Welcome to the column where you provide the content. American novelist Lionel Shriver, whose speech on identity politics in fiction at the Brisbane Writers Festival prompted Yassmin Abdel-Magied’s famous walkout, accused the festival of lying when it suggested she had gone off-topic on a ‘crazed rant’. She also warned that the crime of ‘cultural appropriation’ levelled at novelists who write about cultures other than their own would, if unchecked, reduce fiction to the status of memoir. Rosemary was appropriate:
“Can we still eat pizza if we are not Italian? Wear a cheongsam if we are not Chinese?
Speak French if we are born English speaking? Swim if we are not a fish?
“Copying used to be the highest form of flattery and only plagiarism a crime. Female authors used to write under pseudonym when to publish one had to be male and what a wealth of literature we have as a result of their courage. Any form of literary censorship based on identity politics starves the world.”
Howard’s way:
“Having a mixture of French and Scots and New Zealand grand and great grandparental heritage, I am not sure if I can chuck either haggis or frog legs onto the hangi? Confusing stuff really.”
Brett was bothered:
“The logical extension of this concept is that novels in English should only be written by the English, others should write only in their native language … lets see how their book sales go then.”
Peter protested:
“I agree, fiction is fiction, you should be able to write about anything you want in any area. Every published new novel is essentially a cultural experiment. If people don’t like its story and/or its proponents they can freely elect not to buy and read it. Just like I won’t be buying and reading YAM’s book.”
Jason said:
“I always find it fascinating that those most outraged about cultural appropriation tend to speak English, reside in the Anglosphere, bear Anglicised names and rant at length about the injustices they suffer in English to English-speaking audiences. (Often being paid well to do so in those currencies most common in English-speaking countries). Just saying.”
John explained:
“Ah but they have that covered. The academic — rather than commonsense — definition of cultural appropriation states that because of structural privilege/discrimination etc oppressed minorities benefiting from western civilisation is not cultural appropriation. Crazy but true.”
Dara declared:
“Having read Ms Shriver’s fiction, I vote her as one of the best fiction writers … I also agree with her view on cultural appropriation.”
Paul K reckoned:
“The mob who rail against ‘cultural appropriation’ are the same mob that insist that people can identify in whatever way they like.”
Noel noted:
“Imagine that Thomas Keneally, who actually wrote about poor old Jimmy Blacksmith who was an Aboriginal axe murderer. How dare TK do that! How could he possibly know the cultural impulses that drove the poor man to such lengths. How dare he appropriate JB’s culture like that for the enjoyment of his readers?”
Mea culpa, said Mary:
“Lionel Shriver, I am so sorry for your treatment by our self styled ‘intellectual class’. Attending a Writer’s Festival or any other allegedly public ‘intellectual’ event in Australia is to walk into the lion’s den. Your analogy about big game hunting is so true except that it is the lions that are doing the hunting.
“There are few if any public intellectuals in Australia and any that do dare to show their heads above the parapet are quickly dealt with. Please realise that Writer’s Festivals are not events as you might expect and as they can be in more sophisticated world centres. Rather, in Australia, they are tribal gatherings were participants meet to confirm each other’s prejudices and to firm up current orthodoxies. So much of this is reflected in Australian writing and drama. So really, you are wise to not return for there is nothing to see or hear here that you will find in any way elucidating.”
John offered:
“Lionel Shriver, you are heroic. The world is so much better when people of courage such as you act as beacons of hope. We are in the midst of surely the worst and most oppressive conformity that has come upon the West since the Puritans of centuries ago, who enforced their cruel regime of pretend piety on a suffering society. I love your fiction and your factual writing and speaking. Please don’t stop and don’t let those terrible scolding contemporary figures in their metaphorical tall stovepipe hats win the day! Let us lay them to waste on the cultural battlefield, we happy few!”
Will brought up the bard:
“The most celebrated English writer of all time, Shakespeare has his writing full of cultural appropriation and plagiarisms and that doesn’t reduce him as a cultural icon. These jealous protectors of identity need to get a life and some guts to compete in an open and free society. Are they so insecure in themselves that they need to close down speech, ideas and thinking, to carve out a zone of protection and isolated cultural self approbation.”
Nigel wondered:
“Have they banned To Kill a Mockingbird yet?”
Linda said:
“They tried pretty hard to ban the sequel, published more recently, Go Set a Watchman, for reasons which will become obvious if you read it. I wish someone had warned Lionel about Q&A and its propensity to set up targets.”
Katrina concurred:
“I guess Harper Lee couldn’t write To Kill a Mockingbird today. Conrad, Kipling, even Shakespeare — all to be put in the dustbin.”
Peter’s predicament:
“Should we boycott West Side Story because its authors appropriate the Puerto Rican experience? And Othello because Shakespeare was white? Or James Baldwin because some of his novels feature non-black characters?”
