Jonathan Franzen: photographed at the Brooklyn Book Festival by David Shankbone (Wikimedia Commons)

I keep thinking about this really interesting interview on Lateline on 30 November 2010 with the author Jonathan Franzen and in particular, what he was saying about getting the sense more and more that the language you speak is going dead on you and that it’s oppressive.

Sure, I’m not a famous author or Barack Obama and I don’t have to do 20 TV interviews back to back but I completely understand the sentiment and it struck a chord with me.

Mr Franzen limits his comments to his experience as a writer – because of a writer’s affinity with (and for) language I presume.  But is the sentiment one that is limited to writers? I suspect not. Anyone else sometimes feel this way?

The more articulate, longer version of the point as made by Mr Franzen from his interview went like this:

“But there is something about the process – particularly of doing interviews like this, frankly – that it begins to empty you out and you start to feel as if more of the language you speak is going dead on you.

I was very fortunate, very grateful, to meet with president Obama some weeks ago and I was trying to talk with him about what does it feel like to be you? Because he was in school in Boston around the same time that I was living there. We could very well have known each other and suddenly here he is the president of the United States.

And it was like “how does it feel to be you?” because I was trying to cut beneath that sense of “oh, everything he said he’s already said a million times”. And he was very smart, very nice, very incisive and yet I felt “nope, he’s said all this too – many times – and he says it very well”.

But for a writer that sense that more and more of the language you speak is in some way dead – it’s used, it’s canned, it’s been done – that becomes oppressive quickly because we are sensitive to the language that we use.”

I wonder how it is we can cut beneath the stories we tell a million times to hundreds and thousands of different audiences over time: the narrative we give to our lives that we are also prepared to give to other people? Maybe it’s one of the positives of social media. The opportunity we’re given when Facebook asks* us ‘What’s on your mind?’ or when Twitter asks* us ‘What’s happening?’ or when a woman asks her partner ‘What are you thinking right now?’.

Anybody else have ideas of how we can make the language we speak more alive? To shake off the sense that it’s all been done before?

If you want to read the full transcript of Leigh Sales’ interview with Jonathan Franzen, click here.

* I say ‘ask’ as if Facebook and Twitter themselves have a consciousness.

Well I have come out the other side of a couple of months in the studio and I’m left with these 4 little pieces of me and the things I have felt, observed and written about. It was nerve-racking, picking up these final mixes today. My heart felt like it was going to burst through the confines of my chest! It has been such an amazing experience and I can’t wait to get back into the studio when I have some worthy new stuff to record. Steeve Body who has been producing these tracks has been absolutely incredible. I feel really blessed to have spent this time working with him and the fabulous session musicians who helped turn this pipedream of mine into something real.

Next step is mastering and then releasing! If only I can master the basics like converting these into mp3! I know, I have a long way to go with this technology stuff!Stay tuned for the EP, goodness knows when it will get done.

In the meantime, I thought I’d share one of the tracks pre-mastering with you.

The View

Alenka xoxo

Just wanted to put up a little demo of a song I’ve been working on lately! Very excited to be working on the music!

It’s called ‘Just Looking’ and it’s about my mum, a time-honoured phrase in my family and observations on ym favourite Sydney ‘hood.

Hope you like it!Just Looking

One after one, former Government Ministers lined up and confirmed for Liz Jackson various media reports over the last year or so of the Howard era. The ten year anniversary leadership discussions, the so called McLachlan Affair involving the undertaking note in the wallet, the APEC doubts of the Prime Minister.

The fact that Howard expressed doubts about his ability to win and canvassed opinion through Downer a mere matter of weeks before calling the election is astonishing. The ‘overwhelming’ view of the stunned Ministers assembled by Downer in the Quay Grand Hotel on Thursday 6 September 2007 that Howard should go if he did not believe he could win was a logical one. And now we know that no-one was prepared to take responsibility. They knew they were lost. But Howard wanted the party to push him. And the party wanted Howard to exit gracefully. The conditions could not be agreed. So the narrative goes, Howard, feared the legacy of a coward, running away from a fight. The party room, fearing the legacy of disloyalty to the man who had, in Hockey’s words, “been Australia’s most successful Prime Minister”.

No-one would take responsibility. But that is the challenge of governing. Governing is responsibility. If a party and its leader cannot take responsibility in relation to its own internal governance, how can it take responsibility for the governance of a country? The electorate intuitively answered this question by delivering Howard an election defeat. What the 4 Corners program reveals is that the Liberal Party is (and always has been) a weak instrument, unable to act against an individual who could not determine when it was in the best interests of his party to quit. Quite apt for a party which has individualism as a key tenet of its platform.

Now I’m just left marvelling at the sheer spectacle of witnessing these former insiders cannibalising their party, leader and record in a desperate attempt for history to cast a more flattering light on their individual actions and inactions.

I have thought this often in my life. It is not a new reflection. The latest inspiration for the thought was reading in the SMH that Opera-Opera, Australia’s opera and musical theatre opera journal was printing its final issue.

As the SMH states:

“The loss means there is no single coherent source providing qualitative information about opera and musical theatre across Australia.”

It echoes the themes explored in that late 1990’s Nora Ephron comedy, You’ve Got Mail , where the small children’s bookshop closes down, despite the love and affection held for it by its owner and staff. The little bookshop fights for a while but the fight would not be necessary if customers maintained loyalty to the history and magic of the place over the bargain-basement convenience of the super-chain that has just moved in around the corner.

All over the world times change. To some degree we are all transient. I had an epiphany in a university psychology exam once which other people may find trite. That successful people have one major characteristic – the ability to adapt to change. If you cannot adapt, you are left behind.

I suppose this means I should not be so perturbed when I feel a relationship changing, or when the little Chinese pastry shop in Haymarket that serves me egg custard tarts closes down, or when Australia’s only journal dedicated to opera and musical theatre for over thirty years ceases to go to press. But instead, I find myself wishing I had three lives so that I could explore reviving Opera-Opera in at least one of them.

Some Background

There are two major ship builders in Australia, Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC) and Tenix. ASC is 100 per cent government owned. Now that the AWD and amphibious ship contracts have been decided, the Government intends to return ASC to private ownership (as announced by Nick Minchin on 16 August 2006). ASC will be returned to private ownership through a competitive tender trade sale starting in late 2007 and concluding in the second half of 2008.

In early October 2007, Tenix, which is privately owned by the Salteri family, flagged the possibility of its sale. In 2002, it was reported that Tenix head Paul Saltieri was confident that the Government will choose Tenix to acquire the ASC and it will then become Australia’s major naval shipping industry operation for decades to come. More recently, it has been suggested that Tenix may have difficulties if it attempted to acquire ASC in light of its current ownership structure.

With that background in mind, we now come to the question of the day.

The Question

The question went a little like this:

“The ADF has contracts for ships and destroyers and the ownership of both major ship builders (referring to Australian Submarine Corporation and Tenix) is going to change. What do you think of the possibility that there will be a monopoly ship builder in Australia one year from now?”

And the answer?

Well, it was a little confused from Dr Nelson, initially stating that we are better off having one very healthy provider than having uncertainty. At this point I tried to shake the water out of my head. Was this a Liberal cabinet minister saying that competition was not required? Perhaps realising the implication of his statements, Dr Nelson stated that he would want competition to remain an element in procurement but that it “was not prudent to express reservations about that yet”, wishing to avoid deterring prospective purchasers. Labor’s Mr Fitzgibbon, having received the benefit of Dr Nelson’s answer first was more direct and stated that Labor was committed to competition but acknowledged that it was not always possible in a country of this size.

Stay tuned…

Overall Impressions

The Debate overall was probably won by Dr Nelson, with an impressive command over the Portfolio’s facts and figures. It was interesting to see how he cast the argument for the Liberals in terms of economic management. The Debate was not so much about policy, ideology and the rhetoric of terrorism and national security (with only a few broad sweeping statements in this respect), but the ability to manage the economy more broadly thus providing a capability for further Defence spending. Mr Fitzgibbon’s response was to evoke the futurism we have come to expect of the Labor Party through this campaign, telling Dr Nelson that he was all about the past, harping on about the Liberal’s record. The Debate itself was somewhat disappointing, with very little detail on the policy front beyond generic motherhood type statements.

Mr Fitzgibbon had it right when he said that:

“the success of Defence policy should not be how many combats we have been involved in but should be measured by how well we have planned, responding to planning, and prioritise limited resources to meet those threats”.

I’m just not sure that today we saw any detail of how that will be achieved.

Party Politics

Insiders on Sunday morning had Bob Brown, Lyn Allison and Steve Fielding on the couch with Barrie. Most hilarious moment being Barrie making Lyn Allison work for her dignity, pointing out that the Democrats had completely lost out on preference deals, the Greens doing a deal with Labor and Family First widely expected to make a deal with the Liberals.

Lyn Allison, with the shame of the demise of the Democrats rising, stated that she thought the Democrats would do alright in the Senate. Her evidence? “I think a lot of people will be voting below the line.” I nearly fell off my chair. As my friend Alex Wasiel has pointed out over on her blog, less that 5% of people vote below the line in the Senate. Oh how the mighty have fallen…

Independency

If elections are won by kilometres alone, Rudd would clearly be the winner. As Crikey’s election tracker tells me, as of this morning, Rudd has done 18,512 kilometres since the campaign began. Howard, by comparison, has only done 9282 kilometres.

Now today Rudd was up in North Queensland, making a funding announcement for the Great Barrier Reef. This is smack bang inside of the seat of Kennedy. Kennedy, as those of us who like political oddities know, is held by Bob Katter. Bob Katter is the quintessential Queensland political larrikin. He’s a top bloke from the top end. Sick and tired of the machinations of the National Party, this rogue went independent back in ’01 and has never looked back. He’s the kind of bloke who can pull that off. Everyone likes Bob.

So what on earth is Kevin Rudd doing up there? He has no hope of winning that seat. There are plenty of marginals up there to go make an announcement in. Ah well, I am but a mere spectator and I am sure the spinners know what they’re doing.

John Howard is like a hot water system: a shelf life of 7 to 8 years.

Can you imagine if he had bowed out in 2004? Height of his powers, the man that no-one could beat? What a place history would have for him. But that is not to be. Too much arrogance, pride and hubris for that.

With much frustration at the disruption to my working week, I went to my real estate agent to ask them to manage my hot water situation. I sat in the minimalist, clinical waiting area – barely interested by the letters of gratitude from happy customers (coincidentally all using the same format and font), when Election 2007 made an unexpected stop. In walked Malcolm Turnbull and a minder. Malcolm, with power red tie, pacing, surveying the place, ever the opportunistic charmer sees the potential vote in me and commences general chit chat. Here are the conversations I did NOT have with Malcolm Turnbull…

CONVERSATION ONE:

Malcolm: In the market for some property?
Alena: Are you?

CONVERSATION TWO:

Malcolm: In the market for some property?
Alena: Let’s cut the chit-chat. Are there any circumstances in which a Liberal Government would actually pass laws to address the HREOC recommendations regarding discrimination for same-sex couples? If so, what are those conditions?

And here is what actually transpired with Malcolm Turnbull…

ACTUAL CONVERSATION:

Malcolm: In the market for some property?
Alena: I wish it were that simple. My hot water system has started leaking.
Malcolm: Yes, they do that every 7 to 8 years.
Alena; So they say.
Malcolm: So do you live around here?
Alena: Yes a couple of streets away.
Malcolm’s minder: Yeah, I just live a couple of streets away too. It’s a good area.
Alena: Yes
Alena’s friend: Good luck for the next 5 weeks of the campaign.
Malcolm: I think it’s 4 weeks.

So there you have it. My utterly uninspiring conversation with Malcolm Turnbull. So many things we could have discussed. So many issues to canvas: The Gunns Mill decision, the redistribution in Wentworth, whether having what appeared to be a gay minder was in any way meant to tap into the gay vote, Malcolm’s leadership aspirations and what on earth was Malcolm doing in the office of my real estate agent? Connecting with business? Cluing into property development in the area? Looking for a new summer house? Maybe more of the press gallery should be staking out real estate agents. Looking into the potential property purchases of Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd gave good copy for a couple of days. Why not the property predilections of that other millionaire of parliament, Malcolm Turnbull?

Anyway, I guess what I’m trying to say is that I am disappointed that I don’t have an exclusive to break on Malcolm Turnbull. But I do think it’s interesting that we crossed paths when we were both knee deep in hot water.

Watching the ABC’s Chaser last Wednesday night, I giggled and guffawed with simultaneous incredulous cringing and utter idolatry at the Chaser boys and their take on the tendency to recall only positive aspects of people upon eulogy, with ‘The Eulogy Song’.

And all the hoo-hah surrounding the segment is bizarre to a non-listener of AM radio, but this is the stuff of radio station phone-ins and thus, hits the consciousness of campaign central. Rudd’s response to the Chaser boys involved stating that the song was “absolutely disgusting”. Rudd went on to say: “I’ve said before, I’ve enjoyed The Chaser’s work but I say to those guys at The Chaser: This is absolutely disgusting. Guys, you really need to lift your game. This is just wrong.” Prime Minister John Howard commented that the song was “distasteful and despicable” and asked: “Why don’t they stick to decent, dirt-free humour that we can all enjoy?”

But here’s where I take umbrage and a turn from the mainstream coverage of the intersection of Election 2007 and the Chaser’s Eulogy Song.

Howard doesn’t want anyone to be offended? Howard wants decent humour we can all enjoy? Let’s take a couple of steps back and look at history. Howard, as well as being the “necromancer of our national psyche” (thank you Peter Hartcher and your fabulous Quarterly Essay 25, Bipolar Nation: How to Win the 2007 Election) for as long as I can remember has been a cultural warrior, leading the charge against political correctness in this country. Howard’s war on political correctness has been waged on a number of combat grounds…

When explaining state school enrolment numbers back in 2004, Howard commented that:

“Some schools think you offend people by having nativity plays…I think that it’s a reflection of the extent to which political correctness overtook this country, particularly through the teaching unions, which I think are a bit out of step…People are looking increasingly to send their kids to independent schools for a combination of reasons. For some of them, it’s to do with the values-driven thing; they feel that government schools have become too politically correct and too values-neutral.”

Howard was vitriolic when discussing criticisms of Geoffrey Blainey at last year’s tribute to Quadrant:

“Quadrant has been an outpost of lively non-conformity in its willingness to defend both Geoffrey Blainey and Keith Windschuttle against the posses of political correctness. Nowhere, I suggest, have the fangs of the Left so visibly been on display as they were in a campaign based on character assassination and intellectual dishonesty through their efforts to trash the name and reputation of that great Australian historian Geoffrey Blainey.”

And on the topic of political correctness in general:

“I obviously wouldn’t plead guilty to political correctness…I have strong views about political correctness and they’re largely negative I think. We should not be ashamed of what this country’s achieved. We should be open in acknowledging its historical blemishes and mistakes, of which the treatment of Aboriginal people is obviously the most prominent, but the balance sheet of Australian history and achievement is hugely positive and something that we should continue to celebrate and be very optimistic about and to that extent, I’m a rampant opponent of political correctness.”

I wonder how Howard reconciles his view that political correctness has overtaken the country with stamping on the satirical efforts of the country’s comedians, making a statement about political correctness themselves?

Oh I get it, political correctness is only a conduit of evil when it interferes with either the creation of a “proper narrative of Australian history” which denies the reality that there is not simply one narrative for Australian history, or the agenda of reducing Australia’s background to a “judaeo-christian tradition”.

Yep. Calling Steve Irwin a “cartoon kamikaze”, and Don Bradman a “total farce and grumpy, greedy tight-arse” are roughly on a par with these.