Watsonia: A Writing Life

Acknowledgements

Introduction

Human actions are essentially very delicate phenomena, many aspects of which elude mathematical measurement.

—Marc Bloch

I NEVER SET OUT TO be a writer, but drifted into it. In a different time, in my father’s day, for instance, I might have ended up a swagman. As a boy I briefly fancied the navy, but that lasted no longer than my religious phase. My plans for a career as a travelling salesman or a detective can be put down to teenage hormonal imbalance; the derangement passed eventually, but the urge to wander lingered.

I would have been a happy wanderer, and happier still if free of any compulsion to write about the experience. But wandering excites thinking and the back and forth of observing and imagining, and, if you are not careful, this can lead to writing. The customs are related by marriage. Wordsworth wrote 387 poems, and, according to Thomas De Quincy, he walked upwards of 180,000 miles while doing so. Sauntered was the term Wordsworth used in The Prelude: like a river murmuring / And talking to itself when all things else / Are still. He walked to discover not only his thoughts but his words, and walking gave a rhythm to them.

Though there have been some, such as Max Beerbohm, who thought walking the silliest thing any intelligent being could do, I’m with Wordsworth – and Plato, Aristotle, Montaigne, Rousseau and Nietzsche, who all found walking an indispensable mental aid. George Santayana went so far as to say locomotion was the key to human intelligence. But most human beings have been content to walk and think without adding to their lives the burden of written composition. I could saunter many delightful miles in the time it often takes me to find the right word, and many more again before I can construct a decent sentence. Writing is hard labour, and harder still when it feels unnecessary. My unrelenting ploughboy genes haul me towards the pleasures of intercourse with life on the planet. In forty years my body, sensing extinction I’ve no doubt, has never stopped resenting the stillness that writing requires.

As for my mind, so long as some part of it resists the writer’s flimsy assumption that his thoughts are worth recording, it might as well be in cahoots with my body. When a bulging disc is not tormenting me, it is a voice reminding me of real writers in my bookshelves and begging me to throw in the towel. And the truth is, lock me in a cell for a fortnight and offer me Middlemarch or a pencil and pad for recording my thoughts, and I’ll take the book. Offer me something that I can bounce off a wall, and I’ll take that as well.

The lurking apprehension that I am unsuited to this occupation has always preyed on my endeavour. The first answer to the curse, when I can remember it, is to remind myself that farming does not come easily to all farmers, and that not everyone who farms wants to be a farmer. Few are those able to choose their vocation, and fewer still those who choose the right one. So long as I remember this, I do not need a psychotherapist or Marcus Aurelius. By both instruction and example, my father and mother taught me we all must make the best of whatever hand life deals us. Thus advised, a writer needs nothing more to overcome self-doubt except an ego that’s at least sporadically capable of putting up a fight, including the one with his father or mother.

This motley collection might suggest to the reader, as it suggests to me, that I’ve never known what kind of writer I am. But I would claim to have learned what kind of writer I am not: not brave or hardy enough, I suspect, to be a frontline journalist like Victor Serge or Robert Fisk. To wander is one thing; to be shot at another. I am not a poet, sadly; or a novelist, just as sadly – I write novels in my head but can’t take myself seriously when I try to write them down. I don’t have the mind for philosophy, either.

I would accept the quotidian wordsmith if the politicians and business types who use the term to describe their writers did not imagine writing and thinking in a kind of feudal arrangement, wherein they, at the apex, do the thinking, and the writers, down among the yeomanry, the wordsmithing. That set-up would be agreeable enough if words and ideas were independent of each other, or if language were the servant of thought and not its midwife. The two are entangled and only sometimes can we say which came first. This is one thing I’ve learned about writing. The idea we start with will very often become a different idea the moment we try to write it down. The more we write, the more the originating thought splits and morphs into other ideas. It is another, related, phenomenon to discover the true subject and our view of it only after several drafts.

I would settle on journeyman: these pieces are the work of a journeyman learning and, if nothing else, growing more conscientious the longer he persists. And because writers need it as much as anybody else, it’s as well to acknowledge, as Joseph Conrad did when he’d survived the dreads and learned to be a man in the Gulf of Siam, that one’s best efforts were seconded by a run of luck.

I am fairly sure that writing becomes seductive to young brains when, somewhere in the amygdala, by chance, the beat of language attaches itself to the primal emotions and becomes a means of their expression. Evidence for this might be found in Romeo and Juliet or Cyrano de Bergerac, but equally in the speeches of a Martin Luther King Jr or Pericles. If your life is going to depend on writing, you are lucky if haunting and seductive language is put before you when you’re young and rumbling with passions that nothing but language can temper or express. Then, if you have to walk a distance each day, or have a little watercourse to follow, and in your head the physical and mental landscapes merge, dumb urges swirl with Lear’s torments or the puzzles of Huck Finn and combine like atoms; and, though you may not know it and though you may still end up a swagman or in commerce, the ground is being prepared for writing. It was my luck to have all of that, and a wonderful teacher or two.

The first of my more sustained intellectual efforts was also fortified by luck. Influenced in varying degrees by the Vietnam War, some inspiring history lecturers and the rise and fall of Gough Whitlam, I became what the politer members of my family would call a bit of a radical (and the less polite, at best, a flamin’ idiot). I’ve no doubt that oedipal rebellion was also active in my conversion to a kind of socialism just short of revolutionary. And though I knew him only through his writing and surviving friends, I think it very likely that the left historian, civil libertarian, radical publicist and heavy drinker Brian Fitzpatrick, in addition to being the subject of my doctorate, bore aspects of a surrogate father – or at least a renegade uncle. It is even possible that a romantic reading of Fitzpatrick’s outsider status and lifelong resistance to the colonising tendencies of Melbourne orthodoxy played some part in my decision to quit academia for freelancing. I was susceptible to both the graceful ironies of his prose and the radical nationalist conceit that Australian history inclined by nature towards egalitarian social progress, and the political task, therefore, was to get the present in lock-step with that inclination.

