HOW TO FUCKING READ: POUND’S “MODERN SYLLABUS”

Flaubert: the only author after Villon (15th cen) that Pound really felt you had to read.

Ezra Pound’s essay “How To Read” was published in Vermonter  Horace Greeley’s old newspaper, the one Karl Marx wrote for, The New York Tribune, which libeled Poe hours after Poe’s death—in that obituary by Rufus Griswold (signed ‘Ludwig’).  The Trib declined after Greeley’s death in November of 1872, Greeley having just lost the U.S. presidential election to Grant, and it was a struggling paper when it bought the larger New York Herald and became the New York Herald Tribune in 1924.  The paper still wasn’t turning a profit when it lent space to Pound for his pompous essay in 1929.

Pound was in his mid-40s in 1929, living permanently in Mussolini’s Italy, and appearing in print only in minor things published by his friends.  T.S. Eliot’s fame (Eliot was one of the friends publishing him at this time) would eventually help Pound’s own, and his treasonous activity (in the eyes of the U.S. government) in World War Two would make him better known still.  Pound had won the “Dial Prize” in 1928 for some re-translating (thievery), but the Dial, Emerson and Margaret Fuller’s old mag (Emerson and Fuller wrote for Greeley’s newspaper; Fuller lived—as a friend—with Greeley for years) was just a claque of Pound’s friends, anyway.

It is doubtful the Tribune even knew who Pound was in 1929, but the paper prided itself on a certain international sophistication and when they realized the essay had a ‘London angle,’ the aging dandy was in.

Considered as a piece of straight-forward pedagogical writing, “How To Read” is the merest trash, and the question which most notably arises concerning the work is: how much actual sanity is here?   The inkhorn recommendations are full of irritable impatience, displaying the kind of prejudice and bias we usually meet in cases of a broken spirit urging upon itself winding and mazy delusions of its own self-importance.

The method to “How To Read’s” madness emerges only if we consider the general strategy of Modernism in its claque-identity; only in this regard does the movement known as Modernism make any sense at all.   Modernism is a claque-mentality; there are no individual minds in it.

If we compare ‘How To Read” with Poe’s “Rationale of Verse,” for instance, we find both works displaying the same spirit: dismissing the old pedants as fools; in the latter, work, however, the alternative to the old pedantry is specifically laid out.

Pound’s little essay never leaves the realm of boilerplate; it is a long introduction that delivers no specifics beyond crude offerings of clever terminology and name-dropping.

“A man can learn more music by working on a Bach fugue until he can take it apart and put it together, than by playing through ten dozen heterogeneous albums.”

True, this is very true, and Pound shows in this quote from “How To Read” that he is not nearly as deranged as he sometimes appears, but nearly anyone can say such a thing; the problem is that Pound himself is  unfortunately an author of those “heterogeneous albums” and not a “Bach fugue.”

The Bach Fuge of Letters would be works…oh, I don’t know, Plato’s dialogues, the plays and sonnets of Shakespeare, the poetry of Milton and Pope, the Criticism and short fiction of Poe—that American who wrote his Bach Fugues of the short story, detective fiction, science fiction, and essays of literary science just 40 years before Pound was born?

Pound, however, ignores Plato, Poe and Milton, dismisses Pope, calls Marlowe and Shakespeare “embroidery” and pushes to the fore his friends Yeats and Joyce, the minor French poets such as Corbiere who influenced his friend T.S. Eliot, Flaubert, who gained notoriety as Joyce did, by an obscenity case, praises Henry James, who belongs squarely in the transatlantic, Bloomsbury claque which traces back to Henry James the Elder’s friends Greeley and Emerson and, of course, brother William James, the nitrous oxide philosopher, Emerson’s godson, Gertrude Stein’s professor, and godfather to Deweyan artsy-fartsy Modernism.

Pound, in the guise of a teacher in “How To Read,” is, in fact, a party host.

Pound’s friend, Ford Madox Ford, was a Pre-Raphaelite painter’s grandson; the Pre-Raphaelites were models for the Modernists, and you can see it in their name: pre-Raphaelite.

Yea!  Who needs Raphael and the Renaissance?

“What the renaissance gained in direct examination of natural phenomena, in part lost in losing the feel and desire for exact descriptive terms.  I mean that the medieval mind had little but words to deal with, and it was more careful in its definitions and verbiage.”

Pound probably copied this from Ruskin while he sat half-drunk in a villa somewhere, talking economics with Yeats and Joyce.

Have your manifesto

1. Reject high points of history.

2. Elevate the primitive elements of more obscure eras in the name of a primitivist, purist futurism.

Pound, for all his supposedly “classical” gestures, is doing in “How To Read” exactly what Allen Tate and John Crowe Ransom went on to do: vaguely attack the universities as pedantic (what they need is Ransom, Tate, Creative Writing and Pound!) and cast aspersions on whole eras of Letters, such as Eliot did with his loony “Dissociation of Sensibility” theory which said that literature went to hell after Donne.

“After Villon and for several centuries, poetry can be considered as fioritura, as an efflorescence, almost an effervescence, and without any new roots.”

Yea!  That’s how you fucking read!

114 Comments

  1. horatiox said,

    July 31, 2010 at 7:43 pm

    Well, yes and no. Pound doesn’t dismiss the ancients, even platonic chestnuts (would have to search but I’m fairly sure that EP as a Dantean at times respected neo-platonists, with some reservations…). He admires the English metaphysical poets Donne, et al. True, he objects to Milton. Why, Tom? Perhaps because Milton was the protestant par exemple, a pal of Roundheads, Cromwell, etc?? Ergo, Pound sounds fairly…Irish in that regard: any pal of Cromwell being an enemy of..Eire. So he tends to favor…catholics and royalists (tho Donne was ..anglican). You are mistaken re Pope as well, who Pound thought was a great stylist, along with Dean Swift.

    Does he reject Shakespeare? I don’t have my copy of How to F-ing Read, or Literary Essays (rather completer) but he approves of S-speare, methinks, tho not completely a theatrical sort (actually at times Pound does seem a bit..thespian like. …one of his charms–Benedict if you will…). And Flaubert’s only name on the list. Doesn’t he include..Rimbaud? Swinburne? He’s not a complete philistine.

    I think you are correct Pound’s dislike of American literature, but not say the Founding fathers. However crackerbarrel it may seem, Pound praises Jefferson and Madison in some of his economic scribblings (so I would say he’s not an Emersonian, really). See the Jefferson vs Mussolini essay (online I believe)

    He’s not Keynes either, but those who would read him intelligently– instead of dismiss him unintelligently– might note his ideas re politics are fairly…Aristotelian (as were say Madison’s). Pound may have been flawed (“morally” speaking) but I think you are underestimating his intellectual power.

    • notevensuperficial said,

      August 1, 2010 at 3:19 pm

      Well, well, well, no . . . and yes. EP, Dante, neo-platonists. English metaphysical poets Donne et unDonne. Milton protestant Roundheads Cromwell. Pal of enemy of Eire, catholics royalists anglicans. Pope, Pope Dean, Pope Swift. Pope Dean Swift the Leisurely Repenter.

      Rather compleat, thinks me. Completely rathe, me thingy. Methinks, ratherly completerly. Shakespeare – argue with him, me “thinker”. Flaubert. Rambo, Swinburne, incompleat Goliath.

      The Founding Fathers, sacred and holy, blessed be thy names. Crackerbarrel Jefferson, crackerbarrel Madison, crackerbarrel Emerson – thinking-cap Mussolini.

      Not-Keynes Aristotle Madison: Pound! Quod Erat Delibandum Libere

      Make no misunderestimation.

    • horatiox said,

      August 4, 2010 at 7:39 pm

      As far as showing the dreaded “T-word”, the above comment, uh derailment is nothing but Troll. No assertions, no arguments, merely copy and insinuate, attempt the ad hominem, hint at the bogus classicism and authori-tay (I doubt this clown “Soopie” knows a valid syllogism from his metamucil anyway).

  2. notevensuperficial said,

    July 31, 2010 at 11:21 pm

    Not sure, Tom, but I think I’d fucking read that last quotation as “After Villon and for several centuries, . . .” ?

    • thomasbrady said,

      August 1, 2010 at 1:30 am

      thanks, supe… fixed.

  3. thomasbrady said,

    August 1, 2010 at 2:08 am

    horatiox,

    I don’t see this ‘Irish’ you are seeing in Pound. I see Pound panting after blueblood, fascist respectability—and maybe fascist doesn’t look ‘respectable’ now, but in the 30s a lot of people thought fascism was going to win. But then the unfolding of history tends to ruin a lot of bets.

    I do see Emerson as Jeffersonian: Elites ruling an agrarian world.

    The only mention Pope gets in “How to Read” is

    “Chapman and Pope have Iliads that are of interest to specialists; so far as I know, the only translation of Homer that one can read with continued pleasure is in early French by Hugh Salel; he at least, was intent on telling the story, and not wholly muddled with accessories.”

    This comes across as slick and dishonest; does anyone think Pound “read with continued pleasure” Hugh Salel’s translation of the Iliad in early French? The trick here, of course, is that it’s doubtful any reader of Pound in the Herald Tribune “reads with continued pleasure” Hugh Salel. Therefore, the reader dares not raise any objection to Pound’s dismissal of Pope’s translation. And then Pound, who never told a coherent story in his life, has the nerve to say that he prefers the early French version of the Iliad to Pope’s because the early French version, which Pound reads with “continued pleasure”—while dividing time between Olga Rudge and her baby, and Dorothy Shakespeare and her baby, and the other thousand projects Pound was continually engaged in—this early French version “was intent on telling the story.” As they now say in America, BWHAHAHAHAHA.

    You are welcome to Pound; I’m not saying that you haven’t found some good stuff here and there; maybe his U.S. mint daddy gave him some economic insights; there must be an Economics Primer authored by Pound that boils it all down for us, somewhere; but hell if I’m going to take apart the Cantos to find it.

    I dunno, I hope I’m not breaking some sacred icon of yours, here…

    Tom

  4. horatiox said,

    August 1, 2010 at 3:33 am

    –fascism of one sort or another appealed to quite a few irishmen in 20s and 30s. It’s not always clear what fascism meant–early on, it was a type of futurist- socialism, against …zionism (not to invoke the dreaded Anti-S-ism, but thats what it was), royalists, even capitalism. Actually I was just reading something on the Night of the Long Knives–the SA refused to wear the swastikas, and join the german industrialists. Hitler (following orders from Goering and Himmler, probably) finally decided to rat out his old pal Roehm (a vet and creepy queer, but …not quite gestapo material), because Roehm threatened to have the SA and any other nazi-socialists protest the capitalists, and Himmler (so it seems). Of course they arrest Roehm, and then shoot him and his comrades…but the original SA was sort of working class…(and at times marched in no. italy)

    –My reading suggests Pound was not sympathetic to the Bloomsbury set, or to the English upper crust. He was friends with Joyce (initially), and Joyce at times sounds somewhat…leftist, really, as in IRA sort of leftist, hatred for the loyalists, Brits, protestants, etc. Irish politics is a tricky thing–some irish were supporters of Germany in WWI (probably even a few in WWII).

