>Robert Kibler wrote:
>
><<His poetry, too, is arguably that best suited for the researcher, for the
>academic. The Cantos are the professor's friend more so than they are the
>friend of those who would simply open up a page randomly on the bookshelf.
>>>
Sic loquitor Brennan:
>this is arguably one of the most absurd statements on Pound that I've ever
>read.
>
>joe brennan....
Also sprach Mark:
Well, I have never held an academic post, but I have enjoyed
the Cantos since the Bollingen controversy drew them to
my attention in 1948 [or 49?] I re-read at random,little
fragments, fairly regulary and have re-read the whole
opus many times.
I suggest humbly that the Cantos have a great appeal
to anybody who groks first-rate poetry.
Which does NOT mean I haven't learned a bit from
academic commentators or that I mean to demean
the academic world in any way. They have a right
to enjoy Ez as much as I do.
Mark Chan
[log in to unmask]
A true noun, an isolated thing, does not exist in nature.
Things are only the
terminal points, or rather the meeting points,
of actions, cross-sections cut
through actions, snap-shots.
Neither can a pure verb, an abstract motion,
be possible in nature. The eye sees noun and verb as one,
things in motion, motion in things,
and so the Chinese conception tends to represent them...
Nature herself has no grammar.
Fancy picking up a man and telling him he is a
noun, a dead thing, rather than a live bundle of functions!
Ernest Fenollosa, The Chinese Written Character
as a Medium for Poetry
Las die Lasagne weiter fliegen!
~
|