That was where I’d landed, roughly speaking: in the bottomless canyons of history with all the victims and underdogs. By with them, of course, I mean on their side. I was much more often with other people who were on their side and believed history arced in the direction of justice for all – not in heaven, but on earth. Yet though I was a socialist of sorts, my behaviour lent less support to revolutionary theory than to Oscar Wilde’s belief that socialism was doomed to failure because people would not be willing to give up their evenings. I am fairly sure it is for this reason, more than any other, that I have never joined a political party.

Though the term progressive was not then in fashion, it would have done for me. I was on the side of progress. But progress for a radical socialist is not the same as progress for an advocate of free enterprise or a progress association. And that’s the least of it. Progress – or going forward, as we say nowadays – is no more natural to the human condition than is staying put, or even retreating. We are historical in the sum of our parts, and if our primal instincts incline us to violence, jealousy and revenge, all the greater is our need for history, culture and art, the stored knowledge of human genius, altruism and cooperation. Sometimes the masses rise up with a vision of the future, but just as often they revolt in defence of what they have or imagine they once had, or what tradition tells them. The past might oppress and mystify us, and in the hands of some historians it might bore us silly, but it also informs, enchants and binds us. I’ve been beached in this contradiction for as long as I can remember – possibly we all are – and in one way or another I suspect it has provoked a lot of what I’ve written.

As a young historian, the fashion for history from below impressed itself upon me. I was in awe of E.P. Thompson and his The Making of the English Working Class, and the other giant of those days, Eric Hobsbawm. Both were Marxists (Hobsbawm, bewilderingly, a communist to the end). Labour history interested me, but not enough to write it, and while I enjoyed Marx’s gripping polemics, I did not have the mind for Marxist theory, or any other kind. The ethnographic historian Greg Dening had already subverted me, anyway – though it was years before I realised what he had done. I remember reading something by Isaac Deutscher that also corroded my radical certainties: it was to the effect that while they might not approve of Stalin’s purges, good historians could understand them. This led me to wonder if the more we understand such enormities, the weaker grows our impulse to condemn them. The notion was less than blindingly original, but it was around this time – the early ’80s – that I stumbled into the liberal camp, where no one can be free of contradiction. Or condescension, I discovered. Something in the creed, perhaps its roots in both Christianity and the Enlightenment, lends itself to oppressive moral vanity.

It was around the same time that I read two books that are unalike in everything but their sympathy for the underdog. One, by the Oxford historian Christopher Hill, concerns the English religious rebels of the seventeenth century. It is called The World Turned Upside Down. I had no interest in seventeenth-century British history and don’t know how I came to read it, but I found myself gripped by a history book as never before. It was more than the subject matter: Hill’s way of working the voices of insanely brave religious radicals into the raw material of history brought multitudinous life to his story and a pulse as strong as a great novel’s. He, too, was a Marxist, I discovered later, but reading him would tell you only that he had abundant sympathy for the human condition. Impressed though I was with the rebels, the book had less effect on my politics than on the way I wanted to write.

There is no one way to describe One Hundred Years of Solitude, but among many other things it is the story of Latin America told from the point of view of the colonised, rather than the colonisers. Political as such a story must be – and as its author was – the book transcends politics. As fairy-tale or myth it reinvents history. (What is history but a fable agreed upon?) Historians instinctively seek to construct the past on rational foundations, and they are ill-suited to dealing with the despairs, the rages, the impulsive acts, the sudden revulsions of feeling in human history, as another hero of mine, Marc Bloch, put it. For me, the irresistible hold of One Hundred Years of Solitude consisted almost entirely in the way Gabriel García Márquez finds liberating wonders in the same reality that historians pass over or render lifeless. Finds, not invents. As he said, We have had to ask but little of imagination, for our crucial problem has been a lack of conventional means to render our lives believable. At this point we see that Hill and García Márquez are not so unalike. They meet on the never-ending frontiers of reportage.

As history abounds in irony, I was drawn to it. Too much so, I came to realise. But how could it be otherwise? The rural humour of my childhood was laced with the irony that is inevitable when human ambition meets implacable Nature. Steele Rudd and Job both were full of irony. So was the Sermon on the Mount. Marx couldn’t resist it. Nor could Mark Twain, Trotsky, Voltaire, Tolstoy, Wilde, Balzac, Orwell and Camus. Paul Fussell’s The Great War and Modern Memory put irony at the centre of twentieth-century literary sensibility. Postmodernism put an ironic spell on the universe. It was in everything I read or saw: Godard, Truffaut, Hitchcock and film noir. (In arthouse cinemas a special kind of knowing laugh evolved among the cognoscenti.) Irony lent drollness to political commitment in Claud Cockburn’s memoir of the 1930s, In Time of Trouble, which beguiled me. It was the wheel on which Bruce Petty’s genius turned. It was at the core of the new wave of Australian plays, novels and films, as it had been in Australian literature since Henry Lawson and The Fortunes of Richard Mahony. European conquest welled with tragic irony, nowhere more tragically (and sometimes ludicrously) than in stories of Victorian explorers on this and other continents. I fell for the great ones: Richard Burton, Mungo Park, Charles Doughty, Leichhardt, Sturt, Stuart, Ernest Giles. I wrote a book called Caledonia Australis that concerned a minor explorer but a major irony.

