The
Auckland University Press Anthology of New Zealand Literature, edited by Jane Stafford and Mark Williams (AUP, $75)
This must be one of the worst jobs in the
world: making an anthology of New Zealand literature. You will be criticised
for who is in and who is out. It would be bad enough with an anthology of
fiction or of poetry or of non-fiction or of drama, but this book covers all
four genres.
Or so it claims. The back cover says: “In
fiction and non-fiction, letters and speeches, stories and song, the editors
unearth the diverse voices of the New Zealand imagination. And for years to
come this anthology will be our guide to what’s worth reading – and why.”
This is an AUP book so it looks beautiful
and has immaculate editing and typography. It weighs two kilograms. Solid. There
are not one but two ribbon bookmarks bound in – classy, and very useful in a
reference book. The publisher has done a fantastic job. What about the contents?
For an anthology there is a huge amount of
work getting permissions –and even more work in not getting permissions. I have
no idea whether the editors or the publisher had to perform these negotiations
but clearly they were arduous – and how frustrating that they were unsuccessful
with Janet Frame, Vincent O’Sullivan and Alan Duff. In Frame’s case, the Listener tells
us that the editors wanted to use “some poems and extracts from Frame’s
novel and autobiographies [...] But the trust would only agree to their using
complete short stories, poems or non-fiction from the In Her Own Words collection”.
O’Sullivan is for me our greatest living
writer: poet, novelist, playwright, biographer, editor of Mansfield and a fine
anthologist (if you ever see a copy of the Oxford
Anthology of New Zealand Writing Since 1945 he co-edited with Mac Jackson,
grab it). But he refused permission for any of his work to be included. He told
the Listener that:
There are some wonderful things in this
anthology […] But it is also narrow and prescriptive. To be in the crowd scenes
for the spectacle of the new tablets brought down from Mt Kelburn did not much
interest me.
That last sentence is classic O’Sullivan
and shows what loss to the book he is. I don’t yet know why Alan Duff refused
permission but I bet his objection was like the Frame trust’s: that he thought
the proposed selection didn’t show him at his best.
Whatever the difficulties in the
negotiations, an anthology of New Zealand literature that doesn’t include these
three writers does not present “what’s worth reading”. Imagine a book on New
Zealand art without McCahon, Hotere and Hanly.
There are other omissions. Andrew Stone in
the Herald cites Judith Binney, Peter Bland,
Laurence Fearnley, Charlotte Grimshaw, Bruce Jesson, Stephanie Johnson, Michael
King, Shonagh Koea, Ngaio Marsh, James McNeish, Sarah Quigley, Anne Salmond,
Tina Shaw and Chad Taylor.
Paula Green in Metro (not online) adds Kirsty Gunn, Kelly Ana Morey, Carl Nixon,
Claudia Orange, Bob Orr and Vivienne Plumb.
And I would add: Graham Billing, William Brandt, David Burton, John Cranna, Joy Cowley, Martin Edmond,
James George, AK Grant, Jack Lasenby and Jo Randerson.
Not that all of the above ought as of right to be in an anthology
of New Zealand literature, just that they are all candidates and looking at who
and what is in, one wonders why they are not. But as Steven Wright says, “You
can’t have everything. Where would you put it?”
The editors did not have infinite space and
had to make their selection. They explain in their introduction their reasoning
for their inclusions and exclusions. But the introduction is nonsense, such
nonsense as only an academic could write. For example:
For the settler, authoring place becomes
more difficult once you have unloaded your piano and your copies of Ossian and
Wordsworth on the beach and you look around.
That is the stupidest sentence I have read
all year.
Leaving aside the
question of whether “authoring” is a word, who in the 1840s would have had a copy of Ossian? My wife’s forebears
arrived in 1841 in Wellington, and a year later my forebears arrived in
Auckland: there were wharves. No early settler could have brought a piano, not
even for ready money – those ships were tiny with little room for the
passengers let alone their possessions. Just because a piano was landed at
Karekare in a film does not
mean that this happened. The editors are specialists in early New Zealand
writing so must know better. Perhaps this is their little joke.
But what of their selections? Some of the
earliest writers never came here – looking at you, Bronte, Browning, Headley
and Seward – and EG Wakefield’s piece was written in an English prison. It’s
not a bad idea to show the fantasies people had of New Zealand but is this the
place? No. Do these fantasies say anything about New Zealand? No. Have they anything
to do with NZ literature? No. This is “distance looks our way” stuff, and
didn’t we stop caring about that decades ago? Fine to include this material in
a book about the cultural cringe, but
not here.
Other odd inclusions: the Treaty of
Waitangi, the Mazengarb report, Captain Cook’s journal – none of these was
intended as literature. Nor were the Edmonds
Cookbook of 1914 or the Yates
Gardening Guide of 1897 – each of these selections is presented as a “found
poem” which is sheer self-indulgence on the editors’ part. If these texts are
there because of their historical significance, their making a difference, isn’t
there a case for Donna Awatere’s Maori
Sovereignty?
