Print

Print


I agree that Pound was not a co-author.  I did not say he was.  My
objection was to "rudimentary."  He was an editor and did what editors
do in a very major way.  And sometimes editing does produce a very
changed or new text. I think we really agree here.
Nancy

>>> Richard Seddon <[log in to unmask]> 06/06/07 8:34 AM >>>
Nancy 

I had no intention of diminishing Pound's contribution.  I just wanted
to
put it in a more proper perspective than that of "primary writer".  

In the same light I have difficulty accepting your assertion "It was a
collaboration in any case". 

The surgeon performing a caesarian is in no light a parent of the child.
 

A thesis chairman who can get alternately distinctly amused and
frustrated
by a student's logic is not writing the thesis.  He/she does red line
much:
that bunch he/she doesn't peremptorily throw in the trash.  I think my
thesis chairman's major frustration in life right now is the guilt he
feels
on not being able to suggest topics simple enough for me.  Even when he
comes up with *The Topic* he still will not be the author of My thesis.

How many scholarly papers are drastically changed every year after peer
review?  The author remains the same and the peer reviewer does not
become a
coauthor.  The peer reviewer is not an editor but performs a service for
the
editor.  Pound was TSE's peer reviewer.

If TWL is a major event in modernist literature it is to a large part
due to
Pound's efforts.  Pound forced TSE to a style and an overall philosophy
of
what good modernist literature should be.  But,(!) he was not the author
or
editor of TWL.

Richard Seddon