Richard Seddon wrote:
Peter Montgomery: Still, without Pound's involvment would there have
been anything? P.
This is for me the fascinating point. Eliot produced all that material,
but Pound _saw_ something there that Eliot hadn't seen. It was there,
sort of, but also (sort of) not there until Pound saw it.
Try an analogy from 'ordinary' writing. Even a freshman student who is
really working on a theme can come to a point at which, in her
scribbles, she suddenly 'sees' something that she hadn't seen while
scribbling -- and now she can write the paper. Does the paper 'belong'
to Josie-8pm-1am or does it 'belong' to Josie-1:15am -- or does it
belong to Josie 9am-10:15am (next morning) as she pulls that material
together? None or all of them!
There has been/was a strong current of "organicism" in 19th/20th c.
thinking about 'art' -- see for example the "auteur' theory of film
production, which tried/tries to reduce the whole film to the 'vision'
of the director. There just _can't_ be multiple creators of the work.
But that is wrong. There can be; there often has been over history
(e.g., medieval cathedrals), and it just won't do to reduce the unity of
a work to the (supposed) unity of a single artist's inspiration.