I would like to address some points made about Casillo by

"R.Gancie/C.Parcelli."


I think you might be right that Casillo does not take into account the full
dynamic of Pound's development.  Allow me comment on some of the remarks you
made in some detail.


>Casillo's Geneaology of Demons is a mess. Not only is the
interpretation often strained beyond credulity (although I can live with
that), it treats the Cantos as though they are not a poem so much as a
ideologue's scrapbook.

I am not sure that Casillo's work is any more of a "mess" than Pound's--and
in either context the word "mess" may or may not be derogatory.  The Cantos
are in one sense "an ideologues scrapbook," and Pound admitted as much on
several occasions.  This in itself is not a judgment for or against them.  A
poem, particularly a 20th century poem, can be a "scrapbook," and there is
nothing odd or strange about that.  In fact, Pound's conception of the
ideogrammic method almost demands it.

As to Casillo's "straining credulity," I find that he helps us understand
many of the ideological, political, racial, and historical dimensions of
Pound's work which too many people are all too eager to ignore.


>Casillo's book suggests an underlying sinister
cohesion to the Cantos which goes beyond previous interpretations and is
not borne out by much contradictory biographical data.

Well, there may be an underlying "sinister cohesion," or attempt at cohesion
(even though the poet could not "make it cohere").  This is debatable.  As
to whether it is borne out by biographical data, a close reading of the
Radio speeches, and of Carpenter's biography (which is fairly extensive) may
bear it out.  I urge those who wish to fully undertand Pound to sit down and
read the Radio speeches, however painful that may be.

Now, your next point is the most interesting to me personally.


>Still C.'s greatest flaw is his utter ignorance of how such a
poem gets constructed and how the materials influence the epistemology.
The result is that Casillo's Cantos are static without evolution in direct
contradiction to Pound's stated and admittedly failed aims.

I think this may be correct, but the fact may not alter our potential
agreement with Casillo's conclusion, namely that racist, fascist,
imperialist, and classist (elitist) ideology imbues the vast bulk of the
Cantos.

I would argue that if one views Pound's development in relation to his use
(or misuse) of Chinese materials, one can come to understand more clearly
the WAY in which his ideology does develop in relation to his poetic
intentions, dialectically, as it were.

[If you want to examine this approach more fully you might look at:

www.geocities.com/weienlin/raceandempire.html  ]

Is it conceivable that because most critics and readers are unable to
comprehend many aspects of Pound's use of Chinese materials that they ignore
the full extent of Pound's ideological commitments?  I would maintain that
this is the case.


You go on to argue that in interpreting Pound,

>One has a
idea or set of ideas in circumstances like the Cantos and one seeks
supporting texts. But these texts have a life of their own and alter not
only the original intent of the poet but the poem itself without the
poet developing an original form of expression that would subsume the
quote more thoroughly into his conceptual flow.

This is the whole problem, isn't it?  How do we determine Pound's
intentions; how do we evaluate the significance of certain texts in relation
to those intentions; and what significance does the poem have independently
of those intentions?  The last question will have to be answered by each
individual reader, on a subjective basis.

My own impression is that Pound, perhaps more so than almost any 20th
century poet has stated his intentions very straightforwardly.  Unlike Eliot
and Joyce, Pound has invested himself very concretely and very practically
in the political sphere; and he has stated, in  very direct uncertain terms
the relation between his art and his politics.   Thus it is not too
difficult to divine his purposes.  The main difficulty lies in the obscurity
of many of his allusions.

>The Cantos are always at least a dialogue; never a monologue as Casillo
implies.

Again, this is debatable.  If we have to choose between two statements:
"The Cantos are a dialogue" and "The Cantos are a monologue,"  I think the
latter would be closer to the truth.  Why?   Simply because the ideological
underpinning of the Cantos, the methodology of the historical presentation
of "facts", and lack of ambiguity regarding basic philosophical assumptions
are dictatorial (rather than dialectical). Pound seems more interested in
"pronouncing" the truth, rather than exploring it.  In this way he has much
in common with his greatest heroes:  Mussolini and Confucius.

Of course, there is a sense in which his poetic brilliance, and his attempt
to incorporate large amounts of semi-digested or undigested materials into
the Cantos undermines his purpose.  He inadvertently, constructs his poem in
such a contradictory fashion that a kind of dialogue is necessitated
(between the reader and the poet, between the reader and the poet's source
material).  Many contradictions are between text and subtext, or between
(and these are the most insidious) --- between quoted text and unquoted
adjacent text, between what is included and what is omitted.

Pound's radically anti-democratic, pro-imperialist, pro-fascist, racist, and
hierarchical stances lead him to suppress much of the material in his
sources, and cause him to elevate and distort much of his source material.
Casillo is right to point this out, and he does this quite well I think.



________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com