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
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|