i agree, bob... stoneking ----- Original Message ----- From: bob scheetz <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Saturday, October 16, 1999 9:43 PM Subject: Re: Poundian Criticism (An Overview) > garrick, > pardon, but yer "scholar" seems rather pinched; > and, yer notion, hero-worship (the "great books" crowd), > old-fangled,... a classic (18th cent) expression > of pedagogical idealism/fetishism. > > isn't it the job of today's scholar/critic rather to > engage the text, no-holds-barred, > no bracketing-off - ideology, psychology, gender, whatever... > in an uncircumscribed universe of living discourse? > > after all this is the era of dolly and the daily abortion holocaust; > the scholar afraid of "fascism, antisemitism, & co > is surely incapaz for adult lit > > bob > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Garrick Davis <[log in to unmask]> > To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Saturday, October 16, 1999 4:17 PM > Subject: Re: Poundian Criticism (An Overview) > > > >My letter concerning Poundian criticism was addressed to those members of > the > >listserver who had asked for a guide, an overview of what books they could > >safely dispense with. It certainly was not intended to catalog the precise > >location of every interesting jot and tittle about the poet, which is a > >scholarly exercise not every reader is interested in assigning himself, and > I > >sympathize. > > > >Since my overview was largely an exclusion of a great many scholarly books, > >we might usefully begin with the question: "What is the scholar's task?" > More > >particularly, what is the scholar's task when his scholarship is directed > at > >a poet, and a great one? Is it not preserving his manuscripts, explaining > >textual difficulties (in so far as that is possible), and collecting > >biographical details? Is it not, in short, tending the flame of the poet? > > > >Now this function of the scholar is, I assert, a universal one. And there > is > >something in this "tending of the flame" of hero-worship. Else why tend the > >flame at all? This does not mean that the scholar makes deletions or > >omissions from the biographical record which are unflattering, or edits > out > >what is inconvenient: our great men do not need to be falsified. > > > >I submit that the books I excluded were judged to be devoid of scholarship. > >For the scholarly book provides the reader with the materials necessary to > >form an objective judgment concerning the merit of the poet, which is his > >poetry. The scholarly book does not direct the reader on how to make his > >judgment. > > > >It is, I believe, an obvious truth that our Poundian scholars, for the last > >twenty years, have not performed the function of scholars but of critics. > >This is, in and of itself, a remarkable thing. Those who should preserve > the > >poet also wish to judge him. And what is the basis of their criticism? Is > it > >on the basis of manuscripts newly discovered, or textual difficulties > finally > >resolved? Has some discovery been made about the poems? Is it, in short, on > >the basis of scholarship? > > > >No. These scholars wish to criticize Pound because of his life, and more > >particularly his political sympathies. Thus, the poet has been re-evaluated > >on the basis of moral criteria, which in the realm of literary judgment, is > >the oldest fallacy. Today Pound is guilty of fascism and antisemitism, as > >Paul Verlaine was guilty of sexual immorality, as Oscar Wilde was guilty of > >sodomy, etc. The moral fallacy only demonstrates the fact that a writer's > >life and work are not synonymous: a fact that critics were well aware of, > but > >the interloping scholars were not. > > > >The use of the moral fallacy by our Poundian scholars only emphasizes their > >unfitness to be critics. For the basis of the poet's reputation is his > >poetry, and not his life. So why was this improper denigration of the poet > >pursued? It must be admitted that some Poundian scholars were highly > >uncomfortable with the poet's canonical position in American letters, > simply > >because he was a fascist and an antisemite. Their criteria for literary > >greatness included a test of political sympathies, a test which Pound (and > >Robert Frost, and T.S. Eliot, and W.B. Yeats) failed. > > > >This imposition of political criteria into the realm of aesthetic judgment > is > >our era's rather sad addition to literary criticism. It must be added that > >this program has not been consistently employed on literary authors > either; > >it has been focused on politically right-wing Modernist writers (Pound, > >Yeats, Celine, Eliot) but not on their left-wing counterparts (Mayakovsky, > >Sartre, the French Surrealists). > > > >I, for one, do not wish to see it employed at all. The scholarly books that > >I referred to as "mean-spirited and ridiculous" were ones which employed > some > >version of this political/moral fallacy. In so far as Poundian scholars and > >critics are responsible for the formation of taste in their day, these > >authors have not only been irresponsible but actively harmful to the > Poundian > >scholarship they claim to represent. In this regard, I consider them not > >only enemies of the poet they unfairly disparage, but enemies of > literature. > > > >These critics have, however, raised one important issue, which is the > oldest > >one: the morality of art. Should morality intrude at all into literary > >judgment? Without restating all the Aristotelian and Platonic positions and > >all the artistic creeds, I would submit that the degree to which Pound's > >fascist and antisemitic opinions enter into literary judgment is the degree > >to which they enter into the poetry (as opposed to the prose, the letters, > >the radio speeches, ad infinitum). Such opinions appear in Pound's poetry > >only in The Cantos and there very infrequently. There are perhaps, if one > >compiled the passages, three or four pages of objectionable material in a > >poem stretching some 800 pages. > > > >Pound simply cannot be made into "the poet laureate of Nazism" as one > critic > >has asserted. However the question, of the intersection of art and evil, is > a > >fascinating one. And there is another poet who more consistently > exemplifies > >the problem, an author who today receives universal praise: Baudelaire. > But > >this leads us to another issue, altogether. > > > >Regards, > >Garrick Davis > >Contemporary Poetry Review > >(www.cprw.com) >