Rick,

Thank you for expounding on Imagism/Amygism/Vortecism. I have a few other
questions along the same lines:

Can you explain Pound's original conception for imagism? How does that
initial conception relate to French imagisme? What caused Pound to lose
interest in his imagist movement, at least as it was first construed?

Also, was Pound romantically linked to H.D. when he forwarded her poetry for
publication, calling her an imagist poet?

Brennen Lukas
http://members.cox.net/blukas/frames_index.html

>Pound's Image (vortex) was not a thing.  Amy Lowell's image was a thing.
>Pound's Image was more a verb than a noun.  Amy Lowell never got the idea
>and went blithering on about the image as a thing.  Her blithering
>essentially created a separate school of imagism.  Amygism is not
>necessarily bad poetry; it is simply not Pound's idea of Imagism.
>
>I think you mean to speak of "Luminous Detail".  A "Luminous Detail" is not
>an Image, however "Luminous Detail" can be Imaged (vortexed)  into a much
>greater understanding by the individual reader.  It is this vortexed
>(Imaged) luminous detail that is an essential feature of the ideogramic
>method found in "The Cantos".
>
>
>Rick Seddon
>McIntosh, NM


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