Janice,
I think there is the world we live in, and then there are absolutist fantasies about the world.
I have said several times that I think it's important for writers to know the journals they approach; each writer should be able to make these decisions for herself. In the world we live in, people are prone to judge others by their choice of association.
But making that choice for others, as some grand political statement about how the world works, while invoking "higher-order moral fibre" is another thing.
Minter is essentially creating a purity test, as is obvious from the bit Quincy quoted:
Quote:
As the world burns it’s simply getting too late to pretend that these things don’t matter, that the work of the imagination is somehow quarantined from the rest of what people say and do. To do so, i.e. to publish in Quadrant while simultaneously presenting sympathy for Aboriginal rights or multiculturalism or green politics, for instance, is utterly hypocritical and ethically corrupt.
|
If Poet X happens to be someone who supports many of the same issues Minter supports—might even pull the lever to vote on issues in a way Minter would approve—but submits a poem to Quadrant for publication, Minter will find
impurity that outweighs any real action in the world.
Purity tests are nothing new. The Old Testament cultures also enacted punitive measures in an effort to maintain factional loyalty and fervor—and, distinction. One must always have absolute distinction as a precursor for righteous punishment.