My Dear Friends,

I want to say that Jon Weidler is the clear spring water that I am looking
for.   Although many speak disparaging of academics, I also see that he is
a thinker and likely a scholar. He gives a more coherent definition of
Modernism and Postmodernism than I have seen recently.  I am curious about
the temporal, spatial, and reality aspects of his previous e-mail.  It
will take a day or so for me to draft my reply.  I am grateful to all of
you for the stimulation.  It’s hard to come by these days.

I must concur with Villa that we are dealing with a rather huge mess, not
only because of terms like “modernism” or “truth,” (or even
“postmodernism,” “temporality,” “reality,” “past,” “present,” “future,”
“tradition,” “make” “it,” “new,” “uniqueness,” “East,” “West” “natural,”
“Language” and on and on) but also many assumptions that guides this group
in evaluating Pound’s work, and also in continuing to propagate what Pound
thought was ‘good’ or even ‘great’ poetry.  Aesthetics is also at issue,
whether it’s stated or not.  Many in this group, including
bankers--academics, book store operators, scholars, and editors--assume
that because a Pound poem affects their sensibility that his work must
rise to the level of ‘masterpiece’; that his work deserves to be read, and
that the work should have a place within curriculums.   After all, if this
was true then we might as well say that because my grandmother loved her
Hallmark Christmas poem she got from me, because it moved her, affected
her sensibility, then this poem must also be a masterpiece.  If
‘modernism’ and ‘truth’ are problematic concepts, then ‘masterpiece’ and
‘sensibility’ are also equally problematic concepts.  All of these
concepts, whether resulting from academic brain washing or not, are
important matters that deserve discussion.  Villa suggests that such a
discussion is ‘childish.’  I would suggest the term, ‘childish’ is also a
problematic concept resulting from everyday life brainwashing.

It is certainly fallacious to assume that since this group frequently
‘speculates” about Pound politics or wonder about what Pound would have
thought about some current political problem or crisis, such as the “Roma
locuta, causa finite” thread of messages, or the occasional political
manifestos by members of this LISTSERVE, that there are no EzP Poetics.
We can really only conclude that in the 1.5 years I’ve been on this
LISTSERVE I’ve heard very little about Pound poetics and all kinds of
speculation on his politics. My question, rather than exaggerating, is a
self-reflexive one: are you not interested in Pound’s poetics?  Are you
not concerned about the current state of poetry?  Do you not care that
Ovid, Homer, and the great works are about to be lost by most middle
educated folks?  Do you not care that even the average college educated
folks aren’t taught the works that EzP relies on for its communicability?
Will you not act to save a dying man because you are a bystander among
bystanders watching a man’s blood spill onto the street corner because you
think someone else with respond (sociological phenomenon call bystander
effect?)  Why should we even save that fucking fascist, Pound, anyway?
(Over-dramatization for effect!)  Is it even fair to call him a ‘fucking
fascist’, Pound either?  I suppose so.

For me, I wonder about his poetics and want to engage this group in a
discussion of a number of issues.  Something that Pound would want us to
do.  I do not simply assume a poetic, a sensibility, a masterpiece, an
aesthetic.  I’m also interested in Pound’s contribution to an American
literature and culture.  I want to know how he fits in—Emerson, Whitman,
Thoreau, Robinson, Ford, Pound, and Eliot.  I’m also interested in how
Pound’s agenda squares with Emerson’s and the ‘Postmodernist’s,”
‘postmodernism’, etc. Why should we keep that irascible bastard Pound
alive?  Why is he worthy?  Why should we pay homage to the past?  What’s
worthy about the use of allusion in poetics?  I don’t assume the
worthiness of his work or even keeping the techniques he promulgated
alive.

I also want to know why poetry should only matter to ‘elitist’ crowds,
merely—those educated folks who make fun of people who cannot spell; those
who know Ovid, Homer, Chaucer, Dante, etc?  Villa made a statement that
deeply concerns me: “If people are so damn ignorant that they runaway from
Pound’s poetry because of its “allusiveness”, we can only say: “it’s a
shame”, or “I’m really sorry for you”, or yet “may you try it another
time”. This statement concerns me because it’s defeatist, a resignation of
sorts that forecasts there will be a day when Pound IS E.A. Robinson.
Robinson was a great poet and very few people are familiar with his work.
There are two issues I’m concerned with: (1) the college curriculum, which
I don’t think I need to belabor (it’s a self-evident problem); and, (2) a
question of whether the best kind of poetry—aesthetically ‘superior’ (also
a problematic term) poetry--affects both the elitist crowd and the average
Joe on the street.  What constitutes an “affect” (also problematic with
dual meaning?) Can we say that Pound can do this?  Does it make sense to
say that great poetry should be able to bridge the divide and be
inclusive? Many of you people assume that Pound IS great merely because of
his ‘allusiveness.’

Villa said people drop certain types of poetry because it’s
“difficult” and suggests the television is the problem.  He further
suggests that everything will inevitably be written as Emerson exercises
(I have no clue what this mean, but I would venture to say it’s a slam
against the LANGUAGE and AVANTE GUARD folks?)  People are consumed with
these things but it must be the skill of a great poet to tap into
‘archetypes’, inherited from Homer, Ovid, etc, and do so in a way that is
comprehensible.  Can we say that poetry is good or even great if it is not
communicable?  Should a work be considered great if only the author can
understand it?  Is a highly idiosyncratic work great?  By what standard do
you evaluate?  By whose standard do you evaluate and judge?  Let us debate
the issue.  This isn’t childish; it is the work of mature minds.

Emerson did say something like this, “Write in the idiom of the times.”
Does that make sense?  I suppose so, but I’ve gone on way to long to think
it through.

Finally, Villa quotes Pound:  “after death there comes no other calamity”.
 Stoner James quotes himself:  After death the calamity is the loss, the
sadness, the grief for those who live.

So do you want to discuss Pound poetics or Pound politics or maybe even
both?  I suspect the two are bound together somehow.  Maybe that should be
a point of discussion—a simple diversion from our boring lives?  I wonder
what the purpose of this LISTSERVE is.  I wonder what relationship Pound
has to contemporary poetics.  I want to speculate about how Pound would
respond to the current state of Poetics.

Good day.  I hope I have at least entertained you, although my purpose is
something else.



__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com