Literary Discussions Fruitless

The first session, at which papers ostensibly on New Zealand literature was presented, never got beyond a state of fluent irrelevance. There were four papers: An undistinguished restatement of romantic critical technique (poetry emanates from the "dark psychic material" of the soul); a discursion into communications engineering entitled "Redundacy in Language"; a treatment of Janet Frame, which was lost on the group, most of whom had apparently never read her novels; and an outpouring from an American about New Zealand student poetry.

The chief feature of the discussion was the practical absence of critical ability; some vigorous rubbishing from Victoria's David Flude went unchallenged, and generally contributions were egotistic and irrelevant.

The panel discussion at which Dr. J. C. Reid, Charles Doyle. Ron Tamplin, Dr. C. K. Stead and K. Smithyman spoke on New Zealand literature revealed a similar lack of critical technique: Smithyman, for example, said: "I like Challis simply because he's interesting," and Stead maintained "Baxter is a real poet, an exciting poet in the way that neither Bland nor Challis are—he is sometimes a good poet, sometimes bad, but always interesting." Doyle's criteria were slightly different: "I like poetry for its honesty and clarity," he said.

The panel agreed that poetry in New Zealand was at present in a ferment, without distinctive characteristics, but was divided as to whether anything new, original or important was likely to spring out of this.

Another session at which university literary magazines were discussed seldom got further than superficial comments or futile arguments as to whether writing in foreign languages should be included.