or as i think ez would have sd, his first job is to be
interesting.
wayne
--- bob scheetz <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> garrick,
> pardon, but yer "scholar" seems rather
> pinched;
> and, yer notion, hero-worship (the "great books"
> crowd),
> old-fangled,... a classic (18th cent) expression
> of pedagogical idealism/fetishism.
>
> isn't it the job of today's scholar/critic rather to
> engage the text, no-holds-barred,
> no bracketing-off - ideology, psychology, gender,
> whatever...
> in an uncircumscribed universe of living discourse?
>
> after all this is the era of dolly and the daily
> abortion holocaust;
> the scholar afraid of "fascism, antisemitism, & co
> is surely incapaz for adult lit
>
> bob
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Garrick Davis <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Saturday, October 16, 1999 4:17 PM
> Subject: Re: Poundian Criticism (An Overview)
>
>
> >My letter concerning Poundian criticism was
> addressed to those members of
> the
> >listserver who had asked for a guide, an overview
> of what books they could
> >safely dispense with. It certainly was not intended
> to catalog the precise
> >location of every interesting jot and tittle about
> the poet, which is a
> >scholarly exercise not every reader is interested
> in assigning himself, and
> I
> >sympathize.
> >
> >Since my overview was largely an exclusion of a
> great many scholarly books,
> >we might usefully begin with the question: "What is
> the scholar's task?"
> More
> >particularly, what is the scholar's task when his
> scholarship is directed
> at
> >a poet, and a great one? Is it not preserving his
> manuscripts, explaining
> >textual difficulties (in so far as that is
> possible), and collecting
> >biographical details? Is it not, in short, tending
> the flame of the poet?
> >
> >Now this function of the scholar is, I assert, a
> universal one. And there
> is
> >something in this "tending of the flame" of
> hero-worship. Else why tend the
> >flame at all? This does not mean that the scholar
> makes deletions or
> >omissions from the biographical record which are
> unflattering, or edits
> out
> >what is inconvenient: our great men do not need to
> be falsified.
> >
> >I submit that the books I excluded were judged to
> be devoid of scholarship.
> >For the scholarly book provides the reader with the
> materials necessary to
> >form an objective judgment concerning the merit of
> the poet, which is his
> >poetry. The scholarly book does not direct the
> reader on how to make his
> >judgment.
> >
> >It is, I believe, an obvious truth that our
> Poundian scholars, for the last
> >twenty years, have not performed the function of
> scholars but of critics.
> >This is, in and of itself, a remarkable thing.
> Those who should preserve
> the
> >poet also wish to judge him. And what is the basis
> of their criticism? Is
> it
> >on the basis of manuscripts newly discovered, or
> textual difficulties
> finally
> >resolved? Has some discovery been made about the
> poems? Is it, in short, on
> >the basis of scholarship?
> >
> >No. These scholars wish to criticize Pound because
> of his life, and more
> >particularly his political sympathies. Thus, the
> poet has been re-evaluated
> >on the basis of moral criteria, which in the realm
> of literary judgment, is
> >the oldest fallacy. Today Pound is guilty of
> fascism and antisemitism, as
> >Paul Verlaine was guilty of sexual immorality, as
> Oscar Wilde was guilty of
> >sodomy, etc. The moral fallacy only demonstrates
> the fact that a writer's
> >life and work are not synonymous: a fact that
> critics were well aware of,
> but
> >the interloping scholars were not.
> >
> >The use of the moral fallacy by our Poundian
> scholars only emphasizes their
> >unfitness to be critics. For the basis of the
> poet's reputation is his
> >poetry, and not his life. So why was this improper
> denigration of the poet
> >pursued? It must be admitted that some Poundian
> scholars were highly
> >uncomfortable with the poet's canonical position in
> American letters,
> simply
> >because he was a fascist and an antisemite. Their
> criteria for literary
> >greatness included a test of political sympathies,
> a test which Pound (and
> >Robert Frost, and T.S. Eliot, and W.B. Yeats)
> failed.
> >
> >This imposition of political criteria into the
> realm of aesthetic judgment
> is
> >our era's rather sad addition to literary
> criticism. It must be added that
> >this program has not been consistently employed on
> literary authors
> either;
> >it has been focused on politically right-wing
> Modernist writers (Pound,
> >Yeats, Celine, Eliot) but not on their left-wing
> counterparts (Mayakovsky,
> >Sartre, the French Surrealists).
> >
> >I, for one, do not wish to see it employed at all.
> The scholarly books that
> >I referred to as "mean-spirited and ridiculous"
> were ones which employed
> some
> >version of this political/moral fallacy. In so far
> as Poundian scholars and
> >critics are responsible for the formation of taste
> in their day, these
> >authors have not only been irresponsible but
> actively harmful to the
> Poundian
> >scholarship they claim to represent. In this
> regard, I consider them not
> >only enemies of the poet they unfairly disparage,
> but enemies of
> literature.
> >
> >These critics have, however, raised one important
> issue, which is the
> oldest
> >one: the morality of art. Should morality intrude
> at all into literary
> >judgment? Without restating all the Aristotelian
> and Platonic positions and
> >all the artistic creeds, I would submit that the
> degree to which Pound's
> >fascist and antisemitic opinions enter into
> literary judgment is the degree
> >to which they enter into the poetry (as opposed to
> the prose, the letters,
> >the radio speeches, ad infinitum). Such opinions
> appear in Pound's poetry
> >only in The Cantos and there very infrequently.
> There are perhaps, if one
> >compiled the passages, three or four pages of
> objectionable material in a
> >poem stretching some 800 pages.
> >
> >Pound simply cannot be made into "the poet laureate
> of Nazism" as one
> critic
> >has asserted. However the question, of the
> intersection of art and evil, is
> a
> >fascinating one. And there is another poet who more
> consistently
> exemplifies
> >the problem, an author who today receives
> universal praise: Baudelaire.
> But
> >this leads us to another issue, altogether.
> >
>
=== message truncated ===
=====
Via Betti, 289E/2
16035 Rapallo (GE)
Italy
pho: 0185-234-140
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
|
