Barry Levy's Blog
May 14, 2014
America: First Sightings
The TerroristAFTER six weeks in the Great Satan (my first visit), I have to say (unlike many Americans you meet abroad), Americans generally are the most friendly and helpful people I have ever met. Even in busy New York City, smart-clothed, ambitious looking people will think nothing of stopping to give you directions, while others will listen in to help out as well. Was really amazed. All weekend in NYC you hear sirens going off, day and night, and yet I never saw a single violent incident. On the other hand, on a busy subway, try to sit with your tired tourist legs in a small gap between two people, and invariably one person (I don't know why but always male) will get up in disgust as though you have destroyed all sense of their private space or carry some disease. A strange irony. Go figure.
All my past fears (of arrogant, even belligerent people) instantly dissolved. All I can say, it's hard to believe a people who so easily engage, who are so willing to stop in their tracks and help, and who have this almost uncanny and enviable enthusiasm for life. It bubbles in the streets.
And that's another thing, the service is so good there, you actually want to tip. As the saying goes, and I think they take it seriously: If you can't serve the customer well, someone else will.
The one big shock was the amount of poverty. And believe me, there's a lot of it. Especially arriving in LA: it confronts you like a bleeding head wound. (That Americans can even allow it.) But the poverty was all over, wherever I went, LA, San Francisco, Fort Lauderdale and vicinity, and of course New York City. But in LA it was most visible and confronting, with so many down and outers occupying the public bus system, the streets at the lower ends of town, constantly pushing their dilapidated trolleys in front of them (reminding of Cormack McCarthy's end of days in The Road). And then you are up in the hills, and the great wealth of Beverley Hills provides a clean, electric, almost sickening contrast.
Speaking to Americans it seems to me there is nothing an American despises less than a beggar. Put a guitar in the beggar's hand, give him/her a singing voice, and they'll begin to cough up with their coins. But when a man/woman is seen to be doing nothing they turn their backs. Maybe it's fine, but from what I could see the poverty isn't Obama or George W Bush or the GFC, a lot of it is already inter-generational, and that's when people need help like crazy! (They must be getting it from somewhere to still be alive - but it ain't obvious and it definitely don't look like enough.)
I think I finally grabbed'a hold of the true depth, and meaning, of Americans and their neurotic obsessiveness over individual rights and freedoms. Well, as compared with the nanny state mentality of Australia and most of Europe.
Take Florida as an example. It is not compulsory to wear helmets on motorbikes, no matter the size of the bike. As a result there is nothing funnier than to see a man on a massive 1200cc or similar bike, big barrel chest sticking out over the high or low handlebars (as the case may be), black leather jacket flapping and blowing up to the size of an astronaut in the wind, and a little, creased pink, peanut size head looking ready to crack into a spurting, sanguine red as it meets the black tar on the road.
It looks that dangerous. Not so funny.
A friend from Florida said to me, 'I absolutely agree with this. It's the right of the individual to choose.' I looked at him. And I understood exactly what he meant when he said, 'But you've got to be a bloody idiot not to wear a helmet.'
Oh well... America: full of individuals claiming their right to be free. But also poorer, much less pristine and in good high-tech order than I thought it would be (the streets of New York, for one, are full of potholes, and for another, an older generation like mine are not that tech savvy).
But on the whole, a great, big country. No Satan here. I actually felt at home there. Meeting the people and feeling their gusto for conversation, for breath, for life, you can see why Americans are so inventive, creative, willing to get up and do things, (anything to make a buck, as they say...)
All my past fears (of arrogant, even belligerent people) instantly dissolved. All I can say, it's hard to believe a people who so easily engage, who are so willing to stop in their tracks and help, and who have this almost uncanny and enviable enthusiasm for life. It bubbles in the streets.
And that's another thing, the service is so good there, you actually want to tip. As the saying goes, and I think they take it seriously: If you can't serve the customer well, someone else will.
The one big shock was the amount of poverty. And believe me, there's a lot of it. Especially arriving in LA: it confronts you like a bleeding head wound. (That Americans can even allow it.) But the poverty was all over, wherever I went, LA, San Francisco, Fort Lauderdale and vicinity, and of course New York City. But in LA it was most visible and confronting, with so many down and outers occupying the public bus system, the streets at the lower ends of town, constantly pushing their dilapidated trolleys in front of them (reminding of Cormack McCarthy's end of days in The Road). And then you are up in the hills, and the great wealth of Beverley Hills provides a clean, electric, almost sickening contrast.
Speaking to Americans it seems to me there is nothing an American despises less than a beggar. Put a guitar in the beggar's hand, give him/her a singing voice, and they'll begin to cough up with their coins. But when a man/woman is seen to be doing nothing they turn their backs. Maybe it's fine, but from what I could see the poverty isn't Obama or George W Bush or the GFC, a lot of it is already inter-generational, and that's when people need help like crazy! (They must be getting it from somewhere to still be alive - but it ain't obvious and it definitely don't look like enough.)
