Wednesday’s auditions beneath the Old Willow and Tuesday’s double sighting at the west pier have, between them, made a postbag of some weight. The editor reproduces four letters, picked for how they bear on the week. Replies appear in brackets where a clarification seemed wanted, and, in one case, where the editor could not in conscience let it pass.
From the Coot of the Channel Sprint, filed Wednesday evening
Sir, I write to record, for readers not present beneath the Willow on Wednesday, that my audition was conducted in good order and that the Clerk’s request to remove the pebble from the performance area was met promptly and without objection. I enter one reservation upon the record. The pebble, being integral to my candidacy (as established in these pages and at multiple sessions of the Reed-Bed Subcommittee), was removed not as a concession to the Subcommittee’s authority but as a courtesy to the other candidates. I further note that the music critic’s remark about the “consistency” of my instrument was, in my view, a compliment, and I accept it as such. I await the panel’s decision with confidence.
COOT
[The editor accepts the coot’s reading of the critic’s remark. The critic, consulted, described his use of “consistency” as “accurate.”]
From a Drake of the East Shore, filed Thursday morning
Sir, I should be grateful to note, with respect, that my audition on Wednesday ran under conditions I had not been led to expect. The candidate immediately after me produced a call of such volume that the panel’s recollection of my own performance was, I fear, materially affected. I do not dispute the coot’s right to project. I observe only that the order of auditions was perhaps not arranged with quieter instruments in mind. I remain available for a further hearing should the Subcommittee think one appropriate.
A DRAKE OF THE EAST SHORE
[The editor sympathises. The order of auditions was set by the order in which letters were received, which is to say by the coot’s promptness. The editor will not change a policy on one afternoon’s evidence, but takes the point.]
From the Family of Dabchicks of the West Pier, filed Thursday morning
Sir, We write with reference to your dispatch of Tuesday, in which you reproduced our statement on the two fish in full and then gave two further paragraphs to what our brevity might signify. We wish it noted that our brevity signified brevity. We had considered a longer statement and judged a shorter one sufficient. We remain not unsettled.
A FAMILY OF DABCHICKS
[The editor stands corrected. The family’s brevity signified brevity, and this paper is glad to record it. The editor observes, with no intent past the observational, that this letter is longer than the statement it defends.]
From an Anonymous Correspondent, filed Thursday afternoon
Madam, A question of taxonomy. The coot’s instrument, your music critic writes, is “powerful, lateral, and remarkably consistent.” The young goose of the north bank produced a honk “closer to Hettie’s register.” May I ask, through these pages, whether the Subcommittee seeks a co-honker, a bird whose instrument honks, or a co-performer, whose instrument need not honk provided it harmonises? The distinction is not trivial. The advertisement, as drafted, is ambiguous on exactly this point. I ask in the interest of clarity and without prejudice to any candidate.
NAME WITHHELD, AT THE CORRESPONDENT’S REQUEST
[The editor considers this the most useful letter of the week and commends it to the Cultural Subcommittee. The advertisement specified “one honker of suitable register.” Whether “honker” names the instrument or the performer is, the editor concedes, a question the Clerk may wish he had not been asked.]
So the postbag agrees on one thing and one thing only. The coot is satisfied, the drake is aggrieved, the dabchicks are not unsettled, and a bird who would not give a name has asked the one question nobody on the panel can answer. The editor has no answer either. She will leave that one to the Clerk.