    Jefferson’s a democrat, no elitist. He follows from Locke and the whigs. Now, early democrats were not all…abolitionists, but that’s a different matter. TJ’s certainly against the King, the royals, and opposed to Hamilton’s finance schemes and even the Supreme court. Jefferson pretty clearly sided with the anti-Federalists on most issues (like with ratification of US-Con), and penned some eloquent letter contra John Marshall. Politically, Pound waffles between Jeffersonian views and perhaps federalism of a sort (tho some mistake Pound for a Burkean, he’s..not)–tho he certainly opposed Hamiltonian conservatives (the real conservatives). Stendhal’s one of his faves, and …Stendhal supported the french Rev. did he not? I think Pound’s similar to the French moderates who supported Girondin (Condorcet, etc)–favoring the ending of monarchy, but not the jacobins necessarily.

    I don’t think Emerson was that bright politically, but sort of a boston progressive–not really “democratic” in the Lockean sense. Since he was an abolitionist, he was probably not sympathetic to Jefferson’s faction (tho TJ apparently did favor abolition in principle but didn’t really do much to bring it about). Wasn’t Carlyle supportive of French Rev.? He was not PC , of course (then Marx used the n-word probably nearly as much as Carlyle did), but not a Tory. He was pals with Dickens.

    Pound’s specific literary points don’t really matter to me (i’ve got nothing at stake in poetry game, since I find…95% of it useless, and more useless as time marches on…), though I find his comments on Stendhal as sort of erasing all previous poetry interesting. However, contrary to yr views, Pound does sort of offer veiled praise to Byron (and rest of Roms). He’s a rara avis…and a quite different sort of character than what you see in Lit-land after the plaths, the beats, the haiku-sters arrive (ie, post-Freudian academy).

  5. Marcus Bales said,

    August 1, 2010 at 11:44 am

    What’s all this appeal to authority getting you? As Aquinas says Boethius says, appeal to authority is the weakest sort of argument. ho ho.

    Why not argue the merits of various poems instead of the putative beliefs of people who, even if you’re right about their views, aren’t really that good of authorities. Pound claiming that he read early French with continuing pleasure! Bah. But honi soi qui mal y pense, while we’re on early French, and who cares about Pound’s poseur ways?

    What about the poems? Not necessarily Pound’s poems, but what about the poems by the people writing now? Why not use some of that amazing energy, formidable talent, and impressive intelligence by focusing on the poems?

    • notevensuperficial said,

      August 1, 2010 at 2:49 pm

      Oh, but Marcus – in a sense, fascism futurist-socialism zionism royalist capitalism, as well you know. Not excluding, in a real sense, Hitler Goering Himmler . . . Roehm.

      My “reading” suggests Pound Bloomsbury Joyce; the set, the upper crust – you know! – IRA sort of leftist, loyalists Brits protestants. Doubtless, Marcus, it’s indubitable: it admits of null dubeity.

      Politics is a tricky thing, I don’t need to tell you.

      Jefferson Locke – and the whigs! – early democrats abolitionists Hamilton anti-Federalists John Marshall Burke (Burkean Burke, anti-Burkean Burke, Burke pro and contra, Burserkean) real conservatives Stendhal Girondin Condorcet (etc.) Jacobins Emerson sort-of-boston-progressives Carlyle Marx Tory Dickens [gasp]. Whew!

      Poetry, Marcus? Poetry?! 95% useless; 1% useful, 1% practical, 1% utile, 1% helpful, 1% practico-theoretico-aesthetico-dramaturgico-remunerative. 100% combustible (in a volcano), 100% comestible (on a cracker), 100% congestible (through a major downtown artery). 99.9+% Schnitt.

      Pound. Byron. The plaths, the beats, the haiku-sters. Freudoid, Marcus.

      In a very real sense.

      • horatiox said,

        August 1, 2010 at 3:37 pm

        Which part do you disagree with, satanist?
        That you’re offended, or don’t approve, little man Soopie, sort of pleases me–I doubt one belle-lettrist has mentioned Jefferson in the last 40 years (and EP doesn’t just wave a flag, or rubber stamp Jeff. He considers the American Rev. sort of important, unlike most lit-snobs). Pound’s like engaged as they used to say. Not to say ..Magnanimous, per Ari’s Nico. Ethics. Another book you never understood.

      • notevensuperficial said,

        August 1, 2010 at 5:00 pm

        Not to say…Magnanimous, per Ari’s Nico. Ethics.

        That’s beautiful, cuisinartiox – three virile boreatioxic syllables shy of a — haiku!:

        I Want My A Ri Stotle

        Pleases me. Not to
        say…Magnanimous, per A-
        ri’s Nico. Ethics.

        Your scatterplaqued spray of syllabus dot-spaghetti exemplifies the intellectual defect of ateXnia, referred to by “Ari[stotle]” in his Nicomachean Ethics (1140a 21-22): “artlessness is craftsmanly habituation by means of false reasoning” (my transl).

        Sound familiar, bore? {Quickly – to the google machine . . .)

      • horatiox said,

        August 1, 2010 at 5:27 pm

        Squeeek!

        Don’t bother, supita girl. Even in yr cheesy pseudo-postmodernist terms you have nothing but “ressentiment” to offer. Google that one, quickly.

        As far as academic cred. lets compare our GRE scores, Or not. Yr not Pound or Joyce, just another …puto. I simply don’t give a phuck about yr 20 years teaching comma correction at Peoria college, or yr published works on whatever lit-hack.

      • notevensuperficial said,

        August 1, 2010 at 6:29 pm

        lets compare our […] scores

        Can’t. Make. It. Up.

        “ressentiment”

        bore, masterly putillo, you do realize where my blogonym comes from? Quickly, to the you-know-what . . .

      • horatiox said,

        August 1, 2010 at 6:37 pm

        Yikes!

        Yr phunny, Supita. Hey how we compare our proofs to the halting problem of Goedel too, logic-xtra lite.

        Don’t you have like some notes to Proust to edit or something. Or new NAMBLA -l-serv messages.

        yawn

  6. thomasbrady said,

    August 1, 2010 at 3:22 pm

    I used to think one could figure out history by examining ideologies…you can’t. The successful politicians are the ones where you can’t figure out if they are Left or Right until it’s too late… History is not comprised of ideologies; it is comprised of strategies, based on unique circumstances which show themselves once, and never come again. The world in the 1930s was unique and will never be that way again, ever.

    My point here is not, and has never been: “Look! Pound was a fascist! Don’t you understand what an evil man he was?” That’s not the point. Everyone roughly knows about Pound. As Auden said, the dead are modified in the guts of the living. If new readers want to wash the blood off Pound, who am I to object? If you take 100 readers, you’ll probably get 100 Pounds.

    On the other hand, can a patient, scholarly accumulation of facts possibly lead to certain insights? Yes. One shouldn’t be ignorant of facts, either.

    I think it does matter, though, when someone like Marjorie Perloff says that Pound is our greatest critic, and “How To Read” is constantly cited as this masterpiece—without really being discussed. Here, I think, something can be done. That’s what I care about.

    Marcus, I think that history, laws, politics, are more important than poems. Poems, like mercy, fall like Portia’s gentle rain, but history is the weather-making machinery itself. We have to talk about the lightning and the wind and the dark clouds, too.

    horatiox, you wrote “after the haiku-sters arrive” but Pound and Ford and Hulme were the original “haiku-sters” before WW I. Yone Noguchi was a very important (ignored) figure during this time, who traveled in the West and mingled with, and influenced the Moderns in Pound’s little circle. The Russo-Japanese War was key: the stunning Japanese victory in that war put Japan on the world cultural map and all of a sudden Boston and London blueblood literary ladies had to own everything Japanese; the haiku rage of 1905 was exactly what the so-called Imagistes were captializing on, and Pound and Ford were on the ground floor of that little ‘zine movement. Hulme, like so many young British men, was killed in WW I, Eliot wrote ‘Prufrock’ in 1915 (the yellow fog section reads just like an early Hulme Imagiste poem), then came to London and met Pound, their lawyer John Quinn, and friend and ‘Dial’ magazine owner Scofield Thayer, plus a Broadway version of Dracula producer fixed a publishing splash for ‘The Waste Land’ in 1922 (Thayer gave his friend Eliot the 1922 Dial Prize before Pound had even started the edits) and the rest is history.

    • horatiox said,

      August 1, 2010 at 3:56 pm

      Perhaps. I use his books as guides. For interesting information. Not as dogma, or merely “Ad Auctoritas” (tho that is sort of relevant…what Pound says counts more than what the latest starbucks ahhtiste says). The political aspects interest me more than poetry–and agree that history, laws, politics, are more important than poems (and add…philosophy and science…). Yet Scarriet looked like a literary blog. Even smells like it when your crony Supe posts.

      That said, I don’t think you quite understand the motivations behind the modernist move. Yes, it’s elitist, as say Henry James was–yet Henry James isn’t William James. There were anti-democratic tendencies among many, such as Nietzsche. TSE and EP were caught in that Zeitgeist. They want to be royalists of a sort. They want to recreate the culture of Charles II, and the royalist …mind based on Aristotle, latin, horace, ovid, etc. That’s how I read it. So it’s a reaction against William James’ type thinking–who is with experimental science, opposed to religion, belle-lettres, etc. Im sure they detested Dewey’s thinking as well (Dewey a socialist, not a monarchist). Mod-ism in a nutshell (and Supe probably has his panties in a wad. Vull-gar!). Ergo, I oppose the modernist snobbery of Eliot, but…I don’t think Pound was quite the same creature.

      Joseph Conrad another influence, and…biographically speaking a rather arrogant polish aristo. But Conrad’s writing…well. Res ipza Loquitur

    • notevensuperficial said,

      August 1, 2010 at 6:18 pm

      A couple of quibbles:

      History is not comprised of ideologies, it is comprised of strategies[.]

      Tom, strategies are what can be inferred from epiphenomena – kings-and-battles on through society and culture to, well, people like me hanging out on the internet – . But it seems to me that the strategies one grasps at work in some record, some account (logos), themselves indicate graspable, albeit sometimes tenuously graspable, perspectives, priorities, ineluctable orientations – in an, ok, debatable word: ideologies.

