ABR
welcomes
concise and pertinent letters. Correspondents should note
that letters may be edited. They must reach us by the
15th of the current month. E-mailed letters
must include a telephone number for verification.
Bauman's
point of departure
Dear
Editor,
Boris
Frankel bursts in through open doors. He gives Zygmunt Bauman
and me stick for speaking our truths (ABR, October 2001).
Viewed in its own terms, what remains of the Left in Australia
is in a bad way because it has failed (1) to clarify its ethics,
norms and values and (2) to develop alternative visions and
policies upon them; because (3) there is no popular bearer or
social movement available to carry these invisible ends; and
(4) because there is no evidence of popular support for a new
society, present unhappiness and misery notwithstanding. If
this is not modern, what is it? (If the Soviet and Nazi experiences
were not modern, what were they?)
My
view is that intellectuals do not lead culture, but express
it; they articulate arguments and sentiments already moving
within civil society. I start from the premise that people understand
inequality as a fact of everyday life and accept it, as a matter
of dull compulsion. It is in this context that I claim that
`the political opinion of the intellectual is worth no more
than that of any other citizen'. Intellectual authority does
not translate into political authority: that way lies Bolshevism.
Critical theorists, on this account, need to come to grips with
the problems of democracy, pluralism and difference, among themselves
and in society at large.
If
we agree that the people are to choose, within the constraints
that we already inhabit, then we have to cop the fact that they
have not chosen us, or socialism. The extent of this crisis
suggests that it is pre-political.
If
Frankel has the real third way bottled, I look forward to his
pulling the cork. Scholarship, like politics, best proceeds
from questions rather than answers. Bauman's work, like that
of Bernard Smith, is for me, in this context, a point of departure,
not arrival. Other doors remain open.
Peter
Beilharz, Bundoora, Vic.
H.G. Wells
in Australia
Dear
Editor,
A
brief comment on Barry Smith's forceful essay on `H. G. Wells
in Australia' (ABR, October 2001). Smith notes that the
`only Australian book Wells seems to have encountered in his
tour was Daisy Bates's The Passing of the Aborigines (1938)'.
In fact, he met Xavier Herbert at the Sydney FAW dinner where
Wells spoke shortly before he left Australia, and he read Capricornia
when he got back to England. In a personal letter to Herbert,
Wells said the novel was of `utmost importance to the colour
question' apart from `damn good reading' (MS, Fryer Library
University of Queensland). He added that while travelling fast
and busily he liked what little he saw of the Aborigines but
that Australia `put my back up'. He couldn't stand Daisy Bates.
Wells offered to write a publicity piece for the novel, saying
that it was `certainly one of the most important books of this
year [1939] and ... the best written and spirited novel that
has ever come out of Australia ... it deals with one of the
profoundest and most moving of human problems, the inter-mixture
of races' (Fryer Library). This was sent to the London publisher
of the novel, Rich and Cowan, used as a blurb, then forwarded
to the `Publishers' Circular', while the original publisher,
P.R. Stephensen, reprinted it in his `Publicist'. Frances De
Groen recounts the story in her biography Xavier Herbert
(UQP, 1998), adding: `Over time Herbert would develop an idiosyncratic
theory of human nature based largely on The Science of Life
and The History of the World.'
Readers
of ABR might also be interested to know that a detailed
study of Wells's visit, including his full itinerary and many
responses in the press, and also complementary perspectives
to Smith's, appeared in an article in ALS (May 1990)
by Roslyn Haynes, author of H.G. Wells: Discoverer of the
Future (Macmillan, 1980).
Laurie
Hergenhan, ALS, Brisbane, Qld
ABC and
independence
Dear
Editor,
While
I accept Andrew Riemer's basic premise that The Boyer Collection
was published largely as a public-relations spin on behalf of
the Corporation, his ABC is a lot different from the one I worked
for (ABR, October 2001). I was the producer of the nightly
newsreel in the early 1960s as this country was about to become
seriously engaged in the Vietnam War. My boss, the Controller
of television news, included in his duties the responsibilities
of a Commonwealth Censor. During World War II, my boss had worked
for the Security Service and well understood the importance
of propaganda. One of his first instructions to me in covering
the Vietnam War was never to show any Australian body-bag shots.
ABC
television news, then, was something of a shambles. Long lunches
in the 729 Club and the Great Northern were common. Film editors,
who were paid in cash, were seen on Friday regularly stuffing
their wages into the 729 poker machines. The Controller of television
news was president of the Club. Staffers regularly freelanced
for The Mavis Bramston Show and seemed to spend more
time on their freelance work than their ABC duties. Everyone
assumed that they had a job for life.
I
doubt if these conditions exist today. I know nothing about
the new general manager but the repeated attacks on him would
suggest to me that the vested interests of the ABC claques have
been working overtime. The new programmes are no better or worse
than what we have seen before. In some cases, they show some
improvement. The hoo-ha made about the lack of science programming
was clearly unjustified.
I
also disagree with Riemer about Radio National. I find
its breakfast programme irritatingly presented, badly paced
and poorly researched. Classic FM is a gem.
