Print

Print


If Jennifer is "sophomoric," she shares it with many Eliot scholars.  It
is a position many take.  I wish--as always--we would discuss issues and
not people.  Jennifer clearly has immense knowledge and has reasons for
her view.  I don't think she's sophomoric; I just think she's just wrong
about Eliot and Pound.  The issue is not, I think,  whether Eliot wrote
all the words:  no one doubts that.  (Aside from all the ones he quotes
and incorporates in his collage and the very few phrases Viv contributed
and the reproduction of the vernacular report on the pub scene that was
apparently a woman who clearned for them.)  The issue is how the poem
itself came into being and what that tells us about the meaning of
poetry or poetics.  Big topic.

To Jennifer:  I'd very much like to know your rationale.

Cheers,
Nancy

>>> [log in to unmask] 10/22/04 9:20 AM >>>
Since I was the one who originally instigated Jennifer's remarks, it may
seem odd that I come to her defense.
I agree with some of the others here that the editing issue is a complex
one -- perhaps more complex than either Eliot or Pound realized. Yes,
the two had differing gifts, and if Pound were lacking, TWL would have
never happened (at least, not anywhere close to how we know it). The
poem's force would have been lost in its sprawl.
But I appreciate that Jennifer brought up this issue. As Nancy has said,
the issue is indeed a big topic -- which is why it's good that we're
talking about it. For those of you who have been privileged to share in
Jennifer's insightful comments and questions over the past few years, I
think it would seem a bit ungrateful to call this remark sophomoric. I
am (almost) always happy to qualify my comments because of the differing
yet valuable perspectives that others here on the list bring.

Best wishes,
Will

>>> [log in to unmask] 10/22/04 12:05AM >>>
Pound had a gift of creative perception that was really
quite unique, and certainly very
distinct from any of Eliot's talents.

Jennifer is just being sophomoric, a characteristic of
many new graduands.
P.

-----Original Message-----
From: Nancy Gish
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: 2004-Oct-21 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: ???/ Death by Water

I disagree with Jennifer on this one.  There were cases where Eliot
seemed unhappy with changes but took them anyway--he seemed to fret
about giving up the epigraph to H of D, for example.  But more
important,  if the text does have any unity, it was constructed by
Pound's editing I think.  Big topic.
Nancy

>>> [log in to unmask] 10/21/04 5:53:18 PM >>>
So tell us, Jennifer, why was Eliot so
compliant with E.P's and Viv's cuttings?

Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jennifer Formichelli" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 7:47 AM
Subject: Re: ???/ Death by Water


> Dear Listers,
>
> Once again, in discussions of the TWL drafts, I think it is
erroneous
> to refer to what Pound altered, expunged, etc. Pound did not write
TWL
> ; Eliot did. Pound did not _revise_ TWL; Eliot did.
>
>
> Pound edited TWL, at Eliot's request. Sometimes, TSE took up Pound's
> suggestions or heeded his advice and criticisms; sometimes he
didn't.
>
> Pound did not, therefore, as Will put it, 'cut back' Death by Water.
> Eliot did.
>
> Yours, Jennifer
> On Tuesday, October 19, 2004, at 09:28  AM, William Gray wrote:
>
> > Yes, I think people are just taking a break. We need some good
> > discussion topics to get things revived again. It seems like we've
> > gone for several months without engaging Eliot or his works in a
> > significant way. There are some interesting tidbits here and
there,
> > but no meaty discussions.
> >
> > I have no idea if this is a topic anyone is interested in, but I
have
> > been doing some initial research on the "Death by Water" section
of
> > TWL. Would anyone care to talk about this section as it was in the
> > manuscripts? This was the section that Pound cut back the most, and
I
> > often wonder what the poem would have been like with the entire
> > section intact. Any takers?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Will
> >
> >>>> [log in to unmask] 10/19/04 11:58AM >>>
> > Is the list still operational?
> >