Blogpost in response to Collins Edgewater (MA, Portland):

Mr. Collins Edgewater,

Proems are not what you think they are. By way of proem, The Buffalo News: “Though ‘The Golden Ocean’ is complete in itself, one might think of it as a proem, an overture to the full symphony of the later cycle.” Clearly, this optimistic reviewer thought that the Bills’ legendary 1994 preseason foretold a winter that would justify his binge-drinking. As students of history, we can only sympathize with his erstwhile wife. Your mentions of “soundbeams arching over their own semiotic limitations to bloom into decorative knots” and “Lacan” have no place in this discussion. Proems, like prologues, are unreliable messagers at best. At worst, they are metaphysical bogymen intended to frighten the faithful and further inflame blasphemers. Here I quote John the Baptist: “[I] shrink from the supernatural, the proem of a [missing fragment] life,” and Socrates: “the Proem […] must have something in it […] unpleasant.” The basic question, in academia, then, becomes “so what?” The answer comes by way of another question: “Why do we write proems in the first place?” Every proet must answer this question for himself, and, as Swift said: “Much may serve by way of proem.” Indeed, If the proem is to remain relevant in our cat-saturated, post-romantic, “Me?”--“Why, yes.”--"Oh!" society, then it must be willing to integrate new forms into its existing structures, and ProclubProeticsProjectsPlus is currently working to do just that. So, next time, please, proemiate with discretion. It could make the difference between mattering.