december, 1993: "kenneth burke dies at home in andover

who is always the perspectivist. Intribute to KB, I turn to a few of the manyvoices of the Burke he leaves with us,focusing on the dialectical, the drama-tistic, as a generating device. KB willnever be far away in this brief journey.

Of his friend, William CarlosWilliams, “poet and physician,” Burkewrites, that he was “An ebullient man”who “had this exceptional good luck:that his appeal as a person survives inhis work. To read his books is to findhim warmly there, everywhere youturn” (LSA, 282). Could any wordsbetter describe the author himself:Kenneth Burke, philosopher of language,poet, and yes, physician, dispenser ofpotent symbolic medicines as “Equip-ment for Living.” The Kenneth BurkeSociety has lost its “eponymousfounder,” KB. As we knew we must losehim, we can be equally sure that theBurke of the texts survives. Those whowere so fortunate as to know KB cancontinue enjoying the unique privilegeof finding his spirit in the “boikwoiks”2

at every turn. Future generations ofBurkeans will be enriched by those

Burke Chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . p 10Burke Poetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p 12Convention Review . . . . . . . . . . p 14This Issue & the Next . . . . . . . . . p 15Letter from the Editor . . . . . . . . . p 16Seminar Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . p 17Convention Survey . . . . . . . . . Insert

KB and Burke: A Remembrance

Kenneth Burke DiesAt Home In AndoverNovember 19, 1993

Don M. Burks

All of us had been expecting to hearthat KB had “cleared out.” Yet whenthe message came it was somewhatshocking, as the ghost in Hamlet “soassiduously prepared for, is yet asurprise” (CS, 30).

The message came even as I wasprinting a course handout that crowdsonto one page several of Burke’s state-ments on the dialectical and dramatistic.Ranging from 1935 through 1984 thestatements demonstrate that for half acentury drama is the representativeanecdote for Burke’s voluminous works(GM, 60).1 In different voices, Burke,early and late, expresses consistentlyhis dramatistic and perspectival views.

Looking through the printout rightafter receiving the message of KB’sdeath, I felt a reassurance that has sincebecome a transcendence I hope to sharewith fellow Burkeans. Indeed, othersmay have had similar experiences.The many voices of Burke are as aliveas ever there in the text, as differingperspectival views, even though KB’svoice has been stilled. The voices aresynecdochic, they are representativeof Burke’s perspectivism. Unlike theterms of the pentad where each voicemay constitute a complete vocabulary,some of these voices are so playful asto hardly merit the label of a perspec-tive. Nevertheless, the voices all pointto a master key in understanding Burke,

Vol

ume

9 N

umbe

r 1

Dec

embe

r 19

93Th

e Ke

nnet

h Bu

rke

Soci

ety

New

slet

ter

December 1993 2 The Kenneth Burke Society Newsletter


works as we are, though it is unlikely that futurestudents can enjoy, so much as we, l’hommememe who is so ever-present in the text.

And yet, some most certainly will do so. Justas we do, some of those future Burkeans willcome to know the text, and to feel that they knowthe writer, that his spirit is with them.

In those last sentences you see a feeble attemptto imitate one of Burke’s many midstream voiceswitches. Recall just one of them, for example.Consider the last sentence of a paragraph from“Literature as Equipment for Living,” where Burkewrites that a person “won’t sit on the side of anactive volcano and ‘see’ it as a dormant plain.”

Opening sentence of next paragraph: “Often,alas, he will” (PLF, 298). Reader’s translation:both voices, in their perspectival way, offer a viewof truth.

After all, one sometimes feels as if one knows“two-gun Bill” Williams, or Theodore Roethke,Marianne Moore, William James, Whitman, and

Listen briefly to but a few of the voices ofBurke. They are selected almost at random, butsee how characteristic and familiar, yet inimitablethey are:

But have I not painted myself into a corner?Let’s see. . . . To review briefly. . . . Hope-fully, I give myself one last chance. . . .Where are we, then? All told, where are we?My point is: . . . . Anyhow, the main point isthis. . . . Do not get me wrong. So goes thedialectic!

That last statement, “So goes the dialectic” was aslikely to come from KB himself as it is fromBurke’s text. A key to the charm of KB and Burkealike is that one is treated as an intellectual equal,even when it is painfully clear that one “ain’t.”

The egalitarian quality of KB is everywhere inthe Burke text, even where the going gets tough.Consider the first several pages of RM, where

nostrae diesEmerson, or even Coleridge and Kant, whenfollowing Burke’s lead as teacher into their works.And sometimes one can feel a bit more at ease inthe texts of Aristotle, Marx and Freud because oftheir influence on Burke, despite his many disagree-ments with and departures from them. Thus, thereis the certainty that future students who read Burke,with all his direct address to them, will come tofeel they know him, just as we who knew KB, ourfeelings of privileged access notwithstanding.Undergraduate students who read Burke seriously,though they never met him, sometimes surpriseteachers of his works with new insights. This isall the more true of advanced students who under-take serious studies of Burke’s work, whether ornot they have met KB. A teacher of “boikwoiks”is likely to be taught by students no matter howfamiliar that teacher may be with the text. Onemust remain a student when teaching Burke sincethe only “way in” is through the dialectic. Here isone more reason why the works of Burke, withsuch rich dialectical qualities, will long remain.

Burke says in the first sentence of the introduc-tion, “The only difficult portion of this bookhappens, unfortunately, to be at the start.” Don’tlet him kid you; that’s the master rhetoricianspeaking. As all Burkeans know, the book isusually difficult throughout, and yet Burke istalking to you from the first: “Note another resulthere” (p. 5). “Just what are we getting at here? . . .See what our problem is. We seem to be goingtwo ways at once” (p. 9). At the end of that mostdifficult opening section, on page 19, just beforethe beginning of the discussion on “Identifica-tion,” there is Burke with one of the themes mostbasic to his works, communication as love. Hepresents the theme again a few pages later, “com-munication being, as we have said, a generalizedform of love” (37), and yet again, “For love is acommunion of estranged entities. . . .” (177).

In the realm of nonsymbolic motion we are“estranged entities,” isolated by the “principle ofindividuation.”3 Yet we can transcend that isola-tion through symbolic action. As the distinction

The Kenneth Burke Society Newsletter 3 December 1993


between nonsymbolic motion and symbolic actionis basic to so much of Burke’s work, early andlate, so is the related theme, communication aslove.

Readers might all agree that our answers toBurke’s question, “Where are we, then? . . ,” havesometimes been that we have no idea. Seeminglycontradictory voices may at times confuse us, yetthe more one comes to know the “boikwoiks” themore one sees how remarkably systematic, howbalanced they are. In a small class in Burkeancritical methods this semester we took the easy“way in” through the theory of form. Some classmembers are finding this opened a door directly topentadic analysis, and another is finding that suchanalysis leads to entelechial patterns of thought.

Others are finding, of course, that Burke is everthe social and cultural critic, distinguishing somevery bad medicines from useful kinds that may helpus shape our symbolic worlds more constructively.In a “retrospective prospect” the turns of ourdramatistic philosopher, Burke, may sometimesseem as obvious as the distinction between theclean-cut good guy and the dirty crook in a cow-boy movie. “But hold!” “It’s more complicatedthan that.” A Burkean cowboy, “an agile youth,wears fool’s cap with devil’s horns, and a harle-quin costume of two colors, dividing him downthe middle” (RR, 276).4 There, indeed, is “perspec-tive by incongruity.” However complicated thegoing may sometimes get when following Burke,it is helpful to remember that in his analysis he

would equate the “‘dramatic’ with ‘dialectic’”(PLF, 109). In reporting his analysis and interpre-tation of the ongoing human drama, here is awriter who in no aspect of his work would create“an appetite in the mind of the auditor” (i.e.reader/listener) without intending “the adequatesatisfying of that appetite” (CS, 31).

For KB the dialogue ended when the motionstopped on XI/19/93 (using the way of dating hesometimes used), but for Burke, “Life is anunending dialogue; when we enter, it’s alreadygoing on; we try to get the drift of it; we leavebefore it’s over.”5 Thus, Burke is saying the dia-logue will go on. “Decidedly so,” as KB used tosay. Quite literally of course, Burke provides uswith many millions of words with which readersmay continue to enrich the ongoing dialectic.

Let us turn from the dramatistic dialecticianfor a moment to Burke, the poet, though evenhere, the loving dialectician is present. In a letterof May 5, 1982, his eighty-fifth birthday, KB

ooooo

mortiswrites: “Herewith my thanks for the birthdaysentiments—also in behalf of Kierkegaard andCharlie Marcus. And that’s very important, for myrealistic dialectic is halfway btw. Kierkegaard’sidealistic brand and Marx’s materialistic ditto.(Ever the compromiser!)”

Acknowledging payment for his recent work atPurdue, and my later birthday greetings, KB wasalso “rounding out” his visit with kind remarks.“Twas much of a mellowness among youenz. . . .I think I had promised to send a copy of theenclosed.”

The “enclosed” was a copy of two relatedpoems he had read to an audience as part of hisvisit. He had brought along only a few copies ofthe following poems which were quickly passedamong eager hands. On this requested copy hehad written “the date of Libbie’s demise, for I doso love the Latin way of doing such: ‘day’ in themiddle, ‘of our’ and ‘of death’ surrounding. Atleast, that’s how I take Latin to be.” The date was“V/25/69”:



Poems of Abandonment(to Libbie, who cleared out)

I. Genius Loci

Until you died, my LoveSomehow I had belief in fear of ghosts.But now, in this lonely placethat is so full of youwhereby I am not in my essence over-lonesome,

what lovelierthan if your spirit,the genius of this house,did materialize right here before me?

