Thanks for everyone's thoughtful responses,
George Simmers and Alison Croggon have excellent points,
as in their own way do Anthony Lawrence and Andrew Burke.
Yes, I think in the fullness of time they (reports) could be made public
for legitimate research purposes, but I think something like
a thirty year rule should apply. Before such a time, it's no problem
for an author to quote or publish them (Anthony would just be
quoting his scrapbook), but any other public exposure ought
to have the permission of the author of the manuscript in question.
You don't submit to a publisher expecting rejection and
a damning public condemnation of your unpublished submission to result,
especially public condemnation by a famous poet/critic.
Yes OUP have a legitimate gripe with www.aussiepoet.com
but my gripe is with Professor Peter Alexander, the author,
who was clearly happy as of November (pre-pulping) to quote
from Reader's reports, Les Murray wrote for A & R, and has given no
public indication (of which I'm aware)
that he has changed his mind on this. It's important
to discuss this now perhaps, because OUP might take these
concerns on board, as might the biographer (pre-print publication
take two).
Andrew's point about phrasing them carefully has merit,
but is probably most relevant to submissions judged to be
'in the ball park' (pardon my masculine phrase) of publication.
If you are as trenchant in such documents as Les Murray has been,
it would be wisdom not to approve publishing such things
as they are written under a kind of confidential privilege
and are likely to cause offence if made public.
To my mind, a submitting writer gives an implied license
to a publisher to seek a specialist opinion (a reader's report)
but this in no way licenses the publisher to make public
such a report's findings. I'd be interested to know if
HarperCollins (owners of the A & R imprint) are themselves
displeased at in-house 'cabinet documents' being leaked?
It's unprofessional in my view, and a case of one author
(Professor Alexander) establishing a dodgy publishing
precedent that is unfair on all authors: particularly the most
disadvantaged of authors: poets without a publisher.
thanks again
Hugh Tolhurst
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|