+ THORACIC DROP: < Deposit
> news appropriate to this site.
+ AUTOGEDDON: Subscribe to Ballardian & receive automatic email updates
‘Life’s too short, move on!’ Judith Lucy on Ballard
Author: Simon Sellars • Jul 5th, 2008 •Category: Australia, Ballardosphere, autobiography, literature
ABOVE: Judith Lucy.
There’s this program called First Tuesday Book Club on ABC TV here in Australia. It’s hosted by Jennifer Byrne and for its last effort the feature was Ballard’s autobiography Miracles of Life. There is a transcript here. The panel discussion featured Marieke Hardy, Jason Steger, Bob Carr and Judith Lucy. For those outside this country: Byrne is a longstanding journo. Hardy made her name as a scriptwriter on Neighbours and other TV shows, then as a foulmouthed blogger known as Ms Fits, and currently is a critic for a Melbourne TV guide. Carr is the former Premier of NSW and a writer of political thought as well as his own memoirs. Lucy is a comedian of sorts. Steger is the books editor of the Age newspaper.
The panel reviews Miracles. Hardy and Lucy admit they’ve never read any of Ballard’s other books. Carr says he’s never read Empire, and the implication is he’s not read much else Ballard either. Steger doesn’t say, but his comments are more considered than the other three so I’m guessing he has.
Byrne starts off by telling us that Lucy, since she was last on the show, is now a published author with her own memoir to promote. ‘Are you a better person now you are a published author?’ she asks the er, comedian, to which Lucy replies:
Well, I am the new Bryce Courtney, that’s the word on the street, um, so I’m just being mobbed by a lot of elderly women which is great and it’s making me feel very worthy!
It’s downhill from there, with Lucy’s tone very much on the flippant side. Regarding the parts of Miracles that deal with Ballard arriving in England, she says:
I must admit, I found all that stuff when he went back to England incredibly bleak and it reminded me a lot of when I lived there in the 80s but I’ve got to admit, this is the sort of book that, left to my own devices, I would never had read and I’m actually not a big fan of memoirs; unless I’ve written them, I’m a little like Elle McPherson like that!
The best Lucy can do, not having read any Ballard, is to compare his memoir of the immediate postwar era in England to her own personal experience living there in the 1980s. But then she trumps even that, equating herself with the biggest literary airhead on the planet while slipping in yet another surreptitious plug for her own book. McPherson infamously said she would ‘never read anything I haven’t written myself’; Lucy says she’s the same, meaning the only book Judith Lucy would read is her own memoir. Yes, I know she’s meant to be making funny, but seriously, this is about Ballard, right? Not Judith Lucy’s new book.
Thankfully Steger and Byrne briefly steer the wreck away from the showboating Lucy and onto meatier issues:
Jennifer: This last very, very brief chapter, explains that he is actually dying of incurable cancer which you’d think would blight the book but in fact, what it does is it gives you a sense that he wrote about his life as death came to claim him.
Jason: I think that’s true, I think it’s a moving book; not necessarily because of that final chapter, I think because he’s looking back on these experiences, trying to work out what they meant to him, trying to see where they fit in to his fiction, but it’s not in the slightest bit self indulgent, it’s fantastic.
This, too, from Byrne was worthwhile:
Jennifer: But that is the absolute nature of this memoir and I absolutely adored it, I thought the restraint and the delicacy and the lack of ego and I thought, with the wife for instance, he said; as she was dying he shouted at her over and over again, ‘I love you’ and then he says; ‘her absence was a space in our lives I could almost embrace’, how much more do you need to say? It’s all said and that’s why, for me, the thing about the book, is that it is a strange and weird memoire in the sense that everyone now writes the story about the time they met Billy-Ray Cyrus and that’s going to be a two volume memoire whereas this is actually this huge life, half of which was in Shanghai, and then this amazing experience as a pioneer and a thinker and a precursor of Warhol and the consumerist age.
