Tom,

I'll grant you that there isn't too much value in ranking poets, but I do
think it is worthwhile to consider how two contemporaries made use of the
poetics of their day. To pit Eliot against Pound was not the central purpose
of my note. In my own defense, however, isn't it possible that Eliot, a
careful writer, yes, but also a clever wit, penned his dedication to the
_Waste Land_ with an implicit wink? Eliot did not write "the better poet."
He wrote, "the better maker/craftsman." I see a potential (though definitely
not certain) negative meaning in the phrase. Overemphasis of craft is a
common criticism of certain poets and Eliot may have felt this way about
Pound. For example, Wallace Stevens comes to mind as someone who has been
assailed as being all craft and little content. I don't agree with that
assesment, but it is a fairly common view.

Brennen





>From: Tom White <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: - Ezra Pound discussion list of the University of Maine
>    <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Pound the poet
>Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:24:58 -0600
>
>Brennan:
>I think it would be worthwhile to pause a moment in the business of casting
>Pound up against Eliot in the "greatest sweepstakes" to consider carefully
>the fact that you quote, namely, that Eliot saluted Pound as the better
>maker. Eliot, less than Pound even, was not given to thoughtless remarks in
>print, nor was he merely being cavalier. He meant what he said. Pound of
>course is the more difficult discipline, and provides a much slower "take"
>than Eliot. I suspect that will emerge for you as you continue your
>studies.
>Tom White
>
> > From: Brennen Lukas <[log in to unmask]>
> > Reply-To: - Ezra Pound discussion list of the University of Maine
> > <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:29:19 -0500
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Pound the poet
> >
> > What was Pound's general pupose in littering his poetry, especially the
> > Cantos, with fairly obscure references, foreign phrases and dropped
>names? I
> > wonder how this tendency gels with Imagist rule no. 1: "To use the
>language
> > of common speech, but to employ the exact word, not the nearly-exact,
>nor
> > the merely decorative word."
> >
> > I would argue that Pound's reluctance to let go of the mythical
>references
> > of which he was so fond, combined with a high-toned diction, ultimately
> > restricted his ability to produce resonant poetry. Pound deserves great
> > credit for his part in the Imagist movement, but he was not the most
> > accomplished practitioner. I don't think this is entirely the poet's
>fault.
> > We are all products of our times. T.S. Eliot's poetry sprung from the
>same
> > classical groundings, as evidenced be _The Waste Land_ and _Prufrock_,
>among
> > other examples. But Eliot also knew how to cut to the quick of the human
> > condition with the language of common speech: "I shall wear the bottoms
>of
> > my trousers rolled." So even if Pound was "il miglior fabbro" (another
> > reference), Eliot was a better poet.
> >
> > Now this is not to say that Pound did not have his successes and that he
> > always leaned on his litany of references to achieve his effect. I
>simply
> > maintain that he was perhaps too much a die-hard intellectual to really
> > produce poetry that matched his own Imagist standards.
> >
> > I welcome your comments.
> >
> > Brennen Lukas
> > Annandale, Virginia
> >
> >
> >>
> >> But Pound's writing, line by line, is perfectly clear. The references,
> >> foreign phrases, can be cleared up with a gloss, or one can skip them
>to
> >> begin with.
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail