 |
 |
I withdrew from the list because I was becoming infuriated; and I didn't like that. But now I've been copied some messages of 9 1 99 which have infuriated me. So I have resubscribed to comment. Peter Riley raises the possibility that Andrew Duncan has been "driven to [standing down as editor of Angel Exhaust], and his polemical discourses silenced, by the paranoia which rages through the world of British experimental or radical poetry." Raging paranoia? I don't think so. Righteous anger in a particular case, perhaps. Peter goes on to tell a story without naming the protagonist. I am not sure why he does not name the person, but I shall follow suit in case he knows something I don't know. Peter says that a person phoned Eastern Arts "in a state of mindless fury". Well, I heard the story from the phoner's mouth and there was no mindless fury in the telling or in the story retold. All was calm in the version I heard. All was rational. There was genuine anger which derived from more than one element of The Great Editor's writings about the phoner. Peter says that "the magazine's whole future is under threat whether edited by Andrew or not." Not true. The magazine's future in its present form is under threat because its grant is under threat. The magazine can go on publishing but Andrew may have to pay for it himself. It is possible to publish magazines without grants. Peter speaks of "the onslaught of fury against Andrew". Oh dear. Avenge o Lord though slaughtered saints whose bones lie scattered... It wasn't, to the best of my knowledge, an onslaught of anything. Mr Duncan finally upset someone (again) in such a way that he was vulnerable to a legal response, someone who could summon the resources to make such a response. The lawyer had already been consulted and an opinion given before the granting body was contacted. It was a response, not the first, but perhaps the strongest. Nor is there only one complainant. Responses have come "from criticised poets" - Peter's plural is accurate to my knowledge. And there are others who hesitate to respond for fear that they become targets themselves. And THAT, to quote Peter, is shameful. It is excessive to say that anyone "has managed to suppress his critical writings" Nothing has been "suppressed". It is excessive to say so. No one has been "silenced". For one thing, Douglas Clark appears to be offering Duncan open house for what Douglas calls his "ramblings". And Douglas's "Byzantine" further dilutes the power of that word. I see nothing Byzantine about it. On the other hand, returning to Peter's post, it is severely understating the situation to speak of "a certain sense in which he had brought all this upon himself". No! He brought it on himself, period. I fail to see how it is at all "shameful". If no one can fill the gap, that might be shameful. If such a magazine cannot find grant aid, that might be shameful... If no one of us is capable of filling Angel Exhaust's place, should it come to that, then that might be shameful. It might be timely to remind Peter that, last February, he wrote of Angel Exhaust thus: "I find it detestable and can't bear to have it on the premises." Lawrence %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%