I have to cop here. I would very much like to take up your "challenges",
such as they are, but I am not blessed with much (actually any) time for
such tasks. Aside from being a small businessman (emphasis on the
"small"), I am involved with a number of projects that require
considerable attention. Endless regressive "dialectic" is not an option
for someone in my position. The negative consequences are too immediate.
Carlo Parcelli  En Lin Wei wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Give us an interpretation of Pound's poetry
>
> <<Yes, Wei. As you well know, I am using Pound as a source of inspiration
> in my poetry. And my politics and economics at least superficially
> resemble yours. >>
>
> I have already praised your work.   I hope to study it further.  But I
> wonder if you distinguish in your discussion of Pound between these two
> statements:
>
> "I am using Pound as a source of inspiration in my poetry." and "I am using
> the form and method of Ezra Pound's Cantos as a source of inspiration in my
> poetry" ?
>
> <<The fact that you seamlessly associate 'inspiration'
> with the datum of the Cantos speaks to your capacity to engage Pound
> poetically at all.>>
>
> You know very well that "datum" are not completely separable from the
> inspirational effect.  You have said as much in a recent post.
>
> I find it curious that I asked for an "interpretation" of Pound's work,
> which deals with both the form and content of Pound's work, and you avoid
> the task.  Why?
>
> <<But that is not even the central point. One can become a better person
> for reading Pound. You once asked me how this was possible. There is, of
> course, the bitter lessons of a bad example of the negative elements in
> Pound that until recently dominated this list to the exclusion of all
> else.>>
>
> I agree.  Then I fail to see why you object to so many aspects of my
> approach.  I am enhancing appreciation for the "bitter lessons of a bad
> example of the negative elements in Pound", am I not?
>
> <<But also there is the question that arises out of reading the
> Cantos, how such beauty can be attended by such squalor. >>
>
> That to me is the essential question.  How do you respond to it, by
> reference to specific passages in the poem?
>
> <<No one's
> questioning the squalor >>
>
> Certainly many people are.   That is their privilege of course.
>
> << . . . though I'm suspicious of your method of
> quantifying your Confucian condemnation of Pound. It smacks of a pogrom.>>
>
> I don't know how a critique can be likened to a pogrom, unless my words
> advocate, encourage, or lend support to a specific pogrom.  (As Pound's
> words did).
>
> In actual fact, I might mention that many of my distant relatives died in
> what could reasonably qualified as a pogrom, and that all closest ancestors
> were subject to bombings by forces dedicated to "pogromist" ideologies.
> Several of my closest relatives have all fought or resisted these types of
> agression, so I find the phrase "it smacks of a pogrom" odd, to say the
> least.  But you do not know me personally, so I am sure you had no reason to
> intend personal offence.
>
> <<But indeed if the poem is not treated as first and foremost poetry,
> then, yes, Pound, for all his greatness is under threat by a current
> poetic 'community' . . . . >>
>
> I am asking you to treat Pound's work as poetry, however you see fit . . .
> just interpret it (since you disapprove of my method).
>
> Your repost is interesting, but you will forgive me if I ask you, in
> addition to saying that Pound is a great poet, to select a passage which is
> great, in your view; tell why it is great, and explain its greatness in
> relation to its MEANING and its FORM.
>
> Regards,
>
> Wei
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

--
ÐÏ à¡± á