Funny that I want to comment on the science & poetry synthesis too (and that is the one that you are hesitant to say more about, Henry! Sorry.)
Auden's After Reading a Child's Guide to Modern Physics...stanza two..."Marriage is rarely bliss/ But, surely, it would be worse/ As particles to pelt/ At thousands of miles per sec/ About a universe/ In which a lover's kiss/ Would either not be felt/ Or break the loved one's neck..."
Later in the poem he uses this couplet: "[who] Would feel at home a-straddle/ An ever expanding saddle?" Ha!!
This issue of synthesis does make me think of why Auden is so darn refreshing sometimes. I just picked up a copy of his Shakespeare lectures from the library. (I don't think I want to give it back! But I will.) In these lectures, Auden contends that Shakespeare's greatest personal accomplishment was his ability to dedicate his life to art while remaining mindful of its inherent frivolity.
Maybe poets just need to start mocking String Theory. Or dolphin language. Or Darwin. Or Black holes.
i'm wondering if the current difficulty with synthesising science and poetry is the somewhat sudden enormity and complexity on one half of the balance sheet. in physics alone, people still struggle to intuitively grasp the shift from Newtonian ways of thinking to the quantum mechanical, quantum field theoretic models, to say nothing of the connected ideas in cosmology, complexity, emergence, computer science, etc., etc., etc.
i'm a keen enough lay student and i struggle just to grasp the very basics. i can't imagine grafting prosody and the broader wealth of the English canon with any of that, much less create from it something profound and beautiful.
do you think it's possible we'd ever have another, say, Shakespeare-like figure who could honestly achieve it? or is that now just a naive sort of question?
i've heard it said that if you ask a physicist a question that begins with "is it possible..." they're almost professionally obliged to sigh, and then say "well, yes, it's *possible*..."
perhaps a better question might be "...is it likely?". in which case I wonder, if perhaps there are enough intermediary synthesisers along the way - to help speed the plow, as it were - then maybe.
Funny that I want to comment on the science & poetry synthesis too (and that is the one that you are hesitant to say more about, Henry! Sorry.)
Auden's After Reading a Child's Guide to Modern Physics...stanza two..."Marriage is rarely bliss/ But, surely, it would be worse/ As particles to pelt/ At thousands of miles per sec/ About a universe/ In which a lover's kiss/ Would either not be felt/ Or break the loved one's neck..."
Later in the poem he uses this couplet: "[who] Would feel at home a-straddle/ An ever expanding saddle?" Ha!!
This issue of synthesis does make me think of why Auden is so darn refreshing sometimes. I just picked up a copy of his Shakespeare lectures from the library. (I don't think I want to give it back! But I will.) In these lectures, Auden contends that Shakespeare's greatest personal accomplishment was his ability to dedicate his life to art while remaining mindful of its inherent frivolity.
Maybe poets just need to start mocking String Theory. Or dolphin language. Or Darwin. Or Black holes.
I love Auden on Shakespeare. Might blog about that, great shout!
i'm wondering if the current difficulty with synthesising science and poetry is the somewhat sudden enormity and complexity on one half of the balance sheet. in physics alone, people still struggle to intuitively grasp the shift from Newtonian ways of thinking to the quantum mechanical, quantum field theoretic models, to say nothing of the connected ideas in cosmology, complexity, emergence, computer science, etc., etc., etc.
i'm a keen enough lay student and i struggle just to grasp the very basics. i can't imagine grafting prosody and the broader wealth of the English canon with any of that, much less create from it something profound and beautiful.
do you think it's possible we'd ever have another, say, Shakespeare-like figure who could honestly achieve it? or is that now just a naive sort of question?
anyway, cheers for some great links
I need to think about it...
i've heard it said that if you ask a physicist a question that begins with "is it possible..." they're almost professionally obliged to sigh, and then say "well, yes, it's *possible*..."
perhaps a better question might be "...is it likely?". in which case I wonder, if perhaps there are enough intermediary synthesisers along the way - to help speed the plow, as it were - then maybe.