tip off

Assange bio: not a manuscript anyone would intend to publish

They were putting copies of Julian Assange: The Unauthorised Autobiography in the window of Waterstone’s this morning when I arrived to buy a copy, which was cool — I really thought that was no more than a movie cliché. Inside, half a dozen copies sold in 10 minutes — most of the purchasers looked like newsroom interns — and a film crew from German state television was sharking around interviewing people.

Since no-one buying the book was willing to participate, they were finding casual browsers and offering to buy them a copy. When I arrived, they had cornered some gormless young man who had been, as is the case for most bookshop habitues, simply hiding from the day.

Do you think it’s ironic that the WikiLeaks founder has tried to suppress this volume?” the British presenter asked. ”Well, uh, gosh, hmmm, ‘spose.”

Pause. “Could you talk a bit more about how ironic it is?”

A woman was grabbed next. “Well I think WikiLeaks has done some ground-breaking things, some great things, but I’ve seen interviews with Mr Assange and I don’t like him, so I won’t be reading the book.”

Pause. “Do you think it’s ironic … could you say how ironic?” the presenter asked. When I left they were doing a static shot of her holding the book and looking at the cover. “Could you, um, glare at it a little?”

How the news is made.

A few hours later, after a rapid read of the tome, one can see why Julian Assange wanted to stop it being published, and ghoster Andrew O’Hagan took his name off it. Though the first half or so is reasonably strong, covering Assange’s childhood, entree into the world of hacking and progression to WikiLeaks, the whole thing starts to fall apart.

As it moves onto recent events — early triumphs of the group, the Iceland venture, the two warlogs and Cablegate — the text becomes something of a ramble and a rant, delivering little precise information. Drawn from 50 hours of taped interview/monologue by Assange, perhaps the early sections were always clearer in the raw, and Assange subsequently became tired and caught up with legal problems. Or perhaps they got some cleaning up from O’Hagan, who hadn’t reached the final sections yet.

Yet in neither case could one consider it a manuscript that anyone would intend to publish. The later sections have extended denunications of The Guardian, The New York Times and other “media partners”, and give an alternative account to their falling out, but they lack sufficient detail to make an effective alternative case.

For a hundred and something pages though, it’s a reasonably good read, especially if you read it as a picaresque romp, in the manner of Mark Twain, whom Assange cites several times. We follow the young Julian, born in Townsville to a free-spirited mother, as she, her son and stepfather Brett Assange travel northern NSW and Queensland, the parents presenting childrens theatre and political agitprop, dragging a menagerie of animals behind.

It’s good on sights, sounds, textures — the feel of ’70s northern Australia, and recalling early years in Lismore and surrounding counter-cultural haunts, as the “Big Scrub” rainforest was slowly cleared for agribusiness. There is much that becomes portentous in retrospect — Assange’s tendency to create “little gangs” of kids to explore forest, etc, and an early pre-computer hobby of beekeeping — with a hive that could only be transported by placing a wad of paper over its entrance, and hoping the bees didn’t eat through it until the end of the journey.

Then darkness strikes at age nine, as Assange’s mother and stepfather split up, and she takes up instead with a man Assange names as Leif Meynall — or Leif Hamilton, a musician, apparent deadbeat, and member of the notorious “Family” cult run by Anne Hamilton-Byrne. Violent, but principally a mindf-cker in that quintessential ’70s way, Meynall stalked Assange, his mother, and the son she’d had by Meynall for six years. As Assange notes, that changed the nature of the nomadic lifestyle they’d enjoyed, from one of wandering to pursuit, from freedom to fear.

That leads of course to years on the lam, but also to the famous quasi-mythical moment when Assange discovers a Commodore 64 early personal computer, and launches into another world entirely: the computer, he said, had become his consciousness — it offered the capacity for the individual to reach to infinity close to hand, and for the networks of proto-hackers to create another realm of communication and interchange, and imagine that it might supplant the existing one, and impose its virtues.

