EPOUND-L Archives

- Ezra Pound discussion list of the University of Maine

EPOUND-L@LISTS.MAINE.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
En Lin Wei <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
- Ezra Pound discussion list of the University of Maine <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 11 Aug 2000 06:05:24 GMT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (183 lines)
I am truly puzzled by a number of recent posts.

Martin Deporres <[log in to unmask]> wrote


>Instead of promoting free discussion as you imply you have utterly >impeded
>it.

Quite honestly, I don't understand your point.  As far as I recall, you have
said very little about any of the issues discussed over the past several
weeks.  Who has impeded your desire to engage in a free discussion?  Have
you not been free during the entire period of your membership on the Pound
List to post whatever you want, whenever want, using whatever expressions
and arguments you may wish to make?  I don't see how you can blame me for
what must simply be your decision not to post, not to start a discussion (or
a new thread) on ANY ISSUE OF YOUR CHOOSING AT ANY TIME.


Charles Moyer wrote a bit about Queen Victoria which did not seem to me to
have anything to do with Pound, or our current discussion. He seemed to want
me to stop posting, for reasons that are not given (unless it is simply that
he disagrees with my posts).  But I could not say it any better than

Richard Edwards,  who wrote

>You don't *have* to read what he has to say if you don't want
>to.
>

Richard Edwards has given a fair hearing to my views, disagrees with a
substantial part of what I have to say (and why not?), and when he does, he
explains why. He observes,

>I don't see why such views should
>be excluded from discussion in this forum.
>
>

I agree. No one's views should be exluded from this forum, for any reason.

[log in to unmask]  wrote:
>you have attempted to co-op this list . . .

That is impossible.  A listserv cannot be co-opted unless a moderator
excludes certain posts, and this has not happened.  Everyone is free to say
what they will here, read what they will, ignore what they will, and reply
(or not reply) to what has been posted.

>it's gotten to the point where almost every
>message posted to this list is in response to one of your messages
>attacking Pound.

Are you complaining about me, or about yourself?  You are one of the people
who is responding to me.  You are choosing to respond.  How am I to blame
for that?


>you have subverted any attempt to speak favorably of Pound's work by
>mindlessly repeating your principle theme that Pound didn't have a decent
>thought or an honest purpose in anything he wrote.
>

Subversion?  Is that such a great sin?  Even if I were guilty of TRYING to
subvert attempts to speak favorably of Pound, I could never succeed.  People
who want to speak favorably of Pound (in the sense that you mean)will do so
if they like, or choose not to if they do not want to do so.  It's purely a
matter of making a decision and carrying it out.  You grant me a power I do
not have. You also attribute views to me which I have not expressed, in any
case.  If you have something "favorable" to say about Pound, by all means,
go ahead and say it.

>Pound was a fascist, and he was also
>frequently a humane human being.

I have never denied that he was a humane person.  I don't have any issue
with him on this level, really, whatever you might think.  I only say that
his art, insofar as it embodies certain ideological principles, needs to be
explicated, and subjected to a rigourous criticism.

>that you can't understand this is your
>problem.
>


Or are you trying to make it "your problem"?  Why not just relax and let it
be?  Don't read any more of my posts if they bother you so much.  If you
like, I'll promise not to read yours.
>


>  Have you seen "Triumph of the Will", read Mein Kampf, or Mussolini's
>  "Fascist Institutes?  Have you read Gentile and Por (or the works of any
>fascist who did not kill anyone)?
>   >>
>
>so this is what you equate the Cantos with?  Mein Kampf?  and you want me
>to
>argue with you?

I do not equate them.  I simply ask if you have read them.  You did not
answer.  What am I to make of that?  Am I to conclude that you have read
them, or have not read them?  Pound read Mein Kampf, and said he fully
endorsed it.  If you have not read it, how can you claim to understand the
way Pound thinks?  Pound read tremendous amounts of Mussolini's writings and
his speeches, and thought the man was superb, a hero for our age, destined
to save Italy and European civilization.  How much Mussolini have you read,
and how can you claim to understand Pound if you have not read and studied
the life and work of Mussolini?

I also must ask again if you have seen the film, "Triumph of the Will."  A
large number of film historians say it is one of the greatest films of that
era, viewed from the point of view of style, cinematography, camera angles,
dramatic impact, and so on.  Yet it is clearly a postive portrayal of
Hitler.  It is a work of art, yet it is fascist.  Is it not possible that a
comparison between the Cantos and "Triumph of the Will" might not yield some
insight?  If you have seem the film, would you agree that it is, as many
claim a truly great film?

kevinkkiely <[log in to unmask]>  wrote:


>Charles Moyer and  Martin Deporres (perhaps there are others afraid to
>speak
>out?)
>happily deplore Wei's dictatorship en liste

What is there to be "afraid" of?  And how can there be a dictatorship, when
all are free to speak?  It is a huge problem when people use words like
"dictatorship" without clear attention to the meaning of the word.
Mussolini was a dictator.  Hitler was a dictator, and when people spoke out
against them, they were jailed, killed or worse.  John Adams aspired to
become a dictator, by using the "Alien and Sedition Acts" to jail reporters
and legislators who spoke out against him.  Pound admired and supported
these figures, and yet I AM ACCUSED of being a dictator, simply for
expressing my view, and answering some who disagree with me.

What is this?  Psychological displacement?  People dont' want to deal with
Pound's support for dictatorship, so they attribute Pound's authoritarian
ideology to me?

>while Richard Edwards and those
>who keep answering Wei, maintain his all too often prolix predominance, he
>is, perhaps a useful contributor (though patriarchial and ultimately
>puerile: what he quotes one knows  . . .>>

"Patriarchal"?  I ask you what is patriarchal in any of my posts?  What does
it mean to say "what he quotes, one knows?"

Correct me if I am wrong, but I would venture to suggest some people on this
list might not know that Pound advocated a Mencian economic system (as
proposed in his essay, "Mang Tze: the ethics of Mencius"), and some might
not know that Pound said he saw the Mencian system as a forerunner of the
fascist grain pool system.  Some people might not know much about what
Confucian and Mencian economic systems were really like.  If you have
already heard and read the quotes I gave about Mencius, the connection with
fascism, and the nature of the feudal and pre-feudal systems favored by
Confucianists, then I may owe you apology.  Let me know if that is the case.

I am aware that I am not getting across my points in the best way possible.
But I am not the only one guilty on that score, am I?

Perhaps I should think this through, and ask, what methodology, and what
approach to Pound others on the list, especially those I have mentioned
above, would prefer.

What issues would people like to discuss, aside from those we have dealt
with over the past weeks?  What method of discussion do people prefer?  Are
there particular parts of Pound's work that people feel are being missed,
and if so what are these?  Are there certain aspects, of form, style,
content, or poetic technique, that people would prefer to discuss, and if
so, what are these?  I would encourage people to suggest new topics, or new
areas for discussion, and then to procede into those areas.  Perhaps a
movement into another area could constitute a new beginning, from which more
productive and usefull discussion would be generated.

Hopefully Yours,


Wei

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2