Dear Ahsan Ali,

Given the  sheer volume of Pound criticism -- some speak of a 'Pound
industry' -- it would be difficult to argue  that EP has been ignored.
However, while there has been much excellent Pound criticism, it is broadly
true that "Pound criticism'  is as criticism less interesting than Joyce or
(more recently) Stevens criticism (I can't think of anything very exciting
on Eliot). I am, I must say, no great fan of Wallace Stevens but I'm happy
to read, say, Kermode or Lentricchia on Stevens for Kermode or Lentricchia
rather than Stevens. Very little Pound criticism (Kenner, Davie, Bernstein,
Rainey) would pass this test.

No doubt P's political opinions have played some part in this (although
both Yeats & Eliot were firmly of the right & Stevens certainly not of the
left) but you might also consider that Formalism in its various forms, from
New Criticism to Deconstruction, finds Pound (& particularly the Cantos)
uncomfortable reading & that this has been a century of Foremalist criticism.

Imre Salussinski's Criticism in Society (?1987?) affords some interesting
insights into this question.

The above is pitched at a very high level of generalisation (perhaps too
high to be of much use) but I think the question you have raised is an
interesting one & I hope it calls forth a more adequate response.

Stephen Wilson.

At 14:35 16/09/00 +0400, you wrote:
>Dear pence-in-pounds,
>
>To what extent do you think Pound has been overlooked by critics.
>Their interest in Pound's contemporaries, Joyce and T.S. Eliot, has
>definitely exceeded their interest in him. And to think that of these
>three, Pound's the one who discovered the most life (The Cantos pulse with
>it) and sang it loud.
>However technically skillful, the other two croaked.
>
>Could some of the critics have been prejudiced due to Pound's Fascist
>sympathies?
>
>On another note,
> Enquiry: is there anybody of you at York University, Toronto. If so,
>please write to me...
>
>-Ahsan
>
>