Letters Extra - November 1994

Dear Editor, It has always been my understanding that the National Book Council’s principal function is the promotion of Australian books. Therefore I cannot understand why the Council has allowed the publication of a review in its Australian Book Review journal which calls for the public destruction of a book. To quote from Meredith Sorensen’s review (ABR, October 1994, p.67): take one Big Bad Bruce and tear it to shreds – preferably in front of as many small children of both sexes as you can gather about. The males of the party, having consumed enormous amounts of something smelly and bubbly, must then piss on the remains. There are many ways in which a reviewer can express dislike of a particular publication, bµt Sorensen has totally overstepped the mark in her incitement to violence. I am outraged that the National Book Council deigned to publish such an unprofessional, grossly offensive review. Patricia Bernard, Paddington Dear Editor, Could you please explain to me what good there could possibly be in publishing a review advocating that a book be torn to shreds and pissed on? I refer to Meredith Sorensen’s review of Dianne Bates and Phoebe Middleton’s children’s book, Big Bad Bruce. I see no reason why a reviewer should like a book but what is the purpose, other than pure grand-standing mischief, in throwing away the opportunity to criticise a book constructively for such a poorly argued and gratuitously malicious review as this? While I wouldn’t expect the Australian Book Review to concentrate on children’s book reviewing to any great extent, your publication is in the enviable position of being able to give a fresh and different perspective on children’s books. Why not do so? Most children’s book reviewing is done by ‘institutional’ review journals and, because of their educational ties, tend to put forward a very narrow view with educational and political correctitude uppermost. The lessons are all there but the thrill of literature has faded, into the background. The field of children’s books has become a monoculture and suffers for it. The result, in my view, is that Australian children’s books, for all their numbers, are needlessly dull. Well-intentioned educationalists seeking to ‘cure’ children of childhood, have sought to do the same to children’s books. Why can’t ABR, in the interests of all that children’s books could be, hire knowledgeable reviewers with useful things to say? Your reviewer’s objection that Big Bad Bruce, a bikie, is acting like a ... well, like a boorish bikie is the same old boring politically-correct knee-jerk reaction that we’ve come to expect from institutional reviews. Adding a piece of silly invective can’t alter that. No, all bikies don’t act like bikies and aren’t even all males, but so what? Bruce is and does. Interestingly, the same author, in one of her many other books, had a grandmother as a bikie gang leader. No stereotype there. Surely there is more to literature – children’s or adult’s – than these superficialities. Finally, on the human side, surely you feel that some consideration should be given to the authors and illustrators themselves? Writing and illustrating requires a great deal of dedication and energy for small rewards, as we all know. It’s naie to assume that such a puerile recommendation that a book be torn up and pissed on would not be hurtful in the extreme. Or was it your reviewer’s intention to be hurtful? I’m sorry but I can’t see this as anything other than an abuse of power. Duncan Ball, Glebe Dear Editor, I recently purchased ABR because on the whole I enjoy the reviews, etc. I especially enjoyed Vashti Farrer’s review in this (October) issue. However, while I rarely write to journals, I was so distressed by Meredith Sorensen’s review of Big, Bad Bruce that I had to write to ABR. I have read Big, Bad Bruce and enjoyed the humour of it, while appreciating the theme – to judge people from within, not from outside appearances. Meredith Sorensen obviously did not like the book, which is her right. What I found distressing was her call for people to TEAR the books to ‘shreds’, preferably in front of small children. She then calls for men to PISS on the book. Then she calls for women to COOK THE PISS SODDEN SHREDS. Even though I am a liberal person, as a teacher and a parent, I feel that the call to tear up and piss on the book is shocking. I believe that Meredith Sorensen’s review demeans readers, writers and ABR. I feel dreadful for the illustrator and writer and believe Meredith Sorensen should apologise to them and to the readers of ABR. I have never read this type of review from an established journal and found it disturbing. Is this reviewing ABR’s policy? I would appreciate your response. Susan Ruben, Bondi Junction Dear Editor, Two strong protests re ABR, October 1994 1. Subtext: The omission of the shortlisted authors and titles in the category, Children’s Books, for the NSW and Victoria Premier’s awards is deplorable. Writers for adults depend on children’s book writers to provide their future readers. Children who fail to learn to read and those who can read but choose not to will never read fiction, non-fiction and poetry for adults. 2. Reviews: Picture books. The review of Big, Bad Bruce was disgusting. Please find a range of reviewers with a variety of opinions. Fine writers can express contempt without descending to sleaze. Edel Wignell, Glen Iris Dear Editor, I write on behalf of the Australian Society of Authors Ltd and in relation to the review of Big Bad Bruce in the October issue of ABR. I know that you are familiar with the Australian Society of Authors’ views on reviewing. We canvassed them quite thoroughly in a recent edition of our journal Australian Author. One of the points made was that we were keen to play a role in a system of reviewing which enjoyed respect and was considered fair – where genuine criticism was welcome and gratuitous attacks were a thing of the past. The point was also made in Australian Author that writers take reviews personally. Under these circumstances, it would not be surprising if the recommendations from your reviewer, Meredith Sorensen, that readers might ‘tear (the book) into shreds’ and ‘piss on the remains’ would distress the author – and a number of the readers of the review. Indeed, some ASA members have expressed concerns that a serious forum for review such as ABR should advocate the destruction of books. While stressing our commitment to a reviewer’s right to freedom of speech, we wish to register a strong protest at the inclusion of that part of this review which is childish and unprofessional. In hoping that this sort of anomaly is not repeated, we are sure that the reputation of ABR can only benefit from an editorial policy under which the integrity of both authors and reviewers is assured. Lynne Spender, Executive Officer – ASA Editor’s Comments… ABR certainly does not endorse reviews such as the one cited in these letters. The review in question was commissioned by the previous editor and the decision to publish it was hers. The book will be re-reviewed in the December issue of ABR. ABR apologises for the offensiveness of the review to writers and readers.

Hidden Author

From the New Issue

Rapture by Emily Maguire

Refugia by Elfie Shiosaki

Law at the Movies: Turning legal doctrine into art by Stanley Fish

An Indigenous Ocean: Pacific essays by Damon Salesa

You May Also Like

Letters - June-July 2005

Letters to the Editor - October 2023

A Kind of Confession: The writer's private world by Alex Miller

Letters to the Editor - April 2024