POETICKS

Endwar had such intereseting comments to contribute to the discussion going on at Geof Huth’s blog concerning my A Preliminary Taxonomy of Poetry that I decided, with his permission, to give them a second printing here, with a few stray comments of mine to follow:

On mathematical poetry and mathematics:  I’m not sure I agree completely with anyone here.  It seems to me that in a mathematical poem one sees a mathematical operation with words (usually) operating in a metaphorical way (thus the poetry enters).  That said, the mathematical operations involved are usually well-defined for numbers, but not for various words and concepts.  “3+1=2” is something everyone (is taught to) agrees on in a literal way, and it follows from the definitions of each number and the signs “+” and “=”.  The statement “candy cane + child = happiness” is also probably pretty generally understood, but not with the same level of definiteness (or definition, as per the previous sentence) as the numerical example earlier.  You could write “candy cane + child = obesity”, which would probably also be understood, but because of the metaphorical nature of the math, you can’t conclude (via the law of substitution) that “happiness = obesity” (though some may point out the phrase “fat, dumb, and happy”, which could then lead us to conclude “happiness = obesity = stupidity” . . .  You can see, then where the multiple meanings of words (bifurcations of meaning, to throw in another mathematical metaphor popular in some at one time trendy lit-crit circles)) can lead.)

I would argue that a mathematical poem is a statement that represents a mathematical operation on the words involved, but which isn’t necessarily one that can be checked the way mathematical statements with numbers can be.  I will even go one step further and assert that one can create a mathematical poem that is mathematically wrong but which still makes a metaphorical point.  I have done this using matrix multiplication – a 2×2 matrix times a 2×1 vector is set equal to a 3×1 vector.   That’s not something you can do with real number (or even imaginary number) math, but I think it works as a poem.

Written mathematics is inherently visual, not verbal>:   I can grant Bob’s point that “3-1=2” is visually not interesting, and furthermore it hardly matters what font is used.  It does matter a bit what numbers are used – roman numerals will say “III-I=II”, and binary says “11-1=10”, and ternary says “10-1=2”, which are all the same numerically.  But it becomes evident for large numbers that roman numerals are unwieldy for calculating, and we are used to the decimal number system, so the non-decimal numbers need cumbersome subscripts or context to be read as intended.  I would argue, though, that the real test of whether we have something verbal versus something visual is whether the statement can be read aloud.  Again “Three minus one equals two,” is pretty straightforward, but that is merely because of the simplicity of the expression.  Try reading, say, a passage out of the middle of J.D. Jackson’s <I>Classical Electrodynamics</I> or any other graduate physics or mathematics text, and it will be immediately obvious why these equations aren’t written out in words and why mathematicians and scientists do nearly all their professional discussions with slides or in the presence of a blackboard.  And even if one does manage to put the text purely into words read aloud, you will find nobody in the audience who will understand what has been said who hasn’t at least written down some equations or a drawing as a guide.   One of the most tedious reading experiences I had was a few pages out of an algebra text written by Leonhard Euler, who felt it was necessary to write down an equation and then repeat the equation in words, such as:
“E=mv &sup2;/2

The kinetic energy is equal to half the product of the mass and the square of the velocity.”  This continues for page after page.

If you’re still not convinced, show me how to do read calculus aloud and make it intelligible.  Two pages minimum.

Because the visual representation is integral to the intelligible communication of all but the simplest mathematics, I would argue that mathematics is inherently visual language, and that by extension, mathematical poetry is also inherently visual poetry.  The visual poem may still not depend on which font is used (though I have examples where that is the case as well), but it still can’t be read aloud and have the same meaning, because it will not then register as mathematical.

On hypertext:  I think Bob is right that hypertext is not necessarily computer poetry, though the number of sequences need not be infinite.  There are primitive hypertexts preceding the web, if not the computer, perhaps the most literarily respectable being Julio Cortazar’s 1963 novel Hopscotch, or the near equivalent in the many children’s books where the reader gets to decide the adventure, where one reads the first page and at the bottom of each page one sees a sentence like “If Joe enters the gate, go to page 23.  If Joe continues down the road, go to page 42,” and continues until one reaches an ending.  (I suppose one can write out a tree or flow chart to describe the plot and then label it some sort of finite state machine or finite automaton, which is sort of a representation of a simple computer, but I digress.)  The point that I am agreeing with Bob is that a hypertext does not necessarily require a computer, though using a computer and particularly one with html, greatly facilitates the process.  Hypertext is thus distinct from code poetry like that which might be like that of Sondheim (or Jim Andrews or Ted Warnell (poems by Nari)).  And just as there is a difference between mathematics with numbers and mathematical poetry, a poem written in/with computer code need not be an actually compileable program.  There are of course many other approaches to poetry using a computer (starting with using a text editor to pound out cantos), for which I will refer the reader to the books of Jorge Luiz Antonio, who is trying to catalog them all (to see his long list of links to Brfazilian digital poetry samples, see http://vispo.com/misc/BrazilianDigitalPoetry.htm).

BTW, for another experience of the difference between computer code and a written document, try viewing the source code of this web page (or the dbqp blog itself), and contrast the instructions for the computer (the part read and understood by the machine) and the human readable part.

endwar

First a very quick acceptance, I think, with Endwar’s definition of mathematical poetry, except that I’d use different words to define it than he has: mathematical poetry is poetry that carries out mathematical operations, metaphorically, on non-mathematical terms.  This is, I believe, the first time I’ve accepted that the operations are metaphorical, as Gregory St. Thomasino tried to convince me six months or so ago.  My trouble (still) is that the operations seem actual to me–the sun really does multiply a field to get flowers!

Then my two comments at Geof’s blog:

Thanks for all the comments, endwar. I’ll get to all of them, I hope. Right now, just some thoughts in response to your comments about mathematical poetry.

I don’t care whether a poem can be read aloud or not. Mathematics is written in text just as ordinary verbal material is. Text printed standardly is effectively not visual, as far as I’m concerned: it’s symbolic. So a purely mathematical poem, in my definition, would be expressed in verbal and mathematical symbols.

On further thought, it seems to me all mathematics can be read out loud. So what if one needs to see it on the page to understand it? That would be true of many linguexclusive poems, too. Even relatively simple ones. I’ve almost never understood poems I was unfamiliar with when read at poetry readings.

As for the child and candy cane, I like your reasoning, but it now seems to me you have simple shown that “candy cane + child = happiness” and “candy cane + child = obesity” are both incorrect! They should be “candy cane + child = happiness + X” and “candy cane + child = obesity +Y.” And “happiness – obesity + X – Y.”

* * * * * * *

.

By the way, I love this discussion of mathematical poetry. I suddenly wondered, though, if there’s a subject fewer people in the world would be interested in.

One futher note: even if we admitted that difficult math must be seen to be understood, that would not make “candy cane + child – X = happiness” a visual poem since that particular poem would not have to be seen to be understood. That said, I can’t wait for the first mathematical poem based on mathematics you have to see on the page to understand.

–Bob