I again agree with Tim Romano. Where does this tendency in criticism
come from, which must go beyond the given to insist on predilections in
the subject, which clearly are not there?

Dutch: Yadda-yadda, Fatha!
Father Flotsky: Yadda-yadda? I'm sorry I gave him that library card,
now.

Carlo Parcelli

Tim Romano wrote:
>
> A poey may write of the "light" that accompanies the fracture of the
> Everyday, but unless the reader has actually _seen_, actually _experienced_,
> that particular brightness and clarity one will not recognize that to which
> the word refers.  Precision and  accuracy are not for a reader who hasn't
> shared Pound's experience, not for a reader who hasn't undergone "the same"
> experience. For under such circumstances, there is no true _recognition_.
> The same limitations would hold true if the poet had written of the scent of
> the jibjub flower.  Had one never smelled the jibjub, or never smelled the
> scent of a cypress swamp after a long drought, the words must remain merely
> a placeholder in the mind which experience may someday fill.
>
> And we're assuming two people can "share an experience" or undergo "the same
> experience". We haven't even complicated things with subjectivity. Art may
> bridge that gulf of subjectivity. But not without recognition.
>
> To say that Pound believed in and wrote about his direct firsthand
> EXPERIENCE and that he found corroborating expression of this experience in
> many and various places, is to say quite a different thing than "...Pound
> believed in a little bit of everything...."
> Your reductive summary is a misstatement. You should be on the watch for
> this tendency in yourself-- in the prosecution of your own argument to
> reduce contrary opinion  to the absurd.
> Tim Romano
>
> > The issue if far more complex than some people are letting on here.  And
> it
> > cannot be solved by simply saying that Pound believed in a little bit of
> > everything, that he was a "poet" and therefore above believing anything,
> or
> > that he believed in the "Cantos", that they are the expression of his
> > belief, and that's that, so take it or leave it.
> >
> > There is much to be said on this subject.  Pound is not a demigod, as he
> > admits; and his words are not holy scripture, or incomprehensible, simply
> > because they are poetry.  God is infinite and incomprehensible, but
> Pound's
> > record of, or expression of his communion with the infinite is itself
> > finite, and subject to human efforts to define it---  carefully, and
> > accurately.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Wei
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
> >
> >

--
ÐÏ à¡± á