WHERE IS DRACULA’S CASTLE?

Yeats

William Butler Yeats: a distinguished member of the Ascendancy

Oscar Wilde, who did two years’ hard labor for sodomy—in a land where it was common—married a beautiful woman whom he loved, and had two beautiful children.  Before marrying Constance, Wilde courted Florence, (unsuccessfully) an even more beautiful woman—who had one child with her husband, Bram Stoker, an Irish theater manager for the prominent Shakespearean actor, Henry IrvingStoker was mild in his politics, a ‘home rule’ Irishman, a loyal servant to his ‘master,’ Irving, and, of course, most famously, the author of Dracula. Irving, the eccentric, melodramatic, charismatic actor, brought new respectability to the profession when he was knighted by the Queen of the Empire, Victoria, in 1895, the same day, as it happened, that Oscar Wilde with two successful plays running in London, was sentenced for the crime of buggery, to never see his children, forever persona non grata to the Empire, fleeing to France to become a beggar, following his prison term in sack-cloth breaking rocks, dying in 1900 at the age of 46.  Oscar Wilde’s mother was a poet and a proud, outspoken Irish Nationalist—Lady Jane Wilde was a leader of the Irish Literary Revival well before Yeats/Gregory created the British stereotypical myth of the Irish as an unchanging, eternal peasantry of savages and fairies, but Wildes‘ mother, Lady Jane was destroyed and thrown into poverty by scandal, like her son, and her work buried and forgotten.

The producer of Dracula as a play on Broadway was also the publisher of soon-to-be-Empire-citizen T.S. Eliot’s morbid The Waste Land in 1922, the year the German film Nosferatu was made, and subsequently sued successfully (and all copies ordered destroyed) by Florence, Bram Stoker’s widow.

A little over 100 years ago, when the anti-Semite writers T.S. Eliot and John Gould Fletcher were undergraduates at Harvard, (Fletcher’s future: Imagist in Pound’s circle, then Southern Agrarian in Ransom’s, Eliot’s: British citizenship, Modernist Godfather) the anti-semite Ezra Pound, a few years older than Eliot, and too naughty and ambitious for serious academic study, but somehow able to appear more well-read than anybody, went looking for Dracula’s castle.

Pound went to Europe to find eternal fame—the respectable route of moral literature (either Poe’s brand: scientific—a spoofer of magic, or Whitman’s: sentimental comradeship) didn’t interest Pound, who wanted real witchcraft, real magic. The fix Pound wanted was in Britian, the heart of the world’s greatest Empire, moral in deeply contradictory ways, murderer of Oscar Wilde, royally smug, ruler of Ireland and India, hater of cousin Hun, wary of America, proud, smart, prejudiced, and strong, this Island empire, and since they ruled ancient and exotic lands, why study these places? Pound went to the England that owned these places; those-in-the-know knew what England was: royal above, monstrous below.

Pound was bit by the occultist William Butler YeatsPound was Yeats’ secretary and married one of Yeats’ ex-lovers. Pound was introduced to John Quinn, the modern art collector and lawyer, who would become Pound and Eliot’s attorney, and help negotiate the special publishing deal for the The Waste Land. Quinn, an Irishman, was also, like Yeats, a double agent for the Empire, working against Irish independence; Yeats‘  target was Irish nationalist Maud Gonne. Quinn’s associate in British intelligence was Alesiter Crowley. Pound met all of Yeats’ associates in the Order of the Golden Dawn. Pound quickly became a chief vampire himself, bankrolled, as Eliot would be, by titled ladies, and so they all flocked to Pound: Joyce, (a Parnel-ite, like Yeats), the Futurists, the Cubists, the drug-addicted poets whom Pound (always the helpful Pound) helped with drugs, the underground avant-garde, the royal, the decadent, the idle, bored, landed rich, the sort that exported wheat during the Irish Famine.

Ford Madox Ford, seven years younger than Yeats and 12 years older than Pound, Imagist poet and War Propaganda Minister for the sacrificial slaughter of young men which would begin in 1914, met young Pound off the boat and showed him the way to Dracula’s castle.

Where, today, could a highly ambitious poet find Dracula’s castle? Where, today, can one sell one’s soul so convincingly? Where are figures like Yeats and Symons and Kipling, all born in 1865 and admired so much by T.SEliot, a proud member of the Kipling Society?  Pound was Yeats’ servant, and Eliot called Yeats “the greatest poet of the 20th century.” Yeats?  Who wrote lines such as:

We who are old, old and gay,
O so old!
Thousands of years, thousands of years,
If all were told:

After all the talk of “new” has died down, one should simply sit down and read the poetry of (in order of birth) Santayana, Yeats, Symons, Kipling, Dowson, Masters, Robinson, Binyon, Davies, Belloc, Douglas, Mew, Crane, Hodgson, Ford, De La Mare, Chesterton, Lowell, Frost, Masefield, Thomas, Sandburg, Monro, Stevens, Joyce, Wickham, Hulme, Lawrence, Pound, Sassoon, Doolittle, Jeffers, Wylie, E. Sitwell, Moore, Brooke, Seeger, Ransom, Eliot, Aiken, MacLeish, Millay, Owen, Huxley, Van Doren, Cummings, Graves, Blunden, Davison, Benet, Crane, Tate, S. Sitwell, Campbell, Lewis, Auden, MacNeice, Spender, Thomas, and Schwartz, and see how silly the whole Modernist claim to the “new” really is. Wallace Stevens sounds like the Sitwells. T.S. Eliot sounds like a petulant and subdued Byron. Pound sounds like an unmarried Victorian.

No, it wasn’t the “new” that Pound was looking for when he stopped off the boat in England.

He was looking for the very, very, very old. 

“Thousands of years, if all were told.”

Advertisements

77 Comments

  1. Mark said,

    April 19, 2011 at 9:47 pm

    Not only is this post melodramatic as hell (Pound sold his soul by writing poems you don’t like? Get a Y chromosone, Nancy) it’s also really poorly written. You’re all over the place. I had to read a lot of these sentences twice over to know what you’re talking about… and it’s painful enough reading your sentences even once, Tom.

    It does, however, show nicely why you shouldn’t be trusted. You define Pound and Eliot by their Anti-Semitism but you let Wilde off the hook.

    Let’s drop the feigned histrionics for a second. Tom Metzger is an Anti-Semitic writer. Eliot is a writer who was Anti-Semitic.

    When you try to define the Modernists by this exclusively you just end up showing how little you’ve read and how shallow your thinking is.

    I’ve posted some comments for you in the “About Scarriet” thread. Let’s say we get to ’em?

    • thomasbrady said,

      April 20, 2011 at 1:26 am

      wow, you can’t put 2 and 2 together, can you? don’t fret, mark, continue to live in a world in which tom doesn’t like this or that poem (!)

      Let’s see what you’ve said in ‘About Scarriet…’ (I can’t wait!)

