>From: Daniel Pearlman <[log in to unmask]> >Reply-To: - Ezra Pound discussion list of the University of Maine > <[log in to unmask]> >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: The Incoherence of the Pound List >Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 17:57:48 -0500 > >Carlo, >Really, now, I quite know the difference between coherence and profundity! >Lots of Hollywood movies are perfectly coherent without being profound. >Coherence is also susceptible to critical demonstration--we are here in the >world of technique, craft, but there is no doubt that a judgment about >profundity will always be subjective or, as you say, "a function of the >current >state of the reader." Having taught graduate courses in both Pound and >Frost, I have to say that I have gradually come to see--without any >suggestion of devaluing Pound or all that I have learned from him--that >Frost appears the more tuned-in in every way, and is even, in the >political realm, far more astute than Pound. Frost approaches politics >and history with a tragic sensibility; Pound, with the reformist's >sensibility. >==Dan > >At 04:22 PM 12/20/2001 -0500, you wrote: >>I agree with your comments on Garrick's level of engagement with what he >>criticizes. But I think you are simply substituting "profundity" for >>"coherence" in >>your critique. It seems obvious that finding more profundity in Frost or >>early >>Williams is a function of the current state of the reader unless >>accompanied by a >>detailed comparison. Others experience may certainly and validly be >>apposed or >>tangential to this ubiquitous response to "profundity" or "coherence." >>Also, >>notions of "coherence" and "profundity" don't respond well to hierarchies. >>And >>there are other hierachies for profundity. My uncles find Andy Rooney >>"profound" >>and Oakeshott "incoherent." >> >>And sometimes some of us find that history is just so much clutter. Carlo >>Parcelli >> >>Daniel Pearlman wrote: >> >> > I for one am glad to hear a voice like Garrick's that questions >> > fundamental literary values and suggests that we reassess >> > our evaluation of the Cantos (and, perhaps, the reasons that >> > a number of us become Pound-beguiled, unable to look at >> > his work objectively). I, too, would like us to stop pretending >> > that "disjunction, disunity, lack of coherence and totality" are >> > literary qualities to be championed. The thing is, I don't have >> > a problem with Cantos unity, coherence, etc. I've seen it >> > and I've expounded upon it, and if Garrick were actually to >> > READ some of the critics of the poem--including my own >> > BARB--he'd have a hard time defending his bravura dismissal >> > of the work. Instead, Garrick seems to rely too heavily for >> > his breezy dismissal on listing a bunch of major literary critics >> > throughout the century who have equally dismissed the Cantos >> > (also, with little more reading effort than Garrick appears to >> > have put into the job), and he does not seem to realize that >> > much of the reason for the critical dismissal of the Cantos >> > over the years stems not only from the work's difficulty but >> > also from Pound's totalitarian and anti-semitic value system. >> > (We on this list have wrestled with these issues on and off >> > over the last several years, and many of us have been quite >> > objective about the potentially damaging effects of the ideas >> > on the art.) I myself, to reiterate, do not have a problem >> > defending the unity of the Cantos; rather, as I think more >> > and more about what Pound has to say to us (above and >> > beyond all that annoying political froth of his), I find that I >> > cannot defend anything that remotely could be identified >> > as a sophisticated, profound view of the world that the >> > poem was intended to critique. Such profundity and >> > sophistication I find, to the surprising contrary, in the >> > considerable body of the work of Robert Frost (Pound's almost >> > complete opposite), and, to a somewhat lesser extent, in >> > the earlier work of Pound's friend W.C. Williams. In my >> > dubiousness about the depth of Pound's thinking, I suppose >> > I am merely echoing his friend Wyndham Lewis, who >> > expressed it all as early as 1927. >> > ==Dan Pearlman >> > >> > At 01:35 PM 12/20/2001 -0500, you wrote: >> > >Dear Listmembers, >> > > >> > >Thanks to Messrs. Gancie, Davis, and Pealrman for their responses. >> > > >> > >Many wondered whether I was being "willfully provocative" or "playing >>the >> > >devil" when I suggested that the Cantos are a junk heap--littered with >>pearls >> > >of course--so let me discomfort them by affirming that I am