My apologies for my previous posts, but I'm off on Maui writing on a small
laptop that seems to have a mind of its own.


To continue my remarks on DP, despite the witty bon mot he threw my way, I
took exception to his characterization of 'one's professional interest' as
somehow implying a bias that disallows one from making fair and objective
decisions about Pound, and this despite the fact that he himself has, at the
very least, 'a professional interest.'
Such a proposition is on its face absurd, and, interestingly enough, is not
an accurate depiction of the makeup of this list.  For example, several of
the more perceptive supporters (imho) of Pound -- notably Carlo Parcelli &
Charlie Moyer -- have no 'professional interest' -- their pursuit of EP lies
in the fact that they find him more interesting then other poets -- much more
interesting, in fact.  There are others on the list who do have a
'professional interest' in Pound, and who are quite negative in their
assessments.  Still others -- C. Cox and T. Romano come to mind -- who are
usually evenhanded in their approach to Pound -- hardly fit the mold of those
who are blinded by their slavish devotion to Pound.  One wonders just who the
hell DP is referring to; hopefully, he will enlighten us on this point.

As regards then issue of elitism as proposed by Stoner, James, the facts
don't fit his characterization of them.  Perhaps he could help us out by, at
the very least, pointing out those instances in which he has felt the sting
of scorn.  My experience has been the opposite of his.  I have noted that
those who have not done the work despise those who have.  This is not the
only space in which this occurs; on a list devoted to Freduian/Lacanian
psychoanalysis, I was labeled an elitist for suggesting that those who have
actually undergone an analysis are in a better position to understand
analysis conceptually than those who have not done so.  I think something
similar is occurring on this list as regards Pound.  It is unfair to
characterize someone as an elitist simply because they don't reach the same
conclusions, and who take the time to use textual citations as a way of
supporting their positions.  Of course, I am naive enough to presume that
quoting EP on EP is superior to quoting DP on EP, or to have recourse to the
primary material in the Cantos rather than citing someone else's opinion.

In reading through Stoner, James' recent post, I think I detect a resentment
on his part that someone could actually get something positive from Pound,
especially after he has, for all intents and purposes, relegated him to the
trash heap of the tribe.  Pound, according to Stoner, is not even a good
poet.  Well, as someone who apparently regards a fop like Charles Bernstein
to be an effective corrective to the ineffective Pound, such an assessment is
hardly surprisingly.  Perhaps Stoner will present us with some of Bernstein's
poetry that he thinks rivals Pound -- or maybe more critical gems like the
little banality he initially proffered.

Aloha & Haoulimakahiki Hou.....

Joe Brennan

In a message dated 12/31/02 8:30:40 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<<
 Stoner James wrote:

