I agree with you, Dirk.

My work has me involved very much with the US's elite. The people to whom
I'm referring are among the top 1% of American wealth, and I have gotten to
know a few of them. If I've ever had the opportunity to speak with them
about my interests in poetry, they are usually impressed, but they know
very little. I know what they do read. They read contemporary books that
make them look well-read and contemporary. For instance, I work for a
biomedical university, and the "elites" who fund the joint read Judy
Miller's Germs, Guiliani's Leadership, Jack Welch's farce, Diamond's book
on Guns, Germs,  et al, Richard Preston's The Demon in the Freezer,
Gladwell's Tipping Point etc. I don't recall any books of literature
mentioned. However, once in a while one of their kids has married a writer,
and they know that person's books.  The elites in my experience want to
appear to be contemporary, but they won't pick up Pound. Heck, they'll
think that Pound's too much of a freak even though their own view of the
world is a green-velvet covered neo-feudalism.

--Anastasios


At 03:57 PM 12/30/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>Only replying re: elitism (I'm not in an elite enough position to have
>time for more).
>
>Not sure "elitist, elitism, etc." are the correct terms.  In fact,
>pretty sure they're not.  Our culture - and here I'm specifically
>referring to the United States, since that seems to be your main concern
>- has an economic elite, not an educated elite.  My experience with the
>actual elite (i.e., the very rich) is that they are no more likely to be
>readers of poetry than any other economic class.  They may be somewhat
>more likely to have been exposed to a "canon" than the poorest classes,
>whatever that may imply, but exposure to a canon isn't the same as being
>a reader of poetry, and it ain't gonna keep nobody's work alive.
>
>Nor has it been my experience that those with "higher educations" are
>more likely to respond to Pounds poetry than those of us who are mere
>worker bees.  In fact, it sometimes seems that a college "education"
>becomes a hindrance to continuing education, id est, if he didn't read
>it in college, he probably never will.
>
>Let me put it this way: "Ovid, Homer, Chaucer, Dante, etc" are widely
>available, in original and in translation.  If you are predisposed to
>discover a wider range of literature, you will probably have read at
>least a little of them in translation.  If you read some of them and
>didn't like them, you will probably not read them anymore unless you
>need to for some sort of self-advancement, such as a degree.  If "the
>average Joe" reads, say, The Canterbury Tales (after tracking down a
>copy that isn't "translated"), and finds Chaucer to be utterly
>charming... does that make him an elitist?
>
>Now, if this average Joe is at a party where everyone is discussing the
>latest show that they've seen on tv or the latest movie, is it his
>responsibility to change the subject and get them interested in Chaucer?
>Isn't it at the point when he does so that he actually BECOMES the
>elitist?  I mean, isn't that the ultimate charge that the others at the
>party will level at him when he tries to get them interested in Chaucer?
>
> From this you will probably read defeatism.  But I must ask again: why
>should I care whether anyone else reads Pound?  Or Chaucer?  Or Homer?
>Because if I don't care I'm either a defeatist or an elitist?
>
>They sound like big organizations... it might be nice to belong to
>something like that.... where do I sign up?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Stoner James [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 9:58 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: The Rhetoric of noitareggaxE
>
>My Dear Friends,
>
>I want to say that Jon Weidler is the clear spring water that I am
>looking
>for.   Although many speak disparaging of academics, I also see that he
>is
>a thinker and likely a scholar. He gives a more coherent definition of
>Modernism and Postmodernism than I have seen recently.  I am curious
>about
>the temporal, spatial, and reality aspects of his previous e-mail.  It
>will take a day or so for me to draft my reply.  I am grateful to all of
>you for the stimulation.  It's hard to come by these days.
>
>I must concur with Villa that we are dealing with a rather huge mess,
>not
>only because of terms like "modernism" or "truth," (or even
>"postmodernism," "temporality," "reality," "past," "present," "future,"
>"tradition," "make" "it," "new," "uniqueness," "East," "West" "natural,"
>"Language" and on and on) but also many assumptions that guides this
>group
>in evaluating Pound's work, and also in continuing to propagate what
>Pound
>thought was 'good' or even 'great' poetry.  Aesthetics is also at issue,
>whether it's stated or not.  Many in this group, including
>bankers--academics, book store operators, scholars, and editors--assume
>that because a Pound poem affects their sensibility that his work must
>rise to the level of 'masterpiece'; that his work deserves to be read,
>and
>that the work should have a place within curriculums.   After all, if
>this
>was true then we might as well say that because my grandmother loved her
>Hallmark Christmas poem she got from me, because it moved her, affected
>her sensibility, then this poem must also be a masterpiece.  If
>'modernism' and 'truth' are problematic concepts, then 'masterpiece' and
>'sensibility' are also equally problematic concepts.  All of these
