{"id":695,"date":"2014-12-02T18:52:08","date_gmt":"2014-12-02T23:52:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/my.dev.vanderbilt.edu\/williamfranke\/?page_id=695"},"modified":"2022-01-05T03:15:37","modified_gmt":"2022-01-05T08:15:37","slug":"creative-responses-to-my-work","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/my.dev.vanderbilt.edu\/williamfranke\/creative-responses-to-my-work\/","title":{"rendered":"Creative Responses to Franke’s Work"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"\"\"A propos<\/em> Secular Scriptures<\/strong><\/h2>\n
cianma@comcast.net<\/address>\n
\n
\n
\n
From Mark Cianciola<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Mything The Point <\/span><\/div>\n
A Play by W. F. Godot
\n<\/em><\/div>\n

\n<\/em><\/div>\n
Act I<\/em><\/div>\n

\n<\/em><\/div>\n
N. Frye: Gentlemen, what are we to make of Franke’s Preface?<\/div>\n
H. Bloom: Dr. Franke has pulled off a coup de critique.<\/em><\/div>\n

\n<\/em><\/div>\n
F. Kermode: He’s made himself impregnable.<\/div>\n
F. R. Leavis: He wants to have his truffles and eat them too.<\/div>\n
J. Derrida: Clever bastard.\u00a0 If he were here, I’d take him apart.<\/div>\n
Dr. S. Johnson: How shall we put it?\u00a0 I’d say the essays that follow the Preface<\/div>\n
are a peculiar kind of poetic composition.<\/div>\n
E. Pound: I canto say I disagree with you.<\/div>\n
HB: Good point, Dr. Johnson.<\/div>\n
NF: They defy proofreading.\u00a0 Don’t you agree, Ezra?\u00a0 No one could proof one<\/div>\n
of your cantos.<\/div>\n
EP: Word for word, pound for pound, you’re correct and I canto disagree.\u00a0 The<\/div>\n
proof is in the pudding—<\/div>\n
HB:\u00a0 And we’re not sure what’s in Franke’s pudding.\u00a0 Indeed, we cannot critique the essays.<\/div>\n
Would we be critiquing poetry, interpreting it?\u00a0 In that case, we would be writing literary<\/div>\n
criticism.\u00a0 If we wrote a review, would it be of the essays as literary criticism or as poetry?<\/div>\n
FRL: Franke wants to have his cake and eat it too.<\/div>\n
JD:\u00a0 Clever SOB.\u00a0 If I were in his house, I’d deconstruct it.<\/div>\n
HB: Coup de critique<\/em>.<\/div>\n
NF: Enough with the French, Harold.\u00a0 Are the essays speculative philosophy?<\/div>\n
FK: Franke may think they’re revelation since he thinks they’re poetry.<\/div>\n
FRL: What about his shtick about “secularized theological revelation”?<\/div>\n
Dr. J:\u00a0 Holy Shtick!\u00a0 It’s mundanely divine, divinely mundane. \u00a0 It’s simultaneously black<\/div>\n
and white, it’s A and not A.<\/div>\n
NF: The first sentence of the Preface is a mind boggling contradiction, oxymoron, and<\/div>\n
revolutionary provocation.\u00a0 Lock and load, gentlemen.<\/div>\n
EP: Yes, we must give Franke credit for that.\u00a0 Also in the Preface he creates great suspense.<\/div>\n
Will he be able to pull off his claims in the essays?\u00a0 If he does, he has walked the Grand<\/div>\n
Canyon blindfolded on a tightrope.<\/div>\n
HB:\u00a0 And if he doesn’t?<\/div>\n
\n

EP:\u00a0 We are in a state of suspense.\u00a0 Such a state will tease the curiosity of Agatha Christie.<\/p>\n

