-----------------------
(continuation of last post)
>When liberal critics attack Modernist authors (many of whom were
>conservative/ reactionary politically), they often echo the question posed
>by
>William Barrett in a 1949 issue of the Partisan Review:
>
>"How far is it possible...for technical embellishments to transform vicious
>and ugly matter into beautiful poetry?"
>
This is a fascinating question about the nature of poetry, a valid question,
which has ramifications for Swinburne, Baudelaire, Pound, and many other
poets. The answer will be different, for different poets, for different
critics analyzing the poetry, and for different analyses of different
portions of the poet's work. It is a rich field for inquiry, and need not
produce an impasse.
>The result of the 1949 debate was that Pound received the award, but the
>New
>Criticism was unfortunately labeled as a politically reactionary movement
>and
>it began to decline as an influential force, at least in academic circles.
Perhaps this was unfortunate, perhaps it was not. "New Criticism" as
practiced in the mid-20th century was like any other school of criticism:
Bad when practiced badly, and insightful when practiced well. As far as
being reactionary in general, "New Criticism" could be used to reinforce
outmoded prejudices and backward political beliefs OR to break down
prejudices and open the mind to new possibilities. No generalization need
apply.
>I
>should also add that much of the Politically Correct movement dates, or
>finds
>its ancestry, from 1949.
This statement could be subject to endless debate. My own view is that the
phrase "politically correct" is almost meaningless. I have often --in the
US-- found it to refer to attempts by dogmatic leftists to enforce a kind of
orthodoxy in speech, in writing, and in thinking. Stalinists, or quasi
Stalinist types in the US can attempt to enforce a sort of orthodoxy, but
seldom succeed. Likewise, the Right, or the proponents of and
bureaucratic supporters of the Corporate controlled university (and
corporate controlled media and press) strive, and are more often successful,
in enforcing their own sort of orthodoxy. So political correctness is in
the eye of the beholder we must suppose. In this country the origin of
political correctness in the broadest sense goes back to 1798-1800. This
was the time when the Right (led by John Adams) tried to enforce the Alien
and Sedition Acts, jailing, and suing for libel and slander, those who did
not express the "politically correct" views. In the history of the world,
I do not think there was such a thing as a successful leftist attempt to
enforce a "politically correct" orthodoxy until Robespierre (unless one
wishes to count Cromwell).
>By this I mean that liberal critics (incorrectly I
>believe) derided New Criticism for ignoring "content" in favor of "form."
>These liberal critics then proceeded to talk exclusively about "content"
>and
>finally ended by subjecting works of literature to crude examinations of
>their political/social ramifications.
>
I see the whole issue expressed here as a matter of personal choice. I must
preface my response on this point by saying that I do not consider myself a
"liberal" critic, whatever that may mean. Every act of analysis and
criticism is a personal choice. Each individual chooses their own point(s)
or aspects of a work to emphasize. An explication which focuses on the
aesthetic to the exclusion of the moral or political content can be just as
crude as one which does the reverse. "Crudeness" should not be a word which
we use to dismiss an interpretation we do not agree with (by either side in
an argument).
>Ultimately, of course, there can be no agreement between Mr. Parcelli and
>Mr.
>Wei (and the factions they represent) because their critical approaches are
>opposed.
Why should there be agreement? Are we afraid to disagree? May God help us
if we are !!!
(Of course, in actual fact, Mr. Parcelli and I do agree on several crucial
ideological, economic, and political questions. We simply do not agree
precisely on how to interpret Pound at this point in our lives. In
addition, people change; opinions develop. It may be that we may ultimately
find other topics to agree on, and our understandings of Pound may expand
and converge in certain areas. Why say "there can be no agreement"?
Development and alteration are essential to human existence).
>In a sense, New Criticism and Political Correctness are modern
>versions of, respectively, Aristotelianism and Platonism.
Perhaps. And I can see why you might wish to attach these labels to the
views argued in these debates over Pound; but to do so is to miss more than
half the debate, which involves rather complex cultural problems which have
little to do with New Criticism and "political correctness" as those terms
are commonly used. For example, you say,
>The Politically
>Correct crowd believe that Pound's social/political/racial views have
>consequences and thus must be denounced/regulated/banned.
I don't know which "politically correct crowd" you are referring to here;
and since you do not explicitly put anyone in this crowd, should I assume
you do not refer to anyone writing on this listserv? I have run into
virtually no one in the US who believes in the "regulation" or "banning" of
Pound's work. So who are these mythical members of the "politically
correct crowd"? Shapiro perhaps? Did he think the publication of Pound's
work should be regulated or banned?
Come to think of the matter, the only people I have heard speak of
regulating the publication of Pound's work were scholars with a vested
publishing interest. I once heard an argument between people who advocated
the widespread dissemination of Pound's work and commentary on his work on
the internet, and those who opposed it. The libertarians (among whom I
count myself) argued against any regulation whatsoever. Others argued that
the publishing industry relied on the copyright protections, and it was
hoped that no one would be so foolish as to put Pound's poetry on the
internet. (These latter were not motivated by anything that could be called
"political correctness").
As far as "denouncing Pound", I don't think the act of "denouncing" is
unique to the right or the left, to the "politically correct" or to the
"politically incorrect", to those who emphasize the aesthetic or those who
emphasize the social. Furthermore, "denouncing Pound" does not entail calls
for regulation or for banning his works.
It might also be useful in this context to recall that in his essay
"Jehovah, or the Flail of Bureaucracy", Pound wrote that "In any civilized
state Christians should be banned from holding office". I hope those who
refrain from "denouncing" Pound will take that statement into their
calculations (and be reminded that Pound made many similar statements,
before and during his period of loyalty to Fascist Rome, which we need not
recall ---in too much detail--- had a strict policy of censorship which
Pound minimized. For instance he pointed out in one broadcast for Radio
Rome that Gessell and Douglas were NOT censored in Fascist Italy, as a sort
of "proof" that fascists were tolerant, of cultured people at least.)
>The New Critics see
>the work of art as autonomous, and therefore separable from even the views
>which the work itself seems to assert or glorify.
>
If autonomous means "self-governing" then it is difficult to see how the
word could be applied to art. Humans can choose to govern themselves, and
can choose to interpret works of art in various ways. But can "autonomy"
be attributed to art works which, after all, are inanimate objects? I would
seem to me that they only have as much "life in them" as we decide to give
them.
>Either art is influential (and bad art is dangerous), or art (as Auden said
>of poetry) "makes nothing happen."
Auden was right. We choose to make things happen, using art as medium.
When we choose to create art, or to experience art, we anticipate a certain
"effect", and the anticipation is part of the choice we make in moving into
a certain state of mind. This is an aesthetic and a psychological issue.
Apart from this there is another question. After one has prepared to enter
into a state of "aesthetic exaltation, " (upon hearing a piece of music or
reading a poem), what follows may be a period of reflection. Reflection
must come from the application of the reasoning process to analyze both the
form and the content of the experience. Pound's work, which has a very high
level of artistic merit in the eyes of many, inevitably provokes further
reflection on the nature of the content. What follows this is often a
reflection on the relation between the content and the very fact that it is
expressed in poetic form.
I have never argued that Pound is "influential," in the sense of having a
bad influence on society, or being dangerous to the socio-political order.
Nevertheless, I choose to discuss those political, social, and economic
aspects of his poetry because they interest me. If others choose to react
to them, that is their choice. I believe in human freedom.
Regards,
Wei
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
|
