Dear Pound Listmembers, I should apologize for my tardy response to so many emails but I just returned from vacation. I would like to respond to a few emails in public and in particular. I will begin, however, with a few general comments: 1) I am puzzled by the misunderstanding produced by my remark "self-sufficient work of art." In the context of the paragraph it appeared in, I believe it is clear. The Cantos are not self-sufficient because they require the aid of other books to understand. A student must purchase Terrell's Companion to the Cantos to have any idea what the references mean--the references and the glosses being essential in many places to attain the meaning of the passage. Thus, it is not an autonomous work of art. Pound's later poetry has not only involved--it has required--the explication and annotation of scholars (a la Joyce in Finnegan's Wake--a work Pound disparaged) to a remarkable degree. 2) There are many competing theories concerning the form/structure of the Cantos. It seems clear to me that the Cantos have no form or structure. It [i.e. The Cantos considered as a unified work of art, and as an epic] has no plot, no central figure, no linear time or chronology, and no fixed verse form. To the obvious retort--that the Cantos have many plots, characters, chronologies, and verse forms--I would merely say it's not unified then is it? 3) The consequences of the insight #2 above are as follows. A century full of American poets has taken Pound's lead in escaping poetic forms and structures. The so-called Free Verse movement has often used Pound's poetry (and particularly the Cantos) as a guide to "making it new." This has led (and I can hear the screaming begin already) to mountains of unreadable free verse--which has mistaken obscurity for profundity, and fragmentation for form. Viewed as an example of the 20th c. epic, the Cantos has led many a poet to ruin. Were it viewed as a cautionary tale, a mitigated triumph, an epic failure--it might have spared us LANGUAGE poetry, for example. This is a problem which Pound scholars will ignore, but for poets it's essential--how does one get beyond Modernism? To do that, you would have to diagnose what was good--and, most of all, bad--about the movement Pound started and the poetry he wrote. 4) A great number of responses have disregarded my main proposition [i.e. The Cantos are a mess.] because reading the work has been "enlightening, educational, profound, etc." Such remarks side-step the main charge, of course, but I sympathize and agree with their position. The problem, I believe, is that scholars are attempting to elevate the Cantos as the foundation of Pound's poetic legacy--an attempt which will fail. Pound matters for many reasons--the least of them, I propose, is the Cantos. 5) A few specific replies to emails follow: From Mr. Pearlman, "Garrick, Is literature supposed to be easy? Is it supposed to make perfectly good sense on a first, second, or third reading? I don't know, I've struggled with Melville's "Bartleby" for a good many years before finally coming up with a sense that I've mastered it--and that text can't be fully understood without annotations either. In any case, skipping to our postmodernist writers, those who have waved away those elitist-obscurantist modernists, do we not see in many of them, in their very ironizing of every cultural artifact, the same elitist-obscurantist tendencies reborn with a different look?... (admittedly, with a greater sense of humor). And how about Dante, who can get through the Paradiso without falling asleep?" The error here, I believe, is to mistake obscurity for complexity, depth, deep meaning. We have learned to enjoy difficult poetry--poetry which does not yield its meaning or its pleasure easily--because we believe that difficulty is one sign--usually the first sign--of complexity and depth in a work of art that we have yet to fully comprehend. In art, complexity misunderstood reveals itself first as difficulty, as the tendency of the reader to feel that the work of art is beyond his powers of comprehension. Dante is difficult reading--but he was never being obscure--because his thought was deep. Whereas Pound's Cantos are obscure--not from the complexity of his matter or his argument but from the inaccessibility of his references. From Mr Parcelli: "I can't go into this in depth now, but there is always the notion of the epic as a voyage of discovery. In the Cantos the epic is process, the poet in the intellectual and historical landscape as they unfold. What difference does the structure make? What example of 20th century epic would one propose as a counterweight example of a 'coherent' epic as opposed to the Cantos? Look what happened when Dr. Williams tried the form of the Cantos." This view assumes a certain ambiguity of definitions. The epic is a literary genre. A literary genre cannot itself be a "voyage of discovery." This statement does, however, imply that Pound didn't know where he was going with the Cantos and I agree. Secondly, I would not propose any 20th century long poem as a coherent epic--there aren't any. As for coherent long poems, I would cite The Four Quartets and Vikram Seth's The Golden Gate. Variants and translations of Pushkin's verse novel, Eugene Onegin, are enjoying a revival at the moment. From Mr. Romano: "As I understood Garrick's question, it might be paraphrased so: for an epic to be a successful epic, doesn't it have to play to the deep acculturation of a People, not the to book-learning and polyglot abilities of the elites? The cross-cultural and the Epic don't seem to mix, do they? My reply to that question would be this: the fair critic must ask how the Cantos seeks to _transcend_ the epic genre with respect to Place, Time, People, Language, and the task set for its Hero." I must admit that I have no idea what Mr. Romano is proposing here. How do the Cantos seek to transcend the epic genre? Perhaps he can answer this for us. I am merely proposing that the Cantos are a mess: nasty (in a few places), obscure, fragmentary (as in devoid of a unified poetic technique), and long (to no purpose). Pound wasn't trying to "transcend" the epic; he was simply trying to write an epic, which he did not do. He wrote something else, and it isn't a unified work of art but a miscellany, in my opinion. I hope to respond to Mr. Korg's and Mr. Bray's letters later. Regards, Garrick Davis editor Contemporary Poetry Review (www.cprw.com)