Comments on: The black and white of the Australian literary canon http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/09/04/the-black-and-white-of-the-australian-literary-canon/ now with extra source Sun, 12 Feb 2012 07:14:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Frank Campbell http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/09/04/the-black-and-white-of-the-australian-literary-canon/#comment-36740 Frank Campbell Mon, 07 Sep 2009 05:37:30 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/09/04/the-black-and-white-of-the-australian-literary-canon/#comment-36740 Aren't the two sides at cross purposes? The lit-critturs vs the sociologists? The sociologists want an anthology which is socially representative while the litcrits want to fire their canon. Litcrits love their canon. They polish and caress it and build careers on it. They are Fo dogs, literary lions, guarding the National Temple of Excellence. No matter that it's a district branch of a subtemple, it is their very own. Each temple has a top dog, noisy and theatrical, with a big swinging lexicon. No point complaining to the council, Peter will still howl at the moon. If the anthology purports to be both canon and sociology, the Faux dogs are right. Aren’t the two sides at cross purposes? The lit-critturs vs the sociologists?

The sociologists want an anthology which is socially representative while the litcrits want to fire their canon. Litcrits love their canon. They polish and caress it and build careers on it. They are Fo dogs, literary lions, guarding the National Temple of Excellence. No matter that it’s a district branch of a subtemple, it is their very own.

Each temple has a top dog, noisy and theatrical, with a big swinging lexicon. No point complaining to the council, Peter will still howl at the moon.

If the anthology purports to be both canon and sociology, the Faux dogs are right.

]]> By: meski http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/09/04/the-black-and-white-of-the-australian-literary-canon/#comment-36720 meski Mon, 07 Sep 2009 04:12:41 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/09/04/the-black-and-white-of-the-australian-literary-canon/#comment-36720 It's one word - Meski. No need to try dividing it into fragments. The comment on the word 'doggerel' was a quote from the article - I still don't see the quoted original as being of the standard you might expect of doggerel, you may continue to regard that as bizarre if you wish. It’s one word - Meski. No need to try dividing it into fragments.
The comment on the word ‘doggerel’ was a quote from the article - I still don’t see the quoted original as being of the standard you might expect of doggerel, you may continue to regard that as bizarre if you wish.

]]> By: kim lockwood http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/09/04/the-black-and-white-of-the-australian-literary-canon/#comment-36635 kim lockwood Fri, 04 Sep 2009 08:15:05 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/09/04/the-black-and-white-of-the-australian-literary-canon/#comment-36635 Leaving aside the bizarre comment by Mr or Ms Me Ski (is s/he suggesting you are giving Bennelong's letter as an example of doggerel?) and Mr Bedlam's completely unnecessary descent into vulgarity, well said Sophie. Indeed, bravo! Pity about the apostrophes ("It’s morphing into Australian included the contribution of many people" and "I, like the editor’s of the anthology"). I once wrote a column bleating about the unnecessary addition of pronouns to verbs (to meet up with, to sell off, to win out) but of course they're prepositions, not pronouns. People in stone houses should take great care when throwing glasses. Leaving aside the bizarre comment by Mr or Ms Me Ski (is s/he suggesting you are giving Bennelong’s letter as an example of doggerel?) and Mr Bedlam’s completely unnecessary descent into vulgarity, well said Sophie. Indeed, bravo!
Pity about the apostrophes (“It’s morphing into Australian included the contribution of many people” and “I, like the editor’s of the anthology”).
I once wrote a column bleating about the unnecessary addition of pronouns to verbs (to meet up with, to sell off, to win out) but of course they’re prepositions, not pronouns.
People in stone houses should take great care when throwing glasses.

]]> By: sean bedlam http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/09/04/the-black-and-white-of-the-australian-literary-canon/#comment-36592 sean bedlam Fri, 04 Sep 2009 05:38:45 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/09/04/the-black-and-white-of-the-australian-literary-canon/#comment-36592 So Craven reckons people who have a spoken history don't get a look in? The only ideas worth having are written down? If so, that's a bit fucking rough. So Craven reckons people who have a spoken history don’t get a look in? The only ideas worth having are written down? If so, that’s a bit fucking rough.

]]> By: meski http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/09/04/the-black-and-white-of-the-australian-literary-canon/#comment-36572 meski Fri, 04 Sep 2009 04:50:46 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/09/04/the-black-and-white-of-the-australian-literary-canon/#comment-36572 Doggerel? The example you are using doesn't even come up to the standard I'd expect of doggerel. Doggerel? The example you are using doesn’t even come up to the standard I’d expect of doggerel.

]]>