Apart from an extravagantly illustrated history for children, I didn’t write another book for nearly twenty years. In the inner-Melbourne scene of the ’80s, amid too much drinking, New Left thinking collided with Old Left Labor, feminism with the patriarchy, multiculturalism with the Anglo-Celtic inheritance, historical revisionism with historical convenience, and seriousness with football and satire. There was a near surfeit of comedy. While the Americans were taking themselves far too seriously, going to church and inventing things like the internet, we were divining the limits of irony. I stopped writing history to write for Max Gillies’s satirical television and stage shows, and the many one-off corporate gigs he did in the guise of Bob Hawke. The prime minister offered limitless potential for send-ups, and not only because of his charismatic alpha-male persona. Here was his Labor government, deregulating the economy, stripping away protections, selling public assets, punishing fraternal state governments and lauding the wonders of the marketplace. Hawke hung out with corporate heavyweights and spivs. His treasurer cruised around in Zegna suits and had a taste for Gustav Mahler and ormolu clocks. Labor’s apostasies needed a contortionist to front them, and Hawke was the man. He dredged every emotion, deployed every gesture and intonation, strained every facial fibre and just about every verbal convention to do it. You had to love him – and the nation did.

It was at the high point of the Hawke years that I took up writing speeches for the Victorian premier John Cain. Having spent most of the postwar years out of office, Labor in the 1980s and ’90s was determined to graft a new story on the nation’s mind. First for Cain and then for Paul Keating, I was one of the elves employed at that task. There was the story of economic reform that might have looked a bit like Thatcherism, but when allied to Labor’s social policy would make all Australians both richer and more secure. There was the story of Labor as the party of the fair go, of social improvement, nation-building and national independence. And then, inferentially, there was the story of the government’s opponents: somnolent and moth-eaten and living in the past or, as occasion demanded, mad-eyed, Ayn Randian zealots bent on abolishing all that was fair and decent in the country’s traditions. To borrow a line of Manning Clark’s that Paul Keating came to use, Labor people were the enlargers of life, the lovers; their opponents were the straiteners and punishers.

Around 1985, Tim Robertson and I began writing a play based on Clark’s A History of Australia. Clark wrote history in the idealist tradition, from a perspective owing much to Dostoyevsky, D.H. Lawrence and the King James Bible. He was more interested in good and evil, grand unifying ideas and kinks in the human character, than politics, parties or mass movements of any kind. Though Clark would be the ringmaster, we set out to do something that owed more to E.P. Thompson’s history from below or to the Annales school of French historians than to his magisterial perspective: something in the rough-and-tumble, democratic mould of Ariane Mnouchkine and Théâtre du Soleil’s 1789. The show would be staged in a vast, open space, such as the Melbourne or Sydney Showgrounds’ pavilions, and combine theatre, circus, song, agitprop and all the radical energy of the Australian theatre renaissance. But, for reasons that in their elusiveness and invincibility mirror those of many historical catastrophes, the show ended up the very opposite of our intention: a musical, in Melbourne’s Princess Theatre, during a heatwave, competing with Cats.

Bob Hawke came to opening night. He sat just in front of me and laughed merrily. It was a pretty merry show all in all: merriment and melancholy in equal measure and, for all the darkness and anguish rendered, we thought it good-hearted, funny and true to generally shared traditions. But the show bombed in devastating fashion, in part because of a bizarre five-page (and front-page) shellacking from Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers. The blitz proclaimed the arrival of the culture wars.

In time the heart-sinking debacle of the show shrank to the size of a sore point, but the culture wars became a permanent and increasingly depressing feature of Australian public life. It seemed the country couldn’t live without the organising principles of the Cold War. The philosopher R.G. Collingwood thanked God for reactionaries because they clarified the issues, but nothing was clarified by the right-wing culture warriors. Years after his death in 1991, the horde was still pursuing Manning Clark as if to purge him from the national memory. They pursued historians whose work assumed that the triumphs of European settlement were robust enough to survive the evidence of massacres and other instances of cruelty and devastation that spoke of a dark side in our history, as if to say that Australia’s European history is, or must be made, unblemished. They went after scientists who warned about climate change, and even after science itself. They condemned the High Court when it determined that native title had survived the invasion of the continent; and they declared it a day of shame when, at considerable political cost to the Keating government, an accommodation was reached with miners, graziers and Indigenous people and the Court’s decision was passed into law. They went after the ABC, and trade unions, and people seeking asylum, and environmentalists, and they did not hesitate to cultivate fear and loathing wherever it was useful to their cause, though the cause itself remained obscure. The more the conservative worldview mutated into a wondrous assemblage of loud and unlikely reactionaries, the more the years of the Cold War, which was at least a clash of genuine values, looked like springtime for democracy.

Some rearrangement of the political landscape was to be expected during Australia’s transition from a nation that constructed its self-understanding in racial and imperial terms to one that was judged by how successfully it found its own way in the world.

Liberalism lives on but is under fire everywhere and often with good cause. So long as every issue is made divisive – and social media and the Murdoch press assure this – liberals will be provoked and depressed unto exhaustion. They will be provoked over matters that are fundamental to the survival of democracy and the planet, and they will be provoked over the legacy of Captain Cook. They will veer into the thickets of political correctness. They will state the case for personal and group identity and grievance even if their truculence impinges on the effort for the common good and fuels reactionary causes. They will give in to tribalism. Yet liberalism, even in all its barely assimilable variants, is the indispensable creed. And, like the indispensable nation, it is forever fighting not only enemies without but many within, including its own inherent contradictions.

