Subject: John MacKenzie's response to Shane Neilson's interview with David Solway

Date: June 24, 2003

If I meet John MacKenzie in my Maritime travels, and I probably shall, I'll have to inform him that sycophancy is not my mode. Perhaps the interview itself is a process that can be misconstrued as a sycophantic one, for if the interviewer is sympathetic to the interviewee's work, a resultant enthusiasm can be detected in the interviewer's inquiry. If I'm being accused of enjoying David Solway's poetry, then I confess guilt. I simply don't bother showcasing a poet's work unless I like what they've done and are doing.

Secondly, cliché never makes for good correspondence, even if it appears in quotation marks. "Well, the man does have a mouth. And he doesn't seem to mind using it." Profound, huh? MacKenzie's not forking out. I like my letters acid- not tepid.

Finally, I think Mr. MacKenzie has completely missed the point of Solway's most recent heteronym. Solway's idea is to craft a language both antique and modern. Hence the terms MacKenzie objects to are also a basic part of twelfth-century diction. I don't think this is fair. How can one write a book from the perspective of a Middle-Ages scholar without occasionally using these words?

Knowing Solway's propensity for mischief I'm not certain this isn't David himself writing the letter under the heteronym "John MacKenzie." Who is this "John MacKenzie" person? I hadn't heard of "John MacKenzie" until I read the Danforth Review this morning. I must seek out his books and determine if his letter is indicative of the quality of his writing. If so...

Well, he knows what he can do.

Shane