Showing posts with label Les Murray. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Les Murray. Show all posts

Wednesday, 11 May 2022

Five Years On

Today it is five years since my brother died. At the time, my younger daughter wrote a short memoir of him for Louise Adler at Melbourne University Press. Since then the management at the press has changed and it seems that the memoir has been taken down from the MUP site. Here it is, for anyone who would like to read it:



Memories of My Uncle

Lucinda Higgie

There’s a W.H. Auden poem about grief that my uncle, Mark Colvin, loved. It isn’t ‘Stop All the Clocks’, the one in Four Weddings and a Funeral. He liked that one, but because Auden wrote the poem about the death of a dictator, it annoyed him when it was played straight.
No, the poem that my uncle liked was ‘Musée des Beaux Arts’, in which Auden seems to be meditating on Bruegel’s ‘Landscape with the Fall of Icarus’. Icarus only takes up a few centimetres of this painting. In fact, all we can see is Icarus’s foot, which is about to sink into the water. No extravagant displays of grief are demanded. Nobody even seems to have noticed that anything is amiss. The world goes on, oblivious and indifferent to the death that means everything to those who mourn it. Auden interprets Brueghel’s artwork as an accurate portrayal of the nature of grief.
Perhaps the poem was particularly memorable for Marko because he had been stationed for several years in Brussels, the city where the painting hangs. Perhaps, as the years went by and his ailments increased, he came to recognise the truth in Auden’s contention. And perhaps, in the work that he did as a journalist, he found a way of redressing the balance, of ensuring that at least a few of the Icarus-like falls that happen all over the world on a daily basis might get the attention they deserve from those who are ‘just walking dully along’.
What I’m sure he never imagined was that his own death would be met by anything other than the public apathy that Auden describes in ‘Musée des Beaux Arts’. Yet, within an hour of his passing, my uncle’s name was being flashed across television screens all across Australia and reports of his demise were being included in news bulletins on the radio and online as well. As a result, neither my sister nor I—we both live in England—learnt of our uncle’s death from family. Instead, we woke up to texts from friends who’d never met him but who had learned of his death from the rolling coverage. Instead of absorbing the information and digesting it from an individual perspective, by the time I left for work that day I had already read half a dozen articles about my uncle’s life, including an obituary. I had seen dozens of tweets from people who had never met him but already missed him like a friend. I had watched a beautifully edited montage of my uncle’s work put together by the ABC and saw that my uncle had not just been a member of our family but also a national treasure.
How wonderful it was to know how loved he was. Although press coverage is often construed as an invasion of privacy, the aftermath of his death has had a surreal element of camaraderie to it. It is in this spirit—my sneaking suspicion that there are people beyond my close family who might get comfort from hearing more about Mark Colvin—that I am recording some memories, which I hope will help to fill in a bit more of the picture of the kind and loveable person we have all lost.

One

There is a little film that Marko made of us children—his sons Nicolas and William and my sister Anna and me—when we visited some English cousins in Devon in the summer of 1992 or 1993. I was about three at the time, and in the film Marko interviews me about the plane flight we have just taken over from Australia, on which I’d drunk what I called ‘Coco Cola’. While he is asking me about this, I suddenly break off the interview to try to go into a tent with the older cousins, am promptly kicked out and then spend a lot of time running around a field completely in my own world. Looking back at that footage, I am struck by the way Marko always managed to make me feel as though my thoughts and ideas were worth listening to, even when I was tiny and not particularly articulate. One of the things I most appreciated about him, then and later, was that when you were with him, there was never a sense that he was looking over your shoulder, wishing for someone more interesting to come along.
Marko would never belittle or patronise me. During my school years, he would eagerly read stories I had submitted for English, completely engaging with my writing and with what I was trying to achieve. One year, I chose to go in a particularly grisly direction for a crime fiction assignment and had the character of the young child, murder her mother at the behest of a vengeful father. As part of the evidence, I wrote a diary from the child’s perspective, dropping hints to the reader about what had actually happened. When Marko let out a gasp at the end and told me that the twist had caught him by surprise, I was thrilled. He never talked down to me when I was a kid. I remember in 2003 sitting in a pub in The Rocks with him when he fixed me with that intense gaze he got when he particularly cared about something and told me the story of the Battle of Trafalgar. Being taken seriously by him, being engaged with as an equal, meant such a lot in those gawky adolescent years when I didn’t like myself very much.
And it wasn’t only a question of your ideas making you worth your salt with Uncle Marko. Just as importantly, he took your feelings seriously as well. Gaslighting is a term that has been in the media a lot over the last couple of years and it describes the act of writing off the validity of a person’s observations, emotions and overall perspective, so that they themselves begin to doubt their own worth. It is a tactic that manipulators and abusers use. I wish there was an easy antonym (fire extinguishing?) for this phenomenon; certainly a conversation with my uncle Marko when you were upset always had the opposite effect of gaslighting.
A phone call between him and me one afternoon in early 2013 illustrates what I mean. I was in that unsettled, in-between phase where university is over and the path ahead is still indistinct. I had made an ill-fated move to Sydney to study post-grad law. I “was moping aimlessly down a street in Newtown on my second evening there when Marko called to see how I was getting on. You could never fool Marko for long and after trying to put a brave face on things, I started to cry and blurted out how lonely and lost I truly was. I felt like such a twit; I had just moved to a beautiful, exciting city, yet I was utterly miserable. His response could not have been more kind-hearted. Without platitudes or bossiness, he helped me to see that it would all be all right and to picture the good future of which I had completely lost sight. He was such an excellent listener. That is one reason he was such a brilliant interviewer, I suspect. It was also part of what made him a wonderful friend. It never felt like he was just waiting for you to finish speaking so that he could say something, or half-listening to you while thinking about what his next comment would be.

