Gillian
> So, it's OK for Alison to do a review, but not OK for someone (RRR) to
> comment on her review in a public forum.
>
I've just looked back through all the posts on this thread and I can't say I
see that anywhere. Anyone who sticks their neck out into the public noose is
liable to be strung up, poet and reviewer alike.
I think it's more interesting that since Alison posted the review, nobody
has said anything about it, but rather spun off at tangents, some of them,
admittedly, quite pleasant. But re the review itself, just -what - is all
the palaver about.? From the excerpts of the reviewed works quoted, it seems
quite justified in its disfavours.
>Failure is not possible, because so little is being attempted.
Years of sinking feelings on opening little magazines or seven year
collections or boggling at 'prize-winners' could be headed by that banner.
>Language so unaware of itself cannot avoid complacency.
Yup. That's it in one.
Enough. I'm beginning to sound partisan.
david bircumshaw
----- Original Message -----
From: Gillian Savage <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2000 12:03 AM
Subject: RE: Reviewing the Reviewer on 3RRR
> ummm... am I missing something?
>
> I get the impression that a couple of people are saying that poets have to
> wear criticism (or reviewers have a right to review and criticise) AND
also
> saying that the reviewers ought NOT to be reviewed (i.e. no one has the
> right to review poetry reviewers) (Or is it just that RRR hasn't earnt
this
> right? or what?).
>
> So, it's OK for Alison to do a review, but not OK for someone (RRR) to
> comment on her review in a public forum.
>
> Take this stance to its logical end and you make reviewers into sacred
> oracles.
>
> Seems to me that if criticism is good for poets, then it must also be good
> for reviewers.
>
> Gillian
> OZpoet http://www.ozemail.com.au/~gbsavage/ozpoet.html
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|