<html><head></head><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px"><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3016"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3017">Jim M,<o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3018"></o:p></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3016"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><br></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3019"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3020"> There’s
no doubt that Burke did not invent or first discover and explore the “Trouble”
or “conflict” inherent in drama. Such analysis has been around for a long, long
time, as we know.<o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3021"></o:p></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3019"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><br></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3022"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3023">Phil,<o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3024"></o:p></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3022"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><br></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3025"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3026"> Thanks
for those quotes from your letter from Burke back in the 1970s. The more we get
general access to those more informal statements of Burke’s, the better. The
notion of Burke urging a further “perfecting” of his philosophy by his readers
and interpreters is both encouraging and characteristic of his style of thought
and composition.<o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3027"></o:p></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3025"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><br></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3028"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3029"> Jim
K,<o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3030"></o:p></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3028"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><br></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3031"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3032"> You
say you basically agree with me. I say I basically agree with you. In saying
that I agree with the way you characterize the pentad and its function is to
say, also, that I agree with the authors of the “Trouble[some]” article in the <i id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3033">KBJ</i> on that score. They can’t find
“Trouble” in the <i id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3034">Grammar</i><b id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3035">. </b>There’s no need for “Trouble,” i.e.,
the “conflict” of full-fledged drama and all its consequences, to be in the <i id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3036">Grammar</i>. These “basic forms of
[pentadic] thought,” as Burke calls them, for “attributing motives,” derived as
Stan says from the grammar of language itself, can be used on what Burke
indicates is a “general,” high level of abstraction to bring to the surface in
a discourse the motivational strategies at work to finesse listeners and
readers into concerted action. Those twists, feints, and sleights of hand may
not be apparent on the surface.<o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3037"></o:p></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3031"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><br></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3038"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3039"> What
I disagree with in the <i id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3040">KBJ</i> article in
question is the authors’ broader statement that “Trouble” is not to be found
anywhere in Burke’s corpus, that, indeed, this implicit and ultimately
necessary dramatic concept should be attributed to Jerome Bruner, as Bruner has
interpreted and employed Burke. Various terms and uses of the “Trouble[some]”
guilt-sacrifice-redemption cycle are scattered throughout Burke’s early
writings, and then in more detailed anatomical analysis, starting at least in
Burke’s Princeton conference paper (1951), published as an appendix to the 2<sup id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3041">nd</sup>
edition of <i id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3042">P&C</i> in 1954. The
chapter, “The First Three Chapters of Genesis,” in <i id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3043">RR</i>, we surely know, brings this trajectory to a most thoroughgoing
conclusion.<o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3044"></o:p></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3038"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><br></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3045"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3046"> Now,
in my <i id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3047">Primer</i>, I do two relevant
things: In the first three chapters, I show, I do believe, how the
guilt-redemption cycle, or terms implicit in the idea of order, devolve from
the pentad, or the basic grammar of language. Drama in all its aspects is
implicit in the language humans use even “trivially,” as Burke says early in <i id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3048">RR</i>, the book that brings this trajectory
of implications into full view, ifelliptically. I entitled Chapter 1 in the <i id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3049">Primer</i>, “The General, Implicitly Moral
Pattern of Verbal Action”; Chapter 2, “The Specific, Explicitly Moral Pattern
of Verbal Action”; Chapter 3, “A Paradigm for Invention of Discourse and
Analysis of Texts That Combines the Two Patterns.” This generic pattern then
brcomes the basis for distinguishing Burke’s notions of “tragic” drama, “comic”
drama, and “burlesque” drama, by way of various levels of dramatic intensity. I
add my conception of “melodrama,” about which Burke does not have as much to
say.<o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3050"></o:p></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3045"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><br></span></div><div style="text-indent:.5in" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3051"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3052">In my Addendum 3, I
explain, in my humble way, how the pentad can be detached from the trajectory
of implications Burke explicitly offers in “Terministic Screens” in <i id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3053">LASA</i>, and used as a “Separate Critical
Tool.” I highlight three aspects of Burke’s creative employment of these
fundamental grammatical concepts:<o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3054"></o:p></span></div><div style="text-indent:.5in" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3051"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><br></span></div><div style="text-indent:.5in" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3055"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3056">First, in discurse, as
in philosophies, one pentadic term, one of these basic forms of thought, tends
to get emphasized. I tie this tendency to Burke’s notions of “perfection” or
