Australian literature

Monday musings on Australian literature: Trove treasures (12), A rare humorous novel

/ Whispering Gums / 30 Comments

I was unsure about whether to make this post part of my Trove Treasures or Forgotten Writers series, but Wikipedia tells me that in 2006, the historian John Hirst, writing in The Monthly, included this author’s book, The colonial Australians, in a brief list of the best Australian history books of all-time. That probably means he’s not quite forgotten, wouldn’t you think? So, a “Trove Treasure” it is. The author is David Forrest, which is the name used by historian David Denholm for his fiction.

David Denholm was born in Maryborough, Queensland, in 1924 – the place where I, also, was born but, more significantly, it was the birthplace of P.L. Travers, the creator of Mary Poppins. Denholm died in Wagga Wagga, just 3-hours drive from where I live now, in 1997. He has an entry in Wikipedia and in AustLit. From these I gleaned that he served in the Australian army, in New Guinea, during World War 2 and worked in the banking industry until 1964. (I can’t resist adding here that Pamela Travers’ father was a banker, as was my own.) He was a mature age student when he went to university, first to the University of Queensland and then the Australian National University, where he gained a Ph.D in history. He ended his career as an academic in history at the Riverina College of Advanced Education.

He wrote two novels. His debut novel, published in 1959, was The last blue sea. It is set in New Guinea during World War 2. It focuses, in particular, on the difficulty the Australians faced in fighting in the heat and rain of New Guinea. Wikipedia shares that it has been called “the classic short novel of the New Guinea campaign.” It apparently won the first Mary Gilmore Prize. I wrote last year about his winning this award, but it wasn’t clear in my research that he was the first winner. Now I know.

However, the book which inspired this post, was …

His humorous novel

The Trove Treasure I found was in Sydney’s Tribune on 12 September 1962 and was written by someone signing as R.W. S/he started with:

Humorous novels are not particularly common in Australian literature, or for that matter in any other. This is all the more reason why we should be grateful for such a deliciously humorous work as David Forrest’s new novel, “The Hollow Woodheap”. Not since Lower’s famous “Here’s Luck” has the Australian reader’s sense of humour been so titillated.

It seems that Forrest took to heart the advice to “write what you know”, because his first novel was set during World War 2 in New Guinea, where he had served, and this novel, says R.W., “deals with life in the branch office of a bank in Brisbane” which is where he was working at the time. Critiquing the book, R.W. says that the “the plot is rather flimsy” with the humour deriving “mainly from the personalities and behaviour of the characters in their office environment”. Forrest “reveals a sense of the ridiculous and a capacity for irony, of which there is not the slightest trace in his war novel”. My question is, does the humour have a point? R.W. continues,

The new novel is not a work of profound social criticism, but in his lightly humorous way, the author makes many a sharp jibe at the snobbery and red tape of banking institutions, and at the soulless careerism which corrupts those who cannot resist the lure of money, power and status.

I found little else about the book, but I did find a review-rebuff in a Letter to the Editor in The Canberra Times (14 August 1962). Unfortunately, I could not find the actual review, but Maria Reah did not agree with some criticisms the reviewer had made. I’ll just share one paragraph from her letter:

It is true that most of the characters—the bank manager (The Keg), the bank inspector (The Drummer), the savings bank officer (St. Joseph the Bloody Worker), and the three models of managerial material (Mark One, Mark Two and Mark Three)—are caricatures, but Forrest is not the first creative artist to use caricature to good purpose. If these characters were developed more fully they would lose their value as symbols. For The Hollow Woodheap is more than an attempt to poke fun at “the establishment,” though it does this very successfully. It presents a novelist’s impression of Australian society. The sociology is impeccable, but unobtrusive. The young man who wrote the book is not angry enough to lose sight of either the patterning of social life or the lighter aspects of this patterning. His humour is never plodding, as it appears to your reviewer.

Finally, I’ll return to R.W. He hopes that Forrest will write more humorous novels. As it turns out, while he lived another thirty or so years, Forrest wrote no more novels, humorous or otherwise. Wikipedia , however, does say that he wrote a notable and humorous short story, “The Barambah mob” (1963), which has been often anthologised.

I could say more about Denholm/Forrest, but my point for this post is simply this little “treasure”. I agree with R.W. that good humorous novels are hard to find, but they add so much to our literary environment.

Do you have a favourite humorous novel, and would you share it with us?

Shankari Chandran in conversation with Karen Viggers

/ Whispering Gums / 20 Comments

Shankari Chandran’s conversation with Karen Viggers is the second Meet the Author event I’ve managed to attend this year, and it reminded me how much I wish I could get to more of these sessions. This one featured Shankari Chandran, author of the Miles Franklin winning novel, Chai time at Cinnamon Gardens (my review), in conversation with Karen Viggers, who was on the other side of the table at the last session I attended. Karen has appeared several times on my blog, most recently for her novel Sidelines. And Shankari was appearing at this session for her latest novel, Safe haven.

This was a wonderful session, which featured intelligent questions and thoughtful answers from two writers who care deeply about justice and how we find and express our humanity. Their backgrounds might be different, but their hearts not so.

The conversation

MC Colin Steele opened proceedings by acknowledging country and introducing the speakers. He then introduced the conversation, describing Safe haven as appearing to be about displacement and seeking refuge, but in the end, he said, it’s about finding home.

Karen started by congratulating Shankari on winning the Miles Franklin award last year. She wanted to know how Shankari felt the moment she heard she’d won, and its impact on her life and career. Shankari told a funny story about not answering the phone at first – because it came from an unknown number – and then not believing it when she finally answered and got the news! However, of course she was thrilled, and it has been extraordinary for her career. It has affected sales, and it created a spotlight on all her works, not just the winning book, and on her ongoing themes of injustice and dispossession. She also hopes that her win has helped and encouraged other writers of colour.

Shankari also made the point that it was great to win such a prize for a diasporic migrant story, one that is not only set partly elsewhere, but that interrogates who gets to define identity to the inclusion of some and the exclusion of others.

Sticking with the getting-to-know-you theme a little longer, Karen wanted to know how Shankari manages her busy life with four children, a law career, and writing. “Very badly” was the response, accompanied by some self-deprecating humour, followed by a recognition that she has a great team in all aspects of her life.

Karen then moved onto Safe haven, using descriptors like “moving”, “confronting”, “shines a shaming light” on detention, and creating “humans we come to care about”, and noting that the book contributes to an ongoing discussion about racism and exclusion in this country. Shankari talked about the approach she’d chosen, which was to write a romance and murder-mystery set in an off-shore detention centre. Her two main characters are the nun, Sister Fina, who seeks asylum, and special investigator Lucky, sent to investigate the death of a detention guard. Was it suicide, or was it not? Shankari described her book as being about the lengths people will go to to find safety and home.

Wanting to explore the romance-and-mystery approach a bit more, Karen commented that it was a surprising decision. And here a major theme of the discussion came to the fore, Shankari’s belief in storytelling. She wanted to elevate the lived experience of marginalised people, and likes to use fiction/storytelling to take readers into a place of discomfort but one where they can feel safe to reflect and think about the ideas. She wanted a storytelling mode that is compelling, entertaining, interesting. John Le Carre used the literary thriller model to explore macro themes of injustice, so she “wanted to give it a go”.

