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.

This of course is a serious (and, more importantly, I think false) reduction of
human motivation -- and a sort of odd binary of motives as "personal ax-grinding"
and [whatever in hell would be the opposite].

But reductions are illegitimate, or even misleading, when they contain an
explicit or implicit "nothing but." All explanations, by virtue of being usable
explanations, are reductions of whatever is being explained. And when examining
two contrasting reductions the question is not which is better or even which is
truer -- both may well be true. The question is how illuminating they are.

One could reduce the Cantos to an illustration of the history of typography or
even bookbinding in the 20th century. I doubt that that reduction would be very
interesting one -- but then I consider that my two complete cantos, the ninth
printing (1983) and the 14th printing (1998). Some new material has been added
and the order of the final pages changed slightlly. But the biggest difference is
not in content but in the thickness and texture of the pages. Hence the later
volume, while 20 pages longer is much thinner and lies open more easily. A quite
different experience. And my copy of *Rock-Drill* (printed in Italy) has a red
heart and a red diamond at the end of Canto 88. Much more impressive than the
shades of gray in later printings. So I guess even this reduction of the Cantos,
ignoring content, language, everything, would have real interest.

Any commentary, any critical interpretation is a reduction, each with its own
degree of interest and triviality. It is really dully tautological to complain of
reductionism as such.

Some reductions are obviously much more interesting than others. Most reductions,
however, are apt to bring out something in a work that would be less easily
perceived otherwise.

Carrol