More travesties: a poem by Wystan Curnow
and a “prose poem” by Len Lye. There is room for three poems each by Anne
French and Anna Jackson but only for two by Brian Turner and none by Peter
Bland.
Which brings us back to exclusions. Poenamo by John Logan Campbell (reissued
last month by Godwit) is lively and amusing about trading with Ngati Whatua
and is one of the best accounts of early Auckland. Its absence is baffling.
Another startling non-fiction omission is
Dick Scott, whose 1954 The Parihaka Story
(expanded in 1975 as Ask That Mountain)
was hugely influential on Pakehas’ understanding of land rights and race
relations. Contrast this with the Auckland
Star columnist Hori who presumably is included to show how beastly Pakehas
could be about Maoris. Why include this while excluding Scott and Roderick
Finlayson who was perhaps the first Pakeha to write fiction sympathetic about
Maoris? How does this fit with the claim of “Aotearoa’s major writing”? Many of
our non-academic historians are over-rated, not least by themselves, but Scott
and Michael King were serious literary writers. They should be here.
Numbers: there are 1050 pages of
selections, plus introduction and end-matter (author biographies, index etc) to
make 1164 pages in all. The last decade or so takes up 128 pages, an
eighth of the total available space. In a book that opens with material from
the 18th century, that is an odd foreshortening. The 1950s get 100 pages; the
70s get 80. The most recent piece is an extract from Hamish Clayton’s 2011
novel Wulf; the introduction quotes
Tina Makereti ’s essay “An Englishman, an Irishman and a Welshman walk into a
Pa” from Sport 40 earlier this year.
Both are outstanding and I also like the five pages from Dylan Horrocks’s graphic
novel Hicksville, published here in
2010. (Fun fact: Hamish Clayton’s MA thesis was on Hicksville; Dylan’s dad Roger edits books about Len Lye. New
Zealand: land of two degrees of separation.)
Complaints about too many VUP and AUP
authors may reflect selection bias, but their dominance is unavoidable in an
anthology that includes a lot of recent poetry.
For fiction it is less clear-cut. Many distinctive voices from other
publishers are missing. A writer friend who is in the anthology so is not whingeing
observes:
If you count the last 90 entries i.e. the
21st century, 74 are writers published exclusively by AUP or VUP. There are
about 2 Huia, 3 Penguin, 1 Steele Roberts, 1 Random House.
In fiction, there have been grizzles about
Charlotte Grimshaw being excluded but I can’t see it matters much about people
who started publishing in the last decade or two – yes, Grimshaw is good as
are Fearnley, Morey, Taylor and others, but it is too soon to tell who
will last. Picking so many current writers is a hostage to fortune, as this
Paleofuture article shows: it gives a
list of authors whom readers of Colophon,
a “magazine for book collectors”, thought in 1936 would be “the ten authors
whose works would be considered classics in the year 2000”.
What is at least as interesting as who is
in and who is out is what is in –
that is, the pieces chosen to represent the writer. Keith Sinclair in as a
poet, not as an historian. The two Louis Johnson poems are from the 50s but
most admirers regard his late work as his best. Authors aren’t necessarily the
best judges of what is their best work, but I know several who feel misrepresented
by early work but agreed to be in because it’s better in than out.
Strangest of all, non-fiction peters out:
there are only two examples from the 1990s (Geoff Park and Peter Wells) and one
from the 2000s (Harry Ricketts). This is odd – did we really stop writing
interesting non-fiction 20 years ago? No. Two words: Martin Edmond.
Poetry and fiction dominate the last two
decades, which is one reason for the preponderance of AUP and VUP authors,
since those two houses dominate poetry. But it is odd to have the final pages
so dominated by them.
This may be the last printed anthology of
its kind – e-books and university course packs are easier to organise with
different versions for different courses. The idea of a large hardback with
poetry, fiction and non-fiction (and a tiny bit of drama) from several
centuries is probably out-dated. Digital lets publishers and course designers
slice and dice by genre, century, decade even. The master copy of the next
anthology will have the full contents but what students see will be just a
fraction of that. This is not a bad thing – it makes it affordable for the
students, and the authors will get paid. Authors and trusts will be more
permissive about permissions with a less prescriptive selection. Digital is a disruptive
technology – three cheers for that – so a book like this is a dinosaur. We will
not see its like again.
Finally, drama. This is fiendishly
difficult to show in extracts, especially alongside works of poetry and fiction
which were written to stand alone. It is simply inadequate to have only 20
pages in total from five playwrights: Mason, Shadbolt, McGee, Grace-Smith and
Rajan. Why no Roger Hall? The opening line from Glide Time would be apt: “Wellington, I hate you!”
So here is Leo Kottke performing Ry
Cooder’s “Available Space”: