N.Z. Book Week

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31188, 12 October 1966, Page 16

N.Z. Book Week

Sir, —How insufferable and insulated can these bores be who criticise Dr. Mitchell for daring to raise his voice in criticism of some aspects of our society? I am a student, and a New Zealander, born and bred, which would appear to be an important qualification, and I strongly object to our sensitiveness to criticism as such. This sensitiveness is heightened to an insane degree if the person criticising has the misfortune to be a “foreigner.” In my opinion his criticisms are perfectly valid, and it would be more relevant and beneficial if people would answer his argument rather than attack his person. —Yours, etc., GRAEME MACANN. October 11, 1966.

Sir, —Judging from the response to my earlier correspondence, it would seem that Dr. Austin Mitchell has a lot of champions. All making the “right noises,” too.—Yours, etc., C J B October 10, 1966. Sir, —We deplore the new depths of bilge-water criticism that your correspondents are wallowing in while trying to drag Dr. Austin Mitchell down to their vulgar level. Dr. Mitchell’s brand of intellect can, in our opinion, burn as long as free speech exists in New Zealand. Regrettably, sane public critics do not always get sane paper critics. Both have the right to be heard, of course, but should correspondents be able to go to the extremes of downright viciousness? These personal attacks only document further the sheer lack of a sense of humour and charity that we observe in our fellows. Undoubtedly Dr. Mitchell’s criticisms go right home to

some people. We shall never be able to confirm this, for, unlike Dr. Mitchell, who has the courage to show his face, they rarely sign their names. —Yours, etc., WARREN HEAD. PETER FAID. ANDREAS ENG DAVID MITCHELL. October 11, 1966.

Sir, —“Reticent Kiwi” seems to have said quite a mouthful. Still, as one of those Englishmen whose national “arrogance” he decries, it is nice to know that, whatever others, such as the Australians, may think of us, we are at any rate tolerated in this country. Strange to relate, if our reticent friend knew more about England than may possibly be the case, he might find that his fellow Kiwis are equally tolerated over there. Indeed, quite a lot of Englishmen, even Rugby players, regard New Zealanders as definitely among the nicer folk to have about the place, especially the ones—which goes for the vast majority of them—who are considerate enough to keep their more intolerant views of other people to themselves. —Yours, etc., ILAM. October 11, 1966.

Sir,—From high-country Fendalton to down-town Lancaster Park, will Dr. Mitchell’s truth go unheard in the clamour about his manners? Dr. Mitchell spoke with refreshing candour at a luncheon to mark New Zealand Book Week, referring to the polite noises of New Zealand authors. Must his “impolite noises” be excused or classified by correspondents in this paper, while his awful truth extends beyond our taste in literature into the merchandise displays of our homes, right to our unromantic bedroom doors? — Yours, etc., HAWHI EKA.

October 11, 1966. [This correspondence is now closed. —Ed., “The Press.” ]