Not actually spoken by the Convener of a Conference on Literary Journals held last month at the Australian National University at Canberra
 We’re gathered here today
 In Canberra
 To discourse on The Literary Journal:
 It’s role – Now, Then,
 Tomorrow afternoon, when (by the way)
 We have a change
 Of personnel.
 Jon Culler has got toothache;
 In his stead (relax, you kiwis),
 An unlucky break:
 The expat. Peter Porter, with some stuff
 You can quite happily ignore
 On why he thinks professors are a bore.
 Stuff him. We welcome too,
 From Critical Inquiry, our lone Yank:
 W.J.T. Mitchell seems at first
 Unsettlingly cheery. Underneath
 He’s ninety per cent Theory,
 One of us. While others idly prate
 Tom will ‘articulate’,
 post ’68.
 Which brings us to the ones
 We still most love to hate.
 Also imported from Abroad
 We have three Pom belles-lettrists
 Who, to judge from their expressions,
 Might not be turning up
 To all our sessions:
 The LRB’s Karl Miller, gargoyle-like,
 Seems half-asleep. (The other half
 Is threatening to weep.)
 And from the TLS, Jerry Treglown
 Forever savouring some private joke,
 And Ian Hamilton,
 All-purpose lit. hist. hack,
 Invisible behind a cloud of smoke.
 This trio you can secretly disdain:
 Back numbers
 Here to wave the Impo flag
 We’re here to piss on.
 We post-cols
 Have actually assembled here
 To make it terminally clear
 Who runs this culture-site
 These days, whose canons
 Have dry powder, whose lit-myths
 Can stand up to the litmus
 Of the newest new lit. crit.
 The Poms are bloody good
 At looking peevish
 But wait until we’re through
 With Grandad Leavis.
 And big Matt.
 That’s when we’ll see
 Who’s where it’s at.
 For four long days
 We’re planning to attack
 These dilettante lib. hums.
 On two flanks.
 First we will gently Oz them
 Into critical narcosis
 With deep-stir talk
 Of Quadrant and of Scripsi,
 Get them tipsy,
 And then, before the bastards can say
 ‘Dingo’
 Or even ‘symbiosis’,
 We’ll poison them
 With our post-modern lingo!
 The end – on Day Four – ought to be
 Bloodless and undramatic,
 Just like me.
 Already at death’s door,
 The Brits will only need
 A little more:
 For each there’ll be one final squirm
 As we dispense what is to him
 The deadliest of life-denying terms.
 P. Porter, as I see it,
 Will be felled by ‘phallocratic’,
 And ‘counter-public’ should take care
 Of Miller. For Treglown
 ‘Matrix’ should prove the killer.
 If, by some mal-chance, these beauts
 Don’t terre the Poms,
 Why then
 We’ll let them try for size
 ‘NARRATIVISE’.
 Thus, comrades, I envisage
 Our old enemies’ linguistic long goodbyes.
 So guys (both he and she),
 Let’s to it. Paper One
 Today, a neo-radical critique
 Of Eagleton’s most recent ...
 (By the way,
 For Hamilton, who planned to write this up
 It seems we’ll need no poisoned cup
 Of language. The smoke clears.
 He is already good and dead:
 An old-style bourgeois bullet
 Through his old-style rhymer’s head.)
Send Letters To:
                The Editor 
                London Review of Books, 
                28 Little Russell Street 
                London, WC1A 2HN
letters@lrb.co.uk
                Please include name, address, and a telephone number.
            