Two

In 1998, a decade before the advent of Twitter, I sent my uncle Marko an email. I had just turned nine and my parents, my sister and I were six months into a posting in Budapest. I told him about our recent trip to Poland and then admonished him for forgetting my birthday, typing out about fifteen lines of ‘snap snap grrr.’ I mean that quite literally, it took me another four years to learn how to copy and paste.
That email didn’t reach Marko at first. Instead, I received a reply from an American Mark Colvin about a week later. ‘I’m very sorry I missed your birthday,’ he wrote, ‘but I didn’t know it was happening because I don’t know who you are.’ I remember Mum and her brother laughing like drains as she read this down the telephone to him in Australia.

“That first failed attempt to communicate electronically was redressed eventually. Not only did we successfully exchange emails, we became Facebook friends. Later, Marko withdrew from Facebook, incensed by their policies on privacy and various other things, but in 2007, when my dad was working in London and our family had been living there for about a year, he sent me a long message, having learned that I was hoping to study—‘read’ as some people in England like to put it—English literature and had been visiting university campuses, trying to decide where I should apply.
The message he sent me was long and thoughtful and, most importantly for me, never suggested for a moment that I shouldn’t set my sights as high as he had done:

Dear Lucy 
Thank you for being my friend on Facebook. As you can see, my page is rather dominated by literary bits and pieces. This is because, like you at exactly the same age, I loved reading novels and poetry. I’ve never lost that love, and have always been incredibly grateful for the chance to go to Oxford to study English. The thing about the Oxford course is that, in my time—and I don’t believe it’s changed that radically—it chose to treat English in a historical fashion, so that the student follows the story of both the language and the literature from their origins. So you start with learning some Anglo-Saxon—don’t worry about it; for someone like you who has studied German, it’s a doddle. In the process, you gain access to some extraordinary pieces of work: Beowulf, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, The Pearl and The Dream of the Rood. These are not properly accessible at all in modern English because the form, alliterative verse, just doesn’t work in translation. The other reason, and it’s a good one, for learning Anglo-Saxon is that it is the basic building block of present-day English. Once you have got through the Anglo-Saxon, Chaucer, who wrote in Middle English, is easy. Again, Chaucer is available in translation, and Coghill’s Penguin translation is really very good, but it doesn’t compare to reading the original.
In every way, of course, the course lets you understand how each development in English, the language and the literature, is a building on the past—or sometimes a demolition of it and starting again. You will come to understand, for instance, how we came to have standardised spelling because of the English Civil War, and the printers’ abandonment of the old rules whereby each line on the page had to be exactly the same length. This had meant almost random spelling to shorten and lengthen words to make the lines fit. In the Civil War, with vast numbers of new pamphlets being printed every day, they just chucked away that rule and started using the same spelling for a word every time.
And so it goes on, through the centuries, with the result that an Oxford English degree is almost a history degree as well.
When I wrote to him to tell him I’d decided to apply to Cambridge rather than Oxford, he might initially have been a bit disappointed. ‘Cambridge is BLOODY cold,’ he had written in a previous email, ‘and it’s only a university town with no other industry, whereas Oxford has always had lots of other industry, so Cambridge is, in a way, more like, say, Canberra.
All the same, on the grey January morning in 2008 when I learnt that I had received a place on the English course at Jesus College, Cambridge, after my mum and dad, Marko was the first person I wanted to tell.
More recently, reading Marko’s book Light and Shadow, I found a passage where he pinpoints the moment he realises he wants to study English Literature at university and I felt a shock of recognition. His experience came after a lesson on a short poem “called ‘The Sick Rose’, one of William Blake’s Songs of Innocence and Experience. The discussion, Marko writes, ‘opened the poem out, appropriately enough, like a flower’ as well as having ‘opened up every great poem [he] read from then on.’ For me the epiphany came through the poems of Tony Harrison, who wrote sonnets about his working-class parents in Leeds, his classical education at Leeds Grammar and his attempt to reconcile the two worlds he had come to straddle. Reading Harrison—most particularly ‘V’, his long poem about returning home to tend his parents’ graves, which have been vandalised by disaffected youths who, he realises, so easily could have been him—my eyes were opened to how form and subject matter could balance and counterbalance one another. Sitting in a classroom in London, as my uncle had decades earlier, I suddenly got the point of poetry. I ended up writing both my university dissertations on poets. One was on Gerard Manley Hopkins, whom Marko was a bit sceptical about—‘What is all that accented stuff about, Lucy?’  The second was on Les Murray. A few years ago, when Marko travelled to Bunyah to interview Murray, he brought me back a present—it was a copy of Murray’s latest book, On Bunyah, which had been autographed and inscribed, ‘To Lucy and the grace of Cambridge.’
While I remember many discussions about Murray—conversations about his poems ‘Animal Nativity’ and ‘Dog Fox Field’ one Christmas spring to mind particularly—and about other literary topics, the very first conversation about books that I can remember having with Marko was about Harry Potter. When I heard that my uncle had been visiting William’s primary school to read Harry Potter to the class, I wanted to know how he’d done all the voices. I particularly remember his Professor Flitwick, which was eager, staccato and very, very high pitched, but all the ones he did were so good that it’s hard to choose between them.
“Marko didn’t go quite as far as my friend who, towards the end of our degree, said, ‘I’ve read lots of Shakespeare and Milton and medieval literature now, and it was pretty good, but nothing has given me as much enjoyment as Harry Potter.’ Still, I was delighted that my clever uncle was not a snob and admired the books too. It was an enthusiasm I loved sharing with him and each time I finished a book in the series, I would ring him so that we could talk together about what I’d just read. One conversation comes to mind as an elucidation of his ability to gently suggest a new perspective. I was about nine and we were talking about Prisoner of Azkaban. I told him how annoyed I was that Harry had been distracted from pursuing the Golden Snitch during a Quidditch match because he’d taken a shine to the Ravenclaw Seeker Cho Chang. Why did the series have to introduce boring lovey-dovey stuff when adventure was so much more fun? I remember Uncle Marko replying with a gentle question about whether it didn’t perhaps make sense for characters to become interested in romance as they grew up?
Like most good children’s books, the Harry Potter stories deepen as you grow up, and it is oddly comforting, now that my uncle is no longer here, to realise that the series for which we shared an affection is, at its centre, all about death and grief. In the very first book, Harry comes across the Mirror of Erised, an enchanted mirror that shows the beholder their deepest desire; he looks into it and sees the family he has never had the opportunity to meet. J.K. Rowling explained in an interview, ‘The Mirror of Erised is absolutely entirely drawn from my own experience of losing a parent. “Five minutes, just please God give me five more minutes.” But it would never be long enough, that was the point of Chapter 10, you know.’
When I read that with no significant experience of loss, I thought it was an interesting idea. Now it speaks to me with new force. What I wouldn’t do for more “time with Marko. Five more minutes to drive to the Balmain lookout in that car full of detritus with Chops, the gentle boxer dog, on the backseat. Five more minutes to laugh at a Peter Cook and Dudley Moore sketch or David Attenborough’s footage of a sneaky, thieving penguin.
When I feel like that, there is a moment in the third instalment of the series that has helped me to begin to make peace with the loss of my uncle. In that volume, Harry thinks that he has seen his father again, despite knowing that this is impossible. He is ashamed of his wishful thinking. ‘It was stupid, thinking it was him,’ he mutters, ‘I mean, I knew he was dead.’ Here’s how Rowling has Dumbledore respond:
‘You think the dead we loved ever truly leave us? You think that we don’t recall them more clearly than ever in times of great trouble? Your father is alive in you, Harry, and shows himself plainly when you have need of him.’

