In a message dated 06/04/2000 9:05:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< I find it impossible to argue that Pound was a proponent of representative
democracy. What's disingenuous about that? >>


again (and again and again), no one has made this argument on this list that
I recall.  to continue to imply that they are doing so is something less that
factual.

<<A number of people here have explicitly stated that the Cantos are poetry
and
therefore mostly removed from Pound's anti-Semitism and totalitarian rulers.>>

no, no one has denied that the Cantos contain anti-semitism, etc.  what is
claimed is that the Cantos do not rise or fall on these issues.


<<I'm confused by this. I'm supposed to give Pound some credit because in the
wake of what was then the bloodiest war in history and in the middle of the
Great
Depression he recognized there were economic problems? I don't see anything
positive about that, especially when a major part of his explanation for those
problems was an international Jewish conspiracy. >>

I'm not surprised.  but if take away the word "Jewish" and substitute the
word "Bankers" then Pound had it about right.  I find your characterization
"he recognized there were economic problems" to be a prime example of trying
to diminish Pound's actual contributions; after all, who else had the nerve
to include economic concerns in the heart of their poetry?  apparently to you
this doesn't seem like much, because it seems, like Wei, you'd rather bash
him, which is why you and those like you, refuse to subtract the obvious
biases to see whether or not his arguments otherwise have any merit.  it
isn't enough to simply say that Pound was an "extraordinary poet -- one has
to be willing to discuss why one thinks so.  this is what's missing in the
current discussion.


<< Again, this is the problem to which I'm referring: any critique of Pound's
politics is automatically seen as an attack on Pound's work. I'd bet there
aren't
more than a handful of people on this list who really think Pound was anything
less than a spectacular poet, but as soon as someone raises the subject of
Pound's
politics, the defenses start flying.  >>

well, you keep saying this, but I don't see it.  again, the objection is to
the almost exclusive focus on his faults.  btw,I think you have it backwards;
it's whenever anyone attempts to discuss Pound's ideas, methods, and
techniques, that the attacks on his fascism, anti-Semitism, etc., start
flying.

<<
I didn't meant to suggest that you had made that claim. However, the standard
defense of the Cantos has always been that the poetry is separate from Pound's
wartime broadcasts and political writings. That's been the case since I joined
this list three years ago. Check the archives -- you'll find dozens of
references,
both in this thread and in others.>>

this has not been my experience.  it seems to me that what in fact happens is
that there are those of us on the list who refuse to reduce the Cantos to
Pound's wartime broadcasts and political writings; this doesn't mean I don't
see some echoes of them in the work, but the works involve much more than
racial and political harangues.

<<
I don't think the Cantos are totalitarian, either, although I think they
aspire to
that. In fact, even with Pound's totalitarian sympathies, it's hard to
imagine a
text that's less suited for supporting a fascist government.
>>

this certainly goes to one of the points I've been trying to make.  I'm
curious to know how you can find justify this statement with the one you make
earlier: "A number of people here have explicitly stated that the Cantos are
poetry and therefore mostly removed from Pound's anti-Semitism and
totalitarian rulers."


<>

actually, I went out of my way to specifically say that you didn't use these
words -- but the implication of the need to defend the denunciation of Pound
implies that this is a problem.  whatever used to be, there's no problem now.
 Pound is no longer being defended by right-wingers, the bulk of critical
work on Pound seems to come (at times almost exclusively) from the left.  of
course, for the purpose of this discussion, I'm restricting my remarks to
this list, since it's in reference to this list that you directed your
remarks.

<<I'm willing to bet that some people here who have attempted to defend Pound
have slid into polemics which are more extreme than their own more reasoned
opinions.
 >>


I don't know any who do; the polemics seem to come from his distracters  in
any event, I'm not feeling particularly polemical.


joe brennan