The panel for this special Melbourne Writers Festival edition of Q&A consisted of some of the attending writers. I’ve listed their works that were mentioned. I hadn’t read any but didn’t find that a barrier to following the discussion. All of the authors except for Malalai Joya are Australian.
Panellists
Don Watson, former speechwriter for Paul Keating. A Portrait of Paul Keating PM.
Kate Grenville, The Secret River.
Anna Funder, former international lawyer who has worked in Berlin. Stasiland: Stories from Behind the Berlin Wall and All That I Am
Malalai Joya, former Afghan parliamentarian who has written her memoir together with Canadian writer Derrick O’Keefe in a book entitled (in Australia) Raising My Voice.
Omar Musa, Rapper and poet. My Generation.
Kate Grenville provided the grubbiness quote that is part of this week’s title in her answer relating to Craig Thomson’s alleged activities with prostitutes. This struck a chord with me because it ties in with a commonly recurring theme of people who have made wonderful contributions to humanity and yet have led flawed, sometimes seriously flawed, personal lives.
The central theme of Kate’s book Secret River is Aboriginal-Settler relations. Apparently it has evoked a certain amount of controversy due to two historians that have taken a possibly pedantic exception to its content. The author herself was clear that it is a fictional novel inspired by a history that she describes at one stage as “a bit unpalatable” and says that she does not write with the intention of shifting people’s view of history but “with a view to shifting people’s hearts .. their minds also.” She expressed regret that the issues she wanted to explore are getting masked by discussion about historical accuracy.
Kate also provided the quote: “Someone’s gotta stand up for the Labor Party here”. Well, no. No problems with anyone’s views being informed by their political affiliations, but I felt cheated that many of Kate’s comments were echoes of standard Labor sound bites; if instead they had been personal insights I feel that would have been an altogether different thing.
Don Watson presented his own thoughts in his own words and in his own deadpan manner, and what a joy they all are. Were I to do more than cherry pick from all his worthwhile comments this article would be far too long but I recommend listening to his Q&A answers for the pure enjoyment, particularly the one about political speeches from 46:18 in iView. In his answer related to the public engaging with politics, he drawled “It’s not that I want from politicians inspiring oratory, I actually just want verbs – doing words – I want concrete language rather than abstract language.” I can’t be certain but I had the impression that any slur on English education in our schools that might be imputed from his inclusion of “doing words” in implicit parentheses after “verbs” was purely intentional. He argued that his approach to his biography of Keating was the correct one for him because he believed it to be, a position that might seem superficially shaky but ultimately comes down to artistic integrity.
In relation to politicians and prostitutes Watson made the point that it is not uncommon over the years for even politicians who have done great things politically to have had unconventional sexual histories, a point referred to by Kate Grenville when she made the grubbiness remark. Applying the more general topic of separation of personal behaviour from public worth, Don Watson’s respect for Keating reminds me that at some time I should make the effort to look beyond my dislike of Keating’s vicious personal putdowns.
Omar Musa writes about Gen Y, to the early 80s birthday end of which he belongs. He presented his opinions on all issues with the enthusiasm of youth, but I was impressed that they were well considered opinions. Loved the rap he performed at the end; a poetical series of (male oriented) pithy observations of the 21st century experience of his generation which culminated in a warts and all generational appraisal.
On non-literary questions Anna Funder was quietly spoken although her stated opinions were thought through. She got a bit more animated when discussing her books. She appeared to sympathise with Kate Grenville over the type of controversy that has engulfed her books and expressed a desire to avoid it. To that end made she made it clear that her latest book, although loosely based on a historical event, is a fictional novel and that she makes no claim to knowledge of what really occurred “in a locked room in London in 1935”. She let drop that courage was the central theme of her books and provided some interesting insights into the fallout from her portrayal of the ex-Stasi agents that she interviewed for the earlier book. She mainly left her books to speak for themselves but I got the impression that they have a lot of interesting things to say.
Although Tony Jones made an effort at unification there were essentially two separate but interleaved Qandas today; one about Australia and one about Afghanistan. For this reason I have left Malalai Joya to last. Although in Melbourne for the festival due to having published her memoirs, Malalai Joya is primarily an Afghanistani patriot and activist. Her life has been threatened in response to denouncing the warlords, who include members of the current government. This requires extraordinary courage and commitment. Her views are probably best summarized by her statement that in the Taliban’s time in government “we faced only one enemy, but now, these ten years of occupation, we are facing three enemies: warlords, Taliban, occupation forces. When the troops leave, who stop bombing from the sky … the backbone of these fundamentalist warlords and Taliban will break and our people … will fight to the end against the warlord and the Taliban because of the hatred that they have.” I have to say that this view is hopeful but very bleak as regards the near future.

Hmm, see Australia are 2 for 76 at lunch.
LikeLike
You might be interested in this week’s review Hung, I’ve included quite a lot about the current test.
LikeLike
Er, um, yes. Very good insight, I think
LikeLike
All out 273 and stumps, Hung.
LikeLike
Bring back Katich, Watson into the middle order, Greg Chappel and Jamie Cox in the rubbish bin
LikeLike
Agree and concur there Hung. 3 for 87 I see currently.
LikeLike
Theres hope yet Hung 5 for 87 now.
LikeLike
Them all out 107 sheez
LikeLike
And 6/115 at stumps lucky to see day 4 at this rate.
LikeLike
Thanks for the glimmer of hope, Algie.
LikeLike
Think it will be all over today Voice SL are 2/15 chasing 378 in the 6th over.
LikeLike
Malalai Joya : I have read about her. There is a plenty on the net.
She’s been mention in two articles on The Drum. Well in the dispatches not so much the thrust.
The Drum writers are mere pretenders Voice’n. Next to youse.
LikeLike
Thank youse all.
LikeLike
This article is a nice bit of work, Voice and a lot of work. It takes a lot of will to write an article describing the content of a panel discussion between three writers who you haven’t read. I think it is skilful.
LikeLike
Actually I have read Don Watson, but not that particular book. I would tend to include Omar Musa as a writer too. He performed the poem under discussion so I was able to comment on it directly.
For the other three it wasn’t a critique of their work however, but of their Q&A performance, as well as a summary of their own views of their works.
Still have not caught up with those books though! Should do. Might do. Depending on how things are going.
LikeLike
Would you be able to find the books in your local library, Voice? How well serviced are you in respect of library holdings?
LikeLike
I live in a pretty established area of Sydney, ‘shoe. So as well as anywhere else I should think.
But, if your local library doesn’t have a particular book you can ask them to get it on loan from another one you know. You can also request them to purchase it.
I go through reading phases. To a certain extent it conflicts with work for me, and with Life, since I tend to get absorbed by books.
LikeLike
If only I had known earlier, shoe, I’d have sent them to you. However, I’m told that they are still hanging ’round on the coffee table of the friend to whom I’ve them, so, I’ll be seing that friend on the last weekend of this month for a BBQ and ask what she’s doing with them.
In the meantime, if you do find them in the library, I’d suggest begin with Kate Grenville, and her Secret River, then her Lieutenant, then her (latest) A matter of perfection).
But Mamalai’s book Raising My Voice is nothing short of inspirational and very informative.
I did not enjoy either of Funder’s books, though, I have a feeling I should have. Don’t know why I felt cold about them.
I still have Grenville’s books so, if you like I could send them off to you. Send me an email, solowords@yahoo.com
LikeLike
The question of nobelising a historical figure or event has always been a controversial even vexed one and, I suggest, rightly so. I haven’t read any of these ladies’ books but, rest assured, I have ordered them; so I can’t comment on what they’ve done to whom or what event.
I have some sympathy for what they’re saying, since I’ve tried to do the same thing with ancient Greek backdrops. I’ve no qualms at all with mythologising myths, as I’ve been doing for our symposia, here at the Pig’s Bums -oops, sorry, I meant “Arms”, of course.
But it is one thing to take myths and embellish them, adorn them or engarnish them in some way or ways for some personal reason or reasons. One can find such retellings of mine in one of the back rooms of the pub.
However, when one wishes to use actual events, which, in effect, are facts, or people, who are, in effect real and weave stories around them that will deform the facts and the reality, then one must be able to justify the Judge (above) that no event nor person has been harmed in the retelling of their stories.
The issue becomes quite precarious, particularly when the readers need to have the facts surrounding these events and people as they truly were, since their modern behaviour and relationship with the modern world can be affected. Do you, for example, take the events surrounding Sharon’s involvement in the Sabra and Shatila massacres and retell the story in such a way so as to shows that either the Palestinian refugees or Sharon’s assassins were the heroes?
Of course one should be able to write a love story with those massacres as the setting but do you deform the truth and then claim that you’re simply writing a novel?
The question asked by a teacher about a book which I haven’t read, wherein a young girl, apparently, is treated badly by the Talliban, has considerable merit. To write, is to tell a story, a story, should either be clearly identified as being that concocted and constructed by the imagination or by the facts as they have happened, as accurately as the author can put them. This, I believe should be clearly identifiable by the reader.
But, the opposite side of the argument, I concede, also has much validity, in the court of Zeus’ Justice. “I am a writer, or orator, or twitterer and I evoke my rights to the freedom of speech and so I can say, create and present anything I like.” Or, “I am an Artist (with a capital “A”) and a Creative being (with a capital “C”) and no one should stop Artists or Creative beings from doing anything they want, including deforming, reforming and readjusting historical figures and events, so cop that, sunshine!”
It’s a valid argument but an argument. One of myriads of arguments that should concern a sentient and sensitive world.
LikeLike
I love engarnish. And one of myriad myriads.
LikeLike
You didn’t pick me up on my “evoke” which shoulda been “invoke,” Lordy!
It’s what happens when you’re talking about chooks one minute and civil rights the next. You revoke your rights as a talker!
LikeLike
I haven’t read that story. But whether or not it’s fiction there are plenty of real stories. I’ve heard some at a breakfast for a woman who went over there to teach (I think hydroponic) methods for growing food at home and she relayed some stories from the women. They nearly starved under the Taliban because they couldn’t grow food (can’t remember why not but I think they couldn’t travel without an available male relative and there were plenty of women without one). They weren’t allowed to visit a male doctor and you can guess the number of female doctors.
I think the responsibility to history is met if the author is clear in a preface or appendix about where facts finish and fiction takes over. Not on a sentence by sentence basis of course.
Then again, there can be individual heroes on both sides of any conflict.
Of
LikeLike
There’s absolutely no question about it, Voice. The Taliban are ruthless, uneducated, probably also all illiterate fanatics stuck in a time warp and everyone around them, including what sensible men there might be suffer. Malalai acknowledges this but she has this sense of cautious optimism that the youth -if they are not constantly bombarded by the foreign forces who deal with the Taliban and the warlords- will eventually get their turn on the Koranic Spring. From what I understand, she asks the foreign governments to help them from outside the country and by honest and open means.
I’ve been told by Readings that it’ll probably take a week or so before they get all the books together -I’ve ordered all four- and then I’ll be able to comment on them.
Quite right about how to leave no ambiguity on the genre of the book. Make it absolutely clear in the preface and then there’ll be no reason for any misguided attacks. But there is, as you put it, a “responsibility to history” and it must be taken seriously.
LikeLike
Good piece Voice. But you did miss Funder’s opening sentence which was a complete statement of one of the Liberal Faith. That is why Grenville said what she said. It was a good Q & A but I felt it needed to be longer in time to do justice to the variety of writers present.
I second Atomou’s motion that you continue to write this weekly column. It was a jolly good idea you came up with and so you must stay the course.
LikeLike
That’s very kind of you Viv. I kind of thought from your comment last week that you didn’t see much point.
I know what you’re referring to (Labor pollies entering through the unions) but I don’t object to political opinions per se, just advocating but more particularly advocating by the numbers. Except for the pollies themselves unless they do nothing else, because you have to expect it really.
I gave Don Watson a free pass on Tony Abbott’s underpants after all. But it was context appropriate.
I know it sounds a bit pretentious, but I’m taking the approach that seems best to me and I want to be faithful to it. Then again, correct away, that’s all part of the bigger picture. 🙂
LikeLike
I said Q & A was losing the plot, certainly not the case with your column. I find it interesting to read opinions of others. So, have you decide to continue?
LikeLike
Errrr… yeah… what he said! (I love me dots and me exclamation marks too!)
Onya Voice… thanks for the review; made watching QandA worthwhile… Of all the writers presented, it seems to me that Malalai Joya stood out head and shoulders above the rest. I only hope the rest of Oz was actually listening to what she was saying.
Gotta go now (or soon anyway!); I’m having an ‘ultrasound’ done on my foot this arvo…
🙂
LikeLike
Xcuse me, asty!
I don’t use “exclamation” marks, thank you very much. I use “excAlamation” marks. Far more gorgeous to the eye!
🙂
LikeLike
You’re kind of comparing apples with oranges there asty.
Hope they find the right things in the right places.
LikeLike
There are some contexts in which a comparison of apples and oranges is actually appropriate voice… (for example, if one is discussing the relative merits and vitamin contents of the various fruits…) but of course, one should never forget the bananas…
😉
LikeLike
And as for apples and windows! There’s simply no comparison. Give me an apple and I’ll move the world. Give me a window and I’ll be stuck with an aggravated key… board!
LikeLike
Apropos the show, though… (I love me dots and me excalamation markers!)
I thought it was one of the most engaging qandas I’ve seen for a very long time; and, to be frank, I didn’t expect it to be so engaging, since it comprised a bunch of writers! That’s how wrong one can be about writers! I ate my tongue and slapped the scruff of my neck hurtfully!
Keating, Afganistan, Australian youth and their politicians and writers were the juiciest parts of the show’s fare and everyone presented a splendid offering.
Malalai made the others a little uncomfortable. They knew and understood what she was saying. They admired her immense courage and tried to tell her so but still used, to my observations, mealy mouthed words: But how would the women be treated if the yanks pulled out?
That, to me, is the same argument -utterly unsustainable- the yanks had used with Iraq.
Everyone knows the reason the yanks are there. Oil and the regional security of Israel. Disturb the whole world so that it will be too busy and too disorganised to disobey us. The martial machine in the USA is too powerful and, more importantly, too gluttonous. It has eaten its way into the country’s economy, its vital organs and now cannot be removed. Malalai pointed that out in no uncertain terms and this made all the other, comfortably seated, easy living bourgeoisie, uncomfortable. They are westerners through and through, made their lives in the west and though they might agree with Malalai, they can’t make the appropriate noises, lest the masters of their lives react.
At least that’s how I felt.
I agree with asty that Malalai couldn’t work out what her co-panelists were on about when they were telling her she was “courageous.” Why was she courageous? she would have asked herself. Isn’t this what these people would do in the same situation? Is it a matter of courage or simple survival? A simple pursuit of justice. A simple duty to clear one’s country of of a huge evil. Do these people need decorations of bravery to get off their arse and do what she was doing?
Malalai gave us a very vivid and accurate picture of what’s going on and why, in her country; and a startling exhortation so far as our involvement in Afghanistan, beneath the apron folds of America. “By all means, build hospitals, educate us, open the doors of your schools, your universities and let us in, help us, the people, not the warlords, stop sending bullet fodder over, stop turning us into bullet victims – or simply piss off! Let us have only the enemies we know. They are enough!”
Passionate, true, meaningful entreaties and supplications, all very proudly made.
Keating was and still is a “love him or hate him” man. I hated a number of his policies (though Hawke had his right wing hand in much of what was coming out of that cabinet) but loved what he has done to the brains and hearts of this nation, which, in a word, was to inspire it. To fire it up again, to make it think a little deeper than “the economy,” though, he later reverted to Clinton’s (not you, lad) political aphorism, “it’s the economy stupid” and off went his idealism, the hallmark of the old, Whitlamesque ALP.
He was, in short, someone who raised the dying soul of Oz.
That’s why he got, what must have been the whole audience clapping enthusiastically at the mention of his name.
I loved Watson. Deadpan face, yes but only because his brain was working wildly behind it.
The bit he said about inspirational speeches (I’m working by memory now) was interesting. It was the opposite of what Omar had said afterwards. Watson didn’t want inspirational speeches. He preferred inspirational deeds. Omar thought that people needed such speeches, so that they could be inspired, moved and motivated to do good. I loved that contrast and it made me, still makes me, think. Perhaps a good leader must be able to provide both: speech and deed and this is what we are missing these days.
Thanks again very muchly, Voice, for giving me the opportunity to go over all these loverly stuffs!
LikeLike
My final final Qanda review. Couldn’t pass up the Melbourne Writers Festival offering.
LikeLike
This can’t be your “final final Qanda” review, Voice! It’s just CAN’T be!
You have established a stunning weekly custom of providing the patrons of this pub a bloody good reason for turning up at least once a week!
A reason for the piglets to put their brains into gear while they chew the fat (or granny’s wedges) and slurp Merv’s pink drinks. Your review allows us to go over what was said during the program and to discuss the merits of each utterance -as well as your interpretation of them, per se, as well as per their context. Extremely valuable stuff! My Sunday dinner tables would feel bereft of the best morsel that anyone can provide during a good dinner, the morsel which binds the whole gathering, which turns a dinner into a party: a topic to discuss. This shelter for wayward nutters would no longer be the same!
SO, no, you’re simply not allowed to stop the practice…
But I DO know it requires courage -not the sort that Malalai possesses, but courage nevertheless. Endurance. Strength enough to look at the blank page of a Word document and tap out the first word. Love enough for the act and for us readers out here in the cyber oblivion, to walk across the continents of the show and tell us what you saw, heard and felt. Noble enough to receive the slings and arrows of some truly outrageous critics. Doubtful enough to ask the question, “to be or not to be…”
Shit! I’m going off with my literary fairies again! Sorry!
But, no! Voice, you are hereby ordered, demanded, exhorted and begged on abrased knees, not to stop writing these reviews!
Hear me, Goddess?
M’entendez-vous, mon déesse très, très, très, douce? Vous ne devez pas vous arrêter, Voix!
And THAT’S final!
LikeLike
Vous êtes gentil.
LikeLike