"What AIDS is to the the body, American popular culture is to the mind."- Ozzy Osbourne Stoner James wrote: > Here is a simple definition elitist or élitist that works well. > > Roget’s II: The New Thesaurus, Third Edition. 1995. > > elitist or élitist > > NOUN: One who despises people or things regarded as inferior, especially > because of social or intellectual pretension: snob. Informal : snoot. See > ATTITUDE, SELF-LOVE. > > ADJECTIVE: Characteristic of or resembling a snob: snobbish, snobby. > Informal : high-hat, snooty, stuck-up, uppish, uppity. See ATTITUDE, > SELF-LOVE. > > I don't think we need to complicate the definition of "elitist" or > "elitism." It's DESCRIPTIVE of attitude of a person or group, and from my > position it is morally blameworthy, if I can be bold enough to state my > judgment. Does that make me an elitist? If I should blame a murderer, > finding his actions morally blameworthy, does that make me an elitist? > > How does it fit certain Poundian's or other individuals or groups within > the poetry world? Well, it has negative consequences and eliminates the > possibility of alternative positions. Such groups and persons are often > dictatorial, authoritarian (not authoritative -- a difference); they > despise, and believe others are inferior, whether its economically, > socially, intellectually, artistically, etc. A person is NOT an elitist > merely because they have read Ovid, Homer, Chaucer, Dante, etc. They are > elitist if they despise others for not having read these folks. They are > elitist if they believe others are interior. Now, “if this average Joe is > at a party where everyone is discussing the latest show that they've seen > on TV or the latest movie, is it his responsibility to change the subject > and get them interested in Chaucer?” Well, if you are inclined to relate > Chaucer “stories” without an attitude that views these people as inferior, > and do so in an interesting way, you are likely to get people to listen. > Is it your responsibility? Yes, if you believe it is important to you, > and you are genuinely interested in the topic, and want others interested > as well. Do you believe it’s important, and can you discuss Chaucer > without sounding like some pompous stuffed ass? I guess that’s the point. > I have no use for poetry that is embedded with elitist’s attitudes as I > have defined them. You will be charged as an elitist if you make others > feel inferior, if you despise them for not knowing Chaucer. I often > discuss highly intellectual topics in everyday speech and people love to > discuss them, just for the mere pleasure of doing so. I also value their > views of the subject. So, I could talk about the Chaucer stories and > people can tell their own stories. It’s mutual and reciprocal, and we > both learn something along the way. You are charged as an elitist if you > carry the pompous, stuffy, snobbish, attitude—look upon them as inferior > and despise them as a result. That is the way of fascism. > > How does this relate to Pound and his work? We can say Pound the person > is morally blameworthy because he was an elitist (I assume this to be > self-evident based on his biographical facts.) Obviously, as Davis tells > us (in a review for the American Poetry Review), the man can be condemned, > but his work cannot be condemned because we should not judge “a particular > work of art to be immoral because of the author’s immorality, or the > immorality of his other works. “To do so would be to predetermine our > response. No, the work of art must be judged solely on its own merit, > which requires objectivity often to be affected only by its isolation.” > He goes on to say: “Now I take it for granted that a work of art can be > immoral. Nor do I think a convincing argument can be made that moral > criteria must be, a priori, excluded from artistic judgment, though their > inclusion there is not always applicable. Moral criteria should intrude > into literary criticism only when moral issues intrude into the contents > of literature. Quite simply, the degree to which Pound’s fascist and > anti-Semitic opinions should enter into literary judgment is the degree to > which they enter into his poetry. Now such opinions appear in Pound’s > poetry only in his later work, The Cantos, and there very infrequently. In > an epic poem stretching some 800 pages there are, if one compiled the > passages, perhaps three or four pages of objectionable material. The > immorality of his verse is, after all, demonstrably slight.” > > I would suggest that it could be argued that most of the Cantos, if looked > at as a whole, with it’s underlying elitist propagations, is morally > blameworthy, not merely because of anti-Semitic and fascist views, but on > the basis of its tone, the attitude—inferiority and despise. Such an > argument might be wrong. Nevertheless, if such an argument were indeed > true and supported, Pound should be taught, just as Baudelaire, should be > taught. Underneath their elitist surface are aesthetic insights. The work > should be studied for its cultural significance, not so much for its > artistic or poetic significance. We can learn much about Pound’s time > through his work. He was a receptacle for which the elitist fascist > masses and leaders could pour their miserable poesy? > > Poetic Encounter > > “There you sit, all alone, with your pen in your hand, > In that darkened room like you’re > Buried in a pile of shit,” she said standing > At the door, mechanically straight; > Her feet bare, one shorter than the other. > He just kept writing. > She made only a sound. > “Writing that same old story,” she said. “Listen to me, > I am the world.” > He kept on writing; his figure, like a poem. > She pulled the pen from his hands. > “Give that back to me!” > “You sound like a child losing > A new toy. Open your ears. I said > It’s that same old story.” > “Yes, you, entering this room, > Day-after-day, spouting > That same old tune, breaking > Your own monotony.” > “That’s not what I mean. Can’t > You just be like me and everybody else.” > “Do you have something to say? Say it well— > Something of substance or not.” > She stumbled on that left foot as she left the room. > “That’s what I thought.” > He pulled a new pen out of his pocket. > > My name is James Stoner, not Stoner James. I don’t smoke pot (unless you > twist my arm.) My opinion changes often as well. > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. > http://mailplus.yahoo.com