“entelechy.”<o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3057"></o:p></span></div><div style="text-indent:.5in" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3055"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><br></span></div><div style="text-indent:.5in" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3058"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3059">Second, another pentadic
term will often be coupled with this source of overarching explanation in what
Burke calls a “ratio.”<o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3060"></o:p></span></div><div style="text-indent:.5in" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3058"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><br></span></div><div style="text-indent:.5in" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3061"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3062">Third, these basic
forms of thought that imply one another are, in each case, not tied down to any
particular entities or processes whatsoever. Pentadic terms are eminently
“flexible.” I use “war” and the “human body” to show how they each can be an
agent, act, purpose, means, or scene, depending on the route of strategic
ambiguity a rhetor chooses. Burke’s metaphor of the “alembic” of transformation
via the melting of metal serves as descriptive such strategic transformation. I
reference Clark Rountree’s superb book on “Motives in Bush vs. Gore” as
illustration.<o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3063"></o:p></span></div><div style="text-indent:.5in" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3061"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><br></span></div><div style="text-indent:.5in" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3064"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3065">So I don’t think I’m
stinting on the value and uniqueness of pentadic theory and criticism. I just
have not personally used it. I excuse that lacuna by reference to my admittedly
“morbid” personality. That’s what Burke says is the drawback in pentadic theory
and criticism alone. It’s not MORBID enough. And “morbid[ity]” is “Trouble”!<o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3066"></o:p></span></div><div style="text-indent:.5in" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3064"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><br></span></div><div style="text-indent:.5in" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3067"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3068">All this raises the
issue of late Burke in relation to early Burke. My simple mind sees more
congruities than dislocations between Burke before the 1950s, and Burke after
the turn of the half-century.<o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3069"></o:p></span></div><div style="text-indent:.5in" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3067"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><br></span></div><div style="text-indent:.5in" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3070"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3071">But time’s up for
today. That question for later.<o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3072"></o:p></span></div><div style="text-indent:.5in" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3070"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><br></span></div><div style="text-indent:.5in" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3073"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3074"><o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3075"> </o:p></span></div><div style="text-indent:.5in" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3076"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3077">Ed<o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3078"></o:p></span></div><div style="text-indent:.5in" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3079"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3080"> <o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3081"></o:p></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3082"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3083"> <o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3084"></o:p></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3085"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3086"> <o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3087"></o:p></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_2805">
</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3088"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3089"> <o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485200521245_3090"></o:p></span></div> <div class="qtdSeparateBR"><br><br></div><div class="yahoo_quoted" style="display: block;"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> <div dir="ltr"><font size="2" face="Arial"> On Monday, January 23, 2017 4:57 PM, James Klumpp <jklumpp@umd.edu> wrote:<br></font></div> <br><br> <div class="y_msg_container">I am not certain that I disagree at all with Ed Appel. But I do think <br>that we err when we try to overburden the pentad by loading all Burkean <br>insights on it. Trouble is one of those. We need to remember that the <br>pentad was a vocabulary designed to work with variety of accounts. <br>"This book is concerned with the basic forms of thought which, in <br>accordance with the nature of the world as all men experience it, are <br>exemplified in the attributing of motives. . . We shall use five terms <br>as generating principle for our investigation. In a rounded statement <br>about motives . . ." Now when we accomplish this task of understanding <br>the ways in which the symbol using animal attributes motives, provides <br>symbolic accounts of situations, we have not said all that is to be <br>said. Very well. Why does the pentad need to capture all of the world's <br>insight? Let Ed say that the dramatistic process is necessary to a <br>fuller statement about diachronic narrative (and to human conflict). I <br>am fine with that. I agree. And, drama is a natural metaphor because, <br>Burke argues elsewhere, the state of Babel creates disorder and <br>conflict, as Jim Moore adds. But let us not lose sight of the necessary <br>work that the pentad does so well -- illuminating the variety of motives <br>that mark the Babel of human speech. Let it do that work well and let <br>other insights take that necessary work and proceed further in the human <br>drama.<br><br>In short, the addition of Trouble into the pentad does not enhance its <br>ability to clarify accounts, in my judgment. Save the insights that <br>flow from Trouble and the many other terms of disorder that Ed has <br>cataloged for a fuller discussion of the rich complex of terminologies <br>of which the pentad is one. Let the humble pentad do its work well. If <br>we do, I think that we will have less chance of losing the point that <br>the pentad was posited for in the first place: to capture ways that <br>symbolic accounts carve up the world differently.<br><br>Jim Klumpp<br><br>-- <br>-------------<br>James F. Klumpp, Professor Emeritus<br>Department of Communication, University of Maryland<br>409 Upper Haw Dr., Mars Hill, NC 28754<br>Email: <a ymailto="mailto:jklumpp@umd.edu" href="mailto:jklumpp@umd.edu">jklumpp@umd.edu</a><br>Voice: 828.689.4456<br>Website: <a href="http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~jklumpp/home.htm" target="_blank">http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~jklumpp/home.htm</a><br><br><br><br></div> </div> </div> </div></div></body></html>