Three

When my uncle died, mum got an email from our cousin Jasper in England. He hadn’t seen much of Marko but he’d always remembered him because of a visit he made to their house when Jasper was fourteen. ‘I remember very clearly … being surprised how much interest he had in us even though we were young,’ Jasper wrote. That was one of the things I also valued about my uncle—he valued young people. When we were just kids, he was happy to lark about with us at the drop of a hat. He threw himself into the spirit of things and joined in the fun, as if he were still ten himself. One example is the trip we made to the now defunct Fox Studios in Sydney, back in 1999 or 2000. We boarded an enormous fibre-glass boat for a ride called The Titanic Experience. At the point when we all had to make a dash for the life rafts, Marko lifted me clean into the air and shouted ‘I’m all she’s got!’ at the top of his lungs.
A decade or more later, when I went up to Sydney with my friend Teresa for a concert, Uncle Marko kindly let us both stay. Despite the age difference between them, my uncle went out of his way to make my friend feel at home—and soon found that they had a point of connection, as her family came from a village he had been to while filming a story on the ‘Ndrangheta mafia. He later kindly dug out his footage from the archive and sent it to Teresa so that her mother could watch it and see shots from her childhood home. Teresa was not used to being around big dogs and, difficult as this is to imagine if you have met Chops, she was nervous of him. Marko picked up on this without it even being stated and, rather than being impatient as some people would be at what they might regard as a silly fear, he showed Teresa how to put out her hand to Chops’ muzzle so that they got used to each other.
It was times like these that I often found myself thinking that, had Uncle Marko not become a journalist, he would have made a wonderful teacher. He was so patient and enjoyed explaining things that fascinated him and discussing them with you. I don’t know why, but it also seemed to me that he always retained something of his younger self into adulthood, a trace of the small boy he had once been. As a result, I regularly recall—even see—my uncle in my work as a school teacher now. The boys I teach are bright, as he was, and they are kind and funny, as he was too. The school at which I teach is less than a kilometre from Westminster School, where Marko was a pupil between the ages of thirteen and eighteen. He was happy there. Unfortunately the school that my uncle attended before that was not a nurturing place at all. He describes his experience there in detail in his book, Light and Shadow, and summarised it in an interview with Richard Fidler quite simply: ‘I went to prison for five years.’
Now that I have read my uncle’s account of his time at prep school, I find that I think of him as I watch the sweet, enthusiastic little boys that I teach—boys who rush up in the playground to tell me about the book they are enjoying or to show me a magic trick they have learnt or to ask whether I’ve finished marking their homework. When he was exactly the same age as the boys in my care, my uncle was physically, emotionally and, in my view—because Marko learnt about God from the same people who tormented him—spiritually abused by the adults who were meant to look after him. It horrifies me. While I cannot undo what happened to my uncle, I can do my utmost to make sure that the children I teach feel safe, happy and valued. I can ensure that they are never made to feel the way my uncle was made to feel.

