W.B. Yeats, Ezra Pound, and the Poetry of Paradise 1st Edition by Sean Pryor (PDF)

Description

Emphasizing the interplay of aesthetic forms and religious modes, Sean Pryor’s ambitious study takes up the endlessly reiterated longing for paradise that features throughout the works of W. B. Yeats and Ezra Pound. Yeats and Pound define poetry in terms of paradise and paradise in terms of poetry, Pryor suggests, and these complex interconnections fundamentally shape the development of their art. Even as he maps the shared influences and intellectual interests of Yeats and Pound, and highlights those moments when their poetic theories converge, Pryor’s discussion of their poems’ profound formal and conceptual differences uncovers the distinctive ways each writer imagines the divine, the good, the beautiful, or the satisfaction of desire. Throughout his study, Pryor argues that Yeats and Pound reconceive the quest for paradise as a quest for a new kind of poetry, a journey that Pryor traces by analysing unpublished manuscript drafts and newly published drafts that have received little attention. For Yeats and Pound, the journey towards a paradisal poetic becomes a never-ending quest, at once self-defeating and self-fulfilling – a formulation that has implications not only for the work of these two poets but for the study of modernist literature.

User’s Reviews

Reviews from Amazon users which were colected at the time this book was published on the website:

⭐1. What’s my takeaway book rating on “W. B. Yeats, Ezra Pound and the Poetry of Paradise”?This is an interesting volume with a thoughtful structure. It’s jam-packed with lots of information on an important topic. It’s erudite, in a good way. And it inspires you to re-read Yeats and Pound with a whole new lens. I rated the book 5-stars.So go buy the book. The remainder of this review is fairly lengthy and technical, and is addressed to the specifics of the book’s grammar, structure and subject matter. “God”, as they say, “is in the detail”.2. What is the book about?This is a harder question to answer, than you might have hoped. Personally, on the basis of what the author told me it was about in the first few pages, I thought it was primarily a double-take on how poetry is about paradise (“the poetry of paradise”), and on how poetry embodies and manifests paradise (“the paradise of poetry”); and secondarily, I thought it was a book that draws on William Butler Yeats and Ezra Pound in particular, as source material to research and to illustrate that primary double-topic. There’s also an argument that Yeats and Pound, in particular, altered and enlarged the “traditional” treatment of the paradise of poetry (e.g. p. 33 para 2). Other reviewers seem to think that this is primarily a book about Yeats and Pound though, with a particular emphasis on one aspect of their works – “paradise”. I guess the title, which places Yeats and Pound in first place and ahead of “poetry” and “paradise”, supports that reading. I also felt that, whilst the book told me a lot about the poetry of paradise (albeit in a ramshackle fashion) it did not, as such, tell me nearly as much about the paradise of poetry – which I thought should have been the more important, half; and the half calling for the clearest treatment.(Although this is not how I would have preferred to read the book (i.e. I read it as a book about poetry and paradise and eternity, not as a book about particular poets), I guess that on one level it’s true that it’s about Yeats and Pound. “Eternity is in love with the productions of time”. As a general reader it’s obvious to me that Yeats is great – it’s palpable on every page of his works; but, senator or not, it’s not obvious to me that he’s mainstream in a worldly sense. I envisage him as some kinda bespectacled mage, a century ago, aloof in a tower, perched atop rugged cliffs on a remote emerald isle, writing peerless masterpieces of the Celtic twilight. What is there here, for me, in the 21st Century? It’s beyond the scope of this review to tell you what Pryor’s answers are to those questions (i.e. why is Yeats mainstream and why is he relevant, now?), but an attractive and valuable feature of Pryor’s book is, that he does have useful things to say on that topic. Go read the book. It’s also obvious to me that Pound is mainstream – he’s everywhere you look, from Imagism and Vorticism to The Wasteland and Ulysses through to World War II – but it’s not obvious to me that he’s great. Pound allegedly told the poet Allen Ginsberg that his (Pound’s) poetry was “a mess” and (the Pisan Cantos and Mauberley aside) that’s been my own experience also. So – why is Pound great, and how does he help us, now? Sean Pryor has helpful thoughts on those questions as well. Again – go read Pryor’s book, for more information.)3. What did I think was good about it?So – I rated this book 5 stars, although to be honest, the concept and the promise, were probably a bit more 5 star than the execution and the delivery. That said, I thought the book was engagingly, and in some places carefully, written; thoroughly researched; and persuasively pitched. The underlying structure of the book (ok so hang in there, the author tells you what the structure is, five and a half pages from the end) is quite good. Dr Pryor’s enthusiasm is manifest. I also thought that it was an excellent topic for a book, and that the blurb on the back of the dust jacket was off the mark in describing it as “ambitious”. My view is that, here in the 21st Century, it’s beholden on sojourners on this green planet to be familiar with the geography of and the denizens of and the nature of, the leafy realm of paradise. And in regions such as Pryor’s native Australia, where religion is vacating its traditional place, there’s a Matthew Arnold-style case to be made that (T. S. Eliot’s protestations aside) it’s the role of poetry to step up and to act as Baedeker, “Paradise” (e.g. page 12).Another good thing about the book is that there are memorable quotes from the masters (e.g. “Wandering is essentially mortal”, p. 57); and interesting etymological insights from Prior, at every turn. I hadn’t thought about “text” and “textile” being cognate, for example (page 53). (There again – he mentions “grimoires” on the same page ; it would have been relevant, and nice, to see that linked, to “glamour” and to “grammar”).4. What didn’t I like about it, as a book?All sorts of things.(a). Copy-editing. The first show-stopping problem is the copy-editing – i.e., the complete and total absence thereof. It’s typical Ashcroft Publishing. At the word, sentence, punctuation and syntactic levels, the book often just does not make any sense. Here’s an example of this appallingness, from page 2, which I must say, got me off to an exceptionally bad start:“Over two centuries after Sidney wrote his Apology, Blake declared his work to be ‘an endeavour to restore what the Ancients called the golden age’.”That is just, like, a totally and completely unacceptable sentence. Whose work? Sidney’s?? Blake’s??? That ambiguous and meaning-destructive misuse of pronouns is what you would expect to find mired in the bowels of Dante’s Iudecca not, at the crystal-clear, meaning-charged pinnacle of his Paradise. This! – from an author who wrote an 8-line footnote on pronoun ambiguity, on page 201! (And a similar deal in the middle of page 71). And – the whole book is written like that! It’s the same thing with word use – here’s a problem on pages 1 and 2, for example. The last line on page 1 introduces the word “brazen” as a characteristic of “nature” and as an antithesis to “the golden world of Paradise”. Then – in paragraph 2 of page 2 – it is reused in apposition to golden! As in: “Poetry … delivers a golden world … It can be … a brazen ambition”. It’s unnecessary, and it’s lazy, and it’s confusing, and I could give examples all day. OK – so here’s one more that’s driving me nuts – page 175 – “Terrell’s Companion may be … unholy”. Who the heck is “Terrell”? And what’s his “Companion”?? The text, does not tell you! You have to look it up in the index, and then to chase down a footnote to page 76. It’s arrogant. And then there’s the word “only” at the bottom of page 186. I read that 5 times, and I still didn’t get it. Not to mention the promise that art turns away the cherub with the flaming sword on page 172. Is that, “flaming sword wielding art”? or “a flaming sword wielding cherub”? With grammar like that you could die, wondering, and arrive at Paradise itself, prior to finding out what the book meant.(b). Organisational structure – macro. Reading this book is like the reader is a tourist, being flown over an immense leafy forest of paradisal poetry in a light plane by tour-guide Pryor, at tree-top-brushing level. It’s like racing across the world in Koyaanisqatsi, to the pulsating soundtrack of Philip Glass. I get it, that that’s what academic writing IS, these days – you dive into the subject, you write virtuoso analysis in impenetrable prose for 200 pages or so, and you then just, stop, when the book is “full”. But, for all that, and so call me a dinosaur – the second problem I had with the book, was with the larger structures – or, once again, the deficiencies thereof. I needed a map of the whole forest! And – the book starts off brilliantly on the cartographic side! For example, on page 3, the second paragraph absolutely nails both the question, and the quest! “We can reformulate the quest as a pair of questions. First, what kind of poetry is paradise? … Second, what kind of paradise is poetry?” Cool! It’s clear, it’s motivational, and it’s very careful in defining the terms and the meanings of words! Good times! And plus, I have reasonable grounds for expecting this excellent practice to be maintained throughout the book right up to, and in particular at, the conclusion and the end. “In short” Dr Pryor writes on page 3 “we need to establish sea-marks for the journey”. Yess! And – more good organisational questions on page 23: “All poetry or only certain kinds?”. And so on.But – reading the book – you feel like the guy in the House of Usher! “There was an iciness, a sinking, a sickening of the heart—an unredeemed dreariness of thought which no goading of the imagination could torture into aught of the sublime”. Chapters begin, without telling the reader where we are in the argument; sub-section headings spring up, every few pages, and the new text starts in media res, without telling you how it relates to anything else; chapters close, without telling you what progress has been made, where we are now, or what’s coming up. And when I get to page 201, I’m, like, what the?!? Hel-loooo! Earth to Dr Pryor! I was completely and totally spooked by the “ending” – which in my edition (Ashgate 2011) – is a story about Cuchulain and a footnote on pronoun ambiguity. The book – does not reach any conclusion! It just – stops! “The book’s last lines thrill not to completion, but to unending proliferation”. That is so Ashgate! So – WHERE’S my answer to the original motivating questions on page 3 and the rest of Chapter 1?? And for that matter – I was completely and totally bewildered when I started reading page 163, which is the beginning of the final chapter (Chapter 5). Call me literal minded, but I was kinda expecting that after deep dives into the poetry of Yeats and Pound, in Chapters 2 through 4 inclusive (and with Chapter 4 covering the major new argument which actually occupied the last 6 pages of the book), Chapter 5 would start off by saying:“In the light of our deep dives into the poetry of Yeats and Pound, in Chapters 2 through 4 inclusive, we are now in a position to suggest answers to the fundamental questions we posed on page 3, viz: ‘First, what kind of poetry is paradise? … Second, what kind of paradise is poetry?’ Key factual features of paradise that we have evidenced, from the writings of Yeats and Pound, include, in order: 1. Characteristic 1; 2. Characteristic 2; 3. Characteristic 3 … and so on. Armed with this knowledge of these characteristics of Paradise, we are able to state that the kind of poetry that is paradise, is poetry which has the following characteristics, that is, in order, Characteristic A, Characteristic B, Characteristic C … and so on.”(And I also wanted to know, but was not clearly told, whether and when Pryor was talking about poetry manifesting paradise in a visual sense (Pound’s Imagism and fascination with Chinese ideograms are touched on on page 36); and whether and when he was talking about poetry manifesting paradise in an aural sense (e.g. the “lispings empyrean” on page 23. And – more to the point – what, in Pryor’s view does paradise (and therefore, paradisal poetry) look like; and what does paradise (and, therefore, paradisal poetry) sound like? (For that matter – what does paradisal poetry taste like? – on page 17 we’re told that “We drink the nectar of the gods when we hear or read poetry”). I could could have used more information on that, and more coherently organised information on that).So – part of my gripe about this book, is that Pryor does not do all that. I had to go back and read the whole thing all over again, and distil the list of 1, 2, 3, etc Poetry of Paradise Characteristics, myself. That is just so, like, the author’s job! On a brighter note though, Pryor does have an eye for what’s important, and he identifies many of the canonical characteristics of the Poetry of Paradise in this work. My complaints are (a) that he strews them through the book in no order whatsoever, and (b) that he’s missed important members of what you would have thought was a standard list. By “canonical” paradisal poetry I mean for example: S. T. Coleridge, Ancient Mariner section IV; T. S. Eliot, Wasteland section 5; Robert Lowell Skunk Hour stanzas 5-8; and Sylvia Plath The Colossus, “Black Rook” and ”Winter Ship”; to reference just a few. The poetry of paradise journey has 4 stages in each of those works cited, and the order totally matters (because it’s a “journey”, right?), viz, (and I’m quoting here from a 2006 paper on “Sylvia Plath and the Poetry of Paradise”) “Stage 1: A protagonist enters a situation of sterile, iterated vacuity, in dull and unprepossessing surroundings, and in a state of bored expectancy. The “iteration” can be liturgical and formulaic, or can take on the recursive form of a labyrinth or maze. The dullness of the surroundings can take the form of half-light, variegation, chiaroscuro and/or monochrome. The oxymoron of “bored expectancy” can often be manifested as “obliquity”. Stage 2: The repetition of sterile vacuity both prepares the way for spiritual advancement, and leads to despair. This is the stage at which the protagonist, overwhelmed by the repeated negativities, “gives up”. Stage 3: Abruptly, authentically and compellingly, ugliness enters the emptied picture and seizes the imagination – snakes, cocks, skunks and rooks, in Coleridge, Eliot, Lowell and Plath respectively. At this juncture, the passivity of the protagonist is a key feature. Stage 3 then gives way, inexorably, to the “paradise” in Stage 4. Stage 4: A period of transient but intense awareness of the paradisal is attained. This period is both rare in frequency and brief in duration. It is at once a single-minded but highly complex, noetic state and the protagonist has a deep sense of meaning. There is typically a sense of transcendent peace and of redemption. Moral legitimacy is implicit. This paradisal state takes on religious import, and defies communication.”So – what’s in Pryor’s book? Most of the relevant stuff is in there, somewhere, if you rummage, but it’s jumbled all over the place. It’s like a teenager’s bedroom. He describes “incommunicability” on page 7; “density and noetic content” on page 36 and 79; “ineffability” on page 82; “stillness” on page 85; “obliquity and littoralness” on pages 29 and 86; “labyrinth” on pages 163 and 182; and “bust thru” and the “unforeseen” on page 166. And “ugliness” appears on page 105 – although not, in my view, convincingly.[Now – important aside. I get it, that the 4-stage “canonical” framework cited above, is a little mechanical. It’s what Pryor describes as “the laws that govern the identification of otherworlds, with poetry. … the after-life one might hear about in an old book of stories” (p. 196). The paradisal poetic framework of Coleridge and of Lowell (the “old books”), is mechanical in the sense of Chesterton’s Mr Syme, in “The Two Poets of Saffron Street”. “The most poetical thing in the world (according to the poet Syme), is the Underground Railway. … let me read a time-table with tears of pride. … Victoria (i.e. Victoria Station, coming predictably and reliably and by an amazing magical coincidence straight after Sloane Square) is like the New Jerusalem.” That’s the mechanical canonical 4-stage paradise of poetry list listed above. OK – so – it turns out, that the first 194 pages of Pryor’s book, were about that Syme-view of poetry (i.e. poetry as Bradshaw) and its identity with the New Jerusalem. I wish that Pryor had told me that in page 3 not on page 195, and I wish that he’d spelled out the “time-table” of Stages 1-4 more explicitly and more completely but nonetheless – that is reasonably clear. A particularly interesting part of Pryor’s book (pp 195-201), is his reading of two of Yeats’ late poems (not sure where Pound went – oh, here we go, Canto CVI) through the lens of the second of the two poets of Saffron St – the anarchist, Lucian Gregory. “You (i.e “you”, Syme) (says Gregory) think Victoria is like the New Jerusalem. We know that the New Jerusalem will only be like Victoria. Yes, the poet will be discontented even in the streets of heaven. The poet is always in revolt”. That’s the point of Pryor’s claim, that the riotous music and frenzy of these late Yeats poems, “offer very different alternatives”. And it’s even foreshadowed by his claim, on page 33, that “Yeats and Pound must seek waters uncharted by Coleridge and Shelley, because you cannot reach Paradise without sailing off the map”. But – I would still have preferred a more explicit statement about (i.e. about the Bradshaw roadmap of) the paradisal narrative of the old books, though, and thence a more explicit statement of the ways in which the late poems diverge from that roadmap, in “revolt”].