I should make it clear that, in a critical sense, I agree with much McCaughey says Blackman’s paintings: he has a keen appreciation of their essential qualities and this makes him aware of the weaknesses to be found in much of his later work. I also agree that there are inaccuracies and omissions in the book which should have been corrected. Again, I agree ‘that Nadine Amadio’s approach is a very romantic one, warm and human, and, like many romantic writers, she sometimes gets carried away.

Remembering, then, that we are dealing with a book, my criticism is directed at the overall destructive nature of McCaughey’s review. By any assessment the book is an outstanding achievement and can take its place among the relatively few really first class productions either here or abroad. Having had something to do with colour reproductions in books, the results achieved are, to me, near-miracles. The format, layout and design of the book are all exceptional in themselves and in perfect harmony together. The text itself is extremely well integrated with the paintings and is remarkable for its sustained fluidity, and reveals a sense of empathy with the artist which, in my experience, is quite unique.

If I am right, then we have an exceptionally fine book covering the work of one of our best painters, which can give us rare enjoyment, and we should surely forgive those weaknesses which tend to be inherent in the romantic but which seem to trigger off such an exaggerated (to put it mildly) response from Professor Mccaughey.

Dear Sir,

I have just read the review of Charles Blackman’s book in your March issue.

I bought a at Christmas and I enjoyed it very much. However I am not writing to discuss the contents of the review. The emotional attack on the book places the reviewer outside any credibility under the circumstances.

I am writing to say I consider it most unethical that a man who has had a book on an Australian artist published at the same time as the Blackman book should be allowed to review his competition.

Whatever Patrick McCaughey might say, there is no way that this cannot be regarded as an act of commercial self-interest.

I am sorry to see a journal of your repute include such a questionable review.

Editors Note:

We also received an additional letter criticising Patrick McCaughey’s review, beginning ‘I am a medicine man and art lover presently visiting Australia’. We should have been happy to print this as. well but the second photocopied page is entirely blank and there are no details of the writer’s name· and address.

To the actual specific criticisms of Patrick McCaughey article which Mr Reed alone makes I will not reply, except to say that they are lucid and temperate. The accusation of unethical practice, however, is something different.

In a country with as small a cultural community as Australia, it is inevitable that reviewers may themselves by critics, painters or writers. The only reason for not employing a reviewer who is also an author would be if there was a personal relationship between him and the subject of the review which would make it difficult for him to write impartially, or if his personal integrity were in question. From my personal knowledge of both Professor McCaughey and his writing I am positive this is not the case. Right or wrong, his is an honest opinion.

Dear Sir,

Michele Field’s article ‘A Bind of Judgements’ published in your August 1980 issue has just been bought to my attention. Would you be so kind as to correct the inference in that article that I ever sued the University of Western Australia and the allegation that the University of Western Australia ever paid any money as a result of any libel action brought by me or any member of my family? As I was obliged to point out recently in a letter to the National Times the facts of the matter are as follows:

1. My wife and two children and I did in fact sue Dorothy Hewett in the High Court and were awarded $6,000 by way of damages by virtue of a consent Judgment.
2. As regards the second action, my wife and two children alone sued a reviewer named Colebatch and the Editors and Publishers of Westerly, a literary quarterly produced by the English Department of U.W.A.
3. Again in this case my wife and children were awarded $6,000 plus costs by virtue of a consent judgment.
4. The damages were paid not by the University but by the State Governnment Insurance Office.

In view of the fact that both actions proceeded to Judgment (albeit by consent) it is surely inaccurate to talk about an ‘alleged’ libel when referring to these actions. I hope it is not too didactic to point out to Ms. Field through your columns that it is little wonder writers get sued when they don’t make the effort to get their facts straight.

Dear Sir,

The Australian Book Review is eagerly awaited and very well thumbed through by·a number of this School’s teaching Staff. I depend upon it as an essential resource in the ordering of new titles.

Since I have a limited budget to work within, your published prices are an important guideline for me.

It was, therefore, quite alarming to be charged $44.55 for a book which the Australian Book Review had listed at $24.00. The book concerned was Modern. Australian Poetry 1920–1970 by Herbert C. Jaffa (ed.) reviewed by Thomas Shapcott on pp. 24-25 of your June l 980 issue.

Adelaide University Union Bookshop, from whom I ordered this title on 1st August 1980, supplied it on 3rd February 1981 and, when questioned, justified their charge of $44.55 on the grounds that it cost them $23.85 from the U.S.A. and that they work on a doubling of the cost to them.

If such scandalous mark-ups are to continue then a clear indication, in the Australian Book Review, as to whether the dollars are Australian or American would be helpful.

Sorry – normally our prices quoted are in Australian dollars. We do not usually review overseas books until they have been released here. – Ed.

Dear Sir,

Your reviewer of ‘The Best of The Age 1979–80’, Mr Jack Clancy, writes: ‘But one’s fears centre on a piece by the editor himself in which he proclaims editorial independence and then admits that there has been Board intervention during election campaigns only five times in thirteen years. Haven’t there been exactly six elections in those years?

Mr Clancy seems to think I was trying to put something over the readers. Note the use of the words ‘proclaims’ and ‘admits’. All I was trying to do was to tell the truth. He wholly distorts what I wrote. ‘At elections’, I wrote, ‘the paper’s policy is sometimes raised at the board – five times in the past 13 years. On these occasions the managing director has advised the board of the paper’s intended stance.’ I went on to relate that at only one of these 11 elections, federal and state, had any attempt been made to alter the paper’s stance (the editor is not a member of the board), and that that attempt, in 1974, led to a compromise. Of course, on any newspaper, there will be disputes between boards and editors over matters of policy. Why shouldn’t there be? The point I was making was that, on The Age, there had been one such dispute in 13 years, which is remarkable.