Dear Love,always I tried to earn you,but now you are the absolutely given

while I each nightlie conscious

of my loss

After the death of his wife KB produced nomore major books. Without her he apparentlycould not, in his seventies, sustain the great effortrequired for other books. This is certainly not tosay he produced no more important work, for hemade significant additions to the Burke text, someof which are cited in this remembrance. Anystudent of Burke’s work would be seriously in errorto disregard or even to “discount” these importantadditions. However, KB seemed to have made adecision to round out his life’s work by becoming“his own living text,” to use the extraordinarily aptphrase of William Rueckert.7 What he then gave wasl’homme meme with which many Burkeans newand old became familiar. The trade-off of “livingtext” for less addition to the literal text in his lastscore of years was for many of us a very good deal.We got to know the man, to carry on a dialectic withhim, enabling us then to read Burke in better light.The “living text” could not have been a morehelpful addition to the literal text, the text in print.

Returning again more directly to the dialecticalprocess in Burke’s work, those who do not quite

II. Postlude

When something goes, some other takes its place.Maybe a thistle where had been a rose:or where lace was, next time a churchman’s missal.Erase, efface (Life says) when something goes.

Her death leaves such a tangled aftergrowth,By God I fear I have outlived us both.

—Kenneth Burke

Copyright, 1970 by Kenneth Burke. All poetry in this issue

is printed with the permission of Michael Burke.

Just above the date of his wife’s death KB hadwritten the Latin words, “nostrae dies mortis,”which may be translated either “day of our death,”or “days of our death.”6 Does not the last line of“Postlude” suggest that KB felt a most importantself also died that day? There are at least as manyselves, or voices, in Burke the poet as in thedialectician.

appreciate Burke’s perspectivism—and there aresome sympathetic readers of Burke among them—find no absolute in what they see as his relativism.Yet Burke is clear in contending, “that the dialecticprocess absolutely must be unimpeded, if society isto perfect its understanding of reality by the neces-sary method of give-and-take (yield-and-advance).”

Tendebantque manus



Rejecting “absolutely and undeviatingly” anydictatorship which would impede the ongoingdialectic, Burke adds strong warning: “Silence thehuman opponent, and you are brought flat againstthe unanswerable opponent, the nature of brutereality itself” (PLF, 444). Clearly, the Burke thatwill always be there in the text thinks of himself as arealist, not as an idealist, as a perspectivist, albeitone of many voices, not as a relativist.

A main point in this remembrance is that thespirit of KB inhabits the Burke text, and that thetext remains easily available. In an importantsense the text is finally closed since KB will nothimself add to it; but, for the past several years, theBurke books have been more available than everbefore because of the University of Californiaeditions. That being so, it seems appropriate toremember here one aspect of what KB said at thefinal session of the 1990 convention of the KennethBurke Society, when he discussed what he called“operation benchmark.” More than one taperecording was made, and people may have differingimpressions, but I take one sentence from the brief

enough.” There was then approving laughter onthe part of many in the audience.

That moment represented in a small way theingenuous ingeniousness that might come evenfrom such a brief exchange between KB and thosewho cared greatly for him. Rountree’s point wasneeded to make more clear what KB seemed to beasking for. Even when a conversation is seriouslyintended to be dialectical, the different voices maybe more like ships passing in the night if there areno reference points. A most important part ofKB’s “operation benchmark” can be understoodquite simply as textual reference. Clearly, therewill be much disagreement regarding the meaningof Burke’s text. Nevertheless, the text can alwaysbe used as a reference point.

Did KB alone create the works of Burke? Ofcourse not. He had the help of a great many friends,such as Williams and Malcolm Cowley, who weresometimes adversarial and quite stimulating to thedialectic from which he generated his writing.Above all, he had the immense help of an appre-ciative, understanding and cooperative family.

transcript of James Chesebro in which KB whenquoting Burke says, as “eponymous founder” of theSociety, “I just want to suggest that the way wedo it, is that we call it ‘operation benchmark’ in thesense that we start with what you say, but we onlyask that you say, ‘Burke says it this way, I say this,’with some such reasons.”8 He was here in perfectaccord with his faith in the ongoing dialectic,hopeful that there be a continuing discussion of hiswork. Soon after KB uttered the quoted words, andothers to that effect, Clarke Rountree, with mostfriendly and respectful deference said, “the prob-lem is difference in opinion about what it is you’resaying.” To which KB responded, “That’s fair

"And they stretched forth their hands, throughlove of the farther shore."—Virgil, The Aeneid

Whether there is or is not an ultimate shoretowards which we, the unburied, would cross,transcendence involves dialectical processeswhereby something here is interpreted in termsof something there, something beyond itself.

Remember, for instance, that he seriously felt thefive terms of the pentad are related to his fivechildren. He had a father’s most genuine pride inthose children. In a conversation in 1984 whileseated in his kitchen, enjoying his favorite medicine,Absolut vodka (one suspects he liked the entelechialname almost as much as the product), he explainedhow each term matched a respective child. Then,with characteristic wit, he added that if there hadbeen a bastard child, that would have been Attitude.Why? “Because attitude is everywhere but nowhere,a child that has no home.” The wit is characteristicbecause it has point, “the double kick” of a KB joke.(Perhaps it should also be noted that such expensivemedicine as Absolut was for communion with com-pany. Any generic brand might ordinarily suffice.)

Burke’s work expresses a Zeitgeist, which isdoubtless one of the reasons there are remarkableparallels with other writers in this country as well asin Europe, though Burke’s work is a most distinctlyAmerican blend of influences such as Aristotle,Marx, Freud, Santayana and many others depending

ripae ulterioris amore



on the perspective needed. Who else but Burke,however, will teach you, as an aside, that “theHegelian Zeitgeist (as per ‘climate of opinion’)”and “Weltanschauung, attitudes toward life” aresynonyms? (See PC, 304. This is from “Afterword:Permanence and Change: In RetrospectiveProspect,” a remarkable accomplishment for onein his mid-eighties.)

Did KB do his work for money? His answerwas that he would not have done it for moneythough he could never have done it without money.Few if any writers would have worked so hard formoney alone. No person’s life and work couldbetter illustrate the distinction between necessitousand symbolic labor which is discussed in Perma-nence and Change (PC, 82 ff.). The homewhere KB did most of his writing is quite modest,although charming in its modesty. Seldom did KBsubmit himself to a regular salary to which nearlyall of us necessarily become addicted. Many yearsago, he wrote to Cowley, “I know that one pays

Burke’s text, as for example, when he writes of“codes of literary or musical notation” as “instruc-tions for performing” (LSA, 417), as well as in hisessays on Shakespeare. Do not these informalwords of KB in reference to the Bard often applyto Burke’s dramatistic texts? Surely, KB’s spiritlives in Burke’s texts, one reason being “the guywrote for speech.” The text will speak to seriousreaders of “boikwoiks” whether new or old if wewill read and remember to listen.

Transforming the jester into a prince, KB was,when he chose to be, a consummate comedian. Heprivileged the comedic even more than doesBurke. For now we have to say “Good night,sweet prince,” to the KB who charmed us withegalitarian good humor. Yet we need never think,“The rest is silence,” where Burke is concerned, aswe will continue to find the “spritely spirit”10 ofKB everywhere in the vast text of Kenneth Burke.

KB said he lived long because he always wantedthe last word. So we must give our teacher a last

enormously for a berth, and that, when wrenchedfree of check-bringing, papers-to-be-marked bring-ing bureaucracy, there really are very many mo-ments when unemployment does equal the mostrespectable kind of leisure. . . .” 9

Despite his conflicting views about the politi-cal candidates, and his growing frailty, KB votedin the recent Gubernatorial Election in New Jerseyas well as in last year’s Presidential Election.One of the women who helped look after KB athis home in these last years, Ginny Brand, sent apicture of KB at the polling place, signing inbefore casting his ballot. She also supplied acaption, quoting from KB, “Ah hell, Clinton Iguess.” Does that not ring true of the old leftliberal who must do his duty and vote, even whenhis many voices make him much less than sure?

Of Shakespeare, who is so obviously Burke’sfavorite dramatist, KB once said, “the guy wrotefor speech.” The sentence is memorable as atypically colloquial statement about the greatestdramatist by the then most important living critic.The more formal equivalent is at various places in

word in this remembrance. Since news came inNovember that the motion had finally stopped inthat tired old body, I’ve continued to think of a briefpoem that appears to describe another Novemberevent at that home-place in New Jersey. Unfortu-nately the poem has too harsh a title for this occasionsince KB enjoyed the best of care through his lastminute in his beloved home. His family saw to that.His son Michael reports that KB was sitting in hiskitchen when he simply “faded away.” (Michael isof the opinion that if KB had been holding a drink,“he would not have dropped it.”) So it should beclear that Burke, as poet, speaks metaphorically inthe following poem, which he wrote years ago. Ifthere is, nevertheless, a recalcitrant toughness, oneis reminded that Burke often finds that quality insymbolic action as well as in nonsymbolic motion.

Sometimes Burke’s “we” is writer addressingreader, which has been said here in epideicticspirit, as though the obvious needed to be pointedout. Often, and more importantly, this “we” is oneof “the many Kenneth Burkes”11 (to borrow from thetitle of one of Bill Rueckert’s articles) telling us

requiescat



In the morning,Still shadedWhile the sun’s lineCrawled towards them from the northwest,Under a skin of iceThey were at peace.

Don M. Burks teaches courses in rhetoricaltheory and the works of Kenneth Burke in theDepartment of Communication at PurdueUniversity in West Lafayette, Indiana.

