what I find bitchy about the editor's comments is the way a political
position, that of a silent boycotting in this case, is being misconstrued as
ineptitude.
deb
----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Hamilton <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: ABR
>
>
> "I will note now that the poetry entries were few,
> > only two in fact, one of
> > which was a savaging of John Kinsella's poetry, so
> > damning it is not
> > possible to publish it. No doubt the poetry
> > enthusiasts who complained
> > about poetry being grouped with fiction will have
> > more to say on the matter.
> > Or perhaps poetry is too difficult for new and
> > inexperienced reviewers. I
> > welcome comment."
>
> What's so bitchy about this? The only objectionable
> thing is the decision not to publish the Kinsella
> review because it was "so damning". I can't see the
> logic in that.
> Poetry does not have to apologise for being
> uncommercial, but it does have to look at itself and
> consider the fact that many ppl today find it *boring*
> and *irrelevant* If it doesn't do this, it'll never
> break out of the little cliques that are a prerequsite
> for the bitchiness which is alleged to be widespread
> in Aussie.
>
>
>
>
>
> --- Debbie Comerford <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Hugh,
> >
> > With regards Helen Daniel's comments in the recent
> > 'Australian Book
> > Review' - I'm surprised at your politeness! I mean,
> > there are many ways to
> > describe this latest editorial, but 'tease' would
> > have to be the least
> > appropriate. It's outright BITCHY.
> >
> > For those unfamiliar with this situation, and
> > interested in the world of oz
> > poetry reviewing - ABR (an established, grand old
> > institution) recently ran
> > a reviewing competition and relegated poetry to the
> > fiction section. Many
> > of us passionate about poetry were of course upset
> > by such an exclusion.
> > Cutting to the basics: the recent ed's note said
> > that only two poetry
> > reviewers sent in reviews for consideration. These
> > are the ed's comments:
> > "I will note now that the poetry entries were few,
> > only two in fact, one of
> > which was a savaging of John Kinsella's poetry, so
> > damning it is not
> > possible to publish it. No doubt the poetry
> > enthusiasts who complained
> > about poetry being grouped with fiction will have
> > more to say on the matter.
> > Or perhaps poetry is too difficult for new and
> > inexperienced reviewers. I
> > welcome comment."
> >
> > Sure - she welcomes comment, but such provocative
> > hostility is the last
> > thing we need in the world of oz poetry criticism.
> > I sent a letter of reply
> > stating 'what the world needs now is love, sweet
> > love' - no really, I
> > suggested what the world of oz poetry criticism
> > needs is a spirit of
> > generosity not the tossing of gauntlets into the
> > ring! What really pissed
> > me off was that last comment that poetry reviewers
> > are too inept to enter
> > the stupid competition. And why even mention the
> > damning review of JK's
> > poetry?????
> >
> > the world of oz poetry criticism is a sad place at
> > the moment - as well as
> > these denigrating comments from ABR, the latest
> > Southerly is like a cat
> > fight....
> >
> > regards
> > deb
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Hugh Tolhurst <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 6:36 AM
> > Subject: geotext vs synchronised swimming
> >
> >
> > > Dear JVK, Candice
> > >
> > >
> > > Now I've read the Kinsella piece in Poetry Review
> > > and though I thought it (the piece) was
> > interesting,
> > > well, I'm not sure 'geotext' (and no one is
> > posting any)
> > > or the similar thing quoted there was at all
> > interesting.
> > > Well, maybe interesting once. This new project
> > seems
> > > so similar to something old hat as to be
> > positively uninteresting.
> > >
> > > Why not, a topical new project, "The Olympic
> > Poems" - this
> > > can include updates of results, reviews of the
> > awfully
> > > garish Opening Ceremony, contemplation of the
> > philosophical
> > > status of Juan Antonio Samaranch's appalling
> > attempts at
> > > humour. Actually, he's contagious, Australia's
> > Governor General
> > > managed to mis-pronounce ' S... Sydney." Etc.
> > >
> > > All attempts to divorce poetry from the political
> > seem
> > > misguided in the extreme. Can we get back to
> > Bringing Down
> > > the Howard Government and attacking the sorts of
> > companies
> > > that fund the Olympic Movement. Does anyone know
> > the name
> > > of ('official Olympic Poet') Mark O'Connor's dog?
> > >
> > > Also, can anyone explain how Helen Daniel, editor
> > of Australian
> > > Book Review gets off mentioning in her editorial
> > that in their recent
> > > reviewing competition someone entered a review of
> > the poetry
> > > of John Kinsella 'which was a savaging of John
> > Kinsella's poetry,
> > > so damning it is not possible to publish it'. What
> > a tease she is,
> > > that Helen Daniel, what a bloody tease! Can our
> > listowner tell us
> > > the goss?
> > >
> > > best
> > >
> > > Hugh Tolhurst
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> =====
> "Why is it not possible for me to doubt that I have never been on the
moon? And how
> could I try to doubt it? First and foremost, the supposition that perhaps
I have
> been there would strike me as idle. Nothing would follow from it, nothing
be
> explained by it. It would not tie in with anything in my life...
Philosophical
> problems occur when language goes on holiday. We must not separate ideas
from life,
> we must not be misled by the appearances of sentences: we must investigate
the
> application of words in individual language-games" - Ludwig
Wittgenstein
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
> http://mail.yahoo.com/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
