Dan,

I was talking about the ubiquitous use of both terms. I was not comparing the two.
Its obvious that Garrick's canard cannot move passed the "eye of the beholder"
stage which, as you know, at the critical level is useless. Back to Game Theory.
Carlo

Daniel Pearlman wrote:

> Carlo,
> Really, now, I quite know the difference between coherence and profundity!
> Lots of Hollywood movies are perfectly coherent without being profound.
> Coherence is also susceptible to critical demonstration--we are here in the
> world of technique, craft, but there is no doubt that a judgment about
> profundity will always be subjective or, as you say, "a function of the
> current
> state of the reader."  Having taught graduate courses in both Pound and
> Frost, I have to say that I have gradually come to see--without any
> suggestion of devaluing Pound or all that I have learned from him--that
> Frost appears the more tuned-in in every way, and is even, in the
> political realm, far more astute than Pound.  Frost approaches politics
> and history with a tragic sensibility; Pound, with the reformist's
> sensibility.
> ==Dan
>
> At 04:22 PM 12/20/2001 -0500, you wrote:
> >I agree with your comments on Garrick's level of engagement with what he
> >criticizes. But I think you are simply substituting "profundity" for
> >"coherence" in
> >your critique. It seems obvious that finding more profundity in Frost or early
> >Williams is a function of the current state of the reader unless
> >accompanied by a
> >detailed comparison. Others experience may certainly and validly be apposed or
> >tangential to this ubiquitous response to "profundity" or "coherence." Also,
> >notions of "coherence" and "profundity" don't respond well to hierarchies. And
> >there are other hierachies for profundity. My uncles find Andy Rooney
> >"profound"
> >and Oakeshott "incoherent."
> >
> >And sometimes some of us find that history is just so much clutter. Carlo
> >Parcelli
> >
> >Daniel Pearlman wrote:
> >
> > > I for one am glad to hear a voice like Garrick's that questions
> > > fundamental literary values and suggests that we reassess
> > > our evaluation of the Cantos (and, perhaps, the reasons that
> > > a number of us become Pound-beguiled, unable to look at
> > > his work objectively).  I, too, would like us to stop pretending
> > > that "disjunction, disunity, lack of coherence and totality" are
> > > literary qualities to be championed.  The thing is, I don't have
> > > a problem with Cantos unity, coherence, etc.  I've seen it
> > > and I've expounded upon it, and if Garrick were actually to
> > > READ some of the critics of the poem--including my own
> > > BARB--he'd have a hard time defending his bravura dismissal
> > > of the work.  Instead, Garrick seems to rely too heavily for
> > > his breezy dismissal on listing a bunch of major literary critics
> > > throughout the century who have equally dismissed the Cantos
> > > (also, with little more reading effort than Garrick appears to
> > > have put into the job), and he does not seem to realize that
> > > much of the reason for the critical dismissal of the Cantos
> > > over the years stems not only from the work's difficulty but
> > > also from Pound's totalitarian and anti-semitic value system.
> > > (We on this list have wrestled with these issues on and off
> > > over the last several years, and many of us have been quite
> > > objective about the potentially damaging effects of the ideas
> > > on the art.)  I myself, to reiterate, do not have a problem
> > > defending the unity of the Cantos; rather, as I think more
> > > and more about what Pound has to say to us (above and
> > > beyond all that annoying political froth of his), I find that I
> > > cannot defend anything that remotely could be identified
> > > as a sophisticated, profound view of the world that the
> > > poem was intended to critique.  Such profundity and
> > > sophistication I find, to the surprising contrary, in the
> > > considerable body of the work of Robert Frost (Pound's almost
> > > complete opposite), and, to a somewhat lesser extent, in
> > > the earlier work of Pound's friend  W.C. Williams.  In my
> > > dubiousness about the depth of Pound's thinking, I suppose
> > > I am merely echoing his friend Wyndham Lewis, who
> > > expressed it all as early as 1927.
> > > ==Dan Pearlman
> > >
> > > At 01:35 PM 12/20/2001 -0500, you wrote:
> > > >Dear Listmembers,
> > > >
> > > >Thanks to Messrs. Gancie, Davis, and Pealrman for their responses.
> > > >
> > > >Many wondered whether I was being "willfully provocative" or "playing the
> > > >devil" when I suggested that the Cantos are a junk heap--littered with
> > pearls