      You’d want a history to be sensitive to material fact, to delusion on the part of actors, to hidden fanaticism (or rationality), and so on, but I don’t see that “ideology” doesn’t play organizing and self-understanding roles in ‘the course of human events’, and so reasonably “figures” in its accounts.

      [H]istory, laws, politics are more important than poems.

      I don’t think you’re comparing comparables.

      “History”, ‘the fact and facts of human events’, includes poetry as an artistic mode of praxis, in my view. You’d not weigh the science and art of the cognitive and literary category “history” against, say, The Vanity of Human Wishes; you’d put The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire on one scale and Johnson’s poetry on the other. A fun parlor-game, but also a fairer one, right?

      Likewise with “politics”, ‘the cognitive and practical activity of the social struggle for power’, and with “law”, ‘the codification of social regulation’, as incomparable (as wholes) to individual poems.

      And likewise, I don’t think you’d compare the “importance” of the whole of ‘architecture’ to that of single piece of historiography. Rather, one could profitably balance the achievement of the Parthenon (throw in the rest of the Acropolis) before the Peloponnesian wars against that of Herodotus in, as I say, the (fake but perhaps instructive) competition of a parlor game.

      • thomasbrady said,

        August 2, 2010 at 9:54 pm

        Supe,

        I was thinking of this from the Symposium:

        “he will consider that the beauty of the mind is more honourable than the beauty of the outward form. So that if a virtuous soul have but a little comeliness, he will be content to love and tend him, and will search out and bring to the birth thoughts which may improve the young, until he is compelled to contemplate and see the beauty of institutions and laws, and to understand that the beauty of them all is of one family…”

        Tom

    • Marcus Bales said,

      August 2, 2010 at 9:10 pm

      Tombrady said: “… I think that history, laws, politics, are more important than poems.”

      Well, I guess it’s good that you’re not a poet, then.

      • thomasbrady said,

        August 2, 2010 at 9:44 pm

        I’m not a blacksmith, Marcus, but I can make a poem.

      • Marcus Bales said,

        August 2, 2010 at 10:48 pm

        By whose definition of “poetry”?

  7. thomasbrady said,

    August 1, 2010 at 5:44 pm

    horatiox,

    Henry James is not William James, true. Do you know much about their dad? He was the wealthiest man in America, sort of a free-thinker, friends with Greeley and Emerson. Henry, like Tom Eliot, took the snobby ‘high road’ villification of Poe, called him “immature” and “boyish,” I guess because Poe didn’t write neurotic, teacup literature…

    Dewey was utilitarian, like Mill and Bentham, and so was William James. James taught Gertrude Stein, who bought the modern art Dewey championed, and James also taught Teddy Roosevelt. Henry was just a writer, quite a different thing…

    So where do you think the zeitgeist is now?

    Who do you think is trying to be royalist, latin, culture of Charles II today? And is it from the legacy of Pound?

    Tom

    • horatiox said,

      August 2, 2010 at 8:50 pm

      There are better belle-lettrists around here than I (at least… noisier ones) but I believe Henry James ( per my reading of one and a half of his books, and a story or two) did not lack for a bit of…ancien regime nostalgia, as did the later mod-ists. Recall the Civil War recollections of the what was his name, Basil or something in The Bostonians (really a nauseating book on the whole but interesting)–not completely …mocked. There’s a sense of, dare we say, melancholy to Ransom’s reflections.

      Was Henry James hisself thus a bit of a doughface ? (yankee with southern sympathies). I thought that was possible, but Im not into biography too much. At any rate, Wm James was a progressive, experimentalist…secularist and I don’t think sympathetic to the belle-lettrist dreams of Henry James (and don’t have ….source, but I suspect detested by Eliot, and probably thus by EP as well)–and HJ was a bit of a euro-phile as well (eg, perhaps viewing American democracy, the great mistake–actually yr hero Hawthorne suggests as much at times). So I don’t think they can all be lumped together, at least politically speaking. Some modernists were democratic, even leftist (Dewey and Wm James); some were not (TS Eliot, Pound–tho Pound’s politics not TS’s). Which is to say, belle-lettres tends to elitism and conservativism, if you will–as even Bertie Russell yawped at times.

      • thomasbrady said,

        August 3, 2010 at 12:27 am

        “So I don’t think they can all be lumped together, at least politically speaking”

        I shall lump them together for they do lump together… they were intimates…as I’ve been trying to tell you, dear horatiox…you can’t go about this like most scholars do, which is to make these clumsy categories of political differences, democratic, leftist, a little to the right, now more right, now very right! oh…wait a minute, back to the left…people who fancy themselves politically acute will talk this way, I know, the topic is driven by this habit, but listen, have you ever run an empire? a very, very big empire? in the empire there’s plenty of room for ‘left’ and ‘right,’ or what appears to be ‘left’ and ‘right,’ as long as the claque running the empire are in agreement at the end of the day…

        Do you remember when Wordsworth and Coleridge wrote their Lyrical Ballads and Mr. W said he was going to take the ordinary and make it wondrous and Mr. C was going to take the wondrous and make it ordinary? The Modernists such as Dewey, the James brothers, Eliot, Pound, Bertie Russell, and their various colleagues had no real differences. Superficially they may seem different, but the goal was the same for all and they all understood it in exactly the same way at day’s end. You are really quite naive to think Pound was Right and Dewey, Left, or some such mumbo-jumbo, and therefore timble and tumble go there jolly way and none shall meet in the morning…Oh no, the whole thing is a much more fascinating and coherent blend, and if your analysis has no synthesis at the end of the day, I’m afraid you are lost. The Modernists, from Ford Madox Ford to TS Eliot to Ezra Pound to John Dewey to William James to Henry James to John Crowe Ransom ALL had the same agenda as much as the Vatican has; minor differences in personality, temperament, style, time, place, but absolutely there’s a great unifying theme…don’t tell me you don’t see it?

      • horatiox said,

        August 3, 2010 at 1:00 am

        TS Eliot and John Dewey are in no way intellectual partners–they may have been in New England at relatively the same time (Dewey a bit older), but that’s about it. Dewey initially supported the bolsheviks, for one. Henry James’s…political or..kultural concepts do not mesh with Dewey’s (nor with Wm James, really) either–actually my reading suggests TSE and EP and most of the mod.posse idolized HJ ..and his pal Conrad. They were not bolsheviks by any means (tho Dewey did object to stalinist excesses..and defended Trotsky…).

        Really, I’m reluctant to make any normative statements about writers (or filosophes) but anglo royalists such as Eliot were in a sense reacting to the entire secularist-Hegelian-leftist programme that Dewey supported (initially at least, until stalin started liquidating people). Russell presents a slightly different case–tho’ somewhere Russell says he’s in agreement with most of Dewey’s agenda (ie History of WestPhil I believe) with some reservations about pragmatism. Russell did not approve of Churchill, or Mussolini, or the Poundian tactics. He actually sided with anarchists at times–a point forgotten by many soi-disant leftists. But he was…a bit of an antique. Even by 30s.

        I’m not really taking sides either–, that said I would rate Russell as having a greater mind than an Eliot (..or Pound actually, or most poeticals…Russell was not really a supporter of belle-lettres), tho he’s not the macho man that many intellectuals desire. And Dewey while he produced a great deal of rhetorical wind was not the most sinister man of the 20th century.

      • horatiox said,

        August 3, 2010 at 1:37 am

        …moreover given your catholic-bashing, I would think you would respect Russell (and Dewey and the pragmatists). Russell was no pal of the papacy. Remember “Why I am not a Christian”? Much of it was against thomistic tradition. BR’s somewhat reductionist approach to religion was one of his shortcomings, arguably.

        You sound nearly marxist at times yourself Tom. From a marxist perspective, actually you might have a slight argument (that is, for those who buy marxism. I buy a little. not much). Caucasian intellectuals, “modernists” as you call them, such as Eliot, Russell, Dewey, the James were mostly from well-to-do families–(the case with James as well). Is that what you’re saying? Like a class thing.. Russell, the petite-bourgeois jackal. That’s how many postmodernists seem to think. Then Reason itself is part of capitalist-imperial Oppression, comrade, according to that tradition.

        Actually I respect gents like Russell or Orwell who refused to give in to ideologies of extreme right or left, however quaint that sounds. If you think Russell was with the nazis or stalinists, you’re mistaken.

  8. thomasbrady said,

    August 3, 2010 at 12:02 am

    marcus “by whose definition of poetry?”

    What is Poetry? — Poetry! that Proteus-like idea, with as many appellations as the nine-titled Corcyra! Give me, I demanded of a scholar some time ago, give me a definition of poetry? “Tres-volontiers,” — and he proceeded to his library, brought me a Dr. Johnson, and overwhelmed me with a definition. Shade of the immortal Shakspeare! I imagined to myself the scowl of your spiritual eye upon the profanity of that scurrilous Ursa Major. Think of poetry, dear B—, think of poetry, and then think of — Dr. Samuel Johnson! Think of all that is airy and fairy-like, and then of all that is hideous and unwieldy; think of his huge bulk, the Elephant! and then — and then think of the Tempest — the Midsummer Night’s Dream — Prospero — Oberon — and Titania!

    –EA Poe

    • horatiox said,

      August 3, 2010 at 2:02 am

      Amusing revery. Politically speaking as well. Poe objects to Dr “Bear” Johnson. Pourquoi, Tom?? Perhaps not only because Dr Johnson was not Shakespeare, but because he detested the Americans, the whigs, and …opposed slavery, and your hero Poe was…at heart a southern boy (not meant as insult), and in favor of secession?? Perhaps. (Im honest enough to say I don’t consider the Union army, as it was historically — superior to Confederacy. IN principle the North may have been fighting the “good” fight. By the time Sherman had set fire to most of the south things aren’t so obvious…and add Reconstruction. That’s one reason I still read southern types once in a while…).

      • thomasbrady said,

        August 3, 2010 at 2:42 am

        horatiox,

        where do you see ‘catholic bashing’ on my part? That vatican remark was only an example of unity of purpose re: the modernists; it was not an outright comparison.

        As I said before, Poe was not a ‘southerner’ or pro-slavery; he was in simple, brutal terms for our ‘complex, modern age’ an american patriot who saw the u.s. revolution as a great hope against the british empire…dr. johnson was an american-hating tory, i’m sure his ‘opposing slavery’ in 18th cen Britain was a bit of a lark…

      • horatiox said,

        August 3, 2010 at 2:56 am

        Poe spent most of his youth in Richmond, attended U of Virg., before he got into West Point (where he spent much time mocking the officers..and drinking, gambling).

