Back to Ganoksin | FAQ | Contact


Is this Bob Mitchell guy the one we should contact (to let him
know how we feel about the lack of knowledge in this magazine?)

Well, I thought so, till Mary Lee Hu wrote to me. She said:

I appreciate your concern over the magazine, but I don’t think
Bob Mitchell is the one to write, but the editorial advisory

and later on she says:

It is, I feel, to be one arm of SNAG’s educational mission.
There will always be controversy, but if the mag starts turning
off too many people, maybe it is time to review its direction.

I was screaming trying to read Frank Lewis’s ‘The Pleasures of
Excess’ in Metalsmith Summer 97 v17 no3, page 13. The verbiage is
way out of line. Sentences run on and on, and so main clauses get
washed out with extraneous phrases piled on as curious
afterthoughts. Sounds like he dictated it and someone else typed
it up. No. I bet he laboured long and hard over each poetic piece
of pure porridge into this confused, paradoxical, messy,
congestion of meanings and meaninglessness. Pah!

Frank states:

‘Juxtaposition of forms and content may be more closely
correlative to the construction of our memories and selves.’

Huh? You mean juxtaposition of forms may show us how we are?
And this following quote is supposed to illustrate that

‘The words and imagery illuminate not only the decorative
surfaces, reliquary feelings, but suggest to animate one’s own
personal perspective. The passion of this language symbolizes a
microcosm where one identifies themselves and show issues of the
complex environment.’

Oooh, I seeeee.

It makes little sense. Nor does it add up. Let’s look at the

‘…illuminate not only … but suggest to animate…’

which spun out reads ‘illuminate not only … but also
illuminate suggest to animate’ Huh?

‘Animate a perspective’?

‘One’s own personal perspective’? Tautology rules ok

‘…where one identifies themselves, and show issues…’?

Is this English? What happened to grammar and clarity and
simplicity? This all coulda been rephrased or left out.

Then, in a fine piece of major ballsuperism, the book review for
p52 seems missing, but no, there it is on p51 usurping the space
for the Rebekah Laskin review, which is missing. Quality rag?

B r i a n �� A d a m
j e w e l l e r
a n d �� e y e w e a r �� m a k e r
s i n c e ��1 9 8 1