well, if you have to resort to any one of the many studies a creative work has generated, in order to access it, you are a pretty darn serious reader aren't you? You are right. I still think Pound's post-Mauberly audience is composed of serious folk--and wanna-bes.  Pound may have had an idealist elitism governing his thought and work, but as is so often the case with people who take pronounced stands, either inside or outside the norm, lots of others gather round their light. Hemmingway referred to them as camp followers. These are the folk who promulgate an elitist snobbery, for whom an association with a serious character or their work is itself enough to work some sympathetic magic on them, in them, transforming them into serious, but dependent characters.  It is perhaps a matter of what drives a person--and of course, people can be both serious characters and dependent characters at the same time. They can be both elitists in the fine sense and elitists in the vulgar sense at the same time. Bill's "elitist snobbery" perhaps carries with it a negative judgement of elitists. Just because he judges them does not mean they do not exist. Just because two aspects of elitism are conditioned differently does not mean they are unrelated.
 
>>> Joe Brennan <[log in to unmask]> 08/31 9:00 AM >>>
In a message dated 8/30/99 10:27:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
 
<< It is an idealist elitism, and the argument against it is reasonable. That
is, how hard should a person have to work to unlock the meaning of a poetic
expression? How much homework do? >>
 
 
in the first place, I doubt seriously that Bill was referring to "an idealist
elitism" in his remarks in support of See & the Washington Post, the phrase
he uses is "elitist snobbery."  but in response to Robert's remarks, perhaps
one could paraphrase: how hard should anyone have to work to get good at
anything?  I can't help but see this comment as an attempt by Robert to
further his claim that Pound is only of interest to academics ...  er...
serious folks.  as regards Mauberly, these days it requires very little work
to "access" its meaning -- the only requirement is that one be able to read
anyone of the many studies it has generated.
 
by the by, no one has referred to See as a "brute," although I believe that a
strong argument could be made for the Post in this regard.
 
jb....