Stableford on Poe - Poe International: The International Edgar A Poe Society

Reynolds · Veteran Member

RE: Stableford on Poe

Midnightdreary · Senior Member

I think Eureka was Poe's "attempt" at actual science, even if he failed because of an unawareness of the scientific method. Poe does not offer a method to prove his theories because, as he says, it isn't important. He knows it is true because of intuition. I'm sure there are plenty of other scientists that base their thoughts on gut feelings, too - of course, they probably go the next few steps to prove it. But, it is Poe's self-assurance because of that intuitive knowledge that makes Eureka so beautiful, I think. Besides, as Poe said, maybe it will just take a couple millenium before it turns out he was true after all.

Though, to be honest, I find the satirical part near the beginning ("Francis Hog" for "Francis Bacon," etc.) a bit off-putting and I'm sure many people have trouble taking it seriously from that point on. Someone argued, quite convincingly, that Poe had to satirize these early figures in order to cut them down, take them out of the picture, and open a window to let his own theory through.

It's fascinating, either way. Any Poe people out there that think they know Poe after reading "The Raven" and "The Tell-Tale Heart" would be blown away by this.

Reynolds · Veteran Member

Eureka is certainly about, in part, the natural world, and it seems to have gotten somethings -- given our current state of knowledge -- right about that world.

But that doesn't make it science. Science isn't knowledge. It's a process of gaining, verifying, and refining our knowledge about the natural world.

As I recall, Poe gave no suggestions as to how his ideas could be confirmed by experiment or observation, so it's not science.

However, ideas of beauty, intuitions, certainly have their place as an adjutant to science. Physicists sometimes talk about the beauty -- usually in a mathematical sense -- of certain theories. (My memory had a nice example from astronomy concocted but that was spoiled by actually checking some reference books.)

Poe was, if not actually a science fiction writer, a proto-science fiction author, and I think Eureka is right near the beginning of a feedback cycle between science fiction, scientists, and technologists. That cycle is fairly well documented for Jules Verne (an ardent Poe admirer) and later writers but less so for Poe.

monday love · Veteran Member

"Eureka" is science, and absolutely brilliant.

Science does not mean 'answered every question right.'

"Eureka" is almost by itself enough to blow all Poe detractors out of the water.

It anticipates Einstein and yes, it is beautifully poetic. Just the passage where he has 'an angel' contemplating the sheer size and speed of Jupiter is worth the price of admission.

And there's no way some "drunk" or some "macabre loon" could have written "Eureka," either.

Midnightdreary · Senior Member

Great post - I'll have to check it out more in-depth when I get a chance.

Eureka is certainly an interesting piece of work... Maybe the Poe bicentennial will draw more attention to it and inspire more commentary and analysis. I think there are just so many ways to look at it (is it a "poem" as he claimed? science? fiction?) that it should be discussed much more!

Reynolds · Veteran Member

Im not sure what this sites policy is on quoting Poes critics or linking to them, but Ill post this anyway: http://books.google.com/books?id=uefwmdROKTAC&pg=PA382&lpg=PA382&dq=stableford+poe&source=bl&ots=IHyf3N3j_K&sig=upNKkd87gt4QxHv9xfTt1uEMzqM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA382,M1.

Its a link to a Brian Stableford piece on Poe. Stableford is a noted critic of science fiction and a fairly respected writer of it himself. The piece is fairly complimentary to Poe and has some more works of fiction that feature fictional Poes.

He does regard Eureka as a very significant work. I must admit, when I read it a few years ago, I found it hard going, getting through it something of a loyalty test for a Poe devotee. When it was done, I considered it a work of crank science. But Ive lately become receptive that it was a work of genius. Is it science? No, and Poe didnt say it was. And neither was Lucretius De Rerum Natura yet its regarded as significant for its development of the idea of atoms. Now, you can argue that Lucretius didnt write during a time of empirical science. Poe did. But you can also argue that it was early on in the development of modern science, amateurs could contribute a lot, sophisticated instrumentation wasnt always needed, and intuition could lead you to postulate things others could verify by observation.