"I will note now that the poetry entries were few,
> only two in fact, one of
> which was a savaging of John Kinsella's poetry, so
> damning it is not
> possible to publish it. No doubt the poetry
> enthusiasts who complained
> about poetry being grouped with fiction will have
> more to say on the matter.
> Or perhaps poetry is too difficult for new and
> inexperienced reviewers. I
> welcome comment."
What's so bitchy about this? The only objectionable
thing is the decision not to publish the Kinsella
review because it was "so damning". I can't see the
logic in that.
Poetry does not have to apologise for being
uncommercial, but it does have to look at itself and
consider the fact that many ppl today find it *boring*
and *irrelevant* If it doesn't do this, it'll never
break out of the little cliques that are a prerequsite
for the bitchiness which is alleged to be widespread
in Aussie.
--- Debbie Comerford <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hugh,
>
> With regards Helen Daniel's comments in the recent
> 'Australian Book
> Review' - I'm surprised at your politeness! I mean,
> there are many ways to
> describe this latest editorial, but 'tease' would
> have to be the least
> appropriate. It's outright BITCHY.
>
> For those unfamiliar with this situation, and
> interested in the world of oz
> poetry reviewing - ABR (an established, grand old
> institution) recently ran
> a reviewing competition and relegated poetry to the
> fiction section. Many
> of us passionate about poetry were of course upset
> by such an exclusion.
> Cutting to the basics: the recent ed's note said
> that only two poetry
> reviewers sent in reviews for consideration. These
> are the ed's comments:
> "I will note now that the poetry entries were few,
> only two in fact, one of
> which was a savaging of John Kinsella's poetry, so
> damning it is not
> possible to publish it. No doubt the poetry
> enthusiasts who complained
> about poetry being grouped with fiction will have
> more to say on the matter.
> Or perhaps poetry is too difficult for new and
> inexperienced reviewers. I
> welcome comment."
>
> Sure - she welcomes comment, but such provocative
> hostility is the last
> thing we need in the world of oz poetry criticism.
> I sent a letter of reply
> stating 'what the world needs now is love, sweet
> love' - no really, I
> suggested what the world of oz poetry criticism
> needs is a spirit of
> generosity not the tossing of gauntlets into the
> ring! What really pissed
> me off was that last comment that poetry reviewers
> are too inept to enter
> the stupid competition. And why even mention the
> damning review of JK's
> poetry?????
>
> the world of oz poetry criticism is a sad place at
> the moment - as well as
> these denigrating comments from ABR, the latest
> Southerly is like a cat
> fight....
>
> regards
> deb
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Hugh Tolhurst <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 6:36 AM
> Subject: geotext vs synchronised swimming
>
>
> > Dear JVK, Candice
> >
> >
> > Now I've read the Kinsella piece in Poetry Review
> > and though I thought it (the piece) was
> interesting,
> > well, I'm not sure 'geotext' (and no one is
> posting any)
> > or the similar thing quoted there was at all
> interesting.
> > Well, maybe interesting once. This new project
> seems
> > so similar to something old hat as to be
> positively uninteresting.
> >
> > Why not, a topical new project, "The Olympic
> Poems" - this
> > can include updates of results, reviews of the
> awfully
> > garish Opening Ceremony, contemplation of the
> philosophical
> > status of Juan Antonio Samaranch's appalling
> attempts at
> > humour. Actually, he's contagious, Australia's
> Governor General
> > managed to mis-pronounce ' S... Sydney." Etc.
> >
> > All attempts to divorce poetry from the political
> seem
> > misguided in the extreme. Can we get back to
> Bringing Down
> > the Howard Government and attacking the sorts of
> companies
> > that fund the Olympic Movement. Does anyone know
> the name
> > of ('official Olympic Poet') Mark O'Connor's dog?
> >
> > Also, can anyone explain how Helen Daniel, editor
> of Australian
> > Book Review gets off mentioning in her editorial
> that in their recent
> > reviewing competition someone entered a review of
> the poetry
> > of John Kinsella 'which was a savaging of John
> Kinsella's poetry,
> > so damning it is not possible to publish it'. What
> a tease she is,
> > that Helen Daniel, what a bloody tease! Can our
> listowner tell us
> > the goss?
> >
> > best
> >
> > Hugh Tolhurst
> >
> >
>
=====
"Why is it not possible for me to doubt that I have never been on the moon? And how
could I try to doubt it? First and foremost, the supposition that perhaps I have
been there would strike me as idle. Nothing would follow from it, nothing be
explained by it. It would not tie in with anything in my life... Philosophical
problems occur when language goes on holiday. We must not separate ideas from life,
we must not be misled by the appearances of sentences: we must investigate the
application of words in individual language-games" - Ludwig Wittgenstein
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|