Dear Alison,
Yes, I take your point about poets surviving
even the worst a reviewer can dish out, I made
a similar point about Plath some time ago. What
was it the Pall Mall Gazette said of London Nights
in 1899: "Mr Arthur Symons is a dirty little man".
My point is that even more than letters by a poet,
reader's reports are written not for publication. As
such, they are often cast in pugnacious terms you'd
not use directly to an author (I don't think I can quote
from Les Murray here, as the biog is copywrite and
subject to various writs), but if you've been to
www.aussiepoet.com you'll see what I mean in
chapter # 16. The unfairness is also partly out of
getting a bad review without being published (so
your work can't defend itself).
Matthew Francis wanted to know about whether
Faber or other international publishers commission
reader's reports, and I think the answer to that is
yes. Perhaps Andrew Jackson could ask the man
from Bloodaxe? It's often done informally using
existing authors. It's usual for poetry where either
the publisher isn't feeling totally competent to judge
the manuscript in question, or where two editors
have a disagreement (as a third opinion or second
opinion). Not every MS gets a report, a report
may be as brief as 'This is a load of crap'. Funnily
enough a reader's report story I know of involved
a report to just that effect, which was accidentally
sent back to the co-authors along with the manuscript.
They wrote back enquiring, "Dear Editors, could you
please tell us exactly which part of X was 'a load
of crap'?
best
Hugh Tolhurst
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|