I want to  thank Mr. Davis for his interesting and provocative post.

He poses the question, why can't we get along?  As far as I am concerned, we
do get along.  I feel no animosity toward anyone who has posted on this
list.  Disagreements, sometimes expressed strongly, are a healthy part of
any conversation about literary or philosophical topics.  If anyone has
expressed opinions forcefully--- or even in a way which might seem angry ---
I take such a manner as indicative of strong feelings and beliefs.   There
should be no shame, or need to blame anyone is this area.

Garrick Davis  concluded his last post as follows:

>
>Either art is influential (and bad art is dangerous), or art (as Auden said
>of poetry) "makes nothing happen." I stand with the Aristotelians, of
>course,
>and when I assert that Mr. Wei's (and his faction's) political approach to
>Pound will fail, I do so in the knowledge that all such Platonic attempts
>are
>not only crude and reductive to the works they claim to criticize, but are
>also (by their very nature) antithetical to the liberal and democratic
>traditions that Mr. Wei speaks so highly of.

Perhaps we should not speak of factions in this context.  Although members
of the list may have tendencies, it might be not be correct to place people
in groups and to attribute similar views to all of them.  Labels such as
Platonic and Aristotelian will probably not serve our interest, if we are
genuinely interested in understanding each others views.  I see why such
designations may, at first, seem to be a sort of useful shorthand.
Nevertheless, It would be useful, when we get down to the specifics to
abandon them.  My view for instance, is far from Platonic in the sense you
mean; I will try to explain why further below.

>In this sense, Mr. Wei (along
>with Mr. Surette, and a number of others) betrays his liberal convictions
>by
>asserting an essential anti-liberal critical position.

Mr.  Surette of course will speak for himself.  He and I have very distinct
positions, though we agree on many matters.  For my part, I think you
misunderstand my position if you seriously believe it to be either liberal
or anti-liberal.   I consider myself neither.  I don't think you intend this
necessarily, but remarks which qualify my view, or my philosophy --- even my
treatment of Pound --- with broad statements, may take us away from the
crucial issues.   I will not qualify you as Aristotelian, or as an proponent
of the "New Critical Approach," because such characterizations are beside
the point.   Likewise, and even more importantly, we might not wish to
qualify ourselves or each other as "fit" or "unfit" critics, simply because
we use different methodologies, or because we disagree with each other.

Allow me to go to the beginning of the very interesting post you wrote, on
the issue of "history repeating" itself.
>
>Does history repeat itself?

My answer would be no.  In this regard at least, I am a follower of
Heraclitus in his assertion that we cannot stand in the same river twice.
There may similarities between the past and future, but there are no
repetitions.

>On this listserver, any discussion of Pound's
>political and social beliefs invariably leads to this impasse: two opposed
>factions talking past each other.

Can there be such a thing as an impasse as long as the discussion continues?
  I don't think so.  As long as people keep producing evidence, and remain
interested in the texts, going over different passages with varying data
interpreted in relation to the subject matter, there will be no impasse.  I
have not seen "impasses" here, merely divergent movements,  a going to and
fro, hermeneutics, and dialectical motion in the arguments.  Movement has
not always been forward; but is a perfect forward motion to be expected in
any dialogue?  As far as saying "any discussion of Pound's political beliefs
. . ." leads to a dead end, I would suggest that the reverse may be
possible.  Without addressing in some way the social aspects of Pound's
work, the interpretations are in danger of losing their vitality.

>One side seeks to question Pound's
>reputation in light of his questionable political/social beliefs. The other
>faction opposes this approach, by insisting on the importance of the formal
>qualities of his poetry.
>

I think people gravely misread my intentions, and misinterpret my words,
when they say I seek to question Pound's reputation.  You may repute Pound
to be one thing, someone else may repute Pound to be another.  His
"reputation" relies solely in the total collection of opinions regarding the
value people ascribe to his work.   I am not so much interested in Pound's
reputation, but in the MEANING  of his work.


>What history is being repeated? Quite simply, we continue to play out the
>debate surrounding The Bollingen Prize of 1949, which Pound won for his
>Pisan
>Cantos. On one side were the New Critics (Eliot, Tate, Warren , etc.) who
>voted for Pound; on the other side were an assortment of liberal poets and
>critics who were uneasy about the content of The Cantos, among them Karl
>Shapiro and the critics of the Partisan Review (including Clement
>Greenberg,
>Robert Gorham Davis, and William Barrett.)
>
Is this possibly an attempt to fit one view into another and fail to see
crucial differences.  I am not particulary interested in the issue of "who
gets the prize."  Here again we are talking about "reputation".  This seems
to be a meaningless word when crucial philosophical matters are at stake.

>When, for example,  Mr Wei writes:
>
>"I would say, 'The Cantos," as a unitary work, is a magnificently failed
>attempt
>at a 20th century epic (failed in large part because of its political,
>social, economic, and ethical vision)."
>
>Mr. Wei is simply restating the objection of Mr. Shapiro who said, in his
>report to the voting board:
>
>"I voted against Pound in the belief that the poet's political and moral
>philosophy ultimately vitiates his poetry and lowers its standard as
>literary
>work."
>
There are significant differences in the meaning of my assertion about Pound
and Mr. Shapiro's.  First, he is trying to decide whether Pound deserves a
reward in particular and narrow context.  I am calling Pound's Canto's  a
"magnificently failed 20th century epic" in light of Pound's own words:  the
Canto's do not "cohere".  The assertion about the poets inability to make
the work cohere is especially important because it is contained IN THE POEM.
  Second point:  I am analyzing the contradictions inherent in the text as a
whole, as a reflection of other texts, and contradictions in those texts,
which Pound chose to incorporate into his work.  My evaluation is made on
the basis of several analyses of the Drafts and Fragments, their various
versions, and in light of the all-too-neglected Confucian and Chinese
historical dimensions of Pound's work.  Do you really believe my decision to
call Pound's work a "magnificently failed 20th century epic" is precisely
the same as to agree with Shapiro?

(continued in next post)
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com