Four

Mary-Ellen Field’s gift of a kidney to my uncle freed him from dialysis and gave him four more years of life. It was, as my uncle said in the Four Corners documentary about the process, ‘the most gracious gift you could have’. I could not be more grateful to her, especially as it was during those years that, for the first time since I was sixteen, my uncle and I were living in the same country, giving me the chance to see him more regularly than I ever had before.
Some of the best memories—and how miserable that they are just memories now, not part of a tradition that will include future events as well—are the most ordinary ones. When I came to stay, we would often drive around Rozelle to pick up various things he needed. He would park the car in a disabled spot and I would dash out to get kangaroo mince for Chops, or chocolate éclairs for the two of us, or a prescription from the chemist, or, if we were driving to granny’s that day, a lemon tart for her. Many of the businesses recognised Uncle Marko as a regular. A couple of greengrocers gave us both cups of freshly squeezed blood orange juice when they saw Marko. ‘This is for Mark, isn’t it?’ the pharmacist would ask when I said I was picking up a prescription for my uncle. She gave a fond smile when I said it was.
I felt completely relaxed with my uncle Marko. There was absolutely no need at all to put on a performance, to sing for your supper. I have a wonderful picture of one of the many moments when Chops decided to try to be my lapdog, despite the fact that he is the size of a foal. In it, Marko is laughing in the chair by the TV. Another lovely memory is another simple one—having come back from “a trip to Byron Bay, I stayed over with Marko. Lying on the sofa in Rozelle, I watched the first few episodes of Rita with him on Netflix. He cooked a delicious roast, with duck fat potatoes, and together we drank goblets of wine while laughing at the ridiculous scenarios thrown together in the Danish show about a teacher.
Whenever I stayed with Uncle Marko, I would wake up before him, find Chops’ leash—or dear old Jumbles’ before she departed this life—and we’d jog together towards Callan Park. My usual excuses about exercise evaporated, replaced by a memory of his comment to me once as he was making his slow and painful way from one room to another: ‘Never take your health for granted, Lucy.’
Of course, one of the reasons that that made such an impression is that it was very unusual for my uncle to refer to the state of his health. The phrase ‘he never complained’ is a tenacious cliché when it comes to talking about people who suffer from chronic illness, as if mentioning that you are suffering even once completely eradicates your claim to sympathy. Nevertheless, it was extraordinary how much he had to bear and how little he mentioned it. Mum used to say that she had come to realise that on his best days Marko probably felt the way we do when we have the flu. However, he didn’t dwell on it and rarely even called attention to it. I wonder now whether he just thought—perhaps correctly—that most of us simply wouldn’t be able to properly understand. Or that it was just too boring to talk about.
As far as I know, Marko was only starstruck to the point of speechlessness once. It was when he met Adam Buxton, the English comedian whose show with his friend Joe Cornish was a favourite with him and with my family. One of its many catch cries was the phrase ‘Love you, bye’, with which Buxton would sign off at the end of each show, the words spoken very quickly, as if he were already rushing away from the person he was farewelling. Marko and I would always end our telephone conversations with that same phrase—or at least I would forget and sign off automatically with ‘love you lots, bye’, and then my uncle would reply in the silly voice of the podcast, ‘Love you, bye!’ We would laugh and talk for another ten minutes after that before going through the ritual again.
I miss those telephone calls. I wish we could ring each other one last time.
Goodbye, Uncle Marko. I loved you and I miss you so much already.
‘Love you, bye.’


Friday, 18 March 2022

Australia I'm Standing in It

Having been shut out of Australia for a long time, we have at last been allowed to return. With the links of familiarity broken by absence, it is almost like visiting somewhere new. But, unlike going to a place you've never been, going home after a long, forced exile, brings your memories and expectations up against the reality of your former homeland, which, inevitably, has altered in the time since you left.

I remember an Australia full of wit and fun, as exemplified by the wonderful television comedy that this blog's title echoes, Australia You're Standing in It, of which Tim and Debbie's Brain Space was always my favourite segment:





But the last two years have taken their toll on joie de vivre and silliness, it seems. 

The first thing we noticed after getting here is that many, many Australians, despite being vaccinated, remain thoroughly spooked by the virus that most governments have reacted to with lockdowns and other extreme measures. In Canberra, a place where, if you are walking, you are almost certain not to encounter another living soul, we watched a young woman pushing a pram up Anzac Parade, solitary, on an enormous street, her face almost invisible beneath a mask. 


The only danger she faced from the virus was from us as we drove past, maskless - all the other cars we saw contained solitary drivers, each one masked, with the windows up. 

Of course, we remember our own initial panic when we were told about this new virus and shown the videos of people falling down in the street and sitting in Italian hospitals with fishbowls on their heads. Two years on though, (and fully vaccinated), we have read enough to know that panic is not sensible, and facemasks in the open air are pointless, especially for people youthful enough to be the mothers of babies in prams.

But in Australia, despite the worldwide web, people seem cut off from the "Hell, let's live with it" attitude and remain possessed by fear.

And perhaps as a result of the febrile atmosphere, Australian politics seem to have hit new lows. Nothing that new there, but what is shocking to me is the way that the state-run broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, an organisation charged with presenting a diversity of perspectives, never stating or implying that any perspective is the editorial opinion of the ABC and never misrepresenting or unduly favouring any perspective, seems hellbent on bringing down the current government, led by Scott Morrison, who will be facing an election in the next couple of months.

