[lit-ideas] Re: Fwd: Re: Pound's treason
- From: Adriano Palma <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:50:53 +0000
This is correct, although if one were to look at history T S Eliot was
anti-Semitic of the very traditional sort (generated by his Christian beliefs),
while the period in which Pound developed in views (see e.g. “con usura”) is
marked by different strains.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ijv9Kpb1kHs
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Omar Kusturica
Sent: 14 February 2015 11:39
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Fwd: Re: Pound's treason
I've refreshed my memory somewhat... anti-semitism does not seem to be visible
in Pound's poems, but it is found in the poetry of his friend, T.S. Eliott:
http://forward.com/articles/142722/ts-eliots-on-again-off-again-anti-semitism/
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Ed Farrell
<ewf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ewf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
On Feb 13, 2015, at 11:32 PM, David Ritchie
<profdritchie@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:profdritchie@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
On Feb 13, 2015, at 8:06 PM, Edward Farrell wrote:
Omar,
I think Mike Geary is basically correct, but it is a nuanced issue. Let's take
my example of the bridge one more time (but not as industrial product in
Marxist terms), and look at your intent in making the bridge: you made it so
the terrorists to whom you sold the nuclear weapons have a ready means of
delivering the bomb to a populated area. So now, insofar as your artifact is
related to its creator, it is thoroughly immoral--the product of a criminal,
and made for a criminal purpose to boot. Yet after you've been caught and
incarcerated and the terrorists thwarted in their purpose, the bridge remains,
and can be used to carry innocent citizens to and fro, and no one will much
object because the bridge is not, as you put it, "the very expression of
personality" of its creator so most needn't associate it with you when they
drive over it anyway.
Pound wrote these lines in his younger days:
I have heard a wee wind searching
Unusually, I'm going to anticipate JLS:
1) Can't call a wind wee because wee was originally a reference to weight
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=wee
It makes no difference since he is referring to the Wee Wind 16, which is made
by Airstream and since air stream is air in motion 'wee wind' is perfectly
acceptable under any circumstances regardless of your or JLS's objections.
http://vintageairstream.com/photo-archives/1948-wee-wind-16/
Also, a pound is a weight therefore even in the Scottish usage wee is simply a
circular reference to Ezra Pound.
2) Pound wasn't Scottish, so saying "wee" is twee or twaddle, or something of
that ilk
Nothing of the sort; the pound is great currency among Scots and of course
there's no American pound as we know; Pound is therefore as Scottish as haggis
whether for a penny or a pound, regardless of what you or JLS may say.
3) Sassoon was also put in the madhouse when some other judgement would have
been awkward
4) My last post of the day isn't "the Last Post"
5) To quote Eddie Izzard on fascists, inbreeding and degeneration, "I have no
idear"
6) As Monty Python on Australian philosophy put it, "There is no rule six."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruces_sketch
David Ritchie
nearby the ex-governor in
Portland, Oregon
Ed Farrell
Other related posts:
