Michael, if i may, ... I'd tend to see emerson-pound a study in contrast. Pound, for all the "make it new" virtuosity, was thoroughly a slave to Tradition, no? An esthete, no idealist, who read history to re-mythopoetise, ...roman-ticize, not transcendentalise, ...after the fashion of his pre-rafaelite nostalgia, not kant, hegel, spengler. Emerson, otoh, was passionate to chuck It all, ...was on the way to foucault, no? ...as for the criminality/ignorance of Pound's reading the causes of WW1/2, ...seeing the role of the zionist race-state in provoking the immanent obscenity against islam, don't there sometime arise a twinge of doubt that the simple, "anti-semite," covers the matter? yours, bob ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Springate <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 1:18 PM Subject: Emerson- Pound > Charles: > > Stoner can decide for himself how "awful" the broadcasts are and, more to the > point, why they are "awful". And if they depress him, well, they have depressed > many who read Pound... no less relevant for that. > > I think Pound - Emerson link an important locus of debate or consideration. > Both writers, I believe, work within the assumptions of the American > transcendentalist movement which is, more or less, still the dominate ethos of > American literature. (Is that true?) > > Interestingly, Pound developed his idealist position in relationship to his own > very strong historical interests. That makes Pound approachable (or attractive) > on two fronts, it allows him to point to a hierarchy of knowledge and > sensibility in which he so profoundly believed (rooting it, finally, at the end > of his life, in "character"), as well as being one of the few poets who > emphatically reminds us that the world exists beyond the sensibilities of the > poet (there are, in Pound's world, historical forces, determining events and > people, and he is willing to name them). This is a potent mix. > > A major part of the importance of Pound, in my view, is precisely his attempt, > starting from cultural assumptions not much different than Emerson (is that > true?), to openly "come to terms" with historical forces. Pound, I believe, > felt he was offering a more enduring history than that possible within a > materialist (read Marxist) framework. Hence, the Cantos. > > People who like history, the epic impulse, and have a hard time imagining a > serious literature without it, yet are convinced of the inherent worth and > enduring value of certain "qualities of thought", usually can find a way to > appreciate Pound, including the Cantos. At least, they understand the > challenge. > > Those to whom sensibility is everything (and history not much more than an > intellectually constructed nuisance), can usually appreciate Pound's > translations and early poetry, but frequently claim the Cantos to be > unintelligible (and hence, a poetic failure). It is frustrating, at times, to > discuss Pound with people of this ilk, as they always want one to point out > "the good parts" in the Cantos, missing the essential challenge of the piece as > a whole. However, if one chooses to indulge, there are "good parts" to quote, > and Pound's lyric voice does find register in the Cantos. > > Those who really do spend time studying history, and are somewhat less > concerned with a permanent structure of idealist virtues or its lyric > expression, find Pound's take on history periodically insightful but, over all, > fatiguing (at best) or criminally negligent/ignorant (at worst). And they need > only point to the broadcasts to establish Pound's essential mis-reading of much > in his time. > > I think it true that Pound's associative process (the ideogrammatic method), > which allowed such force and freshness in his writing (as it did, too, for the > surrealists), also seriously undermined his approach to the epic challenge he > set himself. One may wish (that is to say, I wish) that Pound's confrontation > with Europe in the twentieth century would have led either to a more > fundamental break with his roots in idealism or, inversely, shown up those > roots to have been a more potent force in developing an historical > consciousness. > > I am sorry that I am generalizing so broadly, but nonetheless... > > > Michael > > > > charles moyer wrote: > > > Dear Stoner, > > Yourself is one word, and you're projecting. Also "Relavence"? > > > > Mr. Moyer > > > > p.s. Sorry about the grade, and I wouldn't read those awful broadcasts. > > They'll just depress you more like looking at all those hairs that grew in > > Emerson's ears. Try that fine rather new collection of Pound's prose. You > > can get it at Border's or Barnes and Noble. I almost bought it tonight, but > > I have all the pieces in the original volumes except for those selections > > from "The ABC of Economics". They have the Cantos two. > > So why do you suppose Nietzsche admired Emerson so greatly? > > > > ---------- > > >From: Stoner James <[log in to unmask]> > > >To: [log in to unmask] > > >Subject: Re: to, too, two > > >Date: Sat, Jan 4, 2003, 9:18 PM > > > > > > > > Mr. Moyer, > > > > > > I sincerely was attempting to find the connection between Emerson and > > > Pound, if any; and especially as it relates to their politics. You have > > > presented your self as knowing something about both their politics and > > > their poetics. You actually don't know much about Pound, do you? You > > > seem to no far less about Emerson, and even less about writing; as your > > > message suggests. You cry for substance, but focus on small grammatical > > > issues in writing such as, "to, too, two." As I peruse your prior > > > messages I find significant grammatical and careless writing errors that > > > go well beyond anything that I have have written. I still read your > > > messages for their substance. Are you as shallow as your messages > > > suggest? Do you present your self as somebody who understands Pound and > > > Emerson, but can answer no question about them, their poetry or their > > > politics? I mean this seriously, sir. You want to tell me to go back and > > > study Emerson? I know much, but I will always restudy; always reconsider > > > what I've read, go back and go back again. Tell me what I said about > > > Emerson or Pound that requires rereading? Do you really have any > > > substantive feedback or ideas? Are you merely an imitator, a guy that > > > throws out quotes and has nothing else to offer? Do you live only to make > > > this listserve your little oligarchic plutocracy? Over the last 18 months > > > I have witness your simplistic diatribes more often than I could ever want > > > to (too, two, three, more times than I can count.) You run people off > > > this listserve. Why do you do that? These are simplistic question, maybe > > > you can answer them? > > > > > > I do appreciate Tom and Michael's suggestion, though. I also hope that > > > others will help me, if possible. I will look at his broadcasts. > > > > > > Mr Moyer, with all due respect, (and I mean this seriously) how exactly > > > did you gain so much clout on this listserve? Why do so many members > > > flock around you like you run "Bird hall?" Maybe you can answer these > > > less intellectual questions, to, two, too? Maybe the members that flock > > > aroound you can answer as well? I guess my initial thoughts; that is, my > > > more thought out observations about you are likely true? Over the past 16 > > > months I have witnessed you provide this group with nonsense quotes; you > > > also have a tendency to shut dialogue down, stop it before it flies over > > > your head. I wonder about their relavence. I wonder about your relavence > > > here on this list serve. Today, Mr. Moyer, I am an elitist towards you, > > > to, too, two. > > > > > > Respectfully, > > > > > > Jim Stoner > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. > > > http://mailplus.yahoo.com