|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Mike Thanks for your letter – you raise an important issue. Like you, I was and still am concerned about the partisan nature of the response by LitNet's readers on the Watson-Krog affair. Stephen Watson is a valued colleague of mine at UCT. Similarly, I respect Antjie Krog as a writer and a person. LitNet is an open forum with a reputation for objectivity, although, in reality, the many flame wars raging over its various subsites often make editorial objectivity virtually impossible – we publish what we get, within, of course, reasonable constraints. We do not always have the resources to solicit material. All the strong responses to Watson's article which we carried were unsolicited. These include the contributions by Nèlleke de Jager, Stephen Johnson, Eve Gray, Annie Gagiano, Sam Radithalo, Johann de Lange and Antjie Krog. On receipt of the first of these responses I invited Stephen Watson by email to comment. There was no response. I saw him personally some days later and again invited him to respond, but my feeling is that he is standing by his New Contrast piece as sufficient intervention, at this stage at least. As I was still concerned about the one-sidedness of our material I contacted Tom Eaton (New Contrast editor), explaining to him my concern about the unbalanced nature of our offering, and invited him to write a piece. He declined, and I was surprised to read, some days later, a substantial piece on the matter by him in the Mail and Guardian. He is, of course, free to publish when and where he wants to and I always admire his work. Still concerned, I approached many colleagues close to Stephen Watson; two promised to consider writing something (nothing has reached me thus far), the others all declined. You may have noticed that in its weekly newsletter LitNet did ask for responses on the Krog/Watson debate. On LitNet itself, on our home page and in the Seminar Room subsite, we continue to invite responses. Under each of the above-mentioned pieces carried on LitNet, readers are invited to respond. We are waiting. A piece reached us yesterday from an American academic unknown to me, also supporting Antjie Krog. We will be publishing it within the next few days. We received one letter for SêNet criticising Krog's handling of the alleged similarities to the Ted Hughes text; however, the letter was pulled by the letter writer for reasons unknown to LitNet just as we were about to publish it. One of Krog's publishers asked us to publish a pro-Krog piece by Louise Viljoen which had been previously carried by an Afrikaans newspaper; the publisher offered to have the piece translated into English if we were willing to publish it. I turned it down. At this moment we feel nonplussed at the lack of pro-Watson responses. We will go ahead and (1) publish all contributions on this matter; (2) continue to be concerned about the one-sidedness of the LitNet community's responses (and please do take note that Stephen Johnson, Eve Gray, Sam Radithalo and Annie Gagiano are not from what can be called the "Afrikaans" world), as we hold open debate dear and have no agenda against Watson; (3) continue approaching potential pro-Watson writers to take up his flag. Most importantly, I hope that the debate will rise above the mud-slinging and messiness that often characterise debates like these and rather move to the more challenging issues of the tensions between the aesthetics of originality and transformation, the realities of plagiarism, appropriation, culture crossing, etc etc. The growing perception (whether right or wrong) that we see here an English/Afrikaans divide is an interesting notion; it is also a matter to discuss. Etienne van Heerden, Executive Editor, LitNet
Anyone for Watson? Send your contribution to Chris Brunette if
it's a substantial contribution. If it's a shorter letter (under 600 words), dash
it off to SêNet, our letters column.
Send your comments to webvoet@litnet.co.za to continue the discussion on SêNet, our interactive opinion page.
|
||
© Kopiereg in die ontwerp en inhoud van hierdie webruimte behoort aan LitNet, uitgesluit die kopiereg in bydraes wat berus by die outeurs wat sodanige bydraes verskaf. LitNet streef na die plasing van oorspronklike materiaal en na die oop en onbeperkte uitruil van idees en menings. Die menings van bydraers tot hierdie werftuiste is dus hul eie en weerspieël nie noodwendig die mening van die redaksie en bestuur van LitNet nie. LitNet kan ongelukkig ook nie waarborg dat hierdie diens ononderbroke of foutloos sal wees nie en gebruikers wat steun op inligting wat hier verskaf word, doen dit op hul eie risiko. Media24, M-Web, Ligitprops 3042 BK en die bestuur en redaksie van LitNet aanvaar derhalwe geen aanspreeklikheid vir enige regstreekse of onregstreekse verlies of skade wat uit sodanige bydraes of die verskaffing van hierdie diens spruit nie. LitNet is ’n onafhanklike joernaal op die Internet, en word as gesamentlike onderneming deur Ligitprops 3042 BK en Media24 bedryf. |
|||
Click here and subscribe to our fantastic free newsletter - for your
weekly cultural fix!