HD

>No.

Don't be afraid to engage sincerely. I won't hurt you.

Yeah, I'm feeling the same, especially because OP is only forcing her poetry. Her poetry is good, but her prose is fucking scary. I had to put down one of her sort of autobiographies because she was describing standing in a garden and I felt a bit assaulted. She can do a much more rapidfire stream of consciousness than the rest, so probably Burroughs fans would like her oppressive style more than Joyce and Woolf fans.

>Don't be afraid to engage sincerely.

Fuck off already you lame.

Prose is oversold on this board. and I've read more of her poetry than her prose, I'm not gonna recommend something I haven't read.

What's your favorite book by her, I planned on getting HERmione next (so far I've read Trilogy and a good chunk of her collected and am reading Helen in Egypt).

Tribute to Freud looks good too.

I prefer her earlier imagist poems. Sea garden is my favorite book of hers.

sorry desu, harry crosby needs me

>Prose is oversold on this board
...how? it makes up the majority of what people will read, and in HD's case, it's not an overselling to say she is a master prose stylist, while her poetry isn't necessarily stronger than Pound's (despite what Pound says) though that still places it in one of the 20th C greats' spots, it doesn't make it outshine her prose. Liking her poetry and ignoring her prose because of your perception of Veeky Forums makes you like a wanker who loves Notes on Prosody but refuses to read the actual poem. That's the kind of Nabokov fan that only Nabokov is allowed to be and otherwise puts people off.

I think HERmione was the one with the garden. I really didn't expect the inundation her autobiography type novels gave off. It felt a bit like she was trying to kill us both to make us stronger with a verbal onslaught at times. Very scarily good prose.

also, if you like her poetry, I recommend HERmione because a lot of it deals with her trying to find images and her thought process behind the poems.

Your reading a large amount into my statement. I'm not anti-prose (i'm not ignoring her prose), but I disagree with you on her place in poetry. I think she's more in the rank of Eliot and WCW (whereas Pound is not) and I would say you're the backwards HD reader here.

Oread is one of my favorite short work of anyone.
a fan of this one too

I understand

>. I think she's more in the rank of Eliot and WCW (whereas Pound is not) and I would say you're the backwards HD reader here.
Ew, she's definitely better than Eliot and WCW. WCW is better than Eliot too, but your ranking is arsebackwards if you think HD is as good as Eliot and place her lower than Pound. It's more like HD>>Pound>>>>>>>WCW>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Eliot

H.D.>=Eliot >WCW >> Pound

Pound is a great agent, though.

Eliot's a wanker

Yeah, but he's a great poet. Pound was ambitious, but couldn't achieved what he reached for.

but he's not a great poet. he is a wanker in his poetry, and most of the people who love him will also fall for style over substance memes like dfw.

I don't even know what to say to that, especially consider you apparently like Pound (who is the 'wankiest' poet to live)

No. She did little in her life.

ur puns are rude

Pound at least has feeling

I prefer good poetry.

this is just an impasse, Eliot's one of the few that honestly get me emotional

it's referential wankery.

>style over substance
In literature style is substance. Seriously name me a poet or novelist who was a poor stylist but wrote some grand piece of yet unmentioned "substance." If you want to separate these two things, go to phil.

>she's more in the rank of Eliot and WCW

So she's simultaneously really good like Eliot, and a hack like Carlos? That's quite the rank

Unlike the Cantos, I'm sure.

...

Dosto?

No, they are separate things, but Eliot squeezes out substance to rely on style alone. That's why he's filled with other people's works because he needs to place allusions to substance in there to hold his style together, and his style without the referent is insubstantial and frankly flat. Pound without knowledge of the referent is often stronger than with knowledge of the referent (see: his "translations")

Confirmed translations reader

Pound is technically great but has no voice of his own.
You don't read a poem and think " that sounds like something pound would write"
For this reason I don't think he gets as much recognition as other poets.
His poetry is all over the map, some great, some good and some not very good at all.