it's difficult to think of meanings of "elite" & "elitist" that are not
pejorative, but I suppose it's possible; it's been a long time since I've
heard a reference to someone as "elitist" that didn't carry with it a sense
of denigration. however, there's no reason not to accept Bill at his word
that he meant no such reproach. I agree with Christopher's observation that
we "abandon the use of the word "elitist," except where one actually means
it. but I disagree with bill that the initial criticism of Carolyn See was
prompted by any "who does she think she is" attitude, a remark that does seem
to cast aspersions, and a conclusion that doesn't fit the general tenor of
Carlo's remarks, who was very specific in what he objected to. nor do I
think any useful purpose is furthered by Bill's reference to Pound as il
Duce's puppet lapdog, which does strike me as pejorative; Pound was many
things, some of them regrettably evil, but he wasn't anyone's stooge. and
whatever else he may have been, he was arguably the greatest poet of his
time, and perhaps of this century, and most certainly his greatness isn't
"measured by counting the number of obscure
literary references & linguistic excursions per page," an observation that is
as inane as it is pejorative. perhaps we could speak to Pound's enormous
contributions to poetry, including expanding the scope of interest, his
erudition and his historical methods, instead of engaging in these juvenile,
and not so clever, putdowns.
joe brennan....
In a message dated 9/2/99 10:26:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
<< Mark....
"Elite" & "elitist" are words that carry many different meanings to many
different people, ranging from respect to contempt. "Snobbery" is clearly
pejorative. It was not my intention to denigrate anyone who loves poetry
and poets, obscure or famous. The same goes for anyone who devotes his or
her life to scholarship, teaching, or education. It was not my intention to
disparage anyone who reads, enjoys, studies or discusses any subject no
matter how esoteric or obscure.
But we are talking about EP here, a poet who chose to be a puppet lapdog for
a Fascist dictator in part because the president of the United States didn't
drop the concerns of state to hear his (EP's) grandiose political rantings.
The fact that he picked up a castle in the bargain might also be interpreted
as elitist, might it not?
Pound's choice to write in many languages - some of them moribund if not
deceased - fits into the "elite snobbery" category in my opinion. Wasn't
one of Dante's great contributions writing in common language rather than
Latin, an archaic language (even then) kept alive for ceremony and - dare I
use the word again - snobbery?
If greatness in poetry is measured by counting the number of obscure
literary references & linguistic excursions per page, then EP is clearly the
greatest poet of our times. A desire to unravel or understand some of those
mysteries drew me to this list. But it was always my belief that Pound's
stature was as much for his theories, editing skills and cultivation of
other talents as for his poetry.
Pound is also great because his writings challenge readers to look into
other cultures, other ages, other ideas. This leads to many areas where most
people will not have the time to go. That's where a small group of devotees
can illuminate the darker corners for those who lack the time or temperament
for serious study. That group could be considered elite with no pejorative
implication to the word. Members of this list fall into that category.
But it seemed to me that there was considerable "snobbery" in the response
to See's article. Snobbery in the
exhibited, and in comments about the Washington Post & journalists in
general. I've done a lot of PR work for causes many people think are lost
(labor unions & citizen advocacy groups), and always welcomed the attention
of mainstream media as evidence of continuing interest in the subjects.
Being ignored is the worst fate of all.
Bill Wagner
>>
|