I think I finally grabbed'a hold of the true depth, and meaning, of Americans and their neurotic obsessiveness over individual rights and freedoms. Well, as compared with the nanny state mentality of Australia and most of Europe.
Take Florida as an example. It is not compulsory to wear helmets on motorbikes, no matter the size of the bike. As a result there is nothing funnier than to see a man on a massive 1200cc or similar bike, big barrel chest sticking out over the high or low handlebars (as the case may be), black leather jacket flapping and blowing up to the size of an astronaut in the wind, and a little, creased pink, peanut size head looking ready to crack into a spurting, sanguine red as it meets the black tar on the road.
It looks that dangerous. Not so funny.
A friend from Florida said to me, 'I absolutely agree with this. It's the right of the individual to choose.' I looked at him. And I understood exactly what he meant when he said, 'But you've got to be a bloody idiot not to wear a helmet.'
Oh well... America: full of individuals claiming their right to be free. But also poorer, much less pristine and in good high-tech order than I thought it would be (the streets of New York, for one, are full of potholes, and for another, an older generation like mine are not that tech savvy).
But on the whole, a great, big country. No Satan here. I actually felt at home there. Meeting the people and feeling their gusto for conversation, for breath, for life, you can see why Americans are so inventive, creative, willing to get up and do things, (anything to make a buck, as they say...)
February 6, 2014
Sodastream, Oxfam and Scarlett Johansson: Why Scarlett is a starlet
I used to ignore it, but I cannot any longer. Not in the light of the Sodastream/Scarlett Johansson/Oxfam debacle, and as a result I have stopped my monthly, ongoing Oxfam donations. I have done this on a few grounds.
Oxfam is a political organisation although they say they are not. They say they do not support the BDS against Israel but support organisations that do!
The Sodastream factory is in Block C, which under the Oslo Accords is allowed to develop industry, Israeli or Palestinian Arab, that might one day end up as Palestinian. That is all Sodastream is doing. Developing a fair and just business (and giving Palestinians fair and equal-paid work in the process).
Oxfam have many Lefty (New Left) supporters and are too embarrassed to explain this to their supporters -- for fear of losing even more support (among people who do not understand, or do not want to understand and want rather to bleed their hearts for anti-Israel, anti-America causes).
Given the work of Sodastream, its ethic of equality and sense of peaceful economic -- and political -- development, Oxfam should be more Mandela-like in its approach to such a business, that is be conciliatory and even encouraging. As stated, Oxfam is too afraid of its New Left supporters to come anywhere close to doing this. Instead of educating, they are following.
On the other hand, Oxfam ignores politics on the ground in countries such as Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Libya, and just gives to the poor in those areas, whether they are on the oppressive government or pro-democracy or some vigilante, jihadist, anti-government side. It makes no difference to them. Why does it with Israel?
I had a long conversation with an Oxfam publicity person when I gave up my donations -- I appreciated the call-back -- but he patently could not answer these questions -- and wasn't prepared to step outside the Oxfam 'political' line. Which, in the end, he admitted was political.
One more thing, Oxfam say Israeli occupation in the West Bank is keeping Palestinians in poverty.
This is a blatant and dangerous lie. When the West Bank was under the occupation of Jordan it was kept dirt poor (and the world said and did nothing, not even about the occupation).
Even if wrong in principle, Palestinians are much better off under Israeli occupation than they were before.
Not only that, it is dangerous to let a people who were always poor, and who don't have great resources to become rich, believe, in an area where Israel had to build its agricultural and industrial mansion out of a desert, that they will suddenly become wealthy and well-to-do when Israel ends the occupation. It is propaganda at its worst. Almost violently short-sighted.
Scarlett Johansson, no matter the money that may be involved, has done the Mandela-like thing. The world needs more of her. Certainly Israel, Palestinians and the Middle East in general do!
The Terrorist
Oxfam is a political organisation although they say they are not. They say they do not support the BDS against Israel but support organisations that do!
The Sodastream factory is in Block C, which under the Oslo Accords is allowed to develop industry, Israeli or Palestinian Arab, that might one day end up as Palestinian. That is all Sodastream is doing. Developing a fair and just business (and giving Palestinians fair and equal-paid work in the process).
Oxfam have many Lefty (New Left) supporters and are too embarrassed to explain this to their supporters -- for fear of losing even more support (among people who do not understand, or do not want to understand and want rather to bleed their hearts for anti-Israel, anti-America causes).
Given the work of Sodastream, its ethic of equality and sense of peaceful economic -- and political -- development, Oxfam should be more Mandela-like in its approach to such a business, that is be conciliatory and even encouraging. As stated, Oxfam is too afraid of its New Left supporters to come anywhere close to doing this. Instead of educating, they are following.
