Dan,
I agree but would like to suggest that, however repugnant some of the thinking
may be to us reading Pound (or Eliot) now, it is not just that it impinges.
Indeed, what is so problematic for many of us is that it does not spoil the
work; it sometimes contributes to its power, hard as that may be to
reconcile.  The same righteous fury that drives the rhythms and gives the
lyric intensity to "Hugh Selwyn Mauberly IV" or Canto XLV inspired poetry (and
non-poetic ejaculations) of equal force -- and sometimes beauty -- whose
content gives us pause.
    It was Pound who equated sincerity with technique.  His anti-semitic
obsession was wrongheaded, if not pathological, but he was sincere, and that
is one reason so much of his work is both beautiful and disturbing.
 
Best regards,
Patricia
 
Daniel Pearlman wrote:
 
> Tim,
>
> I think it important to recognize that I do not separate his evil from
> his poetry; where it impinges, it impinges, and there isn't any Clean
> Room I'd confine myself or Pound to.  What I'd like you to recognize
> is the juxtaposition of moral incompatibles in all of us, and sometimes
> in our works, so that our works sometimes get spoiled in part or in
> whole.  It is the attitude of the Political Correctionists among
> today's litcrits that needs to see things in terms of black and white.
> I've never thrown out a good glass of wine because a tiny fly landed
> in it.  (On the other hand, if it's a horsefly ...)
>
> ==Dan CleanRoom Pearlman
> HOME:
> Dan Pearlman
> 102 Blackstone Blvd. #5
> Providence, RI 02906
> Tel.: 401 453-3027
> email: [log in to unmask]
> Fax: (253) 681-8518
> http://www.uri.edu/artsci/english/clf/
>
> OFFICE
> Department of English
> University of Rhode Island
> Kingston, RI 02881
> Tel.: 401 874-4659