Sender: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:11:39 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
8bit |
In-Reply-To: |
<008201c39325$8abb2760$7f00b8d8@RichSeddon> |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
We should bear in mind that A.R. Orage was the primary force behind the
introduction of the philosophy of Nietzsche in England. Wallace Martin's
book on Orage provides a good background.
Might one suggest that Neo-Nietzschean scans better?
I found Lindberg useful on articulating the debate between Pound and Eliot
in the '30s.
Cheers,
Tim Redman
-----Original Message-----
From: - Ezra Pound discussion list of the University of Maine
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Richard Seddon
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 9:07 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Canto II & Prohibition
Charles:
Another important reference to Pound and Nietzsche is Chapter 3 of Leon
Surette's book "Birth of Modernism". It is entitled "Nietzsche, Wagner and
Myth". Surette deals with Nietzsche in a straight forward
non-deconstructionist way.
If you prefer the tortures of deconstruction there is Lindberg's book
"Reading Pound Reading". I believe she was a student or associate of
Riddel.
Where Surette is direct and easy to understand Lindberg is not. So far I
have only been able to scan through her book and have not studied it in
depth. Her book may contain nuggets I have just not been capable of mining.
Rick Seddon
McIntosh, NM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Seddon" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 7:02 AM
Subject: Re: Canto II & Prohibition
> Charles
>
> Yes, I've read it. No, it doesn't explain Pound's choice of
"Neo-Nietzschean
> clatter" over "Nietzschean clatter". It does attempt to explain the
> "clatter". Riddel seems a deconstructionist so have your De Man at the
> ready. Or as your fancy takes you have your De Man purgative at the
ready.
>
> Rick Seddon
> McIntosh, NM
>
|
|
|