Scott Morrison is not an exciting leader, but he has a certain steady-as-you-go quality that just at this moment in history strikes me as not the worst attribute for someone to possess who is at your country's helm. 

Morrison came to the job of Prime Minister after years of political turmoil, which started when Kevin Rudd took the leadership of the Australian Labor Party and briefly succeeded in getting most of the voting public to fall in love with him. Rudd won the next election and then disappointed the electorate very quickly. Julia Gillard ousted him, but never won the hearts of the electorate and was forced to govern with the help of two rural independents whose own voters were furious that they had thrown in their hats with the left. Rudd ousted Gillard and another election was fought, at which Tony Abbott won a commanding victory. 

Although he had overwhelmingly won over the public, Abbott faced many within his own party who disliked the fact that he was a Christian, was not a supporter of gay marriage and understood that, while Australia could not solve climate change by itself, it could ruin its economy if it went ahead, without China also acting in good faith, and decarbonised. 

Abbott was ousted by an extremely ambitious, socially more liberal colleague called Malcolm Turnbull. I listened to Turnbull quite recently, when he was speaking at the funeral of an Australian businessman who operated in Russia. Turnbull's highest praise for the dead businessman was reserved for the brilliant way in which that businessman concealed from the investors Turnbull had taken to Russia the worrying truth - namely, that the people they were being encouraged to go into joint venture with were extreme fascists, bigots and half-mad. Turnbull's admiration for such unscrupulous behaviour gives a glimpse of the kind of moral compass Australia's Prime Minister had while Turnbull was in charge. 

Turnbull did not make any effort to win over voters when election time came, as his own self-belief told him that he would win a landslide. Instead, he very nearly lost and, as a result of his poor performance, Morrison was put in. To my surprise, Morrison went on to win the next election very handsomely and almost single-handedly. 

Morrison is absolutely not cool or trendy. I imagine him in a different life being the deputy headmaster of a large secondary school. Perhaps it is because there is nothing inner-city about him, no hint of the vegan, no sense that he might harbour a secret passion for quinoa - or perhaps it is because he belongs to a pentecostal Christian church (uber-uncool) - but he is constantly mocked and spoken of scornfully, and he generally gets a consistently mocking press. He is referred to routinely as "Scotty from Marketing", because he ran Tourism Australia in an earlier part of his life - he was responsible, I think, for that embarrassing, but memorable, "Where the bloody hell are you?" campaign to encourage visitors to come down under. But I think, as well, he was responsible for this, possibly the most lovely promotional video ever made: 



In his term in office, Morrison has had to deal with bushfires and flooding - and the media insist that he has dealt with them uniquely badly. I have an idea that no one whose house has burned down or been filled with muddy water is ever happy, and no leader can ever get much right in such crises - particularly in a country with such a huge land mass and such a scattered population as Australia. *

Morrison also mismanaged the pandemic, according to all comers, and I would agree with this, except that the charge against him is that he wasn't strict enough, whereas my view is that lockdowns were an enormous mistake.

Anyway, I don't exactly love Morrison, but I don't think he is a terrible person or a very bad leader. Whatever I think about him is, in any case, not really relevant to what I want to talk about, which is the relentless, blatant - to my eyes new and deeply shocking - bias of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 

To give an illustration of what I mean, here are two comedy sketches, both broadcast in primetime yesterday evening. They do not make any attempt to hide their contempt for Scott Morrison. In the first, they focus on a single, possibly slightly ill-judged, picture Morrison posted on his Facebook page, shortly after he had been forced to stay at home because he had tested positive for the virus. The posts all around this one were to do with important issues, demonstrating that his mind was on the floods and the Ukraine situation and all the other things that a Prime Minister needed to be focussing on. But the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's weekly performer chose to grab this single piece of light-heartedness and use it as an indictment, as if Morrison was doing nothing at all beyond posting pictures of his cat. The scorn, the hatred that drips from this performance has no place at the public broadcaster:

The second item to pop up, a very short time later, yesterday evening was this, a "comedy sketch" that not only implies that all those working in parliament for the government side of politics are people without principle, but also attacks a judicial decision, which is odd, given the left is usually full of outrage at any hint that the cherished independence and integrity of the courts come under scrutiny:


No doubt, with the help of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Australia will soon have a new government. Whether that will be because it is necessary or simply because the population has been gently stewed in a rich gravy of government funded (yet anti-government) propaganda is something we may never know.

=======================================

*I won't go into the whole question of land management and poor zoning and new ideas about bush flammability and how to prepare for fires, but my many relatives who live on the land point to newfangled ways of doing things as the cause of a lot of the fire and flooding problems that have arisen over the past few years, combined with the arrival in rural areas of more and more people who love the idea of a little place in the country but who do not understand exactly what living in rural Australia and staying safe entails. 

Friday, 31 July 2015

It's the Way You Tell Them

The other day I was irritated by a book John Gray wrote, in which - among other things - he endeavoured to demonstrate that he and Mauthner and Beckett and someone else I've forgotten were all in agreement that language is not a reason to feel superior to other creatures.

I suppose if John Gray had made his point with the elegance of Les Murray in his poem The Meaning of Existence, I might have been more receptive. Here it is:

The Meaning of Existence, by Les Murray

Everything except language
knows the meaning of existence.
Trees, planets, rivers, time
know nothing else. They express it
moment by moment as the universe

Even this fool of a body
lives it in part, and would
have full dignity within it
but for the ignorant freedom
of my talking mind

From the collection called Poems the Size of Photographs  published in 2002

Friday, 17 October 2014

A White Day-Star of Squinch

Wonderful Anecdotal Evidence has a great post about Les Murray today. It includes a link to an interview with Murray, and that interview is followed by this poem, which I hadn't consciously read before.

I often get more from an individual poem that I come across somewhere than I do from reading a collection. It's probably just a matter of poor attention - I also often find that reading just a scrap of something that I find hard going but interesting is the best way to get the most out of it, if that is at all clear.

I rather think it isn't, so I'll shut up and get out of the way of the lovely poem:


"Last World Before the Stars

These day that we’re apart
are like standing on Pluto
there in the no-time of thought,

bijou world the area of West Australia
contra-rotating farthest out
with its three moons and little mountains,

looking off the short horizon,
the Sun a white daystar of squinch
glazing the ground like frozen twilight,

no life, no company, no nearness,
never a memory or a joke
no pinned packet of dearness

just months gone in afternoon sleep
 and cripple-hikes with beeping monitors."


Monday, 5 December 2011

From the Past

For months now I've been resisting the impulse to give Les Murray another airing, but after coming across this photograph the other day, while looking for something to do with my grandfather's diary, I think I've found the perfect excuse:

It's 1960, just around Christmas, and, okay, that car probably isn't a Rolls Royce. Same diff, though. It still qualifies, I think, as an example of what Murray describes as 'sprawl':


The Quality of Sprawl

Sprawl is the quality
of the man who cut down his Rolls-Royce
into a farm utility truck, and sprawl
is what the company lacked when it made repeated efforts
to buy the vehicle back and repair its image.

Sprawl is doing your farm work by aeroplane, roughly,
or driving a hitchhiker that extra hundred miles home.
It is the rococo of being your own still centre.
It is never lighting cigars with ten dollar notes:
that's idiot ostentation and murder of starving people.
Nor can it be bought with the ash of million dollar deeds.

Sprawl lengthens the legs; it trains greyhounds on liver and beer.
Sprawl almost never says, Why not?, with palms comically raised
nor can it be dressed for, not even in running shoes worn
with mink and a nose ring. That is Society. That's Style.
Sprawl is more like the thirteenth banana in a dozen
or anyway the fourteenth.

Sprawl is Hank Stamper in Never Give an Inch
bisecting an obstructive official's desk with a chain saw.
Not harming the official. Sprawl is never brutal,
though it's often intransigent. Sprawl is never Simon de Montfort
at a town-storming: Kill them all! God will know His own.
Knowing the man's name this was said to might be sprawl.

Sprawl occurs in art. The fifteenth to twenty-first
lines in a sonnet, for example. And in certain paintings.
I have sprawl enough to have forgotten which paintings.
Turner's glorious Burning of the Houses of Parliament
comes to mind, a doubling bannered triumph of sprawl -
except he didn't fire them.

Sprawl gets up the noses of many kinds of people
(every kind that comes in kinds) whose futures don't include it.
Some decry it as criminal presumption, silken-robed Pope Alexander
dividing the new world between Spain and Portugal.
If he smiled in petto afterwards, perhaps the thing did have sprawl.

Sprawl is really classless, though. It is John Christopher Frederick Murray
asleep in his neighbours' best bed in spurs and oilskins,
but not having thrown up:
sprawl is never Calum, who, in the loud hallway of our house
reinvented the Festoon. Rather
it's Beatrice Miles going twelve hundred ditto in a taxi,
No Lewd Advances, no Hitting Animals, no Speeding,
on the proceeds of her two-bob-a-sonnet Shakespeare readings.
An image of my country. And would thatit were more so.

No, sprawl is full gloss murals on a council-house wall.
Sprawl leans on things. It is loose-limbed in its mind.
Reprimanded and dismissed,
it listens with a grin and one boot up on the rail
of possibility. It may have to leave the Earth.
Being roughly Christian, it scratches the other cheek
And thinks it unlikely. Though people have been shot for sprawl

Friday, 16 September 2011

Friday, 5 August 2011

Neater Abroad

In response to this, Umbagollah sent me a link to a poem by Les Murray - I was going to say a lovely poem by Les Murray but the lovely goes without saying really - that I hadn't read before. Here it is:

Eucalypts in Exile

They've had so many jobs:
boiling African porridge. Being printed on.
Paving Paris, flying in her revolutions.
Supporting a stork's nest in Spain.

Their suits are neater abroad,
of denser drape, unnibbled:
they've left their parasites at home.

They flower out of bullets
and, without any taproot,
draw water from way deep.
When they blow over
they reveal the black sun of that trick.

Standing round among shed limbs
and loose slabbings of bark
is homeland stuff
but fire is ingrained.
They explode the mansions of Malibu
because to be eucalypts
they have to shower sometime in Hell.

Their humans, meeting them abroad,
often grab and sniff their hands.

Loveable singly or unmarshalled
they are merciless in a gang.

Tuesday, 19 April 2011

Portrait of the Artist

In this recent New York Times review of Les Murray's latest book, the writer says, '...one wants, retrospectively, to reach out and comfort the boy he once was.' I've kept for ages a picture of Murray when he was a small boy. I think it evokes exactly the same response:

Thursday, 23 December 2010

Happy Christmas

Thank you very much to those who have been generous enough to read this blog over the last year and particularly to those who have shared their comments with me. I hope everyone will have a wonderful Christmas and an even better New Year. A few moments with Les Murray should get things off to a perfect start:
 
Animal Nativity by Les Murray
(from his 1992 collection: Translations from the Natural World)

The Iliad of peace began
when this girl agreed.
Now goats in trees, fish in the valley
suddenly feel vivid.

Swallows flit in the stable as if
a hatchling of their kind,
turned human, cried in the manger
showing the hunger-diamond.

Cattle are content that this calf
must come in human form.
Spiders discern a water-walker.
Even humans will sense the lamb,

He who frees from the old poem
turtle-dove and snake,
who gets death forgiven,
who puts the apple back.

Dogs, less enslaved but as starving
as the poorest humans there,
crouch, agog at a crux of presence
remembered as a star.

Friday, 7 May 2010

Prose from Murray

Australians are always agonising about identity - it is a perennial column filler for editors across the country. It seems to me though that Les Murray settled the question years ago in his essay, 'Flaunt, Scunge and Death-Freckles'. Is it just self-importance that makes us continue with the argument, when his description of our national character really says it all:
'Above all things for many Australians, summer means the beach. It may well be the thing for which we are best known in the wider world: a huge innocuous nation-state mad on swimming, and blessed with great beaches. A sea-bathing rather than a seafaring nation.'
I've been thinking about Murray after reading a recent interview with him, which was accompanied by a heartbreaking photograph of him as a small boy - it shows a skinny little fellow, dressed up in shorts and shirt and tie, his hands clasped behind his back, his socks just starting to slip down towards his ankles, staring guilelessly into the camera. He was bullied at school, as unusual people often are, and the experience forms the backdrop to some of his Subhuman Redneck poems, I believe. He wrote wisely about bullying in an article headed 'Erocide' for the now defunct magazine The Independent Monthly (not to be confused with The Monthly). This is what he said:

'As the late Marxist technique of tapping every focus of oppression or even private misery for its revolutionary potential fades with the sixties generation that carried it, any marginal group which didn't get its movement up and protesting by the 1980s is probably doomed to stay marginal. One such group, almost certainly bigger by far than the gay population and all the sad victims of literal rape and sexual abuse put together, is one whose members remain isolated by shame and self-contempt, and will probably never Come Out and speak with anything like a single voice. These are the folk for whom the sexual revolution remains a chimera, the ones whose sexual morale was destroyed early by rejection, by scorn, by childhood trauma, by fashion, by lack or defection of allies, by image. Not all are unattractive, but all live and act in the believe that they are. They are called wallflowers, ugly, wimps, unstylish, drips, nerds, pathetic, fat, frigid, creepy - the epithets go on and on. All are victims of something we haven't developed a word for yet, but which I've called anti-rape or epar, which is rape spelled backwards. A better term might be formed by analogy with erogenous: erocide. This crime, which appears in no statute books, is definable as the concerted or cumulative sexual destruction of a person. It may be an instinct which humans share with zebras, rabbits and many other species, a drive to sterilise as many potential breeders as possible, especially those idiosyncratic ones through whom the species might undergo change; the whole thing may be counter-evolutionary, designed to preserve the average. In humans, the matter seems always at least partly deliberate, and can be done by either sex to either sex. If triumphant Lawrentian sex, the kind that stares challengingly out of films and glossy magazines all over the Western world, is a nazi - and it is if you think about it, with its tall, beautiful blond idols - then those who have suffered erocide, along with children and the old, are its subhumans. They are the damaged goods of the universal flesh market, unfitted to consume or be consumed, but constrained to pay lip service and pretend.
Children are perhaps second only to the media in the enthusiastic practice of the anti-rape I'm talking about. In schools, it is usually called bullying or harassment and all children who enter school are tested to see if it works on them. If it does, they will cop it unremittingly, and the psychological scarring may persist lifelong. If anything, the taunts and jeering are less terrible than the abandonment that goes with them, the moral cowardice of fellow kids who don't jeer themeselves but don't speak out against it either, or afford the tormented one support for fear of becoming victims themselves. If the jeering or the avoidance come from the opposite sex, the results are apt to be severe and lasting. Those who fight back by compulsive promiscuity are no less victims than the anorexics or those who quietly shrivel into lifelong inner misery. We do little, as a society, to protect our children against such damage. A few well-publicised lawsuits by parents, not only aganst schools but also against the parents of tormentors, might be salutary. In a society which values sexual love so highly, too, it might seem odd if erocide, once defined, were not quickly included among crimes against the person. That may be a fair way off, though. Smaller steps may be taken in the interim, perhaps. At the now-defunct Crows Nest boys' high school, a perceptive deputy headmaster in the 1970s named Steve Murtough banned name-calling on pain of instant suspension, and it had good results. In hell, even a drop of water, on the tongue or the flames, has immense value, perhaps especially if the culture of hell forbids us to say or recognise that we are indeed there.'

Thursday, 6 May 2010

Missing Murray

News reaches me from Cambridge that those hoping to see Les Murray last month ended up disappointed, thanks to E+15. His trip may be resurrected some time later in the year, but meanwhile here is one of his poems, in case any Cambridge readers need something to keep them going until the great man's rescheduled arrival:


THE INSTRUMENT

Who reads poetry? Not our intellectuals;
they want to control it. Not lovers, not the combative,
nor examinees. They too skim it for bouquets
and magic trump cards. Not poor schoolkids
furtively farting as they get immunized against it.

Poetry is read by the lovers of poetry
and heard by some more they coax to the cafe
or the district library for a bifocal reading.
Lovers of poetry may total a million people
on the whole planet. Fewer than the players of skat.

What gives them delight is a never-murderous skim
distilled, to verse mainly, and suspended in rapt
calm on the surface of paper. The rest of poetry
to which this was once integral still rules
the continents, as it always did. But on condition now

that its true name is never spoken: constructs, feral poetry,
the opposite but also the secret of the rational.
And who reads that? Ah, the lovers, the schoolkids,
debaters, generals, crime-lords, everybody reads it:
Porsche, lift-off, Gaia, Cool, patriarchy.

Among the feral stanzas are many that demand your flesh
to embody themselves. Only completed art
free of obedience to its time can pirouette you
through and athwart the larger poems you are in.
Being outside all poetry is an unreachable void.

Why write poetry? For the weird unemployment.
For the painless headaches, that must be tapped to strike
down along your writing arm at the accumulated moment.
For the adjustments after, aligning facets in a verb
before the trance leaves you. For working always beyond

your own intelligence. For not needing to rise
and betray the poor to do it. For a non-devouring fame.
Little in politics resembles it: perhaps
the Australian colonists’ re-inventing of the snide
far-adopted secret ballot, in which deflation could hide

and, as a welfare bringer, shame the mass-grave Revolutions,
so axe-edged. so lictor-y.
Was that moral cowardice’s one shining world victory?
Breathing in dream-rhythm when awake and far from bed
evinces the gift. Being tragic with a book on your head.

Sunday, 28 March 2010

Sorry to Bang On

But Les Murray has a new volume of poems out. It's called Taller when Prone. I’ve just read a review of it and I’m going to go and buy it as soon as I can. It contains a poem with the wonderful title The Drizzle of Chefs’ Knives and a poem about country shows, which is full of razor sharp detail - ‘when the ticket strung through the tweedy eye/ of each member’s lapel meant pedigree’ - and ends with the line ‘The best show was any year it rained’.
The reviewer seems to have loved almost the whole collection but he singles out a poem called King Lear Had Alzheimer’s for extra special praise. It contains these bleak but brilliant lines:
‘The great feral novel
every human is in
is ruthless.'

Sunday, 21 March 2010

Go Murray

No, not Andy - Les, the poet. My brother and I were talking about him just the other day, and we both agreed he's well overdue for the Nobel Prize for Literature. As my brother said, anyone who can write something called The Dream of Wearing Shorts Forever deserves the Nobel at the very least:

The Dream of Wearing Shorts Forever, by Les Murray

To go home and wear shorts forever
in the enormous paddocks, in that warm climate,
adding a sweater when winter soaks the grass,

to camp out along the river bends
for good, wearing shorts, with a pocketknife,
a fishing line and matches,

or there where the hills are all down, below the plain,
to sit around in shorts at evening
on the plank verandah -

if the cardinal points of costume
are Robes, Tat, Rig and Scunge,
where are shorts in this compass?

They are never Robes
as other bareleg outfits have been:
the toga, the kilt, the lava-lava
the Mathatma's cotton dhoti;

archbishops and field marshals
at their ceremonies never wear shorts.
The very word
means underpants in North America.

Shorts can be Tat,
Land-Rovering bush-environmental tat,
socio-political ripped-and-metal-stapled tat,
solidarity-with-the-Third-World tat tvam asi,

likewise track-and-field shorts worn to parties
and the further humid, modelling negligee
of the Kingdom of Flaunt,
that unchallenged aristocracy.

More plainly climatic, shorts
are farmers' rig leathery with salt and bonemeal,
are sailors' and branch bankers' rig,
the crisp golfing style
of our youngest male National Costume.

Mostly loosely, they are Scunge,
ancient Bengal bloomers or moth-eaten hot pants
worn with a former shirt,
feet, beach sand, hair
and a paucity of signals.

Scunge, which is real negligee
housework in a swimsuit, pyjamas worn all day,
is holiday, is freedom from ambition.
Scunge makes you invisible
to the world and yourself.

The entropy of costume,
scunge can get you conquered by more vigorous cultures
and help you to notice it less.

Satisfied ambition, defeat, true unconcern,
the wish and the knack for self-forgetfulness
all fall within the scunge ambit
wearing board shorts or similar;
it is a kind of weightlessness.

Unlike public nakedness, which in Westerners
is deeply circumstantial, relaxed as exam time,
artless and equal as the corsetry of a hussar regiment,

shorts and their plain like
are an angelic nudity,
spirituality with pockets!
A double updraft as you drop from branch to pool!

Ideal for getting served last
in shops of the temperate zone
they are also ideal for going home, into space,
into time, to farm the mind's Sabine acres
for product or subsistence.

Now that everyone who yearned to wear long pants
has essentially achieved them,
long pants, which have themselves been underwear
repeatedly, and underground more than once,
it is time perhaps to cherish the culture of shorts,

to moderate grim vigour
with the knobble of bare knees,
to cool bareknuckle feet in inland water,
slapping flies with a book on solar wind
or a patient bare hand, beneath the cadjiput trees,

to be walking meditatively
among green timber, through the grassy forest
towards a calm sea
and looking across to more of that great island
and the further tropics.