(c). Comprehensiveness and Adequacy. So – that’s the end of the “important aside”. Now, I’m back on the adequacy or otherwise of Pryor’s discussion of the “old book” phase of Yeats (in pp 1 – 194). Back to my tree-top brushing tourist light-plane analogy, there are important regions of the forest that this tour does not visit at all. Worryingly, Pryor has failed to pick up on the role of ugliness in canonical paradisal poetry (i.e. as in Picasso’s dictum: “All great art is ugly at first”) and in my view, that contributes to him floundering when he discusses Yeats’ “Vacillation” on page 166 ff. (Pryor does actually use the word “mundane” twice in quick succession in describing Yeats’ “shop” – but he seems to have missed the significance of it). Yeats’ Vacillation poem is undoubtedly a key reference; but Pryor, as he does in much of his book, takes an ungrounded and overly intellectual (“skim the treetops”) approach to all of this, and he goes astray (again, this is just my view) in consequence. The first thing that goes wrong is, Pryor puts too much emphasis on the book that Yeats had been reading: “the book has an unambiguous power to bring bliss”, and not enough on the shop and the street. He discusses the book on page 166 and he returns to it, for example on page 170. Pryor seems fixated on the idea that this may be a “holy book” – but that we do not know the name of the book. (Incidentally, we do know the name of the open book in “Vacillation” – Edgar Allan Poe tells us, right up front on page 1 of “The Man of the Crowd”). What’s actually happening though, in the paradisal action of the poem, is that Yeats has been iterating his way through a labyrinth of words (or indeed of advertisements) on the pages before him; and taking iterative sips of beverage from his cup. But now, in the poem, the resources of both book (“open”, abandoned) and cup (“empty”) have exhausted themselves, and his mind too has emptied. And that happens, at the end of the first stanza. A key part of the paradisal experience in Vacillation, is the first line of the second stanza, a line which Pryor does not even discuss. For me, the shop and street are crucial stages on the paradisal journey, and in two senses. The first sense is that the shop and street are granular, gritty, ineradicable, existential, authentic, commercial, ugly and – in Pryor’s own words – “mundane”. As Yeats gazes blankly at them, they suddenly strike his empty (but “cultivated” (in the sense of ploughed)/”prepared by the iterative activities of reading and beverage-sipping”) mind with percussive, paradise-delivering impact – “I was blessed, and could bless”. But – the “bust thru”, to use Pound’s phrase, is not – the book! It’s – the street!(d). Organisational Structure – Micro. Despite recurrent decorative eruptions of close textual analysis throughout this book, I never felt that this tour of paradisal poetry let me get out of the plane, and down to the forest floor, touching the granular reality of flowers and of stones and of vowels and of consonants and of rhymes. So – the second sense in which the shop and the street are crucial stages on the paradisal journey, relate to the specificity of the “paradise of poetry” aspect of this topic – an aspect which Pryor promised to discuss but which in my view he did not deliver on. (So – this is a further gripe about his book. To recap – two gripes were that his list of the characteristics of the “poetry of paradise” was (i) incoherent and (ii) incomplete. Now, I am complaining that his analysis of the “paradise of poetry” itself is extremely sketchy and, insofar as it does happen, inappropriately abstract and academic. He does have a shot at it – for example at the bottom of page 185, at the top of page 191, and at the bottom of page 197 – but it’s pretty episodic and disconnected). If we move the discussion on from what poetry is about (“the poetry of paradise”) to what poetry is (“the paradise of poetry”) – well, I would have thought it was pretty obvious. How hard, can it be? Poetry, “is” sound! It’s words and it’s letters and it’s vowels and it’s consonants and it’s rhymes and it’s rhythms and it’s alliteration and it’s assonance and it’s all the usual stuff. It’s Coleridge’s and Eliot’s and Lowell’s and Plath’s impactful “k”s in the snakes and the cock and the skunks and the rook. And it’s Yeats’ impactful fricative t’s in street and plosive p’s in shop and it’s the rhyme with cup, and it’s the shortness and the meanness of the vowels in shop and street, and it’s the suddenly direct and expansive syntax at the beginning of the second half of Vacillation IV. These sounds, are the flowers and the stones and the grounded, forest-floor detail of poetry – not abstract speculations about what an open book might have been “about”, in a book about a poem “about” a book. “Street” and “shop”, is what the music of the spheres, is!So – long story short – I would argue that the authority of Coleridge and Shelley is actually more evergreen (i.e. from 1820 to 1920) than Pryor acknowledges. The point about Yeats’ “Vacillation” is not, that Yeats “inevitably sailed waters uncharted by his precursors” (page 33). The point is that (still quoting Pryor, page 33) “As important as the vast differences between 1820 and 1920 is the fact that Coleridge, Shelley and company, sail first”. It’s not a different journey, it’s the same journey. I get it, that caminante no hay camino, camino