Literary prize lists + winners - a load of hoo-ha?

Courtesy of sarsaparilla lite, the 2009 Miles Franklin Award long-list:

• Addition by Toni Jordan (Text Publishing)
• A Fraction of the Whole by Steve Toltz (Penguin Books)
• Breath by Tim Winton (Hamish Hamilton)
• Fugitive Blue by Claire Thomas (Allen & Unwin)
• Ice by Louis Nowra (Allen & Unwin)
• One Foot Wrong by Sofie Laguna (Allen & Unwin)
• The Devil's Eye by Ian Townsend (Harper Collins)
• The Pages by Murray Bail (Text Publishing)
• The Slap by Christos Tsiolkas (Allen & Unwin)
• Wanting by Richard Flanagan (Alfred A Knopf)
  

It's testament to how much I've fallen off the 'literary' wagon that I have read none of these novels. That said, while I loved Murray Bail's Homesickness (the only book of his that I've read) and thought Christos Tsiolkas' Loaded was a welcome change to the Aust.Lit scene, I don't find myself particularly enamoured of much Australian literature. Or drawn to support it in specific ways. Hypocritically, I find myself championing it against charges of parochialism, but I can also be ambivalent about the use of 'local colour' in vernacular and setting for some narratives...

*waits for lightning bolt of outrage*

I worked on 'Aust.Lit' for many years. My theses (MA and PhD) were both engaged with the notion of what might constitute and/or challenge the Aust.Lit 'establishment,' positioning of ethnic minority authors on literary scene, and how notions of 'Australian-ness' were conveyed/examined/refuted in various narratives and personas.

I haven't really worked with literary texts for about five years now, and have regained my love of reading as a hobby. Colleagues have pointed out to me that I have obviously 'moved away' from literary studies. I'm not entirely sure what that means, but I think it's something to do with my more frequently verbalised and disparaging remarks about certain novels and types of writing. I used to be painfully wary of being un-judgemental about Literature, mostly because so many people out there were more than happy to sink the boot into anything that may require more thought and engagement than they were willing to give. Now, I fear that I have become one of 'those people,' especially when it comes to finding some books/writers consistently overrated and pretentious.

I don't tend to read books just because they have nice gold stamps on the front declaring they've won some literary prize or other. In fact, I tend to swerve away from anything that won a Nobel Prize for Literature (worthy and D&M narratives have their place; that place just usually isn't my couch at night when my brain is only partially active), but am happy to give Orange and Booker Prize winners and shortlisters a go. One of my all-time favourite books was an Orange Prize winner: Anne Michaels' debut novel, Fugitive Pieces. Pulitzers normally don't get a look-in and (I feel I should say this sotto voce) neither do Miles Frankliners.

My reading habits these days are highly variable, shifting from blockbuster genre fiction (usually crime/spy thrillers) to independent press 'local' novels to books that could be categorised as 'International Literature.' While I'm supportive of experimental writing and textual adventures in principle, I feel sometimes that I need to preface discussion about my reading with, "Hello, my name is X, and I like my books to have a narrative..."

Zany packaging pics

I realised that I'd gathered a small collection of entertaining packaging photos so here they are:

Snack foods are so easy to love when they're packaged thusly.

Just for the record, I'd like to point out that there was no plastic dinosaur in this otherwise tasty crispy corn snack...

Everyone should own a "Benign Girl" doll at least once in their life.

JCVD - The review!

How's this for follow-up? I waxed enthusiastically about it AND went to see it! This is a first for 2009! I'm talking about JCVD, of course.

I'd flagged the film in this earlier entry, and we went to see it last weekend.

Nutshell: Loved it.

Larger nutshell: The film's plot, which I was afraid could be an elongated skit rather than a full-blown movie, was very well sustained. The script was clever and wry, the visuals appropriately moody and drab, and JCVD himself? Really, really impressive. Seriously. I was surprised and slightly shocked (having seen him, as mentioned before, in some rather integrity- and talent-challenged productions). Belgium and its public 'embrace' of Jean-Claude was also an enjoyable and consistent element of the film, with warring popular sentiments driving the plot in key ways.

** Longer ramble below - probably chockers with spoilers **

Jean-Claude: Not lookin' so fine and yet...

I liked the fact that 'Jean-Claude' (in the movie) was jaded and yet comfortable with his celebrity status. The sombre, deteriorated look of the streetscapes in Belgium, and JC himself, contrasted with what one would expect of a JC movie. Even though his flicks are consistently B- and C-grade, they were slick enough. Hardcore action fans may be disappointed with this film because it seems to be overflowing with JCVD-ness in ways that are exposing, awkward, uber-normal, and unsupported by sharp fight or car-chase scenes.

I admit to being happily pulled into this film as a play on the biopic, but accepting it to a large extent as a biopic nonetheless. It's a perfect movie for Cinema Studies 101 courses, especially when examining notions of the subject/object (as an additional layer of control/self-promotion [?] Jean-Claude produced the movie, too). Steven Shaviro twittered that JCVD is:

"A lovely take on celebrity, on action movies vs real life, and on what to do when you're washed up and the dream has died."

Shaviro also writes an excellent review of the film that surpasses my meagre efforts here - it's HERE at his blog, "The Pinocchio Theory." I must admit to never having read or heard of Shaviro before delving around the topic of JCVD (mea culpa), and I really liked his take on the film. There's also a slightly catty 'interview' with Jean-Claude in the Herald Sun HERE that also provides some interesting insight into the actor/producer's perspective on the film (is it just me or does the reporter make fun of JC's non-English-speakingness along the way...?). 

Springvale - Feb 2009

Springvale, Feb 2009 - Atrium activity
[Photo by tseen]

2009 Junket + WTF Telstra

I wrote about a prime junket in which I regularly partake back in Feb 2006. I didn't attend the one in 2007 because I was on maternity leave, but I did go to the 2008 gathering at the Langham Hotel. This year, we were at the Park Hyatt. Now that I'm an oldish hand at these things, I'm enjoying them more and more. First, all of my editorial team was able to attend and we always have fun meetings. Second, we know many of the publishing staff now. Third, we scored by sitting at a table with a new and enthusiastic marketing guy, and their online submission platform person. Very useful folk to be around when we're working out strategies for the next few years for our journal and its direction.

In the midst of the plush surrounds and super-nice food, though, it was somewhat disheartening to know about the huge drive for citation impact factors that influence the outcomes for our academic careers and at the same time hear from the publisher's UK manager that the Thompson ISI folk (who churn out citation impact factors and suchlike) produce figures for social sciences and the humanities (SS&H) that are of little use in actually indicating impact. The current models only cover a too-short timeframe, PLUS so few SS&H publications are in the ISI system that there isn't enough data upon which to base 'impact' with any integrity. So, why do it at all? Australia's just bringing it in (admittedly not in an overt way yet - but journal-tiering is a slippery slope...), when the UK has just booted it out as an indicator. Increasingly, we're asked to provide citation stats for our work where possible. Unless we manually record-keep our citations (with a little helping hand from Google Scholar), there isn't an easy way to find out what these might be. The usefulness of this bibliometric stuff is constantly brought into question, but the fact that it's currently in vogue in ARC circles means that a lot of time, money and effort will be expended on something that may well be cast aside in a few years' time. Same as it ever was.

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

And my utilities rant for the moment:

Monster house is almost finished next door. It didn't improve on completion and, in fact, looms even larger and more ugly over our house now that its 'outdoor entertainment villa' is complete. We are privy to the knowledge (through some random boasting by the owner) that they also have a spa in the master bedroom and will have a giant plasma screen in the living room...colour me surprised...

Anyway, Telstra dude was out to do some work for the monster house and messed with our cables. We've had Foxtel for a while now (children's channels for E. and 24/7 cooking shows for my mother). It suddenly stopped working. On investigation, we found that the Telstra guy had moved the cable and wrecked the connection. He refused to fix it, saying it was 'frayed' and would've been up for repairs anyway. He told us to call Foxtel to come out and fix it. When we pointed out that the connection was perfectly fine until he broke it, he still refused to fix it.

This kind of thing just boggles my mind. You broke it, you fix it, no? WTF, Telstra?