Enjoying the game with ‘Landfall’

Press, 22 February 1986, Page 20

Enjoying the game with ‘Landfall’

Landfall 155. Caxton Press, 1985. 133 pp. $7. (Reviewed by Tom Weston) Gregory O’Brien’s cartoon cover shows four of the New Zealand literati at tennis — an arbitrary enough match by the look of it, too. Continuing this same theme is guest editor Mark Williams’ editorial "Keeping Up With The Play.” Both treat of the same metaphor — the game — a catch-line strangely apposite for this the. most recent issue of “Landfall.”

The game, and it is appropriately one of tennis, consists of shots back and forth, lots of fancy foot work, a great deal of flag-waving, and considerable laughter. This is a new spirit for “Landfall,” very welcome, and presaged in the more recent issues of the journal. Since March, 1984 (issue 149), and inclusive of this review, I have dealt with four issues of "Landfall.” In between then and now there has been a curious and marked transformation. The form of the document is still substantially the same, but we now have a different “Landfall,” vibrant, attentive and engaging. In writing this piece I went back over my three earlier reviews and the issues they dealt with. The benefit of hindsight is sometimes unflattering and in this case it shows a few highlights previously overlooked, the odd inaccuracy, and some overly

didactic generalisations. Even so, I think I did pinpoint the beginning of the wave that is now “Landfall.” It happened some time after issue 149. Now, on an individual basis, there are some very good pieces in that issue. On the other hand, there is an overly self-serving editorial that does not set things off on a good footing. Moving forward a few issues, however, we have Hugh Lauder’s editorial in issue 153, his response to a reader’s letter in issue 154, and Mark Williams’ editorial in the current issue. These expressions of editorial viewpoint, so important in a journal of this type, are committed and relevant This is real comment and sets a tone of vitality for the. whole enterprise. Inevitably it showcases the individual articles and works that comprise the journal. A view of this transformation would be incomplete without mention of “AND,’’, an aggressive journal with a shelf life of only four issues, now defunct It espoused a singular polemic (so far as singularities are possible), called variously postmodernism, poststructuralism or semiology. This stance concerns itself with language and the systems of society it works in. The effect of it is to ignore the individual writer in favour of wider units. And so on. Brevity of self-description is not one of its better characteristics.

That "AND” has had an effect is apparent from even the most cursory glance at issue 155. It interviews Leigh Davis (a principal activist of “AND”), and has several penetrating articles on postmodernism by Leonard Wilcox and Simon During. Virtually all the rest of its contents actively engage. It goes beyond “AND” — and once again “Landfall” is defining the terms and threatening to lead the way. Which is the way it should be.

As Mark Williams notes in his editorial, various articles in this issue do not exactly agree: there is a wider picture that is still only developing. Of particular interest is the link-up with post-colonialism and the late Industrial society (of which New Zealand is only a honorary member at best). There are directions here I find unconvincing and I wonder how much this particular search for identity is just the old lamb dressed up as this year’s model. After all, how relevant are national identities?

Even so, I am open to the argument and look to “Landfall” to continue the debate. If this issue is anything to go by it will be worth waiting for.. “Landfall” is a mainstream document (and is unlikely to be extremist), but issue 155 shows that being mainstream is not necessarily incompatible with a thinking vitality.