>concepts, whether resulting from academic brain washing or not, are
>important matters that deserve discussion.  Villa suggests that such a
>discussion is 'childish.'  I would suggest the term, 'childish' is also
>a
>problematic concept resulting from everyday life brainwashing.
>
>It is certainly fallacious to assume that since this group frequently
>'speculates" about Pound politics or wonder about what Pound would have
>thought about some current political problem or crisis, such as the
>"Roma
>locuta, causa finite" thread of messages, or the occasional political
>manifestos by members of this LISTSERVE, that there are no EzP Poetics.
>We can really only conclude that in the 1.5 years I've been on this
>LISTSERVE I've heard very little about Pound poetics and all kinds of
>speculation on his politics. My question, rather than exaggerating, is a
>self-reflexive one: are you not interested in Pound's poetics?  Are you
>not concerned about the current state of poetry?  Do you not care that
>Ovid, Homer, and the great works are about to be lost by most middle
>educated folks?  Do you not care that even the average college educated
>folks aren't taught the works that EzP relies on for its
>communicability?
>Will you not act to save a dying man because you are a bystander among
>bystanders watching a man's blood spill onto the street corner because
>you
>think someone else with respond (sociological phenomenon call bystander
>effect?)  Why should we even save that fucking fascist, Pound, anyway?
>(Over-dramatization for effect!)  Is it even fair to call him a 'fucking
>fascist', Pound either?  I suppose so.
>
>For me, I wonder about his poetics and want to engage this group in a
>discussion of a number of issues.  Something that Pound would want us to
>do.  I do not simply assume a poetic, a sensibility, a masterpiece, an
>aesthetic.  I'm also interested in Pound's contribution to an American
>literature and culture.  I want to know how he fits in-Emerson, Whitman,
>Thoreau, Robinson, Ford, Pound, and Eliot.  I'm also interested in how
>Pound's agenda squares with Emerson's and the 'Postmodernist's,"
>'postmodernism', etc. Why should we keep that irascible bastard Pound
>alive?  Why is he worthy?  Why should we pay homage to the past?  What's
>worthy about the use of allusion in poetics?  I don't assume the
>worthiness of his work or even keeping the techniques he promulgated
>alive.
>
>I also want to know why poetry should only matter to 'elitist' crowds,
>merely-those educated folks who make fun of people who cannot spell;
>those
>who know Ovid, Homer, Chaucer, Dante, etc?  Villa made a statement that
>deeply concerns me: "If people are so damn ignorant that they runaway
>from
>Pound's poetry because of its "allusiveness", we can only say: "it's a
>shame", or "I'm really sorry for you", or yet "may you try it another
>time". This statement concerns me because it's defeatist, a resignation
>of
>sorts that forecasts there will be a day when Pound IS E.A. Robinson.
>Robinson was a great poet and very few people are familiar with his
>work.
>There are two issues I'm concerned with: (1) the college curriculum,
>which
>I don't think I need to belabor (it's a self-evident problem); and, (2)
>a
>question of whether the best kind of poetry-aesthetically 'superior'
>(also
>a problematic term) poetry--affects both the elitist crowd and the
>average
>Joe on the street.  What constitutes an "affect" (also problematic with
>dual meaning?) Can we say that Pound can do this?  Does it make sense to
>say that great poetry should be able to bridge the divide and be
>inclusive? Many of you people assume that Pound IS great merely because
>of
>his 'allusiveness.'
>
>Villa said people drop certain types of poetry because it's
>"difficult" and suggests the television is the problem.  He further
>suggests that everything will inevitably be written as Emerson exercises
>(I have no clue what this mean, but I would venture to say it's a slam
>against the LANGUAGE and AVANTE GUARD folks?)  People are consumed with
>these things but it must be the skill of a great poet to tap into
>'archetypes', inherited from Homer, Ovid, etc, and do so in a way that
>is
>comprehensible.  Can we say that poetry is good or even great if it is
>not
>communicable?  Should a work be considered great if only the author can
>understand it?  Is a highly idiosyncratic work great?  By what standard
>do
>you evaluate?  By whose standard do you evaluate and judge?  Let us
>debate
>the issue.  This isn't childish; it is the work of mature minds.
>
>Emerson did say something like this, "Write in the idiom of the times."
>Does that make sense?  I suppose so, but I've gone on way to long to
>think
>it through.
>
>Finally, Villa quotes Pound:  "after death there comes no other
>calamity".
>  Stoner James quotes himself:  After death the calamity is the loss, the
>sadness, the grief for those who live.
>
>So do you want to discuss Pound poetics or Pound politics or maybe even
>both?  I suspect the two are bound together somehow.  Maybe that should
>be
>a point of discussion-a simple diversion from our boring lives?  I
>wonder
>what the purpose of this LISTSERVE is.  I wonder what relationship Pound
>has to contemporary poetics.  I want to speculate about how Pound would
>respond to the current state of Poetics.
>
>Good day.  I hope I have at least entertained you, although my purpose
>is
>something else.
>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
>http://mailplus.yahoo.com