Page 2 of 2

Posted: April 13th, 2008, 6:23 pm
by Totenkopf
Ah yeah nice poem. As writers, or aspiring writers, we might recall, or at least be aware, that some scholars (going , like, way back) would rank poesy itself as simulacra (or at least not "true", and the product of inspiration, emotion, pathos--). Plato thought along those lines. Bertrand Russell also made an interesting distinction between literature and historical fact (whether one finds his tone a bit arrogant or not, he's essentially correct. Literature, like film, also reinforces, indeed reifies the Simulacra).



http://studioeight.tv/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=82037#82037

(ignore the spam, and ad hominems)

Posted: April 13th, 2008, 7:09 pm
by mnaz
Inspiration is not the same as emotion.

Also, "historical fact" gets tampered with through the generations too, doesn't it?

Posted: April 13th, 2008, 7:58 pm
by Totenkopf
Regardless, Hamlet is a construct (product of imagination, inspired idea, verbal expression etc), and Napoleon is not (nor are the facts of Napoleons' reign). Historical fact may be very difficult to verify or establish, but literary constructs--even the greats--are not factual. That doesn't mean they are to be dismissed, necessarily (and I am not making any insinuations about con's work here), but I do think Russell (and the ancients) rightly noted that the literary construct often tends to replace reality: the connotative displaces the denotative.

Posted: April 13th, 2008, 11:56 pm
by hester_prynne
Well, hell, I just like this poem alot, and I like Fellini too...
Probably due to my refusal to give up on romantic notions avec de flavour carnivale.....I mean sure we all know it's basically shit, but we have the tools to make it something more interesting, that is Toty if we don't let ourselves get too caught up in the analysis of every little thing, every little reference.
I wonder sometimes, do the scholarlies ever have any fun? Any vulnerable beautiful moments, imaginary or not? Are there scholars who can float in big bubbles, filled with soft red lights and steely dan doing a duet with sade in the background? (I'd sure like to meet one if there is)

It's a fucking Stellar poem Constantine and it really massaged my temporarily tortured soul.
Thank you
H 8)

Posted: April 14th, 2008, 12:52 am
by Totenkopf
OK, I agree to an extent, and I m not dissing any of the wits of S8, yet Russell would contend that belle-lettrists, romanticists, and aesthetes are the real rightists (as even Marx did in his gloomier moments--see his comments Re GB Shaw, and other scribes of the time). No, that isn't the case all the time. It might be kept in mind, however, that in the 20s and 30s, Russell and a few of his fabian cronies were denouncing Il Duce, and the fascists, while Ez Pound, and his poetical pals were in Italy partying with Il Duce. Even DH Lawrence waxed fascist in 20s/30s (one reason he and Russell parted ways.)

Russell was not merely a scholar anyway: he was a journalist, and indeed a philosopher, and pro-feminist, quite socialistic, and mentor to Keynes, and many others. He's read his Shelley as well. But British intellectuals tend to bore most Americuns. Who cares about BR, or denotation, or discussing socialism vs capitalism, or even Plato when there is all that romance and drah-ma with Bloomsbury, Lawrence, EP, TS Eliot, or the yanks like Fitzgerald, and then beatskis, etc.

Posted: April 14th, 2008, 6:23 am
by constantine
thanks hester for focusing on the poem. we all have theories on this and that, but i'm not writing poetry to facilitate debate; i'm writing to express what i feel and have the reasonable expectation that comments will be poem-based. of course, threads have a life of their own and that's cool to an extent, but when i write a poem about struggle and redemption it's frustrating to have it morphed into steely dan and bertrand russell.

Posted: April 14th, 2008, 12:44 pm
by Totenkopf
Not meant to derail, but Russell's points on denotation apply, like, any time language is being used. Poetic syntax does not denote as does the language that makes up an economic report, nor does it "prove" something, deductively: as even the greeks knew, the poet conjures, invokes, and works from inspiration, whereas say Euclid (or Aristotle's syllogistic) proceeds from precise axioms.

So forget the toryish Russell, then; what about Plato's Republic, Book X? Plato boots the poets (and minstrels) out of the state. Just a bunch of hooey? The key point is really that literary language does not have any inherent meaning. It's sort of closer to music: and for real music, some might prefer Chopin, or even Coltrane. Or perhaps closer to religious dogma (and of course many writers do tend to reinforce Judeo-Christianity, do they not?)

However boring or upper crust Russell seems, he's more or less following Platonic doctrine, though with a secular spin (and he has a list of anti-theological arguments that contemporary writers opposed to dogma might keep in mind). Anyhoo, es tut mir leid.

(The Dan was just for kix).

Posted: April 14th, 2008, 12:55 pm
by constantine
nice to know. arrivaderci roma.

Posted: April 14th, 2008, 7:51 pm
by hester_prynne
Indeed, poesy is definately not fact, but representative perchance of something factists??? cannot understand, much like atheists cannot comprehend a christian's belief in "God", rather, they tend to make sport of it, sometimes, in a way that tastes condescending, which of course only breeds contempt. But then they might just say that the contempt is not "their goal", indeed then, what is the goal? I have no idea.

Myself, I get tired of facts and oftentimes too many of them can bog me down and hold me directly prisoner to the only one real truth and that is that we all die. Yeah well, so what. Shall we not then invent a lifetime, before the inevitable truth hits? Shall we not run wild with imagination and folly and love and despair and laughter and tears, all insensible until the sensible ending erases everything?
I thank God for folks like Fellini, and poems like this one that Constantine, wrote, despite the fact that God is one I am very unsure of at the moment.....
:D
Smoochies
H 8)

Posted: April 14th, 2008, 9:46 pm
by Totenkopf
Shall we not run wild with imagination and folly and love and despair and laughter and tears, all insensible until the sensible ending erases everything?
Why not. Well-stated, but I think Russell's point, however snooty, concerns escapism, in a sense--literature, whether the greats, or not so greats, as escape mechanism. Ok cool it's a free country, sorta, but we should not mistake lit as truth, really. It's like reading some of those war poems from WWI, or Hemingway. Sad, tragic, etc, but NOTHING like reading say a few real historical reports regarding trench warfare, mustard gas, machine guns, 1000s dead in a matter of weeks, rats dining on corpses. Yet the Lit--the construct--replaces the reality, does it not. Should kids read Hemingway (or even say Joyce, Eliots. etc.) or should they read the historical record of WW1? I think they get much more Lit. than history (or econ, science, etc.)


What's the flick that has the copter carrying Jeee-zuss? La Dolce Vita? Or a pope fashion show? Heh heh. Fellini didn't f-n believe. Ah Signore Cons perhaps like an episodic cycle of Odes to Fellini? Buono. How about "la puta" in Amarcord, and Rota's muzak: pure poesy there.

Posted: April 15th, 2008, 7:53 am
by constantine
thank you hester. you have given words to my feelings in more ways than one. smoochies to you my friend.

Re: cabiria

Posted: October 25th, 2014, 5:06 pm
by WIREMAN
Dino....i will always think of u when i watch fellini.....we miss u my friend....sorry im missing your memorial tonight.....but im really not.....im having my own right now....rest in peace poet brother.