JB wrote: >it's common knowledge -- or at least >it used to be -- that poetry itself is the best expression of its meaning, >not the critic's trick of paraphrasing it, of saying exactly what it has >nevertheless never said. Suppose I agree with you here (and I do, to some degree). We are left with some serious questions. Should we simply stop talking about Pound? Should we stop writing about Pound? What is the point of this list? Should no one talk about anything, since talking about life is no substitute for life itself? Should people stop writing poetry, because poetry itself is no substitute for the experience which makes it possible? ------------- Or should only certain people (who have it right) speak about Pound; while others (who have it wrong) remain reverentially silent? Should we state as a general rule, that any interpretation which tries to relate Pound's poetry to anything outside the poetry (Pound's life, his prose, his radio broadcasts, his socio-political circumstances, his intellectual milieu) is AUTOMATICALLY wrong? The statement "poetry itself is the best expression of its meaning" if taken as an absolute axiom, is problematic, I think because it elevates the poem above the reader. This is what priests did to the Bible during the Middle Ages, and seems an inappropriate procedure. Does it make sense to say "The Bible itself is the best expression of its meaning?" While the meaning inheres partly in the object itself, it must also reside in the subject, the history of all subjects who have encountered the work, and written about it; in the personal opinions of the author as they relate to topics metioned in the work; in the social, political , and economic institutions which touch the work (directly and indirectly), and in the institutions which may be touched by the work. That is only a small part of what I mean by MEANING. Regards, Wei ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com