If anyone could tell me where I could subscribe to the TSE list I would be very grateful...
 
Thanks in advance
 
James Deboo. 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Booth, Christopher 
  To: [log in to unmask] 
  Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 9:32 PM
  Subject: Re: Thanks and query
 
 
  Hi, Joe:
 
  Your patience in responding to the heated Scheetz is admirable. I find him
  empty and full of himself and a material of which his persona seems
  redolant.
 
  He hasn't actually said anything about Pound or poetry in his many posts. He
  spammed the TSE list too for a while (I haven't been following their posts
  for a good while now, so he may be posting there yet), and when people on
  that list criticised the inarticulacy of his posts and accused him of being
  unclear in his messages and compared them to Pound's obscurity and
  ideosyncratic spellings, etc., I expected to find him later turning up on
  the EP list.
 
  Lo.
 
  Perhaps that's how he heard of Pound....
 
  Your last two paragraphs very neatly shot down his recent blather, though I
  don't expect THAT to be felt.
 
  Anyway, a good response, and a measured and patient.
 
  Chris
 
  > ----------
  > From:         Joe Brennan
  > Reply To:     Ezra Pound discussion list of the University of Maine
  > Sent:         Friday, January 21, 2000 9:27 AM
  > To:   [log in to unmask]
  > Subject:      Re: Thanks and query
  >
  > In a message dated 01/20/2000 11:23:36 PM Eastern Standard Time,
  > [log in to unmask] writes:
  >
  > << Erik,
  >       Regarding typewriters, i.e. technology's formal effect
  >  on "writing", there's Nietzsche's famous saying that he
  >  philosophized "with a hammer;" punning on the mechanism
  >  of the typewriter, but meaning the iconoclastic force of his exposition.
  >
  >  So... The animistic notion of technology is really just
  >  a old red-herring, arising from the bourgeois
  >  fetishizing of technology, trotted out biennially by
  >  the latest photogenic "intellectual sex-pot" like McLuhan.
  >  There is no essential effect.
  > >>
  >
  > well, there is certainly not this effect, but outside of such a loaded
  > observation, there is certainly some effect, which is probably not
  > generalizable from person to person, as regards both the influence or the
  > extent of that influence.
  >
  > << Similarly, the question regarding the influence of Pound's
  >  Cantos,  seems also to imply a suspect notion of literary influence:
  >  bourgeois reification, copyright, of that (the platonic)
  >  which can't be commodified.  And, where it occurs,
  >  (as in say, Browning's influence of Pound) this type of influence
  >  is just trivial, footnote-ish stuff. >>
  >
  > again, the issue of influence can't be brushed off so easily, although the
  > exact extent of such influence is probably, in most instances, impossible
  > to
  > gauge.  however, one can certainly understand the "commodification"
  > objection
  > to the use of influence in critical exegesis, especially in those
  > instances
  > where the "influence" is held to be decisive, usually to support some
  > (admittedly trivial) overarching perspective.
  >
  >
  >  The essence of the Cantos is, as we say today, deconstruction;
  >  and its thematic well as stylistic is the
  >  logically necessary outcome of an attempt at
  >  radical platonic exposition,
  >  the laying open human truth
  >  sans embellishment (the hallowed paltry dodges,
  >  metaphysical and  rhetorical); that's to say, an
  >  anti-art art...the diabolical inversion of "art pour l'art,"
  >  or nihil-ation.
  >
  >  But, having once seen this, the inexorable hermeneutical
  >  progression is to thematize, metaforize, totalize,
  >  ...nso on, IT ("deconstruction");
  >  which, as we used to say, is the box we're in today,
  >  "the wind which will not subside."
  >  The Cantos poetizes the wind which we all feel.
  >  ...'n everbody's doin it, no?
  >  So do we more properly speak of the influence
  >  of The Cantos or the zietgiest [the spirit of the times]?
  >
  > this is true among literary critics, but what of those who engage the
  > method
  > of the cantos at the level of investigation and presentation -- that is,
  > of
  > poets actually engaging this thematic and this stylistic in their poetic
  > expression?
  >
  >  What could literary influence possibly mean here?
  >  ...simply running on interminably and incomprehensibly
  >  in vers libre about nothing?
  >  ...Jerry Seinfeld?
  >  don't know?
  >
  > the fallacy here stems from the desire to put everyone into the same bag
  > of
  > hot air.  everyone is not a critic, nor does every critic approach the
  > cantos
  > at the level of deconstruction, nor does every act of deconstruction
  > reflect
  > the same parts.
  >
  > joe brennan
  >
  >
  >  thanks
  >  bob
  >   >>
  >