Charles:

Stoner can decide for himself how "awful" the broadcasts are and, more to the
point, why they are "awful". And if they depress him, well, they have depressed
many who read Pound...  no less relevant for that.

I think Pound - Emerson link an important locus of debate or consideration.
Both writers, I believe, work within the assumptions of the American
transcendentalist movement which is, more or less, still the dominate ethos of
American literature. (Is that true?)

Interestingly, Pound developed his idealist position in relationship to his own
very strong historical interests. That makes Pound approachable (or attractive)
on two fronts, it allows him to point to a hierarchy of knowledge and
sensibility in which he so profoundly believed (rooting it, finally, at the end
of his life, in "character"), as well as being one of the few poets who
emphatically reminds us that the world exists beyond the sensibilities of the
poet (there are, in Pound's world, historical forces, determining events and
people, and he is willing to name them). This is a potent mix.

A major part of the importance of Pound, in my view, is precisely his attempt,
starting from cultural assumptions not much different than Emerson (is that
true?), to openly "come to terms" with historical forces.  Pound, I believe,
felt he was offering a more enduring history than that possible within a
materialist (read Marxist) framework. Hence, the Cantos.

People who like history, the epic impulse, and have a hard time imagining a
serious literature without it, yet are convinced of the inherent worth and
enduring value of certain "qualities of thought", usually can find a way to
appreciate Pound, including the Cantos. At least, they understand the
challenge.

Those to whom sensibility is everything (and history not much more than an
intellectually constructed nuisance), can usually appreciate Pound's
translations and early poetry, but frequently claim the Cantos to be
unintelligible (and hence, a poetic failure). It is frustrating, at times, to
discuss Pound with people of this ilk, as they always want one to point out
"the good parts" in the Cantos, missing the essential challenge of the piece as
a whole. However, if one chooses to indulge, there are "good parts" to quote,
and Pound's lyric voice does find register in the Cantos.

Those who really do spend time studying history, and are somewhat less
concerned with a permanent structure of idealist virtues or its lyric
expression, find Pound's take on history periodically insightful but, over all,
fatiguing (at best) or criminally negligent/ignorant (at worst).  And they need
only point to the broadcasts to establish Pound's essential mis-reading of much
in his time.

I think it true that Pound's associative process (the ideogrammatic method),
which allowed such force and freshness in his writing (as it did, too, for the
surrealists), also seriously undermined his approach to the epic challenge he
set himself. One may wish (that is to say, I wish) that Pound's confrontation
with Europe in the twentieth century would have led either to a more
fundamental break with his roots in idealism or, inversely, shown up those
roots to have been a more potent force in developing an historical
consciousness.

I am sorry that I am generalizing so broadly, but nonetheless...


Michael



charles moyer wrote:

> Dear Stoner,
>     Yourself is one word, and you're projecting. Also "Relavence"?
>
> Mr. Moyer
>
> p.s. Sorry about the grade, and I wouldn't read those awful broadcasts.
> They'll just depress you more like looking at all those hairs that grew in
> Emerson's ears. Try that fine rather new collection of Pound's prose. You
> can get it at Border's or Barnes and Noble. I almost bought it tonight, but
> I have all the pieces in the original volumes except for those selections
> from "The ABC of Economics". They have the Cantos two.
>     So why do you suppose Nietzsche admired Emerson so greatly?
>
> ----------
> >From: Stoner James <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Re: to, too, two
> >Date: Sat, Jan 4, 2003, 9:18 PM
> >
>
> > Mr. Moyer,
> >
> > I sincerely was attempting to find the connection between Emerson and
> > Pound, if any; and especially as it relates to their politics.  You have
> > presented your self as knowing something about both their politics and
> > their poetics.  You actually don't know much about Pound, do you?  You
> > seem to no far less about Emerson, and even less about writing; as your
> > message suggests.  You cry for substance, but focus on small grammatical
> > issues in writing such as, "to, too, two."  As I peruse your prior
> > messages I find significant grammatical and careless writing errors that
> > go well beyond anything that I have have written.  I still read your
> > messages for their substance.  Are you as shallow as your messages
> > suggest?  Do you present your self as somebody who understands Pound and
> > Emerson, but can answer no question about them, their poetry or their
> > politics? I mean this seriously, sir. You want to tell me to go back and
> > study Emerson?  I know much, but I will always restudy; always reconsider
> > what I've read, go back and go back again.  Tell me what I said about
> > Emerson or Pound that requires rereading?  Do you really have any
> > substantive feedback or ideas?  Are you merely an imitator, a guy that
> > throws out quotes and has nothing else to offer?  Do you live only to make
> > this listserve your little oligarchic plutocracy? Over the last 18 months
> > I have witness your simplistic diatribes more often than I could ever want
> > to (too, two, three, more times than I can count.)  You run people off
> > this listserve.  Why do you do that?  These are simplistic question, maybe
> > you can answer them?
> >
> > I do appreciate Tom and Michael's suggestion, though.  I also hope that
> > others will help me, if possible.  I will look at his broadcasts.
> >
> > Mr Moyer, with all due respect, (and I mean this seriously) how exactly
> > did you gain so much clout on this listserve?  Why do so many members
> > flock around you like you run "Bird hall?"  Maybe you can answer these
> > less intellectual questions, to, two, too?  Maybe the members that flock
> > aroound you can answer as well?  I guess my initial thoughts; that is, my
> > more thought out observations about you are likely true?  Over the past 16
> > months I have witnessed you provide this group with nonsense quotes; you
> > also have a tendency to shut dialogue down, stop it before it flies over
> > your head.  I wonder about their relavence.  I wonder about your relavence
> > here on this list serve.  Today, Mr. Moyer, I am an elitist towards you,
> > to, too, two.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> >
> > Jim Stoner
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> > http://mailplus.yahoo.com