CNQ Responses
Several of us editors at Canadian Notes & Queries have been receiving tremendous responses to the new issue from readers--responses which tend to affirm our opinion that it's our best number yet. If you haven't got a subscription, you should sign up and see what all the fuss is about. Or pick one up at your newsstand if less inclined to longer term commitments. If you've already got the issue and have something you'd like to say--whether in praise, condemnation or just to argue a point--please drop a line, either to me or Dan Wells. Private words are always welcome, but it's public discussion we aim to spark.
UPDATE: See also the post on Vehicule Press' blog about CNQ 71.
UPDATE: See also the post on Vehicule Press' blog about CNQ 71.
1 comment:
Pure hype, Mr. Wells.
Your piece on Peter Sanger's work suffers from your trying to be kind—-a trait that you stand aside from in most of your reviewing. Worse still, there were an atrocious number of typos in one of the Sanger poems reproduced in the article.
Carmine Starnino review of Solie’s “Modern and Normal” is perceptive, but the style! His willingness to overstate and repeat himself has a soporific effect.
Shane Neilson's review of Anatomy of Keys is clumsily written. It sets out to praise but instead spends most of its time harping on weaknesses and perceived weaknesses in Price's poetry. Nit-picking does not amount to critical insight. The unfortunate result is that it makes him seem disingenuous in his praise.
Of the pieces I’ve read so far, only Callanan's piece about Thaddeus Holwnia struck me as being both well-written and open-minded before its subject. I liked Poile's poems as well.
Overall I would have to say that the revamped CNQ adds little to the conversation about contemporary Canadian Poetry that hasn’t already been covered by Books in Canada.
Post a Comment