Carlo Parcelli:

Help me on this: -

Aren't you seriously degrading Pound's work by admonishing others for
"interpreting the Cantos as though they were an historical/political
document".

Are you saying the Cantos aren't an historical/political document?

Or that they shouldn't be read as such?

And if that's the case, why shouldn't they be read as such?

I had always thought that one of the most fertile contributions Pound made
to 20th century poetry was his insistence that modern epic poetry, to be of
lasting value, would, of necessity, address itself openly to
historical/political concerns. And, unlike many other poets of his time,
(who, it should be noted, had even less lyrical gifts than he), he laboured
hard and long on the research, quotes, commentaries and (sometimes lyrical)
summations which are the Cantos.

You want to take our appreciation of that away from him?

Michael




"R. Gancie/C.Parcelli" wrote:

> Maybe the 'scholars' on this list should try to read the Cantos
> utilizing the tenets of I.A. Richards and the New Criticism. I know this
> would be difficult given all of the biographical and historical
> information that you have accreted, but this radical step might refocus
> your understanding of the Cantos as poetry and curb some of the excesses
> on this list that approach the "hatchet job[s]" (to quote Bill Freind)
> of Casillo and Perelman. Your plethora of biographical and historical
> datum does not seem improve your hermeneutical comprehension of the
> Cantos either.  This is largely because you are interpreting the Cantos
> as though they were an historical/political document. If you won't write
> Cantos, maybe its a good idea to at least read them. Carlo Parcelli
>
> P.S. Anything Chomsky writes is worth reading. He's the only Cartesian
> positivist that I like and his exegesis is wonderful. Of course, he
> understands taxonomies unlike many on this list.