Cirrus@Austlit

'This paper presents the Sydney Review of Books, which I edited, as a case study in the intersecting conflicts about value in contemporary Australian literature. It is a patchy and highly partial account of negative feedback and complaints that I have received about the SRB, especially those that bear on the question of what criticism should do, a topic that is never far from the question of what literature is for. Some generic complaints that fall within the scope of this paper: the publication of negative reviews, the failure to publish enough negative reviews; the deliberate scuttling the sales of authors by way of negative reviews; infelicitous pairings of critics and books; writing that is too scholarly or theoretical, writing that is insufficiently scholarly; too many reviews of Australian books, not enough reviews of Australian books, the failure to review certain books; the publication of critical writing that is insufficiently analytical, critical writing that shirks evaluation; the capitulation to identity politics/cancel culture/political correctness, the failure to represent the diversity of Australian literary culture. A journal of criticism that did not field highly critical feedback would be a dull enterprise. What these complaints reveal is a set of conflicts between audiences and, dare I say, stakeholders, around the economic, social and aesthetic value of literature. I am sorry to say that it will all be anonymised – and that reflects the great breach between what Australian critics, writers and readers are willing to say in public about the value of literature, and what gets said in private channels. As ceaseless proclamations about the value of contemporary Australian literature bolster an increasingly hyperbolic public discourse about Australian literature, narratives of crisis and decline circulate in the backchannels.' (Publication abstract)