It is true there are many very specialized sections of any general interest
publication.  The Book World section covers a very broad spectrum of literary
offering, prose, poetry, fiction, non-fiction etc. for a general audience a few
notches up the intellectual ladder from the funnies.
 
Carolyn See's article was not a review and might have been better placed in the
magazine section.  IMHO it was very well crafted and gave an interesting
insight into the daughter of one of the more interesting & influential
literary  characters of the 20th century.  By extension, it also gave some
insight into EP. Her passing reference to Pound's position in contemporary
thought also seemed on target.
 
The only absolute standard for anything passing as journalism is factual
accuracy, a standard which one would hope was observed by Ms See.  Her opinions
can be debated, but her right to express them should be unchallenged.  Unless
only qualified post-doctoral fellows are allowed to comment on the literary
merits of well known (if somewhat obscure) poets, novelists and authors.  Which
would be a pity.
 
Bill Wagner
 
 
 
Aldon Nielsen wrote:
 
> At 08:34 PM 8/30/99 -0400, you wrote:
> >Having made my living for many years as a journalist, I'd like to
> >comment in defense of the Post & Carolyn See.  Most people outside of
> >academia do not share the enthusiasm for obscure references and
> >multi-lingual poems.  It always struck me as elitist snobbery... a kind
> >of intellectual showing off, as in "see how many languages I know" ...
> >aimed at other people who could devote their lives unravelling puzzles
> >so they, too, could show off their erudition.
> >
> >Count me on the side of the Post on this one, although I too agree that
> >they are usually more aligned with the people who write the paychecks
> >than those who receive them.
>
> As a life-long reader of both Pound and the _Post_, I have to comment on
> this one -- I would challenge anyone to look through the _Post's_ sports
> section, chess column, bridge column etc. and then continue to make this
> argument -- Why is the jargon of sports reporting considered "accessible"
> no matter how opaque it gets, while modernist verse is considered elitist?
> On any given day, the paper's sports section (and business section for that
> matter) is filled with arcane refs. comprehended only by the intiates --
> And my freshmen find the bridge columns easily the equal of Pound at his
> most allusive -- Many on this list are familiar with my criticisms of
> Pound's politics and racism -- BUT, it's no more difficult to look up
> Pound's refs. than it is to look up a player's "rubies" for the year 1984.