materials and then to disseminateninfonnatlon about whatnthey have read through the appropriatenchannels. Therefore, itnis unlikely that great writers “justnhjppen” to slip through the net,nCh^ce undoubtedly does havenan effect, but ideology is of morenimport. That is, if a writer of literaturenpresents a world view thatnis contrary or in some way atnodds to the one that is held bynthose in power, it is unlikely tonbe aired. This situation is morenevident in the U.S.S.R. than it is innthe U.S. because of the obvious,nmechanical nature of the censoringn^)paiatus in the former. However,nthe censoring instrumentnin the U.S. is more insidious as itnis veiled under the doak of then”free press.” As has been pointednout numerous times in thesenpages, the liberal domination ofnthe channels of communicationnhas led to a state wherein there isna serious lack of balance. Thenmessages that the liberals wishnto see proliferated are widelyntouted; opposing or even alterfiatenmessages are either not expressedn(i.e., not published) ornsimply bowled over by the sheernmass (i.e., not quality) of thenreigning view.nOne of the charges levelednagainst conservative interpretationsnof literature is that theyntend to be consistently negative.nThere are two reasons for this tonbe the general case. First of all,nthere is the obvious one: thenwriters who are extensivelynhailed are actually quite bad ifnthe standards that have existednsince the time of Aristode (whichnhave been, of course, modifiednthrough the ^es) are applied.nTo put it blunfly. conservativencritics are more likely to call anspade a spade; as they are alreadynoutcasts, they have nothing tonlose by being honest. (A caveat:nwatch out for the so-called “conservativencritics” who do havensomething to lose—a table atnElaine’s, an entree to “chic” circles—asnthey are more likely tonbow to fashion vMle pretendingnnot to.) Second, they tend to bennegative because there is litde tonpraise. This is the case becausenconservative writers—or wouldbenwriters—are often daunted bynthe seemingly inexorable opposingnpowers that be: the writersnbecome fiustrated at having theirnmanuscripts boimced back fromnNew York. Writing advertisingncopy becomes a more fulfillingnthing to do, as that copy has anbetter chance of seeing ink.nIn a sense, Self-CrownednLaureates is a book that shouldnbe careflilly examined by conservativenwriters. Helgetson stylesnit a “semiotic study” and makesnthe appropriate references tonFoucault, Benveniste, Culler, andnothers. This might put a numbernof readers oflf. It shouldn’t, as it isnalmost as if semiotics, which isncurrently &shionable, was seizednsimply because of its salability:nHelgerson uses it, but except fornin isolated cases, it isn’t at all overbearing.nThe book is an examinationnof several poets of the latenI6th and early 17th centuries.nSpenser, Jonson, and Milton, innparticular. Certainly, this is anrather scholarly topic, and, inndeed, the book is scholarly in nature.nHowever, Helgerson’s argumentnis interesting; more importantiy,nit is applicable outside ofnthe classroom. Spenser, Jonson,nand Milton each wanted to makenhis mark on the “literary system,”nto establish himself as the outstandingnauthor of his day, as thenlaureate. The problem thatn^nser &ced (and the others tona lesser degree, as they followednhim) is one not unlike that l^cednby a conservative writer of today.nPoets in Spenser’s day were notntaken seriously; one was not anprofessional poet, or even a fulltimenpoet, as poetry was simply anhobby inspired by the hot bloodnof youth. For example, Helgersonnpoints out that Sidney, wiio isnnow considered a fethcr of Englishnpoetry, “allowed none of hisnliterary productions to be printednand referred to the. Arcadia, thenmost ambitious of his luidertakings,nas his ‘toyful book’ to benread by his sister and her friendsn’at your idle times.'” Poetry fornOut of Sight…nThe Concise C^ord Dictionarynof Proverbs; Edited by J.nA. SijmpSOn; Oxford University Press:nNewYoricnAn oral culture, as Walter J.nOng notes in Omlity ondLiteracyn(Methuen: New York, 1982), isnhard for modems even to imagine,naccustomed as we are tonwords on pages, screens, packages,nbillboards, etc. Still, it wasn’tnso long ago that people were un-nMaking CentsnThe Political Economy ofnGrowth; Edited by Dennis C.nMueller; Yalc university Press; NewnHaven, CT.nby David Ryder SandsnPerhaps economics has becomenknown as the dismal sciencenbecause so many econo-nMr. Sands is a reporter tvith thenWashington Business Review.nnnIN FOCUSnSidney and others was like annadolescent complexion problem:nsomething that one got over in an&irly short period of time. “Selfpresentation”nin this literary milieu,nthe strategies involved innbreaking down the prejudicenmounted by the powerfiil, arendescribed by HdgasQa Althou^nall three of the detailed authorsnsuffered lapses during their struggles,nit is clear that they tenaciouslynstuck to their beliefe innthemselves and in what tfiey werendoing. Such application andnstrength of conviction is necessary,nrequired, today. Dnable even to jot things down. Oi^npoints out that the best thingnthat one can do to remembernsomething in an oral culture isnto “think memorable thoughts.”nProverbs are such thoughts. Thisndictionary includes a laige numbernof the common proverbs in usenin Britain in the 20th centuryn(America to a lesser extent). Ifnnothing else, the valuable book,nthrou^ the assortment foundnwithin it, shows how dependentnwe now are on print for the preservationnof ideas. Dnmists have written on dismal andntrivial subjects in impenetrablenprose. The Political Economy ofnGrowth is unlike the norm, andnso for that reason alone it is to benwelcomed. The book is an interestingnand thoug^tfijl exhibitionnof the discipline of political economy,nthe study of how economicsnis changed when human beings,nas oftposed to disembodied appetites,nare the focus of interest.nThe heart of The PoliticalnEconomy of Growth is a clear,nwell-written essay by Universityn•HBH^?nOctober 1983n