Richard Seddon wrote:
> I do not agree that Pound was the "primary writer" or that he extracted a
> poem from a "mass of material". At most Pound was an advisor and perhaps in
> a rudimentary way an editor. He had filled this role many times with others
> of the modernists as he recruited their work for American poetry magazines.
I don't really disagree -- I did say "argument _could be_ made." It's
just that unity can never be taken for granted but needs to be
established by showing that the unity claimed actually illuminates the
parts -- and that argument has to ascribe some independence to the parts
or there is nothing to unify. Specifically, unless the Stetson passage
has _some_ independent status, it can contribute nothing to the whole
nor can the whole illuminate it.
For example. In PL, all our knowledge of Adam's creation comes from Adam
himself! The narrator gives us no direct account whatever. So while we
know that that creation is prologue as it were first to fall and then to
recovery, we would empty the scene of any real interest if we were to
say it is an instance of fall and recovery. We can't know how it fits
into (if it does) a dynamic of fall and recovery and until we first see
it as an action of a certain kind in its own right. Similarly, we
banalize the Stetson episode if we simply label it another instance of
the presumed general theme of TWL.