The image of the “molehill” is a very interesting one. People look at the molehill and sometimes think that the tiny hill is all there is to consider, when underneath there exists a complex series of tunnels, leading in numerous directions, interconnected, perhaps with the tunnels of other moles . . . The image is apropos. The molehill exists on the surface. But what is underneath (perhaps--- dare I say it?--- in the unconscious) is more interesting. But like what is underneath, people miss it, or choose to ignore it; or ----AND THIS IS EVEN MORE COMMON,--- they are aware of it, but they choose consciously to ignore it. I have proposed a modest suggestion, a mere hint at what MIGHT lie underneath Pound’s conscious advocacy of fascism. So far, a few list members have rejected it, but without supplying an alternative theory of the Pound’s psychic makeup which could be used to explain this, or any other aspect of Pound’s theory. Those who do reject it may want to lend futher credibility to their positions by fleshing out their opinions. In the meantime, I propose people look at the following quote, which is very revealing about Pound’s attitudes concerning Mussolini and Douglas (found in the Selected Prose) “Douglas proposed to bring up the TOTAL purchasing power of the whole people by a per capita issue of tickets PROPORTIONAL to available goods. Mussolini and Hitler waste very little time PROPOSING. They started and DO distribute BOTH tickets and actual goods on various graduated scales according to the virtues and activities of Italians and Germans. Douglas may object that this is not "democratic" (that is egalitarian). BUT for the monetary scientist the result is the same. . . . Ten or more years ago I said that Mussolini had achieved more than Douglas because Douglas has presented his ideas as a greed system, not as a will system. . . . (SP, 294).” Such a quote may appear to fall in the same category as the radio broadcasts. But it will not do, I think, to just dismiss such quotes because they are unpleasant--- they are ( because of their frequency, and length) integral to Pound’s thought. Richard Edwards wrote: >There seems to me to be a lot of sense in Kevin Kiely's views about the >Rome >broadcasts. They are not texts for close reading. To say they are NOT texts for close readings means what precisely? That we do not wish to read them? That they are badly written? That they show us a side of Pound which we should simply ignore? >They represent a part of >the Pound story which is in a sense tragic, in another sense appallingly >banal. Tragic in what sense? Banal in what sense? Banal perhaps in the sense of Hannah Arendt, who said that the evil of fascism was, like all truly horrific evils, thoroughly banal? There are many definitions of tragedy, from the Aristotle’s to Bradley’s, from Hegel’s to Schopenhauer’s. I find it difficult to say in what sense Pound’s advocacy of fascism was tragic (misguided perhaps, or even unfortunate, but tragic?) >Pound's delight in Mussolini's supposed knowledge of and insight into >the Cantos - "MA QVESTO said the Boss, e divertente / catching the point >before the aesthetes had got there" - is simply *stupid*. Even Lord Haw Haw >seems to have found Pound's rants impossibly boring (I'm referring to the >bit in Carpenter's biography describing the Pound/Haw Haw correspondence). > Perhaps the same number of people find the Adams Cantos just as boring. But there is more than boredom in Pound’s fascist progaganda. It was one of the main activities he pursued in his conscious life, and it cannot be said to be wholly (or even mostly) disconnected with his artistic life. >Poor Pound. I wish he hadn't gone down that route.> You and I and everyone who cares for the culture of the English speaking world. But wishing he had not gone that route will not help us explain his work. I don’t see how you can simply dismiss it. The Latin American writer Borges said ( in relation to the history of oppression on his continent): El pasado es indestructible. Tarde u temprano vuelvan las cosas. Y uno de las cosas que vuelve es un proyecto de abolir el pasado. [The past is indestructable. Sooner or later, things turn up again. And one of the things that turns up is a project to destroy the past]. If students and scholars of Pound simply say, Pound’s fascism was foolishness, or banality, or say that we wish he hadn’t been a fascist, would that not be a disservice to literary history? Would it not be a disservice to history itself, and to the proper understanding of the role which the horrors of fascism played in the 20th century? kevinkkiely <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >As the list-member who claims to have interjected the Hitler/Joan of Arc > >quote from Pound into the list's mail, who now wishes to comment on/to >Lin > >Wei > >1. Pound quotes Pirandello's being anti-Freud while commenting on >Cocteau, > >so perhaps there is no use in applying Freud to Pound? Perhaps. I am not sure how the Pirandello quote about Freud relates to this discussion. But could not the use of the Pirandello quote signify a very precise NEED for Freudian analysis? Jung is quoted by > >Pound in his introduction to a selection from the Cantos, so perhaps > >putting > >Pound through Jung's sieve is valid? Valid or invalid, would you consider proposing an alternative reading for Pound’s conscious and determined commitment to fascism? > >2. You really made a mountain out of a molehill re Pound's feisty comment > >"Hitler was a Jeanne d'Arc, a saint. He was a martyr." The issue is not simply this quote, but the entire tendency. >Pound's broadcasting > >was driven primarily by his personal reaction to the war & his adulation >of > >Mussolini (having had an audience with him in 1933) and prior to that > >having > >written some 'fan letters' to Il Duce including advice re economics etc. > > > >The fact that Pound believed that both Axis dictators (Hit & Muss) >actually > >had any interest in Confucius is daftness on his part. This may seem “daft” on the surface. What is definitely not daft is the belief, strongly held by Pound, that Confucianism (as a political ideology), Fascism, and Nazism are thoroughly compatible. Look carefully, if you will at the way Pound himself interweaves his study of Confucianism and Chinese imperial history with his support for Mussolini and his Axis partners. (continued in next post) ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com