Urgh Bri this is why I subscribe to News&Reviews!!! I've only read some of Garner's short stories (From "Everywhere I Look") but this was fabulous. Feminist/ethical/philosophical debate!!! Discussions and insights into Australia's literary scene from two brilliant Australian writers!!! Exploration of creative process and the boundaries of fiction/nonfiction!!! Productivity/life balance content!!! Thanks so much!
Garner has always walked the fine line between fiction and non-fiction. I don’t try and work out what what is real and what isn’t because the ‘truth’ will always be through her experiences and therefore there will always be elements of fiction.
When I read her diaries I try and put all the noise and criticism aside and just be taken along for the ride of her amazing observation. I’m surprised with how affronted I feel with Astrid’s criticism of the diaries even though I rationally see the points you are making. My initial reaction is, do we have to critique everything, can’t some things just be for pure enjoyment? But I don’t know where you would draw the line. Astrid, would it make you feel better if it wasn’t marketed as non-fiction?
The part about being scared to say you don’t like a popular author has made me realise it feels so much more personal to criticise an authors work compared to just not liking a musicians song or album. I wonder if that’s because of the effort that we know goes into writing something? I never give less than 3 stars on Goodreads (your favourite Bri) even if they are an international best seller.
I completely agree that we would all be up in arms if it wasn’t a straight white male who was portrayed in the villain but holy moly isn’t it just juicy sweet revenge for how awfully he treated her. I love the diary entry where he asks her not to write about him in her diary. ooooops!
Thanks for sparking such an interesting discussion!
Thank you for your piece on Garner, Bri. I find her to be such a complicated woman/writer - and intimidating! I haven't read The First Stone (I've only read This House of Grief) but I was reading Virginia Trioli's Generation F (1996) which is a response to The First Stone, and it successfully put me off reading Garner's book, with its focus on excusing the actions of men.
Also hadn't realised Jenna Mead was part of it all - she was one of my English lecturers at UTAS (as was her husband, Phillip Mead), back in oh, 2000? 2001? and I loved her to bits. It's thanks to her that I fell in love with the Australian landscape, and Australian lit (which I, like many young white Australians, had previously been bored by, or considered ugly/daggy etc.).
I did The Year of Helen Garner ™️ last year, after attending the writing workshops in Tassie! I felt like everyone knew about Helen, and I didn’t. I’d also heard the gals on Chat10Looks3 sing her praises, so I wanted to know what all of the fuss was about.
I ✨despised✨ The First Stone and ✨loathed ✨Monkey Grip. But, as I settled into the year I started picking up what she was putting down. I loved The Spare Room. I can’t remember which book it was in, but in one of her collections of short stories I read something she’d written about her relationships with her sisters and felt like she’d gotten into my mind and taken my own thoughts. I loved reading the diaries, because I felt like I was getting to know her thoughts in the way she apparently read mine. And I hate V’s guts.
I don’t think you can spend that much time reading someone’s work and not appreciate it. By the end of the year I felt like I knew Helen quite well. I don’t think we’d be mates, but I appreciate her work. Except The First Stone and Monkey Grip. But I might go back and read them, now that Helen and I are so tight, and see if I like them more...
Re the Q&A about reading - I have a ‘normal’ job and read close to 100 books a year (I got to 94 before I went travelling around Europe and my reading dropped at the end of last year). For me I make a conscious effort to schedule it into my day and definitely feel I can engage with the texts 😊
What an amazing read!! Thank you Astrid and Bri for your insights. I think it is very interesting that Astrid commented on the ethical choice of Garner publishing the breakdown of her marriage, likely without the consent of her then partner, during the time when this same conversation is being had on a global scale about Prince Harry. At first I didn’t really feel sorry for any of the royal family - it seems all a bit tit for tat - but maybe I have less sympathy (none) for them as white men of extreme wealth and privilege. I don’t know, whoever you are divorce and family breakdowns are tragic... but I’m still not sure I feel sympathy for them, or Garner’s ex husband.
I realise I’m late to comment, but I’m relieved by Astrid’s confessions around Garner’s work, because I don’t get it. I read the spare room and enjoyed it, but that may be because I sat by my husband in hospital as chemotherapy drugs were pumped into his body. I might not be able to properly criticise books with cancer as a theme because they hit close to home. Although I enjoyed it I wasn’t compelled to run to the library and borrow more of her works. Then I saw her speak at our local writers festival. She was witty, smart and compelling. So, I bought one of her books that was on sale. A big heavy thing, with a blue cover. The name escapes me. I was disappointed. Some sections I enjoyed, but for the most part I wasn’t compelled. I kept reading, telling myself that I mustn’t be smart enough to get Garner. So many people applaud her so it must be my lack of intelligence that is the problem. Yet reading Astrid’s piece and comments as she read the diaries made me realise that it’s ok if I don’t like Garner. It doesn’t make me lesser in anyway. So thank you Astrid for letting me see that, and thanks Bri for bringing this topic to the table. Without it I’d have likely always thought I was less than for not being a Garner fan.
I really appreciate your honest approach to reading Garner, Astrid. You're right that there's a reluctance to critique literary icons. There's an elitism, a snobbery at play: prove how intelligent and superior you are by 'getting' certain literary works. I come across it constantly.
And some people *do* 'get it', sometimes due to an aspect of their education (for instance, a colleague appreciates Crime and Punishment a lot more than I do because of his background in philosophy and Russian lit, enabling him to see the analogies, whereas I could not get past the whiny self-indulgent-ness of the protagonist and didn't feel it had anything interesting to say about human nature), or because the author's writing style just works for them.
And then there's the trickiness of Murray Bail. I never knew he was married to Helen Garner (whatever happened to him, anyway?), but Eucalyptus is one of my all-time favourite novels. Years later I learned about the plagiarism, and now to read how shit of a patriarchal arse he was (is?), according to Garner anyway - how will this taint my reading of Eucalyptus? Sometimes you just want to enjoy a book for its own sake, and other times knowing more about context expands the reading experience.
I guess all I'm trying to say is that there doesn't seem to be one 'right' way of reading - and I'm keen to How to Read Now, now, so thank you for that recommendation!
Bri, I am thrilled you write a reply to my piece! And love that you disagree. That is part of a healthy reading culture.
Your essay on Garner’s ‘The First Stone’ has helped me clarify my thinking a little. Part of my discomfort with the diaries related to the method Garner used. It has two parts - the original diary entries, written as she saw fit decades ago, as well as the recent decision to tweak/edit/publish them. It is the second part I find so damn not enjoyable.
I am going to go hard again on my desire for some form of published contextual statement, whether it be an introduction or an editorial comment or an authors note, whatever. Garner’s choice (or that of her publisher). If readers don’t care about that then sweet, they don’t have to read it. For readers who do, they have it there. When we consider published works that go to print (I realise that is an old school phrase), THAT is what the creator is putting out there. This is why second and later editions of works so often have new comments or statements, because things need clarifying or have changed or there is new insight etc. Those statements are gifts to a reader. Garner on the speaking circuit obviously adds to someone’s reading of these dairies, but why should an interested reader have to be up to date on whatever Garner has said on stage or on a podcast?
Also, I do think that some diary entries included could lead to confusion about people still very much alive and in the literary/journalism scene. For example, who is the ‘journalist with dangly earrings’ that Garner so clearly does not like? I assumed it was Virginia Trioli although it is apparently not. As a reader I still find it irritating. Whoever you are, I want to high five you! It strikes me as disrespectful to the reader to leave specific things (I’m referring to things that are factual, for example, a public interview that was or was not conducted; I am not referring to emotional or intangible things) without clarification.
Urgh Bri this is why I subscribe to News&Reviews!!! I've only read some of Garner's short stories (From "Everywhere I Look") but this was fabulous. Feminist/ethical/philosophical debate!!! Discussions and insights into Australia's literary scene from two brilliant Australian writers!!! Exploration of creative process and the boundaries of fiction/nonfiction!!! Productivity/life balance content!!! Thanks so much!
Garner has always walked the fine line between fiction and non-fiction. I don’t try and work out what what is real and what isn’t because the ‘truth’ will always be through her experiences and therefore there will always be elements of fiction.
When I read her diaries I try and put all the noise and criticism aside and just be taken along for the ride of her amazing observation. I’m surprised with how affronted I feel with Astrid’s criticism of the diaries even though I rationally see the points you are making. My initial reaction is, do we have to critique everything, can’t some things just be for pure enjoyment? But I don’t know where you would draw the line. Astrid, would it make you feel better if it wasn’t marketed as non-fiction?
The part about being scared to say you don’t like a popular author has made me realise it feels so much more personal to criticise an authors work compared to just not liking a musicians song or album. I wonder if that’s because of the effort that we know goes into writing something? I never give less than 3 stars on Goodreads (your favourite Bri) even if they are an international best seller.
I completely agree that we would all be up in arms if it wasn’t a straight white male who was portrayed in the villain but holy moly isn’t it just juicy sweet revenge for how awfully he treated her. I love the diary entry where he asks her not to write about him in her diary. ooooops!
Thanks for sparking such an interesting discussion!
Thank you for your piece on Garner, Bri. I find her to be such a complicated woman/writer - and intimidating! I haven't read The First Stone (I've only read This House of Grief) but I was reading Virginia Trioli's Generation F (1996) which is a response to The First Stone, and it successfully put me off reading Garner's book, with its focus on excusing the actions of men.
Also hadn't realised Jenna Mead was part of it all - she was one of my English lecturers at UTAS (as was her husband, Phillip Mead), back in oh, 2000? 2001? and I loved her to bits. It's thanks to her that I fell in love with the Australian landscape, and Australian lit (which I, like many young white Australians, had previously been bored by, or considered ugly/daggy etc.).
I did The Year of Helen Garner ™️ last year, after attending the writing workshops in Tassie! I felt like everyone knew about Helen, and I didn’t. I’d also heard the gals on Chat10Looks3 sing her praises, so I wanted to know what all of the fuss was about.
I ✨despised✨ The First Stone and ✨loathed ✨Monkey Grip. But, as I settled into the year I started picking up what she was putting down. I loved The Spare Room. I can’t remember which book it was in, but in one of her collections of short stories I read something she’d written about her relationships with her sisters and felt like she’d gotten into my mind and taken my own thoughts. I loved reading the diaries, because I felt like I was getting to know her thoughts in the way she apparently read mine. And I hate V’s guts.
I don’t think you can spend that much time reading someone’s work and not appreciate it. By the end of the year I felt like I knew Helen quite well. I don’t think we’d be mates, but I appreciate her work. Except The First Stone and Monkey Grip. But I might go back and read them, now that Helen and I are so tight, and see if I like them more...
Re the Q&A about reading - I have a ‘normal’ job and read close to 100 books a year (I got to 94 before I went travelling around Europe and my reading dropped at the end of last year). For me I make a conscious effort to schedule it into my day and definitely feel I can engage with the texts 😊
What an amazing read!! Thank you Astrid and Bri for your insights. I think it is very interesting that Astrid commented on the ethical choice of Garner publishing the breakdown of her marriage, likely without the consent of her then partner, during the time when this same conversation is being had on a global scale about Prince Harry. At first I didn’t really feel sorry for any of the royal family - it seems all a bit tit for tat - but maybe I have less sympathy (none) for them as white men of extreme wealth and privilege. I don’t know, whoever you are divorce and family breakdowns are tragic... but I’m still not sure I feel sympathy for them, or Garner’s ex husband.
I realise I’m late to comment, but I’m relieved by Astrid’s confessions around Garner’s work, because I don’t get it. I read the spare room and enjoyed it, but that may be because I sat by my husband in hospital as chemotherapy drugs were pumped into his body. I might not be able to properly criticise books with cancer as a theme because they hit close to home. Although I enjoyed it I wasn’t compelled to run to the library and borrow more of her works. Then I saw her speak at our local writers festival. She was witty, smart and compelling. So, I bought one of her books that was on sale. A big heavy thing, with a blue cover. The name escapes me. I was disappointed. Some sections I enjoyed, but for the most part I wasn’t compelled. I kept reading, telling myself that I mustn’t be smart enough to get Garner. So many people applaud her so it must be my lack of intelligence that is the problem. Yet reading Astrid’s piece and comments as she read the diaries made me realise that it’s ok if I don’t like Garner. It doesn’t make me lesser in anyway. So thank you Astrid for letting me see that, and thanks Bri for bringing this topic to the table. Without it I’d have likely always thought I was less than for not being a Garner fan.
I really appreciate your honest approach to reading Garner, Astrid. You're right that there's a reluctance to critique literary icons. There's an elitism, a snobbery at play: prove how intelligent and superior you are by 'getting' certain literary works. I come across it constantly.
And some people *do* 'get it', sometimes due to an aspect of their education (for instance, a colleague appreciates Crime and Punishment a lot more than I do because of his background in philosophy and Russian lit, enabling him to see the analogies, whereas I could not get past the whiny self-indulgent-ness of the protagonist and didn't feel it had anything interesting to say about human nature), or because the author's writing style just works for them.
And then there's the trickiness of Murray Bail. I never knew he was married to Helen Garner (whatever happened to him, anyway?), but Eucalyptus is one of my all-time favourite novels. Years later I learned about the plagiarism, and now to read how shit of a patriarchal arse he was (is?), according to Garner anyway - how will this taint my reading of Eucalyptus? Sometimes you just want to enjoy a book for its own sake, and other times knowing more about context expands the reading experience.
I guess all I'm trying to say is that there doesn't seem to be one 'right' way of reading - and I'm keen to How to Read Now, now, so thank you for that recommendation!
This sheds more light on Garner's approach to non-fiction, or is it the mixing of fiction and non-fiction. A fascinating read.
https://sydneyreviewofbooks.com/review/this-house-of-grief-helen-garner/
Bri, I am thrilled you write a reply to my piece! And love that you disagree. That is part of a healthy reading culture.
Your essay on Garner’s ‘The First Stone’ has helped me clarify my thinking a little. Part of my discomfort with the diaries related to the method Garner used. It has two parts - the original diary entries, written as she saw fit decades ago, as well as the recent decision to tweak/edit/publish them. It is the second part I find so damn not enjoyable.
I am going to go hard again on my desire for some form of published contextual statement, whether it be an introduction or an editorial comment or an authors note, whatever. Garner’s choice (or that of her publisher). If readers don’t care about that then sweet, they don’t have to read it. For readers who do, they have it there. When we consider published works that go to print (I realise that is an old school phrase), THAT is what the creator is putting out there. This is why second and later editions of works so often have new comments or statements, because things need clarifying or have changed or there is new insight etc. Those statements are gifts to a reader. Garner on the speaking circuit obviously adds to someone’s reading of these dairies, but why should an interested reader have to be up to date on whatever Garner has said on stage or on a podcast?
Also, I do think that some diary entries included could lead to confusion about people still very much alive and in the literary/journalism scene. For example, who is the ‘journalist with dangly earrings’ that Garner so clearly does not like? I assumed it was Virginia Trioli although it is apparently not. As a reader I still find it irritating. Whoever you are, I want to high five you! It strikes me as disrespectful to the reader to leave specific things (I’m referring to things that are factual, for example, a public interview that was or was not conducted; I am not referring to emotional or intangible things) without clarification.
I am loving this discussion, by the way.