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)
|
