It is worth noting that ABR often attends to matters not in book form. For example, in this issue, there is Christos Tsiolkas’s column on Fanzines and the column on Cantrill’s Filmnotes. In the past, there was, in October 1995, an essay by David Malouf on Barrie Kosky’s production of Nabucco. Earlier in 1995, there was an essay by Inga Clendinnen on the journals of George Augustus Robinson – certainly not available in conventional book form.

There have also been essays on psychoanalysis by Leonardo Rodriguez, on ‘the new rococo’ by Tom Shapcott, and on photography by Gail Jones. Also in 1995, there was a symposium on history and earlier, a symposium on postmodernism. All of these were article/essays I was delighted to have in ABR. All of them lie properly within the domain of ABR.

I could go on, but I suspect most readers of ABR would be as startled as I am by the notion that only matters directly pertaining to physical objects in book form are our concern.

I am more interested in the notion that ABR is, in Hugh Mackay’s view, ‘a journal of literary criticism’. A tricky term, these days, when English departments, for example, are increasingly engaging in ‘Cultural Studies’ and the term ‘literary criticism’ is under a shadow. But literary criticism, in the old sense of the term, seems to me inappropriate for some of the best material published in ABR.

Is Joan Kirner’s review (in the previous issue) of Paul Kelly’s November 1975 adequately categorised as literary criticism? Or Adrian Martin’s review, in this issue, of a new study of the work of Pasolini? Or Robert Drewe’s review last year of Richard Neville’s Hippie Hippie Shake? For none of these does the term ‘literary criticism’ seem to me adequate.

The essential point is that, in my view, all matters cultural, political, social, literary (have I left anything out?) are the proper domain of ABR – including, of course, matters of research methodology in the social sciences. I am interested that Hugh Mackay appears puzzled that a discussion of such research methodology should find a place in ABR. All matters to do with contemporary Australian life – and how we endeavour to make sense of it to ourselves, individually and collectively – are the proper domain of ABR.

There is another essential point: ABR is, under my editorship, keen to participate in contemporary debate and keen to give space to people with interesting ideas and viewpoints, preferably disparate. Keen, too, to provide a venue for the multiple and dissonant voices of 1990s Australia. And keen to provide a venue for right of reply.

Right of reply is a fundamental principle of ABR. ABR stands by the publication of Richard Hall’s essay, just as it stands by Hugh Mackay’s right of reply.

Also in this issue is Peter Craven’s essay in response to Simon During’s monograph on Patrick White (published by OUP), which has already featured much in the press. At the time of ABR’s going to press, it seems that there may be considerable debate, arising from Simon During’s book, about Patrick White’s stature and his role as ‘a great novelist’. I look forward to some lively letters to the editor on this matter for the next issue – and, if he so chooses, Simon During’s reply.