RE: FLUXLIST: mesostic/acrostic/exhaustic etc. - is there a mesoway?

[Allan Revich]

Thanks Rod for such a thoughtful answer.   I confess to remaining unconvinced that only Cage's mesostic forms can rightfully be called "mesostic", but I am certainly much better informed than I was a week ago!   It is interesting to contemplate how the term will be used some decades from now. I suppose though, that as interesting as that idea may be to you or me, most of the world's English speakers will never even think about it. I hope at least that John Cage himself will be recognized for his genius and influence by then.     Allan     From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rod Stasick Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 10:34 AM To: FLUXLIST@scribble.com Subject: Re: FLUXLIST: mesostic/acrostic/exhaustic etc. - is there a mesoway? On 2006 May 21, at 10:59 AM, Allan Revich wrote: So the issue is, what becomes of the "0% mesostic"? It is not an acrostic. It is not 50% mesostic, nor is it a 100% mesostic. I remain wont to call it a mesostic as that term seems well-suited to describe an acrostic poem with the phrase down the middle. In the article by Marjorie Perloff referenced below, Cage is quoted as saying that he thought that he was writing acrostics until he was corrected - interestingly his first acrostics were what he later called 50% mesostics - which continues to leave the name of the basic meso-acrostic in limbo. Rather than continue with polemics, I'd rather engage in constructive dialogue. Is there a term that can be used and be broadly (i.e. not just among fluxlisters) applied to describe and include all meso-acrostic forms? Netland is rife with all three "mesostic" forms. Well, initially, these kinds of texts were all referred to as acrostics in their "raw" form - before a general process was introduced in order to make separate the middle formations (mesostic) or end formations (telestich) that we're familiar with today. Only then was the name "acrostic" relegated to the leftmost side of text in order to distinguish it from the others. I think that there's a general process where a new art/text form is invented and then a name is created afterwards. If the form is successful or, simply, becomes well-known (for good or bad), then the name lives. So, after a very long time of referring to specific letters embedded in a text in very specific places as acrostics, then Cage comes up with not just a simple pattern down the middle, but, rather, a creative text idea that finds it's pattern and name later. As a matter of fact, he was unhappy with his first creation because even tho it followed his new "rules" and emphasized certain letters over others thru capitalization, it was originally written horizontally and looked too square and boxy to him. So when he changed it to a vertical form and showed it to his friend Norman O. Brown, Norman said that he should call it a "mesostic" since the capitals went down the middle. So, if you're doing something that you really think sets it apart from something closely linked, then you find a way of distinguishing it. Whether it's a mesostic, telestich, diastic, lipogram, beautiful outlaw, beautiful in-law(...), they are all derivations of the acrostic - you could call them "hyper-acrostics" if you like. AND if you actually add "acrostic" to the above list, you'll discover that even these can be considered a derivative of the text form known as "inclusion." The act of giving an appellation is simply a way of making a distinction. ...and if your special name takes hold, it could be because either you've made a useful or playful or _______ enough distinction for it to be remembered or you're well-known and you have a good agent - hahahahaha! I don't think John *ever* did anything "willy-nilly." There was usually some kind of creative method behind his reasons for doing a lot of what he's known for. If John had a bucket, it would've definitely had handles on it. To answer your question - hahahahaha - I think it's still an acrostic until there's a distinguishing difference. Rod