Val
Wake, Port Macquarie, NSW
When in
doubt, point it out
Dear
Editor,
The
August issue of ABR included a letter grumbling about
modern biographical practices, provoked by Brian Matthews's
generally favourable and balanced review of my biography of
Francis Adams. The juxtaposition of the headline `When in doubt,
make it up', with a reference to Struggle and Storm,
is ironic as well as annoying. A more accurate tag might
read `When in doubt, point it out', as anyone who had read the
book would know. Nonetheless, Val Wake had no qualms about using
the review as an occasion to lament the `worrying trend among
biographical writers' to produce `fictional reincarnations'.
Struggle
and Storm is a textual reincarnation, as any written
biography must be, but rather than trying to complete the historical
record by `making it up', the narrative commentary draws the
reader's attention to gaps and problem spots, and offers alternative
interpretations or educated guesses (in a different font, so
that the guesses are clearly signposted as such). It has been
disconcerting to find that any kind of playfulness or use of
multiple voices in a biography ends up being discussed as though
it were `fictionalising', even when one of the functions of
the second voice is explicitly to
identify the kind of `fictional' or `speculative' material that
inevitably finds its way into any biographical narrative.
It may be self-conscious, but it's no more fictional than the
most orthodox biography (which, as Matthews points out, is another
question altogether).
But
what if Struggle and Storm had been an example of `fictional
biography', or biography with some fictional elements? It would
still be wrong to lump all examples of that genre together,
as Val Wake does. Would-be critics should discriminate between
biographical works that are (deliberately? carelessly? artistically?
sloppily?) unclear about the extent to which the author has
augmented `facts' with `fiction', and those which deploy the
usual scholarly apparatus (thorough research, acknowledgment
of sources, use of evidence to support interpretation etc.)
in innovative or creative ways. Responsible researchers are
well able to respect the principles of accuracy and acknowledgment
of sources, and to apply them across a range of literary genres,
even when issues of `truth', `representation' and `fact' are
up for discussion. The alternative to writing an `authoritative'
biography is not simply, as Wake's formulation suggests, to
`make it up'.
After
eight years of research and considerable soul-searching about
how to write the book, I chose to use a slightly unconventional
narrative structure rather than either give up or `make it up'.
This doesn't mean that the biography is fictionalised, much
less dishonest, or even `trendy'; it does mean that a book about
Francis Adams has at last been written and published. Should
this sort of thing be `encouraged'? Perhaps Val Wake had other
books in mind when he wrote to ABR (books he had already
read, for instance?), but his letter cast a careless slur, while
taking an oversimplified view of biographical writing.
Meg
Tasker, Ballarat, Vic.
Patrick
Wolfe responds to Roger Sandall
Dear Editor,
I
am loath to dignify Roger Sandall's response to my review of
his unpleasant book with a reply. Nonetheless, one gross misrepresentation
cannot be allowed to stand. I stated that Sandall's attack on
Raymond Williams, who is dead and unable to respond, was shameful
(ABR, September 2001). Sandall replied (ABR, October
2001) that, when the original essay was published twenty years
ago, Williams was alive and able to respond. The original article
appeared in the journal Encounter in October 1980 (vol.
55, no. 4, pp. 84_92). The following extract from Sandall's
book (p. 172) was not included in that article: `Today Williams
resembles one of those huge fallen statues of his hero Stalin,
the legs broken and the head detached, with weeds growing out
of its nostrils and mould mantling the lifeless eyes. It might
well be asked what reason we have for discussing him at all.
What could a man so morally corrupt have to tell us about culture?'
This is the most extreme among a number of examples that I could
quote. Such statements are truly shameful, as is Sandall's inept
attempt to avoid responsibility for them.
I
also questioned whether Sandall had actually read the books
on which he commented. Curiously, he did not seem to think it
injurious to concede that he had not. My main point, though,
was that Sandall's book had received undeserved publicity as
a result of a right-wing campaign to promote material that is
hostile to Aboriginal interests. On this, Sandall has nothing
to say.
Patrick
Wolfe, Melbourne, Vic.
Julian
Burnside and the Tampa affair
Dear
Editor,
Thank
you and Julian Burnside for his inspiring and compassionate
`Commentary' on the refugee situation. I am a fourth-generation
Australian and a great-granddaughter of a Eureka Stockade participant,
and never in my relatively long life have I been so ashamed
to be an Australian.
Your
magazine has been eagerly awaited over many years, and is a
small luxury to which I am clinging amid the wreckage of a rapidly
disappearing nest egg, thanks in no small part to the GST on
books!
Frances
Hemming, Panoram
The ABA
and GST
Dear
Editor
The
Australian Booksellers' Association believes that books are
an integral part of a civilised society. Reading is the key
to all forms of education. Reading improves knowledge and increases
our understanding of the community in which we live. Books promote
literacy and literacy is a fundamental right for all. Until
last year, successive Australian governments recognised the
importance of books and exempted them from all sales taxes and
duties. Since the introduction of a ten per cent GST on books,
Australia has become one of the few developed countries that
taxes books. Most others have a zero or preferential tax rate
on books.
If
ABR readers believe that books should be exempt from
GST, may I urge them to register a protest by signing the petition
at www.notaxonbooks.com
Mark
Rubbo, Carlton, Vic.
|