      • Mark said,

        April 20, 2011 at 1:33 am

        Like whichever poems you want, Tom.

        Just don’t lie about the poems you don’t like and don’t misrepresent their poets

        I look forward to your responses to my questions in the About Scarriet thread

        Mark

      • thomasbrady said,

        April 20, 2011 at 1:50 am

        Come on, mark, aren’t you going to defend Yeats, at least?

        Not ready to discuss Parnell and the Protestant Ascendancy?

      • Mark said,

        April 20, 2011 at 2:00 am

        Defend him against what?

        You’re stalling, Tom. Stop avoiding the real discussion with these lame little side-tracks.

        “About Scarriet” is the thread. We’re all waiting for you.

      • thomasbrady said,

        April 20, 2011 at 2:11 am

        dontcha think Yeats looks like a vampire in that photo?

      • Mark said,

        April 20, 2011 at 2:13 am

        I actually do!

        Admittedly, it’s a great pic…

  2. April 20, 2011 at 3:56 am

    Dear Mark, Gary, Bill, Martin Earl and Diana (I think that that’s it at the moment, though I know there are 100s of regular visitors, some quite involved),

    Forgive me now for losing it in what follows.

    I lived with Tom’s poison for so many years I became immune to it, I’m afraid — but it wasn’t always like that. I yelled with rage at his insensitivities and prejudices on Foetry.com in 2007, and even quit a couple of times in disgust, as did many others. But then, like so many whistle blowers, I realized the enemy of my enemy was my friend, and I began to find his obsessions at first curious, like ticks, then amusing, they raised so many hilarious hackles. More than that, I began to find them useful when we took our hot issues to Poets & Writers and the AoAP, and even felt honorable when I defended him with all my might against the Lords of the Poetry Chat-room Establishment on Blog:Harriet.

    Indeed, by the time we got to Harriet, and we never travelled together, by the way, Tom and I, or ever had a plan or a mission, Tom had become a friend — and I think that that influenced him too, this wild, funny friendship between a freaky old man and a conservative internet troll, neither of whom knew each other at all.

    What a story!

    Well, I no longer felt I was an activist by that time, Foetry having largely accomplished its purpose, and I was able to turn all my attention to what I really loved best, reading and talking about poetry. Tom, on the other hand, still got into trouble for the obsessive way he dominated every discussion with his C.T.s, and I ran interference for him even then, I confess, defended him, even attempted to make him a respectable critic by approaching the Poetry Foundation to give him a job (yes I did — and got quite a warm reception too!).

    But as with you, Mark, Tom always slipped away from the deluge of complaints with his sleights of hand, disappearances, feints and jiggles, and I, just his friend, became more visible than he was, and a much larger and steadier target. I defended Tom, therefore I was worse than Tom, that was the argument — and, of course, in the end took the first slug.

    Tom didn’t come onto Scarriet right away. It was set up by Alan Cordle on September 4th, 2009, as a vehicle for both of us, but it was me who first started using it on September 7th, 2009 on a regular basis. In fact, I had posted 10 substantial articles by the time Tom first came in on September 29th — I had to twist his arm to get him to write “Not A Radical Treatise,” and I put it up for him and illustrated it myself (look at the hat!), Tom never having had any experience behind the Oz screen before. And I continued to do the lion’s share of the graphics and editing right up until the first March Madness in 2010, when Tom seized the reins and with Nooch at his side drove chariot-Scarriet all the way to the Rosebowl and then on through Ripley’s to Hollywood.

    You all know the rest.

    And this last article ? I just can’t bear it, but instead of saying why I’ll just let you think my thoughts by watching this horrible, over-the-top, unconscionable video. And all I ask is that you watch your feelings, that you trust them — and then forgive me for what I have done by disclosing my own.

    Christopher

    .

    • thomasbrady said,

      April 20, 2011 at 12:10 pm

      Christopher,

      I’m not sure what your point is. Is that video your opinion? Or are you saying it was the opinion of Pound and Eliot? You have to take all these things with a grain of salt, whether it’s gutter politics or respectable politics. That video is outlandish and hateful but it is useful, I suppose, for a grain of truth here and there: democracy by the stupid as a dangerous thing—many people (ironically) would agree with that.

      As for your attempt to throw me under the bus, calling me a “troll” and saying they all liked you—except that you had the courage to defend me… your implication that you did most of the work on Scarriet for the first 6 or 7 months…say whatever you want, I don’t care…because the evidence is there…but you can take credit for whatever you want, I don’t mind…Scarriet is large and accomodates many…

      Tom

      • wfkammann said,

        April 20, 2011 at 5:36 pm

        At the momen tScarriet is as large or small as you care to make it, Thom.

        What out of the decadence you describe above there is to hate, I’m not sure. It’s a little like hating the music of Cole Porter.

        These wayward Americans went to Europe and helped change the face of art and literature. You can’t throw them all in a pot and damn them.

        More productive would be to avoid the big conspiracy theory (which, I assume, is what Christopher alludes to in the video); stop bemoaning the death of Romanticism, of which Poe is one of America’s last gasps, and discuss poets; poems; art and literature or, if you prefer, adolescents and sports parents.

        You’re the King, Thom, but you’ll excuse us if we sometimes get bored with bowing.

      • thomasbrady said,

        April 20, 2011 at 9:50 pm

        Bill,

        Don’t you think the audience can shape it, too? I’m just beating the drum.

        Woodman grew up in an era dominated by the New Critics and he can’t seem to escape that sensibility.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/books/review/book-review-the-use-and-abuse-of-literature-by-marjorie-garber.html

        This link shows the New Critics haven’t gone away.

        Tom

      • Mark said,

        April 20, 2011 at 10:11 pm

        WF,

        What’s really funny is that Tom’s conspiracy theory about people not being able to handle Poe is more imagined than most.

        I watched a lecture last night on Charles Bernstein’s blog by Jerome McGann about Edgar Allen Poe (it was really interesting except for the Q&A section which was so badly recorded that I ended up turning it off). Bernstein introduces it saying how McGann has changed the way he teaches Poe then McGann begins by talking about the revolution in Poe scholarship that’s occurred in the last 20 years and lists about a half dozen major scholarly works (books, not essays). McGann even talks a bit about the critical drubbing Poe received in the early 20th C. and does so without adopting Tom’s trademark “uninformed moron” position.

        The lecture/essay is mostly on Poe’s time as editor of the Broadway Review. I learned more about Poe in a half hour with Jerome McGann than I have in a month of reading Scarriet. If anyone wants to see it type “Jerome McGann” “Close Listening” into Google it’s the first one that comes up (something gets screwy when I try to post links here).

        All Tom can talk about is how the New Critics didn’t like Poe 100 years ago but he never mentions that critics in the present do and have been working on EAP with a renewed vigour. The critical reputations of writers ebb and flow – Tom doesn’t seem to realize this.

