(continued from last post)

>And like the speaker of that
>famous last phrase, he was faced with an insoluble problem. =
>Consequently, he couldn't win; to borrow your own phrase, the treatment =
>he so
>enthusiastically endorses is worse than the disease he attempts to =
>treat. In
>short, Pound was and is reviled because he wasn't right. But was he =
>wrong
>either? - for he saw a cancer on our world and, albeit by a grossly
>incorrect manner, he attempted to remove it. I realise, nonetheless, =
>that
>this statement is a provocative one: I include it only to further
>discussion.

Provocation does appear to be what this list is about.  And let me say that
I do not consider Pound a villain, any more than you do.  Pound, as far as I
know, never actually DID anything which is comparable to, say, Dostoevsky's
frequent beating of his wife.  Nonetheless, Pound is more widely condemned
for his adherence to fascism than Dostoevsky is for his abuse.  So those who
defend Pound ---against what they (wrongly, I think) consider to be my
merciless attacks--- do have many good points.  But it is the INCORPORATION
of so many horrifying ideas into his artwork, into his propagandistic
endeavors, which makes us have to pause and seriously reflect on the MEANING
OF HIS WORK.  Dostoevsky's wife beating only partly relates to his portrayal
of women, whereas Pound's advocacy of fascism, of hierarachy, of sexism, of
classist oppression, of an anti-democratic order, of Confucianist
authoritarianism---- all these things permeate his work.

>
>4. I agree, broadly speaking. My statements COULD be applied to all of =
>the
>Romantic/Revolutionary figures you mention. But does the very similarity =
>of
>your examples - all, after all, had clear political/social agendas - not
>alert you to the truth of what I say? Pound is, in many respects, no
>different from Milton insofar as both had clearly defined political and =
>societal ideas; both were writing in turbulent, dangerous and changing =
>times. However, we remember Milton, Blake, Wordsworth etc. primarily for
>their contributions to English literature: their political ideas have =
>not
>continuously blighted their names.

The poets you mentioned did not have political views which are so highly
suspect and dubious as Pound (and that is putting it very mildly), though
you do make a good point.

Milton was revolutionary democrat, working with Cromwell against monarchical
tyranny.  Blake and Wordsworth championed the French Revolution, which is
viewed as JUST in its main impetus, by most people in the civilized world
(Wordsworth became a bit Conservative in his later years, and modified his
views, but he never repudiated the idealism of the French Revolution).
Pound cannot be put in precisely the same category as these poets.   So even
if Pound's poetry were in the future judged to be SUPERIOR to the poetry of
Milton, Blake, and Wordsworth--- in terms of style or form--- the question
of the VALUES which are embodied in the poetry will always be a great
difficulty, though perhaps less so, if Western civilization moves further
away from democracy (in its already corrupted form) and closer to more
authoritian and quasi-fascist forms.

>It therefore seems meet that we =
>should
>regard Pound and his work in the same manner; i.e. we should accept that =
>his
>politics are distinct from our own and concentrate instead on his =
>poetry.
>This said, I appreciate that Pound's doctrinal theories are so integral =
>to his work that we cannot ignore them. On this point I concede.
>
Yes, we agree that a difficulty is present in this regard.  Nor do I claim
that the solution is easy.  But ignoring Pound's fascism and elitism would
be, I think, one of the graver errors one could make in interpreting Pound.

>5. I too agree with the Marxist dictum you quote. However, I stand by my
>initial remarks and their wording. For if we concur to regard history as =
>a
>societal and political construct, at least insofar as these are its =
>primary
>concerns, then mankind too must be such a thing. After all, as you and I
>agree, socio-political forces shape man, and yet man formulates in
>collective these socio-political forces. Therefore, he is, BY =
>DEFINITION, a
>socio-political creature.

I have no problem with this, and in fact, agree with this particular
formulation.

>My own opinion as regards to man's role in
>determining his own fate is probably similar to yours: I consider that
>forces largely beyond our control - i.e. social, political, even genetic =
>constraints - create the framework in which we must make the "choices" =
>you speak of; moreover, I believe that our selections themselves are =
>likewise
>influenced. But we do clearly have an enormous role to play in =
>determining
>our own natures; it is, as you say, simply a question of "degree".
>

D'accord.

>6. Finally - I am only too aware of infuriating all other list members =
>with
>the length of this posting, and apologise in advance - I acknowledge =
>that
>Pound's attitude to war needs to be thoroughly considered; to be, as you =
>put
>it, characterised. However, I feel I need to conduct some further =
>reading in
>order to respond to your final query in full.

Feel free to visit my web site on Pound and China, which deals with some of
the economic issues that interest you.  The bibliography might be helpful.

http://www.geocities.com/weienlin/poundindex.html

>The implications of your
>question, though, have prompted me to reconsider the tone of my original
>remarks.
>

I think your spirit of inquiry is impressive, and I look forward to reading
more of your posts in future.  I trust you will work out your own original
and unique view of Pound, and of the economic, social, and historical issues
upon which his work impinges.  Good luck.

Salut et fraternite,

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