The war on culture continues.

Tighter budgets and fewer pages seem to be the order of the publishing day this spring, and early symptoms include reductions in book-review sections in many newspapers.

Happily, not the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, or at least not yet, according to Jane Henderson, the newspaper's book editor. Of course, the Post has not devoted much space to books for a number of years, but in this difficult time, the newspaper is holding its own. Henderson commented that Ellen Soeteber, the new editor, seems to be a fan of books, and indications are that if things don't get a lot worse, there may be cause for optimism in the future.

It isn't that good around the country, or so a brief and informal survey in The New York Times indicated recently. The Times itself has eliminated its "Books in Brief," a home for shorter reviews, as part of a two-page trim in the section. In Boston, the Globe has had a stand-alone section which may not be in existence much longer; editor Matthew V. Storm has indicated it may become part of the Focus section. The San Jose (Calif.) Mercury News has cut book review space by a third, and the Seattle Times has reduced it by two-thirds.

In San Francisco, the Chronicle has a new, redesigned book section, but editor Phil Bronstein expects to have fewer reviews. In exchange he plans more commentary on literature.

Charles McGrath, editor of The New York Times Book Review, put the issue into focus for writers and readers when he said, "Of all the cuts, the one I mind most is the briefs. What you're losing is the debut short-story collection, the first novel. You're losing the ability to spot someone at the very beginning of a career."