Letters to the Editor

Dear editor, I have often wished that more of the letters to the editor would comprise interesting debate or comment on literary matters. Sadly, about ninety-five percent of them are responses by furious authors to what they perceive as an unfavourable review of their book. While boring, such letters are at least understandable as being the output of wounded childish egos. Not understandable, and in fact unethical and unforgiveable, are attacks by publishers on reviewers, such as happened a while back when Fremantle Arts Centre Press rushed into prolonged print via your letters to criticise Dr Ivor Indyk for having unfavourably reviewed one of the many collections of verse by John Kinsella which Fremantle has pumped out over the last few years.

Shallows

Dear Editor,

I write regarding Nancy Keesing’s complimentary but insufficient review of Tim Winton’s second novel, Shallows, in ABR (February–March, 1985). The reviewer’s expectations appear to have predetermined her evaluation of the novel’s worth. That Shallows exhibits the trademarks of a sophisticated narrative and structure, surpassing what one would normally expect from a young person, merely causes the reviewer to draw attention to the exceptionable nature of this fact rather than evaluate the merits of the novel in its own terms. As a result, her praise is patronising (albeit unintentionally).

A more serious consequence of such an emphasis on Winton’s youthfulness is that the fuller dimensions of the narrative have not been sufficiently related in the review. As Nancy Keesing correctly observes, it is true that Winton has captured the small­town life of Albany, WA. It is true that he provides many interesting points of information re: whales and whaling. So also does he capture the nuances of social conversation and the contradictions of political activism.

In this issue, Hugh Mackay replies to Richard Hall’s essay in last month’s issue and his reply is printed here in full, unedited, at his insistence – which was communicated to me by his lawyers. As a matter of principle, of course, ABR offers right of reply, which is indeed a regular feature of the magazine, most commonly through the letters to the editor. On this occasion, given Hugh Mackay’s insistence, ABR includes his 3,300-word reply as a special feature.

In his reply, which he calls a ‘rebuttal’, Hugh Mackay points out that The Mackay Reports are not ‘books’ and therefore wonders ‘why they got a run in ABR’. I am interested that Hugh Mackay appears puzzled that matters not in ‘book’ form should come into the domain of ABR.

Thank you for publishing Susan Ryan’s provocative and concisely argued lecture, ‘Freedom to Write’ (ABR, October 1988). However, there is one assertion that I would seriously dispute, namely that ‘we have in Australia a healthy publishing industry ... which allows the genuine, talented and committed writer to appear in print’. This is nonsense.