Glass half full for Wendy:
“On a positive note perhaps we will see less novels with so many minority characters and alternative lifestyles jammed into them that the plot and story line comes a poor, convoluted second. To most (hopefully) readers of these substandard novels full of superficial virtue signalling are patronising and tedious and to the unwary they are indoctrination. Under the left’s ludicrous requirements there would have to be multiple writers for each novel — each representing a minority based character in the book. I look forward to novels where characters are there for a reason and crucial to the story.”
—
Chris Kenny took the ABC’s Media Watch to task for it’s “eye-popping” and “damning” attacks on The Australian from “award-winning” former News Corp reporters and editors, which turned out to be a mild whinge from a former editor who would buy the paper if he still lived in the country, and clearly partisan attacks by three former journalists who were then actively campaigning for either the union movement, the Labor Party or both. Tim tutted:
“It is amazing isn’t it that once an organisation attaches itself to public purse it is inevitably drawn further to the left. So let’s cut it loose and get it to compete in the marketplace. If it is true that is ‘our’ ABC then I am sure its avoid supporters will put their hands in their pockets, rather than other people’s pockets, to see it continue and grow?”
Rhonda reasoned:
“The only way a left wing organisation such as the ABC can survive is on other people’s money, because they are only ideologically supported by a minority, albeit a very noisy one. The majority are conservative minded, their first priority is their family and they don’t have time or inclination for the various side issues, gender dysphoria, refugees rights, climate ‘emergency’ etc that the left just love to spend their time worrying about.
“If the ABC had to survive on their supporters’ subscriptions they would fold, as other left wing publications that couldn’t access taxpayer funds have done. The left have been smart in recent decades by infiltrating/infesting? government bureaucracies, academia etc so they can push their ideologies while being supported by the majority who do not share their obsessions.”
C’s view:
“I listen to RN and ABC news radio for a short time most days — only to hear what the current left/green talking points and pointless rants are. Then I read The Australian and a number of other online news outlets to get the real news, the critical details omitted by the ABC, and differing, more balanced points of view.
“Read them all. Listen to them all. Understand the mindset of each source. Do your own research — and form your own opinions. Simple.”
Peter posited:
“Yes this is true to form for the ABC I’ve noted for some years now. It’s more this omission element that is the ABC’s modus operandi than outright miss-truths. They are a little more subtle in that they more cherry pick the news that fits with their social agenda, and omit that which diverges, challenges or refutes it.
“So instead of reporting a wide spectrum of issues with objectivity and balance, as one would expect from a publicly funded media organisation, the ABC has immersed itself into one giant organism of social manipulation.
“It’s done this by inventing a bubble-space of unreality for the idealistic, the naive and those inculcated with progressiveness and mealy-mouthed ‘inclusivity’, and employed many of this ilk, so that fringe and minority interests dominate its service provision at the expense of journalistic excellence and the interests of the mainstream public in general.
“Under this guise they are receiving taxpayers funds under false pretences as they have strayed so far from the requirements of their own charter of conduct. We’re being sold a pup.”
—
The Mocker came down from the mount for a sermon on the somewhat malleable gospel and strange passions of Saint Kristina Keneally, who invoked the story of the good Samaritan as reason to let a Tamil family set to be deported stay. Ernie read from the book of Albo:
“Why quote the bible when you can simply quote Keneally’s own boss: ‘If you come to Australia by boat without a visa, you will not be settled in Australia’.”
Arjuna was amused:
“Keneally is the gift that keeps giving to the Coalition — she lacks judgment, grace, diplomacy and intellect to be in such a high profile job — she should have sought the wilderness (like Hillary) when she was so comprehensively thrashed as NSW Premier.”
F held forth:
“I like Keneally, she is the political canary in the coal mine. When she starts squawking just go in the other policy direction and you’ll be right.”
Grassy grumbled:
“I don’t have a problem with people from Sri Lanka settling in Australia. I have a problem with people being untruthful about the circumstances that brought them here.”
John’s prophecy:
“Didn’t Folau get into a load of strife for quoting (paraphrasing) the Bible?”
Elizabeth’s view:
“This whole affair is not about compassion. It is about trying to embarrass the government.
Were it about compassion, there are so many areas in our communities needing genuine compassion and help, yet Anthony Albanese and Kristina Keneally are silent and inactive.”
Scott said:
“If they returned to Sri Lanka and applied formally (with plenty of people willing to sponsor them) they’re chances to migrate would probably be good.”
Last reading from Robert:
“The good Samaritan helped the Levite man until he was well enough to continue his journey home. Seems to me Australians have emulated the story.”
—
Each Friday the cream of your views on the news rises and we honour the voices that made the debate great. To boost your chances of being featured, please be pertinent, pithy and preferably make a point. Solid arguments, original ideas, sparkling prose, rapier wit and rhetorical flourishes may count in your favour. Civility is essential. Comments may be edited for length.
A billion-dollar brain fade
The AFL is fighting to dissolve a landmark class action, even as stories of long-term trauma and tragic deaths expose the game’s hidden toll — especially for women.
Defence study is a wake-up call
Lifting defence spending is not about placating Donald Trump. It is about serving Australia’s interests. An allied, fortified stronghold in the north would protect the nation.