Bill. What is there to defend except Carolyn See's ignorance and the
institutional and editorial insistence on the part of the Post to
destroy any sensibility beyond their meager capacities and what they
ASSUME to be the meager capacities of their readers? Am I not one of
their readers? Shouldn't it be assumed that if you are going to write
about Pound that you will be addressing an audience who at least in part
will know something about him? I live in Washington and Pound is well
known (not unlike, the Objectivist poet, Whittaker Chambers or Roy Cohn)
here as a public, historical figure, having experienced the fine
accomodations at St. E.' for all those years. People know who he is and
would be better served if say John Espey had been assigned the piece so
that they might know more, rather than getting the jealous nonsense of
See. For example, when Espey and Mary were talking, See, rather than
listening and learning, pouted and felt left out reducing what was a
critical learning session for Espey into a flirtation between Mary and
John ala See's self-absorbed novels. I know a number of these folks at
the Post personally and they are very insecure about there positions
because they represent that tradition in American letters that is
terrified by intellectual curiosity because they don't possess it. This
is not unlike the terror they have that one day they might have to treat
their au pairs as equals, not to mention the starving and dispossessed
around the world. -Carlo
 Bill Wagner 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.
> 
> Brett Zombro wrote:
> >
> > At 12:33 PM 8/30/99 -0400, Carlo Parcelli wrote:
> >                                  <Re. Wash. Post>
> >
> > >Their approach toward 'serious' literature and thinking in general is
> > >not only dismissive and even hostile (witness recent no nothing attacks
> > >on Joyce (they couldn't undertsand Ulysses), Schopenhauer, Derrida,
> > >Heidegger etc.) But more significantly , it reflects the same way they
> > >treat the aspirations of poor people, populist movements, trade unions,
> > >grass roots organizations et al.
> >
> > Well, yeah.   These are among the kinds of things I was thinking
> > of as factors having nothing to do with Pound.  But perhaps I should
> > have said 'not particularly related to Pound's reputation,' since Pound
> > himself certainly was concerned with at least some of them.
> >
> > And yes, these 'journalists' of whom I was speaking do unfortunately
> > include a few people who think of themselves as English professors.
> >
> > Anyway, you've incited me sufficiently that I may just shoot off a
> > letter to Post Book World this week.   We'll see what happens.
> >
> > --
> > Brett Zombro
> > [log in to unmask]
 
-- 
ÐÏࡱá