On the other hand, Oxfam ignores politics on the ground in countries such as Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Libya, and just gives to the poor in those areas, whether they are on the oppressive government or pro-democracy or some vigilante, jihadist, anti-government side. It makes no difference to them. Why does it with Israel?
I had a long conversation with an Oxfam publicity person when I gave up my donations -- I appreciated the call-back -- but he patently could not answer these questions -- and wasn't prepared to step outside the Oxfam 'political' line. Which, in the end, he admitted was political.
One more thing, Oxfam say Israeli occupation in the West Bank is keeping Palestinians in poverty.
This is a blatant and dangerous lie. When the West Bank was under the occupation of Jordan it was kept dirt poor (and the world said and did nothing, not even about the occupation).
Even if wrong in principle, Palestinians are much better off under Israeli occupation than they were before.
Not only that, it is dangerous to let a people who were always poor, and who don't have great resources to become rich, believe, in an area where Israel had to build its agricultural and industrial mansion out of a desert, that they will suddenly become wealthy and well-to-do when Israel ends the occupation. It is propaganda at its worst. Almost violently short-sighted.
Scarlett Johansson, no matter the money that may be involved, has done the Mandela-like thing. The world needs more of her. Certainly Israel, Palestinians and the Middle East in general do!
The Terrorist
June 27, 2013
Keeping Away from Mr Rabbit
She fights for the underdog, the worker, modern families, pensioners, the disabled, cares more about education and climate change than arguably any other prime minister, has passed more legislation through a belligerent parliament than any could imagine, has made a couple of missteps on the way, but I can't understand why Julia Gillard has become the most maligned Australian leader - now dumped - in the history of Australia.
Remember three years ago when Labor was in the same position as it is now, and they dumped K'07? Well now the positions are reversed - though, note, NO talk of 'knifing'. Well, in that election Gillard snatched victory from the jaws of a terrible defeat. Let's see if K13 can produce the same - and without the snitching he amply provided against his own mate.
Whatever happens, reality being reality being reality, Australians owe it to themselves to stay well away from Mr Rabbit!
The Terrorist
Remember three years ago when Labor was in the same position as it is now, and they dumped K'07? Well now the positions are reversed - though, note, NO talk of 'knifing'. Well, in that election Gillard snatched victory from the jaws of a terrible defeat. Let's see if K13 can produce the same - and without the snitching he amply provided against his own mate.
Whatever happens, reality being reality being reality, Australians owe it to themselves to stay well away from Mr Rabbit!
The Terrorist
February 21, 2013
Story-telling at its incisive best: An insight into the Jewish psyche
What We Talk About When We Talk About Anne Frank by Nathan EnglanderMy rating: 5 of 5 stars
One of the most valuable, insightful collections of stories I have ever read. Englander gets into the contemporary Jewish Diaspora psyche on a grand scale. He also well understands the 'new' -- orthodox -- Israeli one. The weave of the social and political relevance of the stories is sheer genius, just as is the incisive humour and epic sense of emotion that gives the book its intellectual drive. Actually, the stories have the feel of mini novels about them (okay, yes, novellas). Whatever, his exploration of the human condition, particularly the Jewish one, is achieved through contemporary Jewish society and dreams, exploring, among other things, a well known but little explored Jewish condition -- hard-headedness. This particularly comes through in Sister Hills, and is a condition that afflicts the politics of the extreme right just as much (incidentally) as it does the 'principled' extreme left. "... the depth of his feelings is what separates him from just about everyone," as David Eggers puts it on the back cover of this book of stories that, in their portrayal of futility, remind of Babel and Singer.
View all my reviews
January 16, 2013
A Journalist-Philosopher Unafraid to Look at the Angles of Truth
Who Killed Daniel Pearl? by Bernard-Henri LévyMy rating: 4 of 5 stars
Indeed, who did kill and cut up into ten pieces Daniel Pearl, the Jewish-American journalist on assignment in Pakistan in 2002, this book asks. And, more deeply, why? Who were the fundamentalists behind this foul and appalling deed? Levy creates an intriguing insight, especially into the murky, brutal, Islamist world of Pakistan, and indeed into some western Muslims who enthusiastically get caught up in this darkness.
Unfortunately, sympathy for these fanatics comes all too often from the world's New Left who, like the fundamentalists they end up aligning themselves with, hold this exact view: 'We don't care what America does or doesn't think, because the crime isn't thought, the crime is America.' -- And one might add, 'being a Jew!' Yes, Pearl was murdered for this.
'Can't we hear behind this... the voice of another infamy?' Levy asks, and rightfully points to the (left wing and fundamentalist) neo-fascism of our times.
Finally, and sinisterly, as Levy concludes: 'Daniel Pearl is dead, victim of neo-anti-Judaism that is blossoming before our eyes.' The world was warned more than two and half decades ago of this precise re-occurrence; this books marks another, scary, contemporary warning.