        I’m not sure if this is Tom’s ignorance of modern scholarship or just sour grapes that there is a Poe movement going on which he isn’t smart enough to contribute to (maybe purposeful ignorance as a defense mechanism which is, as we all know, the lifeblood of Scarriet) but either way it’s pretty funny that Tom’s been fighting a war that’s been over for 20 years.

        ~

        Tom,

        Still nothing on “About Scarriet” – are you scared? Don’t worry, I’ll be gentle.

        Mark

      • Mark said,

        April 20, 2011 at 10:12 pm

        Oh,

        I see that I crossposted with Tom here.

        I guess that means he’s over on the “About Scarriet” thread typing out a thoughtful and interesting response to my last couple posts.

        Awesome!

        Mark

      • Noochie Noochie Spam said,

        April 20, 2011 at 11:11 pm

        Thom,
        From the Times article you reference. “Garber’s book is strongest when tracing this re-evaluation process and outlining the evolving use of the very term “literature”; it once meant mere familiarity with books (Samuel Johnson on John Milton: “He had probably more than common literature”), but came in the early 19th century to replace “poetry” as the broad term for “writing which has claim to consideration on the ground of beauty of form or emotional effect,” as the Oxford English Dictionary has it.”

        Johnson refers to John Milton’s father in this quotation and notes that John Milton (son) had written his father in Latin. So, common literature is English literature.

        By the way, this article is mostly blah, blah, blah. Again, I don’t see your lurking plot.

    • Nooch said,

      April 20, 2011 at 2:15 pm

      Ah, Bach!

    • Mark said,

      April 20, 2011 at 10:29 pm

      Tom’s response to his own post here is a real laugh. I guess his arguments have always been bad.

      The Beatles didn’t go back to classical music – that doesn’t make any sense. Pop music with strings isn’t the same as “classical music”. Even their incorporating Indian instrumentation had almost nothing to do with actual Indian classical music on a musicological level. The only thing even close to “classical music” adopted by the Beatles was musique concrete which was a movement occurring contemporary with the Beatles and required no backwards movement at all.

      Apparently in addition to not knowing anything about poetry, Tom doesn’t know anything about music. I guess I’ve got my job cut out for me here.

      Mark

      • Noochie Noochie Spam said,

        April 20, 2011 at 10:47 pm

        There was a Pachelbel canon riff in there somewhere. But classical music?

  3. Dorothy Gale said,

    April 20, 2011 at 10:18 pm

    Toto, I’ve a feeling we’re not in Kansas any more.

  4. Christopher Woodman said,

    April 21, 2011 at 1:11 am

    WHY THE EMPEROR IS NEVER NAKED.

    Dear Tailor Tom,
    I’m not sure what your point is, or even if it’s your opinion? Or are you saying it was the opinion of Pound and Eliot, not yours about them? You tell me I have to take all these things with a grain of salt, whether it’s gutter politics or respectable politics. Also that you agree that the video is outlandish and hateful but that it’s a useful example of how conspiracy theories work, a grain of truth here, a fact there, how Whitman sounds just like Emerson, and Pound wasn’t any more American than Eliot, and Bram Stoker preferred Florence — so many damning coincidences we all start to feel that the whole history of poetry is rotten. That everything about poetry is rotten to the core, in fact, so let’s get simple and just write songs for very young girlfriends and then later for our children. Like your saying democracy by the stupid is a dangerous thing—many people would agree with you on that, Tom, as I certainly would (ironically), but then I’m a socialist.

    As for my attempt to throw you under the bus, calling you a “troll” and saying they all hated you—even if I did have the courage to defend you as well… also the implication that I did most of the work behind the scenes on Scarriet, the editing, the cleaning up and the graphics, for the first 6 or 7 months…all those things I said, which even though they’re true, you don’t care. The evidence is there, you say…I can take credit for whatever I want, Because you don’t mind…you’re happy with Scarriet as it is, so large and accommodating so many. And I believe you, I believe that you believe all that and in precisely that manner, and that that’s why the emperor’s not naked.

    Christopher

  5. Christopher Woodman said,

    April 21, 2011 at 1:35 am

    OR LIKE THESE SORT OF CLOTHES

    After all the talk of “new” has died down, one should simply sit down and read the poetry of (in order of birth) Santayana, Yeats, Symons, Kipling, Dowson, Masters, Robinson, Binyon, Davies, Belloc, Douglas, Mew, Crane, Hodgson, Ford, De La Mare, Chesterton, Lowell, Frost, Masefield, Thomas, Sandburg, Monro, Stevens, Joyce, Wickham, Hulme, Lawrence, Pound, Sassoon, Doolittle, Jeffers, Wylie, E. Sitwell, Moore, Brooke, Seeger, Ransom, Eliot, Aiken, MacLeish, Millay, Owen, Huxley, Van Doren, Cummings, Graves, Blunden, Davison, Benet, Crane, Tate, S. Sitwell, Campbell, Lewis, Auden, MacNeice, Spender, Thomas, and Schwartz, and see how silly the whole Modernist claim to the “new” really is. Wallace Stevens sounds like the Sitwells, T.S. Eliot sounds like a petulant and subdued Byron. Pound sounds like an unmarried Victorian.

    No, it wasn’t the “new” that Pound was looking for when he stepped off the boat in England.

    He was looking for the very, very, very old.

    “Thousands of years, if all were told.”

    .

    So what’s wrong with that, Tom? Isn’t that just what you want, to set the clock back?

    Indeed, I’m confused now, very. I really think we’d all be served best, even those friendly regulars who are so nicely set up and happy on Scarriet, if you talked to Mark, and you clarified some of those questions.

    Because I for one haven’t got a clue what you mean, and if it’s just nothing, then spell it out, Tom — put us out of our misery.

    Christopher

  6. thomasbrady said,

    April 21, 2011 at 1:40 am

    Mark,

    I never said the Beatles played classical music—the whole thrust of my argument went right over your head.

    Spam,

    Did you read the entire review? The point is real simple and made at the end when the reviewer disagrees with Garber when she writes that ‘how’ literature expresses itself is more important than ‘what’ it expresses.

    Garber’s position is very New Critic—focus on the text and don’t worry about the biography of the writer, the historical context, etc.

    I’m saying: it all counts; it all matters. I discuss historical context, but my critics, such as Woodman, complain that I ‘don’t like poetry’ and that I don’t ‘discuss poetry like a good schoolteacher’ and that instead I focus on context; yes, that’s what I do, because I think that’s important, also.

    You don’t have to agree with me, I’m just putting things out there that people may be missing, but Woodman seems to be one of these types where if your politics don’t mesh exactly with his, he gives you a hard time. I like to think I’m more open-minded than that. Nooch and I are very different, for instance, and we accept that. Woodman freaked out on me, and now he’s very divided with himself, because part of him regrets that he freaked out and the other part of him wants to kill me.

    Tom

    • Noochie Noochie Spam said,

      April 21, 2011 at 1:45 am

      I don’t which one I’m rooting for.

