Thanks to Richard Edwards for providing the fascinating quote on elitism and democracy, and for giving us his reflections on that quotation. << . . .tyranny requires simplification. This thought does not originate with me, it's been far better expressed by others. I think immediately of the German classicist and Kierkegaardian scholar Theodor Haecker, who went into what was called 'inner exile' in the Nazi period, and kept a very fine notebook throughout that period, which miraculously survived, though his house was destroyed by Allied bombing. Heacker argues, with specific reference to the Nazis, that one of the things the tyrant most cunningly engineers is the gross oversimplification of language, because propaganda requires that the minds of the collective respond primitively to slogans of incitement. And any complexity of language, any ambiguity, any ambivalence implies intelligence. Mayby an intelligence under threat, maybe an intelligence that is afraid of consequences, but nonetheless an intelligence working in qualifications and revelations ... resisting, therefore, tyrannical oversimplification". >> At first glance, it may seem correct to say that the thinking behind tyrannical propaganda involves simplification, and that the thinking behind democracy is more complex. However, I do not think the thesis can be borne out. Lenin and Trotsky were essentially tyrants, and their thinking, as reflected in their writings, is most complex. The philosopher of Italian fascism, Gentile, wrote very complex and elegant works, which demonstrate intelligence. "Grossly simplified language" is no more essentially related to 'totalitarian' thinking than "complexity of language" is in any necessary way linked to "democratic thinking", Those who were treated to George Bush Junior's recent speech at the Republican convention will find sufficient evidence there to prove that in a Democracy the "slogans of incitement" are just as palpably connected with activity in this democracy as they would be in any totalitarian state (and those who recall Reagan's speeches, will find even better evidence). Those who know Spanish, and who have heard Castro speak, will know that extremely complex and sophisticated analyses are possible, even when delivered by a tyrannt in a communist dictatorship. There is no necessary connection between the particular content of an ideology, and its level of sophistication, such that the level of acceptable ambiguity in a proponents' mode of presentation is proportional the amount of democratic freedom inherent in the ideological conception. One of the most sophisticated doctrines ever devised, Confucianism, has been a thoroughly authoritarian dogma. James Polk was thought by some to be one America's stupidest Presidents, though by most accounts, his speeches showed that he had a good grasp of the essentials of democracy, perhaps an even admirable commitment, compared to most US leaders. It should not puzzle us, therefore, that Pound's thought, despite his sophisticated language, his dedication to the art of poetry, and his successes in that field, is fully compatible with with fascist thinking. Nor will it do, to separate his prose from his poetry, or his art from his broadcasts. Those who have read the broadcasts all the way through will agree that his thought was just as sophisticated and just as complex as the thought contained in virtually all his prose, and in most of the poetry. The radio broadcasts were carefully written, and extremely complex in their conception, making use of all sorts of subtle allusions to historical minutiae, aesthetic theories, diverse cultural analytic tools, etc. They are only slightly easier to read than the poetry, because they are prose. Richard Edwards goes on to observe: <<There seems to me to be a great deal of truth in this, although it doesn't address the question why so many "difficult" poets in the modernist tradition were drawn to authoritarian, antidemocratic political regimes.>> I think the question has to be dealt with on a case by case basis. Pound's decision to embrace fascism was his own unique, self-willed choice. Even though T.S. Eliot's own elitism has similarites with Pound's, his choices were different. That is because they were HIS choices. The attempt to reduce a poet's political choices to some phenomenon of the era, some "tendency" residing in poets, or in the poets of our age is, I think, misguided. The only answer for us must lie in the reasons which Pound himself gave for his support for authoritarian, anti-democratic political regimes. Regards, Wei ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com