>From: Tim Bray <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: - Ezra Pound discussion list of the University of Maine
>    <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Mr. Davis Once More
>Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 14:24:05 -0800
>
>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

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I am not exactly certain if I have ever met a representative of this
class of readers referred to above as "the general reader", but
it does sound suspiciously like the old formula "gentle reader"

oh well

it was the same in the early days of Chicago "Poetry" with the
"gentle" Harriet Monroe vacillating about publishing Eliot,
driving Pound to exasperated outbursts, as I see today
with the continual wrangling over ".... but is it Poetry?"

That a man would devote a lifetime to expressing
common themes and ideas in simple, traditional
forms sounds much too much like my grandma
doing needlepoint to make nice little presents for
Xmas.

... and I have listened to groups of Xtians endlessly discuss
the Bible.... what the good Lord might have intended;
which preacher has the "real skinny" on the Book of
Revelations (sic); ,,, but I have noticed they never seem
to actually open the Book and read what's written in
the damned thing.

Too often, the Joycean or the Poundian seems none too
different with his sacred texts.

At any rate, Politics is not the only milieu in which we
find the Reactionary.




_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com