Et tu, Quadrant?

Burglar I have a review of «The Quadrant Book of Poetry 2000-2010, Edited by Les Murray» forthcoming in the pages of «The Australian». After I had written and sent in the review, a contributor to the anthology wrote to me with an opinion: “I’m reluctant to bite the hand that feeds me but I think it’s general knowledge that the poets in it were not asked for permission to reprint; nor were they paid a permission fee.” «Quadrant» magazine’s website says that “By submitting a work to «Quadrant» you licence us to publish it in «Quadrant» Magazine and «Quadrant Online».” There is no mention of the purchase of anthology rights.

The misappropriation of real property (the theft of televisions, cameras, laptops) is regarded seriously by police and magistrates; apparently the misappropriation of intellectual property is a different matter.

Comments, anyone?

8 Replies to “Et tu, Quadrant?”

  1. Perhaps the misappropriated poets that were included in this anthology could band together and Occupy Quadrant in protest. Would you be willing to help organize something like this, John? I have an old sign I could paint over.

  2. I find the idea of such a protest quite attractive, but alas, I wasn’t included among the misappropriated, and so I don’t feel that my membership of such a protest would be appropriate, to coin a phrase.

  3. There are few things more tragi-comically amusing than the spectacle of an aged (70 in a few days) enfant terrible raging with jealousy over a poetry anthology that does not include his work. Never mind, John, you’ll soon be dead and I think we can safely guarantee your omission from the Quadrant anthology will be foro\gotten.

  4. Ken,
    I think it’s important to clarify something that seems to even have been overlooked in the Australian review. Only poets who have submitted poetry and been published in Quadrant in the past ten years were eligible for inclusion in the ‘Best of Quadrant’. It was not a Best of Australian Poetry anthology. That is exceptionally clear to most thinking people. If John Tranter, or any other poets, did not submit poetry to Quadrant, and have it published during that period, they could not be part of the collection.

  5. Joe, I do not think this confers any immunity against jealousy, or rules out an attempt to silence possible rivals by the tactic of totenschweig. Tranter’s “review” (actually, not a review at all) is notable for containing a great deal of abuse of Quadrant and Murray, and hardly a word about the poetry – which, which given his pretentious, semi-literate writing, is probably just as well.

  6. John and Ken,
    One actually employs many tones of voice in talking to people over the long term, much like one does with a child. A strong relationship will survive this, a weak one will not. There is a place for kind words and a place for stern words. Both are essential for love to work. (Just ask your partners.)
    Let’s clarify something so there is no misunderstanding: I, along with Judith Beveridge and Stephen Edgar and others I know, have had some excellent poetry rejected by Best Australian Poetry under John’s stewardship for two years straight.
    I also had the great honour of having two poems included in the Best of Quadrant Poetry 2001 – 2011.
    Now, I’ve been called a lefty tree-hugging hippie in print by the editor of the Herald (with affection I might add) and I publish regularly in Quadrant, amongst many others. Left and Right to me are terminals on a car battery. (Just make sure the leads are on the right way or you are in for an ass BBQ.)
    I, and MANY fine poets I know, felt the Australian review of the Quadrant collection to be petty and insulting to our abilities which have been recognised by other esteem editors and publications.
    I believe in intelligent civil discourse – but I also subscribe to the principle that public insult requires public rebuke and public apology.
    There are another two blogs by Bob Ellis on the Q anthogy which may be of interest. Here:

    and here:

Comments are closed.