>Robert Kibler wrote:
>
><<His poetry, too, is arguably that best suited for the researcher, for the
>academic. The Cantos are the professor's friend more so than they are the
>friend of those who would simply open up a page randomly on the bookshelf.
>>>
 
Sic loquitor Brennan:
>this is arguably one of the most absurd statements on Pound that I've ever
>read.
>
>joe brennan....
 
Also sprach Mark:
 
Well, I have never held an academic post, but I  have enjoyed
the Cantos since  the Bollingen controversy drew them to
my attention in 1948 [or 49?]  I re-read at random,little
fragments, fairly regulary and have re-read the  whole
opus many times.
I suggest humbly that the Cantos have a great appeal
to  anybody who groks first-rate poetry.
Which does NOT mean I haven't  learned a bit from
academic commentators or that I mean to  demean
the academic world in any way. They have a right
to enjoy Ez as much as I do.
 
 
Mark Chan
 
 
 
 
 
[log in to unmask]
 
 
A true noun, an isolated  thing, does not exist  in nature.
Things are  only the
terminal points,  or rather the meeting points,
of actions,  cross-sections cut
through actions, snap-shots.
 Neither can  a pure verb, an abstract motion,
be possible in nature.  The eye sees   noun and verb as one,
things in motion, motion in things,
and so the Chinese conception tends to represent them...
 
Nature herself has no grammar.
Fancy picking up a man and  telling him he is a
noun, a dead thing,  rather than a live  bundle of  functions!
        Ernest Fenollosa,  The Chinese Written  Character
                as a Medium for Poetry
 
Las die Lasagne weiter fliegen!
 
~