's part of the joy of poetry. But just because an author is being playful with language doesn't make it poetry. This leads me to ask the obvious question, is this poetry? Retallack may invite the question by calling it poetry, although there is nothing in the link that says that what I'm reading is poetry. You, Al, answer the question authoritatively, yes, this is poetry. But on what grounds do you make so categorical a statement?
The suggestion that the investigation of nonsense is profoundly related to new politically vital and ethically charged ways of thinking and being is also problematic. What, exactly, and precisely, is new about the kind of thinking that is happening here? QAnon can be described as nonsense, playful and is just as obscure, but it has tremendous sway in the world at large. It is currently morphing into new and potentially more dangerous forms of political and ethical discourse as we speak. It is vital and alive. It's an observable form of 'nonsense' which can be probed and investigated for how it is fundamentally changing the way in which we live. Can the same be said for this equally obscure form of 'doing things with words'?
I doubt that Austen would be much interested in 'nonsense' and might say to it as Elizabeth said to Darcy in "Pride and Prejudice", "I shall save my breath to cool my porridge." Austen is also what I would call 'famous', that is, generally well known and lauded for her achievements. I would not describe Austin as 'famous' in that sense. Al, I think it's stretching language to use the word 'famous' of him. He may be well known and lauded amongst a select and specialised group of linguists and associated language theorists such as experimental poets. But the only 'famous' linguist I know of is Chomsky, who is well known and lauded for his achievements outside of his specialty of linguistics.
|
|
|
Post by Barbara Nilsen on Jan 7, 2023 15:36:11 GMT -5
It has been amazing to learn the close engagement with Austin’s language philosophy & of his posthumously published essay ‘ Sense and Sensibilia’. At first I’d thought it simply playful of Retallack to conjoin the two Austin’s but it was Austin himself who had done so. Austin also had ideas that sound downright conceptually poetic like this…. Austin proposes some curious philosophical tools. For instance, he uses a sort of word game for developing an understanding of a key concept. This involves taking up a dictionary and finding a selection of terms relating to the key concept, then looking up each of the words in the explanation of their meaning. This process is iterated until the list of words begins to repeat, closing in a "family circle" of words relating to the key concept. Joan Retallacks work repeatedly references and engages philosophical concepts with a near flippant brevity that often belies her incisiveness. Here’s a JL Austin quote…. "Sentences are not as such either true or false" - Sense and Sensibilia (1962), p. 111 And here is a reference to a humorous incident involving Austins attempts to logically categorize language …. During a lecture at Columbia University attended by American philosopher Sidney Morgenbesser, Austin made the claim that although a double negative in English implies a positive meaning, there is no language in which a double positive implies a negative. To which Morgenbesser responded in a dismissive tone, "Yeah, yeah."[27][28] (Some have quoted it as "Yeah, right.") Denny, thanks for your post. I took a brief look at JL Austen's 1955 Harvard Lectures also titled How to Do Things with Words. It's interesting to compare a philosophers lectures to a poet/philosopher's writing. I appreciated your knowledge about how both JL Austin and Jane Austin are integrated into JR's book--she definitely brings her philosophy of language to her poetry (or poetry to her philosophy of language). I loved the humor at the end of your post. A warning that statements that imply absolute truth can be hazardous.
|
|
|
Post by alantoltzis on Jan 7, 2023 22:52:15 GMT -5
a poem which is itself about what words do but is also made in a way that also enacts that idea—the idea of words doing things.
What do words do? JR seems to look for an answer in philosophy but I want her to find it in religion as words are the method God uses to create the world, which comes into being only after he says it. I think that the difference between the creation described in Genesis and the stuttering language that she wrestles with is fascinating. I am not sure what to do with this idea yet but just wanted to offer it up. Each other poems we have read so far has been a look at Retallack’s theory of the birth of the poem and their connection to original (primal?) thought. . Just where (and how) is it created? Poetry’s creation can be seen to be as foundational to language as language us to the creation of the world with language being at the root of both.
|
|
|
Post by cat mccredie on Jan 7, 2023 22:56:54 GMT -5
I'm flailing; this is all so far beyond me that I don't even have questions, just a feeling of being out of my depth. Immensely grateful to Denny and Laura for illuminating the Austen/Austin connection. The only little sandbanks I've found to rest myself upon in this strange non-terrain are: There seem to be a lot of 's' sounds in these pieces (pieces plural since the recording is entirely different to the text). I was indeed interested to learn the Greek word for 'unnailing' in the context of Christ being removed from the cross. The word is Aποκαθήλωσι, literally meaning (according to Google translate) 'unfixation'. There are a lot of words in Greek that don't have direct corresponding words in English. Like one of my favourites, Βρέχομαι, which means 'I'm being rained on.' The recording reminded me of my favourite REM song, 'The Sidewinder Sleeps Tonight', because of the stumbling over the sibilant at 4"51, very reminiscent of 2"16 of that song: www.bing.com/videos/search?q=sidewinder+sleeps+tonight+lyrics&&view=detail&mid=FB9D73DF7B215E9115C0FB9D73DF7B215E9115C0&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dsidewinder%2Bsleeps%2Btonight%2Blyrics%26FORM%3DHDRSC4
|
|
lidia
ModPo student
Posts: 24
|
Post by lidia on Jan 8, 2023 0:19:48 GMT -5
I'm flailing; this is all so far beyond me that I don't even have questions, just a feeling of being out of my depth. Immensely grateful to Denny and Laura for illuminating the Austen/Austin connection. I feel a bit the same, Cat. I see lots of juxtapositions which rely on knowledge I don't have. I will be reading rather than participating I think. Am still interested in what others have to say.
