Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Jim Packer's avatar

The word that occurs to me regarding TONE is "overdetermination". You get the feeling (as you do with "the de rigueur Australian way of writing fiction") that everything is known before anything is written (like a Parkinson interview!) In Aust TV drama they usually sound like they're reading off a script. This isn't because they're bad actors (that's beside the point): it's because the world is being twisted into The Authorised Version of whatever is there to be said. (Actually the acting has to be pretty good to get the script out without breaking into a sweat: so sweatlessly that it sounds dull, like acting.)

(Yes, right now I'm watching Bay Of Fires. How long can they drag this out for?)

Another way of putting it is the difference between Julie Burchill (say) and Julie Bindel. The first takes a complaint and turns it into a story (this is NOT overdetermination); the second takes a story and turns it into a complaint.

Expand full comment
Jim Packer's avatar

I would think that if you wanted to be a regular at the SpecAust (or at least, someone they hadn't dropped completely) you'd want to have acquired a certain tone. That tone would avoid self-reflection, whimsy, or humour (Simon Collins does humour, but this may be a special case, since the ed. thinks himself an advertising copywriter too). It wouldn't be considered bad form to err on the side of stridency -- in fact you'd need to have been strident enough three years ago to make the point today that what you said three years ago about covid/climate change/Justin Trudeau has now been found to be irrefutably true. (Just about all the SpecAust regulars are doing this now -- notice however that in the SpecForReal they are doing it not. I suspect it's that little English thing called "reticence". Indeed, the tone of the SpecForReal is absolutely unidentifiable with that of the SpecAust -- except in the book reviews, where the ideology may be different but the tone is exactly the same.)

Paranoid? Try this test. Think of something you really, truly believe. Put it in terms of the most fervent, free-range invective (say, Rod-Liddle-level) and plonk it in the comments section of the next article that even remotely relates. If the bot comes after you within three minutes and wipes your comment out, then yes, you really are paranoid.

Of such minor miracles are micro-aggressive small-wars made. I only ever got one ping (several aeons ago), but it was well over half-pregnant: I called the SpecForReal "the Mothership", and not long after that the term turned up in one of the ed's heavy-breathing exercises, so I knew I'd won.

But my gladiatorial days are done. The SpecAust tone is well beyond me, and don't I know it. It's enough for me to know that if these people took over the world tomorrow I'd be heading for the nearest (air-conditioned!) cave.

Now THAT'S paranoid.

Expand full comment
29 more comments...

No posts