        I m not sure of Poe’s views re abolition, but he did detest Emerson (a liberal and abolitionist, though you don’t seem to acknowledge that). Apart from the biographical there are quite a few passages in Poe that seem to hint at a…southern aristocratic sensibility (or he aspires to it). And that amusing tale..what is it…parodying Ben Franklin. Plus much…death–or consider the Cask of Amontillado, set in Mardi gras–a southern goth sort of thing.

      • notevensuperficial said,

        August 3, 2010 at 3:37 am

        Tom, you see the claim that

        there are quite a few passages in Poe that seem to hint at a…southern aristocrat sensibility (or he aspires to it)

        Why not ignore, for a moment, the weasel-wording (“quite a few”, “seem to hint”, “or […] aspires to”), and, instead, ask for evidence, in the form of actual “passages” . . .

      • horatiox said,

        August 3, 2010 at 4:15 am

        better, ignore someone who has not closely read either Poe’s bio or his more southern tales–the Gold Bug for one, set in So. Carolina, where Lt Poe was stationed for at least two years, AND Annabel Lee most likely also SC, and a few other pieces. Tate considered Poe a southern writer as well. Q E f-ing D.

  9. notevensuperficial said,

    August 3, 2010 at 2:26 am

    from Ford Madox Ford to TS Eliot to Ezra Pound to John Dewey to William James to Henry James to John Crowe Ransom ALL had the same agenda

    That’s not “synthesis”, Tom, any more than throwing disparate objects into volcanic magma ‘synthesizes’ them.

    • thomasbrady said,

      August 3, 2010 at 2:47 am

      supe,

      we can disagree on how splendid my synthesis is…are you opposed to the idea in general…are you saying that claques don’t really exist, that culture kind of bungles along by sheer accident…or do you oppose the idea that these particular men had anything significant in common? It requires the highest intelligence to form alliances which push history forward…most of us are not that intelligent, or the opportunity is not there…or we just don’t have those sorts of ambitions…?

      tom

      • notevensuperficial said,

        August 3, 2010 at 3:32 am

        opposed to the idea in general

        Do you mean the “idea” of synthesis, of seeing cultural unity and coherence when they’re essential to, say, books having been written? No, Tom, I won’t be pushed into the corner of defending “sheer acciden[ce]”!

        And of course the people you yoke together in service to “the same agenda” had things in common – between two and among three, commonalities that would have reasonably to be called “significant”.

        The question is: are the things they have – in some particular grouping – in common really more generative of their distinct actions than the differences in their perspectives, priorities, commitments, attitudes and so on?

        Commonalities like: male; British or European-American; prestigious education in the western classical tradition; complicated (sometimes contradictory) attitudes toward spirituality, sex, technology; commitment to writing and to a life of exchanging ideas and combating social and cultural enemies.

        Say, Tom — that makes these guys, from the point of view of synthesis – the heirs of: Edgar Allen Poe.

        And, as was Poe, the heirs of Samuel Johnson. And the heirs of John Milton. And the heirs of Rabelais. And the heirs of Henry the Navigator.

        Do you see what I mean? If you come up with differentiae that compel you to exclude these “synthetic” influences-in-common as genuinely having influenced your group in the manner of “significant” unity and group coherence – you’re on the way to seeing how different, say, Henry James and Dewey really were, even with respect to their effects on literary Modernism.

  10. thomasbrady said,

    August 3, 2010 at 2:27 am

    horatoix,

    “Dewey initially supported the Bolsheviks” Dewey flip-flopped all over the place, like Russell, just like Horace Greeley in the previous century…there are those who take positions they feel will cause the most instigation and trouble at any particular time. They have no ‘politics,’ per se. They believe in nothing, and they pride themselves on this. They are obfuscators, by nature, giving vent to vague radicalisms which boil down to nothing but self-interested show.

    I’ll quote briefly Dewey, Pound, Ransom, and Eliot, where no ideas are really apparent; I would just ask you to listen to the similar tone and style; the only way I can describe this is: the pure pedant’s aspiration to pure thought, pure discourse, pure rhetoric in which no referent really exists; this is modernism, as I see it, in which the old is the enemy and must be eaten away. But what they define as old or classical or traditional doesn’t even exist, except as some listless model in their own minds…

    By one of the ironic perversities that often attend the course of affairs, the existence of the works of art upon which formation of an aesthetic theory depends has become an obstruction to theory about them. For one reason, these works are products that exist externally and physically. In common conception, the work of art is often identified with the building, book, painting, or statue in its existence apart from human experience. Since the actual work of art is what the product does with and in experience, the result is not favorable to understanding. In addition, the very perfection of some of these products, the prestige they possess because of a long history of unquestioned admiration, creates conventions that get in the way of fresh insight. When an art product once attains classic status, it somehow becomes isolated from the human conditions under which it was brought into being and from the human consequences it engenders in actual life experience. —John Dewey

    Literary instruction in our institutions of learning was, at the beginning of this century, cumbrous and inefficient. I dare say it still is. Certain more or less mildly exceptional professors were affected by the “beauties” of various authors (usually deceased), but the system, as a whole, lacked sense and coordination. I dare say it still does. —Ezra Pound

    It is strange, but nobody seems to have told us what exactly is the proper business of criticism. There are many critics who might tell us, but for the most part they are amateurs. So have the critics nearly always been amateurs, including the best ones. They have not been trained to criticism so much as they have simply undertaken a job for which no specific qualifications were required. It is far too likely that what they call criticism when they produce it is not the real thing. —John Crowe Ransom

    In a sluggish society, as actual societies are, tradition is ever lapsing into superstition, and the violent stimulus of novelty is required. —TS Eliot

    tom

    • horatiox said,

      August 3, 2010 at 2:41 am

      Actually Dewey’s quote seems quite different in tone than the rest–shows a certain iconoclasm, against the “timeless mah-sterpiece” view of the modernists really. OK, he may have been a bit…boorish for some, or secularist, whateverist. But I wager Dewey hated the idea of Pollocks selling for millions. When an art product once attains classic status, it somehow becomes isolated from the human conditions under which it was brought into being and from the human consequences it engenders in actual life experience.

      Humanist, and fairly progressive really. That’s not TS Eliot the anglo-catholic, for sure. Nor Pound, or Joe Conrad, both anti-democrats .

      The “modernists” are not all the same–really Dewey’s not a modernist anyway; he’s a pragmatist. Modernism tends to the timeless beauty thing. Even Platonic. That’s not Dewey, who’s all about process. Even opposed to…Truth with a capital T. You are reading something sinister into Dewey when it’s not really there. Dewey’s sort of a Ralph Nader type. OK you might hate that too–milquetoast, etc–but it’s neither stalinist nor nazis (nor religious).

      you’re not a biblethumper, are you? Or a fan of Ayn Rand? For Randians they might all seem a bit weak or something, or not heroic enough, etc. You seem at once to dislike the liberal milquetoasts (Dewey and Russell) AND the heroic aristo types (Pound and Eliot).

      • thomasbrady said,

        August 3, 2010 at 2:53 am

        no, not a rand-ite or a bible-thumper…i strive for the impartiality of a balzac or a poe…playing down differences for the good of the whole…

        you call it ‘progressive,’ but my point is that it’s not even that; for instance, what does this even mean:

        “In common conception, the work of art is often identified with the building, book, painting, or statue in its existence apart from human experience.”

        The ‘building’ exists apart from ‘human experience’ in the ‘common perception?’ These are just words. This doesn’t mean anything. That’s what I think is dangerous about it. The fact that Dewey is intelligent nonsense. In his writing one can certainly find passages that are bland repeats of aesthetic theory that’s gone before. But on the whole, it’s pure pedantry. Modernism destroyed thought. That’s the crime, finally. It was as if slipshod became the norm. This is not to say that pedantry hasn’t always existed, etc etc, but we just happen to live in an age where it’s very strong…

        Dewey-ism led to pollock-ism, though. Yea, you’re right, were he alive today, Dewey probably would have felt compelled to feel as you say…but then, were he alive today, he might own a pollock, or two, also…

      • horatiox said,

        August 3, 2010 at 3:17 am

        I suggest you read it again–it’s sort of interesting, actually holistic in a sense (before all the new age BS took over). Art’s not just merely the …object itself, say a painting by Dali. But an entire context, comrade! He’s opposed to the mah-sterpiece quality, as if you’re looking at something from the mind of Apollo (or JHVH).

        Art is a human endeavor for Dewey, and includes the historical, economic, psychological etc. (he says the same about the sciences) He has a somewhat Hegelian perspective, though sort of made PC.

  11. thomasbrady said,

    August 3, 2010 at 3:13 am

    horatiox,

    Amontillado, the tale, takes place in Italy…there’s nothing southern about it…yea Poe was adopted by a merchant, Allan was one of the richest men in the U.S. …he could have left Poe the equivalent of tens of millions of dollars in today’s value…imagine a genius like Poe with enough money to do as he pleased? Perhaps it was his hunger, though, which drove his genius…West Point was not easy to get into…Poe did not gamble there, you are confusing Jefferson’s college, where all the student’s gambled and dueled, etc but you are repeating the clap-trap, half-truths and distortions of Poe biography…I know my Poe if nothing else…and that’s one of the more common ways Poe is dumped on:…the lie is repeated that he loved the idea of being a ‘southern gentleman…’ but of course had he been, that would have been OK, had he really been fat & rich like Henry James, that would have been OK, but it was supposedly the fact that Poe ‘wanted’ to be a rich southerner that damns him…of course, the whole idea is nonsense…did he desire money from Allan so that he could start a magazine, etc? Sure. Was he a a rogue? No. Did he combat pedants and toadies and those he saw as treasonous? Yea. He was raised in the south by his adopted family, but lived for most of his adult life in the north. He desired the culture of the south no more than ralph waldo emerson did, who was anti-slavery in the same slimy manner the British Empire was—with crocodile tears, hoping the ‘slave issue’ would cut the U.S in two….

    • horatiox said,

      August 3, 2010 at 3:36 am

      It’s the mardi gras and Carnival, either way. I read years ago somewhere it was ‘Nawlins. Italy works too (actually the specific city’s unnamed, according to online sources..but given italian/latinate names, probably Italy). But…it’s not a yankee-WASP story, the key point. Revenge, the old catacombs, etc. Dantean.

      • horatiox said,

        August 3, 2010 at 3:46 am

        Moreover, Monstresor’s a french aristocratic name. Ill tentatively agree with you re It. …a palazzo is mentioned (and other Italian words/names, tho Fortunato could be spanish as well, perhaps)…but what about the river?? Seine? Ol Miss? Not sure on italian rivers. Could be french as well as italian (one reason to place it in Nawlins as well).

