Dear Lawrence,

Just to update you on one or two details, re: Angel Exhaust.

1) The magazine has a new address: 35 Stewart's Way, Manuden, Nr Bishop's
Stortford, Herts, CM23 1DR. In fact, my parents' address, well within the
Eastern Arts bloc, and a house full of my books, my furniture and myself,
when I'm not commuting into Town to the PL or to my partner's flat.

2) I now edit the poetry section of Angel Exhaust, and you will find one or
two poets you might not expect within the pages of the mag: Johan for one,
Anthony Mellors for another and others, poets which we all know Andrew has,
well, reservations about. Indeed, I asked other members of this list to
contribute poetry (their inclusion would have loosened AD's apparent iron
control over editorial policy), and some declined because of Andrew which is
a shame, as I think Angel Exhaust can be changed from the inside. Support
on this would be a pretty effective counter measure.

3) In any case AD does not own AE, and is, in fact willing to listen to
other views. My own line on the Bob Cobbing essays is pretty much the same
as Ben's*, and Andrew knows this. I took my own protests to him at that
time, back in 1993?? . Bill Griffiths has always seemed a good poet to me,
and Andrew knows this too. Neither of these views prevented Andrew, in good
faith, from inviting me to edit the poetry section.

4) Andrew does not have access to the internet, so he is largely unaware of
this discussion. Last year I recall talk about that rogue Nicholas Johnson,
and eventually some members pointing out that he had no way to defend
himself on the list: how is Andrew's position different? Has anyone written
to AD via the snail to protest about the First Offense article? I recall
someone drawing attention to the original point of the FO article, and that
being the book by Clive Bush; the high-handed remarks about Bill Griffiths
were an aside and not the focus of Andrew's argument. I would have thought
that the attack on Clive Bush's book must seem a more serious matter, but
that issue has gone virtually unnoticed.

5) And let me put it on the record: any poet from this list that wants to
submit poetry for publication in AE is welcome to do so. The editorial
decisions on what goes in are mine. I hasten to add that the first issue
with my input will be available, we hope, before Christmas. The issue after
that is an Irish issue, which neither Andrew nor I are editing: again
demonstrating that AD is not the fascist ogre portrayed by some postings
here. He certainly has strong, provocative views and expresses them in a
wayward, often obtuse manner, but I think Douglas Oliver sensibly pointed
out that when vitriol has been spat in his direction he smarts, gets a
little angry, then brushes it off and gets on with his life. Or words to
that effect.

Well, I expect the above will draw unfriendly fire in my direction. I never
thought I'd see the day when I'd be the fall-guy apologist for Andrew Duncan
. . . .


Simon Smith


* The point surely is that Andrew DID publish Ben's letter, so there was a
right of reply, and if Tim Fletcher won't carry a reply in FO then that's
Tim Fletcher's decision, not Andrew's.
-----Original Message-----
From: Lawrence Upton. <[log in to unmask]>
To: british-poets <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 18 December 1998 09:00
Subject: Poets with reviewing difficulties


>From: Peter Riley <[log in to unmask]>|I don't feel that this e-mail
>discussion group is the correct place for Bill Griffith's strange argument
>with David Bircumshaw about, as far as I can see, nothing.
>
>I think that this place is what we make of it. And no one else is talking
>about much. Another way of looking at it is to ask where else the debate
>could take place
>
>Bill has been sniped at repeatedly by Duncan / Angel Exhaust. And the
>current exchange is not to separated from that. Angel Exhaust relies upon
>grant aid which, as far as I can see, it is not entitled to... because
>Andrew Duncan actually lives and edits in London, not at the well-known
>Cambridge address published on the magazine. Using public money, AD/AE
>carries on its "strange argument" against Bill and others and there is
>nowhere for the victims to protest. The attacks are not legitimate reviews
>nor learned analyses or even attempts at either. They are argument by
>assertion and childish insults. Vicious childish sniping.
>
>And the exchange hasn't been all odd. We've had the gem that living in a
>block of flats makes you working class; and Bill's pursuit of a clear
>concept of what is and what isn't elitist is useful
>
>The peculiar tale of AD/AE being raised here seems to have demonstrated
that
>there is nothing that can be done as a counter measure, quite appropriate
to
>know at a time when another bunch, quite as daft as AD but with greater
>power, are murdering people regardless of what those who pay for their toys
>may think - but of course most of the UK / USA citizens may well support
>that little Reichean illustration, having been fed tabloid hatreds and
>phobias, also supported by beds of money
>
>If Bill wants to try and drag some stuff out into the light, I am with
him -
>what else has happened to help him? Not only do I think he is entitled to
>defend himself, when those who want to help don't seem to be able to do
>anything to help and most don't seem to give a fig, but I also think such
>debates are part of being involved in and with poetry
>
>How is it that a person, who seems genuinely involved and excited by
poetry,
>hasn't in any sense grown up? And how is it he still gets support and is
>still taken seriously? Let's not keep Andrew Duncan in the cellar and
>pretend he hasn't been born. Let's get him out in the open, face up to his
>obsessive name calling, and see if we can do something for him
>
>It's the only way forward in a civilised society
>
>L
>
>
>



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%