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.