Jay Anania wrote:

<<Wei,

I have just been sitting on the sidelines, happily (for the most part)
following the wide-ranging discussions that have followed your arrival on
the list.   Your contributions are often invigorating, and sometimes
frustrating.  >>

Thank you for joining the discussion.

<<For me, the frustrations arise from what appears to me to be your lack of
passion for the astonishing beauty of the language.  You acknowlege in the
most matter-of-fact tone that EP wrote beautifully, but you don't in any way
seem moved by this beauty...
for example, you wrote>>

"of course he used language to produce admirable aesthetic
effects. "

I could amend this.  Recall I have said several times that Pound is the one
of the greatest English speaking poets of the 20th century.  (or perhaps
even the greatest English speaking poet of the twentieth century).  Still, I
could amend the statement if you wish. Produce an amended statement, and if
I agree with it, I will endorse it.  The chances are high that if the
statement refers solely to the aesthetic properties of a particular passage
I will agree with it.  Pawel just made several statements about a passage
with which I found myself in virtually complete agreement.

<<This is damning him with the very faintest praise.
I believe you when you say you want to discuss the WHOLE
epistemological-religious-political-aesthetic world of EP...and I submit to
you that that whole world includes, not just the sheer breathtaking beauty,
but also the EFFECT that beauty has on (some) readers...start there . . .>>

I already started there many, many years ago.  If you want to talk about the
purely aesthetic effect of his work, I am inviting you to post on that
subject.  I have tried to engage list members on the subject of the purely
aesthetic dimension several times, but most people don't like the topic, or
don't seem to like the topic.  For instance, I asked to look at the poetry
AS MUSIC, as you suggest.  People might compare the overall effect, the
purely aesthetic effect of Pound's work to the effect which absolute music
has on the listener.  (I listed several composers with which Pound might be
compared:  Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Olivier
Messiaen, and several others).   Either people who read those posts are not
really interested in music, or the issue of comparing poetry and music, or
they simply did not want to reply.

<<Recognize the power of his gift, enjoy the music, just enjoy the music for
a bit, really and truly hear it and take YOUR EXPERIENCE OF THE MUSIC as the
starting point for your further thoughts.>>

Review what is contained in the above quote.  Is it any different from what
we might say about the poetry of Shakespeare, Shelley, Keats, or T.S. Eliot?
  We could all simply make a series of propositions about the nature of
poetry which would apply to the aesthetics qualitiies of all renowned poets.
  But since the purpose of this list is to talk about the poetry of EZRA
POUND, I would think that we might want to talk about the specific
properties of his work.

Another way we could talk about the pure music of Pound's poetry is too talk
about it as pure sound, rhythm and meter.  I don't think we wil get very far
that way. Which is better?  Shakespeare's

"To be or not to be?"

or a slightly altered line, with the same rhythm and most of the same
sounds:

"Two see or snot to zee?"

Looking at the pure music of the poetry turns out to be a very sterile
exercise, I suggest.  The beautiful lines of poetry (whether written by
Pound, Shakespeare, or Milton) are beautiful as much because of WHAT they
say as they are because of the sound of the particular words.  You can see
that by the above example.  When Pound uses the word "azure" for instance,
the line is not merely beautiful because the sounds "a", "zh", and "ur" are
in a certain sequence, but also because the meaning of the word, in a
passage describing an epiphal moment in the midst of nature, combines with
and elucidates the meanings of other words.

[In many cases sound is secondary to meaning. How else can we explain the
success of Shakespeare translated into Russian, German, French, Chinese and
Mongolian? The relationships ---between ideas, actions, concepts, ideals,
and emotions expressed ---are equally important to sound in poetry, if not
greater in importance].

There is a problem with looking at the poetry solely from the point of view
of the "music of words."   In Pound it is nearly impossible, since as HE
HIMSELF said, "My poetry and my economics are inseparable."  Even if Pound
had not said this we would have difficulty, especially with the Cantos,
because the pastoral moments are so tightly interspersed with social
observations, economic maxims, political judgments, historical summaries,
and moral claims which Pound INTENDS US TO REACT TO.






Best wishes,

Wei
------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com