View all my reviews
Who Killed Daniel Pearl?
A Dog Named Mia
Hope Street, Jerusalem by Irris MaklerMy rating: 2 of 5 stars
This is one-dimensional (romantic) memoir-journalism, making clichéd and populist judgements and analyses on Israel and Palestinian issues, if indeed analyses you can call it. Moreover, once the author gets her new dog, unfortunately fairly early on in the book (and after a good opening chapter or two), the book may as well be called, 'Me and My Adventures with a Dog Named Mia'.
View all my reviews
Hope Street, Jerusalem
May 21, 2012
What is Wrong With Julia?
What is wrong with Julia?
Actually nothing.
I see in front of me - nightly - a woman who is articulate, who can talk on every subject (even though she sometimes in the past claimed a lack of expertise), a person who does not need notes to make sometimes long and involved points like so many other leaders in the modern world. A person who is quick-witted and sharp-brained.
No matter what everyone says, she inspires me. Despite her stand against gay marriage (not every leader is going to get it right on everything - so, get used to it. At least she has opened the possibilities for that particular right. Which is more than one can say of many certain others.
She even dresses well. She always looks good and clever and fresh-faced to me. Although it wouldn't really matter to me if she dressed in rags and looked like a haggard Orc-witch.
I think she looks swell for the job, unlike Germaine Greer, who has suddenly become a fashionista, and thinks Julia should do away with certain items of clothing, and that it is okay for our sexual moral code to be guided by the Koran. A person who we know would burn the sexual moral code of the Judeo-Christian Bible (see Q and A: 19 March 2012). So, I definitely do not think that is a reference point.
On policy, against the odds, and in partnership with others, Julia has delivered. Delivered, delivered, delivered. Carbon tax, carbon tax rebates for the less well off, mining tax, disability support, education, workers' rights and employment security, incentives for business, updated and near universal Internet coverage, dental care. And she is still delivering.
No, there is nothing wrong with Julia. It is voters. An electorate that is head in the sand stubborn, mingy of pocket, and that stands on such high and mighty principles that it cannot see the cargo ships for the Great Barrier Reef. No wonder Abbott and the LNP appeal (see, for example, the latest Queensland election).
There is something rotten in the State of Oz. It is the electorate, the electorate, the electorate.
As If!
Actually nothing.
I see in front of me - nightly - a woman who is articulate, who can talk on every subject (even though she sometimes in the past claimed a lack of expertise), a person who does not need notes to make sometimes long and involved points like so many other leaders in the modern world. A person who is quick-witted and sharp-brained.
No matter what everyone says, she inspires me. Despite her stand against gay marriage (not every leader is going to get it right on everything - so, get used to it. At least she has opened the possibilities for that particular right. Which is more than one can say of many certain others.
She even dresses well. She always looks good and clever and fresh-faced to me. Although it wouldn't really matter to me if she dressed in rags and looked like a haggard Orc-witch.
I think she looks swell for the job, unlike Germaine Greer, who has suddenly become a fashionista, and thinks Julia should do away with certain items of clothing, and that it is okay for our sexual moral code to be guided by the Koran. A person who we know would burn the sexual moral code of the Judeo-Christian Bible (see Q and A: 19 March 2012). So, I definitely do not think that is a reference point.
On policy, against the odds, and in partnership with others, Julia has delivered. Delivered, delivered, delivered. Carbon tax, carbon tax rebates for the less well off, mining tax, disability support, education, workers' rights and employment security, incentives for business, updated and near universal Internet coverage, dental care. And she is still delivering.
No, there is nothing wrong with Julia. It is voters. An electorate that is head in the sand stubborn, mingy of pocket, and that stands on such high and mighty principles that it cannot see the cargo ships for the Great Barrier Reef. No wonder Abbott and the LNP appeal (see, for example, the latest Queensland election).
There is something rotten in the State of Oz. It is the electorate, the electorate, the electorate.
As If!
April 25, 2012
Militarising a State's Culture
The decline of literature indicates the decline of a nation. - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
A million dollars may not be a lot of money over three years to send 50 students to ANZAC Cove in Gallipoli and the Western Front, as announced by Queensland Premier Campbell Newman, but it is a fortune, not only in physical wealth but in cultural capital and vitality, when weighed against the same Premier's virtual assassination of the annual state literary awards valued at $230,000 a year.
Where the one will foster a nation's history and tradition of military sacrifice, the other will eat blood out of a creative culture that stands at the heart of any state, nation, society and its ultimate remembrances and progress.
It tells us a lot about where Premier Newman is going - and where he is taking the state.
I happen to be one of those, a writer, who supports maintaining the tradition of military remembrance. But I do so in the hope that by remembering, by telling from year to year the tales of sacrifice and bloodshed and cruelty and power-hunger and forceful empire and ideology spreading, we can also learn there are better ways of going about our lives and spreading our ideas.