NOTES1. See also, Kenneth Burke, “The Tactics of

Motivation,” Chimera, I (Spring 1943): 29.2. I trust fellow Burkeans will indulge my

unscholarly use of one of KB’s pet word creationsthroughout this remembrance. Since this essay hadto be written on short notice there is not time tosearch the text for a formal use of “boikwoiks.” Theword certainly appears in KB’s letters. For example,see The Selected Correspondence of Kenneth

that “a way of seeing is also a way of not seeing”(PC, 49). In the following poem one suspects the“we” must simply be KB and his wife, Libbie, theamanuensis to whom all Burkeans owe more thanwe can know. Collected Poems 1915-1967, thebook in which this one appears, is dedicated “ToLibbie.” On the title page is a line from Emerson,“Our moods do not believe in each other.” How-ever all these Burkean moods, views, or voicesmay be, let Burke the poet have the typicallytough yet loving last lines; but, please let it also benoted, that the last word from this loving, dialecti-cian and magnificent warrior of symbolic action ispeace:

MERCY KILLING

FaithfullyWe had covered the nasturtiumsKeeping them beyondTheir season

Until, farewell-minded,Thinking of age and ailments,And noting their lack of luster,I said:

“They want to die;We should let the flowers die.”

That nightWith a biting clear full moonThey lay exposed.

in paceBurke and Malcolm Cowley, 1915-1981, ed.Paul Jay (New York: Viking Penguin, 1988), 384.Given the enormity of Burke’s accomplishment inthe major books, not to mention the millions ofwords published outside them, KB’s reduction ofit all to “boikwoiks” is characteristic of his delightfulways. He certainly enjoyed discussing his work;yet, he balanced this interest with comedic humility,as is suggested in his term “boikwoiks.”

The distinction between KB and Burke is nowas clear as Burke’s action-motion distinction, sinceBurke’s symbolic action can no longer meet in KB’sbody. Burke writes, “The body of the human indivi-dual is the point at which the realms of physiological(nonsymbolic) motion and symbolic action meet”(PC, 309). In this remembrance I choose to mix KBand Burke somewhat in the one instance with KB’sword creation, “boikwoiks.” Otherwise, I try topreserve the distinction, keeping KB and Burkeapart. To me the distinction between the two hasalways been abundantly clear. To talk or correspondwith Burke would have been so intimidating that Icould never have enjoyed any minute of it. WithKB I loved every minute of it.



The statement of Marianne Moore’s cited onthe dust cover of Burke’s Collected Poems char-acterizes KB with the precision of a poet. “Hisabsence of affectation is one of the rarest thingson earth . . . unstodgy he.” Somewhat surprisingly,her letters often address him as “Mr. Burke.”

3. See for example, Kenneth Burke, “TheRhetorical Situation,” in Communication: Ethicaland Moral Issues, ed. Lee Thayer (London: Gordonand Breach Science Publishers, 1973), 265.

4. Adding to the incongruity, of course, is thatthe character’s name is SATAN, and he is “obvi-ously on quite friendly terms” with THE LORD,(RR, 276). The following lines from TL haveprobably occurred to many Burkeans since the newsthat KB “cleared out” at age 96: “And as one clearproof that, in its way, it’s to be the best possibleof worlds, we need but bear in mind what a solacedeath can be, when the ravages of time make menready to leave life. It’s a solace to know that one isnot condemned to have to live for ever” (RR, 306).

5. Kenneth Burke, “Rhetoric, Poetics, andPhilosophy,” in Rhetoric, Philosophy, andLiterature: An Exploration, ed. Don M. Burks(West Lafayette, IN.: Purdue Univ. Press, 1978),33. Burke’s best known development of this theme

Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.See my article “Kenneth Burke: The Agro-Bohemian‘Marxoid’” in Communication Studies 3 (1991):219-233. See especially pp. 224-231 for a longerexcerpt from KB’s letter and another view of theman himself in relation to his work. There is somediscussion of Burke’s distinction between necessi-tous and symbolic labor which is mentioned above.Also in that article is reference to the motto from AGrammar of Motives, “Ad Bellum Purificandum”or “Toward’s the Purification of War” (p. 232, note29). This motto was so important to KB that it washis choice for the words to be placed on the plaquein front of the pedestal supporting the bust ofKenneth Burke, which is on permanent display in thefoyer of the Rare Books Room at Pennsylvania StateUniversity. As reported in the Kenneth BurkeSociety News-letter forOctober 1991(p. 3), KB wasunhesitant inhis decisionabout whatwords shouldbe on the

plaque. See Burke's explanation of the motto(GM, 305, 319).

10. The words “spritely spirit” are used byLeland Griffin in a brief letter he submitted for the1984 conference in Philadelphia where the Ken-neth Burke Society was formed. Various peoplesubmitted similar letters concerning their experi-ences with KB, some of which were read at theconference luncheon. The letters were collectedby Prof. Phillip Tompkins, who was master ofceremonies at the luncheon, and who presentedthem to KB. Whether KB liked the phrase—whichnow, that he “cleared out,” seems particularlyappropriate—I do not know, though I feel sure hewould approve the spelling of “spritely” since theO.E.D. records Shakespeare’s use of it.

Prof. Griffin’s letter recalled KB’s telling of thefollowing story: “There was this man lost at sea in asmall boat with only his dog, Rover, for a companion.

is in PLF, 110ff, but the statement as quoted above isa succinct mix of Burke being at once dialecticianand poet. The phrasing seems somewhat morecharacteristic of the later Burke than is the discus-sion of “the unending conversation’” in PLF,which is a mixture of Burke and G.H. Mead.

6. Professors Donald Jennermann of IndianaState and Janice Lauer of Purdue University pro-vided the translations. Both read Latin, both knowBurke and knew KB. Both are K.B.S. members.

7. William Rueckert, Kenneth Burke andthe Drama of Human Relations, 2d ed. (1963;reprint, Berkeley & Los Angeles: University ofCalifornia Press, 1982), 229.

8. See Extensions of the Burkeian System,ed. James W. Chesebro (Tuscaloosa & London:The Univ. of Alabama Press, 1993), p. vii.

9. The letter, marked “not sent,” is datedAugust 1, 1938, and may be found in the Burke File,

ad bellum



Finally, when he was about to starve, the man ateRover. And when he had finished he licked hislips and said regretfully, ‘My, I wish Rover werehere—he would have enjoyed these bones!” Thisstory is typical of the KB repertory. At Purdue thedog’s name was “Bowser,” and KB delighted inthe telling of it, particularly in the sounds of thelast line, when he had the former dog owner saying,“How Bowser would have loved those bones!”

My own letter for that occasion reported on aletter from KB concerning the adjectival form of“Burke.” I had written him about a humorous notewhich Robert Scott had published as QJS editor,reporting three spellings, Burkean, Burkeian, andBurkian. Not to be outdone on such a scholarlyissue, KB wrote back, “As for the adjectival formof ‘Burke,’ I solve the problem by using the

essay. First is the obvious difference that KB has“cleared out.” The distinction I emphasize in thisremembrance is that between KB, the person, andthe Burke text. This distinction happens to be soentirely compatible with Burke’s perspectivismand dramatism, apparently two sides of the samecoin, that both sides get into the above act.

Before I had the great good fortune to have afriendship with KB I found the Burke text intimi-dating. KB, however, was such an unassuming,lovable jester-prince that I had to take courage.Returning to the Burke text I found that KB is there,“dancing . . . an attitude” (PLF, 9), guiding, laugh-ing, and loving. What I’m trying to share in thepresent remembrance is the transcending experienceof finding that the “spritely spirit” of KB is stillthere, even after KB “cleared out” on XI/19/93. Be-cause of KB’s good work, I trust many Burkeans aresharing and will continue to share that experience.

In the “Agro-Bohemian ‘Marxoid’” essay men-tioned in the previous note (#10) I write that KB’slife coheres with his message, a point that is easilysupported. Even as a very old man his dedicationto his work was like religious devotion. So far as Iknow, however, KB never acknowledged theisticbelief. In his article “Theology and Logology,”

Kosenamen I have for myself, ‘Ignatz de Burp,’from which obviously one gets ‘Burpian.’” (Letterto the author, August 7, 1974.)

11. The essay is in Representing KennethBurke, ed. Hayden White and Margaret Brose(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press,1982). It is sometimes difficult to say anythingabout Burke’s work not already said by others,particularly by Bill Rueckert. When I say Burkeis a perspectivist, however, I base the statement ona conversation in which KB said precisely thesewords, “I am a perspectivist.” He was so emphaticand clear about the point that I recall it vividly.Even so, in the remembrance above I am saying ina brief way certain of the things Rueckert saysbetter and in more depth in “Some of the ManyKenneth Burkes.”

There are, of course, differences in what I try tosay above and the objectives of Rueckert’s scholarly

Kenyon Review (new series, I, 1979, p. 153), hewrites, “Logology can’t either affirm or deny theexistence of God. Atheism is as far from the realmof logology as is the most orthodox of Fundamen-talist religions” (p. 153). This is the position ofBurke and was also, I think, that of KB personally.

Nevertheless, in my article, I suggest that KB’sdevotion to his work “yielded him a paradoxicallyselfless kind of self-realization, as with the selflessdevotion and paradoxical fulfillment of genuine reli-gion” (p. 230). His comedic outlook, particularly asmanifested in his ironic view of most everything in-cluding himself, saved him from destructive spiritualpride, which might otherwise have been a problemfor anyone of such remarkable accomplishment.

Surely KB would liked to have believed his spiritwould finally again be at peace with that of Libbie.Let us hope this is now true.