Soon after Hurricane Katrina, I went wandering in the United States. I had gone there on a book tour to promote Death Sentence, a short book that is often mistaken for a treatise on good grammar and plain English, but which, like the tracts that followed, was really in the nature of a pebble thrown at the unstoppable tide of managerialism and the stupefying language it has visited upon the world. In the next few years I went back to the United States several times, and if things had fallen differently I might still be wandering there. I cannot quite explain its attraction. Platitudes of the humanity in all its best and worst dimensions variety will not do. It’s possible the effect might have owed more to the pleasures of wandering than to the places I wandered in – but I loved the US. There is something inherently epic about it: it is epic even in its mundaneness. Yet approachable. It offers itself, asks you to become part of it, to know it. It beckons. I never spent a day there without feeling I was following a thread, that I was in the middle of a story that I half knew; and, what was more, with every turn I took, I knew I was passing other stories by. The United States intrigued me not because the place was different to everything I knew, but because, like a dream or déjà vu, it was never more than one remove from something familiar.

It was also terrible. So much of the United States spoke of human achievement and much else of immanent regression. The experience confirmed me in my old social democratic convictions. In the brute greed, the gross inequality, the patriotic belligerence and obeisance, the crumbling infrastructure, the provincial ignorance and the elite’s ignorance of the provinces, the paranoia, the religious manias, the ugliness, and in the incessant lunatic shouting of Fox News and the mad dogs of the radio, you could see what happens when venality governs the public debate and ideas of social improvement are traduced and abandoned. The full horror is only arriving now, but even in 2005 it was possible to see that liberal democracy, in all its varieties, had been harried out of sight.

In Australia it is not so much a case of what we’ve lost as what we’ve failed to gain. Many of the articles that follow are spun on this sentiment, though I confess a few do touch on the losses and some on what we’re losing now. No intelligent being is immune to melancholy: without it hope would be just foolishness. The past looms as large as any future we can imagine or predict, dogging us, begging to be understood. Were we to interrogate it now, among things we’ve never dreamed of we might discover what Australians believed not very long ago: that the effort to create a tolerably fair and just society is, if not the guiding principle, then a defining element of Australian democracy and an essential counterweight to doctrines of unrestrained self-interest or corporate force. I admit this reading of our history bears hallmarks of my tribal affiliations, but conservatives – true conservatives – might also see merit in it. It’s not a socialist utopia but Australia we’re defending, and the reasons for hope.

Yet it would be a pity to fight all your life for democratic socialism but never see a golden whistler or hear low breathings in the bush. We don’t have to be drawn into culture wars. Politics is not compulsory. To be sure, it is not easy to resist the adrenaline rush of moral indignation, to stop conceiving stratagems and designing or anticipating ambush. But for sanity’s sake, we sometimes need to cut the tethers to the tribe and decommit. Stop getting riled. Why waste your mind and all the potential of your senses on your enemies? A walk need not end up in a tract. Or even a poem. But it will at least open the way to seeing things that are beyond words.

BEGINNINGS

The Gippsland frontier

UNTIL VERY RECENTLY I HAD not realised that Gippsland was an idea as well as a place. I presume the idea of Gippsland dawned on me slowly because I grew up there and it presented itself to me as simply existing. It may well be that what I saw was what Gippsland was. On this reading Gippsland is primarily a kitchen with a view of a tank and cypresses. It is then a privet hedge, a lavatory, a fowl house, a pine tree, a cow shed, a watercourse, the weaner paddock and the back hill with the big gum tree and the eagle’s nest.

But it always comes back to the kitchen and the porridge and the scone and the Anzac biscuit. The red dog always lay under the stove in a storm.

In south Gippsland there was a winter smell and a summer one. In winter it was the smell of very wet earth, damp jumpers and rancid milk on rubber boots in the porch. In the summer it was the smell of hot hay.

God it was hot carting hay. Young people these days don’t know what hard work is. That’s a fair sort of fact now and it was an unassailable fact then.

We always knew the past meant work. Work. Real work. Work you might possibly be able to imagine but never equal. You looked at the forearms of the older generation and there was no denying it. Like legs of mutton. Hands as big and hard as housebricks. Each finger as thick as a schoolteacher’s wrist.

You knew the land on which you kicked the football had once been bluegum forest. There were still a few big museum pieces to remind you. A patch of hazels on a hillside and the blackwoods by the roadside were proof of the middle tier. Their cover gone, tree ferns in the gullies baked to a slow death.

The blue gums had been two hundred feet high at least. They had been felled with crosscut saws and burnt, or split with an axe and wedges into posts. One man or perhaps two did all this – teenage brothers did it. They did it all by hand. The harvest was done by hand, the cows milked by hand, the cream separated by hand.

But how to live in the face of pioneering virtue? How to redeem yourself through work when all the work’s been done? I mean the mighty work. Your body might ache from exertion but they had worked harder by far. You can labour away with your axe all morning but it’s pathetic in comparison. Look at the size of your chips. Bloody puny little things. You could eat your dinner off one of your father’s. One chip of his keeps the stove going all night.

It’s the same cutting rubbish. You can’t match the calm, relentless efficiency of his work. He labours in a state of grace. Blackberries, bracken, thistles (variegated, Scotch, shore, Californian and milk), burr, barley grass and snake, all fall beneath his fernhook. He pulls the ragwort without changing stride and bends to larvicide a burrow. He moves across the hillface as if he’d been doing it for a hundred generations. You’d swear he was solar-powered. And you hack away gracelessly with your face red – and the thought forms itself, I will be an internationally renowned cricket player and trumpeter and I will return to Gippsland in middle age with my nose thumbed. How mean all this is! When I am eighteen, no sixteen, I will say goodbye, by cripes.

Snake! A bloody snake! Hack, thump. Eyes full of blood. Bits of red-bellied snake everywhere. Surely it’s time to knock off. Of course there were more snakes in those days – their days I mean.

