In a message dated 06/11/2000 3:36:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
<<
JB wrote (speaking of a group of people with whom he disagrees)
><< It doesn't matter that they
>express desires to discuss the content of Pound's work . . . .
But it is precisely this fact which DOES matter in my view. And if “THEY”
take the conversation away into an area which seems innappropriate to the
subject at hand, you are free to state your opinion. That, I would have
thought, is what conversation and intellectual exchange are about. No one
has a monopoly, or supreme right to decide how others will approach the
subject matter. Regarding the issue of “the content of Pound’s work”, I
believe that in my posts I have included as much of the content of Pound’s
work (his poetry, his prose, his public utterances, etc.), and commentary
upon that work, as most people on the list. But there is no rule regarding
the precise amount of Poundian content or the manner in which we should
approach it. This is the value of the internet. NO EDITOR. You should
feel free, I think, to discuss as much of the content of Pound’s work as you
wish, in any way that you wish, as should I. Does anyone object to this
procedure?
>>
this is mere cant. there's nothing in anything I've written that attempts to
deny anyone the right to say anything, nor has anyone attempted to dictate
rules of engagement; rather, I've stated why I choose not to participate.
when I wrote "it doesn't matter that they express desires to discuss the
content of Pound's work", I wasn't saying that the discussion of content was
irrelevant; instead I was pointing to the insincerity of Wei, et al., who in
fact do little but reduce Pound to his "retrogressive political and social"
sins. such distortions are typical of Wei who, despite his obsequious
posturing towards evenhanded discussion, continues his relentless attack on
Pound, even when it requires that he deliberately misunderstand those who
oppose his narrow, reductive viewpoint.
joe brennan
|
