That Ezra Pound question. The *right* answer would be to say that the question is lame. People have hashed out the question of Pound's fascism ad nauseum. It's refreshing to say that it's simply not relevant after a certain point. Pound is important to me, sure, because he's important to other poets I care about, like Creeley, and because I've invested too much time myself in worrying the whole fascism connection from every possible angle. And because certain implicitly "Poundian" criteria still seem to determine what's considered good and bad poetry by many people. It's still a convenient short hand. I tend to like poetry with a lot of concrete particulars, etc... Too bad Pound's own poetry fails to conform to those very same criteria most of the time. He's still a fascinating figure in many ways, but if he fails to fascinate you, that doesn't doom you as a poet.

If the question were about Frank O'Hara and someone said, "I don't care about about Frank O'Hara" I wouldn't have a heart attack, even though I think someone ignoring Frank O'Hara is unlikely to write poetry I'm interested in. Even this reaction is premature: Someone ignoring Frank O'Hara might come up with something wonderful and fresh, simply because she or he has traveled a different route to get there.

My point is that there should be no indispensable figures. Not even F O'H. Now I reserve the right to secretly think that a person dismissing my heroes is an idiot. But isn't even that a way of dismissing certain people? If someone said "Coltrane does nothing for me," I would think, instinctively, "idiot., I don't have to deal with this person. Aesthetically, this person is a nullity." I've learned to correct this reaction in a split second and am better for it. After all, someone might "disqualify" me in the same way for my indifference to Olson, Cage, or Andy Warhol.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, please see Tony Tost's blog or the Jimmy Show from today.