    • Mark said,

      April 21, 2011 at 1:56 am

      Tom,

      You said: “I never said the Beatles played classical music—the whole thrust of my argument went right over your head.”

      I actually said: “The Beatles didn’t go back to classical music” which is not to say that they DID play classical music, merely that they didn’t go back to it in any significant way.

      What I said was in response to you saying: “The Beatles were supposed to be the enemy of ‘stuffy’ Classical music, but they began to use it, whether the market, or whether their record company wanted them to do so, or not.”

      They did not begin to use it. The only thing in the tradition of classical music used by the Beatles is musique concrete and that’s a mid-20th century development.

      Eleanor Rigby isn’t the Beatles using classical music any more than my Sinatra with Strings record is Sinatra using classical music. Your argument didn’t go over my head, Tom. You just don’t know what you’re talking about.

  7. Dorothy Gale said,

    April 21, 2011 at 1:56 am

    Lions, and tigers, and bears! Oh, my!

  8. Mark said,

    April 21, 2011 at 2:02 am

    Also,

    Did you watch that Poe lecture Bernstein set up, Tom?

    I’m curious to know your thoughts on it since it dismantles your whole victim-pose where everyone hates Poe.

    Mark

  9. Mark said,

    April 21, 2011 at 2:10 am

    Also,

    You said: “Garber’s position is very New Critic—focus on the text and don’t worry about the biography of the writer, the historical context, etc.

    I’m saying: it all counts; it all matters. I discuss historical context, but my critics, such as Woodman, complain that I ‘don’t like poetry’ and that I don’t ‘discuss poetry like a good schoolteacher’ and that instead I focus on context; yes, that’s what I do, because I think that’s important, also.”

    First off, you don’t focus on context you focus on gossip. There is a difference.

    Second, no serious critic does what you’re accusing the New Critical position of anymore. New Historicism, Post-Colonialism, Orientalism… For the last 50 years critics have done nothing but focus on context. You can find one random article and then just ignore NNS when he quotes a large section that focuses on contextualizing the use of the word literature historically if you want, but it doesn’t make for very good writing on your part.

  10. Mark said,

    April 21, 2011 at 2:14 am

    …But you should probably just leave this be for a bit, Tom.
    We’re all still waiting for a response in the “About Scarriet” thread.

  11. Dorothy Gale said,

    April 21, 2011 at 2:32 am

    My goodness, what a fuss you’re making! Well naturally, when you go around picking on things weaker than you are. Why, you’re nothing but a great big coward!

    Cowardly Lion: You’re right, I am a coward! I haven’t any courage at all. I even scare myself.

    Now I… I know we’re not in Kansas!

    • Mark said,

      April 21, 2011 at 2:45 am

      Is Tom weaker than me, Gary?

      He’s presenting himself as being in a position of strength. More to the point, I don’t why my questioning Tom’s arguments and persisting in those questions is so objectionable to you.

      When someone chooses to make an argument in public that person not only takes on the burden of proof, they speak with the express realization that someone might come along and question the points.

      Obviously I know a lot more than Tom about some areas of poetry and obviously Tom knows a lot more than me in others (though he clearly doesn’t know anything about music… that Beatles analogy is REALLY painful). Scarriet was set up to encourage debate and bring together disparate positions – I want to know why Tom is hiding now. I’m not looking for a grudgematch, I’m looking for a discussion.

      I don’t see how me questioning Tom’s arguments is any different than Tom questioning Silliman’s. At least I’m not making personal attacks on Tom the way Tom does to RS.

      Mark

      PS – I didn’t realize that Dorothy’s last name was Gale… that’s very clever… Kudos to LFB

  12. Dorothy Gale said,

    April 21, 2011 at 2:56 am

    Dorothy: Your Majesty, if you were king, you wouldn’t be afraid of anything?
    Mark: Not nobody! Not nohow!
    Tin Woodsman: Not even a rhinoceros?
    Mark: Imposerous!
    Dorothy: How about a hippopotamus?
    Mark: Why, I’d thrash him from top to bottomus!
    Dorothy: Supposing you met an elephant?
    Mark: I’d wrap him up in cellophane!
    Scarecrow: What if it were a brontosaurus?
    Mark: I’d show him who was king of the forest!

    • Mark said,

      April 21, 2011 at 3:06 am

      Tom isn’t a child, Gary.

      When you say something in public sometimes you’re called upon to defend it. Is Tom so special that he shouldn’t be accountable for the things he says? The rest of us are… The hypocrisy of Scarriet is that Tom is trying to hold other people accountable for the things they say while shirking any responsibility for his own arguments.

      Stop letting Tom play the victim. He can handle himself… and if he can’t then he can walk away any time.

      Mark

  13. Christopher Woodman said,

    April 21, 2011 at 3:15 am

    Tom Brady writes:

    You don’t have to agree with me, I’m just putting things out there that people may be missing, but Woodman seems to be one of these types where if your politics don’t mesh exactly with his, he gives you a hard time. I like to think I’m more open-minded than that.

    My question has always been right from the start, why does Tom Brady make poems fight against each other?

    Why, as we have just been discussing at some length, does Tom Brady say the abusive things he does about Jack Myers’ “The Expert,” for example, making the poet look ridiculous just so he can put his totally different poem up against Philip Larkin’s magnificent “Aubade?”

    And as another example, also discussed, why did Tom do the same but even more blatantly at an earlier stage of the competition when he set up “The Expert” to steamroll Seamus Heaney’s “An Iron Spike?”

    What’s “open-minded” about that, what is more useful?

    And how does my aversion to all that reveal that my “politics don’t mesh with his?” Indeed, what does it say about my politics at all except that I have a lot more respect for people than Tom does, and particularly for poets?

    ~

    Like everything Tom writes there’s some truth in what he says, or at least there are some historical ‘facts,’ just as the whole Protocols of Zion is a tissue of historical half-truths too — with the minor exception that there never was a Jewish plot against the world, and that the Jewish people are just that, a People, who, like the Rohinga today in Burma, or Americans almost everywhere in the Middle East, blamed for what’s wrong. Indeed, the only fault in the Jews is very visible even in that horribly distorted film — they’re so gifted!

    Tom also wrote:

    Woodman freaked out on me, and now he’s very divided with himself, because part of him regrets that he freaked out and the other part of him wants to kill me.

    (Wow, I’m getting through!)

    Tom, my only regret is that I laughed off many of your indiscretions earlier, and now feel that perhaps if I’d taken a stronger line from the start you wouldn’t have moved so far out on your limb. You want us to believe that you like where you’re at and that you’re surrounded out there by admirers, “fans” you’d call them, for sure, but I don’t see anybody in the stands at all except Nooch, and he claps with one hand over his mouth.

    Prove me wrong, you myriad of visitors. Come in and tell us not that like you like Tom, which I sincerely hope you do, but that you like where Tom’s at!

