At 06:31 PM 21/12/01 -0500, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>Thirty-odd responses after my initial letter ("Incoherence of the Cantos"), I
>would again request considered, thoughtful responses to my questions--since I
>have yet to receive any.
...
>I do appreciate Messrs. Pearlman, Davis, Parcelli, Bray, and Springate for
>their attempts--but their responses seemed extremely fragmentary, obscure and
>short--in short, attempts.

Well, "short" is a virtue in many situations.  Are you arguing that
it is valid grounds for criticism in discourse of this type?  I'd
disagree.

You argued that the Cantos deserve criticism on the grounds that

(a) Unity is a necessary virtue of great art, and
(b) the Cantos lack it.

I have explicitly challenged (a) and provided counter-examples;
you have yet to support this claim other than by assertion.

Several others have addressed (b) - in my case merely with
anecdotal evidence that the Cantos read well in sequence and
have some feel of unity that I lack the vocabulary to describe -
others at greater length and with reference in at least one
case to a book written on this point.  You have chosen mostly
to bypass these arguments.  But I still think (a) necessarily
comes first, arguments ought to have premises.

Let me try to point the argument in a different direction.  If
one is to invest time in finding fault with the Cantos, surely
the work exhibits graver sins than a lack of unity?

And another direction: given all the things that are plainly
wrong in this great big thick book, why is it that some of us
keep reading it?  Saying "the language is awfully pretty" [in
your eyes beauty, Artemis] seems insufficient.

As for the ad-hominem approaches and other forms of low blow,
they seem to be an intrinsic feature of Internet discourse in
the case where this is not strongly moderated or where there is
not a strong common bond of shared interest.  If you find this
unacceptable, I recommend you stay away from this arena of
discourse.  Which would be a pity because mixed with the
occasional hurtling mud there's an awful lot of vitality and
energy.

On this subjecet, I note a strong contrast between your measured,
considered (if strongly felt) tone in "Misunderstanding Ezra Pound"
at http://www.cprw.com/Davis/pound.htm, and the egregiously nasty
tone of your postings here.  Is a kettle being called black?

In closing, I note the following in CPR's mission statement:

 From its inception, the mandate of the Contemporary Poetry Review has
 been to provide the general reader with a guide to contemporary poetry,
 and to serve as an organ of intelligent criticism.

Well, I am that general reader.  I previously didn't know about CPR
and it seems to have some good stuff.  I find that hard to reconcile
with the nature of your recent, er, contributions here.  -Tim