|
|
|
Post by cat mccredie on Jan 8, 2023 1:06:38 GMT -5
I'm flailing; this is all so far beyond me that I don't even have questions, just a feeling of being out of my depth. Immensely grateful to Denny and Laura for illuminating the Austen/Austin connection. I feel a bit the same, Cat. I see lots of juxtapositions which rely on knowledge I don't have. I will be reading rather than participating I think. Am still interested in what others have to say. Ha, Lidia, too late, this counts as participation! And yes, 'lots of juxtapositions which rely on knowledge I don't have' is exactly it. I am really interested in the conversation, including this one. Thanks for the solidarity.
|
|
|
Post by Paul K on Jan 8, 2023 2:12:20 GMT -5
I am taking Al at face value (with trust) that what we write here is not definitive.
The question pressing me after I have read (just once) this piece of writing is, Is this a poem? And the answer that jumps to my mind is, I think/feel not. It is oracular, exploratory, frustrating, fascinating, suggestive, a puzzle. And so are many poems. But poetry began with a marriage of rhythm and language. I feel no rhythm here. How far do we go in playing with what words can do before we say, this is interesting (I am interested in x), but it is some other type of making and doing with words than poetry?
And this is odd, the Walrus said, because I have read many things before, such as the poems in Layli Long Soldier's Whereas, or the old apple poem with the worm in it, without having this feeling. I did not have this thought appear reading either "None Too Soon" or Fig. 28. Have I spent too long recently trying to understand my philosopher friend's argument for the logical contradiction in many scientists' self-understanding of causation, given that the practice of science depends upon shared norms among presumed agents? That is, am I temporarily exhausted by the complexity of the words presented, their navel-gazing, or their reach into conversations I have not been attending to?
God bless Jane Austen. She wrote fiction, moving, revealing, and very witty.
I did take (and greatly enjoyed) a logic class in college forty years ago. Thank you, George Weaver, professor of philosophy, Bryn Mawr College.
Am I just tired tonight, or should poems have rhythm? or something? (Yes or no, I am well aware of the problematics of categorization.)
Demoralizing, but try again, tomorrow. With that work, I may find this piece of JR's writing opening, dear, a stone worth rubbing.
-Paul
|
|
|
Post by sophianaz on Jan 8, 2023 2:38:25 GMT -5
I am guessing Retallack paired J I and Jane together because a novel is also a kind of performative language.
So much here that I am still trying to unpack! The reference to Alice ( assuming it’s Alice in Wonderland) is perhaps a clue, are the words like magic mushrooms playing, confounding our brains? I feel shaken stirred and slightly dizzy!
|
|
|
Post by Darcy on Jan 8, 2023 6:57:03 GMT -5
I'm flailing; this is all so far beyond me that I don't even have questions, just a feeling of being out of my depth. Immensely grateful to Denny and Laura for illuminating the Austen/Austin connection. The only little sandbanks I've found to rest myself upon in this strange non-terrain are: There seem to be a lot of 's' sounds in these pieces (pieces plural since the recording is entirely different to the text). I was indeed interested to learn the Greek word for 'unnailing' in the context of Christ being removed from the cross. The word is Aποκαθήλωσι, literally meaning (according to Google translate) 'unfixation'. There are a lot of words in Greek that don't have direct corresponding words in English. Like one of my favourites, Βρέχομαι, which means 'I'm being rained on.' The recording reminded me of my favourite REM song, 'The Sidewinder Sleeps Tonight', because of the stumbling over the sibilant at 4"51, very reminiscent of 2"16 of that song: www.bing.com/videos/search?q=sidewinder+sleeps+tonight+lyrics&&view=detail&mid=FB9D73DF7B215E9115C0FB9D73DF7B215E9115C0&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dsidewinder%2Bsleeps%2Btonight%2Blyrics%26FORM%3DHDRSC4I'm with you. I did, of course, notice the similarity in the names Austen and Austin. I also was confused that Joan's reading didn't match up with the text we were given. Per Al's question, I'd say that we gain critical thinking/interpretive skills from "the continual discovery of fresh types of nonsense." Here, I think the author may even be referring to her own work. The word "nonsense" puts it all in perspective, as if not to take ourselves too seriously.
|
|
|
Post by afilreis on Jan 8, 2023 8:29:09 GMT -5
The headnote to one of the sections talks about measuring a banana with a ruler, and then talks about measuring a ruler with bananas. What is the effect of this somewhat surprising reversal? And what does it have to do, if anything, with the idea of doing things with words?
|
|