Ode to a Keatsian Turn: Creating Meaningful and Poetic Instances of Rhetorical Forms - Computational Creativity Research: Towards Creative Machines - page 202

A sound logical systemcannot brook contradictions. Nonetheless, uncontroversial
views can be cleverly framed in such a way that they appear sound and contradic-
tory, as when the columnist David Brooks described the Olympics as a “ peaceful
celebration of our warlike nature .” His form has symmetry and cadence, and pithily
exploits the Keats heuristic to reconcile two polar opposites, war and peace. Poetic
insights do not aim to create real contradictions, but aim to reveal (and reconcile) the
unspoken tensions in familiar ideas and relationships. We have discussed two kinds
of stereotypical knowledge in this chapter: the property view of a stereotype S ,as
captured in typical , and the relational view, as captured by a set of question-

derived generalizations of the form Xs

( S )

Ys . A blend of both of these
sources of knowledge can yield emergent oppositions that are not apparent in either
alone.
Consider the normative relation bows fire arrows . Bows are stereotypically
curved , while arrows are stereotypically straight , so lurking beneath the surface
of this innocuous norm is a semantic opposition that can be foregrounded to poetic
effect. The Keats heuristic can be used to package this opposition in a pithy and
thought-provoking form: compare “ curved bows fire straight arrows ” (so what?)
with “ straight arrows do curved bows fire ” (more poetic) and “ the most curved bows
fire the straightest arrows ” (most poetic). While this last form is an overly strong
claim that is not strictly supported by the stereotype model, it has the sweeping
form of a penetrating insight that grabs one's attention. Its pragmatic effect—a key
function of poetic insight—is to reconcile two opposites by suggesting that they fill
complementary roles. In schematic terms, such insights can be derived from any sin-
gle norm of the form Xs

< relation >

< >

Ys where X and Y denote stereotypes with
salient properties—such as soft and tough , long and short —that can be framed in
striking opposition. For instance, the combination of the norm cops eat donuts with
the cliched views of cops as tough and donuts as soft yields the insight “ the toughest
cops eat the softest donuts .” As the property tough is undermined by the property
soft , this may be viewed as a playful subversion of the tough cop stereotype. The
property toughness can be further subverted, with an added suggestion of hypocrisy,
by expressing the generalization as a rhetorical question: “ Why do the toughest cops
eat the softest donuts? ”
A single norm represents a highly simplified script, so a framing of two norms
together often allows for opposition via a conflict of overlapping scripts. Activists, for
example, typically engage in tense struggles to achieve their goals. But activists are
also known for the slogans they coin and the chants they sing. Most slogans, whether
designed to change the law or sell detergent, are catchy and uplifting. These proper-
ties and norms can now be framed in poetic opposition: “ Activists that chant the most
uplifting slogans suffer through the most depressing struggles ”. While the number
of insights derivable from single norms is a linear function of the size of the knowl-
edge base, a combinatorial opportunity exists to craft insights from pairs of norms.
Thus, “ angels who fight the foulest demons play the sweetest harps ”, “ surgeons who
wield the most hardened blades wear the softest gloves ”, and “ celebrities who pro-
mote the most reputable charities suffer the sleaziest scandals ” all achieve conflict

relation