Subject: Paul Vermeersch's response to Shane Neilson's review of the I.V. Lounge Reader

Date: December 18, 2001

Dear TDR:

Mr. Versmeersch raises two points of concern re: my review of his book, the I.V. Lounge Reader. His first point addresses my criticism that the book is Toronto-centric; well, it is. Glad he admits this. No, Mr. Vermeersch doesn’t need to invent anything so complicated as teleportation technology. All he needs is a Rolodex with listings having non- (416) and (905) area codes.

With regards to his second point, the agenda comment, I will admit that I don’t outright say in my review what Vermeersch’s agenda is or was. Doing things like that in print can result in the retaining of lawyers. Let me say only that certain established writers get lots more space. Let me also ridicule Vermeersch’s editorial acumen. I may “not presume to know the process by which these works were selected” but I can sure wonder at the reasons behind those selections. That the “work any one author has contributed to the anthology is largely the result of the authors themselves deciding what they wanted to publish” is proof-positive that Vermeersch selected names first and work second. By this way of thinking, a very lazy editorial process is characterized as “author-friendly”. This explains the book’s mediocrity.

Shane Neilson