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)