Salient: Victoria University of Wellington Students' Newspaper. Vol. 32, No. 3. 1969.
Letters To The Editor
Letters To The Editor
All over the world we hear the strident cry of students to have their views heard and their opinions considered by the Establishment.
I rather doubt that the cartoon carried on page three of Salient 2 will convince anyone of student maturity.
G. W. Calver.
• A probably libellous caption was removed from the cartoon at a stage which rendered it impossible to fill the space the cartoon was filling.
Hence the latter remained.
The original meaning, in the words of the cartoonist, was bloody well totally lost.
Our apologies to G. W. Calver, Outside-Left and Fritz.—Ed.
When will somebody fink about fixing the fckg flickering lights in LB2?
Mervyn P. Judge.
Your record review column is a disgrace and your reviewer is a nincompoop.
Whether he is unaware of the existence of recorded music or whether he just chooses not to acknowledge it, I don't know.
But it is time someone gave him and your paper a nudge and reminded all concerned that Salient purports to be a serious newspaper, and a powerful political force on campus.
It is not a "pop" paper catering for hordes of screaming teeny-boppers.
Your "critic" reviews a weird cacophany of strange noises, from the sublime (and completely tuneless) ramblings of Dave Brubeck and his piano, to the ridiculous, noisy, grating shrieks and twangs or uncouth American pop groups (most of which would be more appropriately employed ringing a small bell and crying "unclean").
Is your reviewer unaware that 1968/69 are milestones in recording history?
Deutsch Grammophon have released the complete set of Beethoven's Symphonies; and Decca intends to make available in New Zealand this year the set of Wagner "Der Ring Des Nibclung", hailed by many "Music Critics" as the greatest achievement in recording history. (But your critic it wrapped in P. P. Arnold.)
Indeed, the only redeeming feature that prevented this half page from being a total loss was his criticism of the "Dave Clark" record, which just shows he must have some good taste.
All Letters Submitted For Publication Must Be Signed With The Writer's Own Name. No Pseudonyms Will Be Accepted Save In Exceptional Circumstances.
For this reason, the letter signed "Scott" and the letter signed "John Doe" will not be published until further identification is produced.
However, as a reviewer of music, he is a total loss, because he obviously won't review any. I do not advocate a solid black of classical records, but a balance must be maintained — after all, some students aren't juvenile.
If you choose to ignore my plea and do publish more of this tripe, could you please put it out on a roll.
In Salient 1 we had the sob story about how some poor writer was chucked out of the Public Relations Office of the Wellington City Corporation for his "association" with "Cock". (By the way, what is his association with Victoria that he should warrant front page headlines on your very first issue?)
Last week we had the smear campaign against some ex-student for voicing his opinions last year.
(That was a good way to start the article—"Criticism of the criteria employed to determine entry into the External Affairs Department has been made by Victoria University students." What students? Or was that reference to us, the students, to get you, the editor, off the hook in case P. J. Kelly decides to sue you for libel?)
If this is what we can expect from you for the remainder of 1969. (We notice too that at a recent meeting of the Publications Board, all seven of you, a motion was passed giving you "complete control over content and appearance" of Salient. Pity the Publications Officer wasn't there, or was it planned that way?)
We think that the best thing that could happen to Salient this year is that it should fold up and each student be given back his dollar.
R. W. Brookes. N. W. Byrch.
• Anyone with the most rudimentary knowledge of journalistic ethics would consider it contrary to those principles to have anyone but the editor exercising ultimate control over the content and appearance of a newspaper.
Who am I to apologise for the absence of the Publications Officer from the meeting, but you will be delighted to know he saw nothing irregular in the re-affirmation of a principle (conveniently listed out of context by you) which has been inherent in the Press since it was first established.
But the alternative. Do you favour control over the editor? Censorship? Executive? To remain consistent I assume you would have no objection to the Government exercising formal control over the daily press?
I reject that, and if you consider it in a little more temperate light you will too.
I would refer to the editorial for reply to the remainder of your comments.—Ed.
May not any individual hold and express any opinion on any subject? There are, of course, some capacities?of which one is an officer in the Department of External Affairs?in which one must suppress his opinion in favour of that of the organization for which he works.
Mr. Kelly has expressed an opinion which is contrary to that of the government. Provided he in no way allows this to interfere with the effective performance of his duties, there is absolutely no reason why he should not be in his present position in the department. As we can only give Mr. Kelly the benefit of the doubt in this respect, why all this fuss?
Michel J. Norrish.
Your literary editor Mr. James has got me a bit buggered for words. He doesn't feel bound to publish material that he considers rubbish. I'd have thought he would be a piss-poor editor if he did, and in any case who'd expect him too? The literary role of Salient a missionary endeavour— well Just who are the "arty" set and who says they are acceptable to common taste? What's common taste? "Art is not to be played with," says Mr. James. Agreed; but then he goes on to say I'm not quite sure what. Does he mean that it is only the artist that can attempt the unusual and bring it off? And some of Wilde's "social graces" ? how "nice" they are reputed to have been. And this "Beautific vision (beautific or beatific?), infinite in complexity but entirely beautiful in its truth", aw, tread lightly, Mr. James, in case comeone says Boo.
• It was "beatific."—T.J.