se hace al andar. But Coleridge not only sailed first, but also, his poetry is paradise, and his map to get there, is archetypical and enduring. My suggestion would be, that if Pryor had actually fleshed out the substance of the sound of paradise (like he promised me in Chapter 1), then he would have seen the identity of – for example – Yeats’ “Vacillation”, with Coleridge’s “Ancient Mariner”. The “table top” in Vacillation, IS the “idle ship” in the Ancient Mariner. It’s the same “le”, and it’s the same short vowel followed by the same “p”, and it’s the same 3-syllable metre. (OK – so maybe it’s not EXACTLY a 3-syllable metre. And maybe that’s Part II of the Ancient Mariner not Part IV. Whatever). But – equating the sounds of paradisal poetry with the meanings of the poetry of paradise – it’s the same Vacillation “Day after day, day after day”, and it’s the same impasse (top, ship), and it’s the same affirmative paradisal plosive bl + open vowel/sibilant bust thru (blazed / blessed). It’s just, like – same!“DA! Dayadhvam: I have heard the key / Turn in the door once and turn once only”.Anyway Yeats – contrary to one of the key themes of the book – does not, in Vacillation IV, have a different key or a different door. Whether he has a different key and or door in News for the Delphic Oracle, and in Cuchulain Comforted – as discussed in the final pages of Pryor’s book – well, that’s another matter.(e). Organisational structure – meso. Sean Pryor has a keen eye for inconsistencies! For example, he discusses Pound’s logopoeia on page 73 – the free interchanging of parts of speech. And instantaneously (because, apparently, the learned doctor also has pp 410-11 of Pound’s “Debabelization and Ogden” front of mind), he opens the parentheses! “(Ironically – Pound proscribes this verbal freedom in an essay on medieval logic)”! Cool. So – I’ll give one more example, and then I’ll explain why this is bad. On page 39, he (Pryor) references Pound’s injunction: “avoid speech figurative” (i.e. “only the true is true”); and then – page 46 – there’s a discussion of the “simulacrum” (i.e. “paradise is true and false simultaneously”); and then on page 55 there’s speculation that poetry might deliver Paradise by “returning to metaphor” (i.e. “only the false is true”); and on pages 90 ff he discusses the “artifice of eternity” (i.e. “truth is a liar”). This is all fine and dandy. But – so what are these contradictions, doing in the book?? Are some facets right, and some wrong, and if so which and why? Or is there insight and enlargement to be derived, from the reality of the contradictions? And if so – where does the author tell me that? Alternatively, is “everything possible to be believed, an image of truth”? And if so – what is the whole truth, and how does the jigsaw assemble itself and where does the author tell me that? There again – is Pryor’s identification of the irony of Pound’s inconsistencies on page 73 just a coolly sardonic “gotcha” moment with no educational value and if so – so, like, why do I need this, in the book?(f). Accessibility. OK – so – I’m a little uncomfortable making this final criticism, if, indeed, criticism it is. This book has a lot of hard words in it! Here are some of the words that slowed me, as a general reader of Yeats and Pound, down: ‘ekphrasis’; ‘anaphora’; ‘asyndeton’; ‘hemistichs’; ‘deixis’; ‘ictuses’; “decads”. And so – like – how hard can it be! I can go onto amazon.com, and I can spend 10 bucks on a dictionary, and I can improve my vocab! I get it! Dur! But … And the “but”, is, that one of Pryor’s attractive beliefs, is that poetry has a lot to deliver to 21st century society – i.e., to “overall society as a whole”, not just to “a narrow academic clerisy”. “Poetry, is paradise for all, in a post-modern, post-Christian society” is not an outrageous caricature of his thesis. So – it seems to me ironic, and bad, that this book excludes the vast majority of people, by not unobtrusively explaining, en passant, what all the impenetrable technical jargon means.So, in conclusion, I rated the book 5-stars for sheer content and enthusiasm, but it’s complicated, and I recommend that you stop reading my review and go buy Pryor’s book and read that and form your own opinion.

Keywords

Free Download W.B. Yeats, Ezra Pound, and the Poetry of Paradise 1st Edition in PDF format
W.B. Yeats, Ezra Pound, and the Poetry of Paradise 1st Edition PDF Free Download
Download W.B. Yeats, Ezra Pound, and the Poetry of Paradise 1st Edition 2016 PDF Free
W.B. Yeats, Ezra Pound, and the Poetry of Paradise 1st Edition 2016 PDF Free Download
Download W.B. Yeats, Ezra Pound, and the Poetry of Paradise 1st Edition PDF
Free Download Ebook W.B. Yeats, Ezra Pound, and the Poetry of Paradise 1st Edition