Your right we should return to the topic which is the editors role in commisioning competing authors to review each others work. I frequently listen to Peter Stoppard on Radio National’s ‘The Book Show’ about who and why he commissions to review books for The TLS.

If there was a time lag between the two bios (2 years maybe more?) from the publication date, then of course you’d go to the other author for the review. A case in point is Geoffrey Blainey’s review of Tom Keneally’s Australia book.

Maybe Naperstek shouldn’t have chosen the Gillard book for ‘The Monthly’ or waited until they both were published. We’ll never know.

I offer this information because you have asked for it and because this kind of egregious misinformation needs to be corrected, but I really think we should get back on topic now.

And so you should be astounded, Deccles, if it were true. Fortunately, as one of the editors, I can assure you that there are in fact 54, count ‘em, 54 (actually no, don’t count ‘em, I have just done that for you, and anyway it’s clear that you have not actually looked at the book) extracts from novels in the anthology. We thought that was plenty, and indeed some people not a million miles from here might say it was too many.

I have no idea where you could be getting your ‘information’ from, but wherever it is, I wouldn’t rely on it as a source in future if I were you.

Rudd, Gillard, Swan, Howard, Costello, Turnbull, Abbott, Steve Smith, they all are (or they have been) obsessed with power, and so thay should be otherwise they should find another job.

As for grilling Gillard for having various positions, I certainly agree (not so much for her position on Israel though). However, I would also extend it to Rudd for failing to giving any position on any tough topic as he drifts into his extended Sir Humphrey Appleby monologue to avoid answering questions at all. The longer Rudds answer is, the more he is hiding.

However, the end of Rudd’s answers are very amusing. The interviewers generally have vacant expressions on their faces, unsure whether Rudd has answered, started to answer, or finished answering the question. When Rudd does this, the interviewer should ask Rudd the same question again, and this time ask Rudd to be specific.

Finally, back to the discussion point, what great PR for both authors. The more everyone talks about it the more publicity they get. No big deal.

Christine Wallace declares her conflict of interest straight up and then proceeds to give a fearless and independent review of Jacqueline Kent’s biography of Julia Gillard. It’s well worth a read.

I like it when The Monthly shakes up the publishing establishment. The over-blown reaction in the above story has shown how over-sensitive and stuck-in-the-mud they are.

I don’t agree with the comment above. I have to say my love affair with The Monthly has actually been reignited since the new editor started.

I think Naperstek is trying to attract a younger demographic. Using John Birmingham to replace Gideon Haigh, and the recent cover art (Gillard, Nick Cave, ‘The Wake in Fright’ young Jack Thompson). I don’t really care about the personalities involved, and those that are putting the ‘cat fight’ front and centre are missing the point. It’s an appalling lack of ethics on Naperstek’s part.

I hope Warhaft lands a gig soon and my money will follow her. Generally I’m grumpy with everything that’s going on in Aus lit at the moment because it’s about personalities rather than the lit. The other stoush about the ‘Pen Macquarie Anthology of Australian Literature’ is a case in point. Although I confess to be astounded that an ‘Anthology’ did not include novels (even itty bitty bits of them).

Wallace’s view that “Gillard is the personification of the old diplomatic saw that there are no permanent allies, only permanent interests” sums up Gillard perfectly for mine.

Gillard has no political substance…just a fixation with power. I know I’m out of touch with the 2009 real politik, but I still harbour the belief that our political leaders should remain true to their ideals. In Gillard’s case, she’s has never had the baggage that comes with ideals. But then why am I not suprised…her best buddy Latham, Hawke, Howard were primarily power junkies.

Finally, when is an Australian journalist going to grill Gillard on her various policy positions e.g her distasteful, aggressive support for the Oz Israel lobby. There hasn’t been one single interview I’ve seen in which she’s been asked anything but ’ love’ questions..e.g. the interview with Fox’s David Spicer was pewkworthy.

By the way, how’s your wind farm research going? There are many people suffering out here in the bush who’d be delighted if urban intellectuals took the trouble to investigate empirically. Instead we get pronouncements of the universal from the inner suburbs.

Frank, if you think there is anything special about australia in terms of these sorts of debates, think again. but wow, yeah losing hazel rowley does seem like a fatal blow. you sound like a man with a lot of rejection slips

Incidentally, that’s one reason Hazel Rowley left the country in 1996, never to return.

It’s not easy, but the least editors can do is to try and get some distance between reviewer and reviewed.

In this case, both authors should rejoice in the drama, artificial though it is. After all, the subject is a droning politician. Op-shops are full of books on Hawke, McMahon (who?), Snedden (?), John Fraser, and the one before Rudd.

Robert Manne seems to have nothing better to do than peek over Ben Naparstek’s shoulder and create ‘drama’ at the Monthly. Surely it’s time for him to retire to an island somewhere and leave us all alone? There are days when Gerard Henderson seems less of a crazy; this is one of those.

Boring.

In any given situation where an author reviews a book by another author within their area of expertise, there will be all sorts of points of view. But I dont think it’s a new trend - it’s a necessary one. Sometimes accusations of bad faith may be just, sometimes not.

It’s often the case that new biogs of subject X will be reviewed by an old biographer of X - or that a one volume biog of X will be reviewed by the author of the 4 volume biog. after all who else is going to know whether its any good.

The problem here is that these biogs are competing on identical turf - first major biogs by political journalists, neither of them substantially different (if a very left wing figure were writing a Gillard biog you might get a centre or right figure to review it) in approach. That looks too close to be anything other than a bit of a staged stoush. but havent read the piece.

Someone gave someone else’s book an ordinary review. Boo-hoo. Naparstek’s offered the insultee return space. Bitch-slap the insulter back. Or not.

Just stop appealing to some literary ethics umpire. There ain’t one. Never was; certainly not now.

So, people, who cares ?

But it’s hardly the lead. Bung it on the blog where it belongs.