-------
1.
>From: Richard Edwards [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Subject: Re: Making a "molehill" out of a mountain
>
>I don't advocate that we should "simply ignore" those sides of Pound's
>writing and "thought" which we find unpleasant.
>
We are agreed then on the necessity of taking these unpleasant aspects of
Pound’s thought into account, at least to some extent.
>I first started reading Pound when I was at school. Believe it or not, it
>took a while for it to dawn on me that Pound was anti-semitic and had
>supported the Axis powers during the war. All I saw at first was that
>Pound's work was beautiful, interesting and funny, and he had a greater
>command of rhythm (when he tried) than any other modernist poet.
>
I appreciate your explanation of the origin and development of your interest
in Pound. My experience was very similar to yours in many ways.
>When I learnt more about his life, I was initially eager to be persuaded by
>the apologists: those who argued that when Pound said anti-semitic things
>he
>was speaking metaphorically, he was not really a fascist, the worst of his
>remarks were made whilst he was mad. Of course I soon realised this was
>mostly bunk, some of it very dodgy too; whilst at University wrote an
>extended essay demonstrating (extremely unoriginally, as I'm sure I didn't
>then appreciate) that the whole of the Cantos were infected by Pound's
>repellant politics, and that they were incomprehensible not because his
>thought was difficult or recondite but because it was wicked, muddled and
>wrong. I was sickened and didn't return to his work for several years.
>
I can also appreciate your personal experience, as described here. I am
very sympathetic to your reactions.
>When I went back to it rather gingerly two years ago, I found it once again
>beautiful, interesting and funny, but I felt anxious about admiring it
>because of what I now knew about Pound's life. I hurried to learn more, to
>be sure I wasn't doing Pound an injustice through ignorance of the facts.
>The ethical problem posed by Pound's life and work seemed of the very
>greatest importance, a paradigm.
Yes. Yes. Yes. This last statement is, I believe, right on the mark. I do
not think this ethical problem should be avoided, and I accept the fact that
each person will have to explore and deal with it in his or her own way.
>One of the reasons I joined this list was
>to find out how other readers (other than the biographers and critics whose
>work I had read) have dealt with it.
>
You certainly learn that on this list. The polemic on the issue is quite
dynamic and, at times, extremely heated. Good points have been made on all
sides, I believe.
>When I asked in my last post "What more is there to say?" I guess I meant
>no
>more than that having listened to months of debate (beginning long before
>Wei joined the list and no doubt months or years before I joined), I don't
>feel that we are any closer to finding an "answer" to this problem.
I appreciate that observation, and respect the point of view from which it
springs. Still, while there will not be one single ANSWER produced which
will be acceptable to all, we are all “closer” to gaining further insight,
as long as we are open to the process which involves gathering more
knowledge about the issues. We should, I believe, be expanding our
knowledge about all the issues under discussion, including: the social and
economic history of the 20th century; the history of literature, poetry, and
propaganda during the same period; the relationship between Pound’s
aesthetic, religious, political, and socio-economic views, the views of his
contemporaries, and the great movements of his time; and finally, the
history of those movements and ideologies in the US, Europe, and China,
which are relevant to the issues at hand, and which are of interest in
themselves.
>"The
>contradictions cover such a range. The talk would talk and go so far
>aslant".
>
>Anyway, I wasn't asking anyone to shut up. I was just recording a view -
>perhaps a passing view - that all this chat isn't getting us anywhere. Each
>reader has to live with the facts in his own way. We'd be better off
>talking
>about the verse.
>
We could talk only about the verse, if you like. But ultimately, the
movement must go backwards and forwards, from the verse, to the ideas which
inform the verse, which would lead to the study of other texts, by Pound
(including prose works, and the transcripts of his broadcasts) as well as
the study of texts which Pound heavily relied upon (whether they are
Confucian texts, fascist texts, or other works). The poetry of Pound, the
world in which that poetry was written, and the texts which elucidate that
world, and the world in which we live---- all these things form one unified
whole.
>
>The suggestion at the end of my last post that we'd be better off talking
>about the verse of course begs the question whether it is possible to do
>that without debating the problem of Pound's "views" and broadcasts. It's
>really a question of emphasis.
It is possible to limit oneself to the verse, and it is a matter of
emphasis. I think your approach is extremely reasonable, and I suggest we
follow your lead and talk about specific passages of Pound’s poetic work.
Allow me to propose a specific passage from the China Cantos, and request
comments and interpretations on that verse or series of verses. [I will do
this in a later posting
-----------
2. Allow me to thank Tim Romano for the verses he sent me (which touch upon
the discussion of Coriolanus and Blake). You were most kind and generous in
taking the time out to email those stanzas to me, which I greatly enjoyed.
I will keep them, and reread them many times to give them the attention they
deserve.
Tim Romano <[log in to unmask]> also wrote
>Subject: Re: "Molehill" (continued)
>
>Wei,
>
>The inference I draw from your concluding paragraph is that in your view
>Pound seems to associate each of the three Axis powers with things he
>prizes:
>
> -- Japan would preserve the teachings of Confucius
> -- Italy would realize the fascist social agenda
> -- Germany would set a eugenic agenda in motion
>
This is a very fair summary of the point I was trying to make.
>You state that these three are "united only by the collective imperial
>drive".
>
>"Only" requires qualification.
I cannot say that Japan, Germany, and Italy were united by any other
strategic or tactical consideration. Can you suggest another?
(continued in next post)
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
|
