Review Re-viewed...

Sir,—P. G. Robb's review of Poetry Yearbook '64 is a rather poor piece of destructive criticism.

He begins with a facetious comment ("playing at Noah") which depends on mis-statement of the theme of Yearbook's introduction. Louis Johnson said it was the publishing drought that broke—and backed this up with a list of titles. The break suggests (to Mr. Johnson) that we may be due for a breakthrough—he even thinks there are signs of such a stirring in YearbooK—but he states "the past year . . . (was) not a breakthrough of new voices, but a consolidating triumph for established talents."

Mr. Robb then shows that he hasn't forgotten that this is the year when New Zealand poetry had news notoriety. For one whole column we are subjected to a rehash of the whole mess. Without yet having considered Yearbook he inflicts on us his own prejudices and judgements, phrased in emotive terms. Sometimes his generalisation becomes perilous. He judges the value of eleven volumes on the standard of one.

If Mr, Robb wants to deal with the Literary Fund question the proper place to do this is at the end, after an evaluation of the poetry. Most reviewers, and Mr. Robb is late in the field, have left the financial question alone—editor and publisher have relegated it to a brief editorial note and four sentences on the inside back cover, respectively.

When he does make bold to present the poems to us through his own eyes (after a false start when he quibbles over jacket design and binding—a quibble which ignores printing costs to criticise work which is competent, if nothing more) Mr. Robb fails to judge the poems as they are, but considers them as they might have been. Central to this section are two truisms—that some of the critical judgements are good and some bad; that some of the poems are mediocre and some are worth re-reading. This is as we might expect things to be.

Despite his introduction, it appears that there is some good poetry in the book. But then instead of evaluating the good (as we might expect) he evaluates the bad to the virtual exclusion of the good.

An anthology committed to being a survey of New Zealand poetry faces some difficulties. Obviously most of the good poetry of the year will find publication during the year—in magazines, in bound volumes. Then too, poets won't necessarily send their best work to a publication which is not a status symbol but a self-appointed catalyst of the local literary scene. Finally, to gain breadth for a survey may mean an overall lowering of standard. This editorial policy is of course open to the reviewer to criticise, but not usefully at the same time as he considers editorial content.