where does he stand, really?
The dead can't stand, pal.
>discussion of his politics
>discussion of his theory
>discussion of where to start with his poetry
>no discussion of his poetry
C-L-A-S-S-I-C
>>7747969
where does he stand as a poet?
i've got him top 3, best of his era
>>7747949
Ezra Pound™
…obscure
…ignored
…good
…erudite+
%has quality in and of itself but no relation to anything else besides
%creates its own space and mode
Current most relevant work: "ABC of Reading"
His poetry, his Cantos, will be relevant again 4-10 years from now.
>>7747949
As the most influential figure of the modernist movement, and as one of the only people to ever actually understand language and the purpose of poetry. Without him, Ulysses, A Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man, The Waste Land, and a large portion of Hemingway's works wouldn't exist. His importance cannot be overstated.
>>7747981
Ulysses, too, wouldn't exist without the following people:
–Debussy
–Christ
–Plato
–Parnell
–Stanislaus
–Nora
–Lucia
–Eliot
–The grocery shop guy
–The grocery shop woman
–The guy at the mall
–The readers
–Pussens the cat
–Ezra Pound's hot sister
–James Joyce's alter ego
–Hemingway
–. . .
No, but really, "one of the only people to ever actually understand language and the purpose of poetry", corny af
>>7747989
But it's true, though: he understood the relationship between the word and the idea it invokes.
>>7747981
>nd as one of the only people to ever actually understand language and the purpose of poetry.
this is dumb as fuck and implies you are also one of those people, which obviously is not true
>>7748031
So where've you got him?
His poetry doesn't really have any impact for me, not sure why.
The cantos on a whole are trash, philosophizing and political ramblings/racism, tho they have some good parts admittedly. For how talented and influential of a poet he is, he didn't write much good poetry. Still, his few canonical poems are as good as anyone's
>>7748066
interesting take. where are you at politically? not trying to explain away your criticism of his cantos, just curious.
>>7748068
I'm pretty far left, but for what it's worth I don't think that really affects my appreciation of Pound, or really anybody else. Most major poets, I've noticed, are racist, reactionary, conservative, antisemitic etc etc. You just have to compartmentalize. I like Robert Frost even though he's a pretty abhorrent person, for example (http://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2016/01/05/go-out-in-a-blaze-of-glory/) I really have trouble thinking of a good leftist poet.
>>7748104
>You just have to compartmentalize
Or you could just stop getting triggered.
>>7748112
>racism is okay
nice meme
>>7748119
How is it not?
>>7748130
>*tips Make America Great Again hat*
>>7748135
>*Tips Bernie: The Economic Mutilator Hat*
>>7748138
Guilty
>>7748104
>“You didn’t want to just fade out, did you? Why not go out in a blaze of glory?”
the absolute madman.
are you all the way to left-anarchy or do you stop short of that?
>>7748046
what is that question supposed to mean
>>7748104
Have you tried Bruce Andrews?
I don't have any paper so shut up is one of my favourite books.
>>7747954
Dude that's necrophobe.
Stop being so intolerant.
>>7748148
Nah. I'm not really rigidly tied down to any specific left ideology; I guess I haven't made up my mind yet. I guess socialist describes me well enough?
>>7748153
where's he at in the pantheon? is he in your pantheon? if not, why?
>>7748155
Not really, besides his absolute best known work. I like the little I've read well enough though. I'll look into him.
>>7747949
Would you guys recommend The ABC of Reading for an aspiring poet? Or is it shit?
>>7748180
If you think you're up to it, yes. Nothing written by Pound is shit.
>>7748162
i'm right-anarchist with sympathies towards nationalism, fascism, and monarchy.
It's interesting, what you brought up, about poets tending towards conservatism and traditionalism.
I think that's part of what drew me to poetry. Not my political beliefs, but some pre-existing psychological bent that drew me to both.
>>7748104
Have you tried Mayakovski?
>>7748192
I would disagree. Some poems in The Cantos are terrible. If I had a life of leisure, I would edit the Cantos myself. Because if you just excised the crap, it would be in the top ten of poetry books ever.
That he wrote some utter shit does not, however, detract from his greatness IMO.
>>7748211
I think there are more conservative/reactionary poets because good poetry, even experimental poetry, is almost always grounded in the tradition and therefore necessarily backwards-looking, in the same way that right ideologies necessarily look to the past much more so than lefties.
I'll bet you really like Eliot/ read the New Criterion
>>7748232
I'll put him on the list
>>7748248
>good poetry
>backwards looking
>who is Whitman
>who is Hart Crane
>who is Baudelaire
Hell even Shakespeare raped the texts of his time to create new ones, and his works were far from Christian/Religious
>>7748211
>>7748248
>I'll bet you really like Eliot
Funny you say that, I reread The Waste Land and some of his other poems yesterday.
I wonder who the better left-leaning poets are.
>>7748274
I don't mean to attach any negative connotation to backwards looking. Whiteman/Crane/Baudelaire are so original/singular because they engage so deeply and thoughtfully with tradition. Crane could never have written any of his best work without engaging with the Romantics, for example.
Don't really know what you're trying to say about Shakespeare. Shakespeare was absolutely influenced shaped Christianity. I don't see how one can deny that. He of course borrowed from his contemporaries as well, but he had a classical humanist education, and was primarily concerned with outdoing his Greek/Roman influences.
>>7748291
I mean, people posted a few in this thread. None major tho.
>>7748290
You have shit taste in memes, my friend
>>7748211
>ideology that intentionally slaughtered millions of innocents for "muh racial community"
>good
>>7748308
Does the Lord Byron mean anything to you? Or William Blake?
Both lefties.
That was OC bitch. Read the filename.
>>7748319
>IDEOLOGY THAT INTENTIONALLY SLAUGHTERED MILLION OF INNOCENTS FOR "MUH RACIAL EQUALITY"
>GOOD
>>7748319
>I don't know shit about anything, here's my useless opinion
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm
>>7748319
I never said my sympathies were rational or good.
>>7748321
Yeah, but desu I'm embarrassingly underread before Yeats. Didn't know.
>>7748337
El Duce was a bitch. Adolf bullied him into instituting anti-Semitic laws. Fascists just can't walk the talk, no matter how hard they try.
>>7748337
It's not specifically about race. Fascism doesn't function without an Other.
>>7748321
Don't forget Milton was on the left too!
>>7748321
Good recommendations. I've read a bit of Blake, but I haven't pulled the trigger on a copy of Byron's works yet. I guess it's time for a more thorough reading of Blake and to buy some Byron.
>>7748346
>El Duce
upper kek
>>7748211
>right-anarchist
>sympathies 'towards' fascism and monarchy
>>7748391
he's probably imbruglia it's the same thing. Honestly I'm a commie but I'm really tired of this shit, even when it's true. This really isn't /pol/, fuck off antifa
>>7748397
thanks. not to derail the thread too much, but would you consider communism anarchist?
I'm not as well read on communism as I should be.
Live it out, Ezra Pound, do not instigate
more eyes to incite what you already are
into some form of martyr. You reprobate,
without a platform!, does any ego bar
you from you? Or does nothing worthy prove
itself virtuous? Are you all that they say
you are- the one whose provocations move
poet after poet to greater display
of themselves? Or is your name already
vanished into parody? Have you a start
for those who have not encountered your steady
verse, laced with the subtlety of a fart
in a church filled end to end- to its girth-
with droners and deaf-mutes? Do you know their worth?
>>7748484
If by anarchism you simply mean the absence of a state, then it's usually present in every communist tendency in one way or another. Anarcho-communism gets an obvious mention.
But 'anarchism' as a philosophy is incompatible with any kind of politics because of spooks and stuff. So an-communism and an-capitalism and an-nationalism and everything else basically besides Stirner is self-contradictory
>>7748560
>If by anarchism you simply mean the absence of a state
that's what I mean
>everything else basically besides Stirner is self-contradictory
seems i should pick up some Stirner to better understand this.
I see him memed a lot
I think I get your basic point though-- that anarchy is a position opposed to states, thereby making politics irrelevant beyond that.
To clarify my view, I'm anarchist (no state) first. After that, I think capitalism is probably the best way of allocating resources, but I'd like to see an anarchic world where variations of no-state systems are tried.
[N.b. I know anarchism is not likely/feasible in the near future/ my lifetime]
>>7748609
>I think I get your basic point though-- that anarchy is a position opposed to states, thereby making politics irrelevant beyond that
Not really, no.
What I mean is that there are several political movements which claim to be anarchist, while usually being simply a 'no-state' version of another ideology - an-com for communism, an-cap for capitalism, nat-am for fascism, an-prim for green politics.
But the philosophical idea of anarchism by definition rejects all authority. If taken at face value, this includes not just the state, or political parties, or the police or whatever, but the authority of all "isms" as such. Stirner was the only one in his time to follow through on this.
Kropotkin once paid lip service to this idea but he was still an 'anarcho-communist', arguing that communism was a natural state and therefore not any kind of spook or ideology. I'm pretty sure other an-xisms do the same in regards to their central values (property rights or ethnicity or 'nature' or whatever) but to be honest all of this looks kinda pathetic and childish to me.
And regarding your own views - sorry, but of all the anarchisms an-cap is by far the most contradictory one. Capitalism is based on the right of private property, (which definitely isn't "natural" since it wasn't present in primitive human societies in any form), therefore it always needs some sort of state to enforce that right and defend it.
>>7748328
6/10
>>7748735
That makes sense.
I wouldn't call myself an ancap, because I'm not confident enough in it to tell other people that it's the "best way". I'm not well enough read on political theory.
My particular issue is with the morality ancaps employ, which ties into your criticism of them-- property rights are bound to the NAP which justifies private property, etc.. I would like to believe that their beliefs are "morally justified", because it feel right to me (as I said above, I have sympathies I can't justify), but their arguments don't seem sound to me.
When it gets right down to it, I guess I can't explain any of my political beliefs in such a way that they'd stand to scrutiny.
So that leaves me telling people I lean right-anarchist-- because I think anarchy is the only way to see what system is actually "the best" and because I have right-leaning sympathies. Given that, I could easily be convinced by good arguments for just about any political system.
>>7747969
pound fans will scream about this no matter what the discussion has actually been
they're the most obnoxious and defensive fanbase of any writer
>>7748058
It tends to repay extra attention and close reading.
But I'm not sure it's worth it. Pound has a very interesting view of the poetry, and history, and people—but also a very terrible one which begins to grate if I spend too long reading him. Sort of like Kipling that way, but much worse.
>>7748239
>If I had a life of leisure, I would edit the Cantos myself.
Are you the same guy who tried correcting Joyce in Dubliners?
>>7749187
Don't worry my friend, someone has already edited Pound
http://www.cosmoetica.com/TOP64-DES61.htm
>>7749196
>Portrait D’une Femme
Your mind and you are our Sargasso Sea,
London has swept about you this score years
And bright ships left you this or that in fee:
Ideas, old gossip, oddments of all things,
Strange spars of knowledge and dimmed wares of price.
Great minds have sought you--lacking someone else.
You have been second always. Tragical?
No. You preferred it to the usual thing:
One dull man, dulling and uxorious,
One average mind--with one thought less, each year.
Oh, you are patient, I have seen you sit
Hours, where something might have floated up.
And now you pay one. Yes, you richly pay.
You are a person of some interest, one comes to you
And takes strange gain away:
Trophies fished up; some curious suggestion;
Fact that leads nowhere; and a tale for two,
Pregnant with mandrakes, or with something else
That might prove useful and yet never proves,
That never fits a corner or shows use,
Or finds its hour upon the loom of days:
The tarnished, gaudy, wonderful old work;
Idols and ambergris and rare inlays,
These are your riches, your great store; and yet
For all this sea-hoard of deciduous things,
Strange woods half sodden, and new brighter stuff:
In the slow float of differing light and deep,
No! there is nothing! In the whole and all,
Nothing that's quite your own.
Yet this is you.
>A flattering portrait? No. But not as harsh as the prior critics said. It works well as both a general & specific critique. A little sententious & redundant, but overall, just a little nip & tucking should make it an easier read.
>Portrait D’une Femme
Your mind and you are our Sargasso Sea,
London has swept about you this score years
And bright ships left you this or that in fee:
Ideas, old gossip, oddments of all things,
Strange spars of knowledge and dimmed wares of price.
Great minds have sought you--lacking someone else.
You have been second always. Tragical?
No. You preferred it to the usual thing:
One dull man, dulling and uxorious,
One average mind--with one thought less, each year.
You are a person of some interest
That never fits a corner or shows use,
The tarnished, gaudy, wonderful old work;
Idols and ambergris and rare inlays,
These are your riches, your great store; and yet
There is nothing! In the whole and all,
Nothing that's quite your own.
Yet this is you.
>From 30 lines to 18- but what’s really missing? The poem still has great images & can work in the general & specific- but we are rid of some tired Romantic/Victorian images like a mandrake, + tired themes of pre-Feminist femininity like:
Oh, you are patient, I have seen you sit
Hours, where something might have floated up.
And now you pay one. Yes, you richly pay.
>In short, this is a perfect example of addition by subtraction. Now, if we could only subtract 100 or so Cantos….
>Final Score: (1-100):
>Ezra Pound’s Portrait D’une Femme: 88
>TOP’s Portrait D’une Femme: 95
>>7747949
I used to think he was a mediocre poet (but great essayist) after skimming through the cantos and personae, but I read a metric fuck ton of his essays and non-fiction and got a feel for what he was really trying to do. Then I went a reread personae, and I've been reading the entirety of the cantos for a few months now. I've reevaluated the guy, he's really a visionary. The Cantos are something else, really. They're massive. They're big, they're big boy they're big and if you don't get poetry you won't get the Cantos, and if you don't get the cantos you're not ready for them.
>>7747981
>one of the only people to ever actually understand language and the purpose of poetry
You mean understand /his/ purpose of poetry. Pound was idealistic.
>>7748066
You don't get them.
>>7748180
Yes, it's in the poetry wiki page for a reason
I wouldn't bother responding to anybody discussing politics when they're discussing Pound's poetry. If you want to discuss politics in Pound's poetry, you want to talk about a specific part. Otherwise politics in the whole aren't relevant to Pound's vision regarding poetry and its history. It's not genuine to bother discussing politics when you talk about Pound as a whole, it's only meaningful when you talk about Pound in the specific.
>>7748104
Hugh MacDiarmid