"BOIKWOIKS CITED" on page 23

The bronze bust of Kenneth Burke sculpted byVirginia Molnar Burks is housed in the PatteeLibrary at the Pennsylvania State University. Theplaque on the supporting pedestal reads:Kenneth Burke/1897- /Ad Bellum Purificandum(Burke's choice of words).9 Photos in this issueare of the clay bust from which the bronze wascast. Taken in 1985 and copyrighted by VirginiaBurks, they are used with her permission.9

purificandum


Matthew Josephson &Richard McKeon (Fall)

1918 Withdraws from Columbia,never taking mid-year exams

1918-19 Lives in Greenwich Village,reading and studying; sharesquarters with, variously andamong others, James & SusanLight, Malcom Cowley,Djuna Barnes, Stuart Davis,& Berenice Abbott

1919 Marries Lily Mary Batterhamon May 19 (three children:Jeanne Elspeth, Eleanor Duva,& Francis Batterham)

1920-25 Publishes short stories,reviews, and translations in avariety of "little magazines,"most notably The Dial, anassociation that lasts until themagazine ceases publicationin 1929

1921 Purchases farm in Andover

distinquished service toAmerican letters

1933 Following divorce, marriesElizabeth Batterham on Dec18 (two children: JamesAnthony & Kenneth Michael)

1934-36 Music critc for The Nation1935 Guggenheim Fellowship

Participates in the AmericanWriters Congress (Apr)

1937 Lecturer in Practice & Theoryof Literary Criticism, NewSchool of Social Research

1938 Lecturer, University of Chicago1943-61 Teaches at Bennington

College1946 Member, National Institute of

Arts & Sciences1949 Lecturer, Princeton University.

Fellow, Princeton Institute forAdvanced Studies

1949-50 Lecturer, University ofChicago

A Burke Chronology

1923 Temporary managing editorof The Dial (Jan-Oct); onagain, off again in variouseditorial roles at The Dialfor rest of decade."Third editor" for Successionmediating between MatthewJosephson & Gorham Munson(Mar-Sept)

1924 Publishes "Prince Llan" inBroom; issue suppressed bypostal authorities as obscenebecause of short story; Broomfolds (Jan)

1925 Publishes first essay ofcritical theory, "Psychologyof Form," in The Dial

1926-27 Researcher, LauraSpelman Rockefeller Memorial

1927-29 Music critic for The Dial1928-29 Staff member,

Bureau of Social Hygiene1929 Dial Award ($2000) for

This chrononlogy extends andupdates Armin Paul Frank's in theTwayne series volume KennethBurke. Most of Burke's publica-tions have been omitted to savespace and avoid unnecessaryduplicating already availablebibliographies of Burke's writing.1897 Born to James Leslie Burke

& Lillyan May Duva1911-15 Attends Peabody High

School in Pittsburgh; class-mates include MalcomCowley & James Light

1915 Moves with family toWeehaken, NJ; worksbriefly as a bank runner

1916 Enrolls at Ohio State;publishes poetry and shortstories in Sansculotte,edited by James Light (Feb).Returns to Weehaken (Jun).Enrolls at Columbia; meets

Chronology Compiled byDavid Cratis Williams

BORN V 5 1897 - DIED XI 19 1993

Our speculations may runthe whole gamut, from play,through reverence, even toan occasional shiver of coldmetaphysical dread—foralways the Eternal Enigma isthere, right on the edges ofour metropolitan bickerings,stretching outward tointerstellar infinity and inwardto the depths of the mind.And in this staggeringdisproportion between manand no-man, there is no placefor purely human boasts ofgrandeur, or for forgetting thatmen build their cultures byhuddling together, nervouslyloquacious, at the edge of anabyss.

. . . beyond these tinyconcentration points ofrhetoric and traffic, there liesthe eternally unsolvableEnigma, the preposterous factthat both existence andnothingness are equallyunthinkable.


Burke's Last Day

A BURKE CHRONOLOGY

1981 Gold Medal for Eminencein Belles Lettres, NationalMedal for Literature

1982 Honorary Degree, Emory U.George Herbert Mead Awardfrom the Society for theStudy of Interaction

1984 Temple Discourse Conference/"Kenneth Burke Conference";Burke Society formed

1985 Fellow, Institute for theArts & Humanities.Doctorate Humane Letters,Queens College

1986 "Kenneth Burke in 1986"Conference at Seton Hall U.

1987 New Jersey SenateResolution honoring his90th birthday

1990 1st Kenneth Burke SocietyConference, New Harmony,Indiana

1993 Dies at farm in Andover

1969 wife "Libbie" dies on May 251970 Horace Gregory Award, New

School for Social Research.Ingram Merrill FoundationAward in Literature.Honorary Degrees: DartmouthCollege & Fairfield University

1970-71 Lecturer, Washington U.1972 Lecturer, Wesleyan U.

Honorary Degrees,Northwestern University &the University of Rochester

1974 Andrew W. Mellon VisitingProfessor of English,University of Pittsburgh

1976 Walker-Ames Visiting Professorof English, Washington U.Honorary Degree, Indiana StateUniversity

1977 Award for Contribution toHumanities (AmericanAcademy of Arts & Sciences)

1979 Honorary Degree, Kenyon

1950 Lecturer, Kenyon College1952/58 Lecturer, Indiana U.1957-58 Fellow, Center for Advanced

Study in Behavioral Sciences1962/64 Lecturer, Drew U.1963 Lecturer, Pennsylvania State U.1964-65 Regents Professor,

University of California atSanta Barbara

1966 Visiting Professor, CentralWashington State College.Honorary Degree,Bennington

1966-67 Rockefeller FoundationGrant ($10,000)

1967 Member, AmericanAcademy of Arts & Sciences.Brandeis U. Special Award forNotable Achievement in the Arts

1967-68 Lecturer, Harvard U.1968 Poet of the Year Award,

New Jersey Association ofTeachers of English

To Affect the Quality of the DayIs No Small Achievement

KB'sLASTDAY

Ginny Brand is one of the womenwho helped care for KB these last

years. She wrote a report on KB’slast day for his oldest son Anthony

(“Butch”), a Physics Professor at theUniversity of Victoria in BC, Canada.

Through the courtesy of Ms. Brand,and Anthony & Michael Burke her report is excerptedbelow. She indicates writing at “11/20/93 1am” whenshe must have been quite tired.

I arrived at 7:30am. . . . KB was already awake. . . . Herequested his new red shirt. He stepped strongly . . .and seemed alert. How are you? . . . “Not bad today,”he replied. He wanted oatmeal, had juice and vitamins.. . . Later he went in [to his bedroom] for a nap. He washungry on awakening, ate a big lunch and then nappedagain.

We had discussed going for a ride even though itwas a gray and misty day. At 3pm he was ready to go.He wore his red outside shirt, hat, gloves and scarf.Who sewed the K.B. on your scarf, I asked, “I don’tknow.” Do you want to ride [in a wheelchair] over to thecar or walk? “I can walk,” and he did.

(continued on page 24)

LINES FROM OUT MY SCATTERHOOD

It was all there in First-Landsweetly sleepingpeacefully infoldedthe Primal Now all set to linger onthrough Any-Whenthe moveless meaning beyond the verbal fluxthe essence within existencethe Word within the words.

Oh, lead me to the First-Landof Primal Any-When.

Word-logged, I praisethe Principle of Perfect Laudabilitythe Absolute Magistrate(the Sanskrit HUTA, the Petitioned).

Drop the a (hence HUT)change gutteral aitch to gutteral g (hence GUT)make unvoiced t into its voiced cognate d(hence GUD)allow for the minor ablaut transforming of u into o—and Hail!from the miracle potencies of speechthere stands forth GOD (revealed by logo-logic)

Oh, lead me to the First-Landwhere all is sweet as dawn

birds singing in the mist in springtimetheir avid taking-in and giving-forthand me petitioning HUTA,praising the Principle of Perfect Laudability.

Oh, lead meto the dewat dawnin First-Land

Five Moments from Collected Poems 1915-1967 by Kenneth Burke

BU

RK

E

The Kenneth Burke Society Newsletter December 1993 12

THE HABIT OF IMPERFECT RHYMING

Lips now rhyme with slopsHips with blobsPassion with nuclear fissionAnd beauty with shoddy.The word for lovely leisure, "school,"Is now in line with urban sprawl.Are we blunted or haunted?Is last year's auto a dodo?Let widow be beddedWith shadow and meadow.*

All this is necessarySays the secretary—Else moan, groan, bone must go with alone,As breath must go with death.

*As far back as high school, I decided that widow-shadow-meadow are the most perfect possible imperfect rhymes.Ever since then I have been trying to fit them just right intoa poem--and maybe some day I'll succeed.

AN ASSERTION TO END ON

Relaxing to the fallhoarding accurate acute remembrancespronouncing them beautifuleven as the body leans toward subsidence

saying thanks in principlefrom amidst much bepuzzlementa smile here, a caressing therethe click of an expression

(for we are sentenced to the sentence)and now, with the coming of springcoming and coming and coming—and the body (pause) . . .

This winter, having stayed north, we earned therights of spring—against snowthe chickadees learned to fly downfly up and eat out of our hands

greedy wild frail bodiestheir cold clutch on our fingersthey alighted and were proved rightin trusting us

Yes, by far (I guess)the chance to have livedoutdoesthe need to die

ONE LIGHT IN A DARK VALLEYImitation Spiritual

One light in a dark valleyand the mist is falling like rain

One light in a dark valleyand I'm alone again.

One light in a dark valleyand I am all alone.

One light in a dark valleyis all I can call my own.

One light in a dark valleyand the darkness movin' about.

One light in a dark valleyand now that light has gone out.

