What is it about rock and stone that so fascinates poets? Back around 1980, a critic named James Atlas penned a widely quoted critique pointing out that contemporary American poetry is identifiable by two dominant images, stones and bones. I was just reading a book of interviews with and criticism by Charles Simic (The Uncertain Certainty), in which he responds this way: “I think the impression Atlas gives is that stones are included simply for decoration. But I think people have written genuinely about stones and are interested in a stone as the utmost kind of presence. A stone is the uttermost limit; there’s nothing beyond stone. It’s an object of incredible interest and variety. I like stones. I love stones. Stone is so alient to us, distant from us, that any attempt to speak across that distance is interesting.”

That quote also suggest to me why it’s so interesting when poets make the effort to incorporate language and imagery from the sciences: it’s a key part of a broader cultural effort to restore a sense of at-homeness in the universe, by enacting originary encounters with matter as, in some sense, mysterious and alive.

This discussion also reminds me of the Uruguayan singer-songwriter Jorge Drexler (won an Oscar for the best original song for the movie, The Motorcycle Diaries). He was an medical doctor before he became a musician full time. Some of his lyrics (en español) incorporate science in a poetic way. He was interviewed (in English) on NPR last year – I posted about it: http://3rdhouseparty.typepad.com/blog/2005/05/science_and_poe.html