But it was not to last. Discussing Ballard’s evocation of the death of his wife, the panel delivers this slice of juvenilia:
Marieke: He just says; the girls grew up, they married, my son didn’t marry, it’s like a fact sheet. What’s interesting is that those passages that you read out before about his wife dying, the way you read it in such a rich way I thought; oh, that didn’t even twig with me,
Judith: No, I was more moved by you speaking about it!
Bob: Yes me too – that was exactly my experience!
Clearly, according to this crew, what the show really needed instead of Ballard’s dry ‘fact sheet’ was Judith Lucy reading from her own book for 20 minutes ‘in such a rich way’. Because when Carr says he found Ballard’s tone flat, Lucy again has to interject, with yet another spruik for her own book! On this occasion, not only does she not get Ballard but she appears to not understand what Carr is on about either (although she’s not alone, there), judging by the way she barges in again with nothing to say and nowhere to say it:
Bob: I just found it too flat and I thought it should be a much richer experience. A lot of memoirs, for example, that have got more self-criticism, and we warm to a character who’s taking himself apart, think of some of the memoirs that stand out, it’s a form that goes back to Rousseau’s Confessions, why does it work, why does it life [sic] today? Because Rousseau denounces himself, he tells stories that are massively unflattering and that’s in the political realm, that’s why the memoir of Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter does not work,
Judith: Once again, read my book Bob!
At least Steger tries to steady the ship with another measured comment: ‘Well he calls it Miracles of Life but it’s very much a writer’s life, he’s a thinker not a feeler as somebody said.’ Although I don’t agree that Ballard’s writing is unemotional, at least Steger, alone of this lunatic troupe, seems to get that Ballard is a major literary figure and that despite what anyone may think of this one book, it shares intertextuality with the key achievements of Ballard’s career. In other words, no one is going to read this book as a standalone object; some appreciation or knowledge of Ballard’s work should probably be implied when picking it up, and certainly a critic weighing in should probably, in my opinon, do more research than reading — and repeatedly spruiking — their own writing.
Hardy, for her part, says the book is ‘bloodless’, which is fair enough: Ballard in a sense is bloodless, an assessment that is (perhaps unintentionally) more on the money than Carr, who feels he has to impose his own values on the book. ‘I thought it was a bit too meagre,’ Carr says, ‘I think the simplicity that [Jennifer] praised meant it wasn’t larded with the riches and the self condemnation – that’s important – that makes a memoir compelling.’
But it’s Ballard’s memoir and Ballard’s life, Bob, not yours (or Judith Lucy’s, for that matter), so surely he should be allowed to tell it the way he sees fit? A bit of backstory and a bit of research into the oeuvre might have clarified that, helping to understand the peculiarly ‘dry’ approach to the autobiographical elements that have always informed Ballard’s work.
The final straw is the panel’s parting shots. When asked if Miracles wants to make them read more of Ballard’s work, each responds:
Bob: No.
Marieke: His fiction I would try but it’s not going to be a priority; I found this very bloodless.
Judith: Unlikely — life’s too short! Bob’s right, let’s move on!
Jason: Well I’d read more, certainly.
I don’t want to be the sole internet cheerleader for Ballard, but how can such uninformed and frankly illiterate comments (save Byrne and Steger) add anything to a discussion of an author who has been prominent in the literary scene for almost 50 years now?
Recently we featured a transcript of a BBC 2 Newsnight discussion that featured Tony Parsons, John Harris and Julie Myerson talking about Miracles. It attracted ire in the comments box against these English rent-a-celebs who swan in and talk about nothing for half an hour on topics they know little about. But at least Parsons et al know who Ballard is. Judith Lucy, you might think on the strength of this, has never even heard of the man.
It’s all there in the transcript on the ABC website.