Snakes were a significant element in Gippsland bonding. Red-bellies, yellow-bellies, copperheads and tigers, we killed them with fernhooks, shovels and hoes. A piece of plain wire was very good, particularly on rough ground. There were Gippslanders who could grab them by the tail and crack them like whips. Returning from a Presbyterian Ladies’ Guild meeting one Wednesday afternoon, Mrs McIntosh of Wild Dog Valley stood upon a five-foot copperhead at her front porch. She ran its head through with her hatpin, as I recall. In the Strzelecki Ranges, where the roads are narrow, windy and precipitous, the practice of skidding the back wheel on snakes caused more than one spectacular fatality. Boiling water was poured down their hideaways while extended families gathered at the ready with all manner of implements, including shotguns. We told jokes about snakes and played jokes with dead ones. Long into the nights we yarned about them. Deep in the Gippsland subconscious there lay coiled a snake. Had it been a Catholic province, I believe there would have been an annual festival.

But Gippsland did not have such things. A potato festival evolved at Koo Wee Rup, it is true, and in recent years the town of Korumburra has held a festival of the giant earthworm. It is not Rio, however. Gippsland is not quirky. They scotch all fancy and display there. They root out evil and prize the very normal.

The idea of Gippsland is the idea of normal. That is what pioneering is – the quest for normality, a set of unwritten rules by which a community lives. This is a radical enterprise, particularly when you realise what that normality encompasses. Here are some potted examples which make a mockery of the belief so often expressed in Gippsland, and doubtless elsewhere, that one day things will get back to normal.

Gippsland was first explored by a pious Calvinist from the Catholic isle of Barra, and a Polish sub-mountebank who was knighted for philanthropy in the Irish famine and who died, a friend by then of Florence Nightingale and William Gladstone, in Savile Row.

Among Gippsland’s early settlers was the hereditary clan chief Glengarry, whose garb and weaponry in the colonies had him on at least one occasion taken for a bushranger.

In its first decade of white settlement three languages were spoken in the Gippsland bush – English in its various forms, the several dialects of the Kurnai tribes (who had been there for at least fifteen thousand years) and Scots Gaelic. It was commonly alleged that a prominent Gaelic speaker, Ronald Macalister, was eaten by some Aborigines, and bloody massacres ensued.

The dispossession of the Aborigines and the manner of it was described by a melancholy English settler as one of the darkest chapters in the annals of history, a description which might have echoed Glencoe and Culloden in the minds of the Highlanders who were engaged in the rampage.

In the frontier period of Gippsland’s history the Highlanders and others made free with their fantasies and found them turned into reality. (The frontier might be described as a place where imagination and reality meet.) These Gippsland gentlemen dreamed of vast domains thickly populated with cattle, sheep and horses – all on a scale quite unimaginable to their fathers. They got them all. They fancied secure tenure and great houses and servants. They got them too.

They also fancied women, but in the first decade there were none to speak of except Aboriginal women. So they took them, but were not satisfied. Being gentlemen, they craved respectable white women, and from this craving came the White Woman of Gippsland – a woman held captive by the Kurnai, held in bondage, forced to bear the children of heathens. It was really too much for any decent man to contemplate. So the blacks were hunted down and killed, or kidnapped and held to ransom. At the end of it all, when the gentlemen of Gippsland had consolidated their assets and become MPs, JPs and paragons of respectability, the Crown Lands Commissioner who had seen it all declared in private that the White Woman of Gippsland was in all likelihood a concoction of the settlers’ imaginations. At the moment when Gippslanders were pronouncing themselves responsible for a triumph of civilisation over barbarism (it was happening all over the Empire) they locked away the imagination which had made it possible. They also locked away their memories, of course – who would have believed them anyway? – and substituted a patina of Victorian heroics. This was very normal.

Those same frontiersmen founded a pioneering legend of virtue which was subsequently expanded and improved – but never revised – by a generation of selectors. These poorer folk had more humble ambitions but greater obstacles in the way of their achievement. They had to work even harder than the original pioneers. And they had to clean up their mess – the thistles, ragwort, burrs and rabbits. The selectors cut farms out of bluegum and mountain-ash forests in a labour that now looks superhuman. The children worked as hard as the adults. They did this not simply to make a living – that was something which could have been done much more easily in the cities. They did it to achieve what they imagined would be dignity and respectability. Some of them would have called it grace.

The pioneering legend made harsh demands. It said, quite unnecessarily under the circumstances, you must work with your body on the land and in the kitchen to an extent at least comparable to those who came before you. It also said you must be loyal in roughly equal proportions to the British Crown and the land your forefathers tamed. In fact it said Australia and the Crown were damn near indivisible. The whole place had been settled with Britain in mind, and only a cur would betray that heritage. So it was said you must fight in British wars wherever they occur – even in Palestine, Turkey and Egypt.

It was nothing short of normal to do so. For it all came down to the defence of the tank stand outside the kitchen, didn’t it? There is a Norman Lindsay poster from World War I illustrating precisely this. It boiled down to the defence of one’s right to lead a normal life. People in those days looked forward to things getting back to normal after the war. With that imperative in their minds they were not at all impressed by the wonder of what was going on. You need to step outside Gippsland to see the marvels inside. Laurie Duggan, an insider who has been out, has opened the great familiar Gippsland door a little wider. In these pages readers from Bunyip to Mallacoota will see familiar things but they will see in them something remarkable and quirky. Readers beyond Gippsland’s borders will recognise it even more readily because they have a broader view. Neither quirkiness nor grace can be readily seen close up or in a plate of Anzacs. The Ash Range, however, helps us see. For a start it tells us that an extraordinary thing has happened in this part of the world – history.

