On Sat, 9 Jan 1999, Peter Riley wrote:
> The latest episode involved a certain author in the more northern zones of
> this country believing (wrongly) that he had been accused of being a
> homosexual in Angel Exhaust 16, telephoning the magazine's grant-giving
> body in a state of mindless fury, and threatening litigation. The arts
> board in question appears to have taken this seriously and the magazine's
> whole future is under threat whether edited by Andrew or not.
- well, I'm a Northern Author, but I'm very Uncertain, so it can't have
been me... But seriously, gang, I can't imagine that Eastern Arts wd be so
silly as to listen to such ravings, and wd be very surprised if AE was
under threat for this reason alone. If there is a serious threat to the
mag, cannot those of us who believe it to be of value at least make our
views known to Eastern Arts? I mean, rather than just rumbling on about it
in bewhiskered harumph terms. To do so, we'de have to know (backchannel, I
guess) (a) the full strength of the Eastern Arts objections, and (b) who's
going to edit the mag if AD has already decided to quit.
> If this is all true, and the onslaught of fury against Andrew from
> criticised poets has managed to suppress his critical writings and stop the
> magazine, I can only say (allowing for a certain sense in which he had
> brought all this upon himself) that it is the most shameful thing to have
> happened since I have been involved in British poetry.
- oh, rubbish - let's not start making martyrs here. What is the
connection - other than perhaps at a metaphorical level - between the
response to Andrew's hurtful criticism (conducted solely within the poetic
community as far as I know, and as far as I can see leaving him completely
free to continue to publish as he likes) and the unhappy effect which one
ranter might have on "his" magazine with a lucky hit on its funding
system? What evidence is there for linking the two threads?
RC
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|