    Christopher

  14. thomasbrady said,

    April 21, 2011 at 3:38 am

    Here’s the link of the Jerome McGann talk

    http://media.sas.upenn.edu/watch/112104

    So you ‘learned a lot’ from that talk, Mark? What did you learn? That Robert Lowell called Poe “3/5 Genius, 2/5 Fudge?” Actually, it was James Russell Lowell. That “Valdemar” was about the “resussication of a corpse?” It was about a man who dies while under hypnosis and speaks after death under hypnosis—it’s not about the ‘”resussication of a corpse.” Or, that Poe “failed” in Philadelphia? Poe did not “fail” in Philadlephia; it was a very productive time for him. That Poe was “ambivalent” about “copyright.” (This came out in one of the last questions, and I understand you didn’t go that far) Poe was not “ambivalent” about that issue, which centered around the fact that British works could be reprinted for free in America, thus hurting sales of American books—McGann said there was “no copyright” in America during Poe’s day which is simplifying things to say the least, and since the whole thrust of the talk was “textuality” and the “production, distribution and reception” of texts, this seemed a very important gap in McGann’s presentation. I was not impressed with his grasp of Poe or history; he seems more concerned with things like analog v. digital, etc.

    And much was made of ‘social’ literary tropes as opposed to ‘author-centered’ personal expression, which is fine, but to pretend this is a brand new is naive on the part of McGann/Bernstein. To study Poe is to understand this right away, and good scholars have always been more than just ‘author-centered.’

    McGann also claimed that “Pym” is “up to 50%” plagiarized, without a lick of evidence. I thought the presentation was boring and shoddy. It’s nice to see, however, that some hot shot academics are finally starting to catch up a little with Poe.

    I agree with you the question/answer period was boring—mostly about technological issues concerning software models of converting paper texts into digital…interesting, I suppose, but again, somewhat vague…

    Tom

    • Mark said,

      April 21, 2011 at 3:43 am

      “So you ‘learned a lot’ from that talk, Mark? What did you learn?”

      How about when you answer even one of my questions I’ll answer some of yours.

      “but to pretend this is a brand new is naive on the part of McGann/Bernstein”

      When did they pretend it was new? They didn’t. You’re letting your bias write your posts again, Tom.

      “It’s nice to see, however, that some hot shot academics are finally starting to catch up a little with Poe.”

      McGann says outright that this has been going on since the 90’s so for you to pretend this is brand new is naive on the part of Graves/Brady/Scarriet

      • Mark said,

        April 21, 2011 at 7:41 am

        Oh and just for the record, I never actually said I “learned a lot” from the McGann lecture. Tom is misrepresenting what I said yet again. I actually said I learned MORE from the McGann lecture than I do from reading Scarriet.

        More than nothing isn’t necessarily “a lot”

        It’s a shame Tom doesn’t bother to use his knowledge when he posts on Scarriet. Look at him dropping these factoids. Who cares that he can’t spell the word resuscitate? We all still love him, dammit!

        And sure, maybe I think it’s funny that Tom complains about one tangential point that McGann made half jokingly being delivered “without a lick of evidence” when whole posts on Scarriet are delivered the exact same way…

        Well, I’ve forgotten where I was going with this…

        Nevermind

      • thomasbrady said,

        April 21, 2011 at 10:12 am

        McGann spent a great deal of his lecture asserting the ‘new world’ of scholarship: ‘author-centered’ studies newly replaced by a more ‘social’ relations/production/distribution/reception’ etc. I notice you do this a lot: deny and distort truisms I report. This is beginning to look bad on your part, Mark.

        “McGann says outright…” LOL and you accept what he says?

        There has always been a Ph.D. doctoral industry of papers on Poe, and not in the last 15-20 years. Always has been interesting stuff written on Poe. But any study of Poe has to at least touch on the mainstream attacks, by TS Eliot in 1949, by Harold Bloom in 1984 in the NY Review of Books, attacks which went unanswered in the mainstream press; the Southern Fugitive/New Critics should have defended him, but since these New Critics were all soldiers of Eliot/Pound, they either attacked Poe or defended him weakly and condescendingly. There was a recent attack in the New Yorker by a woman in Harvard’s history department, for Poe’s 200th, again, no one responded in the mainstream press. Harvard professor’s F.O. Matthiessen’s book, ‘American Renaissance’ which wrote Poe out of the American canon, that influenced so many, that has to be looked at…McGann showed no curiosity of the where/why/how of the abuses of Poe—none.

        McGann presented the old canard that Poe’s life was “unbearably painful” (that must be why Poe is 2/5 fudge—according to Robert Lowell-LOL) —Poe’s contemporaries had lives far more “unbearably painful” than Poe’s if one bothers to read the biographies of Greeley, James Lowell, Griswold, Emerson, Longfellow, Thoreau, Chivers,Elizabeth Oakes Smith, Fanny Osgood, horribly, unbearably painful existences…go read about the loved ones, including children, Emerson, Thoreau, Lowell, Longfellow and all these writers lost…Poe had no children, so he escaped that pain.

        Tell me about it, Mark. The ‘Robert Lowell’ error by McGann is telling, because none of several generations of modernist writers ever said anything interesting about Poe…Huxley’s was good, in its way, but I thought it was beautiful the way McGann confused the 19th cen Lowell with the idiot 20th century one…

      • Mark said,

        April 21, 2011 at 10:27 am

        “I notice you do this a lot: deny and distort truisms I report.” – there’s that word “report” again. A report has facts to back it up, Tom. Your gossip-mongering doesn’t. What “truism” (which translates in my bullshit-English dictionary as “something Tom made up and can’t prove”) have I distorted here?

        ““McGann says outright…” LOL and you accept what he says?” – And yet you expect people to accept what you say outright without having to prove your points, Tom. I accept it because, as I said, he: “lists about a half dozen major scholarly works (books, not essays).”… I’m not really that into Poe so I don’t really care either way. You saying something doesn’t convince me otherwise because you’ve proved over and over again that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

        “McGann showed no curiosity of the where/why/how of the abuses of Poe—none.” – Dude, it’s a short paper about one specific point in Poe’s life. It’s not a book. He listed “a half dozen major scholarly works (books, not essays)” which would presumably touch on that stuff. Have you read any of the books he references, Tom? Are they any good?

        Anyway, since you seem to be about done missing the point here, let’s get over to the “About Scarriet” thread and start the real discussion.

        I can’t wait!

        Mark

  15. Dorothy Gale said,

    April 21, 2011 at 3:50 am

    Wizard of Oz: Why, anybody can have a brain. That’s a very mediocre commodity. Every pusillanimous creature that crawls on the Earth or slinks through slimy seas has a brain. Back where I come from, we have universities, seats of great learning, where men go to become great thinkers. And when they come out, they think deep thoughts and with no more brains than you have.