Introduction, Laurie Duggan, The Ash Range, 1987

Occasional address

THIS GREAT AND UNEXPECTED HONOUR is the more gratifying for coming from the university of which I was a foundation student several hundred years ago.

I’ve not had a lot of luck with these sorts of things. When I graduated from La Trobe, hordes of student Maoists were gathered in the undergrowth outside the windows of the hall, pressing their noses against the glass and shouting things like Marxism! Leninism! Mao Tse-tung thought! and Archibald Glenn war criminal! Sir Archibald Glenn was the chancellor of the university, and we were in the dining room of the college named after him.

Some of those Maoists had been friends of mine. Just a couple of years earlier they had been law-abiding students at a liberal university all but purpose-built for them, the sons and daughters of conscientious rural and working-class Victorians. We had all demonstrated against the Vietnam War.

But now they were fanatics, devoted to a man and an ideology that a decade earlier had cost the lives of forty million people and to a revolution bent on destroying not just every trace of Western civilisation in China, but Chinese civilisation as well. It rather spoiled the afternoon, especially for the parents, some of whom had travelled from the Mallee to see their offspring graduate.

A few years later, on the day I was awarded my doctorate, Monash University bestowed an LLD on the wonderful poet Judith Wright. To meet her was one of the great privileges of my life, and I imagined her occasional address would soar and delve like her poetry. But instead of telling us about the human heart or the flight of birds, she talked about photocopiers. She spoke of the injustice done to authors who received nothing when their works were copied on these newfangled machines. We could tell she had a point, but a graduation ceremony did not feel like the right time to make it.

I will try to do better.

Some of you will have read Roald Dahl’s Fantastic Mr Fox – or perhaps you saw Wes Anderson’s film version. If you have, you will remember the moment – pivotal in a million melodramas – when the hero is cornered and must find some means of escape. Mr Fox is cornered by his wife. He’s been stealing chickens again, and as a consequence of this indulgence, this folly, his family is now facing annihilation.

You promised to give it up, she says.

I know, he says. And he knows it means curtains for the marriage and, what’s worse, for the love and respect of the vixen he adores.

Why, she asks? Why?

He comes up with a doozy.

Because I’m a wild animal, he says.

It’s pathetic, really. After all, she’s a wild animal too. She sighs in despair at the outrageous gall of it, and even though she knows that what he’s really done is forgive himself, she forgives him too.

I might come back to this.

I have a friend who says I am too interested in politics. He says I waste my time on it. He’s quite a distinguished friend. A writer. He’s had an audience with the Queen, so I have to take him seriously. I was once within touching distance of the Queen – but I knew better.

My friend says he’s more interested in literature and philosophy and art than politics.

I say to him, I’m interested in literature and philosophy and art too – and in science and horse racing for that matter, but so what? There’s room for all those interests in a life well-lived.

But, he says, you would have more time for the really important things if you spent less time thinking about politics and sounding off about them to anyone who’ll listen. Get off your soapbox.

I ignore the slur. I say, The reason you pretend to be uninterested in politics is that democracy does not suit your worldview. Lobbed in your unconscious is a childish yearning for a feudal arrangement in which you – by virtue of your interest in literature, art and philosophy – are a lord, if not a prince.

He accuses me of an ad hominem attack, typical of politics.

I say he’s wrong – my point goes to motive as much as character.

You see how we’ve run headlong into quicksand. I know I’m right, but I also know I’ll never persuade him to see the truth about himself. That to do so would oblige him to see either that he lacks self-knowledge or that he’s a humbug. I value his friendship too much to go that far.

I know he values our friendship as much as I do. That’s why he says, Let’s talk about cricket.

He knows nothing about cricket, but I’m not going to tell him that either.

The thing is, I do hate politics, I tell him. I hate the grip it has on my mind and on my moods.

If I were honest, I would also have to concede this to him: if I had ignored politics these last fifty years I would not now be in danger of dying without having read hundreds of books I want to read; without having arrived at a coherent position on the meaning of existence; without having understood black holes, or how a bird flies or a spider spins its web. A million other things I will never know. I might have learned to play a guitar and to speak Russian if I had given up politics for just a couple of those fifty years. It is because of politics that I will die as ignorant as a sheep or an insect about the reasons why I lived. Remember this – these are the things you will regret at the end. Not the things you did, but the time you wasted.

And all for what, my friend says. Has anything you have ever thought or done in politics changed the world at all?

Not a skerrick, I have to say.

It’s true. Even when I was close to political power and could join in the euphoria of public policy-making and public life, all we did was overturned or compromised, and all the fine justifications we gave for doing what we did were traduced or mocked to oblivion.

My friend has me cornered. Yet I have also cornered myself. Like Fantastic Mr Fox, I am desperate.

I say, I cannot give up politics because I’m a political animal.

We all are.

If the first instinct of all living things is to survive, the second one is to organise. And that concerns power: who will wield it and how, and in whose interests? On this depends my survival. And my family’s survival. Not only my survival, but my dignity, the circumstances in which I live, my life chances. Decency depends on the political choices we make.

One way or another, everything depends on politics. Why would I not be interested? How could I not be interested?

My friend says: If, as you say, politics is part of our natures, that only means it is something to overcome. It is in our natures to eat one another. The bones of our prehistoric forebears have human toothmarks in them.

The raison d’être of civilisation, I can hear him saying, the actual reason for it, is to defend us against nature. Freud said it, and in nature he surely included our natures.

He thinks he’s won. I’m to believe that it’s a mark of the civilised individual to be above politics.

But he hasn’t won. I’ll tell you why.

