i agree, bob...
 
stoneking
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: bob scheetz <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 1999 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: Poundian Criticism (An Overview)
 
 
> 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.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Garrick Davis
> >Contemporary Poetry Review
> >(www.cprw.com)
>