Carlo P. wrote:

>As for En Lin Wei. We've recently been treated to Pound as the poetic
>equivalent of Hitler's and Mussolini's propaganda minister even though
>no such position seemed to exist.

I have never said this; though you must admit that Pound WANTED to act--- in
as large a capacity as possible--- as a member of Mussolini's culture
ministry (Minculpop, I think it was called).  He was in fact employed at
that ministry.  The full extent of this committment might only be gleened by
those who have read the Radio Rome Speeches (hundreds of pages worth).  As
to the assertion (not made by you) that everyone--- or most people on this
list ---have read the speeches all the way through, I really don't know.  I
would be surprised if everyone has.

>We must stick to what Pound actually accomplished as political
>adviser e.g. his great success convincing Roosevelt to stay out of the
>war.
>
Why must we "stick to what Pound actually accomplished"  as a political
adviser?  I find that a bit narrow, personally, as if his actual written
words and utterances can only be interpreted in the light of their effects,
and not by their meaning.  The results (or lack of results) flowing from
Pound's efforts in the political arena are certainly worth noting and
commenting upon.  (We can make similar observations about the EFFECTS OF
Bertrand Russell's anti-war tracts, and of Mark Twain's strongly stated
objections to American imperialism in the Western hemisphere. But commenting
upon the MEANING, and on the philosophical or political content, of an
authors works is another matter, in my view)


>In the past we have had Pound as the artistic adviser of the reactionary
>right in American politics most recently in an anemic little piece by
>Marjorie Perloff.
>

"Anemic" seems a bit harsh to me, but I have not read the piece.  I would
like to.  Does anyone have an excerpt to quote, or another comment to make
about that piece. Could someone summarize the argument in a bit more detail?

>But Mr./Ms.
>Wei has no discernible sense of the Pound's poetry and has as much
>admitted it to me when I posited aspects of Pound's methodology in the
>Cantos as countering his/her contentions.

There may have been some serious miscommunication here.  I attempted to
start two strands on Pound's methodology, which received no reply from CP,
or JB, or some others who have stressed the issue of Pound's poetic method.
  In one such strand, I suggested that we analyze Pound's style by comparing
it to the style of certain modern composers, and thereby strip away the
content (for the purposes of discussing the emotional impact of the poetry
and the pure form of his work).   I can understand that many might not find
this  particular approach to be congenial.  So I did not consider raising it
again.

The second strand,  which I tried to start was on Pound's ideogrammic
method.  This IS the poetic method which Pound employed and explained,
claiming it to be one of the most significant aspects of his approach.  I do
not recall that CP or JB wished to reply to follow that strand either.  I do
not take any offense in your not replying.  Far from it.  But it is unfair
to say that I do not, have not, or am unwilling to address the issue of
method.

If you really want to discuss my approach to Pound's language and/or Pound's
method, particularly as it relates to various phases in his development as a
poet (imagism, vorticism, the ideogrammic approach) and/or his use of the
Chinese written character (a la Fenellosa), then, by all means, let us do
so.  Pose the question, state the point you wish to make.

[Some of my views on this subject are at:
http://www.geocities.com/weienlin/language.html
That essay has been fairly recently posted].


>This does not seem to bother
>Wei even though last time I looked the Cantos were a poem.

"The Cantos" IS a poem, I would say; and an epic poem, I would add.  In
fact, it is precisely because Pound, in the  Cantos, tries to create a
twentieth century epic--- one which would stand alongside Homer's Iliad,
Virgil's Aeneid, Dante's Divine Comedy, Milton's Paradise Lost--- that I
find him so interesting.

>Apparently,
>they are rapidly losing this status and when judged as something else
>than what they are become much diminished.

We will each judge the Cantos for what we believe them to be. Neither you,
nor I, nor anyone else on this list, can say definitely "what they are."  I
would say, "The Cantos," as a unitary work, is a magnficently failed attempt
at a 20th century epic (failed in large part because of its political,
social, economic, and ethical vision).

 >Mr./Ms. Wei would be more
>convincing if he/she provided the scholarly data on Chinese history and
>philosophy (e. g. Pound's conversion from Confucianism to Taoism as
>stylized by Wei)

I shall always strive to be more convincing, but only of those positions to
which I adhere.  Allow me to state very clearly:  I did not ever argue that
Pound converted from Confucianism to Taoism.  On the contrary, when one
participant attempted to argue this point on the list a week ago, I
presented the contrary view.  Pound did NOT convert to Taoism.

What I did argue was that Pound, in absorbing the substance of what he
believed to be purely Confucian texts, inadvertantly absorbed a few Taoist
notions. The main text I am talking about here is the Chung Yung (or what
Pound translated as the Unwobbling Pivot, or into  Italian as the
"Unwavering Axis.")  This work was a product of the intellectual climate of
the eleventh century China, during which time the Confucian - Taoist
synthesis was attempted, and reflected in works such as the Chung Yung
(Zhong Yong, in pinyin).   My point was that Pound, in his later years,
after 1960, when he renounced his Confucian beliefs , expressed some notions
strongly akin to certain Taoist precepts.  I do not argue that this was
conscious process, or that Pound became a Taoist. [ For the evidence, those
who wish to look, may go to:  http://www.geocities.com/weienlin/cantos.html
]

>and did not attempt his overbearing hermeneutical
>synthesis on the entire poem.

I would welcome your interpretation of the Cantos, an overall interpretation
(overbearing or not), an interpretation which pointed to what you consider
to be the most significant elements or patterns, in relation to the
aesthetic, the formal, the sylistic, the social, political, and religious
features of the work  You need not neglect if you choose the linguistic (or
multi-linguistic) aspects, the economic, the historical, the metaphysical,
the psychological, the epic, or any other facet of the poem.  If you want to
make comprehensive statements or specific generalizations, be my guest.
Point to whatever you wish to point to:   in the Cantos, other poetry, in
the prose, personal biography, or other utterances.  The field it open.
Allow me suggest in another post what might be fruitful field for discussion
which has been virtually ignored of late.

Regards,

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