About ten years ago my friend had a heart attack, and not only was his life saved, but it didn’t cost him a penny. Why? Because forty years ago a political party – faction-ridden, hidebound and full of flaws – came up with Medicare, and defended it against all attacks for a decade until at last the enemy gave up. It was down to politics.

So is the scheme by which authors are now paid each year for works that have been photocopied. Judith Wright had something to do with this. She also had a great deal to do with saving the Great Barrier Reef from the Queensland government’s plans to issue leases for oil exploration.

And so is this place a product of political imagination and effort – it was a conservative government that allowed liberal, enlightened minds to conceive it and bring it into being.

So please – don’t recoil from politics. Read everything you can – twice or three times if it’s good; be curious; turn off your screens for two hours every day and learn to play the guitar, or to sing, or to study the habits of birds or mushrooms. Become accountants, lawyers or consultants, or whatever is congenial to you and earns a living. But stay interested, and when you think you’re wise enough, tough enough and you believe enough, consider getting involved. Your survival – the world’s survival – depends on it.

Congratulations and good luck.

Occasional address, La Trobe University,

16 May 2018

A version of a graduation speech given to students at La Trobe University in 2018.

Journey to the Outer Hebrides

ONE NIGHT IN THE WINTER of 1980 I took a ferry to the windswept, Gaelic-speaking isle of Barra in the Outer Hebrides. I was looking for traces of Angus McMillan, a venerated Australian pioneer. Born and raised on Skye, McMillan had moved to Barra with his family as a young man and left the famished isle for Australia in 1837.

The other guest in the hotel wore an eyepatch. He let me finish my soup, then said in a velvety burr: You’ll be Donald Watson. He didn’t say how he knew; just that he’d heard I was coming. You’ll be catching the boat to Vatersay after the priest returns in the morning, he said.

Through my room’s window next day, I saw the priest on the boat as it passed Kisimul Castle in the bay. I was on the jetty when he came back.

On Vatersay, where not a hundred people lived, in a stone cottage smelling violently of urine, a ragged old man gave me a cup of tea while his wife, a renowned shenachie, searched her memory’s vaults and said the McMillans likely lived near the little mill. Yes, that was where I should go, the mill.

One stone wall was all that remained of it. Wind whipped the machair and, lone wall aside, you could easily believe there had been no one there since the Vikings.

My new friend said, In the morning you’ll be taking the launch to South Uist. You’ll stay with my father. His father was the doctor.

The man steering the boat across the dark swell called out, Over the next wave! and picked up a shotgun from the floor. We went up the wave, and coming down the other side an eider duck was bobbing. Our pilot held the tiller steady with his knee and shot the bird. At once his dog jumped overboard and fetched it.

The doctor was a gentle man with snowy hair, a collector of local songs and stories. That evening we drank some whisky with a friend of his, another historian of the Hebrides. But neither of them knew anything about my Angus.

You’ll be getting a lift to Benbecula in the morning, the doctor said, and of course it came to pass. Wearing new green gumboots bought in London, I walked across the causeway in rain so heavy it was hard to find air to breathe.

In Lochmaddy, I waited three days for the storm to ease and the Skye ferry to come in. A performing bear had escaped and the hotel patrons begged the publican not to send them out into the dark at closing time.

The ferry came at last and strolling on the deck I came upon the doctor. He seemed to be expecting me. You’ll come to stay in my cottage, he said. And you’ll borrow my car and see the glen where your man was raised. And that afternoon I stood in the empty, silent glen.

There was no sign of McMillan, of course. But the thought came to me that the melancholy of these depopulated scenes might be a clue to his character and the story I needed to tell. And I wondered if my hosts had played the Muse to help me find it.

Qantas Magazine, 2019

A paradigm shift

THIS BOOK WAS NOT WRITTEN by a linguist on behalf of the language, or by a grammarian on behalf of grammar. I am not qualified for either of those enterprises. The book is written from my experience as a writer and a reader, and if it is written on behalf of anyone, it is the people who have to write and read and listen to our public language every day of their lives. It is an argument on behalf of what these days are called the stakeholders. For four years, I was the Australian prime minister’s speechwriter, and for four years before that I combined writing speeches for a state premier with writing political satire for a comedian. I wrote on history and politics in the newspapers. Now and then, I wrote speeches for corporate chief executives. I wrote – or rewrote – company brochures and in-house training manuals. I gave occasional seminars on writing for government departments, corporate communications teams and conferences of schoolteachers. In all these places I came across language that was all but dead and people who seemed willing to join in its destruction. Over fifteen years, I saw the plague accelerate and spread from the private to the public realms, from the global to the local, to churches and to schools, where, at eleven years of age, my granddaughter was required to prepare her very own personal mission statement, and at age twelve wrote her first English essay in PowerPoint. My grievance, I confess, is personal.

The earliest symptoms of what became a permanent gripe showed up in the last half of the 1980s when I was working for the premier. It was then I found I could not understand the information sent me by government officials for turning into speeches. I wondered if the job required a better mind than mine to grasp the concepts underlying politics and public policy. But it was the language of those public servants’ briefs: it worked on me like too much Valium. One paragraph and my mind swam, consciousness drifted. Whatever thoughts the words contained, I could not reach them: I could not understand because I could not make myself interested.

Around the same time, while moonlighting with a multinational chemical company, I came across Total Quality Management (TQM). I was curious about TQM and I believed the people who told me about the wonders it worked in companies. But when asked to write it in attractive or plain English I did not know how. I could not distinguish the thoughts from the phrases in which they came. As one cannot separate cement from cement, one cannot say a structured system for satisfying internal and external customers and suppliers by integrating the business environment, continuous improvement, and breakthroughs with development, improvement, and maintenance cycles while changing organisational culture without saying structured system, satisfying internal and external customers, integrating the business environment, continuous improvement, and so on. In this language the only thing left to a writer is to shuffle the phrases and experiment with verbs. So you will see, for instance, that in its mission statement the guided missile manufacturer BAE Systems prefers delighting its customers to satisfying them.

In time, I learned that this was the beauty of management jargon, the unbreakable code. Anyone could write it and, with a little practice, speak it, and just to write or speak the stuff was to prove you were professional: so professional that every underling who could not crack the code must imitate you. The miracle was that once you knew a dozen or so key or core terms, once you were focused on them, thought was scarcely necessary. In fact, writing like this was best done, and perhaps could only be done, without thinking at all.

I took the job with the prime minister, and in his office became aware that the now customer-focused and service-driven federal bureaucracy had added TQM and other management jargon to its own traditionally plentiful store. It was in these years that my grievance became a small obsession. I came to loathe enhanced, vibrant and commitment, to name just three. It was like getting fleas off a dog, but in the end enhanced, vibrant and commitment were all but abolished.

Resistance was in vain, of course. The Information Revolution came in on top of the Management Revolution. The Technological Revolution tumbled in with both of them. Economies were global. Markets were free, at least ideologically speaking. The unstoppable tide washed into all the corners of our lives. The local library got a mission statement; the church called its mission to the poor excellence in hospitality; the kindergarten became outcomes-based; and, entering into the spirit of marketing and focus groups, politics turned values-based and worked primarily in messages. Much that we used to call society became the economy, and, being an information economy, language was drafted to its service. Everywhere – public and private, all levels of government and all government agencies, the military, schools, health, politics, media – the language was coopted, hacked about, gutted. Worlds of meaning – the cultural equivalent of many lakes, rainforests and species – disappeared. And hardly a voice was heard protesting.

When this book was published in Australia, no one, including its author, expected it to sell many more than the first print run of five thousand copies. That was almost two years ago, when it was well known that books about language sold only to specialists and pedants. Now we know otherwise. The fashion may not last as long as books about celebrities or terrorism, but just now it is possible for books about language to become number-one bestsellers. Tens of thousands of people buy them; and it seems that for each ten thousand, two hundred or so are inspired to write letters to the author, and of those a dozen or so invite him to speak at a conference or give a lecture of some kind. Books about language now oblige their authors to hire assistants and start websites. They get them thinking about writing sequels. There can only be one reason for this gratifying clamour: far more people than we thought cherish the language, and the evidence of its decay dismays them.

A year and a half after the book was published in Australia, the letters still arrive. They come from people obliged to use management language in their jobs with big corporations, small companies and all kinds of government departments, including departments of education; from teachers who are compelled to instruct children in language none of them understands; from people who, by some Orwellian fiat, have become customers and stakeholders – even valued customers and valued stakeholders – and cannot stand it anymore. They come from people who hear something sinister in the anesthetising jargon of management and politics, and from people who read it as a symptom of decline in culture, morality and democracy.

Some of the letters are anecdotal, and some recommend to me the writings of Karl Kraus, who believed the abuse of language was a moral crime, or of Martin Heidegger, who believed that our being is founded in language. Heidegger’s point is that our being cannot be founded in modern technical or calculative language, or the kind that aims at uniform accessibility of everything to everyone. This is a fair description of contemporary public language, and, when he insists that such language undermines aesthetics, morality and being, Heidegger might be trying to make the same point in theory that many of my correspondents make with their stories from experience. I mean people such as those who say they worked for years in jobs concerned with communications without ever quite understanding what they were doing. The teachers who can no longer write students’ reports, but instead must tick the box next to the calculative, outcomes-based description that they guess comes closest to their own assessment of each child’s progress – or rather the child’s essential learnings and key competencies. (Outcomes, by the way, describe what students learn about and what they do, as a result of the teaching and learning in the course.) Or the man who said that on the day he had to leave his old father in a nursing home, the most difficult thing to bear was not the parting or the three-hour wait in the foyer, but the mission statement on the wall: the sign proclaiming, WE WILL EXCEED ALL YOUR EXPECTATIONS. It drove him mad then, and it still drives him mad.

Some of these reports from the front line are sad, despairing letters; others are ironic and derisive. There are letters from schoolchildren and from people who have been downsized or rightsized or structurally adjusted. A few write thinking they have recognised a fellow curmudgeon. I expected more of these, and more from folk wanting to correct my grammar. What I did not expect was so much gratitude. Never did a writer feel more appreciated. They tell me that they now feel less alone, that they had for so long thought they were the only ones, in the government department, on the bank’s communications team, at the human resources conference, in the school staffroom, or on the board of the library who could not understand what their colleagues were saying – and whatever they did make of it sounded like baloney.

Today someone writes to say that while proofreading the annual report of a large welfare agency he came upon this sentence: ‘‘The ensuing months saw the creative development of a comprehensive suite of collateral including envelopes, business cards, letterheads, and design templates. It is not the punctuation or the grammar that concerns him, but rather the stationery described as a comprehensive suite of collateral, the ensuing months (they ensued from a branding conference), the creative element. It’s the pomposity of the thing, the loss of proportion, the folly of it. My correspondent wrote in the margin of the document, What does this mean? A manager sent it back with a note attached: It’s corporate language. He was not offering an apology or an excuse, but a justification, as if corporate language" were a requirement of incorporation, or as if it fulfilled a duty as doctors once thought it did to write prescriptions in Latin.

Lawyers might make a more instructive comparison. Law used to be the foundation of public language, but now management is. Legal language can be arcane, obscure and pompous, but management language is much worse. There is a provenance to law that management lacks, and it is capable of elegance and force. The lawyer Abraham Lincoln will do for evidence of this. Legal language at least has its roots in