One of those ways, possibly one of the biggest and most essential ways, is through the arts and literature, the colourful matter people see hanging on walls, in churches and institutions, and the pages they read in books in the hopes of gaining an insight into our common humanity, its failings and possibilities.
Therefore when a man as powerful as the Premier makes his first act of governance the deselecting of a literary award, no matter how elitist the award, I take exception. We should all take exception.
Not only that, but when the million dollars for remembrance is announced in a state where the commitment is to smashing all debt - and comes at a time when the federal government has announced it is putting upwards of $80 million over the next three years for exactly the same reasons - it means only one thing that probably everyone (except the dead) already knows - we're winding back down the trail (impossible as it may seem) of the Bjelke years.
The obscenity, the starkness of such a manoeuvre is made all the more brutal when one considers that in putting to death the Queensland literary awards, the Premier in all his strategic intelligence, and with all his tunnelling and engineering skills, did not even offer to think about other ways of doing it: Eg, reducing the awards money, or even better still, putting a mere $50,000 or so of it away as grants money to both writers and publishers.
No, instead, like the military man he is, he just stood up, marched onto the podium and trampled on the awards, giving no thought to how money can be saved without trashing the works.
If you are living in Queensland and are worried, you should be. It should also be of concern if you are living in other states. Not only is Mr Newman a cultural insult to us all but he wields great influence over other states.
Unfortunately, the new law of our jungle, means that the Premier is going to have to be stood up to (it seems by a small minority left over from those who thought it more important to teach Anna Bligh a lesson) and that everything decent and uplifting in our 'great state' is once again going to have to be fought for.
For a man who claims to stand in the 'liberal' tradition and foster a sense of passing on the important lessons and battles of our history from one generation to another, it seems there is only one strand in that thinking: the military and the engineering of militaristic precision. The jackboot as language and literature.
As a born and thoroughbred Queenslander said to me: How are these kids (out to garner Mr Newman's ANZAC remembrance awards) going to write their submissions? By the time they do so, there will be no language or literature left in the state. Except maybe for the curt vocabulary of military command.
Put a little more prettily, Mr Newman, if you are listening, in the words of mathematician, educationist and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead: It is in literature that the concrete outlook of humanity receives its expression.
Unfortunately, we here in Queensland, are going to be left with nothing more than the concrete.
As If!
A million dollars may not be a lot of money over three years to send 50 students to ANZAC Cove in Gallipoli and the Western Front, as announced by Queensland Premier Campbell Newman, but it is a fortune, not only in physical wealth but in cultural capital and vitality, when weighed against the same Premier's virtual assassination of the annual state literary awards valued at $230,000 a year.
Where the one will foster a nation's history and tradition of military sacrifice, the other will eat blood out of a creative culture that stands at the heart of any state, nation, society and its ultimate remembrances and progress.
It tells us a lot about where Premier Newman is going - and where he is taking the state.
I happen to be one of those, a writer, who supports maintaining the tradition of military remembrance. But I do so in the hope that by remembering, by telling from year to year the tales of sacrifice and bloodshed and cruelty and power-hunger and forceful empire and ideology spreading, we can also learn there are better ways of going about our lives and spreading our ideas.
One of those ways, possibly one of the biggest and most essential ways, is through the arts and literature, the colourful matter people see hanging on walls, in churches and institutions, and the pages they read in books in the hopes of gaining an insight into our common humanity, its failings and possibilities.
Therefore when a man as powerful as the Premier makes his first act of governance the deselecting of a literary award, no matter how elitist the award, I take exception. We should all take exception.
Not only that, but when the million dollars for remembrance is announced in a state where the commitment is to smashing all debt - and comes at a time when the federal government has announced it is putting upwards of $80 million over the next three years for exactly the same reasons - it means only one thing that probably everyone (except the dead) already knows - we're winding back down the trail (impossible as it may seem) of the Bjelke years.
The obscenity, the starkness of such a manoeuvre is made all the more brutal when one considers that in putting to death the Queensland literary awards, the Premier in all his strategic intelligence, and with all his tunnelling and engineering skills, did not even offer to think about other ways of doing it: Eg, reducing the awards money, or even better still, putting a mere $50,000 or so of it away as grants money to both writers and publishers.
No, instead, like the military man he is, he just stood up, marched onto the podium and trampled on the awards, giving no thought to how money can be saved without trashing the works.
If you are living in Queensland and are worried, you should be. It should also be of concern if you are living in other states. Not only is Mr Newman a cultural insult to us all but he wields great influence over other states.
Unfortunately, the new law of our jungle, means that the Premier is going to have to be stood up to (it seems by a small minority left over from those who thought it more important to teach Anna Bligh a lesson) and that everything decent and uplifting in our 'great state' is once again going to have to be fought for.
