Dear Eamonn or Rich or Big Mac or whatever,
Do I detect projection in your overreaction? Actually I think Yeats and
Byron are greater poets.
But I agree with you that anyone who criticizes movements such as those
which emanate from deluded tribalism deserve to have their ideas examined as
Pound said they should rather than be summarily labeled in order to be
dismissed. What you call "genuine criticism...as simple social
prejudice...lazy and plain wrong", but sometimes just the right red herring
for the moment, I would add.
So if you are serious about actually discussing the poem or poems or
whatever they may be called then I will suggest taking a Canto exactly from
the middle of what you term the uninteresting section, "Canto 26 to the mid
40s"; let's say Canto 33 which begins,
"Quincey Nov.13, 1815
...Is that despotism
or absolute power...unlimited sovereignty,
is the same in a majority of a popular assembly,
an aristocratical council, an oligarchical junto,
and a single emperor, equally arbitrary, bloody,
and in every respect diabolical. Wherever it has resided
has never failed to destroy all records, memorials,
all histories which it did not like, and to corrupt
those it was cunning enough to preserve....."
So what do you make of that, Mac? Is it poetry? Is it relevant? Has it any
truth to it? Does it anticipate a future? Reveal a past? Does it have your
name or my name on it? Do you want the label? Do I want the label? Are the
Cantos ready for that crusty old school of nostalgia, "litterae nihil
sanantes"?
Discuss, discuss- Wouldn't Senator Brookhart have a field day with Dick
Cheney?
Charles Douglas Moyer
----------
>From: Richard Stanton <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Romantic Pound
>Date: Wed, Jul 30, 2003, 5:24 PM
>
> Dear "charlesmoyer" and all,
>
> If people such as yourself didn't bridle at the first hint of a dissension
> from the view that pound is NOT the greatest poet on earth, and the cantos
> are NOT the greatest modern epic, perhaps there would be less of a problem.
> I reject the view that modern attacks on pound are socially motivated, most
> find difficulty in the work itself, and any dismissal of genuine criticism
> of the author as simple social prejudice is lazy and plain wrong. I am a big
> fan of pound, but at the same time I do care what other "readers of pound"
> think, because I'm not arrogant enough to assume that my opinions on
> literature should be the be all and end all. Often the purpose of such
> critics is no such simple dismissal of pound, but a highlighting of the very
> obvious failings in the text; the fact i tried to start some discussion on
> the actual bloody poem and have been dragged into 'the man' is evidence
> enough of this.
>
> Rich
>
>
>>From: charles moyer <[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: Romantic Pound
>>Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 06:56:05 -0400
>>
>>Dear "richardisthebigmackdaddy" and all,
>>
>> Why should anyone care what such "readers of Pound" think? It seems
>>the
>>purpose of such peoples' opinion is always to inform us lovers of Pound
>>that
>>we are wrong in doing so, and we know all the real reasons such social
>>lemmings are so motivated.
>> "They'll no' get him a' in a book I think
>> Though they write it cunningly;"
>>
>>
>>
>>----------
>> >From: Richard Stanton <[log in to unmask]>
>> >To: [log in to unmask]
>> >Subject: Re: Romantic Pound
>> >Date: Mon, Jul 28, 2003, 4:41 PM
>> >
>>
>> > I think i've said a lot of stuff I don't necessarily agree with there,
>>but
>> > it's a valid approach and one that a lot of readers of pound who are not
>>as
>> > fascinated by him as we are would agree with.
>> >
>> > Rich
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Sign-up for a FREE BT Broadband connection today!
> http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/btbroadband
|
