Debbie
She also received a letter from me about the
standard of ABR poetry reviewing which
she ultimately refused to publish on grounds
that it was 'not topical enough'. It mentioned
97 and 98 backround to a 1999 review by
Martin Harrison, who in August 2000 called
for "less quirky, less embittered" reviews of
Australian poetry. The pot asking the kettle
to clean up its act.
ABR may find that my criticisms do seem
'topical' after all, as I've sent a slightly varied
letter to The Australian's Review of Books,
and so it goes. It is my view that ABR has now
had the same editor for too long. Personally
I like Helen Daniel, but professionally I'm thinking
the old guard approach of ABR is very tiresome.
cheers, Deb
Hugh Tolhurst
----- Original Message -----
From: Debbie Comerford <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: ABR
> 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/
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
