The Little Review, March 1915

March 1915 was a big month for H.D. After publishing a set of poems in Poetry (see post above), she got a long review in The Little Review, penned by her husband Richard Aldington (though he does not mention the fact of their relationship). Some of his points are more about himself and his tormented relationship to Imagism: "Yesterday it was all Nietzsche ; then Bergson ; now there is a wild fight between a dozen "isms," combats between traditional imbeciles and revolutionary imbeciles. So that one spends half one's time becoming an "ist" and the rest of the time in getting rid of the title" (22). The review continues Aldington's belief that H.D. was far ahead of her time, a belief he held throughout his life, as he tended to give credit to her and not to Pound (Cyrena Pondrom has written about this). Aldington describes her poetry as "a paradox--an accurate mystery," emphasizing the way that details emerge to startle the reader, and comparing this effect with Sir Patrick Spens. Aldington presages Williams' and Pound's more famous statements about poetry and news with an antithesis: "we expect poetry to tell us some piece of news, and indeed poetry has no news to tell anyone." This is a core point in a discussion of how H.D. must be closely and slowly read to be understood. Defending H.D. against a French critic who complained that her work isn't modern in that it doesn't discuss technology, Aldington praises her "outbursts" of sincerity. There's more to mull over here, but that's a quick summary.

Quick Notes:

A book of poems by John Cowper Powys is reviewed by the editor, presumably Margaret Anderson, a book titled (brace yourself) Visions and Revisions. Old Possum strikes again! 

Huntley Carter contributes a Bergsonian reading of modern art (without citing Bergson), which intriguingly mentions an artist named Charles E. King as exemplary, but who I can't find on the internet at all. 

There's an interesting point-counterpoint about "Mrs. Havelock Ellis," with one contributor feeling that her lectures on sexuality were excellent, but Anderson feeling that they were inadequate. See in particular her argument from the bottom of page 17-18, where Anderson explains that Ellis did not do nearly enough to discuss and further the cause of "homosexualists," a remarkably current passage, for 1915. Anderson rocks. 

The issue opens with an essay against Teddy Roosevelt, and therefore American involvement in the war. 

All for now...