As I did last year for 1923, I plan a series of posts through this year about Australian literature in the year 1924. What I write about will be driven by what I find. So far, I’ve found articles on the Platypus Series, but I wrote about that inititiative last year, and of course about new releases, which I will feature in a future post. However, out of the blue I found a little article titled “Gloomy books” which I’m sharing this week. It’s a one-off rather than part of an ongoing discussion as far as I can tell, so I’m not including it in my 1924 series.
The article was written by one W.M.S. in Sydney’s The Land newspaper. I’m building up quite a list of mysterious by-lines that I’d like to identify one day, but it is often difficult. W.M.S. is an example. I found a reference to a W.M.S. in Wagga Wagga’s Daily Advertiser (10 October 1928). They identify him as W.M. Sherrie, and say that he had been an editor of the paper (for ten years) but was by 1928 a contributor. The paragraph says that he was “equally at home on a wide variety of subjects, and to his advocacy may be largely attributed the healthy tone of public life in Riverina”. This W.M.S. was ‘bred in “the bush,”‘. He “cultivated a love of nature” and wrote “delightful nature stories” which were popular state-wide. Trouble is, I can’t find much about this W.M. Sherrie.
However, I did find at the Mitchell Library transcriptions of letters written in 1916 and 1917 by Noel Hunter Sherrie, who was “wounded at Gaza taken by Turks & died in Damascus”. The addressee was his mother, Mrs. W.M. Sherrie, of Wagga Wagga. I believe this Wagga Wagga Sherrie is the W.M.S. who published in The Land, because while The Land‘s W.M.S. wrote occasionally about literature, most of the pieces I found were from his “Bush Notes” column.
So now the article (The Land, 18 January 1924). It starts with:
The brilliant Marcus Clarke wrote that the dominant note of the Australian bush “was weird melancholy.” If Clarke had known Australia better he would not have written that erroneous estimate of the bush. But the mental attitude of the author of “His Natural Life” towards the Australian bush seems to find parallel these days in the mental attitude of most of our fiction writers to life itself. There was a time when all the intolerably gloomy and unhappy books were turned out by Russians and Scandinavians. To-day we find a similar tendency among English writers.
You can see in this opening his love of the bush – but it’s also clear that he was a man of his those optimistic early Federation times. The way he sees it, life can be gloomy or unhappy enough at times, “without having the same thing served up to us in our literature.” He doesn’t name contemporary names, but says, for example, that ‘much of the “new humour” of the Americans is more depressing than the gloom-saturated works of such great Russians as Turgeniev, Tolstoy, and Dostoievsky’. He’s talking, presumably, about the early 20th Century realists and modernists, such as D.H. Lawrence (whom we will meet in our 1924 Aussie Lit travels), and T.S. Eliot. Did he include, in this, Katharine Susannah Prichard who’d started publishing by then but wasn’t really in full swing? I must admit that most of the writers I’ve read from these schools were published in the second half of the 1920s and into the 1930s and 40s, but the trend was well under way by the early 1920s, and W.M.S. didn’t like it.
As far as he was concerned, “life is not all gloom”. What the nation needed, he wrote, was “more light and shade in literary work”, because without it, “no work of the imagination can be entirely true”. Unfortunately, though, what he saw rising was “a new school of fiction writers” in which “the lens of the camera, register[ed] nothing but the dark patches of the object upon which it [was] focussed.”
I understand his point, but I don’t fully agree that every work needs some right amount of “light and shade” to be “true”. I share this because I know several readers who, like W.M.S. back then, worry about negativism in much of our contemporary literature. I see it a bit differently. When life gets challenging, as it was in those between wars years, and is again now with climate disaster looming, among a host of other challenges I’m sure I don’t need to elaborate, our writers want to capture and/or explore it. Some see hope, while others don’t. C’est la vie?
What do you think?



























