Rick,

I would rather read Pound than Flint, Ford, or Witemeyer, but I've
ordered Witemeyer's book from Alibris.com (must have given my copy away
in a fit of madness years ago).

But Pound doesn't describe Imagisme as being about emotion.  He mentions
emotion, but only as a source of energy, which is the source of a
pattern-unit:

"Intense emotion causes pattern to arise in the mind - if the mind is
strong enough.  Perhaps I should say, not pattern, but pattern-units, or
units of design. (I do not say that intense emotion is the sole possible
cause of such units.  I say simply that they can result from it.  They
may also result from other sorts of energy.)" .  He wanted to call this
Imagisme, but the word found a different definition in the world.  The
term "vorticist" clarifies it.

Well, I suppose the discussion has come to an impasse until I read
Witemeyer.

Dirk

Richard Seddon wrote:

>Dirk
>
>Perhaps;  much depends( as it does with red wheelbarrows) on whether you
>want to understand the difference between what Pound called "Amygism" and
>what Pound called "Imagism".  Both are legitimate descriptive terms for very
>different but still legitimate types of poetry.
>
>Many are perfectly happy to co-mingle Amygism and Imagism and to primarily
>use a definition that best  fits Amygism.  Glenn Hughes comes to mind.  I
>think that those who do this miss out on the beauty that Imagism's (big I)
>process can bring to some, not all, poetry.
>
>Flint was quoted as saying that none of them, the early Imagists, really
>understood what Pound meant by the Image (big I). (I can supply source if
>required)  Ford said much the same thing.
>
>I have tried to emphasize that there is a big difference, and always was,
>between Imagism (big I) and Amygism.  Amygism was that form that was
>concerned with the image (little i).   Imagism (big I) was concerned with a
>process.  Amygism was concerned with the thing, the image (little i).
>
>Much of what I think you understand as Pound's development of the early
>concept was actually Pound's, sometimes exasperated, attempts to steer
>Imagism back to the process of Imagism.
>
>Don't get me wrong.  Amygism is not inferior poetry to Imagism.  It is just
>different.  Some very beautiful poetry is Amygist.  It is just not Imagism.
>
>Pound separated Amygism from Imagism and if we are to understand Imagism we
>must be aware of what it was not.  Imagism, although it used the image
>(little i) was not about the image (little i).  It was about emotion.  It
>was about the intuition, the leap by the mind of the reader to something not
>explicitly stated by the poet.
>
>When you read Oread by H.D. the image (little i) is that of ocean surf and
>trees.  The Image (big I) comes when the reader suddenly realizes that H. D.
>is writing about death.
>
>Imagism is maybe more akin to Eliot's "objective correlative" than it is to
>Amygism.
>
>Please read Chapter 2 of Witemeyer's, "The Poetry of Ezra Pound: Forms and
>Renewal, 1908-1920.  I previously recommended a portion of this chapter as a
>way to understand Vorticism.  It is only 20 pages long.
>
>Rick Seddon
>McIntosh, NM
>
>
>

--

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