There would seem to me to be one problem. Reading the poems of _Men and
Women_, one wants at least a rough and ready understanding line by line,
poem by poem. But focus on that kind of understanding defeats early
readers of the _Cantos_ (and would even defeat most non-specialist
readers). It's been a long time since I read _Sordello_, but when I read
it I simply read it fairly fast, without worrying too much, and one did
get a sense of the whole even when many parts remained opaque. I think
that attitude needs to be brought to the _Cantos_ by readers who are not
_specifically_ specialists in Pound (or at least in the Pound tradition
of modern poetry).

I've gotten an awful lot out of the Cantos by just reading them casually
(in my spare time as it were) for about 45 years. I haven't even read
very much of the criticism. In fact one of the exciting things about the
poem, it seems to me, is the extent to which it begins to "teach itself"
over time in response to continuous causual rereadings.

Carrol

Jacob Korg wrote:
>
> Dear Tim:
>         Yes, I think Men and Women would be better for everybody, and I'm
> glad you're making the change. Thanks for mentioning the Grieve book -- I
> don't know it, and have generally liked Hugh Witemeyer's study of the
> early poetry.
>                 Al lthe best,
>                                 Jacob