I DO NOT believe in answering reviewers When they merely criticize my books; by the very act of publication one has decided to release one's work to the opinion of the world and should be ready to accept it, good or bad, with equal equanimity., But when a reviewer proceeds from criticism to lies and defamation, and not of me only but also of another critic, then objection becomes necessary.

In his review of my two recent books Bruce Serafin goes on from expressing his opinion of them to describing Roy Starrs's Globe and Mail review of Caves in the Desert as "a blatant example of the kind of puffery?among?friends you always hope will some day end in this country." Then, building on his false statement, he proceeds to berate me for not observing "truth in advertising."

The facts are that Roy Starrs is not my friend, that I had not even met or heard of him before his review appeared in the Globe and Mail, and that I have not made any contact with him since. Bruce Serafin, of course, has never met me and presumably knows nothing of my friendships; I had never heard of his deceptively angelic name be fore the appearance of his review. He virtually accuses me of promoting good reviews as "advertising"; this is untrue and defamatory, as is his implicit suggestion that I connived with Roy Starrs in getting a favourable review into the Globe and Mail. It also defames Roy Starrs to suggest that he would write a favourable review merely outof friendship or that he would become involved in the use of reviewing as advertisement.

I do not really care what fantasies Serafin in his envy may harbour about me. I do worry that they should be offered to the public as if they were true, and that Books in Canada should publish them without checking the facts.

George Woodcock
Vancouver

Bruce Serafin replies: It seems to me that George Woodcock is making two separate points in his letter. The first point concerris ?my description of Roy Starrs's review as "a blatant example of the kind of puffery?amongfriends you always hope will someday end in this country"; this description, Woodcock writes, is defamatory and untrue. The second point is that I "virtually accuse [Woodcock] of promoting good reviews as 'advertising' " and imply that Woodcock "connived with Roy Starrs in getting a favourable review into the Globe and Mail." The first point is one I have no defence against. When I wrote the phrase "pufferyamong?friends," I was animated by my distaste for Roy Starrs's review, which seemed to me to be a perfect example of the kind of work produced by what might be called the Old Boy Network in Canadian book reviewing. Trying to express that distaste, I went too far. I did not mean the phrase, to be taken literally (i.e., I did not mean that Woodcock and Starrs were friends), but it is now painfully obvious to me that the phrase can and would be so taken. George Woodcock is absolutely correct to blast me for this, and I apologize to both him and Roy Starrs.

As for the other point, here Woodcock has completely misread me. At no time when I wrote my review did I imagine that Woodcock was the type of writer who would curry favour or "connive with Roy Starrs in getting a favourable review." The fact is, when I wrote the other sentence Woodcock refers to the one saying that more "truth in advertising" was needed ? I meant that the reviewers of George Woodcock were in my opinion beginning to treat him as a sort of sanctified figure who was beyond criticism. I felt ? and feel that this does Woodcock a disservice, just as it does the craft of reviewing a disservice. More than that: having read and admired George Woodcock's reviews and occasional prose over the years, I feel that he would no more winkle a favourable review out of someone than he would write a review that was not true to what he actually felt. I have always admired the bluntness and wayward courage in Woodcock's best work, and I shall go on admiring it.

George Woodcock was hurt by my review, and understandably so ? it was a harsh review. It was also very difficult to write. Given a slightly different literary climate, I don't think it would have been so difficult, nor do I think the review would have been as pugnacious as it ended up being. As it was, I felt I was swimming upstream and had to bring to bear all the force I could muster. I regret that. I also regret the misleading phrase mentioned above. But I don't regret the review. Its points seemed valid when I wrote them, and they seem valid to me now'.