perfectly >>serious. >> > > >> > >This judgment of the Cantos--it should be added--was one shared by >>Yeats, >> > >Randall Jarrell, R.P. Blackmur, and Allen Tate. In fact, it is an >> > >illuminating experience to read Tate's opinion change drastically over >> > >time---compare "Ezra Pound" to "Ezra Pound and the Bollingen Prize" >>(both are >> > >contained in Essays of Four Decades). >> > > >> > >In fact, the opinion I "provocatively" expressed has been the stated >>opinion >> > >of many great critics of the 20th century. I find it disheartening, >>but >> > >perfectly understandable, that the Pound List would not entertain this >> > >opinion (except dismissively and in passing) but it shall not be >>dispelled so >> > >easily. >> > > >> > >What is most interesting is not that the members of this List have >>difficulty >> > >admitting that the Cantos are "nasty, obscure, fragmentary, and long" >>(this >> > >is a self-evident fact) but that justification of " the poetics" of >>the >> > >Cantos should finally, and fatally, involve embracing the virtues of >>(to >> > >paraphrase Alex Davis' response): disjunction, disunity, lack of >>closure, and >> > >lack of totality. Aren't these qualities the very hallmarks of the >>failed >> > >work of art? >> > > >> > >If we (as Tim Bray has) entertain the idea that the Cantos are a >>miscellany, >> > >and not "a unified work of art" then we explain many problems that >>have >> > >bedeviled Modernism for three quarters of a century. The Cantos are a >>mess >> > >because Pound had no epic plan in mind when he started, NOT because he >>wished >> > >to be "ahead of his time" and champion "disjunction, disunity, lack of >> > >coherence and totality" as avant-garde aesthetic values. Talk of it >>being an >> > >epic poem simply dissipates, as it should. The Cantos become not one >>thing, >> > >but many things---whereas an epic poem is a unified work of art--and >>so talk >> > >of the Cantos fragments into various sections (Confucian, Adams, >>Pisan, >> > >Throne sections, ad infinitum). These values have--need it be >>said?--polluted >> > >Modernist and post-Modernist poetry to its great detriment and left >>the >> > >reader with more unreadable poetry (Olson, Duncan, et al. than any one >> > >century ought to produce. >> > > >> > >The Cantos have no one "poetic theory" but many--and I have suggested >>(in an >> > >upcoming essay) that the Cantos would have suffered less had it simply >>been >> > >titled the Later Poetry of Ezra Pound. The Cantos are a collection of >> > >disparate poems, without any doubt. "It" will not and does not cohere >>as one >> > >thing the author admitted (either as "a unified work of art" or "an >>epic >> > >poem"). Isn't it time that we treated the Cantos as a miscellany? And >>stopped >> > >talking of "disjunction, disunity, lack of coherence and totality" as >> > >literary qualities to be championed (alas, because we wished to defend >>the >> > >Cantos) rather than the very absence of those qualities which >>characterize >> > >the superior work of art? >> > > >> > >I shall finish by twisting a phrase by Robert Gorham Davis to my >>purposes: >> > >"The Cantos are, finally, a litmus test for a whole range of critical >>values >> > >(and for the excesses of Modernist taste) and stand self-condemned." >> > > >> > >Regards, >> > >Garrick Davis >> > >editor, >> > >CPR >> > >(www.cprw.com) >> > >> > Dan Pearlman's home page: >> > http://pages.zdnet.com/danpearl/danpearlman/ >> > >> > My new fiction collection, THE BEST-KNOWN MAN IN THE WORLD AND OTHER >> > MISFITS, may be ordered online at http://www.aardwolfpress.com/ >> > "Perfectly-crafted gems": Jack Dann, Nebula & World Fantasy Award >>winner >> > >> > Director, Council for the Literature of the Fantastic: >> > http://www.uri.edu/artsci/english/clf/ >> > >> > OFFICE: >> > Department of English >> > University of Rhode Island >> > Kingston, RI 02881 >> > Tel.: 401 874-4659 >> > Fax: (253) 681-8518 >> > email: [log in to unmask] > >Dan Pearlman's home page: >http://pages.zdnet.com/danpearl/danpearlman/ > >My new fiction collection, THE BEST-KNOWN MAN IN THE WORLD AND OTHER >MISFITS, may be ordered online at http://www.aardwolfpress.com/ >"Perfectly-crafted gems": Jack Dann, Nebula & World Fantasy Award winner > >Director, Council for the Literature of the Fantastic: >http://www.uri.edu/artsci/english/clf/ > >OFFICE: >Department of English >University of Rhode Island >Kingston, RI 02881 >Tel.: 401 874-4659 >Fax: (253) 681-8518 >email: [log in to unmask] Now you've shocked me .... do I read that correctly? University students actually study Robert Frost? _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.