"The enormous tragedy of the dream in the peasant's bent
   shoulders" hanging over the bar and his Miller's "Light"

----------
>From: Stoner James <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: The Rhetoric of noitareggaxE
>Date: Mon, Dec 30, 2002, 12:57 AM
>

> 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.  Itís 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 ìmodernismî or ìtruth,î (or even
> ìpostmodernism,î ìtemporality,î ìreality,î ìpast,î ìpresent,î ìfuture,î
> ìtradition,î ìmakeî ìit,î ìnew,î ìuniqueness,î ìEast,î ìWestî ìnatural,î
> ìLanguageî and on and on) but also many assumptions that guides this group
> in evaluating Poundís work, and also in continuing to propagate what Pound
> thought was ëgoodí or even ëgreatí poetry.  Aesthetics is also at issue,
> whether itís 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 ëmasterpieceí; 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
> ëmodernismí and ëtruthí are problematic concepts, then ëmasterpieceí and
> ësensibilityí 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 ëchildish.í  I would suggest the term, ëchildishí is also a
> problematic concept resulting from everyday life brainwashing.
>
> It is certainly fallacious to assume that since this group frequently
> ëspeculatesî about Pound politics or wonder about what Pound would have
> thought about some current political problem or crisis, such as the ìRoma
> locuta, causa finiteî 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 Iíve been on this
> LISTSERVE Iíve 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 Poundís 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 arenít 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 manís 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 ëfucking
> fascistí, 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.  Iím also interested in Poundís contribution to an American
> literature and culture.  I want to know how he fits inóEmerson, Whitman,
> Thoreau, Robinson, Ford, Pound, and Eliot.  Iím also interested in how
> Poundís agenda squares with Emersonís and the ëPostmodernistís,î
> ëpostmodernismí, etc. Why should we keep that irascible bastard Pound
> alive?  Why is he worthy?  Why should we pay homage to the past?  Whatís
> worthy about the use of allusion in poetics?  I donít 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 ëelitistí crowds,
> merelyóthose 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: ìIf people are so damn ignorant that they runaway from
> Poundís poetry because of its ìallusivenessî, we can only say: ìitís a
> shameî, or ìIím really sorry for youî, or yet ìmay you try it another
> timeî. This statement concerns me because itís 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 Iím concerned with: (1) the college curriculum, which
> I donít think I need to belabor (itís a self-evident problem); and, (2) a
> question of whether the best kind of poetryóaesthetically ësuperiorí (also
> a problematic term) poetry--affects both the elitist crowd and the average
> Joe on the street.  What constitutes an ìaffectî (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 ëallusiveness.í
>
> Villa said people drop certain types of poetry because itís
> ìdifficultî 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 itís 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
> ëarchetypesí, 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 isnít childish; it is the work of mature minds.
>
> Emerson did say something like this, ìWrite in the idiom of the times.î
> Does that make sense?  I suppose so, but Iíve gone on way to long to think
> it through.
>
> Finally, Villa quotes Pound:  ìafter death there comes no other calamityî.
>  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 discussionóa 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