I actually think there’s an economic rationale for the problem you’ve raised in the second part of your post. Most Australian ‘literary’ writers don’t live on the proceeds of their writing. Often they don’t hold down any other job at all – they receive government funding. Rather than repeating myself, I’ll send you across to a post I wrote on Catallaxy on this issue, available here.

Both Journalism and The Arts in Australia have very serious, perhaps terminal, problems. Both have drifted so far from reality and from the needs (as opposed to the wants) of the general public as to lack credibility and relevance.

Your article here mentioned some of the appalling things that the news media had done but there is another aspect – what the news media had failed to report despite either knowing or having a damned good idea of what was happening ….. until they were overwhelmed by the sheer number of cases and then only with more spin than a top! Brezhnev would be so proud of the compliant news media in Soviet Australia today.

Your article shows that The Arts are no better. Ordinary Australians are not cultural slobs they are made out to be but frequently disappointed people who have turned their backs on the shonky literature, dud painting, dodgy film-making and crook music that is always served up to them as Art(??). Why wouldn’t they? Headbanger on the iPod, “The Simpsons” and PlayStation must be like heaven after a dose of The Arts.

Of course I realise now that the link’s all over the internet, so of course people are going to front up and comment… eek. Anyway, if you’re still interested in a response, here goes:

1. Thanks Alice. I’m genuinely sorry I didn’t spot your comment earlier. FWIW I don’t think you’re Weathergirl (that comment was made by others over at Catallaxy). People are entitled to agree to disagree – I do it all the time. The whole planet would be like Iraq’s Sunni Triangle if we didn’t.

2. Anonymous 1: if Erik has a problem with me, he’s welcome to contact me personally, rather than having anonymous randoms post on my blog on his behalf. I’m rather easy to find, at least at work. I should also point out that the great majority of research I did for my abortive Roman novel was mine. And it wasn’t a failure, either (that’s what would have happened had it been published). It was simply crap, so I chucked the lot.

Likewise, I don’t recommend you put words in Andrew Greenwood’s mouth. I don’t, and I haven’t known him since childhood;) At least do him that much courtesy.

Many journalists and one publisher have written explanations/justifications/etc for my ‘behaviour’. This is the only one I’ve ever written.

3. mikey_capital – as with Alice, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I do agree that most sensible lefties adopt the attitude you outline. I’m just too eccentric to ever fit into any ideology that defines itself around groups and group identity. I’ve never been fucked over for being a member of a group, only for being me. That’s probably why I’m libertarian – a very eccentric mix of ‘right wingers’ if ever there was one. That said, please feel free to drop by and visit whenever you’re able to. Rest assured I’ll return the favour.

2. Anonymous 2, thanks for your thoughtful comments. And please don’t consider yourself a philistine because you haven’t read some bloody book. By that logic both my parents and all my siblings were/are philistines too!

WRT my ‘literary life’ expectations, I don’t think I had any proper ones, which may have contributed to my problems longer term. I know I thought I’d meet a lot of people who were as eccentric as me, but (with a few exceptions), this turned out not to be the case. They dressed strangely (often), and seemed to be anti-establishment, but weren’t really.

As for your question about why I can write, well, I have no idea! I just can, and have been able to do so fairly well since about the age of 14.

I’m a philistine who’s never read your novel, and never understood the controversy (nor attempted to).

Just wanted to comment that what’s going to remain with me are the stick insect in the drawer (you were an evil child), the description of your father’s funeral, and the following quote:

“At this point, I really noticed that I just didn’t fit into ‘literary culture’. He was passionate about literature in a way I just couldn’t fathom, speaking about it as though it had the capacity to change the world.”

Would have loved for you to have spoken about where you think your talents come from (writing is easy for you — do you simply credit good genes?).

Would have loved for you to have said more about why exactly you swore off literature (the negative attention? a despair with what it amounts to or achieves?).

And, though you give some hints, would have loved for you to have spelled out what your passion was in the first place. What did you ever want from literature or literary life?

Thanks for making this piece available online!

It’s not that at all. It’s ‘these people are being fucked on’ vs ‘these people are fucking on others.’

The left is not anti semitic. The left is anti people being fucked on.

It’s a shame you left our ideological grouping. At the end of the day the left stands up for standing up for people. The right only does it if it is in their immediate interest to do so – such as political with the neo-cons.

Two questions:

(a) This is about the tenth different justification of your actions that I’ve read; can we expect more, or have you settled on this one as your final story?

(b) Did you ever pay Erik Estensen for all the research he did for you on your failed attempt at a novel set in Ancient Rome?

Incidentally, I have known Andrew Greenwood since childhood and I absolutely agree he is an ornament to the profession. Don’t think the fact that he is a consummate professional in his conduct toward his clients mislead you into thinking he necessarily has liking or respect for them on a personal level.

Helen, given your track record, and having read Robert Manne’s book, and knowing people with whom you went to uni, I read this post with a great deal of skepticism. But when you wrote about the ways journalists distort things, I decided to do what journalists don’t tend to do. That is: suspend skepticism, and accept that some things can be taken at face value. So while my political beliefs are vastly different from yours, I’m sorry for prejudging you. Everyone is entitled to move on from their past mistakes. You’ve served your time in a very public way. And aside from what I see as mischaracterisations of the left (I’ve never met anyone like the people you paint), there’s little here that I find objectionable, and I look forward to reading your future posts.