MARY O'DONNELL,
Madam, - James J. McAuley reviews five new collections of poetry in under 650 words (Books, February 15th). Hard on any reviewer, and even harder on the poets, I'd say, especially when a large chunk of potential print-space is occupied by an author photograph. That McAuley manages to convey something of the essence of each book is nothing short of a forensic and miraculous achievement.
In contrast, history and fiction are reviewed elsewhere in the literary pages in substantial and well-considered wordage. Novels, almost because they are "bigger" books with a "plainer" narrative than that of poetry, are granted a review space which seems at least respectful. This is often the norm in the day-to-day business of newspaper reviewing but it is frustrating for anyone who has lived through the formation of a collection to observe their poems being summed up in 70-100 words, along with the rest of what looks like a "job lot". Not only that, it is unfair to the art of poetry.
Reviewing is part of the culture of literary achievement insofar as it contributes to readers' awareness of what is happening within the habitat. Yet poetry seems consigned to what I can only call a minimalist Bonsai treatment. If the roots are kept trimmed in the style of the unexpanded "Bonsai" review, we can hardly expect any valuable consideration of poetry and its radical (not to mention enjoyable, ear-pleasing) capacities. If nobody knows about the native speech of poetry, if nobody gets to hear about its varieties and textures, about its preoccupations and excitements, then poetry itself cannot speak to the human culture that has largely created it and which still needs it.
Instead, poetry, those who write it, and those who publish it, are likely to subsist on the margins - which is, of course, the traditional space allotted to poetry in anti-intellectual and/or creatively impoverished cultures. - Yours, etc.,
MARY O'DONNELL, Co Kildare.