In a message dated 06/13/2000 2:03:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<<
 Should we simply stop talking about Pound?

 Should we stop writing about Pound?

 What is the point of this list?
  >>

there you go again.  it seems that whenever anyone points to the weaknesses
and the fallacies inherent in your criticism, you respond as if you're being
told to shut up.  I harbor no such illusions of power.   if you recall, the
purpose of the post that you're reacting to speaks to the dreadful (in my
opinion) habit you have of predicating your commentary on Pound on the worst
of Pound -- the Pound of the anti-Semitic rants, the Pound of the Rome
broadcasts, the straight-laced conservative Confucinist.  you have attempted
to reduce the discussion (again, in my opinion) to whether or not Pound is a
fascist or a democrat, or a reactionary chinese philosopher or born-again
Xtian.  my complaint is, and has been, that the thrust of your commentary is
designed to prove (I choose this word carefully) that Pound is/was a rat.
that Pound had some rattiness in him has not been disputed, but to reduce any
discussion of him to a pervasive rattishness skews the conversation -- and
this is more likely to shut people up than anything that I've said.

<< Or should only certain people (who have it right) speak about Pound; while
others (who have it wrong) remain reverentially silent?

Should we state as a general rule, that any interpretation which tries to
relate Pound's poetry to anything outside the poetry (Pound's life, his
prose, his radio broadcasts, his socio-political circumstances, his
intellectual milieu) is AUTOMATICALLY wrong?
>>

this is what is generally referred to as 'self-serving' rhetoric.  "Pound",
in the literary sense, is an object of study; the issue is whether one wants
to EMPHASIZE the anti-Semitic, fascistic Pound of the Rome Broadcasts, or the
poetic Pound of the Cantos  -- which doesn't mean that there is a neat
cleavage between the two, but rather where one chooses to find one's
bearings: you have chosen the former, while I find more value in the latter.
I should also point out that far from remaining reverentially silent, there's
been more discussion of late than this list has seen for some time, and that
you are responsible for provoking much of this discussion.  I would have
preferred, by the way, to have sent these personal remarks backchannel, but
you have foreclosed that venue with me.

<<
The statement "poetry itself is the best expression of its meaning" if taken
as an absolute axiom, is problematic, I think because it elevates the poem
above the reader.  This is what priests did to the Bible during the Middle
Ages, and seems an inappropriate procedure.  Does it make sense to say "The
Bible itself is the best expression of its meaning?"  >>

this strikes me as a revealing claim.  one principal aspect of poetry, the
best poetry, is that it's intended to elevate the reader, so to that end,
poetry is "above" the reader.   your position seems to be the other way
around -- that the reader (I think you really mean critic) is above the work
-- a notion that Pound at least would have called hubris.  I take it from
your response that the critic is in a better position to understand what the
poetry means than the poet, which makes on wonder why write poetry in the
first place?  as fodder for critics?  I don't think so.  I think the
"meaning" of poetry is outside the logical methods of the critic, that it is
extra-critical, and the most any critic can hope for is to educe some
meaningful aspects of the poem, with the emphasis on some.

I object to the gratuitous comparison of poetry and poets to the bible and
priests, although I'm not surprised by it.

<<
While the meaning inheres partly in the object itself, it must also reside
in the subject, the history of all subjects who have encountered the work,
and written about it; in the personal opinions of the author as they relate
to topics metioned in the work; in the social, political , and economic
institutions which touch the work (directly and indirectly), and in the
institutions which may be touched by the work.  That is only a small part of
what I mean by MEANING.  >>

a VERY small part.



joe brennan