> > > >of course--so let me discomfort them by affirming that I am perfectly
> > serious.
> > > >
> > > >This judgment of the Cantos--it should be added--was one shared by Yeats,
> > > >Randall Jarrell, R.P. Blackmur, and Allen Tate. In fact, it is an
> > > >illuminating experience to read Tate's opinion change drastically over
> > > >time---compare "Ezra Pound" to "Ezra Pound and the Bollingen Prize"
> > (both are
> > > >contained in Essays of Four Decades).
> > > >
> > > >In fact, the opinion I "provocatively" expressed has been the stated
> > opinion
> > > >of many great critics of the 20th century. I find it disheartening, but
> > > >perfectly understandable, that the Pound List would not entertain this
> > > >opinion (except dismissively and in passing) but it shall not be
> > dispelled so
> > > >easily.
> > > >
> > > >What is most interesting is not that the members of this List have
> > difficulty
> > > >admitting that the Cantos are "nasty, obscure, fragmentary, and long"
> > (this
> > > >is a self-evident fact) but that justification of " the poetics" of the
> > > >Cantos should finally, and fatally, involve embracing the virtues of (to
> > > >paraphrase Alex Davis' response): disjunction, disunity, lack of
> > closure, and
> > > >lack of totality. Aren't these qualities the very hallmarks of the failed
> > > >work of art?
> > > >
> > > >If we (as Tim Bray has) entertain the idea that the Cantos are a
> > miscellany,
> > > >and not "a unified work of art" then we explain many problems that have
> > > >bedeviled Modernism for three quarters of a century. The Cantos are a mess
> > > >because Pound had no epic plan in mind when he started, NOT because he
> > wished
> > > >to be "ahead of his time" and champion "disjunction, disunity, lack of
> > > >coherence and totality" as avant-garde aesthetic values. Talk of it
> > being an
> > > >epic poem simply dissipates, as it should. The Cantos become not one
> > thing,
> > > >but many things---whereas an epic poem is a unified work of art--and
> > so talk
> > > >of the Cantos fragments into various sections (Confucian, Adams, Pisan,
> > > >Throne sections, ad infinitum). These values have--need it be
> > said?--polluted
> > > >Modernist and post-Modernist poetry to its great detriment and left the
> > > >reader with more unreadable poetry (Olson, Duncan, et al. than any one
> > > >century ought to produce.
> > > >
> > > >The Cantos have no one "poetic theory" but many--and I have suggested
> > (in an
> > > >upcoming essay) that the Cantos would have suffered less had it simply
> > been
> > > >titled the Later Poetry of Ezra Pound. The Cantos are a collection of
> > > >disparate poems, without any doubt. "It" will not and does not cohere
> > as one
> > > >thing the author admitted (either  as "a unified work of art" or "an epic
> > > >poem"). Isn't it time that we treated the Cantos as a miscellany? And
> > stopped
> > > >talking of "disjunction, disunity, lack of coherence and totality" as
> > > >literary qualities to be championed (alas, because we wished to defend the
> > > >Cantos) rather than the very absence of those qualities which characterize
> > > >the superior work of art?
> > > >
> > > >I shall finish by twisting a phrase by Robert Gorham Davis to my purposes:
> > > >"The Cantos are, finally, a litmus test for a whole range of critical
> > values
> > > >(and for the excesses of Modernist taste) and stand self-condemned."
> > > >
> > > >Regards,
> > > >Garrick Davis
> > > >editor,
> > > >CPR
> > > >(www.cprw.com)
> > >
> > > Dan Pearlman's home page:
> > > http://pages.zdnet.com/danpearl/danpearlman/
> > >
> > > My new fiction collection, THE BEST-KNOWN MAN IN THE WORLD AND OTHER
> > > MISFITS, may be ordered online at http://www.aardwolfpress.com/
> > > "Perfectly-crafted gems": Jack Dann, Nebula & World Fantasy Award winner
> > >
> > > Director, Council for the Literature of the Fantastic:
> > > http://www.uri.edu/artsci/english/clf/
> > >
> > > OFFICE:
> > > Department of English
> > > University of Rhode Island
> > > Kingston, RI 02881
> > > Tel.: 401 874-4659
> > > Fax: (253) 681-8518
> > > email: [log in to unmask]
>
> Dan Pearlman's home page:
> http://pages.zdnet.com/danpearl/danpearlman/
>
> My new fiction collection, THE BEST-KNOWN MAN IN THE WORLD AND OTHER
> MISFITS, may be ordered online at http://www.aardwolfpress.com/
> "Perfectly-crafted gems": Jack Dann, Nebula & World Fantasy Award winner
>
> Director, Council for the Literature of the Fantastic:
> http://www.uri.edu/artsci/english/clf/
>
> OFFICE:
> Department of English
> University of Rhode Island
> Kingston, RI 02881
> Tel.: 401 874-4659
> Fax: (253) 681-8518
> email: [log in to unmask]