      • thomasbrady said,

        August 3, 2010 at 11:30 am

        Not to quibble, for universality was Poe’s strong point, you are right not to fret over local aspects:

        “Few Italians have the true virtuoso spirit. For the most part their enthusiasm is adopted to suit the time and opportunity—to practice imposture upon the British and Austrian millionaires. In painting and gemmary Fortunato, like his countrymen, was a quack—but in the matter of the old wines he was sincere. In this respect I did not differ from materially; I was skillful in the Italian vintages myself, and bought largely whenever I could.”

        Marvelous passage, isn’t it? Almost Dewey-an, in the way it talks about virtuosity and experience, but without any of the pompous b.s. Love the way these terms follow in quick succession: ‘painting and gemmary, quack’ ‘old wines, sincere’ ‘materially,’ ‘skillful’ ‘bought largely.’

        There’s a great mason passage in the tale, as well.

      • horatiox said,

        August 3, 2010 at 2:21 pm

        Note Fortunato’s the freemason–thus perhaps hinting at anti-masonic/mason issue contemporary to Poe’s time–another reason for an American setting (tho’…could be france as well). Catholics generally opposed masons, who were usually protestants of some type–a few have hinted Poe might have been catholic….

        Montresor defeats Fortunato the mason. Some scholars read it as a cryptic message to one or more of Poe’s enemies—a warning, or is it…actual deed. Is Montresor …Poe? Not impossible.

  12. notevensuperficial said,

    August 3, 2010 at 4:06 am

    I have to agree with bore here, Tom – not with the manic stuff, but with the ‘splitting’ of your four quotations (now easier to read in their reformatted glory).

    The Dewey quote is a plea for historicization – not the relativistic extreme that argues for the (ultimate) historical opacity of objects, but rather that the specific conditions of the manufacture or artistic creation of objects should be integral to their being understood more than superficially.

    Pound is arguing against an aestheticized cherishing of art objects, too, but wants, explicitly, “sense and coordination” applied to – perhaps imposed on? – those works. He’s less – much less – interested in the historical conditions for the possibility of an object to be received, and more – much more – interested in seeing how the object fits into an order that the reader/spectator already has internalized.

    Ransom, as you don’t tire of reminding – is arguing – not specifically in this short extract – for the professionalization of “criticism” – perhaps for its ‘professorization’. He might agree with Dewey’s criterion (here), historical context (both of the object and its transmission), and he might with Pound’s (though I don’t see how Ransom is committed, by this extract, to “criticism” only embracing one order).

    Eliot is contrasting the ‘traditional’ and the ‘novel’ in an otiose way – at least, in the one sentence you’ve allowed him. Except for explosive connotations of the word “violent”, what he’s saying inheres in the definitions of tradition and novelty, right?

    ——

    Tom, these aren’t examples of “pure rhetoric” – there are countless “referent[s]”, especially of the first three quotations. (Your editing doesn’t include specific reference, but its part of our job as readers to come to understand what they’re saying, even in such snippets.)

    Other than “tone and style”, what do you think these remarks have in common with the literary Modernism of Nightwood or A Lunar Baedeker?

    • horatiox said,

      August 3, 2010 at 5:01 am

      That’s right, Soopie–obey, er agree. Doesn’t mean you understand the point (how easy to call something boring instead of trying to understand a point).

      Dewey’s not merely historicism either, a typical humanities type-generalization. He’s usually making a point on work, labor, even… commodification, though he doesn’t smash his fists on the table in romantic marxist fashion. It’s really diametrically opposed to what Eliot valued (ie, British gold)

      • notevensuperficial said,

        August 3, 2010 at 5:34 pm

        Not “something“, bore, someone. But asking you for an illuminating detail, a citation, something specific to which your gibbering might refer – that’d be like salting a slug’s megaphone, eh?

      • horatiox said,

        August 3, 2010 at 6:40 pm

        .

        Ah to reiterate….

        Squeeek!

        Bore-ita, stick with yr favorite Ayn Rand texts, or Hallmark-NAMBLA collections, whatever. Even Dewey’s PC pragmatism a bit above your intellectual grasp. (He’s not for belle-lettres, anyway). And a fortiori, so is Pound’s Aristotelian critique.

        And btw, the details, which is to say evidence, Miss Fact Checker, were provided on the Poe thread: e.g. The Gold Bug. Doesn’t fit in yr odd PC-mormon-zionist code.

        (Tom: as Tarentino sez, I get; I give. Besides, cudgeling a conservative language maven’s good healthy phunn)

      • notevensuperficial said,

        August 3, 2010 at 9:36 pm

        Yes, putillox, you copied the words “the Gold Bug” from the internet – which “mention” you mistakenly call “Q. E. f-ing D.”. (Better would have been quod erat spargendum libere [quick, hon’ – type “latin to english” into the google machine!]

        That was before Tom extracted evidence from The Cask of Amontillado to show you that it, indeed, happens in Italy, not “Nawlins”, as “some scholars” “note” (in your priceless cuisinartiox-ation of scholar-speak).

        Who on the internet told you that Dewey’s pragmatism was “PC”??

        Your teddy-bear daddy is a NAMBLoid fiscal ‘conservative’, isn’t he, preciousox?

        “Yikes.”

      • horatiox said,

        August 3, 2010 at 9:56 pm

        Not exactly, grrl. The Gold Bug I read years ago, back when you were like s*cking off yr dramatic Ahhts prof for Cs or whatever back at Rutgers.

        And it’s a distinctly southern work…southern as my S & Dubya. Duck!
        And the old vanderbilt snobs considered Poe a southerner as well. So you lost another game in under 20 moves. Not much to checkmating comma correctors.

        put yr info up .and Id happily remove you from yr miserable existence. Im near LA. Roscoe 405 any day of the week, punk.

      • horatiox said,

        August 3, 2010 at 10:01 pm

        capichay jewboy?

        and I teach logic, as well, satanist. Im sure you don’t know modus ponens from modus puto

      • notevensuperficial said,

        August 3, 2010 at 10:12 pm

        Oh? Did the big, strong athletes read Poe to you from the ‘back seat’ in high school, bambiox?

        I never doubted that ‘Southern’ was distantly helpful in organizing thoughts about Poe – though the less pedigreed mid-Atlantic might better catch the various, sometimes-conflicting influences in so complicated a person as Poe.

        I’ll bet teddy-daddy wants three “r”s in ‘grrrl’ . . .

    • thomasbrady said,

      August 3, 2010 at 11:42 am

      “I have to agree with bore here, Tom”

      Thank God!

      Dewey attacks the idea of a masterpiece—but the mastepiece is one of civilization’s wonders; it’s very idea, the very fact that it exists, is wonderful; Dewey’s attack results not in ‘no more masterpieces’ but in Pollock and other wretched, inflated “masterpieces” and because of his very criteria: all the extra, surrounding data—but isn’t that the whole point of the ‘masterpiece?’ That it carries with it its own greatness? The reason why it’s a ‘master-Piece’ is that it does not need a scholar/art dealer to authenticate it with all sorts of whys and wheres. Of course there are sources, etc to the masterpiece, that’s a given, and Dewey is not asserting anything that old lovers of old masterpieces have not considered…Dewey’s emphasis and without specifics—he gives none—is insidious.

      Pound and Ransom ARE feeble when it comes to specifics…Eliot IS a little better (Eliot is probably the one modernist who, for a time, anyway, was actually sincere) Compare; “Rationale of Verse,” for instance by POe—he attacks the old pedants, too, but he shows why, and then gets down into a host of specifics…that’s my standard to which I’m comparing these modernist flakes…

      • notevensuperficial said,

        August 3, 2010 at 5:28 pm

        Tom, in the paragraph you’ve quoted, Dewey’s not “attack[ing]” the idea of a masterpiece” (?!); he’s attacking the stultifying veneration of masterpieces by Perfessers, the uncritical – specifically, the ahistorical – witless maundering over their ‘greatness’. The fact that a made object ‘masters’ the emotions and thought of its spectators is “wonderful” – but that “wonder” should be, as I understand what you’ve quoted Dewey saying, a catalyst to or the fuel for a conversation with the thing. Do you know Mont-Saint-Michel and Chartres? I’d guess that that’s what Dewey would recommend as true, truly impassioned scholarship.

    • horatiox said,

      August 3, 2010 at 6:32 pm

      Squeeek!

      Bore-ita, stick with yr favorite Ayn Rand texts, or Hallmark-NAMBLA collections, whatever. Even Dewey’s PC pragmatism a bit above your intellectual grasp. (He’s not for belle-lettres, anyway). And a fortiori, so is Pound’s Aristotelian critique.

  13. thomasbrady said,

    August 3, 2010 at 6:25 pm

    supe,

    you’re buying into dewey’s insidious reasoning: “conventions inhibit fresh insight” Why? First of all, why should truly ‘fresh insight’ (if that is what Mr. Dewey is really bringing to the table…hard to tell, though, with all his vague blathering) be inhibited by ‘conventions?’ It is the very nature of ‘fresh insight’ (as opposed to ‘stale insight,’ let’s say) to see right through conventions, or leap right over them, is it not? Secondly, why shouldn’t the masterpiece aid in ‘fresh insight,’ as well? Wouldn’t the masterpiece itself be providing the ‘insight’ towards more insight on the part of the amateur theorist, Mr. Dewey? Or, is Mr. Dewey speaking of ‘insight’ which has naught to do with the masterpiece itself, or is he saying the masterpiece is not a masterpiece at all, which is quite different, but it really is hard to tell, isn’t it, since Dewey controls every aspect of the investigation…

    Again, you are missing my point…I am not arguing with Dewey…I am saying there is nothing to argue with…

    • notevensuperficial said,

      August 3, 2010 at 9:50 pm

      In fact, Tom, I’m responding to your point by showing you what there is to argue/agree with in that Dewey fragment.

      He’s talking about “the prestige” of masterpieces – that specific aura of “prestige” cast like a noxious dry-‘ice’ machine by

      a long history of unquestioned admiration[.]

      He’s not talking – logically or in particular context – about all “conventions” – he’s narrowed down that category to those “conventions” ‘created by critical-thought-smothering prestige’. Is that not a fairer paraphrase of the “classic status” that Dewey’s actually indicating (and quarreling with) than your “insidious reasoning” representation?

      You yourself are most exercised by the “unquestioned[, unquestioning] admiration” that literary Modernism gets, when it gets such non-treatment, eh??

