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:
Alexander Schmitz <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Ezra Pound discussion list of the University of Maine <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 16 Oct 1999 13:45:00 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (39 lines)
EP biographies: a recurring topic.
 
But there seem to be more "radicalist" voices coming in, like Billy Stoneking's
and a couple of others.
 
I don't see how one can discuss such CRAP as Tytell's (for me a persona non
grata, as is - based on totally different reasons - Torrey) and almost at the
same time tell us that Heymann were "ridiculous". Or dismissing the late Donald
Davie with a short, patronizing remark. Heymann came up with his book when it was
HIGH time to do something against the right-wingers and apologists ` la Mullins
[the good old Horten/Kasper connection ante portas]. Heymann's book is left-wing,
AND it is excellent. Just imagine this! As is Cassillo. I'm fully aware of the
reasons why Cassillo didn't make it into the Poundians' discussions: he makes
many of us Poundians feel quite uncomfortable. But we had deserved just that.
 
40, 30 years ago Kenner's FIRST book and Norman's books were bibles. As was that
of EP's lawyer, Cornell. As was Sullivan on Propertius, Espey on Mauberley.
Ground-breaking books.
 
The next generation: "The Pound Era's".
 
Today there is James Wilhelm. And he is the one who has succeeded in REALLY
writing a LITERARY (and wonderfully written) biography which, still, does NOT
leave out ANY other relevant/uncomfortable aspects. A wonderfully balanced work.
In short: I really wonder how future Pound bio's will manage to be better than J.
J. Wilhelm's.
 
Carpenter and "Agenda": Geoffrey Hill, although of course an undisputed authority
in the UK as writer & critic, made editor William Cookson play the Hill blues.
Hill had written Carpenter down into the ground. The text of the review was on
Cookson's desk. Right then I asked Cookson if I cd write a Carpenter review for
Agenda. And made the mistake to mentioned that I LIKED the book. Cookson (whom I
have known and admired since the 60s) wrote back that, as Hill had said that
Carp's book was bad, MY different (did he mean: GERMAN?) opion cdn't be
considered any longer. Such is life. But sometimes one HAS to have the courage to
have an own un-popular opinion.
 
alex

ATOM RSS1 RSS2