No light in a dark valleynothin' but darkness and me.

No light in a dark valleyfor all eternity.

Oh . . .Light it up Lord, make it shine, goodGod'll make his heaven bright(i)ly mineI'll look through every window and I'll walk through every door.And there'll be such gladness 'round me I won't want for any more.

AN AUTHOR'S VISION OF THE AFTERLIFEAn Intra-Mural Poem

In those Great Days of Perfect TimelessnessWhen all will be like one long happy fartSome swillin supernatural ScotchSome boltin beautified bourbonSome guzzlin ryeSome layin the ladies all over the lotSome just catchin up on their heavenly homeworkSome smitin their enemy's other cheekSome cominSome goinSome just sittin there praisinSome sellin dearSome buyin dead cheapAt the ultimate auctionEternally

And no one in hell at allBut Myron Boardman* of Prentice-Hall.

*Myron L. Boardman, who retired in 1963 as president of thePrentice-Hall trade book division (PW, October 7, 1963) has beenelected to the board of directors of Hawthorn Books. Since hisretirement from Prentice-Hall, Mr. Boardman has been executivedirector of the Foundation for Christian Living, which publishesand distributes the printed sermons and specialized writings ofDr. Norman Vincent Peale."—Publishers' Weekly, vol. 192, no. 6(October 16, 1967), 42.

“ . . . to begin with, a poet”—Marianne Moore

KB


REVI

EW O

F TH

E 19

93TR

IENN

IAL

CONV

ENTI

ON

Days were dedicated to seminars(see reports following, pages 17-23),paper presentations (on civil rights;Latino rhetoric; political rhetoric;politics & art; hierarchy, image &form; technology, culture & ideology;philosophy; religion), panel discus-sions (on feminism, the rhetoric ofscience, the interdisciplinary natureof Burke's thought, the future of theSociety), and a debate (“should Burkebe understood as a Postmodern?”)

At Saturday's business meetingnew officers were elected: DonnParson, President; Andy King,Vice-President; Star Muir, Treasurerand Chief Convention Planner for1996; Richard Thames, Editor ofPublications. Bertelsen was com-mended for his work as past editor.

The 1993 convention markedthe Society's ninth anniversary.According to Chesebro since the1990 convention membership hasdoubled, regional and disciplinarybranches have increased, and finan-cial resources grown and stabilized.In April, the University of Alabamapublished papers from New Harmonyin Extensions of the BurkeianSystem, edited by Chesebro.

Thursday night featured PresidentDonn Parson's keynote speech on“Whole Burkeians & Part Burkeians”and Friday night Celeste Condit'skeynote on “ACT II: The BurkeianLegacy for the 21st Century.” Fridaynight the Society presented awardsfor Lifetime Achievement to WilliamRueckert, Distinguished Service toJames Chesebro, Emerging Scholarto Dale Bertelsen, and OutstandingGraduate Essay to Dina Stevenson.

Friday night also began a shiftfrom the academic to the artistic withthe screening of the film on KB thatHarry Chapin had been producingbefore his death. Just completedunder the supervision of Chapin'swife, the film was brought to Airlieand presented by Burke's youngestson, Michael. Many expressedinterest in obtaining a video copy,the possibility of which is beinginvestigated. (More news will appearin the Newsletter's May issue.)Saturday night saw Sheron Daileyand Mary Mino's presentation of“Towards a Better Life: Burke'sFiction, Poetry, and Music as‘Equipment for Living’: A Non-Proforma Performance.”

Burke SocietyGathers in AirlieThe Kenneth Burke Society's second triennial conferencegathered in Airlie, Virginia on May 6-9, 1993. KennethBurke, who celebrated his 96th birthday on May 5, was notin attendance as he had been at the first conference in NewHarmony, Indiana in 1990 and the founding conference inPhiladelphia in 1984. Though his absence was certainlyfelt by the international assembly of students and scholars,it did not dampen a Burkeian spirit for joining in the frayduring debates, discussions, seminars, and papers nor forenjoying conversation, entertainment, walks, food, and drinkduring off hours in the somewhat agro- but hardlybohemian surroundings of Airlie House conference center.


Steps preliminary toorganizing the 1996convention are under-way according to newlyelected Chief ConventionPlanner Star Muir ofGeorge Mason Univer-sity. "Burke's centenary"is being considered as atheme; sites and ratesare being investigated.Plans involve expandingpubilicity efforts into newareas and fostering inter-disciplinary perspectivesat the convention.Members are asked toplease fill out and mailin the enclosed surveyto provide input intothe decision makingprocess. Muir may becontacted with specificreactions or sugges-tions by phone at 703-993-1093 or E-mail [email protected].

Arnie MadsenCommunicationUniversity of Pittsburgh

At the Airlie convention the BurkeSociety Awards Committee wasformed and charged with selectingindividuals to be honored at thenext triennial. The chair is ArnieMadsen; members are Chris AllenCarter (Oklahoma City Univer-sity), Mark McManus (MaryWashington College),and Jean C.Miller (University of Maryland,College Park).

The Society currently presentsfour awards, the last two of whichwere new in 1993: (1) The Life-time Achievement Award honors acareer of outstanding research,scholarship, and teaching aboutBurke. Nominees must haveacademic careers spanning at least25 years. 1990’s recipient: LelandGriffin. (2) The DistinguishedService Award honors individualswith notable professional serviceat the regional or national level.1990’s recipient: Sheron Dailey.(3) The Emerging Scholar Awardhonors scholars beginning theirprofessional careers. Recipientsmust have been actively engagedin full-time teaching and researchfor no more than five years after

receiving a doctoral degree. (4)The Outstanding Graduate EssayAward honors the superior graduateessay submitted for the triennialconvention. (For 1993's recipients,please see the story on page 15.)

The committee will issue aformal call for nominations one yearbefore the triennial convention.Members of the Society are encour-aged to nominate any individualwho meets the requirements for anaward. Recipients must be Societymembers. A formal letter ofnomination is required for eachaward. Supporting documentationshould include a detailed vita of thenominee and letters from colleagues.Other supporting material will alsobe considered. Material is to beforwarded to the chair who willdistribute it to committee members.The deadline for receiving nomina-tion material is December 1 of theyear immediately preceding thetriennial convention. To receive more information,nominate an individual, or suggestadditional awards, please contactthe committee chair: Arnie Madsen,Department of Communication, 1117Cathedral of Learning, University ofPittsburgh, PA 15260. Phone: 412-624-8531. Fax: 412-624-1878. E-Mail:[email protected].

Awards Committee Formed

continued from page 22In this insistence as in theothers, the consideration ofBurke and postmodernismgenerated a field of productivedifferences, and it was intracing those differences thatthe members of the “Burke andPostmodernism” seminarcontinued to confront mostclearly the connections betweenBurke and the discursive spaceof contemporary culture, orwhere we live now.

THIS ISSUE AND THE NEXT

Delays involving the Newsletter's November issue made possiblethis edition on KB's death, devotion to which caused still furtherdelay. Sincere thanks to Don Burks who at the editor's November 22invitation wrote "KB and Burke" during holidays and finals. Thanksto Don Burks also for Ginny Brand's report, received after he com-pleted his own essay. At the suggestion of William Rueckert thisMay's issue will be devoted to "representative anecdotes" about KBand reactions to his life and death. Fellow Burkeians are urged tosend material, including photos, to the editor by late March. Extracopies of both this issue and the next will be available for $1.50each; notice of interest before the May issue would be appreciated.

1996

Conve

ntion


1993 Convention Review

The theme for the Kenneth Burke Society’s Airliegathering was “Extensions of the Burkeian System.”According to Chief Convention Planner Jim Chesebro,the theme was suggested by Burke himself in his callfor “Operation Benchmark” at the end of the NewHarmony gathering. Asked by Chesebro what hemeant, Burke explained he wanted to develop ascheme whereby one could meet the test of being aSociety member. He objected to “guru stuff,” seeingno reason for being authoritative. Arguing the needfor “some leeway in this business,” he recommendedthat Burkeian studies be governed by a perspectivemaintaining “Burke said it’s this way, I say it’s this.”

Letter fromthe Editor

Producing the Newsletter hasincreased my admiration forformer editor Dale Bertelsen'saccomplishment. My hope isto maintain his standard. Tran-sition to a new editorship hasnot been without difficulty orexpense (mailing lists, com-puters, software, viruses, etc.)Thanks to my predecessor,my colleague Clark Edwards,my chair Ron Arnett, and mydean John McDonald for theirassistance and support.

By tradition the issue afterthe triennial is a conventionreport. With prior commit-ments for other issues, a neweditor's mark may not beapparent for a year. Editorialdifferences then may be onlymatters of degree—moreconflicting points of view, moreinterdisciplinary representation.

One significant differencecannot be seen but has causedmuch delay—the Newsletter'sbeing completely computer-ized, a process that will makepublication faster and easierand more graphics possible.Another difference will not beseen until next year—theNewsletter's serving as aclearing house for biblio-graphic data. Much has beenpublished since bibliographiesappeared in Simons & Melia'sLegacy of Kenneth Burke andFoss, Foss, & Trapp's Con-temporary Perspectives onRhetoric (2d ed.) Accord-ingly members are urged tosend the editor informationon primary and secondarypublications in order tocorrect bibliographies priorto or update bibliographiesafter 1986.

