>Daniel Pearlman wrote:
>
> >
> > As to reading the Cantos like a sort of dream, the whole issue of
> > reductionist readings of literature--whether in the light of
> > psychoanalysis, or Marxism, or feminism--is a disturbing one.
> > Reductionist criticism, in general, has attempted to employ
> > literature as an instrumentality for the advancement of so-
> > called critics' personal ax-grinding missions.
>

I fully agree with this objection to reductionist readings.  I also agree
with C. Cox that every reading is, to a greater or lesser degree, a
reduction, or simplification of the work being analyzed.  [Even great poems,
novels, and works of philosophy are "reductions" or simplifications of the
realities they are attempting to encompass or express].

My purpose in utilizing psychoanalytic tools was not to try to restrict the
possibility of interpreting Pound in a full and unfettered manner, but to
use the tools to pose questions.  I am very far from being committed to
Freudianism or Jungianism as fully complete systems.

The question I pose seeks to use the metaphor of "art resembles dream" to
get something more than horror out of Pound's strong support for Hitler,
Mussolini, and fascism in general.  The two tendencies on this list seem to
be 1) to condemn critics who object to Pound for his fascism, or 2) to
condemn those who support Pound and appear to minimize his fascism.

So my question to Daniel Pearlman, with whom I believe I share much in my
overall reaction to Pound's fascism, would be this:

Is it possible that Pound's support for fascism, on a conscious level, as
expressed in his writings and public utterances does NOT deserve our
wholeheared condemnation?  Could it be the case that Pound believed in
Hitler, not merely in the sense of believing overtly in what Hitler did?
Could it be that Pound's IDEA or CONCEPT of Hitler was not simply what
Hitler was in this real physical world, but that in Pound's  subconscious
mind (which is partly revealed in the subtext of Pound's remarks and
writings) there was something very different?  And I don't mean to suggest
that Pound used the "Jews at the top" to symbolize the evils of capitalist
financial aristocracy, and that he therefore justified Hitler's approach.  I
mean something very different.

Is it possible that in a creative mind such as Pound's (though it could
happen in almost any mind) the SYMBOL of Hitler conceived CONSCIOUSLY was
connected with its opposite SUBCONSCIOUSLY, specifically the IDEA or
CONCEPT, or better yet, the ARCHETYPE of Joan of Arc?  This is meant to be a
question for further analysis.  Not a reduction of Pound's poetry, or an
excuse for any statement or act.  In other words, my question does not stand
as a theory; it is meaningless without any specific response to it, because
I do not claim that the implicit assumptions are true.  I submit them only
as possibilities.

[JB made a very interesting point when he said that Pound's condition, the
stress he was suffering as prisoner, when this statement was made, should be
considered.  Yet, it is precisely when one is under considerable stress that
certain aspects of subconscious thought may be revealed]

Of course, the assumptions and the questions themselves can simply be
rejected.  But the general laws of discussion suggest that you ( or someone)
should explain why the implicit assumptions are either wrong and inadequate,
and come up with another answer to the question.

What did Pound mean by, and what significance for analysis of his work lies
in, the statement:  Hitler was Joan of Arc, a saint.

Regards,

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