This led to continued discussion about using fiction to draw people and explore themes, and to the specific question of what Shankari wanted readers to take away from the book. She wants people to not forget the detention centres and what is happening to people in them. Politicians – and the media – too easily appeal to our baser instincts and encourage moral panic. But, she says, there are Australians who see the situation differently – like the people of Biloela for example, people who understand why others get on a boat, risking everything, to seek safety in another country. She wanted to elevate that aspect of what it means to be Australian. (Shankari used the word “elevate” several time during the conversation, and I like it. It’s powerful, and conveys something active and positive, active.)

Shankari talked about her two main characters, and what inspired them. Sister Fina stemmed from her admiration of people whose faith calls them to the sort of bravery seen in religious people during the terrible last days of the Sri Lankan Civil War. Special Investigator Lucky, on the other hand, was fun to write, because she could have Lucky do the sorts of investigation she’d like to do. Of the friendship that develops between these two, Shankari wanted characters who help each other, not one being saviour and the other the saved.

The conversation then moved onto the book’s tougher sections, and how Shankari researched and handled writing them – the scenes at the detention centre, for example. Here, we got a clear sense of Shankari’s ethical and compassionate approach to her work. She set herself some parameters. For example, she would not try to go to a Detention Centre, because she dislikes the voyeurism involved. For this same reason, she did not want to speak to the Biloela family whose story had provided inspiration for the book. At the time of writing they were still in a difficult place. It was not her place to draw fiction from their specific experience. So, she used research undertaken by civil organisations and activists; she read memoirs; and she used her experience of working in justice. If she had a superpower, she said, it would be that through her life people have given her their stories. These recorded truths, she’s been privileged to hear.

But, obtaining these stories, including those she needed for the brutal Civil War flashbacks, requires sensitivity. Interviewing people about their trauma can re-trigger that trauma. When people do want to tell her their story, she is careful about process because they don’t aways know how telling the story will affect them. She is careful, also, to ask whether they want their “lived experience to be conveyed in fiction”. Most respond that there are few safe places in our culture for the truth except in fiction! That feels like an awful indictment on our nation, but a powerful argument for the role of fiction/storytelling in our lives.

Indeed, a strong message I took away from the conversation was absolute belief in fiction being a way to tell important truths, but awareness that those whose truths are being told may not like them fictionalised.

The novel is not all grim, however. Karen turned to the scenes in Hastings (which were inspired by Biloela). What did Shankari want people to glean from them? That strangers can become family, she said, and that we should celebrate that capacity in us. Rural communities are often remote. They only have each other, and can develop an incredible ethos. Hastings offers a moral counterpoint to the other parts of the novel, but also offers readers a place of fun and joy.

Karen raised Australia’s policy regarding asylum seekers, and our use of privatised services to manage detention centres, particularly given these companies can employ people who “have done terrible things”. And why do we not have compassion for asylum seekers? The government’s arms-length management of asylum seekers, said Shankari, erodes accountability and transparency. Her novel asks the questions. It doesn’t provide answers.

As for our lack of compassion, Shankari said she struggled to understand the high level of xenophobia she found in Australia regarding migrants. She was horrified when she returned to Australia with her children – telling them it was “home” – only to find strong racial profiling of “friend” and “foe”. It’s disturbingly easy for politicians and media to trigger xenophobia – and not just in Australia. But she believes we are capable of integrity and intellectualism. This experience, and talking with Aboriginal activists, led her to think about the creation of nation, about the mythology of a nation’s founding and how we construct identity from this, one that involves the inclusion of some and the exclusion of others. She saw a link here with Sri Lanka’s founding mythologies. Does our concept of being Australian really need us to create “other” to maintain it?

Shankari believes that we have a choice in how we want to be – to face the future with fear, or with compassion!

Finally, Karen asked Shankari about how, with such a serious subject, she manages to achieve her light touch. It’s not conscious, but she’s a funny person, said Shankari – and life is tragic and funny. There’s irony too, including in the title. As to whether humour helps keep her sane, Shankari said that a lot of her work deals with trauma. She relies on humour to enable her to keep writing and her readers to keep reading. Writing trauma is traumatic, but she’s writing about the experience of people who have suffered but have survived, who are resilient. Their lives need to be elevated and remembered.

Q & A

On how children of disaporic migrants can broach their background with colleagues and friends. Books and stories, said Shankari, offer a good way in. Also, curiosity and questioning, and trying to meet people where they are. She shared advice she once received from a First Nations Australian, which was to “listen in order to listen, not to react and respond”. (What great advice.)

On how she, not Sri-Lankan born, knew all the details she used in her book, and how she decided on the Cook issue in Chai time in Cinnamon Gardens. For the first, Shankari laughingly credited the talkativeness of her extended family, but regarding the second, she reiterated her point about the creation mythologies in Australia and Sri Lanka and the role they play in forming national identity.

Vote of thanks

Sally Prior, literary editor of The Canberra Times offered a brief but heartfelt vote of thanks. She commented on the lack of curiosity in Australians regarding asylum seekers – who they are and why they want to come – and said she was inspired by Shankari’s persistence. She thanked all involved for an excellent conversation, to which all the audience could say was, hear, hear.

ANU/The Canberra Times Meet the Author
MC: Colin Steele
Australian National University
13 May 2024

Monday musings on Australian literature: Reading groups aka bookgroups

/ Whispering Gums / 34 Comments

Many litbloggers, I know, also belong to reading groups or bookgroups. (I use the terms interchangeably.) Jonathan (Me fail? I fly!) regularly writes engaging posts about his groups and their discussions, such as this most recent one on Paul Murray’s The bee sting. And I often refer to mine, though not with the same detail that Jonathan does.

A good bookgroup is a special thing, and those of us in successful groups often receive requests from others to join them. Unfortunately, most of those requests get turned away. There are only so many people a group can sustain – both physically in terms of the homes where most of us meet, and practically in terms of managing discussion. There is a sweet point between too big and too small, but I digress. This post is not about discussing these bookgroups. Instead, I want to focus on what those people looking for a bookgroup can do if they can’t find one or start one of their own. So, here are some ideas that might help you know where to start looking …

Public libraries

Some public libraries, as you would expect, do run or host reading groups. An example is the City of Parramatta library system in Sydney. They meet monthly at different branch libraries to “to discuss books, share ideas and have fun in a casual friendly environment”.

Other public libraries offer book club sets or kits for use by reading groups, but these tend to be for off-site pre-existing reading groups. They can be useful if you are in a group, or even if you want to start a group. The ACT Library Service offers this service, as indeed does the City of Parramatta.

The website, Australia Reads, lists, by state, many such library book clubs, so it’s a good place to start if you are in Australia.

Sometimes, public libraries provide a venue for reading groups that are run by an external group. A special example of this is Melbourne’s (and maybe Australia’s) longest running book group, the Ivanhoe Reading Circle which started in 1920. This group, these days at least, is a large group at which, I understand, a member presents on the chosen book, and then the floor is opened for questions and discussion. One day, when I am in Melbourne, I hope to get to it.

Adult education

Adult education services have been in the business of encouraging and supporting book discussion in Australia since the early days of the colony. Mechanics Institutes and Schools of Art developed libraries for use by their members, who were often workers with few resources for books. Many also ran courses and some have organised, and still do, reading groups. For example the Sydney Mechanics’ School of Arts badges itself as supporting members since 1833. They currently have many members-only interest groups, and these include a Mystery and Crime Reading Group. Likewise, the Ballarat Mechanics Institute offers a reading group (though I’m not sure that it has survived COVID.)

