- Free Article: No
- Contents Category: Literary Studies
- Review Article: Yes
- Article Title: ABR Reviewers’ Award
- Online Only: No
- Custom Highlight Text:
With many thanks to the judges Julie Copeland, Michael Costigan and Val Kent. And to the Australian Booksellers Association and the Australian Book Publishers Association for their generous support.
As all reviewers know, reviews are ephemera; except, of course those able to pack a punch which rebounds on the reviewer or knocks out the writer. So it is that A. D. Hope’s comment on Patrick White’s style as ‘pretentious and illiterate verbal sludge’ is remembered as his judgement on The Tree of Man, while his sensitive assessment of the novel disappears from immediate recall. Some reviewers try to protect their reviews from literary waste-baskets by making them scholarly articles. Our judges had to decide which particular nominations received had those qualities which made them memorable reviews rather than distinguished essays.
From Martin Harrison’s nominated piece came a comment which Julie Copeland especially liked:
There is a danger of taking reviews far too seriously. We read them, value them as brief public responses; we depend on them for news or reputation and, more often than anyone usually cares to admit, spend ages writing them. Yet for all that, they are eminently forgettable.
I take this to be not a judgement by Julie against presenting a reviewer award, but a quirky, cheeky comment on reviewers’ efforts. Perhaps the ABR award may change the reviewing landscape from a relatively dun thing and therefore ‘eminently forgettable’ to a vividly striking one.
Besides the difficulties of deciding what is a review, the judges had to face the fact that they were not omniscient. God-like in their unbias they might be, but all seeing and all knowing, they admitted they were not. They, therefore, felt they could have done with a little more help from a lot more editors. This would have ensured a wider coverage. Editors please note. Send more copy - and particularly send a substantial number of reviews for each person nominated. Some intelligent, witty, perceptive reviewers were discounted (!) because only one or two reviews were sent to the judges.
Some who fell into this category were Edward Kynaston, Denis O’Hearn, John Pringle, Barbara Jefferis and Amanda Lohrey. All of them, for various reasons were a pleasure to read.
The now experienced judges will be asked to formulate clearer criteria and the ABR editor will be asked to spell it out.
Julie Copeland, Michael Costigan and Val Kent had quite a bit of work and frustration but in the end, I hope, satisfaction in selecting Reviewer of the Year. They certainly showed much tolerance (lateness of some submissions, confusion with scripts, inaccessibility of some reviews) and a great deal of discernment. They were concerned, if perhaps thankful in another respect, with the smallness of the field.
About 12 publications nominated a total of over 40 reviewers. This is not a bad field, but it would have been better if several other important publications, some of which participated in 1984, could have been persuaded to compete.
Is this a matter of persuasion or just a matter of omission? We know editors are busy people so perhaps a year’s warning that this award 1s to continue will make them flip stimulating copy into an ABR Reviewer file. Others on the job could give them an occasional nudge; reviewers being shy, retiring creatures should nip their friends into doing a bit of friendly persuasion. If you are an ABR reviewer, you’re still eligible but don’t ask your editor to submit your name. Ask a friend. There’s still no final decision on the rules of this one. Watch abbreviations.
Brian Dibble’s review of Elizabeth Jolley’s Foxybaby (ABR) impressed judges with its stress on ‘the thematic and technical links between the novels’ as has his active involvement in ‘promoting and supporting writing in W.A., as a critic, editor and teacher’. Another reviewer admired is Katherine England. The judges saw her criticism as constructive, regularly mentioning style as well as content and writing in a way which is accessible and literate. Peter Ryan was praised for his ‘distinctive voice’, the strength of his opinions and his stylish writing. Some concern was raised at the cosines of friendship reviewing. (‘an author’s network of chums sing a boring chorus of exaggerated praise in the review pages’), and the politeness and the unanimity of acclaim for some Australian books. ‘A vintage year for Australian Literature’ it would seem.
This year’s decision on ABR Reviewer is final and acceptable. Elizabeth Riddell was as enthusiastic about accepting her award as the judges were m recommending her contribution to reviewing. She impressed with the width of her work, her ‘professionalism and bite’, her ‘style, content, readability, humour’ and her capacity to engage the reader. Congratulations to Elizabeth. She will be, no doubt, a popular and deserving choice.
Unfortunately, there is no prize for the judges. So please accept ABR’s gratitude for your time, energy and discrimination in selecting Reviewer for 1985. And to ABA and ABPA for their consistent, patient and generous support.
ABR has already paid tribute to A. A. Phillips, Douglas Stewart and Judah Waten who died last year. Julie Copeland, Michael Costigan and Val Kent saw them as some of Australia’s greatest critics / reviewers. We shall all miss the intelligence, wry wit and clarity which they brought to reviewing.
Comments powered by CComment