Oinos. — I clearly perceive that the infinity of matter is no dream.

Agathos. — There are no dreams in Aidenn but it is here whispered that, of this infinity of matter, the sole purpose is to afford infinite springs, at which the soul may allay the thirst to know which is for ever unquenchable within it since to quench it, would be to extinguish the soul’s self.

It is at this point a reader may feel a driving urge to slap Agathos, or our dear Edgar, preferably repeatedly with a large wet haddock. Though maybe that is just my irrational response to this the third, and thankfully final, of Poe’s dialogues between spirits in heaven that pontificate on the meaning of existence, the divine, and eternity…

As I have noted previously when discussing the previous dialogues The Conversation of Eiros and Charmion, and The Colloquy of Monos and Una, I am actually a student of philosophy, or at least I was formally, but I am not sure if one can ever cease to be a student of that particular discipline once you embark upon it. Philosophy is not a subject that has answers, but rather forms frameworks in order to ask questions. This is very much what Poe does in this story, the two spirits ask questions and each tries to answer the other, which is the definition of a dialogue in many respects. However…

Here is the rub…

Despite my grounding in philosophy, nothing discussed in this dialogue intrigues, fascinates or in any way interests me. This is not to say it won’t be of interest to someone, and I was aware before reading it that of the three dialogues it is widely considered the best. So while I was far from enamored of the first two, I had some small hope this would be more captivating… It isn’t.

What it is for the most part is impenetrable. unlike Mono and Una which leaned into actual philosophical questions that held a degree of interest all be it some what peripheral interest this final dialogue failed to reach that somewhat low bar. I read it through three times as I do as a minimum for all these stories for this project. I had to force myself to do so in this case, and yet even as the final read through came to an end I could not tell you one part that inspired interest or made me question and idea expressed within…

In that regard it fails as an exploration of philosophical ideas, for me at least. As if I am not driven to contemplate what is discussed then it is not philosophy. Which given the intent of the piece is the most damning critique I can offer.

A LONE RAVEN

SHOULD YOU READ IT: Only if you have read and enjoyed the other two dialogues… So I suspect not.

Bluffers fact: Sloths can hold their breath longer than dolphins. I am aware this is not relevant to the piece in question but it is at least an interesting fact, where as there is nothing interesting about ‘The Power of Words’