Disheartened? More like disingenuous. CP

[log in to unmask] wrote:

> Dear Pound Listmembers,
>
> Thirty-odd responses after my initial letter ("Incoherence of the Cantos"), I
> would again request considered, thoughtful responses to my questions--since I
> have yet to receive any.
>
> The name-calling, so-called "flaming" mail, and curses are not what I find
> upsetting--writers have always attracted their fair share of cranks, and
> Pound has always attracted more than most--but the chopped logic, sloppy
> definitions, and inadequate proofs of the supposedly reasoned and "critical"
> letters I received are truly disheartening. What troubles me is the number of
> members on this list who seem wholly unfamiliar with the rudiments of logic
> and intelligent debate. Never have I encountered so many questions begged, so
> many assertions substituted for proof, so many denials supplied instead of
> demonstration.
>
> I do appreciate Messrs. Pearlman, Davis, Parcelli, Bray, and Springate for
> their attempts--but their responses seemed extremely fragmentary, obscure and
> short--in short, attempts. I also found a number of their positions
> untenable.
>
> For example, Mr. Parcelli writes: "I just came back from having dinner with
> the Modernist critique, Brad Haas. During the course of the meal I related
> your email concerning the lack of self-sufficiency in much of Pound; in
> essence that the Cantos do not achieve aesthetic homeostasis. Of course,
> questions of self-sufficiency depend more on the reader/critic/scholar than
> on the writer. A poet may write to generate response, but that response is
> only sustained if there is something there to sustain it. However, this is a
> too large and amorphous subject for an email."
>
> The reader will note that Mr. Parcelli's critical vocabulary is slippery:
> that is, it changes without notification. Thus, aesthetic homeostasis (Mr.
> Gancie's gloss of my "formal incoherence" of the Cantos) becomes
> "self-sufficiency" in the second sentence. Self-sufficiency, we are then
> told, is up to us (the reader) and not the writer. Followed closely, this
> would seem to indicate that readers are responsible for the homeostasis or
> form of the poem---which is, of course, nonsense. Mr. Parcelli probably means
> (or intended to mean) that readers are responsible for the interpretation of
> the poem--a questionable assertion as well--but then I'm guessing. I wish
> merely to note that his critical response has itself resisted form and
> definition, and remained incoherent.
>
> As an example of incomplete analysis, Mr. Bray offered: "While no easy
> theme-soundbite manifests itself, I certainly find that the Cantos read well
> from end-to-end, unlike most collections of poetry where one wanders and
> grazes.  I take this as empirical evidence that there is a unity operating at
> some level here." Mr. Bray does not, however, provide a suggestion as to what
> that unifying principle could be. Mr. Bray seems, therefore, convinced by
> evidence which does not exist or which he cannot formulate--and that is
> dubious proof, to be sure.
>
> Finally, Mr. Pearlman asserted: "The thing is, I don't have a problem with
> Cantos unity, coherence, etc.  I've seen it and I've expounded upon it, and
> if Garrick were actually to READ some of the critics of the poem--including
> my own BARB--he'd have a hard time defending his bravura dismissal of the
> work.  Instead, Garrick seems to rely too heavily for his breezy dismissal on
> listing a bunch of major literary critics throughout the century who have
> equally dismissed the Cantos (also, with little more reading effort than
> Garrick appears to have put into the job), and he does not seem to realize
> that much of the reason for the critical dismissal of the Cantos over the
> years stems not only from the work's difficulty but also from Pound's
> totalitarian and anti-semitic value system.
> (We on this list have wrestled with these issues on and off over the last
> several years, and many of us have been quite objective about the potentially
> damaging effects of the ideas on the art.)  I myself, to reiterate, do not
> have a problem defending the unity of the Cantos..."
>
> The reader will note that though Mr. Pearlman assures us that he has "seen
> and expounded" on the unity of the Cantos time and again, and can therefore
> vouch for their presence, he provides us with no analysis or exposition of
> their coherence. He merely asserts what I asked him to argue and prove. Mr.
> Pearlman then suggests that my reading "of the critics of the poem"  has been
> not only insufficient but non-existent. Had I actually READ these critics, he
> suggests, I could not dismiss the Cantos. This manages to be condescending
> without being helpful--for Mr. Pearlman nowhere provides a list of these
> critics who should be read for my further enlightenment.  Since the only
> critics I mentioned in my letter were Yeats, Blackmur, Jarrell, and Tate--and
> they did in fact find the Cantos a general mess--then I conclude that Mr.
> Pearlman has either not read them or misunderstood the basis of their
> judgment---for none of them condemned the Cantos for its "totalitarian and
> anti-semitic" values. Mr. Pearlman's letter, in other words, demonstrates no
> one else's air of "breezy dismissal" but his own. Coming from a literature
> professor (I believe) in Rhode Island, this is astonishingly bad as literary
> criticism.and I suggest Mr. Pearlman look to the deficiencies in his own
> reading before suggesting deficiencies in mine.
>
> Finally, I have received a few offline emails from Pound listmembers, the
> past few days, which condemn the general quality of this list's postings--and
> I don't disagree. One silent observer wrote, "I find the list riddled with
> misspellings, inaccuracies, and lazy writing. Are these the people husbanding
> Pound for us? My goodness." The great gift I believe a devotion to Ezra Pound
> should bestow on his admirers is a considerable care for words.
>
> Regards,
> Garrick Davis
> editor
> Contemporary Poetry Review
> (www.cprw.com)