"The latin tradition, more tolerant, catholic and mature , has not sentimentalized about the deeply-pigmented skin, nor fixed upon it, on the other hand, a stigma. You would not be so likely to get adepts of jazz in a Black Belt in a latin land, nor the ferocity of lynching neighboured by anti-White tracts, written by Whites, nor a universal thunder of psalms from Black and White throats mixed, and evangelist extremes of intolerance and hysterical expansion-- it would be more likely you would find a firmer attitude, more satisfactory to both sides, far less superstitious, in the Latin." -- Wyndham Lewis, PALEFACE (1929), "A Model Melting-pot" At 09:22 AM 12/19/01 +0000, Davis, Alex wrote: >Mr Davis's (wilfully?) provocative post would appear to be premised on an a >priori notion of what an artwork should be, viz., "unified": "Considered as >an epic poem, as a unified work of art, the Cantos is a failure according to >any critical measure we wish to use." I suspect that, in Mr Davis's >poetics, the phrase "unified work of art" is tautological; that is, he is >unable to consider the possibility of a dis-unified or disjunctive poetic >practice (hence his dislike for Maximus, among other post-Poundian long >poems). Even if one were to accept Mr Davis's claim that the Cantos are/is >"nasty, obscure, fragmentary, and long" it does not follow that it fails >necessarily as a work of art. (Incidentally, is to be "nasty" to forsake the >aesthetic? A large number of modernists possessed "nasty" views on class >(Woolf), race (Lewis, Eliot), gender (Faulkner) etc., etc. Is this a reason >for not reading them? My library would be quite depopulated!). > I know there are many Poundians who view the Cantos as coherent and >unified; but if, for the sake of argument, one sees in the Cantos a >paratactic processual poetic that--regardless of Pound's intentions--resists >closure and totality, then the poem might be seen as forcing us to expand >our sense of what a long poem might _be_. I think that this is what is >genuinely avant-garde about the Cantos, and which still speaks to us--much >as Duchamp is still our contemporary. > > Regards and best wishes for the season, > Alex Davis (no relation) > >-----Original Message----- >From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] >Sent: 19 December 2001 01:38 >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: The Incoherence of the Cantos > > >Dear Pound Listmembers, > >I would like to hear some discussion on the lasting importance of the >Cantos. >Is it the great epic poem of the 20th century or a complete mess? > >It seems to me that, in the end, it is the great garbage heap of >Modernism--a >vast accumulation of (now annotated) passages from which the reader (or, >more >probably, the scholar) picks at random. It has a vast reputation among >scholars and poets--and yet it is formless and incoherent by any standard. >Its reputation (and example) has been pernicious. The Cantos is >"responsible" >for the other unreadable long poems of the Modernist era--like Olson's >Maximus or Merrill's The Changing Light at Sandover. > >It is, in short, the perfect example of the excesses of Modernism and the >taste in poetry that it championed: nasty, obscure, fragmentary, and long. > >If I may be permitted to quote myself: >"Considered as an epic poem, as a unified work of art, the Cantos is a >failure according to any critical measure we wish to use. It is so obscure >that a small army of scholars has gained tenure by annotating its lines, and > >that enterprise has taken fifty years. It is so fragmentary that, even with >their notes, most of it seems willfully private in the worst way: like the >diary of an encryptionist, written for an audience of one. Without such >notes, of course, the poem is merely a terrifying, polylingual puzzle. It, >in >fact, depends upon the glosses of scholars to render it readable; it is >inscrutable without exegesis. The Cantos is simply not a self-sufficient >work of art." > >This question seems to be exemplified in the whole problem of addressing the > >Cantos in the singular or plural form. The Cantos is or the Cantos are? Is >it >one thing or a miscellany? > >Regards, >Garrick Davis >editor, >CPR (www.cprw.com)