it is always better to say something that is interesting than to say something that is merely true. stoneking ----- Original Message ----- From: Wayne Pounds <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Sunday, October 17, 1999 9:03 AM Subject: Re: Poundian Criticism (An Overview) > or as i think ez would have sd, his first job is to be > interesting. > > wayne > > --- bob scheetz <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > 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. > > > > > > === message truncated === > > > ===== > Via Betti, 289E/2 > 16035 Rapallo (GE) > Italy > pho: 0185-234-140 > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com >