In adopting the “Extensions” themethe Airlie convention committeesought to answer Burke's call, toencourage Society members toadvance beyond close readings ofhis text and investigate instead thepotential of his ideas. The basesfor judging the 1993 convention’ssuccess, said Chesebro, should bethe degree to which it “promotesthe development and evolution ofBurkeian studies” by fostering newapplications and further extensions,and the degree to which it “gener-ates a self-reflexive re-examinationregarding the limits” of Burkeianthought. “We need to go beyondwhat Kenneth Burke has offered,”Chesebro continued. “We eachneed to assume responsibility forthe limitations, extensions, andpotentials” of Burke's system.

The diversity of paperspresented in programs, argumentsarticulated during debates, andissues examined during paneldiscussions and seminar sessionsreflects the conference theme.The more than 30 papers cannotbe included in the Newsletter.

The best will find their way intojournals or a volume representingthe conference just as The Legacyof Kenneth Burke and Extensionsof the Burkean System representpast conferences. The essentialspontaneity of live debate andlively discussion cannot be recap-tured in the Newsletter, thoughpoints raised may be addressed infuture forums. Seminars areanother matter. They involve sig-nificant issues being studied overmonths by individuals preparingfor the conference and scrutinizedover four days in meetings total-ling five hours formally and manymore informally. They are mostrepresentative of the ongoingconversation central for a Societydedicated to the study, understand-ing, dissemination, research,critical analysis, and preservationof Burke’s works. Reports onseminar deliberations weredelivered at the convention’s close.Their wider dissemination dependsupon the Newsletter. They follow,indicative of the rich interactionat Airlie.

Extensions of theBurkeian System



Bur

ke &

Dia

lect

icthe dialectical structure of language emergecharacteristic features of linguistic pro-cesses, e.g. merger and division (identifi-cation and difference), transformation, polar-ization, hierarchy, transcendence, etc. Beinggrounded in language, Burke’s dialecticdiffers from those of Plato, Hegel, and Marx.

(2) Burke’s dialectic allows humans todraw distinctions—but not to reify catego-ries. For Burke, the process of definition isnot the location or stipulation of what some-thing is, but rather what it is not; however,perfectionist or entelechial pressures tend toobscure this ironic condition of languageand can create an illusion, or hypostatization,of what is (echoing Coleridge’s notation thatlinguistic distinctions tend to create catego-ries which do not facilitate thought butrather come to think for us). Dialectic isempowering in that it provides for an aware-ness of the processes of transformation,thereby allowing us to use language and notbe used by language. Yet dialectic is alsoconstraining in that it promotes a modera-tion of action: dialectic is not debunking.

(3) Dialectic can be converted to dramavia psychological identification with linguisticdistinctions. Drama is literally the enact-mentby human agents of the agon of differ-ence,and the agon of difference is constituted inand by the processes of dialectic. Psycho-logical identifications with dialecticallycreated, transformed, and re-formed distinc-tions convert those distinctions into, person-ally, the drama of self and, socially, whatRueckert has called the “drama of humanrelations.” That is, internally these processesare creative of individual “identity” and thesense of “self”; externally they are creative ofsociety and sociality itself.

(4) Burke’s dialectic is not one of oppo-sition but rather of betweenness. Burke’sdialectic does not operate in the realm of theeither/or but rather the both/and; the dialectic isin the “margin of overlap” between twoterms. The betweenness of the dialecticfacilitates transformations of one term intoanother; it does not promote opposition orpolarization. Dialectic “dances” in the be-tweenness of two terms or concepts. In thissense, the “attitude” or “spirit” of Burke’sdialectic is ironic, not contradictory or

KB As Dialectician

Submitted by CoordinatorDavid Cratis WilliamsCommunicationNE Missouri State University

Participants: David Blakesley, AngeloBonadonna, Dennis Ciesielski, BobFulford, Karl Kageff, Jim Klumpp, ArnieMadsen, Mark McManus, Jean Miller,J. Tim Pierce, David Cratis Williams.

In a dialectical spirit, the report of thisseminar on “Kenneth Burke as Dialectician”is really two reports: first, and ironically, areport on our discussions about what KennethBurke’s theory of dialectics is “in itself”;and second, a report on our discussions aboutwhat Kenneth Burke’s theory of dialectics isin relation to other prominent theories ofdialectics, notably those associated withPlato, Hegel, and Marx. Two caveats alsoneed to be posited at the outset: first,although the language of this report will talkabout Burke’s “theory” of dialectics, histhought about dialectics may not be so sin-gular and contained—there may be multiple,overlapping theoretical perspectives; andsecond, although the language of this reportwill talk about “our” findings or conclusions,

and although there seemedto be a considerable degreeof consensus, univocalityshould not be assumed. Notall participants may wish tobe implicated in all of thefollowing assertions. Weorganize our report aroundnine overlapping assertionsconcerning Kenneth Burkeas dialectician.

(1) Burke’s dialectic isamong other things linguis-tic in character. The negativeinaugurates an ineradicable

dialectic in language, and the consequent para-dox of substance is an example par excellenceof the Burkean conception of dialectics. From


antagonistic: Burke’s dialectic is the “essence”of the comic perspective. Through the ironiesof the dialectic, comic perspective is enabled asa corrective to the tragic frame (the trajectory ofthe tragic is toward the elimination of thedialectic in an hypostatization of what is).

(5) Burke’s dialectic neither contains noraspires toward a determined telos; rather, thetelos of Burke’s dialectic is undetermined andopen-ended. In contrast to the dialectics ofPlato, Hegel, or Marx, Burke’s dialectic is notmethod toward a determined telos (e.g., truth,spirit, or classless society); in fact, Burke’sdialectic may be conceived of as method tokeep from reaching a determined end. In itsbetweenness, Burke’s dialectic is always“middle of the road,” always compensated bydivision. As enacted in drama by human agents,Burke’s dialectic is conversational, not resolu-tional: it may be compared with a “dialogic con-versation.” Burke’s dialectic keeps choice alive; itis the undetermined locus of choice, and suchan undetermined locus of choice preserveswhat may be termed “dialectical freedom.”

(6) Burke’s dialectic resides “in the slash”between the terms under consideration, anddialectical freedom is enhanced as the slash is“widened.” The metaphor “in the slash” de-rives from Burke’s discussion of motives asratios between terms of the pentad (hexad).Thus, in a “scene/act” ratio, the motive is inthe “betweenness” of scene and act, which isto say “in the slash.” Dialectical freedomdoes not arise out of over-turning or revers-ing dialectically constructed hierarchies (e.g.,cultural/natural), even if such over-turning issimply a transitory “revolutionary step” inkeeping the hierarchically paired terms con-stantly revolving; rather, dialectical freedomarises out of a widening of the slash, but thewidening is always constrained: the slashnever obliterates the terms or concepts underconsideration. The metaphor of a rubber bandsuggests the concept: you may stretch it(widening what is between the sides beingstretched), but when released it snaps back toits earlier form, albeit slightly transformed and“relaxed” from the very experience of havingbeen stretched. To achieve “maximum, selfconsciousness,” or dialectical freedom, onemust “live in” the slash. “Living in theSlash” is associated with other Burkean


Eco

logy

, Tec

hnol

ogy

concepts (e.g., “proportionalizing” or“equipment for living”). The slash is thetertium quid always lurking between twoterms or conceptssubjected to dialecti-cal analysis; it is thisthird part which isthe locus of choice,and—to invoke againthe metaphor of arubber band—thewider the spacebetween the twosides, the greater thelocus of choicewithin the space.

(7) Burke’sdialectic inaugurates/preserves symbolicaction. The dialectic is the locus ofchoice; without the dialectic, choice-facilitated action would turn to motion.The process is exemplified by theparadox of purity (in which the nega-tive—the dialectical “other”—is effaced inan illusion of the pure presence of whatis): pure communication (unity) culmi-nates in Silence, for there is no need tospeak; conversely, pure division (indi-viduation) culminates in meaninglessbabble, for there is no common languagein which to speak. In each instance, thedialectically inaugurated/preservedrealm of symbolic action is transformedinto the dialectically bereft realm ofnon-symbolic motion.

(8) Burke’s dialectic, while“grounded” in language, is multidimen-sional. Although “grounded” in or derivedfrom the linguistic theories of symbolicaction, including the paradox of sub-stance, Burke’s dialectic attains multidi-mensionality when enacted by humanagents, when converted into drama. Theconversion of linguistic dialectic to dramatransforms abstract, disembodied ideasinto the inhabited, material, and ideo-logical world; these transformationsencompass dialectics both with othersand with material elements. Similarly, theconversion of linguistic dialectic to dramatransforms abstract, disembodied ideas



the coin as represented by eco-terrorism and bythe wise-use movement, and he frames hiscomic corrective as a possibility of actionbalanced within an appropriately ironic andreflexive mode. Finally, as individuals, Burkeenjoins us to act as a community, but never toforget the body, the animality that precedessymbolicity.

It may also be true, however, that in posinghis distinction between Nature and Counter-Nature, Burke has set up oppositions that mightbe read as polarizing good and evil in humanaffairs. His own emphasis on the speciality ofman, the uniquely symbol-using animal, entailsa particular placement and an awareness ofplace within the natural order. Perhaps it ismore useful to think of this distinction as reallya continuum between Nature and Counter-Nature, and to recognize that there are instanceswere Counter-Nature can help Nature. Usingultralight planes to reinsert cygnets into thewild and develop migratory patterns, as oneexample, illustrates the possibility in thisregard. Even as he posits this antipathy, how-ever, Burke is drawn to the reversal of hisoriginal definition: "Symbol-using Animals"becomes "Bodies that Learn Language." Avoid-ing absolute polarity is a strength of Burke’sability to dance between positions.