    • Mark said,

      April 21, 2011 at 3:56 am

      The only case I’m trying to make is that Tom ought to use his brain when he says things in public… and that when he doesn’t he’s going to be called on it and not allowed to wriggle free.

      Like I said, I’m not trying to show that I’m smarter than he is and he is definitely more well-read in certain areas. This isn’t me picking on Tom and this isn’t me trying to show how big my dick is.

      This is about holding him accountable for the things he says. That’s all.

  16. April 21, 2011 at 3:52 am

    The Way does not compete, and yet it skillfully achieves victory. It does not speak, and yet it skillfully responds to things.

    Lao tzu

    • Mark said,

      April 21, 2011 at 3:57 am

      I hope I’m not out of line…

      but you’ve been drinking tonight, haven’t you Gary?

      😀

      It’s cool. I have been too!

      Mark

  17. Christopher Woodman said,

    April 21, 2011 at 3:57 am

    I wrote just above:

    Prove me wrong, you myriad of visitors. Come in and tell us not that you like Tom, which I sincerely hope you do, but that you like where Tom’s at!

    With all due respect, Gary, as faithful a friend as you are an implacable foe, I’d like to rephrase that:

    Prove me wrong, you myriad of visitors. Come in and tell us not that you like Tom like his friend Gary does, which I sincerely hope you do, but that you like where Tom’s at!

    Christopher

    • Mark said,

      April 21, 2011 at 7:51 am

      Strictly playing devil’s advocate here, Christopher:

      I wouldn’t be surprised if there are people reading Scarriet who are perfectly happy with it but just don’t bother to read the comments and therefore can’t answer your question.

      There are blogs I read every day without ever checking out the comments page – usually they’re blogs I don’t feel particularly strongly about but still enjoy nonetheless. Maybe the bulk of the readership at Scarriet is that sort of casual reader. Maybe not. I don’t know.

      Just saying FWIW that the comments section, though an important indicator of the state of Scarriet, is not the only indicator.

  18. April 21, 2011 at 5:29 am

    Mark: Of course I’m drunk! I only go on the internet when I’m drunk. And I’m still a little sore about the Pulitzer thing. Here’s a comment I made on Don Share’s blog last time I was drunk:

    http://donshare.blogspot.com/2011/04/from-times-literary-supplement-april-15.html

    Christopher: Here are some poems I posted tonight that you might enjoy:

    http://compassrosebooks.blogspot.com/2011/04/clocks.html

  19. Limits Support said,

    April 21, 2011 at 5:47 am

    We acknowledge it that Mark will continue in his attempt to engage Thomas Brady in a dialogue on his questions on About Scarriet, but are relieved that that coach will become a pumpkin at midnight on April 31st.

    We also acknowledge Christopher Woodman’s question, that if there’s any visitor to Scarriet who likes where Tom’s at, and would like to see Tom continue in the same vein, he or she should say so. Should there be no one, then Limits Support might have to conclude there is no one — and that might matter to Scarriet.

    • Mark said,

      April 21, 2011 at 5:56 am

      April 31st is my favourite day of the year

      • April 21, 2011 at 6:05 am

        Hee hee! Actually, I prefer the 30th of February.

      • Limits Support said,

        April 21, 2011 at 6:17 am

        BINGO! You both win the prize!

        But do you think anybody else will get it?

      • thomasbrady said,

        April 21, 2011 at 10:26 am

        I love the spring, too.

        Do Blogs celebrate when they reach 100,000 views and their readership numbers keep getting stonger?

        Christopher needs a big audience for his bid ideas.

        I prefer a small, learned audience, without trolls. Little cliques have shaped literary history. I’m not concerned with crowds of followers.

      • Mark said,

        April 21, 2011 at 10:29 am

        I guess people have been waiting a long time to see you get dragged through the mud like this, Tom.

      • Mark said,

        April 21, 2011 at 10:29 am

        Nobody deserves the drubbing you’re getting as much as you do.

      • thomasbrady said,

        April 21, 2011 at 10:30 am

        Dragged thru the mud?

        I feel showered with flowers…

        and I love the Wizard of Oz…

      • Mark said,

        April 21, 2011 at 10:33 am

        Then head on over to the “About Scarriet” thread.

        I’ve got some posies for you. Stop being a chickenshit and come take a whiff.

  20. April 21, 2011 at 5:40 pm

    Actually, I think it was a field of poppies…another little LFB joke.

  21. thomasbrady said,

    April 21, 2011 at 6:53 pm

    Mark wrote:

    “I notice you do this a lot: deny and distort truisms I report.” – there’s that word “report” again. A report has facts to back it up, Tom. Your gossip-mongering doesn’t. What “truism” (which translates in my bullshit-English dictionary as “something Tom made up and can’t prove”) have I distorted here?

    (sigh) Do I have to keep repeating myself, Mark-o? I said McGann/Bernstein pretend they are doing something new by looking at the production and distribution and reception of texts, when scholars have always done this. You said, no, McGann did not do this. I watched the video. He does do this.

    Tom

    • Mark said,

      April 21, 2011 at 10:24 pm

      “I said McGann/Bernstein pretend they are doing something new by looking at the production and distribution and reception of texts, when scholars have always done this.”

      Tom. You are imagining this “truism”. What you call a “truism” I call something that you imagined. At least you’re not calling it a “simple fact” this time.

      How are they pretending that this is the case? Did they ever say so? Has ANYONE ever said so? You’re falling into the trap where you imagine you know people’s motivations when you don’t. Stop simplifying things. The point you’re making is bullshit.

      Stop letting your bias write your posts. You are one of the least perceptive people on the planet – why would you assume that you can read other people’s minds?

      The only thing they are ‘pretending’ is new is what you called “analog v. digital” which is literally new.

      • thomasbrady said,

        April 22, 2011 at 2:09 am

        Yes, they did say so!

        Did you listen to the video?

        Or did you just watch it? LOL

      • Mark said,

        April 22, 2011 at 2:25 am

        lol

        I did both!

        I still maintain that you’re wrong – that the only thing new they’re pretending to be the case is the implications re: analog v digital. I also think that you’re putting your assumptions on to them yet again rather than actually formulating an informed opinion. Could you find me a quote that supports your position?

      • Mark said,

        April 22, 2011 at 2:33 am

        Also, “they are pretending to be doing something new” isn’t really a “truism.”

        It’s more like an opinion. One which you can’t support.

        Find a quote from that lecture and give me the time it occurs. If you want to make outlandish statements then you get the burden of proof.

        I like that each point I totally negate gets ignored. You started with four points and now you’re down to one.

        Let’s leave this as yet another one of your crippling defeats and move on over to the About Scarriet thread. I’d like to discuss things a little more “big picture”

        Mark

  22. thomasbrady said,

    April 21, 2011 at 8:02 pm

    Mark wrote:

    “McGann showed no curiosity of the where/why/how of the abuses of Poe—none.” – Dude, it’s a short paper about one specific point in Poe’s life. It’s not a book. He listed “a half dozen major scholarly works (books, not essays)” which would presumably touch on that stuff. Have you read any of the books he references, Tom? Are they any good?

