<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_1486090365618_5555"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5556">Burkophiles,<o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5557"></o:p></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5555"><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_1486090365618_5558"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5559">Just a few more
thoughts before letting go of Burke’s “Trouble[free],” basic grammar-related
“reenvisioning”---may I put it that way?---of dramatism (see Stan Lindsay’s
posts on how basic the quest for the roots of a “grammar of motives” can be).<o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5560"></o:p></span></div><div style="text-indent:.5in" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5558"><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_1486090365618_5561"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5562">For pentadic criticism,
I like the suggested metaphors of the X-ray and/or the MRI as replacements for
skeleton (from Les, I believe). The connotation of a more living, breathing,
developing document seems to make for a better fit. That proposal is a useful
outcome of our discussion. The MRI suggests visually the “from what,” “through
what,” “to what” of <i id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5563">PLF</i>, as applied
via the flexible and potentially transformative pentad.<o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5564"></o:p></span></div><div style="text-indent:.5in" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5561"><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_1486090365618_5565"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5566">I suggest the term
“reenvisioning” as perhaps applicable to the <i id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5567">Grammar</i>, because it drains the blood (literally as well as
figuratively) out of the full-fledged “drama” of both pre-logological and
logological Burke (with the transition, as I see it, between 1950, with the <i id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5568">Rhetoric</i>, and 1951, with the Princeton
paper and the articles on the negative in <i id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5569">QJS</i>
in ’52 and ‘53). Both “perfection” and
the more thorough exploration and application of “Original Sin and Redemption,”
and their relation to “Hierarchy” and social order, can be seen to commence in
“On Human Behavior Considered ‘Dramatistically’” (Appendix, <i id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5570">P&C</i>, 2<sup id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5571">nd</sup> edition, 1954,
the Princeton paper revised).<o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5572"></o:p></span></div><div style="text-indent:.5in" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5565"><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_1486090365618_5573"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5574">As for how closely or
distantly related are the pentad and the terms for order, I obviously opt for
close; others may opt for distant. Observe, though, that, even in his
“Introduction: The Five Key Terms of Dramatism” (<i id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5575">Grammar</i>, pp. xv-xxiii), not just in that passage in “Terministic
Screens” I already referenced, Burke says:<o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5576"></o:p></span></div><div style="text-indent:.5in" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5573"><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_1486090365618_5577"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5578">“And we shall note, in
passing, how the Rhetoric [the locus of that rowdy “Trouble” of “the Human Barnyard,”
<i id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5579">Rhetoric</i>, p. 23; see, also, p. 19 in
the <i id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5580">Rhetoric</i> for a list of those
“Troubles”] and the Symbolic hover about the edges of our central theme, the
Grammar” (p. xviii).<o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5581"></o:p></span></div><div style="text-indent:.5in" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5577"><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_1486090365618_5582"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5583">That “vexing problem”
that “Dramatism is always on the edge of” (<i id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5584">LASA</i>,
p. 55), that “Trouble,” is always implicit in the terms of an utterance that
names an act, a scene, an agent, an agency, and/or a purpose, in the discourses
of our species (the “<i id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5585">Symbolic</i> <i id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5586">Species</i>,” as Terrence Deacon [1997]
analogously calls us). For heuristic purposes, we can disjoin, but not totally
eradicate, the implicit.<o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5587"></o:p></span></div><div style="text-indent:.5in" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5582"><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_1486090365618_5588"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5589">This “implicitness,”
and Burke’s rather clear following through on it, is why I see late Burke,
logological Burke, as not dislocative, but rather consistent, “entelechialized.”
Sure, he didn’t write a book entitled <i id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5590">A
symbolic of Motives</i>, as appeared to be his wont. And yes, that “book” on
“identity,” “self-expression,” “modes of appeal and expression in the fine
arts,” the “forms and method of art,” concern with “purely psychological or
psychoanalytic matters,” was sort of downplayed into separate
critical/theoretical essays of his in the ‘50s, ‘60s, and beyond. There’s a
sharp break in Burke’s trajectory in that regard.<o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5591"></o:p></span></div><div style="text-indent:.5in" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5588"><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_1486090365618_5592"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5593"> But what Burke did do, book-wise,
logology-wise, seems to me to have been a thorough implementation of one of
Burke’s definitions of “logology” itself: Tracking down the implications of
words in terms of the way in which they do our thinking for us via the kinds of
“commonsense” observations and discriminations they suggest. The logological
emphasis on the negative, the motive of perfection, the cycle of terms implicit
in the idea of order, and theological drama as epistemic master screen (yes,
Burke resonates with both “ironic” and “straight” readings of such) seems to me
to be the entelechial flowering of what’s pivotal in ontological dramatism.<o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5594"></o:p></span></div><div style="text-indent:.5in" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5592"><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_1486090365618_5595"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5596">However, I think we’ve
chewed over that one before.<o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5597"></o:p></span></div><div style="text-indent:.5in" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5595"><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_1486090365618_5598"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5599">Stan, best wishes on
your new book!<o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5600"></o:p></span></div><div style="text-indent:.5in" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5598"><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_1486090365618_5601"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5602">Phil, daughter Beth got
back from a conference in Denver the night before your post. She called it an
“awesome” city. Too bad Burke’s near coinage, “Ecology” (<i id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5603">ATH</i>, p. 150 n), has suddenly become, under our new regime, an
almost invisible “little fellow.”<o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5604"></o:p></span></div><div style="text-indent:.5in" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5601"><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_1486090365618_5605"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5606">Bob, Burke’s highlighting
of non-“neutral” terms (for Burke, the only kind there is) as characters in a
drama gets play, also, in <i id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5607">ATH</i>, p.
312.<o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5608"></o:p></span></div><div style="text-indent:.5in" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5605"><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_1486090365618_5609"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5610">Thanks for all the
contributions to this thread. I think the pentad has been nuanced.<o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5611"></o:p></span></div><div style="text-indent:.5in" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5609"><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_1486090365618_5612"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5613">Back to my dogmatic
slumbers.<o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5614"></o:p></span></div><div style="text-indent:.5in" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5612"><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_1486090365618_5615"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5616"><o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5617"> </o:p></span></div><div style="text-indent:.5in" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5618"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5619">Ed<o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5620"></o:p></span></div><div style="text-indent:.5in" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5618"><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_1486090365618_5621"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5622"><o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5623"> </o:p></span></div><div style="text-indent:.5in" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5624"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5625">P.S. Remember, you
can’t really get to genre criticism with only the pentad, I don’t believe. You
need full-bodied drama, with guilt-redemption.<o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5626"></o:p></span></div><div style="text-indent:.5in" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5624"><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_1486090365618_5627"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5628">Burke’s toolbox is
chock-full. I list 34 Burkean tools
and/or concepts in my summary chapter in the <i id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5629">Primer</i>, and add one more in an Addendum, the paradox of pure
substance. And there are more still. To
borrow phrasing from Tilly Warnock, Burke affords many, many “ways in, ways
out, ways roundabout” for the analysis of discourse. <o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5630"></o:p></span></div><div style="text-indent:.5in" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5631"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5632"><o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5633"> </o:p></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_3733">
</div><div style="text-indent:.5in" dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5634"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5635"> <o:p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1486090365618_5636"></o:p></span></div></div></body></html>