For a man who claims to stand in the 'liberal' tradition and foster a sense of passing on the important lessons and battles of our history from one generation to another, it seems there is only one strand in that thinking: the military and the engineering of militaristic precision. The jackboot as language and literature.
As a born and thoroughbred Queenslander said to me: How are these kids (out to garner Mr Newman's ANZAC remembrance awards) going to write their submissions? By the time they do so, there will be no language or literature left in the state. Except maybe for the curt vocabulary of military command.
Put a little more prettily, Mr Newman, if you are listening, in the words of mathematician, educationist and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead: It is in literature that the concrete outlook of humanity receives its expression.
Unfortunately, we here in Queensland, are going to be left with nothing more than the concrete.
As If!
April 13, 2012
Re-opening Queensland's dead literary vein
I know every dog and his/her metaphorical best friend and master/madam has had a say, or signed a petition, about our new Premier Camp-bell Beanhead and his assassination of the Queensland Premier's Literary Awards, but at the risk of over-caning the proverbial dead mount, here is a bit of a more parochial point of view.
You see, no one can have a doubt that, even if only in a symbolic sense, Premier Beanhead, by axing the awards has killed a vein not only in the heart of all artists and writers but also, by association of being born a human being, has done irrevocable damage to the vein in his own heart.
Nevertheless, without realising it (not many beans in the head), Premier Newman may actually have opened a very real and necessary debate about what State Literary Awards mean, and at any rate how in Queensland the award should be run in the future. (Given that there will be a future.)
You see, the thing is, whichever way we look at it, despite the award having the title Queensland to it, and hence giving a sense to it of belonging to Queenslanders, the Queensland Premier's Literary Awards every year, year in and year out, seem to go to the same big names from the same established publishing houses, with rare exception.
The notion of awards, what they stand for and the literary interest and merit they are designed to encourage, should and must be supported. It is a sign of our interest in being not just human but human and imaginative (read: alive), and not just about raising capital.
However, I support this growing view, hidden for a long time (yes, by disgruntled 'small-time, unrecognised' authors) that the Queensland awards should be for them and therefore should be run under a different model - a model that would make the awards more of an even playing field and give our state's own more of a chance.
In this vein (if I may use that word again), I would argue strongly, based on the necessity to encourage our own creative sinews, that state funding should be directed to state based artists rather than national icons who are guaranteed to make the long and short lists of most awards just because they have a name (I am not trying be mean or vindictive here, but in this respect I think of JM Coetzee who had barely wet his feet in the country and in 2004 won two state awards, including the Queensland Premier's Awards, having in 2003 just won the Nobel Prize for Literature. Is that fair? How far does merit go? Also interesting: how Elizabeth Costello, published in 2003 managed to win Queensland's award in 2004... (Of interest: Coetzee would win another Queensland Premier's award in 2010.)
The next step, after a state literary award is fought out between the state's best, would require some Newman muscle (no shortage of that) to encourage federal arts harmony and cooperation by having an ultimate award, eg, like, but not necessarily replacing, the Prime Minister's Literary Awards. Into this award would proceed the state winners - at least as automatic long-listers.
On the other hand, there could just be a purely national award, like the Walkley Awards for journalism, in which all the state finalists are pitted against one another in a final national award.
This would cut out a lot of the waste, deprivation and jealousy caused in the system, where the same people harvest several awards for the one title. It would also encourage more and more new writers, and what the hell could be wrong with that?
Of course the challenge will always be to have works judged on their merit rather than by name or reputation, but directing these competitions at one's own creative residents would be a massive step in the right direction. Especially in moving away from our current 'literary hierarchy' and 'winners' club'.
Just to repeat, if you didn't get the message above, and if the great sage Campbell Newman is going to have a stroke of heart and creativity and bring back literary awards: There are spin-offs to winning even one state award for any poor writer. Why do we need to have repeat winners, when other artists, just as deserving of support, miss out?
Interestingly, and over the past several years, the grant money offered has become political, with each state trying to outdo the other in total amount. That's fine as long as, to repeat yet again, it doesn't all go to one single writer but ensures the maximum benefit is realised by the largest possible group of talented artists.
Mr Newman, we note in his fairness, or his idea of fairness, seeing sport and the arts as not mutually exclusive, has duly axed tax-funding for corporate boxes at sporting stadiums. To this we can only say big deal. These are two mutually exclusive 'endeavours', the one supporting corporate giants and their pleasure, the other supporting those who often scrape the pavements just to be published, never mind to make a living.
Yes, bring back the awards, Mr Newman. They are not even costing you any money but actually bringing attention and dollars to the state - as has been well pointed out by George Megalogenis in The Weekend Australian - but at the same time see the great opportunity of allowing Queensland to be a leader in rewarding and encouraging its own.
