If you could afford the $28.95 for the UQP paperback (not even typeset!) you could learn that between 1973 and 1986, 1102 writers were offered grants, 659 (59.8%) men and 423 (38.4%) women. After you’d finished worrying about what the missing twenty (1.8%) might have been (‘other’?), you would. have learnt that 728 (66%) of the total received just one grant. Of the remaining 374 (34%) who persevered (or were persevered with?) fifty-two authors (4.7%) received between four and twelve years’ worth of full-time subsidy. There is another way of looking at that apparently impressive figure. Almost as many Lit. Board beneficiaries (fifty in fact) have died and seventeen of those died in Board custody. Natural attrition couldn’t, surely have accounted for all of them: did they jump, were they pushed, or did they fall? Was it suicide, neglect, or slow starvation, waiting for that first magical cheque that would satisfy body and soul: the craving to be taken seriously at last. But overall the figures look good and suggest that the Lit. Board has met its charter to foster and support Australian literature. But armed only with a calculator and statistics supplied by the Lit. Board itself, I believe I have unmasked a conspiracy.

Did you know, for example, that in the five years from 1983 to 1987 successful male applicants totalled 338 and female 227. That’ a 60/40 split, which doesn’t look too bad until it’s translated into hard cash: about $4.47 million (64%) to men and about $2.53 million (36%) to women, making the average grant to women around $11,000 compared with the average grant to successful men of about $13,200. And in only one year (1984) did the distribution of grants male/female equal the amount of money male/female. And that’s the good news!

In the section of the book titled ‘How Do Writer Survive?’ Robert Drewe says: ‘my first novel The Savage Crows might never have been developed and completed if I hadn’t received a grant … Of equal importance … was the show of confidence … ’; David Ireland writes: ‘The sheer time I was given was the valuable thing to me.’ and Roger McDonald seems to sum it up by remarking ‘I worked nine to twelve hours a day for eighteen months on my first novel. I would not have had the stamina to complete it without the opportunity to work on it full time.’ Few novelists would disagree with him. And he and Drewe and Ireland, and quite a few others, have every reason to be grateful for the support. McDonald is the lowest free kick scorer of the three with no less than six years of full-time subsidy. Drewe has chalked up at least seven and Ireland at least twelve! In the Hall of Fame, or Living National Treasures department (those who’ve received four or more years full time support), men have clocked up about 238 years (77.5%) patronage compared with about seventy (22.5%) by women. Only one woman – Dorothy Hewell – has received more than seven, compared with nine men. And that’s still the good news. Since 1983 ten men and two women held two-year fellowships and since 1984 no woman has. In hard cash, since 1983, men have been granted $522,000 worth of two-year fellowships, compared with $90,000 granted to women. That’s an 85.3 (14.7%) split. When the Whitlam government revamped the old Commonwealth Literary Fund (the precursor of the Lit. Board) in 1973, when we’d barely torched the pyres of constraining underwear, even then the split was 70/30.

When the facts behind the Board’s coy figures are exposed to the light of day, apologists suggest that the level of funding more than adequately reflects the number and type of application from women. Even if this is so, the argument ignores the simplest premise of affirmative action and equal opportunity. A detailed study – if permitted – under the Freedom of Information Act would undoubtedly reveal that the systems of invitation, application, and assessment are hostile to women. In the absence of such a study anyone can guess the intimidatory effect on potential female applicants of last year’s statistics. In 1987, of the twenty-four senior fellowships (the sort of vote of confidence Robert Drewe was undoubtedly referring to above), only three were awarded to women.

It’s a pity that none of these statistics appeared in Shapcott’s book; an even greater one that their omission doesn’t seem to have attracted Evan Williams’ attention (or may I call you Tom and Ev?). I’m not saying I’m surprised. All I’m saying is that I hope all you girls who weren’t too discouraged by the dribs and drabs traditionally doled out to Lit. Board applicants of the non-penile persuasion, and applied on 15 May, had the foresight to include a naked photo along with the form.