Papers by Jonathan F Carson
There are well documented studies of the troubling fascination with totalitarianism and/or fascis... more There are well documented studies of the troubling fascination with totalitarianism and/or fascism which many of the modernists maintained or, at the least, entertained following the First World War, from T.S. Eliot’s conservatism, to Wyndham Lewis’ flirtation with Nazi sympathies, to Ezra Pound’s advocation of (and propaganda regarding) fascism. An obvious effect of the fragmented social state of Europe following the war years, this desire for a new sense of order proves intriguing. Having lost any remaining residual faith in their current government structures—both democratic and socialist—having lost faith in divine providence, and loath to return to, instigate, or reinvigorate laissez-faire policies, modernists such as these representative few latched onto the control and social order which totalitarian theories promised. If God could not determine humanity’s fate, man would have to suffice. And man proved a less than worthy surrogate.
Rather than questions to be explored, I propose to enlarge upon this conceit and the anxieties and fears underlying its motivation, utilizing the works of these authors (and analyses of their works), historians, and scholars of the era stretching from 1910-1930 to detail the processes by which totalitarian measures became an acceptable solution to disorder. Through such comparisons, I hope to document the ideological similarities between modernism and fascism which compelled some modernists to embrace the ethos of totalitarianism and fascism.
Evaluating the structures, methodologies, and ideologies of fascism as it was practiced and heralded in Germany and Italy with the methodologies, artistic output, and attributes of the modernist movement in Anglo-American letters and in Italian Futurism, a significant correspondence can be discerned between these seemingly disparate movements of the period stretching from 1910-1930. By focusing on literary modernism as both a material and aesthetic structure, an underlying current of totalitarian approbation can be detected and which can be equated with fascist sympathy in that both were simultaneously looking forward and backward, inclined to manufacture a future history/identity predicated upon a mythic past, and seeking to rejuvenate a dilapidated cultural zeitgeist. As such, fascism and aesthetic modernism can be understood as revitalization movements that arose as a result of myriad social, artistic, and political crises, some of which will be examined herein.
Understanding the factors which can lead to the rise or popularity of any extremist philosophies is an essential tool in working to ensure such inhumanities never again occur. This essay attempts just that purpose, while, at the same time, hopes to provide insight into the critical and literary work of some of modernism’s most accomplished writers and theorists. At its core, this examination intends to present a broad overview of the era, its social disorder, the socioeconomic and political factors, and the resultant responses of some of its literary figures
Drafts by Jonathan F Carson
When taken on its surface, Ezra Pound’s slogan, appropriated much later by literary scholars as t... more When taken on its surface, Ezra Pound’s slogan, appropriated much later by literary scholars as the rallying cry of literary modernists, is both straightforward and remarkably ambiguous. At its most apparent, it sounds merely as an entreaty to seek out only those new forms, ostensibly detached from the traditions and mechanisms of past artistic movements, which might best approximate the increasingly disjointed conditions and vagaries of modernist existence. Yet, beyond that simple premise, the ambiguities arise. What, exactly, constitutes “new,” and to what does “it” refer? Every act of artistic creation, insofar as it begets an unrealized entity into the world, can be considered an act of the “new.” Beyond this most basic of definition, “new” exhibits no further quantifiable significance in this context. Similarly, Pound’s usage of the nondescript and impersonal pronoun “it” only confounds this issue further.
Perhaps a key to untangling the discrepancies apparent in this quote—which has come to hold such meaning for literary scholars and historians analyzing the Modernist period stretching from 1910-1945—lies in the derivation of this quote itself, which, surprisingly enough, did not originate with Pound, but rather with an obscure Chinese text translated and published by Pound as a chapbook in 1928 (long after the “men of 1914” had developed their specific theories and practices regarding the aesthetics of modernism). In this text, Pound offers, via footnotes, alternative interpretations of the original ideograms as found in Da Xiu. In point of fact, “make it new” arises not in the text proper, but in the footnotes. Pound’s privileged translation was “Renovate, dod gast you, renovate!” implying, rather than the total break from the preceding traditions of aesthetics (and, by extension, the cultures which produced them) which “make it new” might indicate, a usurpation of the existing structure for the regeneration of decayed values which might, in turn, revitalize a decrepit society as a whole. It is just this juxtaposition of the archaic with the contemporary and futural that aligns literary modernism with certain fascist movements which arose in the 20th century, in that both were simultaneously looking forward and backward, inclined to manufacture a future history/identity predicated upon a mythic past, and seeking to rejuvenate a dilapidated cultural zeitgeist.
There are well documented studies of the troubling fascination with totalitarianism and/or fascis... more There are well documented studies of the troubling fascination with totalitarianism and/or fascism which many of the modernists maintained or, at the least, entertained following the First World War, from T.S. Eliot’s conservatism, to Wyndham Lewis’ flirtation with Nazi sympathies, to Ezra Pound’s advocation of (and propaganda regarding) fascism. An obvious effect of the fragmented social state of Europe following the war years, this desire for a new sense of order proves intriguing. Having lost any remaining residual faith in their current government structures—both democratic and socialist—having lost faith in divine providence, and loath to return to, instigate, or reinvigorate laissez-faire policies, modernists such as these representative few latched onto the control and social order which totalitarian theories promised. If God could not determine humanity’s fate, man would have to suffice. And man proved a less than worthy surrogate.
Rather than questions to be explored, I propose to enlarge upon this conceit and the anxieties and fears underlying its motivation, utilizing the works of these authors (and analyses of their works), historians, and scholars of the era stretching from 1910-1930 to detail the processes by which totalitarian measures became an acceptable solution to disorder. Through such comparisons, I hope to document the ideological similarities between modernism and fascism which compelled some modernists to embrace the ethos of totalitarianism and fascism.
Evaluating the structures, methodologies, and ideologies of fascism as it was practiced and heralded in Germany and Italy with the methodologies, artistic output, and attributes of the modernist movement in Anglo-American letters and in Italian Futurism, a significant correspondence can be discerned between these seemingly disparate movements of the period stretching from 1910-1930. By focusing on literary modernism as both a material and aesthetic structure, an underlying current of totalitarian approbation can be detected and which can be equated with fascist sympathy in that both were simultaneously looking forward and backward, inclined to manufacture a future history/identity predicated upon a mythic past, and seeking to rejuvenate a dilapidated cultural zeitgeist. As such, fascism and aesthetic modernism can be understood as revitalization movements that arose as a result of myriad social, artistic, and political crises, some of which will be examined herein.
Understanding the factors which can lead to the rise or popularity of any extremist philosophies is an essential tool in working to ensure such inhumanities never again occur. This essay attempts just that purpose, while, at the same time, hopes to provide insight into the critical and literary work of some of modernism’s most accomplished writers and theorists. At its core, this examination intends to present a broad overview of the era, its social disorder, the socioeconomic and political factors, and the resultant responses of some of its literary figures
Uploads
Papers by Jonathan F Carson
Rather than questions to be explored, I propose to enlarge upon this conceit and the anxieties and fears underlying its motivation, utilizing the works of these authors (and analyses of their works), historians, and scholars of the era stretching from 1910-1930 to detail the processes by which totalitarian measures became an acceptable solution to disorder. Through such comparisons, I hope to document the ideological similarities between modernism and fascism which compelled some modernists to embrace the ethos of totalitarianism and fascism.
Evaluating the structures, methodologies, and ideologies of fascism as it was practiced and heralded in Germany and Italy with the methodologies, artistic output, and attributes of the modernist movement in Anglo-American letters and in Italian Futurism, a significant correspondence can be discerned between these seemingly disparate movements of the period stretching from 1910-1930. By focusing on literary modernism as both a material and aesthetic structure, an underlying current of totalitarian approbation can be detected and which can be equated with fascist sympathy in that both were simultaneously looking forward and backward, inclined to manufacture a future history/identity predicated upon a mythic past, and seeking to rejuvenate a dilapidated cultural zeitgeist. As such, fascism and aesthetic modernism can be understood as revitalization movements that arose as a result of myriad social, artistic, and political crises, some of which will be examined herein.
Understanding the factors which can lead to the rise or popularity of any extremist philosophies is an essential tool in working to ensure such inhumanities never again occur. This essay attempts just that purpose, while, at the same time, hopes to provide insight into the critical and literary work of some of modernism’s most accomplished writers and theorists. At its core, this examination intends to present a broad overview of the era, its social disorder, the socioeconomic and political factors, and the resultant responses of some of its literary figures
Drafts by Jonathan F Carson
Perhaps a key to untangling the discrepancies apparent in this quote—which has come to hold such meaning for literary scholars and historians analyzing the Modernist period stretching from 1910-1945—lies in the derivation of this quote itself, which, surprisingly enough, did not originate with Pound, but rather with an obscure Chinese text translated and published by Pound as a chapbook in 1928 (long after the “men of 1914” had developed their specific theories and practices regarding the aesthetics of modernism). In this text, Pound offers, via footnotes, alternative interpretations of the original ideograms as found in Da Xiu. In point of fact, “make it new” arises not in the text proper, but in the footnotes. Pound’s privileged translation was “Renovate, dod gast you, renovate!” implying, rather than the total break from the preceding traditions of aesthetics (and, by extension, the cultures which produced them) which “make it new” might indicate, a usurpation of the existing structure for the regeneration of decayed values which might, in turn, revitalize a decrepit society as a whole. It is just this juxtaposition of the archaic with the contemporary and futural that aligns literary modernism with certain fascist movements which arose in the 20th century, in that both were simultaneously looking forward and backward, inclined to manufacture a future history/identity predicated upon a mythic past, and seeking to rejuvenate a dilapidated cultural zeitgeist.
Rather than questions to be explored, I propose to enlarge upon this conceit and the anxieties and fears underlying its motivation, utilizing the works of these authors (and analyses of their works), historians, and scholars of the era stretching from 1910-1930 to detail the processes by which totalitarian measures became an acceptable solution to disorder. Through such comparisons, I hope to document the ideological similarities between modernism and fascism which compelled some modernists to embrace the ethos of totalitarianism and fascism.
Evaluating the structures, methodologies, and ideologies of fascism as it was practiced and heralded in Germany and Italy with the methodologies, artistic output, and attributes of the modernist movement in Anglo-American letters and in Italian Futurism, a significant correspondence can be discerned between these seemingly disparate movements of the period stretching from 1910-1930. By focusing on literary modernism as both a material and aesthetic structure, an underlying current of totalitarian approbation can be detected and which can be equated with fascist sympathy in that both were simultaneously looking forward and backward, inclined to manufacture a future history/identity predicated upon a mythic past, and seeking to rejuvenate a dilapidated cultural zeitgeist. As such, fascism and aesthetic modernism can be understood as revitalization movements that arose as a result of myriad social, artistic, and political crises, some of which will be examined herein.
Understanding the factors which can lead to the rise or popularity of any extremist philosophies is an essential tool in working to ensure such inhumanities never again occur. This essay attempts just that purpose, while, at the same time, hopes to provide insight into the critical and literary work of some of modernism’s most accomplished writers and theorists. At its core, this examination intends to present a broad overview of the era, its social disorder, the socioeconomic and political factors, and the resultant responses of some of its literary figures
Rather than questions to be explored, I propose to enlarge upon this conceit and the anxieties and fears underlying its motivation, utilizing the works of these authors (and analyses of their works), historians, and scholars of the era stretching from 1910-1930 to detail the processes by which totalitarian measures became an acceptable solution to disorder. Through such comparisons, I hope to document the ideological similarities between modernism and fascism which compelled some modernists to embrace the ethos of totalitarianism and fascism.
Evaluating the structures, methodologies, and ideologies of fascism as it was practiced and heralded in Germany and Italy with the methodologies, artistic output, and attributes of the modernist movement in Anglo-American letters and in Italian Futurism, a significant correspondence can be discerned between these seemingly disparate movements of the period stretching from 1910-1930. By focusing on literary modernism as both a material and aesthetic structure, an underlying current of totalitarian approbation can be detected and which can be equated with fascist sympathy in that both were simultaneously looking forward and backward, inclined to manufacture a future history/identity predicated upon a mythic past, and seeking to rejuvenate a dilapidated cultural zeitgeist. As such, fascism and aesthetic modernism can be understood as revitalization movements that arose as a result of myriad social, artistic, and political crises, some of which will be examined herein.
Understanding the factors which can lead to the rise or popularity of any extremist philosophies is an essential tool in working to ensure such inhumanities never again occur. This essay attempts just that purpose, while, at the same time, hopes to provide insight into the critical and literary work of some of modernism’s most accomplished writers and theorists. At its core, this examination intends to present a broad overview of the era, its social disorder, the socioeconomic and political factors, and the resultant responses of some of its literary figures
Perhaps a key to untangling the discrepancies apparent in this quote—which has come to hold such meaning for literary scholars and historians analyzing the Modernist period stretching from 1910-1945—lies in the derivation of this quote itself, which, surprisingly enough, did not originate with Pound, but rather with an obscure Chinese text translated and published by Pound as a chapbook in 1928 (long after the “men of 1914” had developed their specific theories and practices regarding the aesthetics of modernism). In this text, Pound offers, via footnotes, alternative interpretations of the original ideograms as found in Da Xiu. In point of fact, “make it new” arises not in the text proper, but in the footnotes. Pound’s privileged translation was “Renovate, dod gast you, renovate!” implying, rather than the total break from the preceding traditions of aesthetics (and, by extension, the cultures which produced them) which “make it new” might indicate, a usurpation of the existing structure for the regeneration of decayed values which might, in turn, revitalize a decrepit society as a whole. It is just this juxtaposition of the archaic with the contemporary and futural that aligns literary modernism with certain fascist movements which arose in the 20th century, in that both were simultaneously looking forward and backward, inclined to manufacture a future history/identity predicated upon a mythic past, and seeking to rejuvenate a dilapidated cultural zeitgeist.
Rather than questions to be explored, I propose to enlarge upon this conceit and the anxieties and fears underlying its motivation, utilizing the works of these authors (and analyses of their works), historians, and scholars of the era stretching from 1910-1930 to detail the processes by which totalitarian measures became an acceptable solution to disorder. Through such comparisons, I hope to document the ideological similarities between modernism and fascism which compelled some modernists to embrace the ethos of totalitarianism and fascism.
Evaluating the structures, methodologies, and ideologies of fascism as it was practiced and heralded in Germany and Italy with the methodologies, artistic output, and attributes of the modernist movement in Anglo-American letters and in Italian Futurism, a significant correspondence can be discerned between these seemingly disparate movements of the period stretching from 1910-1930. By focusing on literary modernism as both a material and aesthetic structure, an underlying current of totalitarian approbation can be detected and which can be equated with fascist sympathy in that both were simultaneously looking forward and backward, inclined to manufacture a future history/identity predicated upon a mythic past, and seeking to rejuvenate a dilapidated cultural zeitgeist. As such, fascism and aesthetic modernism can be understood as revitalization movements that arose as a result of myriad social, artistic, and political crises, some of which will be examined herein.
Understanding the factors which can lead to the rise or popularity of any extremist philosophies is an essential tool in working to ensure such inhumanities never again occur. This essay attempts just that purpose, while, at the same time, hopes to provide insight into the critical and literary work of some of modernism’s most accomplished writers and theorists. At its core, this examination intends to present a broad overview of the era, its social disorder, the socioeconomic and political factors, and the resultant responses of some of its literary figures