I think we are seeing a little more eye to eye. For instance, when you say: >the issue is whether one wants >to EMPHASIZE the anti-Semitic, fascistic Pound of the Rome Broadcasts, or >the >poetic Pound of the Cantos -- which doesn't mean that there is a neat >cleavage between the two, but rather where one chooses to find one's >bearings I find myself agreeing with your statement that this is the main issue, or at least, one of the main issues. Of course there are many more choices, as I am sure you will agree. We need not limit ourself to the choice of whether to emphasize the Fascist Pound of the Rome Broadcasts as against the poetic Pound of the Cantos. We could also choose to emphasize the Fascist, anti-semitic, hierarchical, anti-democratic, anti-worker Pound OF THE CANTOS. Or we could choose (as you perhaps have done--- correct me if this is a mischaracterization) . . .we could choose to DE-emphasize the Fascist, anti-semitic, hierarchical, anti-democratic, anti-worker Pound OF THE CANTOS. It is a valid choice, if you wish to make it. But all that trash is in the Cantos. The prose essays and radio Rome Broadcasts and political statements simply make it easier to understand. Now there is a stand from which I could conceive your view to be absolutely correct. We could decide as a basic premise, that we would limit ourselves solely to the discussion of Pound's poetic technique, his use of the English language, the aesthetic impact of certain sounds, his rhythms, the effect of using different languages, and scripts, how he revised, how he composed, how he described the art of creating poetry, the reactions of critics and contemporaries and successors, who commented on these things. If we limited ourselves in this way the problem of Pound's politics would not arise. Also, if we confined ourselves to the discussion of certain theological aspects of Pound's work (apart from their social implications) then the question of Pound's fascism could remain buried. I have no problem if you yourself wish to proceed that way. But for me, the fact of Pound's political views (and of his anti-semitism) is not to be waved away as something merely unpleasant contained in extraneous material. The fascism and the Confucian hierarchical philosophy are ingrained features of the Cantos. As soon as one deals with any historical, social, ethical, economic, or political aspect of the poetry, the unpleasantness (I believe) is bound to enter the discussion. In this way studying Pound is considerably different from studying Heidegger. Heidegger's Nazi allegiance is on record in a speech he gave when he became a rector at his University. It does not appear to be an ingrained or even peripheral feature of BEING AND TIME, or any other major works. Granted, the speech is bad enough (talk about Nazism as the complete fulfillment of BEING, and other such nonsense), and it should not be excused; nor should discussion of Heidegger neglect the fact of his support for Hitler. But one could discuss Being and Time, and whole theory of Phenomenology without mentioning Nazism. One cannot easily discuss Pound's Cantos, in its totality, without mentioning Mussolini's fascism and his belief in Confucianism, since the hierarchical strong man theory of history permeates the work to a considerable degree. Regards, Wei ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com