Then, there are discussion groups run or offered by organisations like Sydney’s WEA (the Workers Education Association, established in 1913) and the U3A (University of the Third Age). These groups tend to be member run, so you join and then try to find a group near you. They can have waiting lists, but they are a good option. Teresa, who often comments here, has been running a U3A Landmarks in Australian literature discussion group in Melbourne for years. I notice that on the same webpage is another group which discusses American literature. My mother was a member of a Canberra U3A reading group, until she died.

And, rather like the public library book services mentioned above, there are groups like Victoria’s Council of Adult Education which has been providing books to reading groups, around Australia, since 1947. My own group used this service for a few years. They also offer a reading group finding service. How good is that!

Bookshops

And then, of course, there are bookshops. Pam (the Travelling Penguin) belongs to one at Fuller’s Bookshop in Hobart. They run quite a few groups, in fact. In her most recent post, Pam not only mentions what she’ll be reading next, but shares that Fuller’s has just won the Best Bookshop in Australia at this year’s Australian Book Industry Awards. The judges praised the store for its “first-class events program and investment in fostering literacy”. (It just so happens that I met Pam last year in the Fuller’s cafe when I went to Hobart for my brother’s book launch and exhibition opening.)

Muse bookshop
Muse bookshop (before an event)

Closer to home is our very own Muse, about which I have posted many times, because they also run author conversations as well as two book groups. Unfortunately, I have not attended the bookgroups because they clash with my commitments. But, I regularly check out what they are discussing and, if I can catch him, talk to bookseller Dan about the chosen books and anything else we are reading. The two bookgroups Dan runs are the Translation Book Club and the OzLit Book Club.

Then, moving north up to Queensland, there’s the active Avid Reader bookshop in Brisbane. They have a Bookclubs Manager, and offer several bookclubs, including Fiona’s Open Bookclub, the High Noon Bookclub, the Her Voice Bookclub and, even, an Online Bookclub. The onsite bookclubs are free if you purchase your book from Avid Reader, or $10 if you don’t.

So…

This is not meant to be at all comprehensive – how could it be – but to provide some starting points for those who might be looking for a reading group. Or, just give you a sense of the breadth and depth of the book-ish world. You – and we – are not alone!

I’d love to know if you have had experience of looking for a reading group, and/or if you can add to the ideas here or just share your favourites.

Anna Funder, Wifedom (#BookReview)

/ Whispering Gums / 38 Comments

Anna Funder’s Wifedom: Mrs Orwell’s invisible life is a book with a mission, a mission that is implied in its full title. That mission is to examine the notion of “wifedom”, and the way patriarchy works to construct it, through the example of the invisible – or, as Funder also calls it, erased – life of George Orwell’s wife, Eileen O’Shaughnessy.

To do this, she wrangles Eileen out of the shadows of history to produce an intelligent, funny, warm-hearted, loyal and hard-working woman who, observed novelist Lettice Cooper, loved George “deeply, but with a tender amusement”. It’s an engrossing story, well-told. However, it’s a challenging read too.

Funder explains early in the book that her interest in Eileen came from reading something Orwell wrote about women and wives – after Eileen had died. It’s astonishingly misogynistic, and made her wonder who Eileen was and what she might have thought. Funder set about reading six Orwell biographies written between 1972 and 2003, but she found them unhelpful when it came to Eileen. Indeed, she says, they gave so little that they “started to seem like fictions of omission”. Funder then, logically, went to these biographers’ sources. She found some more bits and pieces about Eileen, but it wasn’t enough. All she had was “a life in facts, a woman in pieces”, so she “considered writing a novel – a counterfiction to the one in the biographies”. But, she was fascinated “by the sly ways” in which Eileen had been hidden, and she felt a novel couldn’t effectively explore this. Then she “found the letters”.

These were six letters that Eileen had written to her good friend Norah from just after her marriage in 1936 until 1944, but they had not been discovered until 2005. These letters gave her Eileen’s voice – and this voice was “electrifying”. Funder believed she could no longer write a novel. She writes,

I wanted to make her live, and at the same time to reveal the wicked magic trick that had erased her, and that still holds sway today. I thought of it as writing a fiction of inclusion.

“it’s hard … for history to find you”

This is where the book gets tricky, because, while I found Wifedom a fascinating read, it raised questions too, and they are intrinsic to what Funder is trying to achieve, and how she goes about achieving it. The book is divided into five parts, with the first part titled “Wifedom, A Counterfiction”. What does this mean? She doesn’t immediately explain what I have described above. Instead, she opens her book on a scene in which she imagines Eileen writing a letter to Norah – and she includes excerpts from that letter. This throws us readers in at the deep end. As we get into the book, we come to recognise these imagined sections, because they are identified by indentation, and opening and closing graphical symbols, but at the beginning it’s a bit mystifying, albeit an engaging way to capture our interest.

Early in the read, then, it becomes apparent that Wifedom comprises a complex mixture of processes and forms. The imagined sections are interspersed throughout the book between more traditional biographical writing about Eileen and George’s life. And interspersed between these are reflections from Funder’s own life, because one of her points is that the patriarchy, the “patri-magic”, which erased Eileen’s life from George’s biography, still exists and is evident in her own life as a wife and mother, despite her supportive husband and “egalitarian” marriage. I’m not going to focus on this aspect of the book, though, because it seems to fade away somewhat as Eileen and George’s story picks up, and is not, anyhow, where I want to go in this post.

Instead, I want to tease out the process. Early on Funder writes that

Looking for Eileen involved the pleasure of reading Orwell on how power works. Finding her held the possibility of revealing how it works on women: how a woman can be buried first by domesticity and then by history.

This is not particularly new. Anyone interested in feminism is aware of how women have been lost in (and thus to) history. However, Funder’s book is enlightening in this regard. She does an excellent job of interrogating how it can happen. It happens when biographers ignore or play down the role of women in their subjects’ lives. Through cross-matching her sources she finds example after example of Eileen’s contributions being downplayed or omitted. She shows how the use of passive voice and terms like “wife” rather than Eileen’s name work to make her disappear. (Orwell does it himself in Homage to Catalonia.) She finds examples where biographers, disconcerted by some of George’s behaviour, excuse it (how often are men excused!), or, uncertain about evidence, will rephrase it. For example, Funder writes that Eileen

noted his extraordinary political simplicity – which seems to have worried one of the biographers, who rewrote her words to give him an ‘extraordinary political sympathy’.

Eileen’s words come from a 1938 letter to Marjorie Dakin. The biographer is Crick. (Another of the textual clues to readers in this book is that Eileen’s words are conveyed in italics, while the words of others are enclosed in quotation marks.)

But here’s the challenge – interpretation. Funder writes early in her book that,

As serendipity would have it, in 2020 Sylvia Topp published Eileen: The Making of George Orwell, which contained much material I hadn’t found, and was thrilled to read, though we interpret it differently, and so build differing portraits of Eileen.

She does not explain what she means here, but in the very thorough Notes at the end of the book, Funder elaborates on Topp’s approach to Eileen. Put simply, Topp, Funder says, sees Eileen as one of those celebrated people’s partners who devoted their lives “joyfully to assisting the talented partners in all their various needs knowing all along that they would be under-appreciated, and often ignored, and yet never faltering in their dedication, or in their willingness to submerge their own personal talents into their partners’ success.” Topp, then, sees Eileen as a “helpmeet of genius” while Funder is interested, as she writes in these Notes, “in examining what it took, perhaps, to be in that marriage, and that dream”.

So, what we have here is interpretation. Topp had the same sources that Funder did. Indeed, she added some to Funder’s arsenal. But, she interprets them differently. As a feminist, I easily aligned with Funder’s interpretation, but as I read I also had this little niggle that Funder was interpreting her sources – from the perspective of her times, values and gender – just as other biographers had before her.

Wifedom was my reading group’s April book. Our conversation focused mainly on the biographical content – on Eileen’s life, on George Orwell and his books, and on the impact of patriarchy on Eileen. We were horrified by the life led by Eileen, as Funder tells it – and the facts seem inarguable. Their relationship appeared to us to have been so one-sided. Eileen did all the domestic work, and it was hard work given the primitive rural cottage that they called home. She was, often, the main breadwinner, and she did his typing, as well as offering editorial comment. She was necessary to him. Meanwhile, he focused on his writing and, we gathered, chasing other women. And yet, Eileen stayed with George. Why, we wondered?

We didn’t delve into the interpretation issue, albeit I would have loved to, but I needed more time to collect my thoughts. We did, however, discuss why we thought Eileen stayed with George which, I guess, was us interpreting what we’d read! Various ideas were put forward, including that Eileen might have been a “rescuer”, or that she knew she was unlikely to have been published herself (in a patriarchal world) and so channelled her energies through George, or, simply, that she loved him and, much like Topp argued, willingly helped him in any way she could.

So, there you have it! History, biography, it’s all a matter of the facts you have, and the way you see them. I don’t mean to devalue the biographer’s art by that statement, but simply to recognise that even the most formal, most rigorously documented biography will, necessarily, be affected by the biographer and their times. For this reason, I found Wifedom an absorbing and provocative read, though perhaps only partly in the way Funder intended.

Anna Funder
Wifedom: Mrs Orwell’s invisible life
Hamish Hamilton, 2023
511pp.
ISBN: 9781760143787

Monday musings on Australian literature: Stella Prize 2024 Winner

/ Whispering Gums / 27 Comments

The 2024 Stella Prize winner was announced last Thursday, the 2nd of May, but that was the also the day my blog turned 15, and I didn’t want to flood cyberspace with too many posts. Then this weekend was the SixDegrees meme which meant another post coming at you. So, I decided to do my Stella 2024 post, this year, as a Monday Musings. It makes sense to do so, in fact, because it’s an historic win. First though, the winner, for those of you who haven’t heard yet:

Alexis Wright’s Praiseworthy

Why historic? Again, some of you will already know this, but Alexis Wright, one of our leading First Nations writers, is the first writer to win the Stella twice in its 12 year history. An impressive achievement by any measure. I am embarrassed to say, however, that of the now four Stella winners I haven’t read, Wright’s two are among them. This is not because I don’t want to read them, but because they are big tomes, and my life doesn’t seem to lend itself these days to chunksters. I read and loved her multi-award winning novel Carpentaria (my post), which was big enough – at over 500 pages – but that was before blogging when time pressures felt different! Clearly, though, I should make time for this because, from what I can tell, its subject matter is something I care about and it has the wit and playfulness, passion and imagination, that I loved in Carpentaria.

Praiseworthy has already been recognised by the literary establishment. Last year it won the Fiction Book Award in the Queensland Literary Awards. Further, as publisher Giramondo shares, it has been shortlisted for many other awards: The Dublin Literary Award 2024; the People’s Choice Award, the Christine Stead Prize for Fiction and the Indigenous Writers Prize in the 2024 New South Wales Premier’s Literary Award; The James Tait Black Prize for Fiction 2024; and the Queensland Premier’s Award for a Work of State Significance in the 2023 Queensland Literary Awards.

The chair of the judging panel said this about the book:

Praiseworthy is mighty in every conceivable way: mighty of scope, mighty of fury, mighty of craft, mighty of humour, mighty of language, mighty of heart. Praiseworthy is not only a great Australian novel – perhaps the great Australian novel – it is also a great Waanyi novel. And it is written in the wild hope that, one day, all Australian readers might understand just what that means. I do not understand. Not yet. But I can feel history calling to me in these pages. Calling to all of us. Imagine if we listened.

Giramondo’s (above-linked) page for the book, includes excerpts from other critics and reviewers. Samuel Rutter of the New York Times Book Review describes it as “the most ambitious and accomplished Australian novel of this century”, while Jane Gleeson-White wrote in The Conversation that “Praiseworthy is Alexis Wright’s most formidable act of imaginative synthesis yet…a hero’s journey for an age of global warming, a devastating story of young love caught between two laws, and an extended elegy and ode to Aboriginal law and sovereignty”. More than one references Ulysses, such as Ruth Padel, who describes it in The Spectator as “an impassioned environmental Ulysses of the Northern Territory… Playful, formally innovative, multi-storied, allegorical, protean and dizzyingly exhilarating, it is long, lyrical and enraged”. Several, in fact, praise the language; and many comment on its satirical aspect, its lyricism, its comedy. Lynda Ng, in Meanjin, calls it:

The finest distillation yet of Wright’s themes – a bold assertion of Aboriginal sovereignty that successfully encompasses all areas of life: culture, economy, and jurisprudence.

Of course, Giramondo has selected excerpts that praise, but the sources of that praise are impressive.

There are those who think that she should/may/will be Australia’s next Nobel Laureate for Literature.

Returning to the Stella, you can read more on the Stella website, including a link to Alexis Wright’s acceptance speech, and an expressive video performance of a brief scene from the novel by Boonwurrung actor Tasma Walton.

Just to remind you, this year’s Stella judges were writer, literary critic, Artistic Director of the Canberra Writers Festival and this year’s chair, BeeJay Silcox; Filipino-Australian poet, performer, arts producer, and advocate, Eleanor Jackson; First Nations award-winning poet and arts board member, Cheryl Leavy; novelist, occasional critic and full-time dad, Bram Presser; and writer and historian, Dr Yves Rees.

Wikipedia offers a well-presented complete list of the winners and all the short and longlisted books.

Thoughts anyone?

Monday musings on Australian literature: Forgotten writers 4, Kate Helen Weston

/ Whispering Gums / 12 Comments

In 2021, I started my Monday Musings sub-series on forgotten Australian writers, with posts on Helen Simpson and Eliza Hamilton Dunlop. This year I added Marion Simons, who was my first post on the Australian Women Writers (AWW) blog this year. As I explained then, Elizabeth Lhuede and I have decided to focus this year on sharing public domain works published in 1924 – or written by writers who died in 1924. So today, I am introducing another writer I’ve posted on there, Kate Helen Weston.

As with Marion Simons, I am not including here the piece written by Simons that I published at AWW. It is an entertaining piece titled “The ubiquitous apostrophe”. If love discussions of grammar and punctuation, do check it out at AWW.

Kate Helen Weston

Kate Helen Weston (1863-1929) was born Kate Helen Carter in Ballarat, Victoria, to British parents who came to Australia for the gold rush, but she died in Adelaide. Indeed, one “L.B.” described her in The Australian Woman’s Mirror (of 24 February 1925) as “one of the best-known of Adelaide’s feminine inky-wayfarers”. She has an entry in AustLit, and in Debra Adelaide’s Australian women writers: a bibliographic guide, but not in the Australian dictionary of biography or Wikipedia. Adelaide’s News (10 December 1924) provided a brief biography of her in their “Pen Portraits of People” series, after she was elected president of the Liberal Women’s Educational Association.

These sources aren’t quite in tune with each other. AustLit says that she married John Samuel Weston “in Adelaide in 1885, and moved there in 1892”. Adelaide’s News says she married “Mr. J.T. Weston … and later came to Adelaide”. AustLit says that she was widowed in 1894, and “turned to writing to provide financially for herself and her children. She contributed to many Australian newspapers, and published fiction between 1911 and 1928”. They also say that “she was Lady Superintendent of the Elder Conservatorium in Adelaide between 1900 and 1914”. The News, on the other hand, says that “after her husband’s death she accepted the position of secretary to the Elder Conservatorium, which she held for 22 years”. So, some minor differences in detail here – in the name of her husband and in her Elder Conservatorium role. These would be good to clarify, but for now I’m noting them and moving on.

The News tells us that she “developed literary and artistic tastes” and had published three novels in London. In fact, she published four novels, one a few years after the News’s article. Her novels were The partners (1911), The man MacDonald (1913), The prelude (1914) and The vagabond soul (1928). The man MacDonald, says News, “had a wide vogue”. Melbourne’s Table Talk (26 July 1928), announcing the publication of The vagabond soul, said that “the story, which contains a dramatic situation of some originality, is entirely Australian in setting, and it is written with the same facile spontaneity which characterises Mrs Weston’s other novels”. But, her novels have not lasted.

Both AustLit and the News mention her other literary and journalistic work, but AustLit is more specific, telling us that she contributed to many Australian newspapers. They say she was “music and art critic for The Register, contributed to The Woman’s Record – a monthly publication – and, according to her obituary in The Advertiser, she was the ‘founder of community singing in Adelaide’.” She received a Commonwealth Literary Fund Fellowship in 1915, and was also actively involved in the National Council of Women.

Weston was clearly well-known in Adelaide’s literary circles. The News (9 September 1924) reports on an address she gave at the monthly meeting of the Liberal Women’s Educational Association. (Th Association aimed to educate women in political and social matters, but, said The Register on 2 March 1926, it could also become active in social reform, “when necessary”.)

Anyhow, the focus of Weston’s talk was Australian Women Writers. The News starts with:

It was not until one began to reckon up the women writers of Australia, said Mrs. Weston, that it was realised how many there were and what a contribution they had made to the literature of Australia in poetry, prose, and journalistic work, though it was only of late years that woman had met man on equal ground in the field of journalism. 

Turning then to poetry, she said that Australian men were credited with being better poets than Australian women, but she believed that the work of women poets was “possibly much more original in style as it bore the impress of no old world stylist, and invariably expressed the writer’s personal outlook on life”. Mary Gilmore, for example, “spoke always with a woman’s voice and wrote, not of things but of humanity and the home”. She named, and apparently read from many, contemporary Australian poets.

She then talked about fiction, arguing that it’s through fiction that the life of an age is chronicled. She named many novelists including those we still recognise today, like Mary Gaunt, Ada Cambridge, Mrs Campbell (Rosa) Praed, and Ethel Turner. She also mentioned – and I think this is an astute and significant recognition – the “many letter writers, whose small contributions fitted into the interstices of the wall of literature which was being built”. 

She concluded by arguing that the Commonwealth Government needed to more actively encourage Australian literature. She pointed to the lack of Australian publishing houses and the small market. She said, writes the News, that “writers of fiction could not afford to remain in their own country, but were forced to go to the fogs of London or the bustle of America, where they lost their nationality and their English”. And she urged would-be writers “to read all styles, and copy none” – and to practise constantly. 

The News and AustLit both describe her other, considerable, community involvements and achievements. These included having a tilt at politics. The News writes that she stood for a ward in municipal elections in 1923, and “polled the highest percentage of votes ever gained by a woman in the elections in this State”. Her death, after falling from a tram from which she never regained consciousness, seems tragic.

So far I have written on four women writers for this year’s AWW project. Two, Marion Simons and Alice Tomholt, never married, and two, Kate Helen Weston and Lillian Pyke, were widowed with young children. All, it seems, managed to eke some sort of living from writing. 

Monday musings on Australian literature: 1937 in fiction (2) – and Trove

/ Whispering Gums / 24 Comments

Karen’s (Kaggsy’s Bookish Rambling) and Simon’s (Stuck in a Book) “Year Club” officially finished yesterday, but I focused so much in last week’s post on the issue of the state of Australian criticism, that I didn’t get to share some other ideas I found. So, I’ve decided to bookend the week with Monday Musings posts!

Trove

First, though, I’d like to explain a little about how I use Trove. For those who don’t know what Trove is, it is an online library database managed by the National Library of Australia. It is a fantastic resource for researchers because it contains an extensive – in depth and breadth – range of digital resources, including newspapers, journals and gazettes; official and personal archives and manuscripts; images; archived websites; and more. I mostly use the digitised newspaper collection, so I’m going to focus on it.

The process for putting non-born-digital newspapers online involves scanning the papers (from print or microfiche form) and then using OCR (optical character recognition) to produce readable text. On Trove, we see both the original and the OCR-ed texts. The quality or accuracy of the OCR text varies greatly, depending on the quality of the original from which the scanning was done. Trove’s solution to this has been to use crowdsourced (aka volunteer) text-correction.

Of course, as a librarian, I can’t use a service like this without doing my bit, so whenever I search Trove I end up doing corrections. This can be a tedious business when the original was poor, and can take a large amount of time. But, I don’t want to link in my blog an article that my readers will find hard to read, so, to do the time! The result is that I may not always research Trove as much as I would like in order to write my posts, but I hope that I research enough to make what I say valid or worthwhile!

I do sometimes cut corners. Where the item I am interested in is, say, part of a multi-subject column, I will, occasionally, only correct the section of interest to me. That’s a pragmatic decision I just need to make sometimes. (Just telling you in case you click on one of these links and wonder what I have been doing!!)

Back to 1937

On developing Australian literature

In my last post I focused on discussion about the importance of a good critical culture to the development of an Australian literature, but other thoughts about the state of Australian literature were also shared during the year. For example, in February, commenting on a gathering – attended by “many prominent men” – to commemorate Henry Lawson, the Williamstown Advertiser observed that Lawson’s “Australianism” is a heritage to be treasured, and that Australians need to

encourage home writers whose individuality cuts through the meshes of old-world hyperorthodoxy in literature, which conveys an assumption that the “blawsted colonials” are mere vulgarians.

Two months later on 10 April, Melbourne’s The Herald ran an article discussing the development of Australian literature, comparing it with the the challenges faced by American literature. It looked at the two nations, and commented on the problems faced by Australian writers. It suggested that America had now developed its own style. From the realism of Dreiser and Anderson, “the American literary spirit has taken lucid shape in the works of Ernest Hemingway and John Dos Passos”. It says that this new spirit represents “a revolt against nineteenth century English romanticism” and that the new style encompasses “typical Americanisms, the characteristic speech, the special vocabulary, the distinctive syntax and, above all, the natural mode of expression”.

Is Australia ready for “the emergence of a style in which an Australian outlook is implicit, and which would incorporate the characteristic speech, syntax and vocabulary of Australia?” Creating this, it argues, “is a labor of love; there is no material reward in it, at present”. Unfortunately, Australia, it says, has not recognised its similarity to America, and “is still awed by the heaped-up riches of the English literary tradition”. This does not, it concludes, prevent our making an “intelligent assessment of the lines upon which distinctively Australian writing should, develop”.

