In other words, I would be interested to learn how and under what aegis you intend to operate and, should you wish it, will happily supply you with suggestions or advice based on our accumulated experiences in the field.

Douglas Marshall, Editor, Books in Canada

Sir:

I was interested in Mr Ric Throssell’s contribution on the work being done by the Department of Foreign Affairs as regards the promotion of Australian literature abroad.

My own particular interest lies in the assessment by the Government and the Department of Foreign Affairs of the real place in the scheme of things of our cultural and literary interests.

Those who have participated in the overseas seminars organized by the Department of Foreign Affairs have often remarked to me on the sub-standard conditions which our ‘front men’ at these occasions are subject to, presumably on the basis that writers don’t need fees (though many of them are free-lancers) nor the conditions the Department would supply to (say) politicians, lawyers or shrinks.

I would be interested in Mr Throssell’s simple answer to two questions:

1. When the Department of Foreign Affairs brings out a foreign specialist in Australian literature (very often a man or woman of considerable distinction), do they pay economy or first class air fares?
2. When Mr Throssell or any of his colleagues travel abroad on business, do they travel economy or first class?

Yours, etc., James Bartlett

James Bartlett

Sir:

As editor of Melbourne Studies in Education, I appreciated Ted D’Urso’s review of the 1979 edition in your May issue.

Like many non-historians he is puzzled at the publication of what seem to him to be ‘esoteric’ pieces of dubious relevance to the present.

It would be easy to argue with Dr D’Urso on the relevance, for instance, of one piece he picked out, an article on the history of attempts to establish maritime education in this country. Our neglect of our littoral in general and of our marine status in particular is an extremely important theme in Australia, and never more so than at this moment. I believe that Ann Shorten’s article adds perspective to this and many other current debates.

But even if it did not, I would argue that properly mounted historical studies are of importance both for their own sakes and for the contribution they may make to major historical advances in the future.

But that is by-the-by. The real point I would like to make, and many editors would join me, is that journals are only able to print material as good as the best material they receive. If D’Urso’s review attracts people to submit more material to Melbourne Studies, and better material, and material of the kind he wants, and if Dr D’Urso were to be one of these, I should be well satisfied.

Yours, etc., Stephen Murray-Smith, Editor, Melbourne Studies in Education.

Stephen Murray-Smith, Editor, Melbourne Studies in Education.