Alison Croggon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:-
> This depends whether you think it is the poetry that matters, or what is
> said about it. Does a negative review erase an artwork entirely?
Well, if you've got a negative 'review' as damning as Les Murray
at his most Anguish & Robbery forthright, and you didn't actually
get your manuscript published first...
Well, you'd be feeling a bit erased, I think. And whatever you want
to call a life in poetry, at early stages, a big clout like that could
see your new poet give up. Even without it being published, what
was quoted from a Les Murray reader's report (by the publisher
in a rejection letter) would seem certainly to have deeply hurt
young Martin Johnson. And I'm not making a linkage
there... See John Tranter's introduction to the UQP selected Martin
Johnson.
I'm not against tough principalled reader's reports, but I'm not keen
at all on their seeing publication quickly in the poetry reader's
biography (he was at A & R as recently as 1992). It's unfair
on new authors, up and comers, or hacks. Very poor in terms
of etiquette or professional confidence and very indiscreet. These
are not letters, they are in-house reports.
best
Hugh Tolhurst
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|