>From: [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: Mr. Davis Once More >Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 18:31:05 EST > >Dear Pound Listmembers, > >Thirty-odd responses after my initial letter ("Incoherence of the Cantos"), >I >would again request considered, thoughtful responses to my questions--since >I >have yet to receive any. > >The name-calling, so-called "flaming" mail, and curses are not what I find >upsetting--writers have always attracted their fair share of cranks, and >Pound has always attracted more than most--but the chopped logic, sloppy >definitions, and inadequate proofs of the supposedly reasoned and >"critical" >letters I received are truly disheartening. What troubles me is the number >of >members on this list who seem wholly unfamiliar with the rudiments of logic >and intelligent debate. Never have I encountered so many questions begged, >so >many assertions substituted for proof, so many denials supplied instead of >demonstration. > >I do appreciate Messrs. Pearlman, Davis, Parcelli, Bray, and Springate for >their attempts--but their responses seemed extremely fragmentary, obscure >and >short--in short, attempts. I also found a number of their positions >untenable. > >For example, Mr. Parcelli writes: "I just came back from having dinner with >the Modernist critique, Brad Haas. During the course of the meal I related >your email concerning the lack of self-sufficiency in much of Pound; in >essence that the Cantos do not achieve aesthetic homeostasis. Of course, >questions of self-sufficiency depend more on the reader/critic/scholar than >on the writer. A poet may write to generate response, but that response is >only sustained if there is something there to sustain it. However, this is >a >too large and amorphous subject for an email." > >The reader will note that Mr. Parcelli's critical vocabulary is slippery: >that is, it changes without notification. Thus, aesthetic homeostasis (Mr. >Gancie's gloss of my "formal incoherence" of the Cantos) becomes >"self-sufficiency" in the second sentence. Self-sufficiency, we are then >told, is up to us (the reader) and not the writer. Followed closely, this >would seem to indicate that readers are responsible for the homeostasis or >form of the poem---which is, of course, nonsense. Mr. Parcelli probably >means >(or intended to mean) that readers are responsible for the interpretation >of >the poem--a questionable assertion as well--but then I'm guessing. I wish >merely to note that his critical response has itself resisted form and >definition, and remained incoherent. > >As an example of incomplete analysis, Mr. Bray offered: "While no easy >theme-soundbite manifests itself, I certainly find that the Cantos read >well >from end-to-end, unlike most collections of poetry where one wanders and >grazes. I take this as empirical evidence that there is a unity operating >at >some level here." Mr. Bray does not, however, provide a suggestion as to >what >that unifying principle could be. Mr. Bray seems, therefore, convinced by >evidence which does not exist or which he cannot formulate--and that is >dubious proof, to be sure. > >Finally, Mr. Pearlman asserted: "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..." > >The reader will note that though Mr. Pearlman assures us that he has "seen >and expounded" on the unity of the Cantos time and again, and can therefore >vouch for their presence, he provides us with no analysis or exposition of >their coherence. He merely asserts what I asked him to argue and prove. Mr. >Pearlman then suggests that my reading "of the critics of the poem" has >been >not only insufficient but non-existent. Had I actually READ these critics, >he >suggests, I could not dismiss the Cantos. This manages to be condescending >without being helpful--for Mr. Pearlman nowhere provides a list of these >critics who should be read for my further enlightenment. Since the only >critics I mentioned in my letter were Yeats, Blackmur, Jarrell, and >Tate--and >they did in fact find the Cantos a general mess--then I conclude that Mr. >Pearlman has either not read them or misunderstood the basis of their >judgment---for none of them condemned the Cantos for its "totalitarian and >anti-semitic" values. Mr. Pearlman's letter, in other words, demonstrates >no >one else's air of "breezy dismissal" but his own. Coming from a literature >professor (I believe) in Rhode Island, this is astonishingly bad as >literary >criticism.and I suggest Mr. Pearlman look to the deficiencies in his own >reading before suggesting deficiencies in mine. > >Finally, I have received a few offline emails from Pound listmembers, the >past few days, which condemn the general quality of this list's >postings--and >I don't disagree. One silent observer wrote, "I find the list riddled with >misspellings, inaccuracies, and lazy writing. Are these the people >husbanding >Pound for us? My goodness." The great gift I believe a devotion to Ezra >Pound >should bestow on his admirers is a considerable care for words. > >Regards, >Garrick Davis >editor >Contemporary Poetry Review >(www.cprw.com) I too once had dinner with "a modernist critique", but it folded before the dessert tray and was subsequently found remaindered at the Barnes & Noble across the street _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com