Meaning: The quote by Robert Creeley provides an interesting insight into the contrasting intellectual approaches of two prominent American poets, Ezra Pound and William Carlos Williams. In this quote, Creeley reflects on his experience visiting Yale and observing the distinct qualities of the two poets' thinking processes. He notes that Pound's thinking was characterized by a tendency to remain "locked into a pattern of concepts" that then shaped his subsequent behavior, while Williams's thinking was described as "volatile," implying a more fluid and adaptable approach.

Ezra Pound and William Carlos Williams were both influential figures in modernist poetry, and their distinct approaches to literature and life have been widely studied and discussed. Understanding the context of their work and the intellectual climate of their time can provide valuable insights into the meaning of Creeley's quote.

Ezra Pound was known for his adherence to various literary and philosophical movements, including Imagism and Vorticism, and for his strong opinions on the role of the artist in society. Pound's thinking was often characterized by a commitment to specific aesthetic and ideological principles, which he sought to embody in his poetry and promote through his critical writings. His belief in the power of art to effect social and cultural change led him to become involved in political and economic theories, including his controversial support for fascism during World War II.

In contrast, William Carlos Williams was recognized for his innovative approach to poetic form and language, as well as his commitment to the concept of "no ideas but in things." Williams, a practicing physician, brought a unique perspective to his poetry, often drawing on the details of everyday life and the experiences of ordinary people. His work emphasized the importance of direct observation and the use of language that reflected the rhythms and cadences of everyday speech.

Creeley's observation about the contrasting nature of Pound's and Williams's thinking sheds light on the broader differences in their literary and intellectual approaches. Pound's adherence to specific patterns of concepts and behaviors can be seen as reflective of his commitment to certain artistic and ideological principles, as well as his desire to shape the direction of modernist literature and culture. In contrast, Williams's "volatile" thinking suggests a more open and adaptable approach, one that allowed for greater flexibility and responsiveness to the complexities of life and art.

Creeley's choice of words in describing Williams's thinking as "volatile" is particularly interesting. The term "volatile" can connote instability or unpredictability, but it can also suggest a dynamic and responsive quality. In the context of Williams's thought, it may be understood as an indication of his willingness to engage with new ideas, to adapt to changing circumstances, and to embrace the complexities of human experience.

In conclusion, Robert Creeley's quote offers a thought-provoking reflection on the contrasting intellectual approaches of Ezra Pound and William Carlos Williams. By considering the historical and intellectual context of these two poets, we can gain a deeper appreciation for the significance of Creeley's observation and the broader implications for the study of modernist poetry and thought.