Author:
Simon Sellars
Find all posts by
Simon Sellars
Newer: Ballardian Forum, reinstated? »
Can’t say I’m surprised at FTBC’s treatment of Ballard. From what I’ve seen the show specialises in superficial discussions where the panelist’s emotional response is the primary consideration rather than historical/literary context or aesthetics. Even so, the level of ignorance demonstrated by most of the panelists in this case was disgraceful - Ballard’s hardly a marginal figure.
Carr apparently doesn’t read anybody who hasn’t been dead for at least a couple of centuries, so why he was asked to appear on a show that reviews contemporary books is a complete mystery. If only they’d asked you to appear in his place, Simon.
A pair of idiots, interviewing a psychologically stunning author - recipe for disaster.
I’ll bet Mr. Ballard responded with earnest attention and a desire to help them.
It’s not an interview, though, Crashman, but a panel discussion of Miracles. Simon.
Ignore them. They’re beneath contempt. Ballard certainly would.
I have never seen this show before but watched when I found they were to talk about MOL. What a load of crap! It made my skin crawl to hear people who have read little or no Ballard being so dismissive. The contradiction between his life and his fiction is the most interesting aspect in my view. I wont be watching that rubbish again.
Parsons was bluffing on Newsnight.
He’s never read any Ballard.It was very amusing to see him spiel on pretending he had.
He is more of a fraud than those who just say you know what I have never read any Ballard ever… as they spiel on anyway.
Parsons has to wake up every morning knowing.
Knowing.
There’s a thread about the show over on the ABC website that makes similar observations:
http://www2b.abc.net.au/tmb/Client/Message.aspx?b=51&m=3771&dm=1&pd=2&am=4027
“It was kind of appalling that seemingly all of the panellists had never read one of J.G, Ballard’s novels when reviewing his memoirs. I would have expected them to have at least flicked through Crash or Empire of the Sun. I can understand having a few of the panellists come to the book without having read his work, offering an uncoloured perspective, but they all stumbled around it. It looked amateurish and lazy. Why even bother putting it to air?”
“Judith Lucy kept plugging her own book shamelessly.
Last nights episode was a bit lame, and as a viewer I expected a little more from the show.”
“I found it surprising tha noone on the panel, besides Jennifer, had read any, especially given the notoriety that Cronenberg’s “Crash” achieved a few years ago. Isn’t Ballard the quintessential modernist (even post-modernist - forget Pynchon) writer? Right up there with Burroughs at any rate (and you can probably guess whom I prefer). Gibson may have “invented” cyberspace but we have innerspace from Ballard… ”
“Only in Australia could you convene a panel of experts on a specialist book show to discuss a memoir by one of the major novelists of the past 50 years only to find that that none of them have ever actually cracked one of the dude’s books.”
EDIT: Obviously the tenor of the ABC thread has changed since I submitted this comment.
Oh dear. The fact that the rather weak musings of the Tuesday Night Book Club has caused such self righteous indignation here is all rather sad. Yes, the commentary and discussion was pathetic. Unfortunately, fulminating about TNBC here will not remedy the situation. TNBC is a blatantly populist program, and I am somewhat surprised that Ballard was tackled at all. Despite the popularity of Empire of the Sun (in large part due to the movie) Ballard does not enjoy mainstream popularity in Australia.
Like it or not, a blog such as this is preaching to the converted. It is not enough to rail about the treatment of Ballard (or Britton, or Burroughs, et al.). Rather people should seek to introduce others to the written works, and seek to increase meaningful awareness of the writer.
Complaining alone has never been sufficient. Jibes directed towards the panellists tend to suggest sour grapes, rather than offering any meaningful critique. It is up to readers and publishers to persuade the greater reading public of the merits of a given writer.
Whilst Ballard’s readers do like to claim that ‘Ballard is one of the major novelists of the past 50 years’ the statement itself cannot go unchallenged. I would regard him as one of the great post war writers, but there are relatively few of his novels I would actually recommend to anyone: I believe he is far more significant as a writer of short fiction than as a novelist.
Cheers all!