  14. thomasbrady said,

    August 3, 2010 at 7:25 pm

    I know, I know…Dewey wants to take cold, lofty works of art and turn them into Chuck E. Cheese’s so they can be “experienced.”

    What good is the Mona Lisa if it doesn’t have a jungle gym?

    I’m jumping off the Mont-Saint-Michel! Wheeee!

    • horatiox said,

      August 3, 2010 at 8:15 pm

      In a way I agree. Deweyan thought -in this post stalinist age– might be read as a naive utopian-ism of sorts, a type of kinder bureaucratic socialism. At the same time, Dewey was not a snivelling parisian PC postmodernist leather-boy (or boyette) as is most of the left now, and he did object to finance capitalism of a sort, while upholding democracy of a sort. Unlike, say, Ezra Pound. Reject Dewey if you will– you then reject humanism and a certain moderate reformist-left politics (even…Jeffersonian to a degree), and open the ways to Pounds (if not Pol pots). Pound would probably be siding with like Le Pen at this stage

      • notevensuperficial said,

        August 3, 2010 at 9:56 pm

        a type of kinder bureaucratic socialism [. . .] a certain moderate reformist-left politics

        Did teddy-daddy teach you to qualify your gibbering like that, pumpkiniox?

      • thomasbrady said,

        August 3, 2010 at 9:58 pm

        Nothing like equating the fine arts and its theories with vicious political thuggery.

        The artsy-fartsy type rejects such speculation at once, as completely deranged, but history is on our side, so let’s follow these arguments out, by all means.

        Pol Pot was no dream, unfortunately. Pol Pot represents the psychotic rage of the animal against the bourgeois intellectual; people who wore glasses were shot. Pol Pot was schooled in the West, at the Sorbonne, but I really don’t know enough about his schooling to be able to trace the intellectual formulations which led to the horror on the ground, but I’m sure it was a kind of Maoism which values the common working man over the capitalist intellectual.

        I suppose it depends how you define the intellectual, how you define the worker, how you define the state, the country v. the city, and everything Socrates explored. As artists we are all political scientists, at last.

        The ideology which works in one economic set of circumstances may not work well in another. There’s that complication, as well.

        • drew said,

          March 13, 2014 at 9:00 pm

          “Pol Pot was no dream, unfortunately. Pol Pot represents the psychotic rage of the animal against the bourgeois intellectual; people who wore glasses were shot. Pol Pot was schooled in the West, at the Sorbonne, but I really don’t know enough about his schooling to be able to trace the intellectual formulations which led to the horror on the ground, but I’m sure it was a kind of Maoism which values the common working man over the capitalist intellectual.”

          This is great. I find clarity and sanity here @ Scarriet.
          http://connecthook.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/a-chicken-in-every-pol-pot/

      • horatiox said,

        August 3, 2010 at 10:06 pm

        Really, Mr Brady, the ugly rants of this person “notevensuperficial'” are beyond nauseating, and he’s now projecting his own psychosis or leatherboy-ness on everyone. I mean he even gives “los maricones” a bad name.

        I d have banned him months ago. I generally avoid the epithets and name slinging and flame wars–though when some snivelling leftist theatre type starts to whine, it’s always good to backslap it, hard. Apparently hasn’t worked as of yet. I said nothing to this person. Some comment offended him. OR maybe it was the appearance of reason. Or maybe it’s insane.

        I never been keen on Dewey. But compared to the postmodernist bozos and PC leftists that a “supe” supports, DeweySpeak seems nearly rational.

      • notevensuperficial said,

        August 3, 2010 at 10:39 pm

        I have ‘ranted’ at Scarriet, bore, but never in your dissociation-swollen direction.

        Gary Fitzgerald has provided the evidence that you’re all ‘about’ “ugly rants” and “epithets and name slinging and flame wars” – larded with globules of frantically reason-free name-dropping. The evidence that you suffer terribly from anaphylaxis to abuse that’s as informed as yours is not has been your pleasure – or your compulsion – to provide.

        Ayn Rand texts […] conservative language maven here, PC leftists there – the world you’re hallucinating is tragically unintelligible to you, isn’t it – cupcakiox.

  15. horatiox said,

    August 3, 2010 at 10:12 pm

    I find this scumbag has traced my IP or MAC info, Ill be filing charges on him Mr Brady, and will need his info.

    He’s a diseased little perp, Mr Brady. Im about to take action

    • notevensuperficial said,

      August 3, 2010 at 10:21 pm

      Tom – I do not have nor want any of horatiox’s “info”.

      It should go without saying that I want my email data as far from bore’s demented “action” as technically possible. She’s a pretty comical, albeit intelligence-free, troll, but her, um, instability is exactly the reason for internet anonymity.

      • horatiox said,

        August 3, 2010 at 10:41 pm

        Hey punk, you’re anonymous, and you started the shit Miss Supe, you little lying bag of irrational marxist garbage.

        Now say some shit like that soon in person, and yr teeth will be removed in one clean swipe. Pop! Then yoo might bring in a few extra shekels per day

      • notevensuperficial said,

        August 3, 2010 at 10:53 pm

        That is just bea u ti ful, dentiox. If shit were sand, your skull is the fucking Sahara, love-muffinx.

        Gosh, I hope that’s not so abusive as to be gently removed.

  16. horatiodix said,

    August 3, 2010 at 10:26 pm

    Pugleez, you horrible misanthropic weirdo, fuck off.

    • horatiox said,

      August 3, 2010 at 10:38 pm

      Copycat! Im flattered, basura. My points are hardly radical. Listen to Pound’s broadcasts from 30s. Read LF Celine. or don’t.

      It’s just that the Hallmark gang–yr gang H-dix!– was freuded and marxed, and neutered years ago (see Miss Supe for example). Question their little ideology (as has happened here) and that brings about epileptic fits.

  17. horatiodix said,

    August 3, 2010 at 10:28 pm

    Horatio, do you actually like any poetry, please? Do you read any live or does it only exist for you on the page?

    • notevensuperficial said,

      August 3, 2010 at 10:48 pm

      She doesn’t give any sign of having “read” any “poetry” in any way, horatiodix. What do you mean by

      like ?

      • horatiox said,

        August 3, 2010 at 10:55 pm

        Yr the byatch here, Miss Soopie. puto. Don’t forget that.

        We know where you live as well, basura.

        Capichay?? I piss on yr little belle-lettrist face, byatch

        No mas poesia de zion

  18. horatiodix said,

    August 3, 2010 at 10:45 pm

    Horatio, you are a boring unpleasant misanthrope, full of theories about blah blah blah that mean jack shit. Do you go out and recite your own poetry to pple who do not give a fuck about poetry, and on hearing yours convert to your cause, spellbound?

    I am guessing not, because if they did, you wouldn’t be so down on absolutely everything. You the anonymous know-all setting the world to rights on some bit of cyberville attracting only poet-readers who you think are wankers anyway.

    Get happy, please, you tiresome meff.

    • horatiox said,

      August 3, 2010 at 10:58 pm

      chinga tu madre, puerca

      how’s that. you don’t even know what this game’s about little clown. Yeah im here to burn up little chapbooks, decorator handbooks, beat-bum manifestos, slut rants, Sylvia Plath whines….yr books. La conflagracion de los libros de mierda! Ay . Pound’s shade would agree.

  19. horatiodix said,

    August 3, 2010 at 11:01 pm

    You didn’t answer the question Horatiox. Do you have any samples of your own poetry, or are you merely here to expose how rubbish everything is, with only a clown mask and ranty tenor?

    Please, do you recite your own work, verbally, to a live audience, or not?

    • horatiox said,

      August 3, 2010 at 11:17 pm

      I never claimed to be a poet, H-dix. But Mr Tom’s not only discussing versifiers, but ..Poe, Hawthorne, even philosophasters and history, politics. So. connect the dots, Hallmark-man! OR don’t. I respect real…poets, however. Coleridge, Shelley. The sort of stuff that ended about 1840.

  20. horatiodix said,

    August 3, 2010 at 11:23 pm

    Oh, so you are Tom then, speaking in alter ego so you can let rip effin ‘n blindin. Like it Tom.

  21. thomasbrady said,

    August 4, 2010 at 2:28 am

    horatiodix,

    I don’t get this litmus test of yours…do we have to find poems by Dewey and approve of them before we can discuss his aesthetic philosophy?

    Should Vendler and Bloom and Perloff be put on an ice float and pushed out to sea because they can’t ‘show us their poems?’

    Maybe you’ve got a point…show us your poems at the door before you get in…

    But I don’t know…as Shelley said, Lord Bacon was a poet, Plato was a poet…do you think Scarriet wishes to be a little poetry workshop site? Uh…no thanks…

    Tom

    • notevensuperficial said,

      August 4, 2010 at 3:38 am

      Tom, I don’t think our friend ‘dix is appealing to – much less recommending the imposition of – a “litmus test”.

      bore hasn’t offered anything in conversation the last few days except trollspew – idiotically Rorschach-connected name-dropping, risibly worthless arguments, throbbing-forehead-veined put-up-yer-dooks bullshit – .

      I think ‘dix is just curious about whether there’s any poetry hidden by bore’s reading incomprehension and hater imbecility (“jewboy”??) – some reason for him not to add barbs to the wire wrapping bore by Scrolling Right Past bore’s foetid ejaculations.

      (I know if I’m wrong ‘dix’ll set me straight . . .)

      • thomasbrady said,

        August 4, 2010 at 11:44 am

        I find horatiox interesting and intelligent, which, by the way, are specific standards set by Henry James and T.S. Eliot. That’s precisely what they said: No rules, intelligence.

        From what I’ve noticed, horatiox only turns splenetic when attacked. Supe, if there’s a stalker here, it’s you, not him, but don’t worry, I like you, too. You are both civil to me. I wonder why? It’s something…why, it’s almost a rule of sorts! Be pleasant to me and I will be pleasant to you. “Right many a nipperkin!” as Thomas Hardy put it…Sometimes you get what you give. I’m not going to hold my ears every time there’s a word I don’t like. That’s childish. The world is full of bad words, but the bad people are worse, and sometimes the bad people use nothing but pleasant words. Each word alone is pleasant in itself. But the actions, the arguments…and never an unpleasant word. I don’t like unpleasant words, either, but they do attach to the person who says them and, like the old child’s rhyme, sticks to them. Fraud is different, such as bearing false witness, slander, libel, those sorts of things are unpleasant, though I don’t believe mere reports unless there’s lots of corresponding evidence. We’re all in the dark, most of the time, aren’t we? We don’t really know our neighbor, or even our intimates, sometimes. That sort of fear will ask for a certain civility at all times, lest the whole thing become unraveled, even our sanity may be at stake. I respect that fear, I respect the desire for a certain civility and grace and kindness, but we always have to keep our eyes open for stealth, too, stealth in the midst of ‘kindness.’ That’s why it’s good to keep talking, to not be afraid to ‘get things out in the open,’ and be curious and honest in our proceedings and not cover up everything in a bland niceness.

