>It seemed to me that his poetry was all too easily overlooked in the
>discussion that followed Philip's posting of his own review, and in the
>same way that the work became somewhat occluded by the terms of the
>review itself, that is, by being harnessed to a polemic proceeding from
>the reviewer's poetic-ideological issues and agendas, rather than those
>that might have proceeded from the work under review--and regardless of
>where Kinsella's sympathies might lie relative to those issues and agendas.
>Speaking strictly from my own ethical perspective on reviewing, such a
>harnessing of someone else's work to one's own agendas in the process of
>reviewing it seems ethically dubious. And if posting the kind of review
>I write and prefer to read--the kind that reflects an engagement with the
>work under review, while subordinating (at the very least) other issues
>and agendas--sparks a thread on the ethics of reviewing rather than any
>discussion of Kinsella's work, well, so it goes on lists like these, and
>so what?
There's glory for you. My "agenda," as you (and you alone) have been
pleased to call it, is derived almost verbatim from Kinsella's own work -
in a way that I have now documented so well on Poetryetc that only someone
laden with an agenda of her own must go on denying this. Talk of an axe to
grind. Thank you not at all for insinuating that my review doesn't engage
the writing itself. Speaking of reviewing ethics, it's of course very
refreshing that you would misrepresent the nature of my work in order to
praise your own accomplishment. Frankly, it takes a lot of gall.
Philip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|