According to the Weekend Australia (Feb 9-10) thirty-three out of thirty-eight Australian universities now have programs in creative writing. This grim piece of news brought to mind something Flannery O’Connor said. Asked whether she thought universities stifled creative writers she replied that they didn’t stifle enough of them.

OK, Tim Winton learnt something from Elizabeth Jolley, Ian McEwan went to East Anglia (in the first intake, when Malcolm Bradbury presided). Does anyone believe that either writer would have withered and died unless nurtured in the groves of academe? No, the saving remnant won’t save this argument.

We live in a culture saturated, sodden, rotten with stories and swarming with people who want to add more. Most of these people won’t get published. Most of what’s published will be forgotten within a year (and sometimes remaindered within three months). Not to mention the torrent of books published elsewhere in the Anglosphere, and not forgetting the Rest of the World. Enough already.

Especially because, although there’s a rough justice in the system, there’s also a raw deal for good writers. Someone who publishes a couple of well-received novels should have no difficulty finding a publisher for number three, right? Wrong. Increasingly, publishers are looking for the $Big Book. Once it’s obvious that you’re not Bryce Courtenay, you’re gone.

What possesses our universities to decide to turn out, year after year, a small army of people to join this ratrace, and to add to it that distinctive trait of our time, a sense of entitlement? Those grave elders who make the decisions in universities, surely they know these things?

Nope. This is what they know. Student numbers in humanities must be kept up, otherwise there’s less government money, staff cuts and general woe. It doesn’t much matter what the student numbers actually do, since in the humanities there’s no direct connection between course and career. So if creative writing will get ‘em through the doors, creative writing it is. The system is insulated against any vulgar intrusion from the market, because there is no market. Or rather (see above) there is one in which supply massively exceeds demand.

And there’s more, but not tonight.

 

On the ABC’S website tonight:

Mr Matonga said the party had let the President down and had not diverted enough energy into its campaign.

“In terms of strategy, we only applied 25 per cent of our energy into this campaign,” he said.

“That [the run-off] is when we are going to unleash the other 75 per cent that we did not apply in the first case.”

And God help the people of Zimbabwe.

 

It

 

Have you seen? – of course you have – the bumper-sticker that reads:

We’ll keep our cowshit in the country and you keep your bullshit in the city.

Or:

Help the environment – ‘doze a greenie.

Why don’t we see their equivalent on battered Datsuns, bedaubed panel-vans and other OK green vehicles? This, for example:

Q: What’s the difference between a cow-cockie and a parrot?
A: You can have a conversation with a parrot.

Greenies after all are no less belligerent than their opponents. Why their mildness?

 

Scientists at Newcastle University have created part-human, part-animal hybrid embryos for the first time in the UK, the BBC can reveal…. So what possible justification can scientists offer for doing what the Catholic Church has branded “experiments of Frankenstein proportion”?

My learned interlocutor Professor Phillips points out that both the BBC and the Catholic Church are mistaken. Hybridity experiments feature not in Mary Shelley’s book but in H.G. Wells’s The Island of Dr Moreau.

Moreau’s cutting and pasting, adding puma ears and so on, may be gross compared to the delicate gene manipulations of today, but you have to admire the chap’s methodology.

You begin to see that it is a possible thing to transplant tissue from one part of an animal to another, or from one animal to another; to alter its chemical reactions and methods of growth; to modify the articulations of its limbs; and, indeed, to change it in its most intimate structure. . . . I was the first man to take up this question armed with antiseptic surgery, and with a really scientific knowledge of the laws of growth.

But did the Catholic Church overlook Wells’s fiction? Or did the following passage stick like a burr in its collective memory?

Yet one would imagine it must have been practised in secret before. Such creatures as the Siamese TwinsAnd in the vaults of the Inquisition. No doubt their chief aim was artistic torture, but some at least of the inquisitors must have had a touch of scientific curiosity.

The BBC, complicit in the silencing of H.G Wells by the Catholic Church? Chesterton, thou should’st be living at this hour!

PS I wonder if the Pope plays Bioshock?

Theme Tweaker by Unreal