I think we are seeing a little more eye to eye.  For instance, when you say:

>the issue is whether one wants
>to EMPHASIZE the anti-Semitic, fascistic Pound of the Rome Broadcasts, or
>the
>poetic Pound of the Cantos  -- which doesn't mean that there is a neat
>cleavage between the two, but rather where one chooses to find one's
>bearings

I find myself agreeing with your statement that this is the main issue, or
at least, one of the main issues.  Of course there are many more choices, as
I am sure you will agree.  We need not limit ourself to the choice of
whether to emphasize the Fascist Pound of the Rome Broadcasts as against the
poetic Pound of the Cantos.

We could also choose to emphasize the Fascist, anti-semitic, hierarchical,
anti-democratic, anti-worker Pound OF THE CANTOS.  Or we could choose (as
you perhaps have done--- correct me if this is a mischaracterization)  . .
.we could choose to DE-emphasize the Fascist, anti-semitic, hierarchical,
anti-democratic, anti-worker Pound OF THE CANTOS.  It is a valid choice, if
you wish to make it.  But all that trash is in the Cantos.  The prose essays
and radio Rome Broadcasts and political statements simply make it easier to
understand.

Now there is a stand from which I could conceive your view to be absolutely
correct. We could decide as a basic premise, that we would limit ourselves
solely to the discussion of Pound's poetic technique, his use of the English
language, the aesthetic impact of certain sounds, his rhythms, the effect of
using different languages, and scripts, how he revised, how he composed, how
he described the art of creating poetry, the reactions of critics and
contemporaries and successors, who commented on these things. If we limited
ourselves in this way the problem of Pound's politics would not arise.
Also, if we confined ourselves to the discussion of certain theological
aspects of Pound's work (apart from their social implications) then the
question of Pound's fascism could remain buried.   I have no problem if you
yourself wish to proceed that way. But for me, the fact of Pound's political
views (and of his anti-semitism) is not to be waved away as something merely
unpleasant contained in extraneous material.  The fascism and the Confucian
hierarchical philosophy are ingrained features of the Cantos.  As soon as
one deals with any historical, social, ethical, economic, or political
aspect of the poetry, the unpleasantness (I believe) is bound to enter the
discussion.

In this way studying Pound is considerably different from studying
Heidegger.  Heidegger's Nazi allegiance is on record in a speech he gave
when he became a rector at his University.  It does not appear to be an
ingrained or even peripheral feature of BEING AND TIME, or any other major
works.  Granted, the speech is bad enough (talk about Nazism as the complete
fulfillment of BEING, and other such nonsense), and it should not be
excused; nor should discussion of Heidegger neglect the fact of his support
for Hitler.  But one could discuss Being and Time, and whole theory of
Phenomenology without mentioning Nazism.  One cannot easily discuss Pound's
Cantos, in its totality, without mentioning Mussolini's fascism and his
belief in Confucianism, since the hierarchical strong man theory of history
permeates the work to a considerable degree.

Regards,

Wei
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com