        Tom

      • notevensuperficial said,

        August 4, 2010 at 7:19 pm

        Well, Tom, I sure hope you don’t “like” reading what I write (if you do like to read it) because I’ve been “civil” to you! It’s exactly that criterion, when it’s in effect, that opens the doors to, and even catalyzes, the times when bad people use nothing but pleasant words.

        Fraud is definitely “different” – in the sense (which I think you mean) of being ‘not lightly to be tolerated’. “Fraud” like: flinging assessments helter-skelter in evidence not of first-hand knowledge of the matter, but rather of having witnessed opinion, without even the resources to know whether the opinion one is impressed by and is adopting actually is itself first-hand.

        Evidence?:

        On July 30, horatiox assumed that Gary F. had “never read a word of a real philosopher”, which I wouldn’t say of anyone without “evidence”, in the form of inaccuracy which couldn’t fairly be put down to rivalrous interpretations. So, horatiox is an internet figure of whom “evidence” is certainly a reasonable demand.

        Later that day, this unaccountable assumption provoked me to challenge horatiox’s production of slapdash remarks about Pound, which remarks were specifically quoted and challenged – the challenge being: ‘show me’ — perfectly in line with the literary/philosophical conversation horatiox had indicated she’d prefer to have. On that (calendar) day, she was also challenged as to Plato’s Socrates and Gatsby – and copious citation and argument put out to show that the ‘challenges’ weren’t simply OJ-juror incredulity, but rather authentic. She and I disagree about whether Plato is primarily literary or advocates a ‘pure rationality’: ok, ’til then, more or less “civil”.

        It was also (late) on the 30th when horatiox asked whether I’d “bothered to read any of Pound’s essays”. Fair assumption? – in the light of the wealth of citation from Plato and Fitzgerald that I’d gladly, uninvitedly, produced? Well, that’s – early on the 31st – when my name-calling started (“hirrationalx” was the first). – which hostility was further enabled – amplified – by horatiox’s laughable ‘calling-out’ and by Gary’s “exposure” of horatiox’s trollery on Jessica Smith’s blog (where I’d never been before).

        Tom, if one is not of the temperment simply to ignore slime, there’s only one way to fight trolls on-line, and that’s to laugh at them. horatiox’s wristy gestures at famous names and book titles and floundering clutches at a “wrestle with words and meanings” are ridiculous. I don’t think it hurts a real conversation to be ‘blandly nice’ – but, in the face of compelling “evidence” that no such discussion is at hand, and the “evidence” is all to the view that informed opinion is simply not likely, unhappily unkind laughter could be a . . . useful homeopathic remedy.

        ??

      • horatiox said,

        August 4, 2010 at 7:30 pm

        fuck you, satanist. You’re not here to fact-check anything, and certainly no logician, puta

        (this person’s a psychotic, Tom–obsessed, irrational, ranting, crazy in a bad, ugly peasant sense. And given any …religious considerations…a demon. An unfunny demon at that)

      • notevensuperficial said,

        August 5, 2010 at 1:35 am

        Well, Tom, you have a chronological rundown of the past few days: ordered, well-mannered, (most to-the-point) open to disagreement with the points made. In response:

        fuck you, satanist.

        Is this rhetoric what you find “interesting and intelligent” in horatiox’s gibberish?

        ——

        fact-check […] logician

        That’s rich, babydollx. You have shown no evidence of acquaintance with ‘logic’, and the only “facts” you present are names-and-titles and a dot-spaghettied mishmash of undigested wikispray.

        obsessed, irrational, ranting in a bad, ugly peasant sense

        That’s a long list you’ve memorized there! How many days a week does it say these things on the clipboard at the foot of your bed?

  22. thomasbrady said,

    August 4, 2010 at 9:18 pm

    Supe,

    You’ve been hounding horatiox’s every step and mocking his every word. I must say I don’t think you’re sincere.

    As for horatiox’s remark to Gary, this was after Gary came on defending Pollock in the most simplistic manner possible, telling me to go look at a Pollock painting, telling me to take the kids to a museum in NY, etc Gary assumed I had never been to a museum, or seen a Pollock live. No big whoop. I didn’t have a hissy fit; just told Gary the facts. Horatiox was responding to Gary’s very condescending tone, and his ‘philosopher’ remark was very much to the point: there is a hoary tradition of philosophers questioning the very idea of art itself; Gary was blithely assuming that to ‘go look at a Pollock is to love Pollock’ which elicited the remark by horatiox which was nothing more than a little water to the face; it was not to be taken literally: you have never read a philosopher; it was a very minor gibe in precisely the same spirit Gary was taking with me. Is this why horatiox is a villain? You’ve got to be kidding me.

    Tom

    • notevensuperficial said,

      August 5, 2010 at 2:04 am

      hounding […] and mocking

      You’ve got a chronological rundown, Tom. What do you find insincere???

      You’ve got to be kidding me.

      No “kidding” there, anyway, Tom. Look again at the line I was pursuing.

      You miss – or avoid – the point of mentioning horatiox’s sneer at Gary. That was certainly not the inspiration for my laughing at this troll. It was mentioned simply to put the challenge ‘show me‘ into the relief of legitimacy (which is where I still think it belongs).

      Gary’s condescension towards you, with respect to actually viewing a Pollock canvas, was misplaced – and, I’ve shown, his rating of Pollock (for example) is not one that I even distantly share.

      My scorn for horatiox’s ‘villainy’ has nothing to do with his gibe at Gary and everything to do with horatiox’s insistence on talking about resources as though she had no first-hand acquaintance with them and believed recycling a hash of mistakenly cobbled simplifications is, in fact, the way people who do know first-hand what they’re talking about talk.

      (The contradictory accusations, racist babbling, sexual-orientation um confusion – well, ok, that’s all also contemptible, and perhaps too easily ‘mocked’.)

      Tom, no kidding and perfectly sincerely: if someone says ‘Smith says “n”‘, and that’s not how you read Smith, don’t you want evidence?

      • horatiox said,

        August 5, 2010 at 2:11 am

        Yll be shutting yr bitch-mouth soon, byatch

        capichay puto? Im 200 lbs of steel in yr face, phaggot. Pop–open palm, you gone. Into perdition. And I got quite a few people tracking you down (including USMC). Got that yet punk , comma byatch?

      • horatiox said,

        August 5, 2010 at 2:17 am

        indeed you sound like a paedo like yr hero g-burg, certainly a twisted little wicca piece of shit. that’s all obvious. Touched a nerve with the NAMBLA jive, pedazo de mierda? Yeah. STFU, basura

        (and Tom, this may seem extreme–but scroll through the comments and you will note Miss Supe freaked out when NAMBLA was brought up. Probably already flushed his HD of kiddie kix)

      • thomasbrady said,

        August 5, 2010 at 2:41 am

        Supe,

        I dunno, just look at the first comment of this thread: horatiox replies to the post with a thoughtful reply (you can agree or disagree with the content, but it’s a serious reply) and in comment #2 you are doing nothing but taunting him. You are not responding to the post or the content of his comment—you are flat-out harrassing him. If that’s what you felt you had to do…OK, but what’s that going to lead to? More and more nastiness.

        The nature of this medium does not encourage lengthy quotations to prove one’s point that uh… Pound was Jeffersonian, for instance. But it’s still valuable to me if someone makes that observation…I can chew on it awhile if I want…but I’m not going to expect heaps of “evidence” for such an assertion…I’m happy to pick horatiox’s brain…I think we have to remember that words are…shortcuts…that’s all language is, finally…a shortcut…instead of walking over to something and touching it, or pointing to it, we use a word for it, because it saves us time…people make words into very mysterious things…as if they were living creatures…and so when we hear offensive words we almost assume they are alive…no, they’re just little shortcut devices…that’s all they are…when someone calls you a ‘name,’ that ‘name’ is only a shortcut which is a shorter way of saying ‘you have made me angry in such a way that I have no more respect for you.’ But someone calling you a ‘name’ shows more respect for you than saying nothing to you at all, because they do care enough to speak to you, to ‘warn’ you that you have made them angry. I think you’ve upset horatiox enough now, that there’s no turning back. If you were both kids, you could fight for a few minutes and it would be all over. As grown-ups, you and horatiox have unfortunately let all sorts of psycho-sexual/political stuff out of the bag and now it’s just a big mess. I’d say you and horatiox should just ignore each other for awhile.

        Tom

      • horatiox said,

        August 5, 2010 at 2:51 am

        Exactly. I don’t attach any comments to his/her whiny rants. So, like refrain from commenting on my posts, Sybil-Supe. Or else.

        Really….this is why blogging doesn’t work, why some of us are about to bag it (or burn it down in the case of like Silliman). Some person becomes obsessed about something or someone he doesn’t like (get this horatiox freak, my pretties!). Then the entire blog becomes infected with his madness. Now, if the person was a…Pound type mind, then…it might be understandable, to some degree. But in this case it’s just a..hound-like mind.

        And he/she’s motivated entirely by what Nietzsche called “ressentiment”– a peasant rage at all of existence, slave morality. The feeling of the weak-Chandala (Sybil-supe) for his strong, noble superior (Ho.). Heh.

      • notevensuperficial said,

        August 5, 2010 at 6:00 am

        Tom, look at the time stamps on first two comments on this thread – horatiox’s troll-spiral had already whizzed into, ah, flirtation (?).

        Do you see? – she’d been asked, politely, for substantiation about remarks she had volunteered about Pound, Plato, Fitzgerald, and she produced an irrelevant piece of Plato and nothing else than tantrum-yoga. A bit of ridicule – and coarse abuse and calling-out “to the street” (where, Tom, no mean bastard I ever knew ever talked like horatiox . . .).

        I don’t think there’s anything “thoughtful” about her spray, there or anywhere else: “Pound praises Jefferson and Madison in some of his economic scribblings[.]” – Are your corneas really not scratched by the fakery??

        It’s an interesting question: someone’s reaction is, subjectively, inviolable. If one likes something, one likes it; if not, not.

        But you’ve got to produce something when you assert fact, when your opinion or perspective is presented as a kind of object: ‘I like Smith’s poetry because he writes about daffodils.’ ‘No he doesn’t! He never even uses the word. What do you mean?‘ ‘Well: here – ‘

        If you’re accused of charlatanry, it’s an easy charge to refute – you don’t have to quote swathes; just substantiate what you say – . But if you are a phony, and a thin-skinned, turn-quickly-to-threats phony . . . well, hell.

