TALKING ABOUT BOOKS

New Zealand Listener, Volume 36, Issue 920, 29 March 1957, Page 11

TALKING ABOUT BOOKS

Sir-Mr O. E. Micdleton’s letter in The Listener (February 22), makes some of us wonder if the time has not arrived for a new approach to the subject of book reviews and book criticism, both over thé ‘air and in The Listener. The former, book reviewing, appears so often to be carried out by incompetents,

or by writers, not caring much what they say, for the understandable reason that they are not allowed the space in which to say it. The latter, book criticism, is indeed rare in New Zealand. Competence, of course, may be sometimes a matter of opinion. In a recent edition of Book Shop, to take a case in point, Mr Bruce Mason reviewed three New Zealand novels by James Courage, Dan Davin and Guthrie Wilson. Having written off Courage and Davin with a few words, Mr Mason proceeded to lavish his praise on Wilson’s book, Sweet White Wine. His conclusion was that here, at last, we would find a mature New Zealand novel, Mr Arnold Wall agreed. Almost, we were led to believe, the great New Zealand novel, Now it would have been useful if this singularly immature judgment could have been balanced by the views of other, more competent critics. They might have said that a view of life which is a peculiar mixture of Hollywood (Clark Gable’ days) and the general outlook of the more _ reactionary members of the R.S.A. could hardly be called mature. They might have said that, apart from a few competently written war action scenes, the book has no merit, literary or otherwise. The point is that the opinions of book critics should be balanced by those of others. Even amongst the more competent critics, this balance is required. No doubt, many readers and listeners would like to take things about books straight from the horse’s mouth; but when the horse happens to be Mr James Bertram, who can chew, with apparently equal relish, Maurice Duggan’s Immanuel’s Land and Antony Alper’s Katherine Mansfield, who could be blamed for looking in its mouth, or even for asking if there are any other horses? The suggestion is, then, a new approach to "talking about books," both in The Listener and over the air. Book reviews could be even more limited than they are, and turned over to anyone who wants to make a free book and to tell us what it’s about. Three of the more competent critics could be chosen for the year, and, say eleven books, books that belong somewhere in the realm of creative art. The first month, these three critics could be asked to give us something of: their views on life and_literature; and, in each ensuing month, we would have one book reviewed by different individuals, Not a discussionwe have seen the dangers of this-but three separate opinions. Some such method would: at least stimulate a creative criticism, if it is there to be stimulated. Indeed, on occasions there was an approach to this technique when Miss Sarah Campion owned Book Shop. It seems a pity that she relinquished the ownership.

IAN

HAMILTON

(Auckland).

(Mr. Bertram’s reviews of Immanuel’s Land and Katherine Mansfield were separated by two and a half years, a fact which suggests that: they had some impact on at least one reader. We would have a low opinion of a New Zealand critic who could not handle these two books with equal relish.-Ed.)