But, of course, there will be others who hope for a big flop.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
HB:\u00a0 Ezra, are you talking about me?<\/div>\n
EP:\u00a0 If the shoe fits—<\/div>\n
Dr. J: Hear ye, hear ye.\u00a0 Get a grip.\u00a0 It seems to me Franke is making too much out of the<\/div>\n
fact that theological revelation and poetic revelation both result from a higher consciousness.<\/div>\n
And that one secularizes the other and the other divinizes its antipode, if you get my<\/div>\n
meaning.<\/div>\n
NF: Also I think it’s pretty well known that language can be a symbol that mirrors a higher<\/div>\n
reality.<\/div>\n
JD: No one can disagree with the obvious.\u00a0 Underneath, it’s just an analogy between divine<\/div>\n
revelation and poetic revelation.\u00a0 “Functioning as revelation” is not<\/em> revelation.<\/div>\n
FK: Longinus already covered this waterfront.\u00a0 And before him in spades so did Plato.<\/div>\n
EP: It may be that Franke is mad.<\/div>\n
FRL:\u00a0 Could be.\u00a0 Plato said, “The best things we have come from madness.”<\/div>\n
NF: We are all agreed then that Franke lies beyond our ken?<\/div>\n
ALL:\u00a0 D’accord. <\/em>As Plato said, “The body prevents us from seeing the truth.”<\/div>\n
Northrop Frye: We all agree, then, that we may be mything Franke’s point.<\/div>\n

\n<\/em><\/div>\n

\n<\/em><\/div>\n
Act II<\/em>
\n<\/em><\/div>\n

\n<\/em><\/div>\n
EP:\u00a0 Dante seems to be Franke’s pivotal figure.\u00a0 Cogito that, ergo Franke is influenced
\n<\/em><\/div>\n
by Ezra Pound.\u00a0 That is, by moi<\/em>!<\/div>\n
Dr. J: But there is some confusion here.<\/div>\n
HB:\u00a0 Yes, in one place Franke says Dante is medieval.<\/div>\n
NF: In another he says Dante and Chaucer are modern.<\/div>\n
FK: What does he mean by “modern”?<\/div>\n
FRL: And in another that Dante is the progenitor of the modern.<\/div>\n
JD:\u00a0 You guys are splitting hairs.\u00a0 By the way, is there any reason for his using self-reflection<\/em><\/div>\n
one place and self-relectiveness <\/em>in another?\u00a0 Also self-reflexivity<\/em>?
\n<\/em><\/div>\n
EP:\u00a0 If postmodern<\/em> is correct, why does he use pre-modern<\/em>?\u00a0 Being a modest modernist, I like<\/div>\n
premodern\/postmodern. <\/em><\/div>\n
HB: Although I’m rarely confused about anything, why do we have “divine Truth” then “truth<\/div>\n
of Scripture”?\u00a0\u00a0 What about re-<\/em> words: reexamines<\/em> but re-actualizing<\/em>?<\/div>\n
Dr. J: Enough, gentlemen.\u00a0 Enough.\u00a0 You are piling on.\u00a0 This is not fair.<\/div>\n
NF: You’re right, SJ.<\/div>\n
Dr. J: Never forget that the soul which attempts to examine anything with the body is always<\/div>\n
deceived.\u00a0 Let us live in a state as close to death as possible.\u00a0 Only then, as Plato said, will<\/div>\n
we attain wisdom.\u00a0 Only then will we understand Franke.<\/div>\n
Fin<\/em><\/div>\n

\n<\/em><\/div>\n

A propos<\/em> A Philosophy of the Unsayable<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n
I Knew Language Was A Lie<\/a><\/div>\n

By Peter Kline<\/a> on April 22, 2014<\/p>\n

\n

Format: Paperback Verified Purchase<\/p>\n

\n

A poetic response to and interpretation of Franke’s wonderful book:<\/p>\n

I knew language was a lie
\nWhen I looked into your eyes
\nAnd saw that liquid glance
\nSo swift and subtle
\nAny word would overwhelm
\nHardening and freezing you
\nInto the clumsy slowness of speech<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s not, then,
\nUndergo the usual orgies of words
\nDeclarations, promises, threats
\nAll lies, them
\nFleeting pleasures of recognition
\nAlways falling, never taking flight<\/p>\n

What is love but the love of secrets?
\nWhat is fear but the fear of secrets?<\/p>\n

I knew language was a lie
\nWhen I looked into your eyes
\nAnd saw that liquid glance
\nBoiling into you what I can never have
\nPatience is swifter than desire that
\nRaces for words, arriving already at
\nThe secret that will never speak<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Google Books sample of Syndicate Forum on A Philosophy of the Unsayable<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

A propos <\/em>On What Cannot Be Said<\/h2>\n

Apophatic Trip<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A propos<\/em>\u00a0Franke’s Apophatic Project<\/h2>\n