Davis at cpreview wrote: << <<Subject: A Final Two Cents On Wei Dear Listmembers, As the most recent posts to this list demonstrate, Pound has often attracted individuals who are more interested in politics than poetry.>> I am afraid that your general conclusion does not appear to follow. To say that any of the individuals who have posted on the subject are "more interested in politics than in poetry" simply because these posts contain a great deal of discussion about politics is an example of the fallacy of hasty generalization. I can assure you that I have a great interest in the poetry of Shakespeare, Milton, Blake, Wordsworth, Shelley, Byron, Swinburne, and many others. It just so happens that during this discussion of Pound, I have chosen to focus on many aspects of Pound's social, political, economic, religious, and ethical beliefs, because I believe these aspects of Pound's work need elucidation (especially as regards the Confucian dimension of Pound's work). Rather than drop a fallacious generalization unto the list, you might want to address some of these issues, or start a new strand of discussion. Either of those approaches would be more productive, I think. <<From such people we often hear that Pound's poetry and politics are "intimately linked" and that one can never talk of one without the other: the result of such an attitude being that politics is chiefly, if not exclusively, discussed. >> I think you are aware that Pound himself believed "My poetry and my economics are inseparable." That is a direct quote (Do you need the reference?) T.S Eliot, Yeats, and Joyce never said anything of the sort. Thus in my view, it is necessary that the subject should be addressed. If you do not want to discuss it, no one can force you to. But I politely suggest that you join the discussion, or try to explain why Pound's political, socio-economic, and ethical beliefs should not be discussed in tandem with his poetry, given HIS stated emphasis. Let us recall that Pound believed his Cantos to be an epic, and that he also believed that the inclusion of history into the epic form is essential. Should we not discuss history either? <<Ezra Pound, to Mr. Wei and a host of others, is simply a subject to digress from.>> Not at all. Is this post of yours a "digression" from Pound to a discusion of the personal fact that you dislike political, social, and historical analysis of literature? (I would not affirm necessarily that this is the case). You and I seem to see different aspects of Pound's works in different ways. Let us be tolerant. I will not accuse you of digression if you do not accuse me of digression. And even if one of us does digress, that is not great a crime, is it? Digression is a common occurence on listservs, and perhaps something almost in the nature of the medium. If you want to talk about the issue of digression, and about Ezra Pound, perhaps you would do well to start a thread on the issue of digression in the prose writings of Ezra Pound. Then we would be discussing Pound, which seems to be your thrust (and we would not be in danger of making mutual recriminations). <<Thus, Wei's main objection to Pound's poetic reputation (like Shapiro, Casillo, Surette et al) is his political sympathies>> Pound's "reputation" is a matter of subjective judgment, and will rise and fall over time. I personally would say that Pound's reputation as a poet is fairly secure, and that he is arguably the greatest poet writing in English during the better part of the twentieth century. I do not seriously question this. If fact, as far as pure technique is concerned, I echo many of the affirmations posted on Pound recently by Carlo, who is himself a poet worthy of very serious attention. My central question is, and has been, WHAT does Pound's poetry MEAN? What social values, what political system, what view of history, what theory of economics is central to the construction of his epic in its TOTALITY? Could you take make an attempt to answer this? So far, I have not seen you address it. If you do not care to address it, to think about it, or to offer suggestions, I am not sure why you think attacking my view should concern you. You asked, <<Are poets to be judged on whether they supported trade unions? >> No, but the significance and meaning of his work is partly elucidated by an analysis of this question. Recall, this question arose in the context of a rather extended discussion of Pound's attitude toward the common man. Exploration of his attitude toward trade unions may help us understand Pound's socio-economic philosophy better. >Does Ezra Pound's reputation as a poet suffer because he was fond of John >Adams?>> Not necessarily. But I have posted several questions and comments about the Adams Cantos, and about Pound's attitudes toward Adams (and toward democracy). I do not recall that you contributed substantially to that thread. The question for me is WHAT do you conclude about Pound's attitude toward democracy, toward American history, and toward the Founding Fathers in particular, by an analysis of the Adams Cantos, and Pound's overall treatment of Adams? This is not an unreasonable question, if you view it broadly, and not simply as a matter of whether Pound's "reputation" will be tarnished by such an analysis. Mr. Davis's post concluded with some very general statements about "crude leftist" interpretations, and so on. But there are crude, right-wing, crude left-wing, and crude capitalist apologetical interpretations, as well an entire host of crude interpretations. You personally may or may not be guilty of producing what some people could call crude interpretations of Pound. I have no opinion on the subject. So far, however, I have seen very little comment by you on any issue of Pound studies posted on this list. Please make your contribution. There is little value in using such epithets as "crude," I feel. Let me urge you to refrain from using such terms. <<Mr. Wei's contributions, in particular, are representative of a whole class of people who are totally insensible to poetry, and who attempt to cover up this defect by commenting on anything other than poetry. >> I wonder how you can presume to say that any person--- whose work, mind, and acheivements you hardly know-- is "totally insensible to poetry". I could say that you are an extremely erudite, sensitive, and aesthetically sophisticated individual. I could say that you are well-versed in all aspects of Pound's verse, a dignified scholar, and a person of the highest moral caliber. In all seriousness I say, you very may well be all these things, and that you may possess many more positive attributes besides, that I could not even guess at. The truth is however, that I cannot know, simply by reading several posts you have written, or by even reading a book you have published. Even if I did know you personally, it might not be proper to put you in "an entire class" of people" simply for the sake of dismissing your work. If you want to say something about what I have said, please say it specifically, using quotations, and evidence, which is directly related to the subject at hand. I request that you not generalize, about me or assign me to a "class" simply because you do not agree with my arguments. I will extend you the same courtesy, and I will in fact, assume the best of you: that you are an intelligent, rational being, educated, and well worth engaging in a conversation. Sincere scholarly regards, Wei If you are interested in a larger survey of my arguments you may wish to visit: http://www.geocities.com/weienlin/poundindex.html ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com