Thank you, Tim: a problem with education is precisely what "the problem
with Pound" generally means. And "But you, you damn'd crowd of gnats, "
is truly an amazingly high-toned line, ain't it?

(The following is actually directed toward Brennen, but not meant to be
as harsh as it will probably sound.)

Does anyone actually expect that Pound would or should conform to the
Imagist platform?   Put Pound's poetry and the Imagist platform in
context.  Compare Pound's diction with Swinburne's (since he's not so
easy to get: http://www.letrs.indiana.edu/swinburne/) or Tennyson's or
Arnold's -- or Buchanan's if you can dig his corpse up -- but not with
Auden's, or... ahem... Ashbury's -- or even Robert Duncan's... or (he he
he) Billy Collins'.  These all follow(ed) Pound's "revolution".  Pound
helped bring English-language poetry closer to speech, which isn't to
say that he made poetry "conversational".  Perish the thought!!!  We
can't blame Pound for the watering down of much poetry into the
chat/journalism pap we've witnessed so much of since WWII.  Even the
limited Imagist platform can't be blamed for such pap.

Please listen to the Cantos and his other poems -- I don't just mean
Pound reading them, though he's definitely worth hearing (and the
recordings easy to acquire) if you've never heard him.  Read them aloud
yourself.  Listen to the way they move.  Pounds poetry is beautiful even
if you don't understand everything he's saying.  In fact, and possibly
directly to the point since we're discussing poetry rather than prose,
I've found that hearing him read and reading him aloud myself has helped
my understanding of his poetry (especially the Cantos) tremendously.
 Pound's prosody is 20th century music, but it isn't country, rock, or
easy-listening.  And its beauty is radically different from Swinburne's
or Rossetti's (and, for Rossetti, just in case:
http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu:2020/) or Shelly's or Wordsworth's.



Tim Romano wrote:

> Brennen wrote:
>
>>  The problem with Pound is that if
>> one doesn't share his extensive classical education, then one cannot
>> fully
>> grasp his images without referring to other texts. The meaning is not
>> fully
>> contained in the poems.
>
>
> True enough, but is it appropriate to call this a "problem with Pound"?
> Couldn't  it just as easily be described as a problem with education?
>
>
>> Therefore I go back to my central question: To what extent did Ezra
>> Pound
>> write in the "language of common speech,"  [...] Also: How can one
>> get to
>> images when the poem
>> refers to so many other works other than itself? Is Pound's poetry
>> "hard and
>> clear?"
>
>
>
> The allusions occur in poems that ARE written "in the language of common
> speech."  The allusions and the diction are separate 'issues' or
> 'problems'
> if you want to call them that. The use of foreign languages does not mean
> that Pound's language is muddy or that his lines lack a "hard edge".
> Compare these two poems; each has what might be called an oriental theme;
> the first talks of pagodas and Chinese geese, the second of sennins.
> Which  of the two strikes you as being closer to spoken language?
> Which of
> the two has the greater clarity?
>
> #1
> Bells of gray crystal
> Break on each bough--
> The swans' breath will mist all
> The cold airs now.
> Like tall pagodas
> Two people go,
> Trail their long codas
> Of talk through the snow.
> Lonely are these
> And lonely and I ....
> The clouds, gray Chinese geese
> Sleek through the sky.
>
> #2
> The red and green kingfishers flash between the orchids and clover,
> One bird casts its gleam on another.
>
> Green vines hang through the high forest,
> They weave a whole roof to the mountain,
> The lone man sits with shut speech,
> He purrs and pats the clear strings.
> He throws his heart up through the sky,
> He bites through the flower pistil and brings up a fine fountain.
> The red-pine-tree god looks at him and wonders.
> He rides through the purple smoke to visit the sennin,
> He takes "Floating Hill" by the sleeve,
> He claps his hand on the back of the great water sennin.
>
> But you, you damn'd crowd of gnats,
> Can you even tell the age of a turtle?
>

Dirk Johnson
676 Geary #407
San Francisco, CA 94102

[log in to unmask]
Home: 415-771-7734
Office Direct: 510-208-8200
Office Fax: 510-208-8282