Some years ago, Mark Davis caused quite a stir by mapping the linkages and networks that close the gate to innovative new writing in Australia. Another instance of this phenomenon, according to Jeff Sparrow in Overland (my favourite “little magazine” by the way) is Robert Dessaix’ Best Australian Essays 2004. Sparrow notes that passionate and polemical writing has no place in this resolutely middlebrow collection, and picks up on another significant ommission:
There are other strange exclusions, too. If the elevation of Salaam Pax, the ‘Baghdad Blogger’, into an international celebrity during the Iraq war, drew attention to the growing clout of internet essayists, 2004 was the year blogging came in from the cold, with the Democratic National Convention actually issuing press accreditation to political bloggers. According to a recent survey, some eight million Americans now maintain their own blogs, while blog readership stands at 27 per cent of internet users. These are staggering statistics, and one suspects comparable numbers would emerge from an Australian study. Why then does Best Australian Essays show no interest whatsoever in local explorers of Blogistan?
Again, it seems a matter of the editor acting as gatekeeper rather than curator. You can see why online essayists might offend Dessaix’s MOR sensibilities: bloggers tend to be crass, aggressive and?Äîoften?Äîpolitical. Nonetheless, the rise of a new medium that has more people reading and writing essays than at any time in memory would seem a development worthy of at least a cursory mention. When we buy 400 grams of ‘Best Australian Butter’, we accept the superlative on the packaging as conventional puffery of the supplier’s own wares, rather than an assessment of the relative merits of dairies throughout the country. Unless Black Inc. opens its essay collection to a broader range of voices, literary consumers will?Äîwith some justification?Äîreach a similar conclusion.
Another Black Inc. publication has just hit the newstands – The Monthly. I’m waiting on my free copy, but I suspect that Tim Dunlop’s predictions might be right, and Andrew Norton notes the absence of new perspectives or voices in the first issue.
Are Tim and Andrew right that the best new writing is in the blogosphere?
On a related note: I just bought the third issue of Investigate, which is somewhat better than I expected it to be, though I think the subheading “Breaking News” is a tad hyperbolic. Interesting to see a blogging presence in the mag with extensive quotes from Tim Blair on blogs, the media and accountability, and a column by John Quiggin on right wing pc and postmodernism. Tim Blair’s favourite (ex) blogger is the movie reviewer. Overall, it’s a bit light on content and perhaps still too slanted to the right for my taste, but I didn’t feel I totally wasted my $6.95. They still desperately need to employ someone with basic web design and layout skills, though!
Update: I got my free copy in the mail this afternoon. Birmingham’s article is a standout. I admire what they’ve done with longer essays but I think some could use some more editing – particularly the very long one on the ABC which is of marginal interest at least to me. The whole mag has a kind of ABC target audience feel, actually. Andrew Norton thinks The Monthly is trying to occupy a similar market niche to that of Atlantic Monthly, while the editor himself seems to be gesturing towards the New Yorker. It’s hard to quantify, but I think the mag needs some more punch or zing to justify a repeat purchase.
Elsewhere: Phil Gomes is pretty unimpressed.
Farkinell, you are becoming a 24 hour bollockmerchant. Have a sleep, and finish your thesis. Good post though.
Farkinell, you are becoming a 24 hour bollockmerchant. Have a sleep, and finish your thesis. Good post though.
Will do, Flutey. Night.
Will do, Flutey. Night.
Hermes never sleeps…. Yes, I got my Monthly (and who wouldnt look forward to that??) title sounds like a regrettable compromise…
Looks OK to me content wise (though Im sure that list of contributors will still be dominating public debate posthumuously in 2030) – but the layout is seriously lame-o.
Viz, the cover: A woman miming “what the f*ck is this?” really says it all. It screams thematic and demographic confusion – not a good sign for a first ed.
And as soon as I work out what “zingy” journalism is, I’ll work on having it banned.
Still, better than sitting around crapping on the blog at 2am I spose… Hello?
Hermes never sleeps…. Yes, I got my Monthly (and who wouldnt look forward to that??) title sounds like a regrettable compromise…
Looks OK to me content wise (though Im sure that list of contributors will still be dominating public debate posthumuously in 2030) – but the layout is seriously lame-o.
Viz, the cover: A woman miming “what the f*ck is this?” really says it all. It screams thematic and demographic confusion – not a good sign for a first ed.
And as soon as I work out what “zingy” journalism is, I’ll work on having it banned.
Still, better than sitting around crapping on the blog at 2am I spose… Hello?
the John Birmingham article is damn good – i don’t understand this demand for new voices – who cares how old they are – as long as they’re good – writers are often like wine anyway – and Birmingham IS young
the John Birmingham article is damn good – i don’t understand this demand for new voices – who cares how old they are – as long as they’re good – writers are often like wine anyway – and Birmingham IS young
You have to wonder at the level of serious punditry a mag is aiming for if they get Blair to write for them.
You have to wonder at the level of serious punditry a mag is aiming for if they get Blair to write for them.
I’ve read it now – Birmingham’s article is indeed a standout.
I’ve read it now – Birmingham’s article is indeed a standout.