 > Here is a simple definition elitist or élitist that works well.i
 >
 > Roget’s II: The New Thesaurus, Third Edition.  1995.
 >
 > elitist or élitist
 >
 > NOUN: One who despises people or things regarded as inferior, especially
 > because of social or intellectual pretension: snob. Informal : snoot. See
 > ATTITUDE, SELF-LOVE.
 >
 > ADJECTIVE: Characteristic of or resembling a snob: snobbish, snobby.
 > Informal : high-hat, snooty, stuck-up, uppish, uppity. See ATTITUDE,
 > SELF-LOVE.
 >
 > I don't think we need to complicate the definition of "elitist" or
 > "elitism."  It's DESCRIPTIVE of attitude of a person or group, and from my
 > position it is morally blameworthy, if I can be bold enough to state my
 > judgment.  Does that make me an elitist?  If I should blame a murderer,
 > finding his actions morally blameworthy, does that make me an elitist?
 >
 > How does it fit certain Poundian's or other individuals or groups within
 > the poetry world?  Well, it has negative consequences and eliminates the
 > possibility of alternative positions. Such groups and persons are often
 > dictatorial, authoritarian (not authoritative -- a difference); they
 > despise, and believe others are inferior, whether its economically,
 > socially, intellectually, artistically, etc.  A person is NOT an elitist
 > merely because they have read Ovid, Homer, Chaucer, Dante, etc.  They are
 > elitist if they despise others for not having read these folks.  They are
 > elitist if they believe others are interior.  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?”  Well, if you are inclined to relate
 > Chaucer “stories” without an attitude that views these people as inferior,
 > and do so in an interesting way, you are likely to get people to listen.
 > Is it your responsibility?  Yes, if you believe it is important to you,
 > and you are genuinely interested in the topic, and want others interested
 > as well.  Do you believe it’s important, and can you discuss Chaucer
 > without sounding like some pompous stuffed ass?  I guess that’s the point.
 >  I have no use for poetry that is embedded with elitist’s attitudes as I
 > have defined them.  You will be charged as an elitist if you make others
 > feel inferior, if you despise them for not knowing Chaucer.  I often
 > discuss highly intellectual topics in everyday speech and people love to
 > discuss them, just for the mere pleasure of doing so.  I also value their
 > views of the subject.  So, I could talk about the Chaucer stories and
 > people can tell their own stories.  It’s mutual and reciprocal, and we
 > both learn something along the way.  You are charged as an elitist if you
 > carry the pompous, stuffy, snobbish, attitude—look upon them as inferior
 > and despise them as a result.  That is the way of fascism.
 >
 > How does this relate to Pound and his work?  We can say Pound the person
 > is morally blameworthy because he was an elitist (I assume this to be
 > self-evident based on his biographical facts.)  Obviously, as Davis tells
 > us (in a review for the American Poetry Review), the man can be condemned,
 > but his work cannot be condemned because we should not judge “a particular
 > work of art to be immoral because of the author’s immorality, or the
 > immorality of his other works. “To do so would be to predetermine our
 > response. No, the work of art must be judged solely on its own merit,
 > which requires objectivity often to be affected only by its isolation.”
 > He goes on to say: “Now I take it for granted that a work of art can be
 > immoral. Nor do I think a convincing argument can be made that moral
 > criteria must be, a priori, excluded from artistic judgment, though their
 > inclusion there is not always applicable.   Moral criteria should intrude
 > into literary criticism only when moral issues intrude into the contents
 > of literature. Quite simply, the degree to which Pound’s fascist and
 > anti-Semitic opinions should enter into literary judgment is the degree to
 > which they enter into his poetry. Now such opinions appear in Pound’s
 > poetry only in his later work, The Cantos, and there very infrequently. In
 > an epic poem stretching some 800 pages there are, if one compiled the
 > passages, perhaps three or four pages of objectionable material. The
 > immorality of his verse is, after all, demonstrably slight.”
 >
 > I would suggest that it could be argued that most of the Cantos, if looked
 > at as a whole, with it’s underlying elitist propagations, is morally
 > blameworthy, not merely because of anti-Semitic and fascist views, but on
 > the basis of its tone, the attitude—inferiority and despise.  Such an
 > argument might be wrong.  Nevertheless, if such an argument were indeed
 > true and supported, Pound should be taught, just as Baudelaire, should be
 > taught.  Underneath their elitist surface are aesthetic insights. The work
 > should be studied for its cultural significance, not so much for its
 > artistic or poetic significance.  We can learn much about Pound’s time
 > through his work.  He was a receptacle for which the elitist fascist
 > masses and leaders could pour their miserable poesy?
 >
 > Poetic Encounter
 >
 > “There you sit, all alone, with your pen in your hand,
 > In that darkened room like you’re
 > Buried in a pile of shit,” she said standing
 > At the door, mechanically straight;
 > Her feet bare, one shorter than the other.
 > He just kept writing.
 > She made only a sound.
 > “Writing that same old story,” she said. “Listen to me,
 > I am the world.”
 > He kept on writing; his figure, like a poem.
 > She pulled the pen from his hands.
 > “Give that back to me!”
 > “You sound like a child losing
 > A new toy. Open your ears. I said
 > It’s that same old story.”
 > “Yes, you, entering this room,
 > Day-after-day, spouting
 > That same old tune, breaking
 > Your own monotony.”
 >  “That’s not what I mean. Can’t
 > You just be like me and everybody else.”
 > “Do you have something to say? Say it well—
 > Something of substance or not.”
 > She stumbled on that left foot as she left the room.
 > “That’s what I thought.”
 > He pulled a new pen out of his pocket.
 >
 > My name is James Stoner, not Stoner James.  I don’t smoke pot (unless you
 > twist my arm.)  My opinion changes often as well.
 >
 > __________________________________________________
 > >>