    Mark, way to kiss McGann’s ass. I write a short essay on Scarriet and you ask for all sorts of supporting evidence, but McGann delivers a paper and in your eyes its immune to question because it’s “a short paper.”

    As for those books, the real question is, has McGann read those books? Who has? Can you find me one major article in a major publication in the last 20 years that reflects what McGann is saying? New York Review of Books? New Republic? New Yorker? NY Times? There’s a professor at Boston College, Paul Lewis, who wrote a piece in the Globe recently, but he doesn’t make any reference to what McGann was talking about. Beside specialist literature and student doctoral works, where is the ‘new Poe scholarship’ making itself felt? When Poe is vindicated, we’ll know it. Until then, don’t hold your breath. McGann’s talk expressed nothing new on Poe studies…naming obscure books? Big deal. But you were so impressed by McGann….

    Tom

    • Mark said,

      April 21, 2011 at 10:34 pm

      Mark: “Have you read any of the books he references, Tom? Are they any good?”
      Tom: “The real question is, has McGann read those books?”

      I’ll take that as a no.

      Geez, Tom doesn’t even care enough to read books about people he likes. No wonder he’s so uninformed about the people he doesn’t.

      “I write a short essay on Scarriet and you ask for all sorts of supporting evidence, but McGann delivers a paper and in your eyes its immune to question because it’s “a short paper.””

      First off, stop pretending that I’m fawning over McGann’s lecture. I said I liked it and that it was more informative than Scarriet is – that’s not exactly high praise. The minor nits you’re picking don’t have anything to do with the actual subject of the paper, so yeah, I did learn something I didn’t know about Poe’s work as an editor. That’s all I was hoping for. Pretty simple.

      You have a tendency to distort people into extreme caricatures – this is called a “straw man” argument. It’s not good enough anymore, Tom.

      Second, the things you write are not ‘essays’. They’re gossip columns. The difference is that McGann never once tried to speak on Poe’s behalf, or say why Poe did something without proof and then call it a “truism”.

      When you have to resort to “truisms” and assumptions then you’re no longer an essayist – you’re a hack. If one of your students handed in an essay filled with “truisms” and assumptions like you have here on Scarriet you’d fail them.

      Mark

      • thomasbrady said,

        April 22, 2011 at 3:22 am

        You and McGann are hacks. You know nothing of Poe and were impressed by McGann—I pointed out errors in his presentation. His discussions were cut-and-paste of old stuff. You are right, McGann did not ‘speak on Poe’s behalf,’ because he’s a bloodless scholar and could not do so if he tried. “Gossip” implies I make things up. I don’t, and you’ve never once shown where I err, as I did with McGann. You say nothing of substance yourself—you quoted a Duncan book once, and a footnote of Pound’s written when he was a boy—and cannot point out where I err— precisely because you also are a hack. You attempt to discredit me and cannot. You are failing miserably. What are you good at?

      • Mark said,

        April 22, 2011 at 3:31 am

        LOL! I’ve touched a nerve. I guess it must be frustrating when you can’t even argue about the one author you claim to know about.

        Ok.

        How am I a hack? I’m not purporting to know anything about Poe. I like a lot of his works but don’t know his bio or anything. I wasn’t THAT impressed by McGann but I thought it was a good lecture. The errors you pointed out were minor and had nothing to do with his topic – when he said Poe failed in Philadelphia the audience laughed, it was clearly a joke and had nothing to do with the thrust of his argument. You call that an error? Then what do you call what you do?

        You do make things up though, Tom. When you say what Ron Silliman is thinking you are making it up. When you say what Jerome McGann’s motivations are without a lick of evidence then you are making it up. Call it a “truism” if that makes you feel better but you are making it up and that is gossip. I’m not implying anything I’m outright fucking saying so.

        I’ve pointed out where you’ve erred over and over in the “About Scarriet” thread and you’re too scared to come there and debate me.

        You can make your feeble, cowardly little attempt to turn this back around on me but that doesn’t get the heat off you, Tom.

      • Mark said,

        April 22, 2011 at 3:33 am

        I do like your implication that the job of the scholar is to speak on behalf of the person they’re investigating. That’s pretty funny and very telling as to the sub-tabloid level of discourse you foster here.

        The job of the scholar, as far as I can tell, is to be a scholar and work from evidence. Not to assume things and then print them as if they were facts.

      • thomasbrady said,

        April 22, 2011 at 11:04 am

        Mark,

        To suppose Silliman (anti-Quietist) dislikes the poetry of Billy Collins (best-seller) when he compares Collins to Edgar Guest and to suppose this dislike is motivated by ill-will or jealousy is a great leap of faith for you. LOL That’s not ‘making things up.’ You are a hack, my friend. Ugly human emotions do figure into literary judgments—just look at your attempts to judge me. Why should we ignore this factor and pretend we are all disinterested scholars. Given the woeful, spiteful, histrionic state of Poe studies in this country, saying Poe “failed” in Philadelphia is thick; it isn’t scholarly or funny. McGann was reading from a paper when he said “Robert” Lowell instead of James Lowell and he didn’t correct himself—this was a symptom of his talk, which showed no insight into Poe; he was merely riding the Bernstein, structuralist hobby-horse of: production/distribution/reception of text is more important than the personal expression of the author, which is old as the hills; any good scholar covers all bases and doesn’t strut about proclaiming new trends in a look-at-me dishonest way. I’m schooling you, Mark. I have to point this out to you. You watched the video and said “I learned more in a half-hour from watching this scholar Jerome McGann than all I’ve read about Poe on Scarriet.” Now I’ve asked you ‘what did you learn?’ and all you can say is…well…uh..er…”I’m not speaking on Poe’s behalf…” right, you cannot, because you’re a hack, and you swallowed McGann’s crap, too…what can you speak to, by the way? I’m still waiting. What’s your field? Meanwhile you presume to ask me a bunch of inane ‘when did you stop beating your wife’ questions…you’re a joke, really, ha ha, we get it, Mark hates Scarriet because it’s only “gossip.” You’re pitiful, in fact. You presume to tell me what scholarship is and you got caught with your pants down. You’re all offense and no defense, fella. You’re flat on you’re back and shouting, “Come on and fight me!” LOL You’ve brought nothing to the table and you are having a food fight with our Scarriet feast…which is fine, play all you want. There’s lots of food.

        Tom

      • Mark said,

        April 22, 2011 at 11:37 am

        Man this couldn’t be any better.

        Tom said:
        “To suppose Silliman (anti-Quietist) dislikes the poetry of Billy Collins (best-seller) when he compares Collins to Edgar Guest and to suppose this dislike is motivated by ill-will or jealousy is a great leap of faith for you. LOL That’s not ‘making things up'”

        Let’s go to good old wiktionary:

        Suppose (Verb)
        1.(transitive) to conclude, with less than absolute supporting data; to believe.
        2.(transitive) To theorize or hypothesize.