Extending Burke’s system in such a way isan essential task as the 21st century approaches.Burke’s analytical, essentializing move in hisDramatism and his Logology lacks reinsertioninto a historical and temporal narrative thatcharacterizes human existence. Burke stops atthe text; his critics must take readers past thepoint where the text ends. The seminar as a wholeagreed that such extension represents one areawhere Burke needs more attention. With theexception of some passing references, two bookchapters, and one early article, there has not beenmuch work on Burke, ecology, and technologyat all. This is an important arena, one criticalfor understanding Burke as well as for shapingcritical practice and engaging the commonconcerns of an evolving technological society.

& Critical Practice

KB Ecology,

Technology & Critical Practice

Submitted by CoordinatorStar MuirCommunicationGeorge Mason University

Participants: Jane Blankenship (coordinator),Dan Bloomingdale, Dan Buehler, Star Muir,William Rueckert.

Kenneth Burke’s critical system can be castlargely as a response to scientism andtechnologism in the 20th Century. His notionsof piety, satire, discrimination, the organicmetaphor, and entelechy, among others thatcircle around his view of a “little fellow amongthe sciences” named Ecology, ground hisconception of the symbol-using and misusinganimal in Nature and Counter-Nature. Thisseminar addressed central questions aboutBurke’s thoughts on ecology and about criticalpractice in an age of environmental degradationand evolving ecological consciousness. Ourmusings and conclusions focused on threeareas: the place of the individual, the relation-ship between Nature and Counter-Nature, andthe possibility of extending Burke's system.

Following Burke, a focus on the individualin a technological society places great emphasison attitude and instills a caution about action.The desire for instant gratification and immedi-ate solutions to environmental problems, canitself be a form of technologism (a solution foraction’s sake). Burke also provides debunkingtools which, while characterized by organic,ironic and poetic perspectives, treat romanticand sentimental claims (i.e., many environmen-tal appeals) with due care and caution. Burke isever wary of extremes, including both sides of



the dialectic changes in non-determined ways.(9) Burke is a dialectician who uses dialectic

in a “strong” sense. A distinction was drawn (adialectic was established) between a “strong”dialectician and a “weak” dialectician. A weakdialectician, or a weak sense of dialectic, uses theterm “dialectic” in a general and often metaphoricalsense; a strong dialectician, or a strong sense ofdialectic, uses the term “dialectic” as a generatingprinciple. In the strong sense, dialectic is seenas generating or accounting for key aspects of thehuman condition. Burke uses dialectic in the strongsense; dialectic is a generating principle for maxi-mum self-consciousness of the human condition.Burke sees dialectic as a counter-statement to thetrope of language which allows humans to userather than be used by language, which inaugurates/preserves symbolic action, and which therebyestablishes the space for human freedom. KennethBurke is indeed a dialectician, a strong dialectician.

with various aspects of feminism. Burke’s visioncomes close to being a feminist one, some suggested,in that it is holistic, connective, open-ended, coop-erative, and ecological. But Burke loses sight of hisfeminist vision as he seeks to implement it, giventhat implementation requires his adapting that visionto the Western philosophical tradition. The sugges-tion also was made that feminists might try to readBurke without identifying him with all the theoreticalinterpretation and critical application that has beenproduced in rhetorical studies in the last three decades.His ideas then might be freed from some of the anti-feminist assumptions often argued to undergrid hiswork. Others suggested that other analyses of basicsymbolic processes might reveal different motivesand structures from those Burke identifies; whencombined with these analyses, Burke’s ideas mightbe more compatible with feminist theory. Otherparticipants noted that Burke is sympathetic towomen’s experiences because of his own experienceas the “underdog” in almost every situation.

Yet another perspective offered in the seminar wasthat, although Burke’s contributions to rhetoricaltheory have been significant, he has little to offerfeminist understandings of rhetoric. Some suggest-ed that Burke’s system does not allow for a type ofrhetoric, currently being identified and explicatedby feminist scholars, in which persuasion is not thecentral focus. For an explication of such feministrhetorics, Burke’s notions are largely irrelevant.

KB And Feminism

Submitted by CoordinatorSonja K. FossCommunicationOhio State University

Participants: Sonja K. Foss, Karen A. Foss,Julie Fraley, Cindy L. Griffin, Phyllis M. Japp,Harriet McNeal, Deborah Robson, MarthaSolomon, Tilly Warnock, Susanne Williams.

The seminar examined a variety of relationshipspossible between feminist theory and the works ofKenneth Burke, emphasizing the question ofwhether feminist communication scholars shouldmake use of Burke’s ideas. Participants suggesteda wide range of answers to the question.

Those who believed Burke’s notions could beof use suggested, for example, that Burke, betterthan any other theorist, explains the socio-politicalmilieu in which women live. He describes very wellthe systems of domination, the rhetoric that occurswithin them, and the ways that individuals usesymbols to maneuver within them. An understand-ing of this milieu is important for feminist scholars.

Others in the seminar saw Burke as aligned

into inhabited, corporeal, psychological Being;these transformations encompass dialectics of “self”(as with Mead’s “I-me” dialectic), of the conscious/unconscious, and of the mind/body. Burke’sdialectic is thus seen as a complex and multidimen-sional structure of language/drama/world/being.(Dialectical critique of this multidimensional struc-ture is the work of logology—or words about[symbolic, dialectical, inhabited] words.) The multi-dimensionality of Burke’s dialectic, notably theconceptualization of dialectic as working on severaldifferent levels at the same time, may also distin-guish Burke’s dialectic from other theorists'; Marx’sdialectic, for instance, seems to operate on only onelevel at a time. Moreover, the multidimensionalityof Burke’s dialectic negates any sense of telos for thedialectic: as the dialectic is worked through, as it playsitself out through various dimensions, it is transformed—and an altered or different dialectic emerges.There thus can be no telos for the dialectic because


&


vicariously through journalists or politicalexperts. They are concerned less withpoliticians’ providing solutions for problemsand more with their conveying a personalunderstanding of or concern for the peoplethey represent. To reach this politic,politicians have exploited new channels ofcommunication and modified their messages.They have shifted from providing the elec-torate with “knowledge” to providing itwith therapy or “feeling.”

How applicable is Burke to thesechallenges? First, his emphasis on theimportance of the symbolic points to waysof dealing with these problems. “Attitude”has become more important than “fact.”Townhall meetings and events like “TakeBack the Night” marches or the recent GayRights March in Washington, D.C., offerpeople a way of expressing their feelingsand seeing what is possible as opposed toproviding concrete solutions to problems.

Secondly the motion/action relationshipremains central to understanding rhetors.As Celeste Condit postulated in her keynoteaddress at the Airlie convention, identity maybe based on physicality in the 21st century.Identity may come back to biology as ourability to regulate motion increases. Thephysical may be made rhetorical.

Finally, poetic humanism suggests hopefor diverse groups achieving unity. Burkestates, “our thesis is a belief that the ultimatemetaphor for discussing the universe andman’s relation to it must be the poetic ordramatic metaphor.” The advantage of hisapproach lies in treating humans as“participants in action,” stressing theircooperation rather than competition. AsBernard Brock proposes, “Burke’s poetichumanism stresses language, values, andaction. So scholars of rhetoric should notonly play a central role in implementingthis shift [from the modern orientation], butthe poetic humanistic orientation should havea significant impact upon the nature of futuretheory and methods within the field.”

Burke & Politics

Bu

rke

&

Fem

inis

mKB Political Burkeology

Submitted byTerry CroyCommunication (graduate student)University of Maryland

Participants: Bernie Brock, James Combs(coordinator), Terry Croy, Cynthia King,Paul Stewart, Paula Wilson.

The seminar examined three questions: Whatsuggests political communication is chang-ing? Why are these changes occurring?How applicable is Burke to these changes?

The appearance of presidential candi-dates Ross Perot on the Larry King showand Bill Clinton on MTV and the ArsenioHall show suggests that the channelspoliticians use as well as the messages theycommunicate are changing.

How individuals identify with politiciansand each other has been transformed. In the19th century Americans identified with theirimmediate and extended families, in the 20thcentury with the work they did or the com-pany for which they worked, and now at thecentury’s end with the skills they possess.With an increasingly mobile lifestyle, Ameri-cans carry their skills with them; hence, theyview themselves in terms of the expertiseprovided society. At the same time the multi-

cultural movement appears tobe splintering us, increasingthe difficulty of our achievingidentification with acollective whole.

Americans are seekingmore ways to participate inthe political process, moreways to express theirconcerns. They are no longercontent to participate


& P

ostm

oder

nism


members found Burke’s sustained efforts toread the dynamics of symbol to be at oddswith Foucault’s insistence upon recognizingevery discursive formulation as a disciplinarystrategy designed to constrain the subject or toconstruct the subject as a well-disciplinednetwork. Much the same argument applies toBurke’s relationship to Lyotard and the politicsof postmodernism. Burke much less problema-tically than Lyotard considers the contest ofdiscourses to be open to transformation thatcould bring about communities of identifica-tion and accountability, whereas Lyotard definesrigorous skepticism (“incredulity toward meta-narratives”) as the ground of postmodern poli-tics and the petit recit (the micro-political) asthe only means of legitimating knowledgewithout a concomitant claim to mastery.

The seminar then addressed the status ofthe subject in Burke and in the discourse ofLacanian psycho-analysis. There is much inBurke, particularly in his discussion of the roleof Freudian substitution in “Definition of Man,”that might be said to anticipate the post-structural understanding of the subject,arguing for a strong link between Burke andthe specifically linguistic ground of Lacanianpsycho-analysis. Of course, one would haveto consider this affinity in the light of Lacan’sinsistence upon a fundamental alienation of thesubject in the realm ofthe symbolic.

