it is always better to say something that is interesting
than to say something that is merely true.
 
stoneking
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne Pounds <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 1999 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: Poundian Criticism (An Overview)
 
 
> or as i think ez would have sd, his first job is to be
> interesting.
>
> wayne
>
> --- bob scheetz <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > 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.
> > >
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> =====
> Via Betti, 289E/2
> 16035 Rapallo (GE)
> Italy
> pho: 0185-234-140
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
>