After that, or better still at the same time, you can then harness your great powers (of which you have many) to fight for a national award where your state pride can vie for literary glory in the national arena.
As things stand, Mr Newman, you may have unwittingly opened the debate on how writing and even publishers should be funded in this state (that is money and prizes should NOT always go to the big boys and girls), but until you do something about it, you still have a vein in your heart that is so clogged it will haunt your brain until you see how important people and their imaginations are.
In order to resuscitate that heart, to begin with at any rate, Mr Newman (sorry for calling you Mr Beanhead before), you need look no further than the very centre of your own pious red ticker, Queenslanders.
You see, no one can have a doubt that, even if only in a symbolic sense, Premier Beanhead, by axing the awards has killed a vein not only in the heart of all artists and writers but also, by association of being born a human being, has done irrevocable damage to the vein in his own heart.
Nevertheless, without realising it (not many beans in the head), Premier Newman may actually have opened a very real and necessary debate about what State Literary Awards mean, and at any rate how in Queensland the award should be run in the future. (Given that there will be a future.)
You see, the thing is, whichever way we look at it, despite the award having the title Queensland to it, and hence giving a sense to it of belonging to Queenslanders, the Queensland Premier's Literary Awards every year, year in and year out, seem to go to the same big names from the same established publishing houses, with rare exception.
The notion of awards, what they stand for and the literary interest and merit they are designed to encourage, should and must be supported. It is a sign of our interest in being not just human but human and imaginative (read: alive), and not just about raising capital.
However, I support this growing view, hidden for a long time (yes, by disgruntled 'small-time, unrecognised' authors) that the Queensland awards should be for them and therefore should be run under a different model - a model that would make the awards more of an even playing field and give our state's own more of a chance.
In this vein (if I may use that word again), I would argue strongly, based on the necessity to encourage our own creative sinews, that state funding should be directed to state based artists rather than national icons who are guaranteed to make the long and short lists of most awards just because they have a name (I am not trying be mean or vindictive here, but in this respect I think of JM Coetzee who had barely wet his feet in the country and in 2004 won two state awards, including the Queensland Premier's Awards, having in 2003 just won the Nobel Prize for Literature. Is that fair? How far does merit go? Also interesting: how Elizabeth Costello, published in 2003 managed to win Queensland's award in 2004... (Of interest: Coetzee would win another Queensland Premier's award in 2010.)
The next step, after a state literary award is fought out between the state's best, would require some Newman muscle (no shortage of that) to encourage federal arts harmony and cooperation by having an ultimate award, eg, like, but not necessarily replacing, the Prime Minister's Literary Awards. Into this award would proceed the state winners - at least as automatic long-listers.
On the other hand, there could just be a purely national award, like the Walkley Awards for journalism, in which all the state finalists are pitted against one another in a final national award.
This would cut out a lot of the waste, deprivation and jealousy caused in the system, where the same people harvest several awards for the one title. It would also encourage more and more new writers, and what the hell could be wrong with that?
Of course the challenge will always be to have works judged on their merit rather than by name or reputation, but directing these competitions at one's own creative residents would be a massive step in the right direction. Especially in moving away from our current 'literary hierarchy' and 'winners' club'.
Just to repeat, if you didn't get the message above, and if the great sage Campbell Newman is going to have a stroke of heart and creativity and bring back literary awards: There are spin-offs to winning even one state award for any poor writer. Why do we need to have repeat winners, when other artists, just as deserving of support, miss out?
Interestingly, and over the past several years, the grant money offered has become political, with each state trying to outdo the other in total amount. That's fine as long as, to repeat yet again, it doesn't all go to one single writer but ensures the maximum benefit is realised by the largest possible group of talented artists.
Mr Newman, we note in his fairness, or his idea of fairness, seeing sport and the arts as not mutually exclusive, has duly axed tax-funding for corporate boxes at sporting stadiums. To this we can only say big deal. These are two mutually exclusive 'endeavours', the one supporting corporate giants and their pleasure, the other supporting those who often scrape the pavements just to be published, never mind to make a living.
Yes, bring back the awards, Mr Newman. They are not even costing you any money but actually bringing attention and dollars to the state - as has been well pointed out by George Megalogenis in The Weekend Australian - but at the same time see the great opportunity of allowing Queensland to be a leader in rewarding and encouraging its own.
After that, or better still at the same time, you can then harness your great powers (of which you have many) to fight for a national award where your state pride can vie for literary glory in the national arena.
As things stand, Mr Newman, you may have unwittingly opened the debate on how writing and even publishers should be funded in this state (that is money and prizes should NOT always go to the big boys and girls), but until you do something about it, you still have a vein in your heart that is so clogged it will haunt your brain until you see how important people and their imaginations are.
In order to resuscitate that heart, to begin with at any rate, Mr Newman (sorry for calling you Mr Beanhead before), you need look no further than the very centre of your own pious red ticker, Queenslanders.
