Davis at cpreview wrote:

<<
<<Subject: A Final Two Cents On Wei

Dear Listmembers,

As the most recent posts to this list demonstrate, Pound has often attracted
individuals who are more interested in politics than poetry.>>

I am afraid that your general conclusion does not appear to follow.  To say
that any of the individuals who have posted on the subject are "more
interested in politics than in poetry" simply because these posts contain a
great deal of discussion about politics is an example of the fallacy of
hasty generalization.  I can assure you that I have a great interest in the
poetry of Shakespeare, Milton, Blake, Wordsworth, Shelley, Byron, Swinburne,
and many others.  It just so happens that during this discussion of Pound, I
have chosen to focus on many aspects of Pound's social, political, economic,
religious, and ethical beliefs, because I believe these aspects of Pound's
work need elucidation (especially as regards the Confucian dimension of
Pound's work).

Rather than drop a fallacious generalization unto the list, you might want
to address some of these issues, or start a new strand of discussion.
Either of those approaches would be more productive, I think.


<<From such people we often hear that Pound's poetry and politics are
"intimately linked" and that one can never talk of one without the other:
the result of such an attitude being that politics is chiefly, if not
exclusively, discussed. >>

I think you are aware that Pound himself believed "My poetry and my
economics are inseparable."  That is a direct quote (Do you need the
reference?)  T.S Eliot, Yeats, and Joyce never said anything of the sort.
Thus in my view, it is necessary that the subject should be addressed.  If
you do not want to discuss it, no one can force you to.  But I politely
suggest that you join the discussion, or try to explain why Pound's
political, socio-economic, and ethical beliefs should not be discussed in
tandem with his poetry, given HIS stated emphasis.  Let us recall that Pound
believed his Cantos to be an epic, and that he also believed that the
inclusion of history into the epic form is essential.  Should we not discuss
history either?

<<Ezra Pound, to Mr. Wei and a host of others, is simply a subject to
digress from.>>


Not at all.  Is this post of yours a "digression" from Pound to a discusion
of the personal fact that you dislike political, social, and historical
analysis of literature?  (I would not affirm necessarily that this is the
case).  You and I seem to see different aspects of Pound's works in
different ways.  Let us be tolerant.  I will not accuse you of digression if
you do not accuse me of digression.  And even if one of us does digress,
that is not great a crime, is it?  Digression is a common occurence on
listservs, and perhaps something almost in the nature of the medium.  If you
want to talk about the issue of digression, and about Ezra Pound, perhaps
you would do well to start a thread on the issue of digression in the prose
writings of Ezra Pound.   Then we would be discussing Pound, which seems to
be your thrust (and we would not be in danger of making mutual
recriminations).

<<Thus, Wei's main objection to Pound's poetic reputation (like Shapiro,
Casillo, Surette et al) is his political sympathies>>

Pound's "reputation" is a matter of subjective judgment, and will rise and
fall over time.  I personally would say that Pound's reputation as a poet is
fairly secure, and that he is arguably the greatest poet writing in English
during the better part of the twentieth century.  I do not seriously
question this.  If fact, as far as pure technique is concerned, I echo many
of the affirmations posted on Pound recently by Carlo, who is himself a poet
worthy of very serious attention.

My central question is, and has been, WHAT does Pound's poetry MEAN?  What
social values, what political system, what view of history, what theory of
economics is central to the construction of his epic in its TOTALITY?

Could you take make an attempt to answer this?  So far, I have not seen you
address it.  If you do not care to address it, to think about it, or to
offer suggestions, I am not sure why you think attacking my view should
concern you.



You asked,

<<Are poets to be judged on whether they supported trade unions? >>

No, but the significance and meaning of his work is partly elucidated by an
analysis of this question.  Recall, this question arose in the context of a
rather extended discussion of Pound's attitude toward the common man.
Exploration of his attitude toward trade unions may help us understand
Pound's socio-economic philosophy better.

>Does Ezra Pound's reputation as a poet suffer because he was fond of John
>Adams?>>

Not necessarily.  But I have posted several questions and comments about the
Adams Cantos, and about Pound's attitudes toward Adams (and toward
democracy).  I do not recall that you contributed substantially to that
thread.  The question for me is WHAT do you conclude about Pound's attitude
toward democracy, toward American history, and toward the Founding Fathers
in particular, by an analysis of the Adams Cantos, and Pound's overall
treatment of Adams?  This is not an unreasonable question, if you view it
broadly, and not simply as a matter of whether Pound's "reputation" will be
tarnished by such an analysis.

Mr. Davis's post concluded with some very general statements about "crude
leftist" interpretations, and so on.  But there are crude, right-wing, crude
left-wing, and crude capitalist apologetical interpretations, as well an
entire host of crude interpretations.  You personally may or may not be
guilty of producing what some people could call crude interpretations of
Pound.  I have no opinion on the subject.  So far, however, I have seen very
little comment by you on any issue of Pound studies posted on this list.

Please make your contribution.  There is little value in using such epithets
as "crude," I feel. Let me urge you to refrain from using such terms.

<<Mr. Wei's contributions, in particular, are representative of a whole
class of people who are totally insensible to poetry, and who attempt to
cover up this defect by commenting on anything other than poetry. >>

I wonder how you can presume to say that any person--- whose work, mind, and
acheivements you hardly know-- is "totally insensible to poetry". I could
say that you are an extremely erudite, sensitive, and aesthetically
sophisticated individual.  I could say that you are well-versed in all
aspects of Pound's verse, a dignified scholar, and a person of the highest
moral caliber.  In all seriousness I say, you very may well be all these
things, and that you may possess many more positive attributes besides, that
I could not even guess at.

The truth is however, that I cannot know, simply by reading several posts
you have written, or by even reading a book you have published.  Even if I
did know you personally, it might not be proper to put you in "an entire
class" of people" simply for the sake of dismissing your work.  If you want
to say something about what I have said, please say it specifically, using
quotations, and evidence, which is directly related to the subject at hand.
I request that you not generalize, about me or assign me to a "class" simply
because you do not agree with my arguments.  I will extend you the same
courtesy, and I will in fact, assume the best of you:  that you are an
intelligent, rational being, educated, and well worth engaging in a
conversation.




Sincere scholarly regards,

Wei

If you are interested in a larger survey of my arguments you may wish to
visit:

http://www.geocities.com/weienlin/poundindex.html




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