Monday, May 07, 2007


When I made my triumphant, much-lauded return to blogging last month, I made a mental resolution not to indulge my penchant for invective as frequently as I had in the past and to avoid applying the hatchet unless the book/film/whatever in question really deserved it. So far I've been good, but then I found out that my extremely cranky, eighteen-month-old post on Dead Europe is listed as a web resource for a lecture on the book at Victoria University! They must have been hard up for resources considering I didn't even finish reading the thing. But I guess the moral is you can never escape your archives. Unless you delete them, or alter them in a Ministry of Truth-esque falsification of the historical record. Which of course I would never do.


lucy tartan said...

Well Tim, (man or woman or whatever you are) your posts are very far from being bad models to put in front of university students, but the first resource listed on the page is the wiki entry for magic realism, which pretty much sums up everything I've heard about the academic standards modelled and maintained at VU (all of it from people who work there).

TimT said...

A case of burying the hatchet job, perhaps?

Peter Sculthorpe has a particular story he tells his class about a bad review his colleague in composition Ross Edwards once got. "This concerto is a piece that gives A major a name" was the conclusion drawn by the critic. Sculthorpe reasoned, 'Now I would love to get a review like that!' So, you never know. The writers could be secretly relishing a mean review.

But anyway, I'm never really sure what critics mean when they talk about writers/artists 'deserving' harsh criticism. I suppose it's a bit hypocritical from me, though, since I've done my share of harsh reviews myself, including that one about Peter Craven on ilines, (which got a lovely response from Kirsty.) Hmmm, it's a all a bit of a puzzler for me...