March 30, 2012
I Love Iran with All My Heart
The problem with migration is that while it appears we live in a global world and everyone who arrives in our country is acceptable, that is not the case. Societies are always divided in their welcome of anything and anyone new.
On the other hand, there is an assumption by people in prosperous, peaceful societies that their country is always a desirable destination, if not the best destination.
Unfortunately those people in those societies (including ours, Australia) who bend over backwards to accept new ‘endangered’ migrants (asylum seekers) make the mistake of thinking, because they were in danger at home, they did not really love their home or did not really even have a home.
In fact mostly, I would contend from my own experience, all people, rich and poor, hunter and hunted, grew up in a home – and love their home; it is particular circumstance at the time in their home (war, racial or religious persecution, etc) that make them hate it or need to get out of it.
One could relate their experience to a more mundane example of being brought up in a relatively okay home in which you felt a part of your often loving household but where suddenly your father has gone berserk on the bottle and everyone’s life has become a misery or is even physically threatened.
The argument and emotional sense for those who promote their country as welcoming to migrants and asylum seekers (something we migrants are thankful for) unfortunately then becomes this: Come and stay - forever – rather than: Come, stay, replenish, and then go home again when your home country has found peace or is open enough for you to become active in it again or take up your particular cause or rightful place in your society - albeit in opposition to your government/father etc.
There is an assumption in the ‘come and stay forever’ view that ours is the best country in the world and better than your home could ever be. There is little recognition that a part of life and very often a large part of the fulfilment of life is struggle – and that fulfilment (and even joy) can come from living in opposition to the reigning order.
The benefit of viewing migration and particularly asylum-seeking as a more temporary refuge is that people (well, many more people) might eventually go home and help their own, usually poorer societies, and at the same time begin within themselves to feel ‘whole’ again.
There is no better sense than feeling a part of your place and cause in a society you know best – which is always your own.
Migrants never seem to settle (and I mean within themselves).
On a deeper psychological and even spiritual level, the ‘temporary-replenish’ approach is far better than persuading migrants (asylum seekers) to merely opt for the permanent, easier society that promises material benefits and few, if any, of the emotional, psychological and spiritual needs of the whole person - the things we usually only get at home!
The reality is this: Even the best of societies can never be home to those who have to move there, even those who choose to move there. The heart of the immigrant remains with a hollow in it, and that hole can never be completely filled.
As a Jewish Iranian citizen forced to emigrate to Israel once put it: I love Israel like a mother, but I love Iran with all my heart.
On the other hand, there is an assumption by people in prosperous, peaceful societies that their country is always a desirable destination, if not the best destination.
Unfortunately those people in those societies (including ours, Australia) who bend over backwards to accept new ‘endangered’ migrants (asylum seekers) make the mistake of thinking, because they were in danger at home, they did not really love their home or did not really even have a home.
In fact mostly, I would contend from my own experience, all people, rich and poor, hunter and hunted, grew up in a home – and love their home; it is particular circumstance at the time in their home (war, racial or religious persecution, etc) that make them hate it or need to get out of it.
One could relate their experience to a more mundane example of being brought up in a relatively okay home in which you felt a part of your often loving household but where suddenly your father has gone berserk on the bottle and everyone’s life has become a misery or is even physically threatened.
The argument and emotional sense for those who promote their country as welcoming to migrants and asylum seekers (something we migrants are thankful for) unfortunately then becomes this: Come and stay - forever – rather than: Come, stay, replenish, and then go home again when your home country has found peace or is open enough for you to become active in it again or take up your particular cause or rightful place in your society - albeit in opposition to your government/father etc.
There is an assumption in the ‘come and stay forever’ view that ours is the best country in the world and better than your home could ever be. There is little recognition that a part of life and very often a large part of the fulfilment of life is struggle – and that fulfilment (and even joy) can come from living in opposition to the reigning order.
The benefit of viewing migration and particularly asylum-seeking as a more temporary refuge is that people (well, many more people) might eventually go home and help their own, usually poorer societies, and at the same time begin within themselves to feel ‘whole’ again.
There is no better sense than feeling a part of your place and cause in a society you know best – which is always your own.
Migrants never seem to settle (and I mean within themselves).
On a deeper psychological and even spiritual level, the ‘temporary-replenish’ approach is far better than persuading migrants (asylum seekers) to merely opt for the permanent, easier society that promises material benefits and few, if any, of the emotional, psychological and spiritual needs of the whole person - the things we usually only get at home!
The reality is this: Even the best of societies can never be home to those who have to move there, even those who choose to move there. The heart of the immigrant remains with a hollow in it, and that hole can never be completely filled.
As a Jewish Iranian citizen forced to emigrate to Israel once put it: I love Israel like a mother, but I love Iran with all my heart.
