Letters

ABR welcomes concise and pertinent letters. Correspondents should note that letters may be edited. They must reach us by the middle of the current month. Emailed letters must include a telephone number for verification.

ABR welcomes concise and pertinent letters. Correspondents should note that letters may be edited. They must reach us by the middle of the current month. Emailed letters must include a telephone number for verification.

ABR welcomes concise and pertinent letters. Correspondents should note that letters may be edited. They must reach us by the middle of the current month. Emailed letters must include a telephone number for verification.

Responses to Peter Craven

Dear Editor,

I expected a spray from Peter Craven in response to my review of The Best Australian Stories 2001, but such a display of self-importance from an editor and critic is alarming (‘Letters’, ABR, March 2002). I had imagined he would be willing to reflect on the poor reviews he received for the latest volumes of Best Essays and Best Stories and to consider the possibility that plumping up the books with samples of writing not yet ready for publication is not working.

ABR welcomes concise and pertinent letters. Correspondents should note that letters may be edited. They must reach us by the 15th of the current month. Emailed letters must include a telephone number for verification.

Peter Craven responds to Hilary McPhee

Dear Editor,

As someone whose business it is to dish out criticism of books when required, I am not in the habit of replying to criticism. Recently, a journalist has suggested that I be put out to pasture as the editor of The Best Australian Essays annual I brought into being, and an academic has disputed my right to introduce the Quarterly Essays I commission. These are not, to my mind, happy or wise suggestions, but one can’t complain – they come with the territory. I edit the major collections of fiction and non-fiction that appear in this country. I also edit a series of more or less political pamphlets that have received their fair share of attention. On top of that, I have published a great deal of literary criticism in the press over the last however many years, some of it, by necessity, scathing. I am bound to have displeased and wearied all sorts of splendid people over that time.

Bauman’s point of departure

Dear Editor,

Boris Frankel bursts in through open doors. He gives Zygmunt Bauman and me stick for speaking our truths (ABR, October 2001). Viewed in its own terms, what remains of the Left in Australia is in a bad way because it has failed (1) to clarify its ethics, norms and values and (2) to develop alternative visions and policies upon them; because (3) there is no popular bearer or social movement available to carry these invisible ends; and (4) because there is no evidence of popular support for a new society, present unhappiness and misery notwithstanding. If this is not modern, what is it? (If the Soviet and Nazi experiences were not modern, what were they?)

Dear Editor,
Defending Inga Clendinnen against my criticisms (ABR, July 2001), John Clendinnen attributes to her a controversial view about the nature of moral judgment. I don’t hold it and, if I were to judge solely by her practice, I would be surprised if she does. Be that as it may: I’ll try to put my points by keeping philosophical assumptions down as much as possible.

From Gerard Hayes

Dear Editor,
If Mark Davis had wanted to concoct a parody of babyboomer fogeyism, he could hardly have done better than Peter Craven’s review of Gangland. Opening with a quotation from Anthony Powell and doing his best to parrot the Powellian tone of bored hauteur, Craven details the shortcomings of Davis’s age: not young – in fact a ‘late bloomer’ – but still not old enough to know better, indeed ‘rather earnest and plodding’.

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.

Dear Editor,

Your October 1992 issue gives commendable attention to Victor Kelleher, with a career overview by Andrew Peek, reviews by Terry Lane and Katharine England of Kelleher’s latest novel, Micky Darlin’, and an interview by Rosemary Sorensen. A writer of Kelleher’s stature deserves this. But ...

Dear Mr McLaren

Thank you for your letter. We shall certainly reciprocate in the matter of complimentary copies and we’re also interested in exchange advertising. I look forward to seeing your next issue and would appreciate receiving a copy by air mail if your circulation mechanism is as slow as ours tends to be.