 |
 |
Hugh Tolhurst writes: > Disagree with me by all means (though it would help > your case if you read the book in question) but don't > deny my right to democratically comment that a very > unfavourable review was undeserved. Similarly, don't > deny the right of Aural Text on 3RRR to democratically > discuss whether the review was fair on the airwaves. > Well, that is don't deny these rights if you are > democratically inclined. > Now I know that the changeover of listservers has tangled and confused the run of the threads, but I still haven't seen where anyone in this and related threads has denied either Hugh's right to comment or the radio station's right to discuss the review, bearing in mind that by discussion I do mean a debate where the 'verdict' is not predetermined. I do, though, balk at the last sentence above, and it's apparent association via aspersion of anyone who does echo the writer's views with anti-democratic attitudes. But even more than that, I have to object to Hugh Tolhurst's continuance of his disagreement with Alison to the point where he is going beyond a badgering protest, however tedious, and coming close to the personally vindictive. Mr Tolhurst does not agree with Alison. He has said so. Mr Tolhurst does not agree with her. He has said so again. And again and again and... Which is rather a hectoring, or a bully would-be. And with that I disagree, I find it reprehensible, and almost worse, aesthetically, boring, and you bet, I deny his 'right' to do so. Democratically, that is. david bircumshaw ----- Original Message ----- From: Hugh Tolhurst <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2000 11:57 PM Subject: Invisible Tattoos and democratic disagreement > The archive has been slow updating but I'm > informed via Candice Ward that 'puerile' and > 'get off the pot' are terms now involved in > discussing my view that a book Invisible Tattoos > is better than a review by Alison Croggon suggests. > > In disagreeing with that ABR review, I'm really > only echoing sentiments expressed by Morag Fraser > in ABR's October 2000 Symposium on reviewing. > Morag Fraser commented:- > > 'Trenchant understanding yields so much more for the > reader (and writer) than a parade of superior taste > and sharp (or cruel) phrase making.' > > In noting that others (3RRR's Aural Text) also > disagreed with the review and planned to air these > disagreements, I was volunteering information > chanced upon. Alicia Sometimes is also employed > at my local bookshop, she chanced to mention her > view of the review to me on Friday... (That is, some > time after I'd posted my view that the review was > harsh and undeserved). > > It so happens I subscribe to 3RRR largely because > I like the music it plays and think it the best of > Australia's independent stations, but also because > I enjoy shows like 'Aural Text'. If anyone other > than Candice took exception to my post mentioning > the nature of the 3 RRR license in response to Coral > Hull's 'I would listen to 3 RRR but I've got a life' - well, > no pejorative reflection on Coral was intended (and I > apologise to Coral if offence was somehow taken), I was > merely writing in defence of the excellent radio station she > dismissed. > > If I thought the review unfair, it is after all partly > because I purchased and read the book before > reading the review. It's not the very best poetry collection > I've read in 2000 but it is far from the worst I've read > and I didn't think it deserved Alison's 'sharp (or cruel) > phrase making' by way of review. > > Disagree with me by all means (though it would help > your case if you read the book in question) but don't > deny my right to democratically comment that a very > unfavourable review was undeserved. Similarly, don't > deny the right of Aural Text on 3RRR to democratically > discuss whether the review was fair on the airwaves. > Well, that is don't deny these rights if you are > democratically inclined. > > Hugh Tolhurst >