Maaqf:
“Rather people should seek to introduce others to the written works, and seek to increase meaningful awareness of the writer.”
With hundreds of archived posts from around 20 writers, I’d suggest this site does exactly that. If you want to contribute something to the site as well, by all means please email me something. What more do you want, exactly? You might be better off directing that sentiment to the ABC.
“A blog such as this is preaching to the converted”.
As I said in a comment further upstream, the self-same concerns are being echoed on the ABC’s own website. You don’t think that providing feedback is worthwhile?
“Complaining alone has never been sufficient.”
Have you read the rest of the site? Might I suggest you start with the interviews or features section?
“Jibes directed towards the panellists tend to suggest sour grapes, rather than offering any meaningful critique”.
There are no sour grapes. Where are they? The post said the indignation would be apparent no matter what the writer under discussion. It’s an important function of independent media to critique the mainstream, wouldn’t you say?
In any case the post did contain what I like to think of as meaningful critique:
“Ballard is a major literary figure and that despite what anyone may think of this one book, it shares intertextuality with the key achievements of Ballard’s career. In other words, no one is going to read this book as a standalone object; some appreciation or knowledge of Ballard’s work should probably be implied when picking it up, and certainly a critic weighing in should probably, in my opinon, do more research than reading — and, ugh, repeatedly spruiking — their own writing.”
You say the show is ‘blatantly populist’, as if that excuses it … the post here is not critiquing the fact it’s popular. ‘Blatant populism’ does not excuse blatantly sloppy research and unprofessionalism. You can have the first and still have a meaningful program.
“I would regard him as one of the great post war writers, but there are relatively few of his novels I would actually recommend to anyone: I believe he is far more significant as a writer of short fiction than as a novelist.”
Whether novelist or short-story writer, he deserved better treatment from this program.
Thank you for your comments, Simon. My reaction was based on immediate impressions of reading the article, however I do stand by my criticisms. Have I read the rest of the site? Not all of it, but a significant amount, especially the interviews, and articles pertaining to my own spheres of interest (I have even posted replies to a few). Some of the articles I have even cited in the course of my researches. Other articles have struck me as rather poor (Please, don’t ask me to enumerate all of the articles I considered weak). My response to the TNBC article was also a reaction against what I find irritating in this intermittently excellent site.
From my perspective, I find a number of the articles have an attitude I would characterize as supercilious or arrogant. I suspect that these would antagonize non-subscribers. An imdependent media that antagonizes potential readers would appear to be a doomed venture, for it will fail to establish any meaningful dialogue with, or change in, the mainstream. Rather, it will stagnate in self-referentiality.
Finally, regarding your dismissal of the differentiation between novelist and short story writer, I cannot agree that this differentiation does not matter. A brief survey of contemporary fiction publishing will show just how much short fiction is now out of fashion. It is increasingly difficult for writers of short fiction to gain publication and recognition. There is a popular notion that novels are the only important form of fiction writing. As such, we have seen the rise of doorstopping blockbuster novels. A concise and elegant novel, such as The Unlimited Dream Company, lacks the possibility for extension into sequels, or the elephantine size that characterizes much fiction today.
Cheers!
Fair enough, Maaqf, if that’s what you think — however, I would appreciate you clarifying what you mean by ‘weak’ (aside from the supercilious, arrogant aspects) as it can help to make the site a better resource. Do you mean poorly researched? Badly argued?
And as before, you are very welcome to submit some articles of your own…perhaps on Ballard’s short stories?
PS: “Finally, regarding your dismissal of the differentiation between novelist and short story writer”…
Maaqf, i think you are misrepresenting a little bit. I said: “Whether novelist or short-story writer, he deserved better treatment from this program.” I don’t think that is dismissing what you said at all. In fact, there are a few posts on this site that make similar claims as you for Ballard’s short stories.
The statement you were originally questioning, when you said “Whilst Ballard’s readers do like to claim that ‘Ballard is one of the major novelists of the past 50 years’ the statement itself cannot go unchallenged.”, is actually from the ABC thread.
PPS: I agree that my original comments were too acidic, but I stand by my criticisms of the show on this occasion and of Judith Lucy’s performance especially.
PPS: I still don’t think you have answered the charge you originally leveled at this site, namely: “Rather people should seek to introduce others to the written works, and seek to increase meaningful awareness of the writer. Complaining alone has never been sufficient. Jibes directed towards the panellists tend to suggest sour grapes, rather than offering any meaningful critique. It is up to readers and publishers to persuade the greater reading public of the merits of a given writer.”
Can you honestly say that with the volume and quality of the interviews and features published on this site that we have not worked to persuade the public of the merits of Ballard’s writing?
I think you may value reading some feedback from Marilyn and Amanda on the ABC forum which is what brought my attention to this article in the first place.
http://www2b.abc.net.au/tmb/Client/Message.aspx?b=51&t=27&a=0&ps=20&dm=1&m=3771&pd=1&p=1
Amanda
Amanda, I’ve already read the ABC thread and I have already linked to it a few comments back — see comment #6. You seem to be under the impression that I am a rabid defender of Ballard’s virtue, but as I say in the post I would be disappointed no matter who the writer under discussion is. Take note that most of the commenters on the ABC thread share a similar perspective to the views expressed in my post. It is not like I am a lone voice either here or over there.
Best wishes,
Simon
EDIT: Obviously, since I posted this comment, the balance in the ABC thread has changed.
Please, I’m not having a dig at you personally Simon and to me it really does not matter whether my opinion matches those of others: I don’t need group support to band-aid my insecurities. LOL. That’s why poster No#9’s comment is to be lauded, as he/she is not following the ‘pack mentality’ of other posters here. In fact I’d actually be interested to read works by poster 9 (if he/she is a writer, that is) as he/she comes across as having integrity.
I just think it is important to constantly be aware that if you choose to run a site about a great personality like Ballard you should do the man justice by being ever careful of not coming across as self-righteous and intolerant of people who may not be Ballard converts. It can have the nasty effect of turning people off the man, which would be a real shame don’t you think? I greatly admire Ballard but I know many people who do not and I don’t try to put them down for that. Freedom of opinion and respect of others opinions (even where they may be opposite to yours) is so important for anyone who hopes to be a credible, respected writer.
But having said that, I do think some articles on this site are excellent such as your current lead story: ‘Ballard and the Vicissitudes of Time’. A brilliant read. Well done!
Best wishes,
Amanda
Thanks Amanda, I agree with you, but I don’t think I am being intolerant at all. I have never attacked anyone for not being a ‘Ballard convert’ and I never would. I am not an evangelist but simply someone interested in discourse. Please reread my post, because I think there is a bit of misunderstanding here. It had nothing to do with Judith’s opinion, but the manner in which she expressed it. I wasn’t critiquing Judith for not liking Ballard, but for the fact that she was so flippant about an author who has been prominent for a long time. Once again, I must reiterate that I would feel the same if it was any prominent and respected author under discussion — not just Ballard. Also, I made it clear that I valued both Jennifer’s and Jason’s comments about Ballard, so I am not blindly attacking the show.
I must also again point out that it is not just me who thinks this about Judith’s performance, but also viewers and fans of First Tuesday who commented over on the ABC thread. It’s not a ‘pack mentality’ — it’s how people feel, both on this thread and on the ABC thread. To say that people are following a pack mentality for expressing a common opinion is in itself a form of intolerance, I feel.
I also see that since I last checked it, there is a lot of name-calling and accusations now going on over at the ABC thread against this site, which would also seem to indicate that intolerance of opinion cuts both ways.
I would just like to bring the discussion back to the central point, namely that a writer of Ballard’s prominence, any writer of Ballard’s prominence, deserves better treatment than to be dismissed with the line, ‘Life’s too short, let’s move on’. I also sincerely believe that Judith should not have promoted her own book so heavily; I’m sure you must agree that these in themselves are valid points.
Simon,
Having just read a small percentage of the articles on this site, I do have to say the tone can be somewhat domineering and even verging on know-it-all. But to be fair I have not read all the articles so maybe it is just the ones I and my colleagues have flicked through.
I felt that there was a bit of a sour grapes attitude inherent in this particular article, and that maybe you felt you should have been invited onto the show? And yes, I do think the Producers should have contacted someone who has been following Ballard for more than just a few years, but the challenge with that is finding someone who does not see ‘Miracles of Life’ through rose-coloured glasses.
I have not read the FTBC site today but it is sad if there are growing accusations against this site. But if that has happened, I guess it only validates my view that you can end up doing more damage to Ballard than good by running articles that have a holier-than-thou tone. Word spreads. I am pretty sure you are not conscious of this tone because nobody wants to be accused of it. If you surround yourself with people who only have praise for your work then that, I think, is very detrimental to your blog. Hence the value of Poster #9 for you. And anyone else who will boldly tell you as it is, even if it may offend you.
I would just encourage you not to spring into defense mode in the face of criticism, rather take time to digest it first.
Amanda
Sorry, but there are no sour grapes. I have no desire to appear on television. Not in the slightest. I was expressing an opinion. If it came across as arrogant, I ‘m sorry about that.
But could you please explain what you mean by ‘defense mode’? I was simply restating my position in my last reply to you — how is that being defensive? I’m just responding to you.
You said I was attacking people for not being a Ballard convert. I explained that I felt I wasn’t. and the specifics of how I wasn’t. If you can please point out to me exactly where you feel I have done this, then I will listen, but I do feel you have misinterpreted my main point and put words into my mouth.
Once again, whatever the tone of my post here and elsewhere on the site, the main point is: “namely that a writer of Ballard’s prominence, any writer of Ballard’s prominence, deserves better treatment than to be dismissed with the line, ‘Life’s too short, let’s move on’. I also sincerely believe that Judith should not have promoted her own book so heavily; I’m sure you must agree that these in themselves are valid points.”
I feel that in all the accusations about me and this site, this main point has been lost. It would be great if we could have a discussion about this rather than trying to second-guess the reasons behind my post (ie, sour grapes).
Please read Posts #7 and #9. I agree with them and have nothing further to add.
Amanda
I’m sorry you feel the need to shut up shop. You have accused me of sour grapes and of wearing rose-coloured glasses. When I respond to these charges, it goes unanswered. I hardly think that’s fair.
I suggested in good faith that it “would be great if we could have a discussion about this [ie, the main point of the post] rather than trying to second-guess the reasons behind my post (ie, sour grapes)”. I hope that didn’t also seem arrogant because I was genuinely interested in discussing it.
All the best,
Simon
Once again, please read Posts #7 and #9. Take it or leave it. There is nothing more to add than these posts have already so adriotely articulated.
I don’t mind if you feel it necessary to have the last word Simon and you are welcome to it. I won’t be replying from here on, as I feel there is no point in debating when there is the distinct air of animosity in your replies. I simply do not engage in such debates, as they get nowhere when there is a ‘win the debate at all costs’ attitude.
As I said I think some of your articles, such as the ‘Ballard and the Vicissitudes of Time’ which I mentioned earlier, are very good.
Amanda
Animosity? For explaining my position? I simply can’t win.
Amanda, my question to MaaqF also applies to you: aside from my comments on Judith Lucy, which is obviously controversial, could you please name specific examples of the superciliousness and arrogance on this site? I am genuinely interested to know which posts you find so offensive. If you think this is ‘having the last word’, then I am sorry about that but as before I am just replying to your charges, which remain unanswered (I don’t think it’s fair to simply point to MaaqF’s posts and say ‘that’s all there is to say’).
Have a good day.
Interesting post and follow ups.
FTBC gets under my skin a bit too - but then, so do book clubs. What the show is trying to do, I think, is replicate and complement the discussions that take place in book clubs in pubs and loungerooms and so on. As this post - and the show itself, i think - shows, its claims to serious literary qualifications are flimsy, at best. If it was a serious book show on Oz TV, I still wouldn’t be astonished by ignorance of Ballard whose work - my own experiences as an academic and would-be reviewer of his work suggests - is studiously avoided by the literary coteries of this great brown land - Ballardian aside. The reasons for which elude me entirely. I can’t hate Judith Lucy - I think she’s a funny lady. And flippancy about non-Booker authors/thinkers is surely par for the cultural course round here. Isn’t it?
Oh dear. My hopes are never high for anything of gravitas from the ABC. What would you expect from a TV station that interrupts its news with fanfares so it can simulate the ad breaks on 7, 9 and 10? The ABC seems to spend more money on promos than programmes, and pretends that it is fulfilling its charter by producing endless witless panel shows. I am glad that having looked at the line-up of characters rented for the MOL programme I decided that ‘life is too short’, and it seems I did the right thing. Thanks Simon for vindicating my decision with the excruciating extracts you have posted here. What Australia needs is its own Ballard, someone to make visible the craven mediocrity of Australian public culture. We had Patrick White, but I am told his books are out of print here.
I see the post numbering has changed since I last posted. Please note that the former posts #7 and #9 that I referred to earlier are now #8 and #10.
For the record, in case the numbering changes again, the references I made were those of poster: MaaqF.
Amanda
From Simon: I’ve now merged the comment I inserted in response to Crashman, so that your original numbering is intact.
In retrospect, I can now see that my comments in this column were overly harsh. I had what I considered valid gripes, albeit they related to items published quite some time ago, and attempted to hurriedly voice them.
Big mistake.
An even bigger mistake was not to follow the impact of my comments.
I should have directed my comments to Simon rather than placing them in a public forum. The degree of antipathy that has been expressed towards both Simon and the users and contributors to this site has appalled me.
Whilst Simon and I may have many differences, it is apparent that we share many common interests and ideas. When I failed to respond to the response to my last message Simon contacted me directly. I was unaware of the impact of my comments, and on reviewing what had appeared I was less than happy. Simon had taken the time to listen to my criticisms with courtesy and care. The same does not appear to hold for some elements of this debate, especially on the ABC website.
The notion that I might represent a ‘voice of reason’ or, on the strength of a few postings, that I possess ‘integrity’ is downright frightening. I suspect my gripes are not the same as those claimed by Amanda, as she has studiously avoided citing an example. When Simon asked me I replied, late, but I replied. Simply referring back to my comments without knowing what I was complaining about was not wise. I am not happy about being regarded as some sort of standard bearer against Ballardian or Simon.
Ballardian remains an excellent source for students and enthusiasts of Ballard and his impact on culture. In the past I have cited articles here, and it offers an enormous potential. It does have a significant problem, in that it is difficult to straddle the academic-critical and enthusiast-fan worlds to the satisfaction of both. Simon has sought to do so. I hope in the future to possibly submit a paper or so on some aspects of Ballard’s short fiction that fascinate me. This is an appropriate forum for such works.
With the pedigree of some of the panel , we cannot expect anything else. In a sense , and I think most of us already know is , Jim Ballard has been writing his autobiography for most of his life ; Miracles of Life being the last moving chapter of such wonderful man . More than anything else the book fills in some of the blanks hes left over the years .
hi simon,
great post and discussion about literary criticism and pop culture in oz! i don’t have a tv and often wonder whether i’m missing out on some important stuff by abstaining. thanks for confirming that, actually, i don’t really miss all that much. i’m reading my very first ballard book and boy i’m grateful that it hasn’t been sullied by a bad intro from ms lucy et al.
Sites like this one are resources to be appreciated.. Be grateful for them and the opinion/information exchange they facilitate.