The discussionsconcluded by returningto the question oflanguage through therelationship that mightbe drawn betweenBurke and Paul deMan. Again seminarmembers agreed thatBurke would dissentfrom the post-structural/postmodernposition. For de Man,the grammaticalfunction of language isalways ultimatelysubverted by its rhetorical dimension, whileBurke would insist that this subversion is by nomeans fatal to the project of meaning.

continued forward to page 15

KB & Postmodernism

Submitted by CoordinatorThomas CarmichaelEnglishUniversity of Western Ontario

Participants: Bill Balthrop, Lisa L. Barley,Paul Berry, Dale A. Bertelsen, TimBorchers, Thomas Carmichael, JamesW. Chesebro, Kathy Garvin Doxas, GreigHenderson, Dina A. Stevensen.

The postmodernism seminar at Airlie was notthe first time that participants in the KennethBurke Convention considered the question ofBurke and postmodernism. But in contrast tothe initial discussions at New Harmony, thisseminar was devoted to relationships thatmight be drawn between Burke and specificfigures in the quickly canonized tradition ofpostmodern thought, or to the ways in whichBurke might be aligned with particular post-modern questions. Conclusions to a series ofdiscussions such as this are always prema-ture, but at the end of four days of meetings,members of the seminar had effectivelymapped the network of interconnecting andoften competing impulses that link Burkewith the discourse of postmodernism.

While recognizing that postmodernismand post-structuralism are by no meanssynonymous, seminar members adopted thelinguistic turn in post-structural thought asthe point of departure for examining Burke’srelationship to postmodernism. Specifically,the seminar began by addressing the relation-ship between Burkeian notions of debunkingand terministic screens and Derrideandifferance. Discussion quickly focused onthe extent to which Burke hedges on debunk-ing, in contrast to the Derridean effort ofemploying differance to unveil the inevitableproblematics of the sign and all its attendanttraditional metaphysical baggage. In a similarfashion, the seminar then considered Burke’sunderstanding of hierarchies and the negativein connection with Michel Foucault’s concep-tion of power as both an institutional anddiscursive formulation. Here again, seminar



continued from page 9

BOIKWOIKS CITED

Burke, K. Counter-Statement (1931;reprint, Berkeley & Los Angeles:University of California Press, 1968.)Burke, K. Permanence and Change:An Anatomy of Purpose (1935;reprint, Berkeley & Los Angeles:University of California Press, 1984.)Burke, K. The Philosophy of LiteraryForm: Studies in Symbolic Action(1941; reprint, Berkeley & Los Angeles:University of California Press, 1973.)Burke, K. A Grammar of Motives(1945; reprint, Berkeley & Los Angeles:University of California Press, 1969.)Burke K. A Rhetoric of Motives (1950;reprint, Berkeley & Los Angeles:University of California Press, 1969.)Burke, K. The Rhetoric of Religion:Studies in Logology (1961; reprint,Berkeley & Los Angeles: Universityof California Press, 1970.)Burke, K. Collected Poems, 1915—1967 (Berkeley & Los Angeles:University of California Press, 1968.)Burke, K. Language as SymbolicAction: Essays on Life, Literatureand Method (Berkeley & Los Angeles:University of California Press, 1966.)Burke, K. “The Rhetorical Situation,”in Communication: Ethical andMoral Issues, ed. Lee Thayer (London:Gordon and Breach Science Publishers,1973) 263-275.Burke, K. “Rhetoric, Poetics, andPhilosophy,” in Rhetoric, Philosophy,and Literature: An Exploration, ed.Don M. Burks (West Lafayette, IN:Purdue University Press, 1978) 15-33.Burke, K. “Theology and Logology,”Kenyon Review (new series, I, 1979)151-185.

Burke & the Sacred

KB And the Sacred

Submitted by CoordinatorAndrew KingSpeech CommunicationLouisiana State University

Participants: Edward C. Appel, Kathleen Edelmayer,Camilla J. Kari, Jim Kimble, Andrew King, PeggyMcGee, and J. Clarke Roundtree. (Membership was"fluid," the core growing and being joined byvisitors.)

The seminar raised the following questions:If Burke’s logology is an epistemology and a grammar,

is it also a theology? Answer: Burke qualifies as a processtheologian in a technical and rather arid sense.

If Burke is a theologian, what kind of a theologian ishe? Answer: An admirer of Paul Tillich, Burke is hardlythe God-haunted Augustinian of Blauwald.

How adequate is Burke’s logology for non-Christian,non-patriarchal, non-Western religious conceptions?Answer: Considerable explication, translation, andediting was not a very satisfying process. Only in thewestern literary tradition can Burke be wholly Burke.

What about Burke’s sacred praxis? Does he proposea model of moral conduct apart from his logology?Answer: Burke’s reluctance to abandon dialectic (the“free play” of ideas in suspension and the delight in arich array of views) weakens the moral power of his views.

Can the inadequacies of Burke’s logology be remediedby linguistic extension (new expansion of vocabulary or“sheer words”) to accommodate a greater variety ofreligious experience? Answer: This is a daunting task.

What is Burke’s heuristic value for sermonizing? Doeshe have a way of conflating dramatism and logology toproduce a sacred discourse? Answer: The seminar notedBurke’s compositional or inventional uses.

Does Burke believe in a wholly secular moment?This would be an epiphany in reverse. Answer: No.

Is guilt a missing religious ingredient in a culture thatfeatures shame? Answer: The question was unresolved.


DUQUESNEUNIVERSITY

Burke's Last Day

Founded in 1878 by the priests and brothers of the HolyGhost, Duquesne University carries a more than cen-tury-old tradition of providing a unique liberal and pro-fessional education with an emphasis on moral values,a dedication to quality teaching and a commitment toservice. Today Duquesne University serves more than8500 undergraduate and graduate students, offeringmore than 150 programs on the bachelor's, master's anddoctoral levels in its nine schools: the College andGraduate School of Liberal Arts & Sciences and theschools of Business Administration, Education, HealthSciences, Law, Music, Nursing, and Pharmacy.

The Kenneth Burke Society Newsletter is publishedsemi-annually under the Society's auspices and pro-duced in the Communication Department at DuquesneUniversity, Pittsburgh, PA 15282 (phone 412-396-6446;fax 412-396-4792). Readers are encouraged to "jointhe fray" by submitting letters, abstracts, or manuscriptsthat promote the study, understanding, dissemination,research, critical analysis, and preservation of worksby and about Kenneth Burke. The Society is a non-profit organization incorporated in the State of NewYork since 1988. Annual dues of $20 for faculty and$10 for students entitle members to a year's subscrip-tion of the Newsletter.Editor–Richard H. Thames, Duquesne UniversityAssistants—Kim McKelvey, Mai Neo, Tracy Irani

hat and tossed it on the bench. I helped him with therest of his gear. . . . Once in his room he decided ona nap. He lay down and checked the clock, 5:30. “Isthis Friday?” Yes, Nov. 19.

Awoke hungry. [In the kitchen] I gave him abowl with rice and the Chinese food. Is it good?“It’s good.” I made tea for KB and myself and puton his ear phones [to aid hearing]. We watchedMcNeil-Lehrer, Washington Week in Review andfinally Bill Moyers, with the gay debate in ColoradoSprings.

While seated in his kitchen, watching televi-sion, his earphones still in place, KB sufferedrespiratory problems. Despite the immediate careof Ginny Brand and later of an emergencymedical squad, she writes, “KB was pronounceddead at 10:10[pm].” In Manhattan, MichaelBurke, in telephone contact with the scene,concluded that KB simply “faded away,” havinglived more than six months into his 96th year.

Near the conclusion of her report, GinnyBrand notes that Steve Chapin arrived about thetime of KB’s death. Observing the scene in thekitchen where his grandfather had died, he “thenwent in [to the living room] and played the piano.”What he played, of course, as later confirmed byMichael, was “One Light in a Dark Valley.”

To her handwritten report, Ginny Brandcarefully attached a small printed statement,then closed with a final comment to Anthony:

From KB’s future cookie:To affect the quality of the dayis no small achievement.

Butch: Thought you might like to know someof the details of Nov. 19. —Ginny

KB was in luck to the end, spending his last yearsin his own home, much of the time with familypresent, and frequently accompanied by a ladywith unusual insight and sensitivity, even to hislast moment. To name the situation at the scene ofthe death of a great person in itself “is no smallachievement.” In recognizing the significance ofthe complete statement from KB’s fortune cookie(she writes “future cookie”) and carefully citingit, that is precisely what Ginny Brand did. Acertain spritely spirit, freed from the tiresomelimits of “nonsymbolic motion,” yet loving theironic much as ever, might be pleased with hercitation as an epitaph, a way of “roundingthings out.” —Don Burks

continued from page 11

To Affect the Quality of the Day . . .

He got into the car and pointed right, toward Sparta.“That way!” Do you want fish for supper? “Yes.”Do you want me to cook fresh fish or do you wantyour shrimp dinner? He prefers the latter. He wasdemanding all the signs be read to him as usual aswe drove along: “What does that say? stop, stop!”We went past the Chinese restaurant in Newton.“Stop, stop, what’s that?” It’s a Chinese restaurant,K.B., you don’t care for Chinese food, do you? “Oh,yes, I like it.” Me, kind of exasperated, well do youwant to have shrimp for dinner or Chinese food.Pause: “Well, I’ll have Chinese shrimp.” He laughedat his joke. . . . We went to Fu’s restaurant andordered vegetable and shrimp stir fry. KB drank anorange juice while we waited for the take out.

We arrived back at Amity Road about 5, and itwas growing dark. Again he chose to walk from thecar to the back door. Once inside, he removed his

december, 1993: "kenneth burke dies at home in andover

Documents