Weave Magazine (September 26, 2015)
CV2 (May 27, 2015)
Pulp (May 21, 2015)
– Geoffrey Nilson
Australian Poetry Journal 4.1 (July, 2014)
– Christopher Ringrose
Maple Tree Literary Supplement (May/August, 2015)
The Chronicle Herald (July 25, 2014)
– George Elliott Clarke
Goodreads (May 14, 2014)
– Steven Buechler
Split Lip Magazine (Issue 10: April/June, 2014)
– Georgia Kreiger
Telegraph Journal (January 4, 2014)
Blog (January 15, 2014)
– Emily Davidson
Split Lip Magazine, U.S. (Issue 10: April/June, 2014)
Newz4UNET (April 18, 2014)
On Writing, Open Book Toronto (November 19, 2013)
Comment on the following review:
Arc Poetry Magazine (November 18th, 2014)
– E Martin Nolan
See my corrections to the above review : Arc Poetry Magazine – A review with errors in it!
An important literary publication should not be exempt from being challenged.
This review had too many factual errors to ignore.
Writers are critical readers too. Reviewing a book is a big responsibility, not to be taken lightly. I’m always grateful when someone takes the time to review my book. It’s a very time-consuming task. It takes a lot of time away from writing, so I don’t do it. I’ve had some very intelligent reviews that did not rave about my book and I enjoyed reading them. I even learnt something from them. Many misquoted my poems. However, I draw the line at an abundance of factual errors. Apologies for the layout and any other errors in this posting. I’m not good at WordPress. I do not have an editor.
As I’ve said before in an interview:
“I think the toughest thing for a writer is knowing that readers will have all sorts of reactions to a book. The sea with no one in it became, on a certain level, about the writing process. Within the work there are motifs of masts, spires and clansmen that may represent the anonymous reader. So the question is whether this anonymous entity, the reader/critic, will end up being the spire of worship or the spire that wounds the author with what feels like the violence of the Klan.”
Update December 5, 2014: Thanks to Arc for correcting most of what the magazine described as “formatting errors” in the online edition. I still stand by my own fact check of the review. An argument/opinion should be based on facts. While I’m at it, my book was published in 2013 not in 2014 as stated in the review. I think I’ll leave it at that.