[log in to unmask] wrote:

>  Such an essentially political approach is bound to be fruitless, I
> maintain. Why? Mr. Moody shall have the last word, "In general, poets do seem
> to have a better sense of how to read them [The Cantos] than critics.  But
> then critics seem all too often not to have their eye on the poetry."

    And they want to know what we talked about?
                "_de litteris et de armis, praestantibusque ingeniis_,
    Both of ancient times and our own; books, arms,
    And men of unusual genius,
    Both of ancient times and our own, in short the usual subjects
    Of conversation between intelligent men."
                                    (Canto 11)

Garrick Davis also writes:

Mr. Surette in his latest posting, entitled "Psychiatric Disorders," is
attempting to diagnose Pound in much the same way E. Fuller Torrey
does in his infamous book. What possible importance could such
investigations have, as a critical approach? I suspect that Mr. Surette,
like Mr. Torrey, is still searching for "the roots of treason."

Mr. Surette doubtless can defend himself. I would like to focus here
on what I think is an uncalled for attack on the mentally ill -- it seems
to assume that mental illness entails either intellectual or moral
deficiency, which is untrue. (A friend, also mentally ill, once did
remark that just because you're crazy doesn't mean you're not also
a jerk -- but that is neither hee nor there.) Hence the speculation that
Pound suffered from bipolar affective disorder might (or might not)
be relevant to the intensity or "style" of his political beliefs and/or
actions but would not explain them. I don't know Torrey's book, but
psychology (of any kind) has little explanatory worth. And Mr.
Surette's "psychiatric disorders" is merely a summary or convenient
label for an earlier post of mine.

Carrol Cox