- Free Article: No
- Contents Category: Commentary
- Custom Article Title: Not quite naked at the typewriter
- Review Article: Yes
- Article Title: Not quite naked at the typewriter
- Online Only: No
- Custom Highlight Text:
A slightly unconventional 1950s upbringing – I was nourished on Russia’s virtues as well as Weeties – may be responsible for my inability to believe in that pandemic, the tall poppy syndrome; instead I’ve always seen the naming of it as just one more jaunt down that jingoistic path which supposedly leads to the discovery of a definition of Australian identity – surely one of the dreariest literary pursuits known to person. But having popped my head up over the parapet a few times in the last few weeks, and having attracted an absolute fusillade of complaint, I was thinking seriously about changing my tune.
Late in October, the books editor of the Sydney Morning Herald invited me to write not one but two articles about the about-to-be-announced Literature Board grants. Having actually got one this year – not to mention the flat in Venice for two months – it did seem that my cup had run over. In a flush of enthusiasm I rashly revealed, along with some details about the contents of my post office box, my modest social life and my even more modest Bankcard limit, that of this year’s grants about fifty-three per cent went to the girls and about forty-seven per cent to the boys. As I was unable to reveal what percentage of successful applications were accompanied by a naked photo I padded out the article by suggesting that the Lit. Board might consider developing a policy of discrimination redress so that worriers like me might feel a bit more confident that this year’s more equitable distribution of grants was more than just a happy accident.
The fusillade came from all directions and not only from the predictable tax paying word police; I was ticked off pretty soundly by another columnist who wanted me to stop being petty (the average grant to girls was about $16,200 compared with the average to boys of about $17,700) and lie down and let the best man win.
A more cautious, but far more hopeful note was sounded by the Australian Society of Authors who agreed, In the letters page of the SMH on 4th November, that women’s writing was undervalued and that ‘all of us, male and female, are instructed from childhood ... that female writing is good, insofar as it obeys the rules of male writing. It is this which makes women apply less frequently and for smaller grants than men’.
I can tell you, I was so excited I could hardly eat my breakfast, as visions of achieving literary equity, liberty and the democratic way of life so many Oz boys have died for in the past, danced in my head. And wouldn’t you know it, when I raided my post office box later that morning, there was a letter inviting me to an ASA summit on the very topic. Gosh, I don’t know whether I’m Arthur or Martha. I’ll let you know next issue. In the meantime, the winners are ...
Comments powered by CComment