        So to suppose the motivation for Silliman’s dislike is LITERALLY to make up. It’s a hypothesis, it’s a theory, it’s a conclusion made with less than absolute supporting data and it’s a belief…
        …but what it isn’t is a “simple fact”!

        LOL

        I’m really getting under your skin. You need so badly to make this a personal attack because you know I’m right and that’s the only way to save face. It’s a good thing I stayed anonymous because now you have nothing.

        If you want to defend your points then come on over to the About Scarriet thread and do so, Tom. We’re all waiting.

      • Mark said,

        April 22, 2011 at 12:15 pm

        Here’re some more comic gems from Tom’s post:

        “Now I’ve asked you ‘what did you learn?’ and all you can say is…well…uh..er…”

        I actually did answer this – even though you won’t answer any of my questions – because I’m a much bigger man than you, Tom. I said I learned about Poe’s work as an editor… which was the sole topic of the paper. I wasn’t expecting a 30 minute lecture to be the same as a book-length scholarly work. Were you?

        I’m pretty sure this is the reason McGann spent five minutes at the outset talking about book-length scholarly works on Poe and the Antebellum (book-length scholarly works which you haven’t read because you don’t have any real scholarly interest in EAP).

        ”I’m not speaking on Poe’s behalf…” right, you cannot, because you’re a hack, and you swallowed McGann’s crap, too…”

        I actually didn’t say I wasn’t speaking on Poe’s behalf. I said McGann wasn’t and I think that a real scholar wouldn’t. A real scholar works from evidence and let’s the evidence speak. I don’t know enough about Poe or McGann to speculate whether McGann is a “real” scholar… though this paper was pretty good (especially since the only errors you can find with it have nothing to do with the topic of the paper and are just passing comments).

        You’re the one who implied that scholars ought to speak on behalf of their subjects – a truly wretched New Critic idea if ever there was one – I’m inclined to think that the subjects should be allowed to speak for themselves.

        “what can you speak to, by the way? I’m still waiting.”

        I can speak to how one forms a simple argument. This is more than you can do, Tom, so maybe that’s enough for now. I like the implication that I ought to be bringing in sources and stuff – we’re still dealing you not being able to form an argument. Why would I debate something I care about with someone who refuses to read the works he comments on?

        I’m teaching you the alphabet, Tom. You’re not ready for full sentences yet. Maybe one day.

      • thomasbrady said,

        April 22, 2011 at 1:13 pm

        Mark,

        Having trouble grasping the idea of hypothesis? LOL If we could all read each other’s minds and all were instantaneously knowable, we could all go home and celebrate right now. Good grief, quit being such a pill.

        Oh, you learned that Poe was an “editor.” Yea, he was. Thank you, Jerome McGann! LOL

        “Speaking on behalf of the subject” is NOT a New Critical idea! Do you even know what New Criticism is? LOL

        “Simple argument” or “simpleton argument?” LOL

        Tom

      • Mark said,

        April 22, 2011 at 1:23 pm

        “Having trouble grasping the idea of hypothesis?” –

        Have all the hypotheses you want, Tom. I’d encourage it, actually as it can make for interesting discourse… but you’re the one who claimed that your hypotheses were facts.

        So perhaps I need to jump on good ol’ wiktionary again…

        “Oh, you learned that Poe was an “editor.”” – this isn’t what I said nor is it similiar. Your scare quotes don’t fool anyone. Nice try though.

      • Mark said,

        April 22, 2011 at 1:27 pm

        Maybe once you learn what burden of proof is you’ll figure out that once you make a hypothesis you actually have to prove it.

        LOL

      • thomasbrady said,

        April 22, 2011 at 2:31 pm

        Mawk,

        I see you live in a world of facts, where the burden of proof is always on someone else, and suppositions don’t exist. Good luck there.

        Tom

      • Mark said,

        April 22, 2011 at 2:36 pm

        Tawm

        I gladly take on the burden of proof when called upon to do so. It’s important and necessary to an argument.

        Stop misconstruing my words though – I’m not saying suppositions don’t exist. They can be really useful in formulating a hypothesis. I’m saying that suppositions aren’t facts. I’m saying they cease to be useful at a certain point.

        Mark

  23. thomasbrady said,

    April 22, 2011 at 3:11 am

    “The American Face of Edgar Allan Poe,” Rosenheim, Rachman, editors, Johns Hopkins University Press (1995) has essays by two of the writers mentioned by McGann: Jonathan Elmer and Meredith McGill, plus an essay by Stanley Cavell (who writes just like Harold Bloom and is also overly impressed with Emerson) who happens to be Charles Bernstein’s mentor. As soon as I began reading Cavell’s essay on Poe, which begins by discussing a little bit of Descartes, and Emerson on Descartes, I recalled what Poe said in discussing Thomas Hood: a fanciful poet is always fanciful, no matter how august the theme. Dullards become not a whit more interesting when they write on Poe; they merely make Poe dull. That’s the tragedy of the recent scholarship on Poe. All we get are a few facts spun around in a blender of high-sounding phrases; the net result of these scholarly studies on Poe is a nullity; every person who discovers Poe discussed in such a manner, is either disgusted by the preening, long-winded, half-baked philosophizing and turns away, or, embraces the madness of the rhetoric and becomes a candidate for crazy-dom, turning Poe into a puppet for the academic crazies. No thanks. Please keep Poe away from the likes of Cavell and Bernstein and McGann. Unfortunately, when living bores meet the legacy of the rich and fascinating the result is: boring. Poe was better when abused than when he is used as a soporific.

    “The Purloined Poe” (1988) is a similar work, the French Theory Poe; it’s a little more interesting. Poe’s writing is an antidote to the very eggheads who would turn him into fodder for their scholarly material. Poe is indeed “genius and fudge,” fudge, even, is better than shit.

    Historical studies of Poe which place him in his time and present the cold facts are welcome. Learning more about the many figures surrounding Poe in his day is welcome. One of the authors mentioned by McGann is Eliza Richards, and she writes very nicely of Helen Whitman, Fanny Osgood, and Elizabeth Oakes Smith: women poets and their relation to the rivals Griswold, the important anthologist, and Poe, the dreamy poet, is great stuff. No one knows Oakes Smith and the renewed interest in Poe’s contemporaries is very, very welcome. Poe studies is still at a dismal low point, and right now what’s really needed is solid history, not scholarly b.s.

    Tom

    • Mark said,

      April 22, 2011 at 3:19 am

      So you haven’t read the works in question and you can’t find a quote where McGann pretends he’s doing something new in his analysis.

      You could have just said so, Tom. I’m not here to judge you.

      Come on over to “About Scarriet.” Let’s talk

    • Mark said,

      April 22, 2011 at 3:21 am

      So much for you “truism,” I guess…


Leave a 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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: