Your reply says volumes about journalistic standards. I wish the rest of
us could operate with such wide tolerances. Thanks.-Carlo Parcelli
>
> 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.
--
ÐÏࡱá
|