        ——

        Since you enjoy interacting with horatiox, cool, I’ll try harder to ignore her offensively fraudulent “psycho-sexual/political stuff” – but I’m keeping an eye out for her on Dateline: Predator.

  23. August 4, 2010 at 10:55 pm

    So, Mr. Brady, I just have to ask…are:

    “chinga tu madre, puerca
    how’s that. you don’t even know what this game’s about little clown. Yeah im here to burn up little chapbooks, decorator handbooks, beat-bum manifestos, slut rants, Sylvia Plath whines….yr books. La conflagracion de los libros de mierda! Ay . Pound’s shade would agree.”
    – Horatiox

    and,

    “fuck you, satanist. You’re not here to fact-check anything, and certainly no logician, puta
    (this person’s a psychotic, Tom–obsessed, irrational, ranting, crazy in a bad, ugly peasant sense. And given any …religious considerations…a demon. An unfunny demon at that)”
    – Horatiox

    and,

    “Yr the byatch here, Miss Soopie. puto. Don’t forget that.
    We know where you live as well, basura.
    Capichay?? I piss on yr little belle-lettrist face, byatch
    No mas poesia de zion”
    – Horatiox

    all part of your “hoary tradition of philosophers questioning the very idea of art itself.”

    I have made every effort to be “civil”, as you requested, perhaps even somewhat humorous, and still you insult me. You, as usual, have condemned yourself again with your own hypocritical bullshit.

    • horatiox said,

      August 4, 2010 at 11:20 pm

      ugly, but you cherry picked only one half of the fight, Gar–the loser (supe) yapped a lot more, vicious, uncalled for, not to say…pompous and irrational. I said nothing to this freak “supe.” Or you really–tho’ you were defending the Silliman crew, and the usual ahhtistes. I responded once I got attacked; it escalated as they say. Even made a gentlemanly offer of a duel, which he ignored (typical byatch move). And per Iggy Pop, I ain’t got time to make no apologies …

      Now, back to burning those ugly garish excretions of Pollacks. ANSTEIGEN! heh

    • thomasbrady said,

      August 5, 2010 at 2:48 am

      Gary, Gary, they’re just words. What are we, like 2 years old here? “Mommy! Gary called me a bad name!”

      You’ve never had a salty conversation in your life?

      Memo to Scarriet readers: this isn’t kindergarten..psst! we’re grownups…

      Are Mommy and Daddy reading this blog? Should we put horatiox in a time-out?

      Maybe we all need a time-out?

      • horatiox said,

        August 5, 2010 at 3:15 am

        Yeah I quit Scarriet, as of this post, Mr. Tom. You’ve posted some interesting commentary, but there’s too much bad joss (and in a sense….my points pertained to the little Silliman squabble which is over. And Im not a lit-person really). For that matter the buttboys like Soopie are too powerful, not to say nauseating. She’ll soon leave some stinky thing here as well.

        buena suerte

  24. Caoimhghin Bonkerz said,

    August 4, 2010 at 11:10 pm

    You tell ’em Gary.

    Bastard fraudulent foetry bollix. Not tonite Horatio darling.

    Who the fakery hell do these two-bit no-mark hetronymic fecks think they flippin ars poetica, Gazery Fraternal Fitz mate, Gaz, pal, colleague most esteemed and true, true fwend who’ll tell yer to fuck right off and threaten to punch you in the nose …i luv yr gas, you know that, don’t you Gary, darling?

    http://www.mediafire.com/?mzjoim3hommunkz

    • August 5, 2010 at 1:47 am

      Dear Kevin:

      I apologize for threatening to punch you in the nose. I don’t even really remember exactly what it was you said that pissed me off in the first place.

      I do remember qualifying the threat by saying that I would do this if you ever came to Dublin and, knowing that you live in England, we both understand it was an empty threat.

      No genuine offense was intended. Just havin’ a larf, me bucko.

  25. thomasbrady said,

    August 5, 2010 at 3:25 am

    horatiox,

    harriet shut down comments because of me and silliman shut down comments because of you.

    It was fate that we’d meet on blog Scarriet.

    My nanny-statements were not meant to dampen the party atmosphere; you don’t have to leave; in fact, I think after all the remarks tonight, we’re all much closer to being friends.

    If you leave in a fluster like this, you make it easier for jessica smith and ron silliman to say, ‘see! those nasty people just can’t get along! we were right!”

    I know you’ve got better things to do, but please don’t exit this way. If you must go, do it more casually, more gracefully, not with such a definitive door-slam.

    Why must we all be such drama queens??!!???

    eh?

    Tom

  26. thomasbrady said,

    August 5, 2010 at 3:28 am

    come here…give ol’ Tom Brady a hug…

  27. thomasbrady said,

    August 5, 2010 at 11:29 am

    notevensuperficial,

    Pound as Jeffersonian is something I’ve heard before, so I knew horatiox wasn’t making it up; in fact, I can tell horatiox is a wide reader; but like 99.9% of us, horatiox does not have the time to track down every connection; since I’ve studied Poe in depth, for instance, whenever I hear an educated person talk about Poe I hear them recite the penny facts that circulate, but which are just half-truths. When you really study any subject in-depth you realize that the ‘educated’ view of most things is wrong, and that’s what most people blather about, including horatiox. Anyway, you demanding horatiox prove this or that seemed counter-productive, and especially when it bordered on, or was, insult. Wouldn’t it have been better to say, ‘well, here’s what I know about Pound’s economic theories…’?

    Tom

  28. Franz Bonkerz said,

    August 5, 2010 at 1:37 pm

    Evincing the authority of sock-puppets, is transparently out of order, boy, Lidl man, boy with a massvie Lidl bag, half a wardrobe fits in, the other half in another Lidl bag, there a three-way route to karmic entightlement, aN AUL lIDL SACK FO shouting at the top of its VOICE, hello, I am an idiot, what is your name, take me toyour editor please, tie me to a desk; let me be a midwife to poetry, your poems mean a feck of a Lidl aul bogher’s bag, to me chaps, comrades, communist programmed thought-cop sheeple patrolling yourself, saving the dog from having to bark, scaring yourselves into belief that, yes, it is boring being like me, tho because thro you eyes will calm the masquette and butty bagels, alive in song they’ll arrive at the appointed time the planets declare it to be; foldero dee, what a wom bop a lula, le man-dawn chunez, we are everyone and nobody both at once, anonymous yet eternal, the authentic imprimatur, all one;s own, grrls, whorling minutes abandon the depth of your private mind inquiring into why this is rhme land, this is our land, this is Mace land, Netto ‘n Lidle, half a wardrobe of recycled clones of ebvery single singer in the universe of song that ever sung, do ray me, far so la tee, dough maybe, carp diem le surity, do ray moi, far so ray lo doo dee do da diddle do, a deer, a male jeer, insulting face-off between our selves in print, an author realist gazing into the hostile eyes of takeover times, give give give, me me me, everyone a loser and now, because of poetry, do ray me so far le tea dans le supermarche, uno persona hable tres languages, amigo, chica, mon ames, English pple, countrypeople, everyone, lend me your beers.

    • thomasbrady said,

      August 5, 2010 at 2:00 pm

      What did the White Queen say to the Red Queen, again?

      • Nooch said,

        July 14, 2011 at 11:19 am

        Not sure, but:
        The Dormouse said,
        “Feed your head.”

  29. Marcus Bales said,

    August 5, 2010 at 2:39 pm

    Notgettingititudinosity
    (Thanks to John Bales, who coined the word)

    It hurts each time some new-encountered “we”
    Rejects a person when he thought enthused
    Excitement ought to pay his member’s fee —
    We all have been both guilty and accused
    Of notgettingititudinosity.

    At first I thought perhaps it could be me
    Who’d missed why he was hostile and confused –
    But one by one the whole group seemed to be
    Persuaded by his comments that he oozed
    Notgettingititudinosity.

    If unpursued the guilty still will flee
    Perhaps it’s likewise true that the abused
    Attack potential friends whom they don’t see
    As friendly since they’re blinded by a bruised
    Notgettingititudinosity.

    He hadn’t given us a clue why he
    Was angry when the rest were just amused,
    Nor why he seemed to think that he was free
    To demonstrate so clearly unexcused
    Notgettingititudinosity.

    If there are grounds on which we can agree
    The world wide web is out there to be cruised —
    But constant good-will patches are the key
    To properly disposing of our used
    Notgettingititudinosity.

  30. The Noochie-Coochie Man said,

    August 5, 2010 at 4:04 pm

    Bales is back, and there’s gonna be trouble,
    Ooh la, la laaaa….Marcus Bales is back!
    A new foundation in the midst of all the rubble,
    Ooh la, la laaaa….Marcus Bales is back!

  31. thomasbrady said,

    August 5, 2010 at 4:57 pm

    Marcus Bales is my shepherd, I shall not want. He makes me recite keen verses, he leads me beside quiet web sites. He restores my blog. He guides me in the posts of righteousness. Lo! tho I walk thru comments by horatiox I shall fear no evil…

  32. Anonymous said,

    July 14, 2011 at 12:33 am

    Too much silliness here to bother correcting.

    • thomasbrady said,

      July 14, 2011 at 12:53 pm

      When you say “here,” I assume you refer to your own comment.

  33. January 5, 2014 at 1:40 am

    great points altogether, you just received a new reader.
    What might you recommend about your post that you made some days ago?
    Any positive?

  34. January 5, 2014 at 11:35 pm

    I love what you guys are up too. This type of clever work and coverage!
    Keep up the great works guys I’ve included you guys to my blogroll.

  35. August 13, 2014 at 5:46 am

    I do believe all the concepts you’ve introduced on your post.

    They’re very convincing and can definitely work.

    Still, the posts are too brief for newbies. Could you
    please extend them a bit from next time? Thanks for the post.

    • noochinator said,

      August 13, 2014 at 10:23 am

      Hey @sex gangsters money and gold hackt, have you ever heard an opera written in Georgian? (Georgia the country, not the U.S. state.) Here’s one, only 30 minutes short: THE HERMIT, opera legend in one act, by Sulkhan Tsintsadze. Libretto by P. Gruzinsky after poem of the same name by I. Chavchavadze. Hermit (Nodar Andguladze), Shepherdess (Medeya Namoradze); Academic Choir of Georgia, Leningrad Philharmonic Academic Symphony Orchestra, conducted by Odyssey Dimitriadi (a/k/a Odysseas Dimitriadis). Sung in Georgian, text read by Ghuram Sagaradze.


Leave a Reply to Franz Bonkerz Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: