Reading Notes on ‘The Hamilton Case’ by Michelle de Kretser

by Adrian D’Ambra

Michelle de Kretser writes in an exquisite style about the lives of the local elites in British-controlled Ceylon.  Her evocations of the unrelenting jungle and the unforgiving tropics are occasionally scintillating and often overwhelming but this novel is not intended to be read as some kind of exotic orientalism.  Rather, this is post-colonial writing as strong in its self-consciousness as it is rich in irony.  Sam Obeysekere, the central character, has been privileged and cursed by an Oxford education and a career in law that is haunted by the shadows of life-long guilt, the accessories of English gentility, the novels of Agatha Christie and the Hamilton case that he alone was able to solve – incorrectly.  The Hamilton Case is both an Australian novel and a piece of world literature.  It is certainly a rich and unexpected addition to the Australian contingent on the Year 12 Literature list.

Each Part of The Hamilton Case is preceded by an epigram acting as a clear indicator of the kinds of ideas or matters of characterisation and style de Kretser is focusing on.

 

Part One: ‘I always made it my business, at least, to know the part thoroughly’

            G.K. Chesterton

This is the narrative memoir of Sam Obeysekere, a retired Ceylonese prosecution barrister in the now independent nation of Sri Lanka.  Sam is attempting to defend his views on the once famous Hamilton case in which he, guided by the principles of ‘the sublime Mrs Christie’(52) rather than any professional training, discovered what he believed to be the missing piece of evidence.  Both the content and the shape of the narrative are dominated by Sam’s narcissism.  Perhaps despite himself and probably out of jealousy at his colleague John Shivanathan’s successful second career as a novelist, Sam attempts to construct himself as a vivid and engaging character with a powerful presence.  Through a series of aphorisms Sam reveals not the wit and intellect of a G.K. Chesterton or an Oscar Wilde but the racism and misogyny of a man devoid of the very moral superiority he assumes.  Equally disturbing and central to his understanding of himself is Sam’s wholesale adoption of the prejudices and certainties of his country’s former British colonisers.

Nevertheless, Sam determines ‘to set down the facts of the matter at last’(6) even though it is clear from the outset that, on both the levels of a crime fiction and an historical recreation, Michelle de Kretser’s novel is primarily interested in matters where the facts may be other than what they seem and truth may not only be elusive but unattainable.  In fact, Sam is incapable of interpretation.  Instead, he assumes a morally superior standpoint from which he pontificates on everything from the bespoke tailors of Jarmyn Street to the Tamil coolies of the tea plantations.

Even Sam’s identity is open to interpretation.  His first name is actually an acronym of the first letters of his three given names.  The first two of them are the names of the British Governor of Ceylon at the time of his birth with whom his mother was probably having an affair.  Sam places before us his anxiety about his ‘paternal provenance’(4) and ‘ambiguous legacy’(6) but then dispels these fears with the evidence of the incredible blackness of his skin, this from a man who expresses at every opportunity his contempt for the dark skinned masses of the British Empire.

Descended from mudaliyars, favoured local agents of imperial organisation under the Portuguese, Dutch and then the British, Sam inherits an admiration and skill for social and institutional administration from his grandfather.  He also inherits adopted racial stereotypes and hierarchical social values as evidenced in his black-skinned grandfather’s diary comment on ‘a smelly band of very villainous Greeks’(8) during a visit to Asia Minor.  His grandfather’s death – beaten over the head with an oar because he is a native black man attempting to rescue a young white woman from drowning – his heroism is depicted in Colombo billiard rooms and editorials as ‘exaggeration’ and is regretted by Sam’s great uncle as ‘impetuousness.’(9)  This is a novel about cultural hegemony, how indigenous peoples are trained to judge their own people through the eyes and values of the imperial master.  At the height of their influence under British tutelage, members of the Obeysekere clan imitate and play-act the foolishness of their compatriots and competitors in the presence of the Queen.  Their absorption of imperial indoctrination is complete in Sam.  ‘The English have long memories,’ he opines.  ‘Their great talent lies in the reconciliation of justice and compromise.  A formidable race.  I miss them to this day.’(11)  Whilst his compatriots set about building the forms of an independent nation Sam marks the departure of the British by annually celebrating Empire Day.

Sam pontificates on the shortcomings of his parents; his father’s self-indulgence and unrestrained generosity – ‘Like all admirable qualities, this liberality was hard on those in its vicinity.’(13) – his mother’s carnal reputation – ‘If you wish to ascertain a man’s lineage, read his face not his birth certificate.’(5) – and their reckless entry into matrimony – ‘Beware of what you fall in love with… we are attracted to those characteristics that we ourselves do not possess; so it is not surprising that they quickly lose their fascination.’(14).  On the one hand he is rather like a grim-faced Lady Bracknell and equally inured to any awareness of the irony of his sentiments.  On the other, he is a selfish prig devoid of human sympathy.

We yearn for some glimmer of humanity or sympathy in Sam’s schooldays at St Edwards where Colombo’s elite children are groomed for Oxford and Cambridge and later as he studies law at Oxford.  Instead we get his judgement about some black East African boys at the school – ‘I believe the savage races do not distinguish between fact and fable as rigorously as we do’(32) – and his ‘queer exaltation’ at seeing the native overseer’s son being whipped for stealing coconuts on the family’s country estate at Lokugama – ‘What I was witnessing was the grand and terrible spectacle of justice.’(26)

At Neddy’s Sam meets Donald Jayasinghe, a boy who will grow up to become a nationalist leader against British rule.  Jaya’s gibe against Sam – ‘Obey by name, Obey by nature.’ – is oft repeated throughout the novel as an apt epithet for this completely repressed character.  Jaya’s handsome masculinity is yet another opportunity for Sam’s misogyny – ‘Women are notoriously attracted to that kind of thing; it appeals to the primitive mind’(34) and ‘Women are rarely impressed by intellectual achievement.’(42)

Later when Shivanathan, a Tamil solicitor involved in the Hamilton case explains to the District Superintendent of Police Nagel that ‘our legal system is literally foreign to our people.  And so they strive to make sense of it as best they can.  Sorcery provides an effective precedent’,(110) Obey is contemptuous of the lawyer’s attempt to see British justice through the eyes of an illiterate tea picker.  His view is much more forthright and much less discerning: ‘The British made a fatal error when they brought in universal suffrage.  It might be plausible in Europe, but here, with our ignorant masses, what can it lead to but the disasters we’ve seen since independence?’(33)

Sam is most honest about himself and his lifelong dissimulation when he explains the importance to him as a schoolboy of conquering the English language and absorbing English culture: ‘That was the point, in a way: to have the fluency to pass unremarked.’  Above all, originality was to be avoided: ‘It’s only a matter of getting everything wrong.’(46)

Part Two: ‘Reality can only be partially attacked by logic’

            Friedrich Dürrenmatt

What exactly is the Hamilton case?  As an old man determined to the last to rail against what he sees as the disasters of the British departure, decolonisation and the assertion of nationalist sentiment, Sam Obeysekere sets about writing his memoirs of the Hamilton case, his one florid and completely misunderstood foray into the public arena.

Ensconced on business between his accommodation at the Windsor and his dinners at the Danville Club in the up-country hill station of Nuwarra Eliya, Sam observes that the rose bushes, cottages and frosty evenings ‘offered a very passable simulacrum of an English village.’(99)  This is the kind of environment he feels he belongs in and in which he fantasises about the authenticity of his artificial Englishness.  We are hardly surprised by the level of contempt he feels for his fellow-countrymen and colleagues, the Tamil solicitor John Shivanathan and the Burgher Conrad Nagel, District Superintendent of Police investigating the case.  Over drinks one evening these two men outline the details of the Hamilton case to Sam who sets about recounting them decades later through the filter of his own prejudices and vanities in his unfinished manuscript.  Sam dies before he can complete his account and we can assume that the author of the continuing narrative and of his father’s prejudices is Harry, the boy who has always hated him, who only returns to Ceylon after Sam’s death and who writes to the elderly Shivanathan for his opinion on the case.

Angus Hamilton is the British manager of the White Falls Estate tea plantation when his old friend Gordon Taylor turns up accompanied by his much younger wife Yvette.  Taylor, Sam surmises, ‘turned out to be one of those fellows you found as reliably as mileposts across the breadth of the Empire: amiable, aimless, never sticking at anything.’(114)  In other words, a bad penny.  Some time later Hamilton is shot dead on an isolated jungle track he uses every month on his return from town with the coolies’ wages.  His watch and chain and the estate wages are missing and suspicion falls immediately on the Tamil coolies.  Taylor is appointed estate manager after Hamilton’s murder.  The missing watch is eventually handed over to Nagel by a pawnbroker who identifies the coolie father and son who brought it to him.  These two men are charged with theft of the watch and obstruction of justice, defended by their fellow-Tamil Shivanathan and punished with eight lashes apiece.  The reason they are not charged with the murder of a white man and hanged is that, based on the evidence displayed before him by Nagel, Sam Obeysekere has developed and, so far as he is concerned, proved his theory that Yvette Taylor put her husband up to the murder.  Taylor is arrested, a British prisoner in a British colony that is gradually being ceded more local autonomy.

Sam’s solution of the case is his most celebrated moment of public notoriety.  He is feted as a national hero for preventing the Tamil coolies from being executed and for bringing a British man to justice in a British colony.  This is richly ironic.  Sam is respected by the native Tamils for whom he feels nothing but contempt.  He has always loved everything British and yet Taylor is now on trial because of his momentary application of Agatha Christie to real life.  Sam’s prospects for promotion are diminished.  He does not get the judgeship he covets; it goes to Shivanathan instead.  The local judicial and colonial elite see his interference in the case as tantamount to an incitement of local feeling, exactly the opposite of the way Sam has always defined himself in relation to Britain and the Empire.  As he is reminded by his junior, ‘You see, you are putting a noose around an English neck, isn’t it.’(134)

During his trial in front of a jury that was ‘British to a man’(138) Taylor is ‘delivered to the hangman’(141) by his pregnant wife Yvette’s evidence against him.  He hangs himself in his cell still protesting his innocence.  After the birth of her child Yvette departs from Ceylon never to be seen again.

Sam is convinced his application of logic and a magnifying glass have rewarded him with an apprehension of absolute truth.  Truth, like justice, he perceives to be a thoroughly British affair. In fact, his vanity and narrow-mindedness have caused him to grasp at a single thread of evidence instead of realising that any case needs to be looked at from a multitude of perspectives.  Later in the novel, the same case is viewed through the self-serving eyes of the nationalist politician Donald Jayasinghe and the memory of solicitor-cum-novelist John Shivanathan.  Whilst the reader may never be entirely sure who murdered Hamilton, one thing is clear.  Sam was wrong and his mistake led to the trial and suicide of Gordon Taylor.

Part Three: ‘The jungle moved within the walls’

            Leonard Woolf

This section of the novel continues Harry’s narrative memoir of his childhood, the death of his mother and his father’s virtual disposal of him.  It is powerfully focused on the characterisation of Sam Obeysekere and his mother Maud.  Sam is most powerfully characterised throughout The Hamilton Case by his attitudes concerning race, colour and gender.  In Part Three our deepest and most disturbing insights into Sam’s character are associated with his attitudes towards women and sexuality.  His views on sexuality and love are as cynical and clinical as his views on justice and the law.  (Concerning the latter two, subtle moral or ethical distinctions are entirely unnecessary to him.)  Sam imagines the Taylor foetus as a blind-headed worm and his sister Claudia’s unborn child as a jellied eye.  In Part One his anonymous, detached and indiscriminate sex with the London landlady Mrs Timms was intensified in pleasure by her use of a rattan whip.  Throughout the novel his longing for some deeper physical complicity with his sister Claudia is as loathsome as his behaviour towards his virtually dispossessed mother and his general attitude towards women.

Sam anticipates his wedding night with Leela ‘with clinical ardour’ finding himself ‘excited by smallness, with its aura of violation.’(152)  She becomes the virtual prisoner of his cruelty and disdain in Allenby House whilst his mother is imprisoned by him in the decaying family seat at Lokugama.

Maud is first the victim of her husband’s profligate and eventually impoverishing generosity and excess as well as her own complete inability to live within her means; second, she is the victim of an unaccountable tragedy, the death of her infant third child; and third she is the victim of the vengeance meted out to her by her adult son Sam.  He is convinced that he is rightfully punishing her for her unsuitability and her failures as a parent.  As does Maud, we begin to realise that she is indeed much more the victim than Sam has ever been.

Removed from any of her prior splendour, from her affluent social set, we witness in Part Three the ‘spectacle of her degradation.’(213)  The jungle does indeed seem to come within the walls as Maud struggles to maintain her sanity.  She becomes a figment and creature of her tropical landscape where the monsoon continues ‘the assault on stability.’(288)  But it is here, as a result of her virtual incarceration and the breakdown of her personality that she is able to confront and piece together the truth behind the second mystery at the heart of The Hamilton Case, the death of Leo.  This is pieced together by dreams, memories and ghosts until she is able to achieve her realisation that her first two children – Sam and Claudia – had conspired to kill her third.  ‘The past was retrievable’(296) for Maud, terrible for her to realise but truth none-the-less.

Similarly, Sam is allowed at least a little redemption by acknowledging in his own heart the horrible truth of Leo’s death, by recognising Claudia’s lifelong madness and admitting that his infamous moment of Sherlock Holmes glory was more than just a sham.  He was wrong.

Part Four: ‘He knows everything between Varanasi and Rameswaram’

            Tamil saying

The novel concludes with a letter from John Shivanathan to Sam’s son Harry who has written to him to ask whether or not he believes that his father’s meddling in the Hamilton case led to the incarceration and suicide of an innocent man.  Harry has been drawn to approach him not only because of his involvement in the case but because Shivanathan’s own novel Serendipity is clearly a fictionalised account of it.

Sam is now dead and Shivanathan is free to remember and to postulate openly with Harry about the past and the factors that constructed Sam’s personality.  Shivanathan is able to trace Sam’s desperate and impossible desire to be ‘one of them’(344) back to their school days at St Edward’s.  He can distinguish between the cultural and social expectations placed upon the boys and young men of their generation – ‘You see, we were a generation that spoke always in quotation.’(342) – and Obey’s own obsession with fulfilling those expectations –  ‘He had the gift of perfect mimicry.’(342)  ‘He feared judgement.  Like all imposters, he feared exposure… The tragedy of the psychotic is that he lives in terror of a breakdown which has in fact already occurred.  So it was with your father.  He strove to perfect a performance that had never deceived his audience.’(343)  ‘I think he glimpsed, obscurely, that we were being written by the grand narratives of our age.  Nationalism, empire, socialism, capitalism.  It was necessary to choose between them.  You picked a story and stuck with it, saw out the plot to its predictable outcome.  He was no exception.  As the product of an idea, he was superb.  Only it walled him off from so much he might have loved.’(366)

Shivanathan also thinks in terms of detective fiction: ‘But murder, like all art, generates interpretation and resists explanation.  Why do you suppose that your father, having set out to establish the facts of the Hamilton case, found himself unable to do so?’(353)

The Hamilton Case and the Outcomes

Rich in ideas about the relationships between colonised and coloniser, about logic, law and emotion, about the family, the state and ethnicity, about orientalism and post-colonialism The Hamilton Case would lend itself to the Views and Values Outcome.  De Kretser’s style, her uses of descriptive writing and multiple narrators, of memory, dream and dialogue in a style that we might loosely call magical realism would lend themselves to the Creative Outcome as would her interest in different genres such as the memoir and the detective novel.  For the Performance Outcome I can imagine comparisons being made between The Hamilton Case and the film versions of The Remains of The Day and The Quiet American.

Reading Notes on Hannie Rayson’s ‘Inheritance’

by Adrian D’Ambra

Family Structure

  • One dead patriarch/landowner, Norm Myrtle (1890-1934); death by suicide, Christmas 1934.
  • Two elderly twin matriarchs, the Myrtle twins, Dibs Hamilton (who ‘inherited’ the family farm, Allandale, after Norm Myrtle’s death) and Girlie Delaney, who has honoured Dibs’ ‘ownership’ all their adult lives but is not about to sit back and let her own son Lyle be disinherited; they are about to celebrate their 80th
  • One living ‘patriarch’, Dibs’ husband Farley Hamilton, who has farmed the property with his illegitimate, adopted Aboriginal son, Nugget. Both these men work the land; neither of them own it so far as Dibs is concerned despite the fact that in this paternalistic setting she has had Farley’s name put on the title.
  • Two clans sharing the same origins and background but with vastly different life-experiences; the Hamiltons (city-educated, urban elite, except for Nugget on the farm) and the Delaneys (struggle-town share farmers filled with resentment). Not one of Dibs’ biological descendants – daughter and multicultural public servant Julia, son and homosexual restaurateur William or grandson and inner-city university student of cyber societies Felix – is an appropriate beneficiary of the farm.  After Farley’s death and the destruction of his will, who the property should go to is Dibs’ decision.  There are two candidates; her nephew and Girlie’s Catholic son Lyle Delaney, hard-working, unthinking and addicted to debt or Nugget, named as the sole heir in Farley’s dishonoured will, his illegitimate Aboriginal son originally taken in as a ten-year-old boy by Dibs and raised as one of her own.
  • Two rural suicides with monumental consequences for three generations across two clans; Norm Myrtle’s death by hanging in his Santa suit on Christmas day 1934 and Lyle Delaney’s similar death seventy years later. Norm had struggled to farm Allandale through the Great Depression but may also have suffered from the so-called black dog of mental depression.  Lyle (ASHLEIGH: It’s all his fault.  He’s such a fucking loser. (p.82)) cannot get his head above his debts and is incapable of thinking objectively about how best to farm the land.  He owns virtually nothing and owes for everything.  ‘What’s a farmer without a farm?… A bloody grunt… A fucking refugee… Look at this fucking, dry twat of a place… I’ve bloody dug it, ploughed it, shat on it, fucked it.  I love this – I love this place.  And I’m not going to fucking die in the dole queue… A man has to live or die on his own piece of dirt.  That’s always been the way, hasn’t it?’ (p.89).  Both men are discovered by their daughters, the girls in blue, Dibs and Girlie, Ashleigh and Brianna.  The Myrtle twins decide who will stay on the land to maintain the farm and look after their mother.  The Delaney girls find their father dead on the same day that Dibs has transferred ownership of the property to him, only to see it sold to finance their mother Maureen Delaney’s political campaign.

Reading Australia

Hannie Rayson wants us to read and see her play as a microcosm of contemporary Australia, that is as a reflection of the issues and debates, tensions and prejudices that sometimes rage, are sometimes quiet but are always just beneath the surface of Australian society at the beginning of the twenty-first century.  What are some of the tensions and fault lines that Rayson sees as dividing our nation?

Women’s Roles

Dibs and Girlie are certainly the matriarchs of their respective families.  Accepting the consequences of a toss of a coin, though, has cost Girlie a lifetime.  She has gone from seeing her family lose the pub to watching her son Lyle decline into bitterness and debt.  Dibs, the winner of the coin-toss, has placed her husband Farley’s name on the title but then destroys his will, prevents Nugget from inheriting and passes the farm over her other two children to sign it over to Lyle.  By modern, urban standards Julia is the most privileged – educated, independent – of the female characters in the play but she is strangely captive to the reproductive biology of her gender.  By the end of the play she is the mother of two children but the partner of neither father.  Maureen is perhaps the strongest of the female characters, the most forthright in her opinions, the most determined and ambitious in her pursuit of power, but in the first half of the play she is also a wife with little influence over her husband’s decision-making even when it comes to putting the family house up as security against a massive loan for farm equipment they neither need nor can afford.  Dibs, Julia and Maureen are deeply hurt in their marriages; Dibs by Farley’s infidelity with Joyce and his later changing of his will without consulting her, Julia by the homosexuality of Felix’ father, Maureen by the terms of Lyle’s massive loan.  By the end of the play Maureen is the only adult female character who is not defined by her relationships with others – Dibs, Girlie and Julia are all still strongly defined by their roles as wives, mothers and siblings.  Maureen has become a political force to be reckoned with.

FELIX: My mother did a course in Car Maintenance for Women. (p.4)

DIBS: I don’t think Julia tried hard enough.  That’s the thing with young women: too selfish by half. (p.5)

JULIA: Mum, Hamish is a homosexual.

DIBS: People do cope with all sorts of difficulties in marriage.

JULIA: He has sex with men. (p.69)

DIBS: What sort of a marriage is it where a husband’d change his will and not tell his wife?… I am not giving Nugget a single handful of this dirt. (p.85-86)

Homophobia

Faggot races. (p.8)

WILLIAM: Gay men are not welcome in Rushton.  Trust me on this. (p.10)

WILLIAM: Let’s pretend that he has the capacity to treat his son slightly better than his dogs. (p.11)

NUGGET: I just don’t like to think about it.  (William’s homosexuality) (p.20)

General Intolerance, Racism and the Question, Who Does Australia Belong To?

Racism in Inheritance is most strongly focused on issues related to Aboriginal Australia and the attitudes of white Australians to indigenous Australians.  In Girlie, Maureen and Farley, though, a broader aspect of Australian racism is also raised, a general sense of intolerance, contempt and indignation felt towards European, Asian and Muslim migrants, refugees, anyone who is different.  This intolerance of difference can also come down to details such as religion, sexual orientation or lifestyle.  Look at Farley’s contempt for Catholics: ‘Never put a Mick in charge of anything.’ (p.43)  Look at Girlie’s hatred of southern Europeans.  She is so infuriated by the fact that the pub she bought with her mother’s ten thousand dollars is now owned and run by a Greek family – ‘wogs… Blow-ins’ (p.15) – that she can’t stand walking past the building.  Look at her contempt for non-meat-eaters; ‘Bugger the vegetarians.’ (p.16)

In relation to Aboriginal Australia the play does assume some knowledge on the part of the audience in its specific references to the Mabo case.  Eddie Mabo and other members of his community – the Meriam people in the Torres Strait – sought legal recognition of their people’s land rights/native title.  In June 1992 the Australian High Court granted this recognition.  The Meriam people were entitled, ‘to the possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the islands…’  To arrive at this judgement the High Court had to overcome a longstanding legal fiction in Australia, the concept of terra nullius, which had previously held that the land of Australia belonged to no one when the First Fleet landed in Botany Bay in 1788.  The Mabo decision asserted the prior ownership of Australia by its indigenous peoples before white settlement.  This, of course, is completely unacceptable to Dibs, Girlie, Maureen and Lyle.  As far as they are concerned the land belongs to the people who farm it and the Aborigines deserve no special recognition.  What Maureen describes as ‘privileges’, Pauline Hanson described as ‘the Aboriginal industry’ in her maiden speech to parliament in September 1996.  In December 1996 the High Court made a further judgement known as the Wik decision in which it was established that native title could coexist with pastoral leases.  Despite the fact that the Wik decision clearly stated that no farmer, landowner or pastoralist would be disadvantaged by this recognition, the popular reaction to this decision was one of outraged hysteria.  Australians were told to fear Aboriginal claims on their backyards.  The Howard Government responded to Mabo and Wik with the Native Title Amendments Bill 1998, severely limiting any recognition of native title.  Despite this legal protection, Rayson suggests, resentment and anger towards anything to do with Aborigines from land rights to the stolen generations is still strong in rural Australia.  Dibs, Girlie, Maureen and Lyle all still irrationally fear some kind of Aboriginal threat to their property and their heritage.

Just as Pauline Hanson – Australia’s most divisive, potentially dangerous and most racist politician in recent history – did throughout her brief political career, Maureen cleverly rebuts the claims of Aboriginal and migrant Australians by suggesting that these most vulnerable and disadvantaged groups are in fact in some way being privileged by a political system dominated by a code of political correctness imposed on Australia by leftwing urban elites represented in the play by Julia (a public servant working in multiculturalism) and her son Felix (a university student who at one point in the play wears a ‘Sorry’ tee-shirt).  In her campaign speech Maureen Delaney, the Independent candidate for Murray, appeals to her rural constituency by running through their grievances about not being able to get the telephones fixed, driving on unsafe roads and sending their kids to second-rate schools.  Country people deserve, ‘the same basic facilities as city people… we made this country.’  She then provides a list of guilty parties.  It begins with the foreign-owned banks and multinationals but then comes around to, ‘every Asian, Moslem and Hottentot who come here and refuse to sign up to the Australian Way of Life.’ (p.61)  ‘I’ve spent every day this past year – telling the people out there that Aboriginals are just the same as what we are… They’re just as Australian.  And they deserve just the same respect as any white person.  It’s just the extra privileges they get which make people around here mad.’ (p.84)  Acknowledging her election victory, Maureen describes her rural constituency; ‘They’re pioneers in this country and tonight they’ve pioneered a new path for Australian politics.  They’re putting Australia first and lending a hand… Allandale has been in our family for five generations.  So of course it was a hard decision.  But who wouldn’t sell their farm to save their country?’ (p.97)  She has manufactured a threat, created and generated a fear to which her supporters have responded and she has achieved this in large part by playing the race politics card.

An important symbolic reference in the play is the mention of Aboriginal artefacts in the Mallee.  Maureen explains that, ‘Aboriginal people themselves don’t all believe that stuff.  It’s your university types and do-gooders from the city, they’re the ones who keep peddling this tribal oogy-boogy… the stolen generation… askin’ the cockies if they’ve found any ‘artefacts’ on their land – you know, Aboriginal axe heads, flints, bones and that…’  Girlie responds, ‘Nobody in this district has ever found anything at all.  And even if you had, you wouldn’t tell the bloody Mabo mob, would you?’ (pp.38-39)  These are clearly lies as Brianna shows Felix an Aboriginal axe head found on one of the local farms. (C/f p.91)

FELIX: …a little brown baby? (p.13)

FELIX: I still can’t believe we call him Nugget… It’s like calling him Coon. (p.19)

NUGGET: They can make it pretty rough.  White teacher living with a blackfella. (p.20)

MAUREEN: (To William) Mate, the land belongs to the people who work it.  Not to the banks.  Not to the multinationals.  And certainly not to a pampered city boy who turned tail because he couldn’t hack it. (p.32)

FARLEY: You’ve got to be big to own country like this. (p.41)

GIRLIE: You’ve got to have a sense of humour to live in country like this. (p.41)

LYLE: Bloody boong.  Never had to stand on your own two feet, you black bastard. (p.44)  You pissweak coon. (p.58)

MAUREEN: Your old man took advantage of a nineteen-year-old Aboriginal girl… Face it, you pompous git.  Your father porked a gin.  In the back room of our hotel.  So don’t give me any shit about what a principled man he was. (p.66)

JULIA: So, my father has joined a long line of farmers who’ve exploited Aboriginal women.  That’s great, isn’t it?  Just another white man who couldn’t keep his dick in his trousers. (p.77)

LYLE: He started to get a bit big for his boots, ol’ Nugget… He’s a good worker, Nugget.  Trouble is, he’s got big ideas… Listen, city boy – you don’t have to live with them.  You don’t know what it’s like… it’s not all rainbow serpents and sacred sites…

FELIX: We live in a ghetto, Mum.  We all think the same, but out here – they hate blacks, they hate wogs.  They hate brown people. (p.83)

DIBS: I am not giving Nugget a single handful of this dirt. (p.86)

NUGGET: This is my country.  This should be my farm.  But they’ve pulled the fucking rug from under me. (p.87)

FELIX: This is Nugget’s country.  His people have already been dispossessed once.  He has a spiritual attachment to this place…

BRIANNA; You don’t like it up here, so you don’t understand.  But to Dad… and me… Dad could tell you every tree, every hill.  Every creek.  We belong here too. (p.91)

Masculinity and Rural Suicide

ACT ONE, SCENE TWELVE, Girlie hides away the Father Christmas hat and beard her father Norm wore when he killed himself.  At the very end of the play, ACT TWO, SCENE TWENTY, ‘LYLE is hanging from the rafters.’  He is discovered by his own two daughters in their blue school uniforms just as Norm Myrtle was found by his own two little girls in blue – Dibs and Girlie – seventy years earlier in 1934.

DIBS: He’d be laughing away, life of the party, and then he’d get a visit from the black dog. (p.27)

BRIANNA: Why did Granpa Norm hang himself?… Maybe he put in the work and didn’t get the rewards. (p.30)

WILLIAM: There’s something of a theme in this town.  Nobby Taylor, Donger Maloney, Horny McDonald.

JULIA: Horse Horrigan.

LYLE: He had a whopper. (p.64)

GIRLIE: We’ve had a visit from the bailiff… The bank’s served us with an eviction notice… Remember the three-tonne seeder he bought off Jack Cummins?… He put up the house as security. (p.73)

DIBS: You don’t seem to understand what it must be like to have to pack your things onto a truck and put yourself at the mercy of someone else.

WILLIAM: I would never be in that position.  I make choices.  I set goals and then I take action to achieve them. (p.81)

DIBS: And Nugget being here with us – it was a daily reminder of his own weakness.  His own shame. (p.86)

LYLE: What’s a farmer without a farm?… A bloody grunt… A fucking refugee… Look at this fucking, dry twat of a place… I’ve bloody dug it, ploughed it, shat on it, fucked it.  I love this – I love this place.  And I’m not going to fucking die in the dole queue… A man has to live or die on his own piece of dirt.  That’s always been the way, hasn’t it? (p.89)

“You want the tractor.  I’ll give you the fucking tractor.” (p.94)

Duty or Freedom?

LYLE: Who says life is fair?  Life is not fair. (p.31)

NORM: Duty or Freedom… That’s the hardest lesson in life, I reckon.  Accepting how the coin falls and making the best of it… Whoever said life was fair?  Life is not fair. (p.33-34)

ACT ONE, SCENE TWENTY-SIX

LYLE: Life is not fair.  Get that into your thick head. (p.82)

Town and Country

Whilst the play is set in the remote, vast Mallee district of western Victoria, the characters are, of course, not all country people.  City/country tensions are captured beautifully in an early exchange between Dibs and Girlie: ‘I love Melbourne… that stinking hole’. (p.53)  ‘I don’t know how you could live down there,’ says Farley, ‘Two weeks and you’d have a suicide on your hands.’ (p.10)  Dibs’ son William, daughter Julia and grandson Felix are city people (‘It’s whining Julia and the Pansy Boy’, says Maureen. (p.46).  Their ideas are often at odds with their country relatives but none of the characters is entirely black and white.  Nugget for example is clearly the greatest victim of prejudice in the play but he is also capable of it himself.  He is victimised for being Aboriginal but quite intolerant of homosexuals.  Farley and Lyle are the closest we come to seeing the redneck Aussie characterised with all of their racial hatreds and intolerances but they are also complex characters; Farley’s troubled conscience over Joyce and Nugget, Lyle’s suffering at the hands of the bank and the climate.  There are also differences between the city characters.  For example, when Felix defends Nugget’s claim to Allandale William mocks him with the kind of language usually used by rednecks against what they see as the educated urban elites: ‘You are such a gullible little bleeding heart.’ (p.79)  Amongst the country relatives there are clear differences between the Hamiltons, ‘your sister and her miserable demented husband… with their private school voices and university education and period furniture’ (p.25 & 38) and the ‘Bloody bog Irish’ Delaneys (p.44).  There are also clearly generational differences between Julia and Felix which she expresses in similar terms: ‘Your generation is just soft.’ (p.12)  Nugget is saying essentially the same thing about Felix when he calls him, ‘a real asphalt fella.’ (p.20)  One of the greatest divisions  between the country and city characters revolves around perceptions of relative wealth, status and privilege.  Farley seems to be contemptuous of the Scotch College education he lavished on William who has repaid the dept by becoming a homosexual restaurateur.  Maureen – ‘We can’t afford to let the girls go to the pictures.’ (p.24) – is contemptuous of what she sees as Julia’s cushy politically correct and unacceptable job: ‘She’s a big shot in the whole multicultural racket.’ (p.15)  When Felix mentions Aboriginals and asylum seekers to Maureen and tells her clearly that he despises her racism and prejudice she tells him, ‘You’re so politically correct, you wouldn’t know your arse from your armpit.’ (p.85)  Julia is hardly politically correct when she’s telling her son about Donger Maloney and the ‘faggot races’. (p.8)  Nineteen-year-old Felix is unimpressed by his 44 year-old mother’s intention of having ‘a little brown baby’. (p.13)  To Felix, ‘This is Nugget’s country.  His people have already been dispossessed once.  He has a spiritual attachment to this place.’  To Brianna it is equally true that, ‘To Dad… and me… Dad could tell you every tree, every hill.  Every creek.  We belong here too.’ (p.91)

Reading the Play

What makes this play work?  The answer to this question lies in responding to the strongest possible criticism that we could make of the play: that it is simply a piece of political propaganda designed to represent white Australians as racists, homophobes and generally intolerant and that it does so by presenting a range of simple, one-dimensional characters as vehicles for Rayson’s ideas and prejudices.  If the city-based characters were all good and the country characters were all bad this criticism of the play would probably be correct.  The good guys include a feminist (Julia), a gay man (William) and a student activist (Felix).  The bad guys include a wog-hater (Girlie), a coon-hater (Lyle), an opportunistic race-based politician (Maureen) and a lot of gratuitous references to the male genitalia.  All our sympathies would be with the good guys, all our anger would be directed at the bad guys.  White audiences would come away from the play filled with anguish about the plight of Aboriginal Australians and with guilt about what their forebears have done.  If this was true the play would be little more than a bunch of political slogans.  It would be bad one-dimensional writing and definitely bad drama.

Rayson cleverly avoids this potential criticism of her work.  All of the characters are complex.  Our sympathies and antagonisms are constantly being teased in different directions by most of them.  There’s not one set of good and one set of bad characters.  Even Farley, the white man who has fathered an illegitimate Aboriginal child, who hates Catholics and homosexuals and tyrannically dominates his own wife, occasionally vies for some of our sympathy.  His encroaching senility is tragic.  His decision to leave Allandale to Nugget is noble.  Dibs and Girlie offer their moments of comic relief as well as their anti-social values (Girlie’s racism) and unethical actions (Dibs’ destruction of Farley’s will).  They are both victims of their father’s suicide and the burden of responsibility for maintaining the family farm.  Maureen – potentially the most despicable character in Inheritance – demands at least a little of our admiration for her desperate hard work and her futile attempts to keep the family afloat.  Julia – politically correct and multiculturally aware – arouses some of our scepticism in relation to her emotional immaturity.  Felix – educated in the most modern sense of the word and well at home in the multicultural melting pot of inner-urban Melbourne – comes across occasionally as whining and ineffectual.  We suspect that some of his mother’s criticisms of his generation – spoilt and uncommitted – certainly do apply to him.  Nugget – perhaps the character most deserving of our sympathies – is uncomfortable with William’s sexuality.  Lyle’s bigotry and racism is counterbalanced by his genuine love of the land that he has always worked but will never own.  In fact, no one in the play gives a more eloquent expression of their sense of belonging to country than Lyle gives and it is echoed by his daughter Brianna’s endorsement of his love of the land.  William, the sensitive new age gay restaurateur, is also a selfish, grasping opportunist determined, like his mother, to prevent Nugget from inheriting the farm so that he can squander the money on his lover’s winery and restaurant.

In other words, Rayson’s play is not simply about victims and perpetrators.  Instead, her complex characters alert us to the awareness that these issues are also complex and that their solutions – if there are any – are bound to be equally complex.

Rayson’s Inheritance is also a triumph because of her refusal to offer solutions to the social conditions and problems she identifies.  As we remarked at the beginning of these notes, Rayson wants us to appreciate her play as a reflection of the issues and debates, tensions, prejudices and fault lines that she believes are dividing our nation.  As such, she is trying to accurately gauge the extent to which different kinds of Australians have their outlooks defined or influenced by these views and values.  She is much more interested in portraying people and the complex range of ideas and feelings that motivate them than she is in attempting to solve their problems.  Rayson avoids giving us a simple one-dimensional reading of contemporary Australia and the issues that she identifies as dividing it and she refuses to suggest solutions to these issues.

Another important contemporary/historical reading of the play is that Rayson is attempting to offer us a portrait or snapshot of the nation at a very specific moment in time.  This is Australia at the end of the twentieth and the beginning of the twenty-first centuries; an Australia in which the progressive ‘big picture’ ambitions of the republic debate, the stolen generations, native title and Aboriginal reconciliation, engagement with Asia, the sense of an independent national identity both at home and abroad have been abandoned and replaced by a backward-looking conservatism which espouses family values and traditional attitudes but at the same time reinforces popular prejudices in an anti-intellectual, anti-education, anti-egalitarian environment dominated by big money at the big end of town.  This is a snapshot of the nation we live in now, a country and culture whose thinking or mindset has been shaped by ten years of Coalition Government and by the meteoric rise and fall of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation.

Reading Notes on John Kinsella’s, ‘Peripheral Light’

by Adrian D’Ambra

All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.”

Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto.

Outlook

“For me,” says John Kinsella, “all centres are fringes.” Kinsella’s own poetic voice and vision have reached out from the periphery of the remote rural backblocks of Western Australia to be heard and taken note of as far away as Cambridge and New York. A first dip into his poetry can be a lyrical experience in which wheatlands seem to roll on forever under the impassive eyes of birds of prey. It is evocative but beneath the surface of this numinous world there is danger and threat, uncertainty and unease. He has named his own aesthetic “radical-pastoral,” a poetry in which the ravages of the white settlement of the Australian continent are measured in terms of the erosion of landscape. It is a bold poetic in which the subject matter might mistakenly be attributed to an earlier age but the consciousness is utterly modern. Its truths are not necessarily declamatory slogans and denunciations; they are the echoes and reverberations that elaborate out of the observation of minute and mundane detail. Just as the absolutely trivial and inconsequential might be meant to record and reveal the essential in the lives of Tim Winton’s characters, the ordinary and everyday can become the vehicle of poetic revelation in Kinsella’s writing. His deeper subject matter, though, is not so much the universal nature of the human condition but the particular nature of the human predicament in Australia where to humanise the landscape along our inherited predominantly European lines is equally to doom it. This is not simply about destroying nature; it is about destroying ourselves.

Background

John Kinsella was born in Perth, Western Australia, in 1963. One source I’ve come across records that his mother, also a poet, read Wordsworth and Milton to him rather than nursery rhymes. This could account for the brilliantly elegiac and monumental in some of his longer and more assertive pieces. Kinsella studied at the University of Western Australia and he has travelled extensively through Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Kinsella has published poems in a large number of literary journals in Australia, the United States, New Zealand, Japan, India, Canada and Britain. Any Australian poet who has tried to place their own individual poems in literary journals at home or abroad in the last decade or so will have crossed paths with him at some point. He is the founding editor of the Australian literary magazine Salt, he is co-editor of Stand in the United Kingdom and has been the international editor of The Kenyon Review in the United States. He is poetry editor for The Observer in London and he writes reviews for The New Yorker and Overland. John Kinsella has been the recipient of many awards. He has received writing grants from both the Western Australian Department for the Arts and from the Literature Fund of the Australia Council. He has received many poetry prizes including; the Grace Leven Poetry Prize, the John Bray Award for Poetry from the Adelaide Festival and The Age Poetry Book of the Year Award. He is a three-time winner of the Western Australian Premier’s Book Award for Poetry. In 1996 he received a Young Australian Creative Fellowship, and he was awarded a two-year Fellowship from the Australia Council. He was made an artist By-Fellow of Churchill College, Cambridge, in 1997 and a Fellow in 1998. John Kinsella was appointed foundation Richard L. Thomas Professor of Creative Writing at Kenyon College, Ohio, for the spring semester of 2000/2001. In 2003 he was Professor of English at Kenyon College and Adjunct Professor of Literature at Edith Cowan University. Kinsella has published and contributed to more than twenty collections of poetry. His Peripheral Light, Selected and New Poems have been selected and introduced by the eminent American critic and academic Harold Bloom who launched the American edition in New York.

“I give this language nothing”, writes Kinsella in his First Essay on Linguistic Disobedience [Page 126], “the birds’ sing-song translates as a forest/ denuded of trees: these wooden houses/ working for nothing.”

Prior to this collection Kinsella’s best-known book of poetry was The Silo. Of its title poem Harold Bloom writes the following: “Australia is [and will always be] permanently undiscovered country for me, but as Kinsella’s constant reader I begin to sense that the abyss of the outback is a condition of his poetry, a frame that enables it to continue. His cairns are ‘pyramids of the outback,’ the setting for a pastoral poetry that triumphs in The Silo:”

…Before those storms

which brew thickly on summer evenings

red-tailed black cockatoos settled in waves,

sparking the straw like a volcano, dark

fire erupting from the heart of the white

silo, trembling with energy deeper

than any anchorage earth could offer.

[from The Silo, Page 39]

Bloom continues his discussion of this poem: “This is the hawk’s vision, not the crane’s and the old silo is the veritable tower of mortality, a temple of the Reality Principle. What makes the poem Kinsellan are those vitalizing cockatoos, trembling with more than natural energy. I think again of Lawrence, but now in an unlikely alliance with Robert Frost. The Silo, a permanent poem, makes space for itself by putting a fine pressure upon the modern pastoral, from Thomas Hardy onwards.”

Thus far it might just sound like John Kinsella has quickly and successfully written himself from the periphery to the centre, from the experimental to the canonical, from the fringe to the academy. That is not how he sees himself at all. In an interview with Rod Mengham he had this to say: “I’m a pacifist. And I’m a vegan anarchist with a commitment to developing a language to facilitate small unit/group living. The mere mention of the word ‘anarchist’ has people running or mocking. I’m using the word in a practical and specific way. I’d always been interested in [the Russian anarchist] Kropotkin, and in the eighties lived with a number of ‘groups’ of friends. We were active against people like Jack Van Tongeren’s Australian Nationalist Movement, against nuclear proliferation, logging in the south-west forests, and extremely pro Aboriginal land rights. I believed – and still do – in the ability of small groups to self-regulate, to ‘make’ their own law, and to be morally responsible through self-regulation. The State protects and dehumanises simultaneously – one learns to live within it, even accept it, but never to give in to it…”

Comes before the house – domicile

on the cleared block. Prelude

to building permission. The shire

never quite turns a blind eye,

but you can sweat it out in summer

and shiver in your sleeping bag

in winter, the reinforced concrete

floor a proverbial slab of ice…

Soon, very soon, the house

will be built.

[from The Shed, Page 143]

In a period of incredible conservatism when interest in poetics, aesthetics and politics, indeed when any sense of public space or artistic culture seems to be at a deplorable low, Kinsella’s ideas and images are both incendiary and inspirational. “As an ethical vegan my prime concerns are with animal welfare issues and questions of exploitation generally”, he says in the same interview. “I don’t believe that animals should be used for human gain, nor should they be patronised in that ‘food chain’ kind of way. I’m against all forms of genetic engineering and the use of animals in any form of research. In essence, I feel that humanity can socially, intellectually, artistically and ‘spiritually’ progress without exploiting the physical and natural world in the way it does/we do.” If we can’t at least hope that some of our students might aspire to share some of these values, maybe we should simply abandon the classroom altogether? If we can’t use such means as Kinsella’s poetry to challenge the orthodoxies of our day then I would argue that maybe we should simply discontinue the teaching of literary texts.

An editorial note about Kinsella in the Winter 2005 edition of The Literary Review tells us that, “Kinsella has made it one of his missions to break down divisions in poetry between countries. As a vegan anarchist pacifist, he works against the very idea of nation, and more towards the idea of region, locality, and community – literally and poetically.”

“And as the sun begins to uncoil –/” he writes in Wild Radishes [Page 63], “The deep green of the wheat uneasy with light –/ The golden flowers of wild radishes bite/ Just before they are ripped from the soil.”

In a recent essay Kinsella writes, “I’ve often been asked how many ‘religious’ poems are experimental. My answer is that most experimental poems are at least concerned with the question of existence and/or are ontological in nature. First and foremost, the primacy of language is questioned; second, the space in which language is being presented comes up for scrutiny. The relationship between words and people, between language and thought, and language as written, is highlighted. A binary is developed. These are issues of spiritual presence, for me at least.”

Radical Pastoral

In that same edition of The Literary Review John Kinsella published the rhetorically titled essay Can There Be a Radical ‘Western’ Pastoral…? It is clear from this and from other material including recent interviews that this is a major aspect of Kinsella’s writing, but what does he mean by describing his work as radical pastoral?

“Radical pastoral,” writes Kinsella, “declares that what might be seen as idyllic in the country in conventional pastoral is really reflective of a corruption of nature, that modern farming and rural living lead to the destruction of the environment [erosion, salinity, dust bowls, poisoning], are exploitative of the non-human, and very often part of an exploitation of the working poor…”

We can see this illustrated in numerous Kinsella poems. In Goading Storms Out of a Darkening Field [Page 44] he describes, “charred hills, dry wells filled and sealed./ Sheep on their last legs. Dams crusted over./ Cursing the dry, cursing the bitter yield.”

“As a poet involved in challenging pastoral tradition,” The Literary Review essay continues,  “and more relevantly, as a vegan anarchist pacifist who spends most of his life in rural areas, I feel an obligation to overturn the language of exploitation and disempowerment that have characterised the pastoral.”

I would argue that Kinsella’s poetics of radical pastoral is an aesthetic that we can well accommodate in an Australian lexicon. After all, what little remains of an Australian identity still continues to dress itself in the accessories – expressing both its resistance and its innate conservatism – of the bush: the four-wheel drive, the Akubra hat, the elastic-sided boot. This tension-of-identity is captured beautifully in the poem The Machine of The Twentieth Century Rolls Through The High Yielding Crop [Pages 71-72]: “Dust particles cling to sweat despite the sun just up,/ moisture levels within brittle stalks drop/ as rapidly as markets are lost or gained, shadow/ puppetry of information exchange leading the finest/ of mechanical technologies astray…”

An Orphic Poet

To conclude, I’ll return to where Harold Bloom begins his introduction of Peripheral Light. Bloom describes John Kinsella as an Orphic poet, praising the depth, breadth and fecundity of his imagination. This reference to Orpheus returns us to the elemental, inspirational nature of poetry. It also returns us to a notion of the numinous in art, the idea of art as a resonance, an echo, a voice arising out of humanity’s encounter with more than what it is itself, with nature and with the spiritual. This is beautifully instanced in Links [Page 3], “when the sand becomes an astrolabe to the stars,/ where in the reflection of the crystal spheres/ we wander without direction, searching out/ water flowers…” It’s the disembodied sound of that bizarre broken string that sweeps across the stage in a Chekhov play, the wordless moment before he speaks when Hamlet holds the skull. It’s the moment of realization – moment of profound discovery and irrecoverable loss – around which tragedies and great artistic endeavours are structured and from which they are fashioned.

The magnificent expression Bloom uses to describe Kinsella is “Orphic fountain”. Returning to it recently I contacted John Kinsella and asked him for his own thoughts on Bloom’s fine praise. He wrote a reply to me about the tragic and elegiac, about the need for poets to bear witness to the inexorable nexus between death and destruction and beauty and healing. Kinsella’s poetic is in part a theoretical but also deeply felt experiment between nature and language. Returning yet again to Bloom’s expression I find myself actually focusing on the word “fountain”. It captures Kinsella’s commitment to his project, his enthusiasm for the written word, the fertility of his prolific output and the sense of a man whose most natural element is the language within which he lives and works.

Kinsella and the Outcomes

Adaptations and Transformations

Reading my own notes above and re-reading the poems I find myself imagining performance aspects of the poetry in two different directions. First of all, what would be the ideal sound accompaniment to these poems? If you were able to construct a CD of recorded sounds and music woven around these poems what would the play list be? Alternatively, how could readings of these poems be inserted or overlaid into certain classic scenes or films from Australian cinema? I find myself thinking of Peter Weir’s Picnic at Hanging Rock and Nick Cave’s The Proposition or Sunday Too Far Away, The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith and Wake in Fright.

Relying on text and voice, how could we set up poetry reading soirees making use of the binary opposites in the whole battle of the bush between Lawson and Paterson and linking this with readings and interpretations of Kinsella’s poems?

Views, Values and Contexts

Kinsella’s political, social and environmental concerns and ideas are reflected in his poetry as they are in his views about the way he lives his own life. As a means of explaining the genesis of the poetry, Kinsella often returns to his definition of himself; anarchist, vegan, pacifist. Is this a poetry of the new-age-left?

Another way into the poetry via this outcome might be to examine what is left unsaid, the absences. For example, the other is notably absent from John Kinsella’s poetry. There is humanity there but very little of the immediate human touch. Kinsella has identified aspects of his poetry – as have some of his critics – as the poetry of loss and death. To what extent is this the case, how adequate or inadequate a description of the poetry is this?

Considering Alternative Viewpoints

In the July 1997 issue of Australian Book Review Ivor Indyk, editor of Heat literary magazine, published a review of John Kinsella’s earlier selected, Poems 1980-1994: “He is a phenomenon, so dedicated to poetry, so mercurial, so driven in his profession of it, as to put the normal criteria of judgement into abeyance… Less than twenty poems appealed to me as significant… Kinsella’s great achievement as a poet is to have created the role of poet for himself.” Indyk accused him of doing so by weaving, “a vast network of poetic contacts on an international scale.” The August, September and October issues of Australian Book Review carried a number of responses to what Kinsella saw as Indyk’s, “paranoia and righteousness” his “erroneous, libellous and rancorous… character assassination.” Your thoughts?

Creative Responses to a Text

Many of the John Kinsella poems selected for study could well be imagined as belonging to other, longer more intimate and prosaic texts. The observations of nature could well be imagined written amongst other field notes. The farming poems of the Western Australian wheatlands could be imagined as entries in a broader-ranging diary. What quotations would we find in these field books and diaries from Kropotkin and Marx, from Whitman and Hardy, from Blake and Milton? What would be this man’s thoughts on matters of national import such as the treatment of indigenous peoples, the environment, our membership of the coalition of the willing? What readings would he bring to the other texts you’ve been studying in VCE English and Literature?

How could we as writers make use of Kinsella’s injunction to bear witness and to record objectively the beautiful and the hellish in a natural landscape? How would we use his poetry as a means of learning how to observe the human imprint on nature and on landscape?

Bibliography

Kinsella, John, Can There Be a Radical “Western” Pastoral…? The Literary

Review, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Madison, New Jersey, Winter 2005, Vol. 48 No. 2

Kinsella, John, Peripheral Light, Selected and New Poems, selected and edited by

Harold Bloom, Fremantle Arts Centre Press, Western Australia, 2003

Mateer, John, John Kinsella’s Prominent Place in Australia’s Literary Canon,

Canberra Times, 10/1/2004

Mengham, Rod & Phillips, Glen, Fairly Obsessive, Essays on the Works of John

Kinsella, Centre for Studies in Australian Literature & Fremantle Arts Centre Press, Western Australia, 2000

Pierce, Peter, Peripheral Light, Sydney Morning Herald, 3/1/2004

Sibree, Bron, Faith in an Ideal Word, The Daily Telegraph, Surry Hills, New South

Wales, 31/1/2004

Wark, McKenzie, Generator: Thinking Through John Kinsella’s ‘Genre’, Mengham

& Phillips, 2000

Some Reading Notes on Patrick White’s The Eye of the Storm [1973]

by Adrian D’Ambra

The Matter of Patrick White’s Narrative Style:

“Thanks to free indirect style, we see things through the character’s eyes and language but also through the author’s eyes and language. We inhabit omniscience and partiality at once. A gap opens between author and character, and the bridge – which is free indirect style itself – between them simultaneously closes that gap and draws attention to its distance.”

from – James Woods, How Fiction Works, 2008

Major Settings of the Novel:

  • Moreton Drive, Centennial Park, Sydney – especially Chapters 1, 2 & 3 for the return of siblings, Princesse Dorothy de Lascabanes and Sir Basil Hunter, and Chapter 11 for Lal Wyburd’s visit, Lotte Lippmann’s final performance, Flora Manhood’s period and Mrs Hunter’s death
  • Brumby Island – Chapter 8, especially pp 369-408, 414-428
  • Kudjeri, the Hunter family estate – Chapter 10

Sex and Sexuality in the Novel:

  • Flora Manhood and Col Pardoe
  • Basil and Flora Manhood, especially pp 298-323, compared with Basil and Mary de Santis, especially pp 334-356 which includes the Watsons Bay / dead dog scene
  • Dorothy at the North Shore Cheeseman dinner pp 286-298
  • Dorothy, Elizabeth and the marine ecologist Professor Edvard Pehl on Brumby Island
  • Dorothy and Hubert de Lascabanes
  • Dorothy and Basil in the closing passage of the Kudjeri chapter
  • Elizabeth Hunter and husband Alfred/‘Bill’ Hunter
  • Elizabeth Hunter and Athol Shreve, pp 91-101
  • Elizabeth Hunter and family solicitor Arnold Wyburd, pp 31-39
  • Elizabeth Hunter and Edvard Pehl on Brumby Island
  • The Miami Flats-Snow Tunks lesbian chapter, Chapter 4

At the time of their return to Australia Basil and Dorothy are in their fifties and Elizabeth Hunter is in her mid-eighties. Elizabeth was around 70 years of age at the time of the Brumby Island episode and Dorothy was around 40.

Chapter 1 [‘the purposeful is necessary’]

In its earliest exposition, the novel establishes the presence of Mrs Elizabeth Hunter in her bedroom as if she is a figure in a landscape. Look at the descriptive language used to describe the light, the furniture, the bed coverings: ‘the dark grove of the furniture . . . the steamy pillows . . . the wings of her hair, escaping from beneath the lawn . . . Mrs Hunter looked pretty flat . . . a straight line of sheet was pinning the body to the bed . . . “a sort of wateriness – oh yes, the looking-glass” . . .’ Mrs Hunter’s eyes are described in terms of ‘a terrifying mineral blue . . . that moment of splintered sapphires . . . their original mineral fire burning through the film’. These opening passages of the novel are clearly located at the Moreton Drive North Shore Hunter mansion in Centennial Park Sydney, but, in her semi-consciousness, Elizabeth Hunter is also simultaneously stranded on Brumby Island which is another key setting of the novel, in particular, of Mrs Hunter’s shattered relationship with her daughter Dorothy [see chapter 8].[1]  Apart from the landscape of her last refuge what this wreck of a human being, Elizabeth Hunter, contemplates is the inadequacy of love. “The worst thing about love between human beings,” she tells her night nurse, Sister Mary de Santis, “when you’re prepared to love them they don’t want it; when they do, it’s you who can’t bear the idea.” [p 11]

We meet the three nursing sisters: Mary de Santis, the night nurse; Sister Badgery, the morning nurse; Sister Flora Manhood, the afternoon nurse. Mary de Santis was first employed for Mrs Hunter by the family solicitor, Arnold Wyburd, fifteen years before the current time setting of the novel when Elizabeth suffered “you could hardly call it a breakdown – a slight nervous upset” [18] following the breakdown of the relationship between mother and daughter on Brumby Island. In Chapter 1 we also meet ‘this small unhappy Jewess’ [21] the housekeeper Lotte Lippmann and the cleaning lady Mrs Cush.

Elizabeth Hunter, nee Salkeld, slips between different states of consciousness, remembering episodes from her childhood, from her marriage and estrangement from Alfred ‘Bill’ Hunter and her infidelities. She recalls, for example, her affair with Athol Shreve as ‘an essay in sensuality’. [15] Elizabeth remembers her infidelity with the family solicitor, Arnold Wyburd, making love with him during a visit to Moreton Drive when he was delivering a draft of her will. Elizabeth and Alfred’s separation was marked by the move of Elizabeth and the children from the family’s country estate, Kudjeri, to Moreton Drive in Sydney. Despite their separation, ‘She was determined to show her gratitude and repay him in affection for what amounted to her freedom.’ [35] Sensuality is often equated with exchange in this novel. Her childhood memories revolve around another girl, Kate Nutley, whose sister Lilian ‘ran away with someone, a Russian or something . . . And now she’s been murdered.’ [24] Kate, it appears, comes from a wealthier family who provide her with numerous dolls to play with. Elizabeth has carried for a lifetime the guilt of deliberately throwing the dolls in the river. She feels no remorse for her choice of lovers. ‘Don’t think I made a practice of promiscuity. Oh, I was unfaithful once or twice – only as a sort of experiment – and it did prove it wasn’t worth it. For most women, I think, sexual pleasure is largely imagination.’ [77]

The major current-time event of Chapter 1 is the arrival in Sydney from France of Elizabeth’s expatriate daughter, Princesse Dorothy de Lascabanes which is told in reverse order. In order of retrospective exposition we have first her arrival at Moreton Drive, then her navigation of Sydney airport, then her account of the Air France flight from Europe during which she flies through a typhoon over the Bay of Bengal and befriends a fellow passenger, the Dutch sea captain, who remembers sailing a freighter into ‘the eye . . . the still centre of the storm . . . You could tell the violence was exhausting itself.’ [71]

In response to Dorothy’s Dutch sea captain story Elizabeth tells her daughter about ‘her experience in a cyclone . . . I must have been too annoyed with you – flying off like that – in a rage.’ [72] This is evidence of Elizabeth’s ‘capacity for cruelty . . . to drag in Edvard Pehl. At her most loving, mother had never been able to resist the cruel thrust.’ [73] Elizabeth’s cyclone is the central, disorientating experience of her life, her experience of the storm fifteen years earlier on Brumby Island.

Elizabeth ‘was terrified her mind might crumble before Dorothy came, let alone Basil, who was delayed.’ [40] ‘But I shan’t die,’ she reassures her daughter, ‘or anyway, not till I feel like it. I don’t believe anybody dies who doesn’t want to – unless by thunderbolts . . . In any case you flew – to make sure you’d see me die – or to ask me for money if I didn’t. Basil too.’ [64] These sentiments will be echoed almost exactly by Basil in Chapter 3. At the very least he is after a few thousand pounds to fund the Mitty Jacka non-play or, more hopefully, to witness his mother’s death and secure his inheritance.[2]

White characterises Dorothy as an awkward and eternal outsider who has ‘never managed to escape being this thing Myself.’ [49] She may have been made an honorary member of the Queen Victoria Club on the basis of her family fortune and her European title but ‘Dorothy Hunter’s misfortune was to feel at her most French in Australia, her most Australian in France.’ [49] ‘[U]nreliable: changeable, treacherous,’ Sydneysiders – and, by extension, Australians in general – are seen by her as reflections of their climate. [65] Dorothy perceives Australian speech as a monotonous form of shrieking ‘out of unhealed wounds.’ [49] Throughout the novel she struggles with her dual identity as Princesse de Lascabanes and Dorothy Hunter and she struggles to relate with other people: ‘I believe rooms actually mean more to me than people,’ she says to Arnold Wyburd whom she sees as ‘the sort of person you take for granted: a nice bore.’ [51] She anticipates her reunion with her mother as a kind of murder in the making and with her brother as something fearful, monstrous. ‘I’ll only ever want the great roles,’ she remembers Basil telling Lal Wyburd when they were children, ‘Lear particularly.’ [53]

Dorothy’s visit to her bedroom [53-58] is interspersed with reminiscences of her predominantly unsatisfactory and mutually unsatisfying marriage to Hubert in France. During this scene which is retained for the film version Dorothy lies on the platypus rug on her bed without knowing exactly what kind of fur it is or remembering that it was a wedding present from her father to her mother, although the platypuses were shot by her grandfather.

Chapter 2 [‘all the elements of a performance’]

The central action of the second chapter is the reunion of Elizabeth Hunter with her expatriate son, Sir Basil Hunter, the knighted actor permanently resident in England. Evidence perhaps of their mother’s cruelty, solecism and dominance, her two children have become foreigners, not just to herself but to Australia.[3]

Basil’s return, though, is preceded by the arrival with miniskirt and orange plastic handbag of Sister Flora Manhood, the afternoon nurse. ‘Oh God, my life is slipping away!’ she thinks to herself as she is rubbing Elizabeth’s back, ‘What am I living for?’ [86][4]  A separate episode in Chapter 2 is Flora’s reminiscence of a recent outing with her boyfriend, the pharmacist, Col Pardoe, who occasionally delivers Elizabeth Hunter’s medications to the Moreton Drive mansion. Writing about their daytrip to Noamurra, which means ‘Man and Wife’, Patrick White conveys his impression of the only hinterland that most Australians will ever know, the outer suburban fringe, the meeting place between bulldozers, urban progress and rural dilapidation. It is harder to pinpoint White’s attitude towards Flora. She is unashamedly and fashionably modern and very much aware of the inhibiting power of wealthy society women such as Elizabeth Hunter and upwardly mobile men such as Col can exercise, particularly over a young woman such as herself. She is also another candidate for White’s swipe at the great Australian shallowness and superficiality: ‘More than anything,’ thinks Flora, ‘it’s what you see . . . men show you their thoughts in their throats.’ [109] In the country town the young people ‘were younger than the old people of course, but elderly.’ [110] According to the omniscient narration of their visit to the country and their lovemaking in a field there is ‘the child they had made together,’ which may well influence Flora’s later entanglement with Basil. [113] ‘Whatever I may be,’ she says later to Col, ‘I’d try to better myself in my children.’ [110][5]

Elizabeth’s memory provides further retrospective exposition of her adultery with the ambitious politician Athol Shreve. [91, 94-100][6]  Her thoughts are mostly occupied, though, by her incapacity and how she believes it to be perceived by her children. ‘Old people aren’t quite human for those who are still capable of escaping from the past by moving about in what they like to think is positive action: movement, the great illusory blessing.’ [92] Elizabeth is also fully aware of her children’s motives in returning to visit her in Australia.

Elizabeth must be enthroned in her ‘tarnished rose brocade’ gown and wheel chair ‘for his arrival.’ [116, 115] She is first transformed by Sister Manhood ‘into a glimmering ghost of the past.’ [117] Despite all the artifice of false teeth, wig, lipstick, cheek blush and eyeliner, Elizabeth declares that she has ‘decided to appear utterly natural’ for what is clearly a well-rehearsed or prepared performance. ‘Momentarily at least this fright of an idol became the goddess hidden inside: of life . . . and finally, of death.’ [121] Sir Basil Hunter’s arrival is described in equally rehearsed and artificial theatrical terms. He enters his mother’s bedroom wearing an ‘aura of charm and brilliance’, he approaches his ‘leading lady’ [momentarily mistaking her for an understudy] with ‘that distinctive limp’, presenting ‘sideways to the audience of two’. Elizabeth must also recover ‘her technique.’ [122][7]  These two actors understand the fraudulent and performative nature of their relationship equally and fully, the risk of deceit and disappointment if they do not perform the exact replica of coordinated communication: ‘neither of them was more than formally conscious of an audience: which is how it becomes on those evenings when all the elements of a performance, on either side of the footlights, are perfectly fused.’ [123]

White’s characterisation of Basil Hunter, in particular, reflects his lifelong fascination with the theatre and with actors, his love of greasepaint and the stage. This fascination is evident in his characterisation of Elizabeth Hunter who is also an extraordinary performer, the Weimar-Nazi period cabaret career of Lotte Lippmann and the Bangkok episode with the troupe of London actors in Chapter 3. Basil, though, represents White’s fascination with the very nature of acting itself with the idea of what dramatic performance in the theatre represents or actually is. As a man Basil is devoid of empathy, sympathy, compassion or attachment to others; he is equally incapable of feeling or sincerity. Despite his lifetime’s reliance on literature, dialogue and lines he is not a reader and has no particular interest in or ideas about art and aesthetics. He has no greater interior depth than any other character in the novel. And yet, as an actor on stage, this empty, shallow, superficial vessel is capable of summoning within himself and evoking in his audience the most profound emotions and extremities of experience imaginable.

Chapter 3 [‘an accumulation of failures’]

Continuing the imagery and characterisation of ‘the theatre of reunion’ from the previous chapter, at the beginning of Chapter 3 Basil’s presence in Elizabeth’s room is described in terms of stage instructions, their conversation in terms of script. When Elizabeth had been awaiting the arrival of Dorothy in Chapter 1 numerous organic images associated with her survival of the Brumby Island cyclone were deployed. In what is becoming a consistent feature of the narrative structure we are told through the use of retrospective exposition why the two expatriate adult children have returned after such long absences from Australia. Arnold Wyburd wrote to them about Elizabeth’s ‘slight stroke’. [126] When thinking of the past in Wyburd’s presence Basil finds himself ‘dragging up from the wells of the unconscious the sludge in which the truth is found.’ Part of Basil’s truth is that he may have once played a brilliant Macbeth but he was a ‘premature’ Lear. [127] More immediate, is the truth about his actual motive for returning to his mother’s sickbed in Sydney ‘for a different purpose: short, sharp, and material’, a situation in which he hopes he and his sister can be ‘partners in crime.’ [127, 129] Later in the chapter the narrative voice very suggestively reveals his interior thought that ‘his survival depended on the death a materialistic old woman had delayed for too long.’ [152] Basil is not short on material greed himself as he observes, ‘All those nurses and other characters [who] must be eating up a fortune.’ [128]

The narrative then retrospectively returns to Basil’s delayed flight in Bangkok. [129-124] Perched on an airport barstool drinking Scotch he contemplates both his history of emptiness and failure and his crumbling, disintegrating, empty face reflected in a mirror. The reader is made aware again of White’s fascination with actors, the nature of acting and the paradox that an insignificant person might artificially produce an extraordinary emotion. ‘Many of the greatest have been empty,’ thinks Basil. [131] Basil believes that he inherited his gift from Betty Salkeld, Elizabeth Hunter, Mother. [132] During ‘his physical downfall at the bar, ‘the lost actor’ runs into a West End troupe of acting friends who are touring Japan, Thailand and India for the British Council and he accompanies them to their ‘second-class tropical hotel’ the Miramar. [135, 136] Their camaraderie does not provide Basil with ‘the hoped-for reality’ but he continues drinking heavily in their company. Basil reveals to his friends the extent to which his career stalled: Mitty Jacka’s largely unwritten, mostly improvised play for him. One of the young female actors introduces herself to him as a school friend of Imogen, Basil’s estranged daughter, to which Basil responds with another aching truth about his failed life: ‘She isn’t my daughter, you know. No blood offspring, I mean.’ [137] This is not the only revelation that Basil makes to Janie Carson: ‘You know why I’m here? I’ve got to raise the money for this damn play. Even if she doesn’t die she may come good with a few thousand.’ [142] ‘I don’t believe she’ll die till she wants to . . . What makes any strong-willed old person decide to die is something I’ve never worked out.’ [138] These are sentiments hardly worthy of a Lear. Nonetheless, Janie initiates a ‘madly incestuous’ sex scene with Basil in her hotel room because she wants him to keep her in mind for Cordelia in any future production of King Lear. However, Basil fails to have an erection, vomits almost on her and passes out, missing his delayed flight.[8]

Basil Hunter – ‘The Englishman he had become’ [145] – is unexpectedly brought into the company of another actor, his mother’s housekeeper, Lotte Lippmann, during an evening storm first anticipated by Mary De Santis. [144-151] Considering ‘the storm effects . . . the zinc thunder’, Basil realises that ‘He had come home to a foreign country.’ [147, 145] Lotte Lippmann’s reflections on her career as cabaret performer in the Weimar and early Nazi years in Berlin, on cooking and what would have given her the greatest satisfaction in life reveal a depth of human dimension beyond the comprehension of Sir Basil Hunter: ‘If I could choose – if I could begin again – I would ask to create one whole human being . . . Or two. Myself. And one other – out of my body.’ Remembering her cabaret audiences: ‘They aspire – to what? to be translated out of themselves? to be destroyed?’ In the face such a questioning capacity to understand the extent of human culpability and human suffering Basil is ‘too humiliated to reply.’ [148] He remains torn between another attempt at ‘Lear’s stony, perhaps unscalable mountain’ which he has thus far failed to realise and the prospect of being the central artefact in ‘Mitty Jacka’s non-play’. [149] Lotte serves Sir Basil a very satisfying meal of soup and schnitzel. At one point she explains to him what it is that she sees in his mother. She ‘understands more of the truth than most others. Basil’s visit to his mother’s room after this dinner is filled with repugnance on his part and is described in the language of religious ritual: sanctuary, acolytes, devotions, incense, vestments, shroud, sanctity, relic, rites. [152-152]

White’s Greek interlude regarding Mary de Santis, Anastasia Maria’s martyrdom of a childhood. [155-159]

‘If only one could feel more grateful for what one doesn’t want . . .’ [160] Elizabeth remembers the martyrdom of her own childhood in dialogue recalled by Sister de Santis from much earlier in the fifteen years that she has been caring for Elizabeth Hunter: ‘When I was a child, Mary, living in a broken-down farmhouse, in patched dresses – a gawky, desperately vain little girl . . . I used to long for possessions . . . last of all, I longed to possess people who would obey me . . .’ [161-162] Some time in those earlier days Mrs Hunter had given Mary de Santis a gift – one of several that she will give or contemplate giving in the course of the novel – ‘a seal with a phoenix carved in the agate.’ [162]

There are passing references to Athol Shreve throughout the chapter. At one point he is ironically invited as an aspiring politician to unveil the Alfred Hunter memorial statue in Gogong, but later he is in prison for embezzlement, ‘the greatest disappointment in Australian political life.’ [164]

Chapter 4

This is the Flora Manhood Miami Flats lesbian sleepover with her cousin Snow Tunks and Snow’s current lover Alix.[9]

Chapter 5 [‘we, the arrogant perfectionists, or pseudo saints, shall be saved up out of our shortcomings, for further trial’]

Elizabeth Hunter awakens in her ‘token raft’ early on the second morning to find Sister de Santis kneeling in prayer at the foot of her bed.[10]  Returning to ‘the bottom of the sea’, she slips back into memories, sleep and dreams. ‘My enemies – and some of my friends,’ Elizabeth confides to her night nurse, ‘have called me an egoist – so other friends and enemies tell me.’ [190-191]

Elizabeth remembers her return to Kudjeri to nurse her husband Alfred during his last illness. [193-205][11]

Chapter 6 [‘brilliance at its best is a quality of heartless jewels, at its worst, of supple, ultimately self-destructive intrigue.’]

Every detail ‘aggravated the disease of foreignness from which she suffered’ during Dorothy Hunter’s first evening at the Queen Victoria Club. [212][12]

Dorothy’s interior monologue: ‘I’ve come back to coax a respectable sum of money out of an aged woman who happens also to be my mother . . . if coaxing fails, to bully the money out of her . . . If neither coaxing nor bullying what if you should kill an old woman or mother . . .’ [214-215]

Dorothy’s movement between ambivalence and hatred of her mother is linked to her memories of her assumed humiliation by her mother at Brumby Island and her mother’s assumed seduction of the Norwegian marine professor, Edvard Pehl. ‘The wild horses racing at dusk along the beach sting your cheeks with flying sand and horsehair whips.’ [215] For Dorothy that episode remains a living flagellation of her flesh and a repudiation of herself as a sexual being at the hands of her mother.

Dorothy dreams of Arnold Wyburd’s ‘transparent testicles dangling, trailing over her thighs’ in a confused incestuous reverie. [216] Her delicacy, we are told, rather than her husband’s perversities, ‘had ripped the ribbons off their marriage.’ [219]

During her second visit to her mother, Elizabeth’s ‘shrunken head’ reminds her of the one she had seen as a religious relic at Assisi, Italy, the skull of St Vitalis, patron saint of venereal disease. [223] During this visit Dorothy convinces herself that her mother’s ‘parasites, the artistic housekeeper, pampered cleaner, and frivolous or over-indulgent nurses, were sucking her dry,’ hence squandering her inheritance. [228] Whilst he would agree with her fully, Basil’s approach is different. He would rather get them onside. In an overheard telephone conversation she hears her brother talking to his mother about buying the attendants gifts.

Elizabeth Hunter: ‘I need fire – when the fire’s almost out.’ [226]

During his morning shave Basil contemplates the early positive notices of his title role performances of Richard II and King Lear, the disasters that these productions quickly became and his most recently curtailed West End season. We learn about his recent London history with Mitty Jacka who wears an Ethiopian ring identical to the one Basil sent his mother: ‘he had often regretted parting with it, though the gesture had produced material results.’ [238] Mitty has convinced Basil that far greater material results could be extracted from Elizabeth Hunter to fund their play should he return to Australia and should she die. ‘Nothing,’ he assures his London accomplice, ‘will persuade Elizabeth Hunter to die.’ [247] Basil has rationalised his return to Australia: ‘his object not to bully an old woman into handing over a fortune even if it killed her, but to renew himself through bursts of light, whiffs of burning, the sound of trees stampeded by a wind when they weren’t standing as still as silence. And mud . . . between the splayed toes of his bare feet.’ [249] Hence his later determination to return to Kudjeri. He also remembers his boyhood broken arm at the family farm. [244-245]

Basil’s interior monologue: ‘I have been able to control my own life ever since I learnt the technique of living, which is also the technique of acting.’ [241]

Mitty Jacka [237-249]

Arnold Wyburd’s office with Dorothy and Basil [252-273]

This is the first reunion of the siblings. Basil is running late because he was ‘determined to relax and enjoy this whizzing vision of a city . . . he offered his love to its plate glass and neo-brutal towers.’ [252][13]

Wyburd’s office is decorated with a coach clock that belonged to Bill Hunter and was given to him by his widow, and a signed photograph of Bill. Arnold remembers the transition from young, inexperienced family solicitor to a friend capable of crying at Bill’s funeral. [253]

Dorothy to Wyburd: ‘Mother specialised in slaves, of whom Father was the most valuable.’ [257]

Basil sees himself and his sister as Regan and Goneril – the avaricious daughters of King Lear – dividing their parents’ estate between them. [261]  They discuss the possibility of placing Elizabeth in Thorogood Village. Dorothy sees in both Basil and Wyburd incestuous manifestations of ‘the husband she had failed to devour, she was not on any account prepared to be carried away to the point of incest.’ [263]

Basil eating Wyburd’s biscuits. [265]

Basil’s shirt button popping. [266]

Wyburd hands over envelopes. [268]

After the meeting Dorothy sits in the Botanical Gardens where she gets a splinter in her bottom and is affronted by the sight of two lovers embracing on the lawn. [271] Basil walks down to Circular Quay, buys cooked prawns, walks around eating them, decides against a ferry ride and also goes into the Botanical Gardens: ‘There had been a time when he saw clearly down to the root of the matter, before his perceptions had retired behind a legerdemain of technique and the dishonesties of living.’ [273]

Chapter 7 [‘Pray you, undo this button. Thank you, sir.’]

At Moreton Drive:

Ten days have elapsed and rumours of the Thorogood Village retirement village have circulated amongst the staff at Moreton Drive.

At the Wyburds’:

The rumours originate from Lal Wyburd who has spoken by phone to Sister de Santis because she is appalled by the Hunter children’s plan to dispose of their mother. Lal’s confession to her husband of simultaneous defiance and solidarity is the prelude to a particularly satisfying sexual encounter.[14]

At the Cheeseman Dinner [286-298]:

Cherry’s mother died in Thorogood Village a few weeks after being admitted, giving Dorothy renewed confidence in the murder she wishes to commit. [295] ‘Why,’ asks Cherry, having watched her friend more closely than she realised, ‘do you hate your mother, Dorothy?’ [297] The Australian writer lunges at her. [298][15]

The Flora Manhood/Basil Hunter Seduction at the Onslow Hotel [298-323]:

Begins with Flora’s ‘embryonic inspiration’, ‘lying quietly somewhere inside her.’ [298] Flora has calculated that she is ovulating and is determined ‘to go through with it for the sake of the fruit it must bear.’ [313] ‘[S]he must think about this child he was going to give her: the child who would be the embodiment of unselfish love . . . she must love it for the sake of this golden child he was going to plant inside her.’ [315-316]

Basil wakes with Flora beside him contemplating a revival of the 1948 Henry do Montherlant play The Master of Santiago with himself as ‘Alvaro: an austere, destructive, while self-destroying soul – a noble inquisitor.’ [317] In the play Don Alvaro is being sent to the New World ostensibly to proselytise on behalf of his Catholic order. His real ambition, though, is to re-establish his lost wealth. Not only is this synopsis of the play an excellent cipher for Basil himself, but Basil’s description of Alvaro as a ‘destructive, while self-destroying soul’ is a brilliant insight into Patrick White’s characterisation in general. Again, there is also White’s fascination with the paradox of acting. Basil does not believe in God but as an actor he can perform a role which revolves around the deepest questions and feeling about religious belief.[16]

Basil contemplating Flora: ‘What he had always longed for , he now knew, was to be loved by some such normal, lovely, insensitive but trusting hunk of a girl, as this Flora Nightingale beside him . . . he could love this girl for the beauty of her simplicity.’ [319-322] This longing is traced back to his earliest disappointments with his mother whom he remembers saying, ‘I was never a natural mother – I couldn’t feed. But that – you see, darling – hasn’t deprived you of – of nourishment.’ [320]

On her next shift Elizabeth Hunter explains to Flora Manhood the significance of the two sapphires, blue and pink, and offers her the pink as a farcically misunderstood engagement present. Flora thinks her employer is anticipating a marriage to her son whereas Elizabeth Hunter is anticipating a marriage between Flora and Col Pardoe. ‘[Y]ou gave the pink sapphire to belove her to her chemist.’ [334]

Elizabeth Hunter’s reverie returns again to Brumby Island: ‘of course you had desires the man Dorothy ran away from.’ There are other vestiges of the Brumby Island storm such as the swans. [333] Dorothy has maintained for fifteen years the secret grievance that she ran away from her mother’s seduction of Edvard Pehl.

Sister Mary de Santis/Basil Hunter, Watson’s Bay, the dead dog [334-356]:

Basil talks to her about the ‘physical drudgery’ and the ‘electric crown’ of acting, and ‘all its illusions and your own presumption – not to say spuriousness.’ [344, 345] He thinks of what he is saying to her as empty spew. Discussing King Lear over lunch Basil knows ‘that he had not got there with Lear’ that he has only been ‘a bloody superficial Lear.’ ‘I don’t think he can be played by an actor,’ he explains to Mary de Santis, ‘only by a gnarled, authentic man as much as a storm-tossed tree as flesh.’ [348, 349, 350]

Consider the significance of Lear in the storm. He begins to lose his wits just as he also simultaneously comes to understand how pitiful and tragic the human condition is:

LEAR: Blow, winds, and crack your cheeks! rage! blow!
You cataracts and hurricanoes, spout
Till you have drench’d our steeples, drown’d the cocks!
You sulphurous and thought-executing fires,
Vaunt-couriers to oak-cleaving thunderbolts,
Singe my white head! And thou, all-shaking thunder,
Smite flat the thick rotundity o’ the world!
Crack nature’s moulds, an germens spill at once,
That make ingrateful man! . . .

Rumble thy bellyful! Spit, fire! spout, rain!
Nor rain, wind, thunder, fire, are my daughters:
I tax not you, you elements, with unkindness;
I never gave you kingdom, call’d you children,
You owe me no subscription: then let fall
Your horrible pleasure: here I stand, your slave,
A poor, infirm, weak, and despised old man:
But yet I call you servile ministers,
That have with two pernicious daughters join’d
Your high engender’d battles ‘gainst a head
So old and white as this. O! O! ’tis foul! [III.ii]

Basil spills barbecue sauce on his thigh. [350]

They turn from Shakespeare to the seascape but as the sun goes in ‘your vision is withdrawn from you.’  Instead of Australia Felix: ‘an aimless bobbing of corks which have served their purpose, and scum, and condoms, and rotting fruit, and rusted tins, and excrement’ reminiscent of that greatest modernist description of the end of civilisation, T.S. Eliot’s The Waste Land (1922). [352]

Following the dead dog and Mary de Santis’ fall in the street: ‘His mechanical self drove off by jerks in the tinny car. Because he never felt at home in one, he knew he would be sitting upright, his shoulders narrowed. Pray you, undo this button. Thank you, sir. Why? Only that on his last performance s the old king he had never felt so personally bereft, so bankrupt; technique could not protect him from it. This last gasp; and the poverty of a single bone-clean button. In this you may have conveyed the truth, if in nothing else.’ [356] Consider the extreme negation and simultaneous vision of Lear’s last words:

LEAR: And my poor fool is hang’d! No, no, no life!
Why should a dog, a horse, a rat, have life,
And thou no breath at all? Thou’lt come no more,
Never, never, never, never, never!
Pray you, undo this button: thank you, sir.
Do you see this? Look on her, look, her lips,
Look there, look there!

He dies. [V.iii]

Chapter 8 [‘Return to the source of things . . .’]

Basil begins writing in the mode of Mitty Jacka’s non-play. The siblings prepare for Elizabeth Hunter’s execution, her extrication from Moreton Drive.

Remembered fragments from Elizabeth Hunter’s dialogue: ‘I shan’t feel happy till I’ve tasted everything there is to taste and I don’t intend to refuse what is unpleasant – that is experience of another kind.’ [364] ‘I can’t reason about it Dorothy only swear that it’s a true passion whether you believe me or not tell me if you can why confident responsive women are attracted to withdrawn shadowy men? or gentle girls to hairy brutes?’ [365]

Fragments of Brumby Island in the storm: ‘its stinging sand, twisted tree roots, and the brumbies snapping at one another with yellow teeth, lashing out with broken hooves as they stampeded along their invaded beach.’ [369]

Brumby Island [369-408]:

Dorothy in Australia because of marriage breakdown in France.

The Warming children tell Dorothy of a shipwrecked woman who was stripped and enslaved by the indigenous inhabitants of the island in colonial times. [378] This fictionalised account of the survival story of Eliza Fraser on what today is called Fraser Island off the Queensland coast would become the subject of White’s next novel A Fringe of Leaves (1976).

Dorothy, Edvard and the brumbies on the beach: ‘When the actual beach over which they were squelching, began thundering behind, then around them, sand hissing, spirting, flying in great veils – whinnying, it seemed, finally . . . On reaching them the horses propped for an instant; a couple of them reared; others wheeled and spun into spiralling shadows; there was the sound of hooves striking on hide, bone, stone; a flash of sparks, and of teeth tearing at the dusk.’ [394-395]

Dorothy suspects ‘immoral purposes’ in everything her mother does on the island. [399]

Elizabeth Hunter describes her dream of walking on the bottom of the sea to Edvard Pehl who likens her to a predatory electric fish.

Elizabeth Hunter: ‘something I found out . . . on that island – after you had all run away – nothing will kill me before I am intended to die.’ [414]

Brumby Island [414-428]:

Elizabeth and the brumbies: ‘She went outside, and there were the flying brumbies approaching down the beach, their veils of manes, and in the sky the cloud feathers more tenuous than before.’ [421] The cyclone is approaching.

Her survival during the cyclone is described in insect imagery: ‘a groping, survived insect a staggering soaked spider . . . It was dry inside her funnel.’ [422] She emerges from the bunker to contemplate the wreckage. [424-425] Learns from her rescuers that Edvard Pehl had left the island before the storm, she presumes, to follow Dorothy.

Elizabeth Hunter’s Brumby Island experience is most intense in the eye of the storm, a calm period between the first and second assault. As a survivor she is ‘still too weak from the great joy she had experienced while released from he4r body and all the contingencies in the eye of the storm.’ [428] In that bewildering calm she feeds the seven black swans, sees, ‘the seabirds nesting among the dark-blue pyramids of waves and witnesses the totemic death of a white seabird impaled on a broken tree which she rightly reads as a warning to return to her bunker.

After fifteen years Elizabeth Hunter tells her daughter that Edvard Pehl did not stay with her on the island but that he left it the same day as her. [432][17]

Basil anticipates his return to Kudjeri as a means of returning, ‘to the source of things, and in doing so, perhaps even save yourself from Mitty Jacka and the death-play.’ [433]

Chapter 9 [‘she must continue to believe only in the now which you can see and touch’]

Flora Manhood: ‘like every good Australian, she must continue to believe only in the now which you can see and touch.’ [443] White will return to the limitations of this worldview in his characterisation of Rory Macrory in Chapter 10.

Lotte Lippmann plays the Fool to Elizabeth Hunter’s Lear and performs her Berlin cabaret routine. ‘I am no German. I am a black Jew from anywhere . . .’ [447]

Elizabeth Hunter documents the gift of the pink sapphire ring to Flora Manhood and shows Arnold Wyburd the gift of jewellery she intends for Lal, the turquoise necklace her mother gave her and that she wore on Brumby Island. Arnold Wyburd holds the jewellery box. [456]

Elizabeth Hunter contemplates suicide with the assistance of Flora Manhood. [459]

Chapter 10 [Kudjeri]

Basil: ‘At Kudjeri perhaps he could re-discover the real thing – if there was enough of him left to fill so large a stage.’ [466] ‘What he craved was confirmation of his own intrinsic worth as opposed to possibly spurious achievement.’ However, he is someone ‘who had renounced life for theatre.’ [477]

The meat pies [468-469]

The Gogong statue of Alfred Hunter [472]

The miserable, mismatched marriage of Anne and Rory Macrory.

Mutton and spotted dog.

Anne Macrory: ‘Kirkcaldy was Anne’s myth, her Kudjeri.’ [478]

Basil at the farm dam where he used to go yabbying as a boy: ‘What he did not dare confess was that wanted to feel the mud between his toes.’ [490] Basil sees the tree he fell out of as a child, breaking his arm. His memory of his father’s concern for him is filled with evidence of his father’s emotion and sincerity that he has never recognised and will never understand. [491] Toes in mud, Basil recites some of Lorenzo’s lines from V.i of Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice. [492] The lines are about Queen Dido’s absolute despair at the departure from Carthage of her lover Aeneas. Her despair will soon result in suicide. Bitten by a yabby, Basil is ‘Stranded in his own egotism and ineptitude.’ [493-494]

Thinking of her father and of Arnold Wyburd, Dorothy finds herself wondering if it is ‘better perhaps [to be] insignificant and good, [rather] than insignificant and bad.’ [499]

Rory Macrory to Dorothy: ‘I only ever believed . . . in what I can see and touch.’ [502] ‘You have the time – the nerve – to con yourselves – and others – with words and ideas.’ [502]

Basil visits the shed, old boot, father’s car.

Basil practises Lear: ‘unaccommodated man is no more but such a poor, bare, forked animal.’ [516 / III.iv]

Chapter 11 [myself is this endlessness]

Lal Wyburd’s visit, Lotte Lippmann’s final performance, Flora Manhood’s period and Mrs Hunter’s death.

Two months have elapsed since the adult Hunter children arrived in Sydney.

‘Now surely, at the end of your life, you can expect to be shown the inconceivable something you have always, it seems, been looking for. Though why you should expect it through the person of a steamy, devoted, often tiresome Jewess standing on one leg the other side of a veil of water (which is all that human vision amounts to) you could not have explained. Unless because you are both human, and consequently, flawed.’ [544] Is Elizabeth Hunter, perhaps, a more fitting Lear than her solipsistic actor son?

Lotte Lippmann had embraced her dance at last, or was embraced by it . . . she was not yet wholly released from the ceremony of exorcism.’ [547] Is Lotte Lippmann, perhaps, a more wholly realised artist than Basil Hunter?

Flora’s period and her reprieve: ‘Her lovely, blessed BLOOD oh God o Lord.’ [548]

Elizabeth Hunter’s final thought: ‘Till I am no longer filling the void with mock substance: myself is this endlessness.’ [551][18]

Chapter 12 [anything of a transcendental nature]

The siblings, Dorothy and Basil, are called away from Kudjeri by the news of their mother’s death on the morning following their night together.

Flora Manhood returns to Col Pardoe.

Arnold attends the funeral that Dorothy and Basil do not.

On board her Air France flight to Paris Dorothy is thinking of her mother’s experience on Brumby Island: ‘But could anything of a transcendental nature have illuminated a mind so sensual, mendacious, materialistic, superficial as Elizabeth Hunter’s?’ [589] The example of Shakespeare’s Lear suggests that the answer is yes, as does White’s account of Elizabeth’s survival of the cyclone.

In his drunken stream of consciousness, Basil, en route to London, anticipates a revival of Lear but his incoherent thoughts more resemble Mitty Jacka’s non-play.[19]

Arnold Wyburd’s stolen blue sapphire ring. [597][20]

Sister Mary de Santis’ next martyrdom. [602-604]

Lotte Lippmann’s suicide. [607]

[1] What lighting technique does director Fred Schepisi use in the film adaptation [2011] to capture Elizabeth’s drifting consciousness?

[2] What becomes of the Mitty Jacka non-play in the film?

[3] How is the Bangkok episode changed in the film and what is the intended effect?

[4] How is the motif of back-rubbing used differently in the film?

[5] How is Flora’s interior world communicated to us in the film?

[6] How is Athol Shreve reconstituted for the film?

[7] An actor playing life. What challenges does this set for Geoffrey Rush?

[8] What is retained by Schepisi, what is altered and what is omitted in the Bangkok-Sydney switchover?

[9] If you were adapting this novel to a screenplay forty years after it was written, why might you decide to omit this episode?

[10] When do we see her kneeling in prayer in the film?

[11] What do we learn of this in the film; from whom and when?

[12] Explain the complication regarding Dorothy’s Club that is introduced in the film.

[13] At this point in the film, how does Schepisi make use of this whizzing vision of a city, Sydney?

[14] What is this satisfying sexual encounter replaced with in the film?

[15] Who lunges at her in the film and what are the implications?

[16] What play is Basil considering putting on throughout the film?

[17] How is this information compressed in the film?

[18] What are Elizabeth’s final visual thoughts in the film?

[19] How do these last sightings of Princesse Dorothy and Sir Basil Hunter compare with our last sightings of them in the film?

[20] Compare your last impressions of Arnold Wyburd in the novel and the film.