Oh, silly me. I've been reading posts for a few weeks and decided to chime
in with some questions and ideas that came to my mind.  I suppose I didn't
realize that is isn't really a forum for questions and ideas.  It's a place
where self-satisfied academics can poke each other over such topics as the
definition of 'occult.'

I wanted to discuss the poetry. Not the man. Not the politics. Just the
poetry. I'm genuinely interested. But I suppose my meager brain couldn't
manage to communicate one idea worthy of discussion. No, I had to be beaten
down. Shown for what I am. God forbid that a young person would try to learn
from those who know.

What surprises me most are the ad hominem attacks, right off the bat. I've
never read Pound. I'm ignorant. I'm uneducated. I'm a fool. Only a MORON
would conflate Ezra Pound with imagist poetry. It doesn't matter if you can
actually understand the words, because they SOUND good. It's quite obvious,
Mr. Brennen, why a 20th century poet would base a large portion of his
poetic content on ancient myths. I mean, doesn't everybody?

John--ahem--Ashbery. Puhlease.  His pap is stinking up the place. In fact,
everything after WWII, let's just burn it out back. Meanwhile, let us lift
up Ezra Pound, true modern man in all his fascist Jew-hating glory, let us
raise his burned-out vision of civilization to the Gods and give a great
huzzah! Didn't you know the Jews control Hollywood and keep mankind from
enjoying the fruits of high art?

Sirs I am unable to fathom the depths of your erudition. Truly, yours is the
history of sedition.


>From: Dirk Johnson <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: - Ezra Pound discussion list of the University of Maine
>    <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Pound the poet
>Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:13:31 -0800
>
>Thank you, Tim: a problem with education is precisely what "the problem
>with Pound" generally means. And "But you, you damn'd crowd of gnats, "
>is truly an amazingly high-toned line, ain't it?
>
>(The following is actually directed toward Brennen, but not meant to be
>as harsh as it will probably sound.)
>
>Does anyone actually expect that Pound would or should conform to the
>Imagist platform?   Put Pound's poetry and the Imagist platform in
>context.  Compare Pound's diction with Swinburne's (since he's not so
>easy to get: http://www.letrs.indiana.edu/swinburne/) or Tennyson's or
>Arnold's -- or Buchanan's if you can dig his corpse up -- but not with
>Auden's, or... ahem... Ashbury's -- or even Robert Duncan's... or (he he
>he) Billy Collins'.  These all follow(ed) Pound's "revolution".  Pound
>helped bring English-language poetry closer to speech, which isn't to
>say that he made poetry "conversational".  Perish the thought!!!  We
>can't blame Pound for the watering down of much poetry into the
>chat/journalism pap we've witnessed so much of since WWII.  Even the
>limited Imagist platform can't be blamed for such pap.
>
>Please listen to the Cantos and his other poems -- I don't just mean
>Pound reading them, though he's definitely worth hearing (and the
>recordings easy to acquire) if you've never heard him.  Read them aloud
>yourself.  Listen to the way they move.  Pounds poetry is beautiful even
>if you don't understand everything he's saying.  In fact, and possibly
>directly to the point since we're discussing poetry rather than prose,
>I've found that hearing him read and reading him aloud myself has helped
>my understanding of his poetry (especially the Cantos) tremendously.
>Pound's prosody is 20th century music, but it isn't country, rock, or
>easy-listening.  And its beauty is radically different from Swinburne's
>or Rossetti's (and, for Rossetti, just in case:
>http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu:2020/) or Shelly's or Wordsworth's.
>
>
>
>Tim Romano wrote:
>
>>Brennen wrote:
>>
>>>  The problem with Pound is that if
>>>one doesn't share his extensive classical education, then one cannot
>>>fully
>>>grasp his images without referring to other texts. The meaning is not
>>>fully
>>>contained in the poems.
>>
>>
>>True enough, but is it appropriate to call this a "problem with Pound"?
>>Couldn't  it just as easily be described as a problem with education?
>>
>>
>>>Therefore I go back to my central question: To what extent did Ezra
>>>Pound
>>>write in the "language of common speech,"  [...] Also: How can one
>>>get to
>>>images when the poem
>>>refers to so many other works other than itself? Is Pound's poetry
>>>"hard and
>>>clear?"
>>
>>
>>
>>The allusions occur in poems that ARE written "in the language of common
>>speech."  The allusions and the diction are separate 'issues' or
>>'problems'
>>if you want to call them that. The use of foreign languages does not mean
>>that Pound's language is muddy or that his lines lack a "hard edge".
>>Compare these two poems; each has what might be called an oriental theme;
>>the first talks of pagodas and Chinese geese, the second of sennins.
>>Which  of the two strikes you as being closer to spoken language?
>>Which of
>>the two has the greater clarity?
>>
>>#1
>>Bells of gray crystal
>>Break on each bough--
>>The swans' breath will mist all
>>The cold airs now.
>>Like tall pagodas
>>Two people go,
>>Trail their long codas
>>Of talk through the snow.
>>Lonely are these
>>And lonely and I ....
>>The clouds, gray Chinese geese
>>Sleek through the sky.
>>
>>#2
>>The red and green kingfishers flash between the orchids and clover,
>>One bird casts its gleam on another.
>>
>>Green vines hang through the high forest,
>>They weave a whole roof to the mountain,
>>The lone man sits with shut speech,
>>He purrs and pats the clear strings.
>>He throws his heart up through the sky,
>>He bites through the flower pistil and brings up a fine fountain.
>>The red-pine-tree god looks at him and wonders.
>>He rides through the purple smoke to visit the sennin,
>>He takes "Floating Hill" by the sleeve,
>>He claps his hand on the back of the great water sennin.
>>
>>But you, you damn'd crowd of gnats,
>>Can you even tell the age of a turtle?
>>
>
>Dirk Johnson
>676 Geary #407
>San Francisco, CA 94102
>
>[log in to unmask]
>Home: 415-771-7734
>Office Direct: 510-208-8200
>Office Fax: 510-208-8282


_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail