Small players in the big stakes
Australian Literature is a commodity to be marketed and exchanged, it seems, in the competitive field of global nationalist literatures. But what kind of relationship does Australian literature have to the multiplicity of its individuals? I recently touched upon this subject, amongst others, in a paper I gave at the Asian Australian Writing Workshop in Wollongong. The workshop was attended by a close-knit and supportive group of early-career researchers and academics whose agendas might be more governed by international recruits to Oz Lit Inc.
But if we are to nurture the true diversity which makes our literature vibrant, complex and challenging we need small players and minorities to survive. Coteries might provide us with the image and the content of literary excellence but they can be too frequently sullied by long-standing allegiances or greivances. I think we need more competition and more equality in how the organisations that are fostering diversity are being supported by our funding bodies. It gets tricky when there are insider divisions and rivalries. Sometimes we ask ourselves the question: what has all this got to do with literature?
My guess is there are enough of us who’d like to contest the existing nationalist legacies, the powerful institutionally-backed mergers, with all kinds of strategies. Perhaps we should be more supportive of each other and less concerned with our own achievements. This has to be a community that reaches out and includes more writers, and which fosters that precious commodity, the imagination. It was uplifting to hear Michael Sharkey and Peter Minter speak frankly about this at the Australian Poetry Symposium in Newcastle, with Michael sharing his experience as a teacher.
What concerns me is the denial and the silence, the invisibility behind the packaged facades of such debates, which still adopt euphemisms like “cosmopolitanism” and “complexity”. This might sound polemic but I think we need to confront racism, intolerance, injustice more openly as if they were a pathology, a comorbidity that can and will be addressed. And here’s another gripe, closer to home: why are journals like Mascara Literary Review not being openly supported, given their contribution and reach?
Today I received an email from the Griffith Review, who intend to publish an issue on What is Australia For? to revive the debate on identity. It is encouraging that such a discussion is happening in a lively manner.
Encouraging too, are the editorships of journals like Meanjin, Southerly and Overland. It was good to hear Jacinta Woodhead speak in Newcastle, even though her expertise is not in poetry.
One publication to look out for is Southerly’s Modern Mobilities: Australian Transnational Writing, to be launched on October 12 at 6pm in the Woolley Building.
