(continued from a previous post)

>But above all, what is the relationship between Pound's politics and
>his poetry?  If we acknowledge that he was a Fascist, does it
>necessarily follow that The Cantos is a "fascist poem"--that the
>poetics on which it is grounded is necessarily also "fascist."

No, it does not follow.  But if we add that Pound was very dedicated to
Confucianism, and if we note that the poetry is more grounded in
Confucianism even than it is in Fascism, we must conclude, I think, that the
poem is far more reactionary, more medieval (in its political assumptions),
more hierarchial (in its conception of the "just" society), more dedicated
TO A SYSTEM OF EXPLOITATION (in the economic sense), and more
anti-democratic EVEN THAT THE FASCIST SYSTEMS Pound supported.  So I would
say that Casillo and Lauber were a bit tame. The ideological assumptions
imbedded in Pound's work are far more noxious than was previously believed.
Only when the Confucian dimension is fully understood, will people
comprehend the degree to which Pound's poem would take us back to eras of
complete subjugation.


>And here
>we come to the issue that I have been pursuing for more than 20 years.
>What happens to Pound's poetry if we read it through the work of his
>self-avowed literary heirs: Louis Zukofsky, Charles Olson, Robert
>Duncan, Allen Ginsberg, Robert Creeley, etc.? Not a fascist among them.
>
That is an interesting question.  For some.  It is probably a matter of
aesthetics, more than a matter of social history, or of philosophical
import.  That is a matter of temprament and personal interest.  I just don't
care for any of those poets, with the possible exception of Ginsberg


>Well, the discourse on this discussion group has not been addressing
>any of these issues.

On the contrary, I have tried very hard to address the issue of whether
Pound's fascism (and confucianism) have important implications for the
interpretation of his epic work.  Some people simply do not like my
hypotheses.



>Perhaps the problem is the medium itself.
>Unfortunately (in my view at least) listservs seem to encourage people
>simply to fling judgements at one another, rather than to develop
>reasoned arguments. (Such an argument, I take it, requires the writer
>to advance an hypothesis that will in some way challenge the currewnt
>thinking on a theme, and then to test out this hypothesis by assempling
>pertinent evidence, and by showing that the hypothesis in question
>accounts for this evidence better than does any competing hypothesis.)
>Perhaps the limited size of the typical listserv posting militates
>against such reasoned argument.

I don't think so.  Look at the archives of many of the lists devoted to
philosophical topics, and philosophical thinkers.  Some people are simply
not choosing to make reasoned arguments here, for reasons only they know.

>Or perhaps the problem is the
>possibility of quick responses, so that in our postings (such as mine
>here) we are responding to a specific provocation, rather than offering
>a reasoned sequence of reflections.
>

There is a great deal of truth in that observation, but again it is a matter
of choice, and temprament.

>But whatever the limitations of the medium, I think that we could be
>putting this listserv to better use.

Agreed.


>Thus I'd like to offer some specific suggestions.  What about some
>discussions of recent Pound books?  Has anyone out there read Surette's
>Has anyone read both Surette's book
>AND Alec Marsh's book?  What about the relative strengths and
>weaknesses of the two books?  Also, I recently read Frank Lentricchia's
>chapter on Pound in Modernist Quartet.  Does anyone have comments on
>Lentricchia's treatment of EP?
>

These are all topics worth discussing. I would welcome a discussion about
Surette's latest book.  Unfortunately, I have not read it yet.  Mr. Surette
also mentioned, a while back that he was studying the relationship between
Pound and Proudhon. That is a fascinating subject I think.


>Finally, and more selfishly: I am currently wrapping up an essay on
>Pound's politics in the late 1920s/early 1930s, to be published in a
>special issue of Paideuma on Pound and African-American Modernism.

I think this is a fascinating subject.  As regards the somewhat larger issue
of Pound and Africa, or the sub-topic of Pound and Frobenius on Africa, I
think it is well worth exploring in more detail than we have done up to this
point, at least recently.  What I find most fascinating about African and
African American attitudes toward Frobenius, is the large degree of extreme
ambivalence.  Senghor, for instance, had quite a lot to say which was very
positive about Frobenius.  He notes that Frobenius helped him to formulate
some of the early notions connected with the orgins of "Negritude" as they
evolved in Paris, during his university days.  On the otherhand, given what
Jahn has uncovered about Frobenius ---most of which has NOT been translated
from the German into English or French--- it is a suprise nowadays that any
African or African American would think more highly of Frobenius than they
would of the authors of the "Dread" Scott Decision.

>Over the next few days, I'm going to post this essay to the list, in
>installments, and I will invite your comments. I would also invite
>other subscribers to post such items to the list.


Good idea.

Regards,

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