A week later, 17 April, there was a lengthy riposte in The Herald. You can read it at the link provided, because it covers several issues, but it starts by arguing that the most important issue is

that people read books not because they are written by Englishmen, or Americans, or Australians, but because they are entertaining.

So there, you writers! Write what the readers want! “Patriotism,” it says, “does not enter into the plain man’s choice of books”. It accepts that there’s a critical minority of readers who are interested in the technical experiments needed to improve literary standards, but

A critical minority … does not make a best-seller. For that the writer must look to the reading public as a whole, to the suburban libraries, to the man who has never heard of James Joyce or Aldous Huxley— except when one of his books is banned.

The article then argues that Australian artists have developed an Australian style, and suggests how Australian writers might proceed. It concludes that “it would be absurd to believe that the public is hostile or the Australian scene barren” (which I don’t believe the previous article argued.)

Education

Education is critical to encouraging interest in local literatures. At least, it is, I’d argue, for those whose culture has been – or risks being – swamped by larger cultures. The issue of education popped up a few times in 1937.

A pointed reference came from Brisbane’s The Catholic Advocate of 14 October. Written, I believe, by “Pasquin”, it opens with:

Is there a Chair of Australian Literature in any one of our six Universities?

It notes that “the University of Queensland tacks on to the course of English literature half-a-dozen lectures or so on Australian letters”, but then says

Surely it is a disgrace to Australia that in none of our seats of learning is our literature considered worth anything more than a digression or an aside.

It then goes on to ask how many Professors of English Literature are Australian? Go Pasquin, eh? “It is no wonder we have an inferiority complex”. Pasquin then pushes on:

How many are English ex-patriates like Professor Cowling of Melbourne, who in a recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald declared that he was at a loss to name a single Australian novel suitable for the classroom.

Hmm … Many journalists in 1937 could name “good” Australian writers, like, Henry Handel Richardson and Katharine Susannah Prichard! Pasquin concludes by saying that “Even J. T. Lang has been moved to describe the Senate of the Sydney University as “the most un-Australian body in Australia.”

Meanwhile, grass roots action was occurring. The Sydney Morning Herald reported (14 October) that the Workers’ Educational Association (WEA) had organised “a tutorial class in Australian Literature” for the summer. It was to be run by Fisher University librarian and critic H. M. Green, and Hartley Grattan, an American literary critic, with expertise in Australian literature.

On 9 November, Sydney’s The Workers Weekly reported that a Central Cultural Council had been established as the result of a conference convened by Sydney’s Writers’ Association. Indeed, it appears this conference had not only inspired the abovementioned WEA course but the Teachers’ Federation deciding to give more attention to the teaching of Australian literature in schools!

Keeping to the subject of schools, my last 1937 article comes from Queensland’s The Northern Miner on 18 December. It reported on a speaker at a Sydney luncheon. Dr. G. Mackaness, described by the ADB as “educationist, author and bibliophile”, made an “appeal for a better appreciation of Australian literature”. He saw the education system as one of the problems, and said “it was appalling that over a period of five years only one Australian writer was included in the books which had been chosen for Leaving or Intermediate Certificate examinations”. This report concluded that:

The fault of lack of appreciation of Australian literature was equally divided among those who had the selection of certain literature for studies, the non-progressiveness of Australian publishers to help the Australian writer, and the uneducated mind of the average Australian to the culture obtainable from Australian authorship.

We have come a long way since then, but there’s always more to do…

Previous Monday Musings for the “years”: 1929, 1936, 1954, 1940, 1962 and 1937.

Marjorie Barnard, The lottery (#Review, #1937 Club)

/ Whispering Gums / 20 Comments

This will probably be my only review for the 1937 Year Club but I am thrilled to do it, because it is by Marjorie Barnard, an author whom I have mentioned many times, but have not yet managed to review here. My post is on a short story from her collection, The persimmon tree and other stories, which is one of the very few short story collections I’ve read more than once. It is so good. And don’t just take it from me. Carmel Bird mentions it in her bibliomemoir, Telltale, calling it “extraordinarily powerful”.

I wasn’t sure, in fact, what I was going to read for this week. I certainly hadn’t considered this collection because it was first published in 1943 but, rummaging around Trove, I discovered a story by Marjorie Barnard in The Bulletin of 6 January 1937. The page was titled “Of a lottery winner: First Prize” but I recognised it immediately, and let out an internal whoop. Here was my chance.

“The lottery”, as it is titled in the collection, has been anthologised, including in The Penguin best Australian short stories (1991), though the titular story, “The persimmon tree” is, I believe, the most commonly anthologised from the collection.

Who was Marjorie Barnard?

Marjorie Barnard (1897-1987) was an Australian novelist and short story writer, critic, historian and librarian. She wrote five collaborative novels with Flora Eldershaw, under the pseudonym, M. Barnard Eldershaw. Their first novel, A house is built, was published in 1929, having jointly won, with Katharine Susannah Prichard’s Coonardoo, The Bulletin prize in 1928. Their last, the futuristic Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow was censored, and published in an expurgated edition as Tomorrow and tomorrow in 1947. Barnard also wrote works of literary criticism, and is credited with writing the first assessment of Patrick White (in Meanjin in 1956) and the first biography of Miles Franklin. (Jill Roe writes of the biography in the ADB, saying that “written with misgivings and before the release of Franklin’s voluminous papers, it exhibited characteristic virtues, with insight and style making up for ambivalence and inevitable error.”)

Barnard, along with Eldershaw, and other Sydney-based writers, like Frank Dalby Davison, was deeply concerned about the social and economic upheavals of the 1930s. These three, known as “the triumvirate”, held literary soirees which were attended by like-minded writers including Xavier Herbert and Miles Franklin. They were active in promoting writer’s rights (through the Fellowship of Australian Writers), and opposed censorship. She was a pacifist, and was apparently named in those political witch hunts of the 1950s, making her cautious about what she admitted to in terms of political affiliations. She was one of many writers who corresponded with, and often asked advice of, Nettie Palmer. She was a significant force.

In 1983, she was awarded the Patrick White Award, as was also her admirer Carmel Bird, years later. Hers was a long, and active life – far too long for me to cover here – and unfortunately, I don’t think anyone has done a biography of her. She is more than a worthy subject.

“The lottery”

What is so “extraordinarily powerful” about The persimmon tree and other stories is the quietly controlled but clear-eyed way Barnard interrogates human experience, in general, and women’s experience, in particular. Many of the stories have a strong feminist undercurrent, and “The lottery” is one of these. What makes it remarkable is that it is told third person through the perspective of the husband, which sets us up to align with him – perhaps.

The story is set in suburban Sydney. It starts with the husband, Ted Bilborough, having just boarded the ferry on his way home from work. His co-passengers tell him – show him in the paper, in fact – that his wife had won the lottery, “Mrs. Grace Bilborough, 52 Cuthbert-street.’… First prize, £5OOO, Last Hope Syndicate.” The thing is, Ted didn’t know. We then follow him on his way home as he goes through various emotions – and as he does so, we glean a picture of who he is and the sort of life his wife has led. A disconnect builds between how he – the perfect unreliable narrator – sees that life and the way we do.

At first, we are told that “everyone likes Ted”. He’s decent, it seems, in that typical-for-the-time suburban-husband way, and because of this “he’d always expected in a trusting sort of way to be rewarded, but not through Grace”. It’s little qualifications like this – “but not through Grace” – that give the game away.

Alongside Ted’s thoughts are descriptions of the evening. They too contain nuances that suggest deeper truths are at play. “The sun was sinking into a bank of grey cloud, soft and formless as mist” and two pine-trees have a “soft arrested grace”, a bit like his Grace, we readers might think. A little further on, “Ted could see that the smooth water was really a pale, tawny gold with patches, roughened by the turning tide, of pale frosty blue”.

He wonders how she’d paid for the ticket, “He hadn’t noticed any difference in the housekeeping, and he prided himself he noticed everything”. He starts to rethink Grace, who’d been “a good wife”, while he’d been “a good husband”. Indeed, “theirs was a model home” but, “well, somehow he found it easier to be cheerful in other people’s homes than in his own”. Whose fault is this? Well, Grace’s of course!

She wasn’t cheery and easy-going. Something moody about her now. Moody. He’d worn better than Grace; anyone could see that, and yet it was he who had had the hard time. All she had to do was to stay at home and look after the house and the children. Nothing much in that. She always seemed to be working, but he couldn’t see what there was to do that could take her so long. 

And so it continues, Ted ruminating on the situation, on their marriage, and on how things might proceed – even starting to feel a bit magnanimous with this money that’s not his own – until he arrives home, and discovers exactly what Grace intends. It’s all in the name of the Syndicate!

The writing is delicious. Spare, and accessible, it nails women’s lives and the constrictions so many live under. There is little agency for many of her women, and Barnard draws this with such simple but knowing realism it takes your breathe away. I love many of the stories in the book – and this is as good as any of them.

* Read for the 1962 reading week run by Karen (Kaggsy’s Bookish Rambling) and Simon (Stuck in a Book) who, I discovered, has reviewed the collection.

Marjorie Barnard
“The lottery” (orig. pub. in The Bulletin, 6 January 1937)
in Marjorie Barnard, The persimmon tree and other stories
London: Virago Press, 1985 (first published by Clarendon in 1943)
pp. 97-105

Full text of The persimmon tree and other stories is available online at the Internet Archive

Monday musings on Australian literature: 1937 in fiction

/ Whispering Gums / 30 Comments

Once again it’s Karen’s (Kaggsy’s Bookish Rambling) and Simon’s (Stuck in a Book) “Year Club” week. This time the year is 1937, and it runs from today, 15th to 21st April. As I’ve been doing for a while now, I am devoting my Monday Musings to the week.

If the 1960s, from which our last “year” came, were exciting for many of us, the late 1930s were very different, particularly for those living in Europe. Of the 1930s, in general, Wikipedia writes that “the decade was defined by a global economic and political crisis that culminated in the Second World War”. For my purposes here, that just about says it all. It certainly provides a flavour for what concerned the major writers of the period. Realist fiction was still in force, and in Australia writers like Marjorie Barnard, Flora Eldershaw, Frank Dalby Davison, Eleanor Dark, and Katharine Susannah Prichard were expressing their ideas about social and economic injustice, for example. Many were pacifists, and many supported or worked for the trade union movement. It was, generally, an unsettled time, here and abroad. (By way of contrast, the best-selling book in the USA in 1937 was, apparently, Gone with the wind! But this was also the time of John Steinbeck, et al!)

I found books published across all forms, but as my focus here is Australian fiction, I’m just sharing a selection of novels published in 1937:

There were very few literary awards at the time, but the ALS Gold Medal went to Seaforth Mackenzie’s The young desire it. He is now among the least known of the authors listed above.

Writers born this year include novelist Colleen McCullough (died 2015) and political scientist and writer Don Aitkin (died 2022). I didn’t find many deaths, but novelist Catherine Martin (born, 1848) died this year.

Finally, also in 1937, the Commonwealth Literature Censorship Board replaced the Book Censorship Advisory Committee. It temporarily lifted the ban on James Joyce’s Ulysses – only to re-apply it again in 1941 after pressure from church groups.

The state of the art

As always, I checked Trove to see what newspapers were saying about Australian literature, fiction in particular. In addition to references to specific books and events, what I found overall was concern about the state of Australian literature, along with discussions about causes and remedies. This is similar to 1936, which I wrote about in my Monday Musings for the 1936 Club, so I’ll try to supplement – rather than repeat – what found then.

One issue discussed several times through the year concerned the importance of a good critical culture, so that’s my focus for this post. The Telegraph (14 April) took up this issue, arguing that the “leading articles” papers publish at the end of the week, versus the reviews published during the week, make a “considered contribution” to “strengthening … literary values among the numerous readers who look to the daily Press for guidance among a vast and ever-changing array of books”. The article comments on the importance not of comparing (“grading”) writers, but of offering

a consideration of their absolute quality as writers. The practice of relative appraisal too often leads to confusion where the authors considered are admittedly worthy of critical study, but derive their literary strength from different sources. The wise newspaper critic of fiction — it is with fiction that for the moment we are primarily concerned — is he who endeavours to establish the qualities which explain his attraction to, or repulsion from, a writer and then evaluates those qualities by the degree and consistency of his own sensibility.

That’s a nice, clear description of criticism – to establish one’s criteria and then evaluate them.

The Telegraph makes the point that Australia is capable of producing good literature. It believes that while achievement is uneven across the different forms, there is “no cause for pessimism about the future of Australian literature”. Indeed, the article says that:

A country that has produced, among living novelists*, Henry Handel Richardson, Vance Palmer, Katherine Susannah Prichard, Miles Franklin, Helen Simpson, the Barnard-Eldershaw combination, and Brian Penton is not deficient in generative power …

And adds that more writers could be added to this list.

Meanwhile, “Norbar” (Dr Norman Bartlett) in The West Australian (7 August) also discussed critical culture, observing that

One of the great disadvantages under which those in Australia who are genuinely interested in national literature suffer is the lack of guidance. Other national literatures have reliable historical and critical signposts. 

His point was that in Great Britain, for example, “reputable literary periodicals, with critical traditions”, help readers make choices. Critics, he admits, “are often wrong, and commercialism has tainted the trade of criticism, but there is a tradition of judgment”. No-one, he says, who is interested in Virginia Woolf would buy books by romance novelist Ethel M. Dell. He then discusses the work of two critics, the American expert on Australia, C. Hartley Grattan, and the Australian, H.M. Green. Speaking of Grattan, Norbar makes an important point about the role of critics:

To accept him as a guide is not to accept his judgments, but he serves the purpose that competent introductions to English literature serve, by erecting signposts in the wilderness of letters.

In other words, it’s not the “absolute” lists of names that are important but the guide they provide to the literary landscape – and, thus, presumably, encouragement for debate.

The final two articles I’ll refer to come from The Age. The first (18 September) is ascribed to R.G. (presumably, the academic and founding editor of Southerly, Robert Guy Howarth), and the second (2 October) is a response from poet and critic, Furnley Maurice (Frank Wilmot), who takes offence at R.G.’s analysis of the state of Australian literature.

R.G. commences by arguing that:

Contrary to the opinions of some critics, Australian literature is not a dependent off-shoot of English literature, but is a vital entity in process of achieving expression of its individuality.

He has very clear opinions about the development of a truly Australian literature, much of which we would agree with now. He talks about its needing to pursue its own course, to be released “from the curb of nineteenth century influences, which have so long entrammelled imagination and held it in subservience to traditional forms and ideas”. While he names some writing that he believes is truly Australian, such as that of Henry Lawson, he believes things have stagnated:

Lack of canonical criticism is responsible to an unfortunate degree for this stagnation, because contemporary Australian criticism stands equivocally in the midst of several schools of thought. A false standard of values has been created by the persistent determination of many commentators to include everything written since Wentworth’s “Australasia” in the category of literature.

Unfortunately, as well as taking criticism to task, he also finds failings in Australian writers! Some have attempted to capture Australian experience, he says, but have failed, and he gives his reasons. These Maurice does not like, so he fights back:

One fact to bear in mind is that the shortcomings of our criticism are as great as the shortcomings of the writing, if not greater. The chief fault of the criticism is one that “R.G.” appears to share — that of making sweeping general statements and giving no particulars. Surely our writers have not all “failed because they lacked technical equipment,” because they “chose banal themes,” or because they “did not possess the basic culture necessary!” Such statements would suggest that “R.G.” has the bad national habit of forming definite opinions before he assembles the facts.

Take that, R.G! He then goes on to identify what he sees as quality Australian literature, and includes* Price Warung, Vance Palmer, Brent of Bin Bin (Miles Franklin), Martin Mills (Martin Boyd), M Barnard Eldershaw, Eleanor Dark and Capel Boake. He challenges R.G. to provide evidence for his statements, and then discusses “the facts” as he sees them, identifying the “difficulties” and “practical conditions” under which Australian writers “must work”.  

He is pleased though that ‘”R.G.” supports a proper national principle in writing even if he has not much to say for the work done to date’. 

While I think Maurice over-reacted somewhat, as R.G. makes some good sense, both writers have something useful to add to the debate, and if you are interested, the articles make good reading. Meanwhile, I will close here – but may very well write a second post next Monday.

* Links are to my post/s on these writers.

Sources

  • 1937 in Australian Literature (Wikipedia)
  • Joy Hooton and Harry Heseltine, Annals of Australian literature, 2nd ed. OUP, 1992

Previous Monday Musings for the “years”: 1929, 1936, 1954, 1940 and 1962.

Do you plan to take part in the 1937 Club – and if so how?

Shankari Chandran, Chai time at Cinnamon Gardens (#BookReview)

/ Whispering Gums / 29 Comments

Shankari Chandran’s Miles Franklin Award winning novel, Chai time at Cinnamon Gardens, was my reading group’s March book. Unfortunately I was out of town at the time of the meeting, but of course I wanted to read it – and I did, finally!

Like many people, I think, when I first saw the book, I assumed it was one of those cosy crime novels set in a nursing home or retirement village. The title and the pretty cover certainly suggest that. Only a fraction of this first impression was right, though. It is set in a nursing home, and crimes do occur, but it is not a crime novel and nor is it cosy. Instead, it is a serious, thoughtful and immersive novel that covers many issues confronting modern multicultural Australia, but that also has one main driving idea – which I’ll get to soon.

First, though, I want to clear up another assumption I had, which was that Chandran is a Sri Lankan-Australian writer. Wikipedia told me otherwise. It describes her as a British-Australian writer, who was born in London to Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka. She grew up in Canberra, and studied law at the University of New South Wales, before working as a human rights lawyer in London for a decade. She now lives in Sydney. Chai time at Cinnamon Gardens is her third novel. GoodReads describes her first novel, Song of the Sun God (2017), as being “about three generations of Australian Tamil women and the choices they make to survive Sri Lanka’s civil war“. I don’t know what that novel’s overarching idea is, but Chai time at Cinnamon Gardens also draws from its main characters’ experiences during that civil war, and I do have a view on what drives it, so let’s get to the novel.

It is set in the Cinnamon Gardens Nursing Home in a fictional Sydney suburb called Westgrove, which situates it in Sydney’s multicultural western suburbs. The home is taken over in the early 1980s by Sri Lankan migrants, Cedric, Zakhir, and his wife Maya who wants to transform it to a place “where people will be valued”. The novel is told through multiple alternating voices, but starts with a Prologue which describes the home and which, if you read carefully, also prepares us for what’s to come:

Arabian jasmine climbs the wooden trellises staked in the garden beds. They are bold travellers, dark vines carrying white stars up the two-storey walls and around the windows of the residence. The plant grows obediently in the quiet suburb of Westgrove, Sydney, but its tropical ancestors are a wild breed, a vine that grows rampant in the villages of Sri Lanka, a home more familiar to many of the residents.

“Bold travellers”, “dark vines”, and “white stars” together with words like “obediently” and “wild” suggest a tension that we are going to explore.

We then start the narrative proper. It’s 2020, and Maya is now old and living as a resident in the home – albeit one who still holds many strings. Ruben is attending her, and we become aware that he bears fresh and old scars on his body. As the narrative progresses, we learn that the fresh scars come from recent racist attacks on him in the vicinity of the home, while the old scars relate to his experiences in Sri Lanka during the war. These scars more literally embody the tensions that pervade the novel.

From here, the rest of our narrators, all third person, are gradually introduced – Ruben; Maya’s daughter Anjali (Anji), who now manages the home; Anji’s old schoolfriend Nikki, who is the home’s geriatrician; and Nikki’s husband Gareth, who is white-Australian and a local councillor. There are other characters, including, most significantly, Anji’s also white-Australian husband, Nathan, and Maya’s aforementioned husband, Zakhir who disappeared, now presumed dead, ten years before the novel’s opening.

A strength of the novel is the way these characters inveigle their way into our hearts and minds so that we care about them, even the unappealing Gareth who, blinded by self-pity, rashly but unintentionally unleashes the dreadful drama that unfolds. It all hinges on racism. Chandran exposes the awful truth of how endemic racism is in Australian society and how, as a result, things can so quickly get out of hand. Interspersed with this present-day storyline are Maya’s, Ruben’s and Zakhir’s backstories, which explain why they had come to Australia – personally, in terms of what they had experienced during the civil war, and politically, in terms of their Tamil heritage and what that civil war was about.

I said at the beginning that the novel covers many issues which confront modern Australia, but that it also has one main driving idea. The issues include racism, colonialism, and multiculturalism; trauma, loss and grief; friendship, family and community; and the role played by the media, including social media, in fuelling emotions rather than encouraging reason. Underpinning these issues is the idea that drives the narrative – storytelling, and “the most powerful” of all stories, history. By framing her story within the Sri Lankan civil war and its battle over contested histories, Chandran makes her novel relevant to all cultures and societies where history has been used to oppress minorities resulting in violence, disempowerment and oppression, where distortion produces misinformation and confusion that can be manipulated to serve personal and political ends.

As grim and confronting as much of it is, Chai time at Cinnamon Gardens is not without hope. Alongside Chandran’s exploration of the misuse of history is a commitment to the positive value of story. To this end Maya, from the beginning, interviews all residents of the home, capturing their lives and their dreams in order to properly know and care for them. This provides the book with another underlying tension, that between histories that erase and stories that “must not be erased”.

Does it all work? Chandran holds a lot of balls in the air. Early on I felt caught in an awkward amalgam of a contemporary novel about middle class angst (husband versus wife, daughter versus mother, and so on) and one exploring critical political ideas. Also, there’s constant moving backwards and forwards in place and time, the plot felt a little contrived in places, and the main themes are hammered home. However, Chandran balances the tone well, mixing light humour and satire with sadness and tragedy, and the characters are vividly and sympathetically drawn. The end result is a book that reveals our essence, and asks us to consider how we might live together in respectful community. Consequently, despite some unevenness, I greatly enjoyed the read.

Shankari Chandran
Chai time at Cinnamon Gardens
Ultimo: Ultimo Press, 2022
360pp.
ISBN: 9781761151408