Diana Manister wrote:
> Carrol wrote:
> "I've read the poems for 50 years without ever thinking of them as
> "imagist" or "vorticist" or any other "ist." What evidence is there
> that attending to these abstractions would transform my reading?"
> If one is simply consuming poems then an awareness of various
> contemporaneous styles in relation to which the poet has positioned
> hinself aesthetically probably will not enhance the read.
I guess I should have repeated a passage from an earlier post: "It seems
to me that your concern with those slogans is acting as a barrier
between you and the poems (and the world of 1910-20). Setting these big
abstractions against each other takes us off on a voyage to Arcturus.
And intellectual and emotional complex is clearly a tremendously ACTIVE
and even violent complex."
_Any_ use of the poems, including literary history, cultural history,
comparison of Eliot and Pound, accounting for Pound's whole career,
relating Pound and/or Eliot to earlier literary traditions, establishing
the political and/or social significance of both the criticism and the
poems -- _all_ these (and any other you can think of) are incompatible
with beginning with the abstractions (pretty empty abstractions I
believe) "vorticism" and "imagism." They are relevant, if relevant at
all, _only_ in the final stages of any treatment of either the poetry
_or_ the criticism of Pound and/or Eliot. Note: I really am challenging
the relevance of these to labels to the _criticism_ or critical theory
of Pound. I think you can understand even passages in which he _uses_
the word "vorticism" or "imagism" if you ignore those terms to begin