That obsession takes him to Melbourne, and the book is good there too; on the hacking world amid an inner-city subculture in a greyish city, and the truly revolutionary moment of modernity — not the web, or the internet, but the simple personal modem, which allowed global hook-ups via bulletin boards, the formation of a global hacker subculture, and the venturing into the minimally protected systems of everything from corporations to the Pentagon.

The small gang Assange creates in Melbourne will eventually fall apart, after being rumbled by one assiduous cop, and one member turns state’s evidence against Assange, allowing for one his beat apercus: “It was a look that I had come to know, the look of betrayal organised on the face to look like a high minded interest in the truth.”

Pre-web hacking — Assange argues that the web killed it, turning it into a mass activity of pointless scams — is credited with decisively shaping the modern world, for it was these hacker networks, evolving into the cypherpunks website, and the development of public encryption among other things — a strain of the more theoretical aspect of the book Assange claims (rightly to judge from the manuscript) didn’t much get included.

It takes us through Assange’s years post-conviction in 1996, to his three years at Melbourne University in 2003-2006, and the crystalisation there of the idea for an organisation that would fuse safe encryption with mass leaking, publishing and interpretation, as a way of categorically challenging conspiratorial forms of power, such as states and corporations.

Here, and as the trail takes us to Africa, Iceland and elsewhere, it starts to get a bit more general, though there is a good passage on the editing and presenting of the “collateral murder” video. Yet much of what many people want to know — such as Assange’s version of the split whereby Daniel Domscheit-Berg and others departed accusing Assange of being a dictator — get only the most passing attention. The publication of the war logs and the deteroriating situation with The Guardian is where the book falls apart, with only the most basic guide to what was going on, and a lot of ruminations about the nature of mainstream journalists, with a phrase that may not win him more fans: “Vanity in a newspaperman is like perfume on a whore; they wear it to conceal a dark whiff of themselves.”

The section on Sweden, and the events that led to s-x crime accusations, give a somewhat jumbled narrative, but choose not to go into detail about the accusations of failure to use a condom after the explicit request, the only allegation against Assange.

Missing also is a more detailed account of WikiLeaks’s early encounter with the Julius Baer bank, which sued WikiLeaks associate Dan Matthews, whom some say Assange left hung out to dry (though Matthews told me by email that he still considers Assange a friend); a full account of whether he gazumped a deal with The Guardian by allowing Channel Four to run stories on the war logs; the accusation that he claimed indifference to the fate of those named in released, unredacted war logs and, crucially, the nature of the split from the German and Icelandic “wings” of WikiLeaks.

Maybe Assange would have dealt with those in a full manuscript, maybe not. He claims that Canongate essentially stole this text when shown it by the ghost-writer’s researcher. Whether the case or not, it would be manifestly unfair to judge Assange on what is, for its second part, little more than a sketch out of a fuller account.

Yet perhaps what is most telling is this: that of all the WikiLeaks memoirs and writings, the first half of this book has more life, passion, engagement, ideas and sheer presence of the human than all of the rest put together — a suggestion perhaps of where the animating spirit in the enterprise lies. Whatever the case it will certainly be the subject of energetic misconstruction across all media, for some time to come.

17
  • 1
    Carol Cowan
    Posted Friday, 23 September 2011 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

    Menagier?? Really?

  • 2
    Mark from Melbourne
    Posted Friday, 23 September 2011 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

    I had a menagier once but it was confiscated by my 4th grade teacher…

  • 3
    michael r james
    Posted Friday, 23 September 2011 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    Nice review (and fast reading). Your vignette took me back a decade (or two?) to when the wonderful Gothic store spread over 5 floors in Gower street in the heart of Bloomsbury was a Dillons, now Waterstones’ flagship store, a candidate for one of the best bookstores in the world.
    GR gave some information in his Crikey piece yesterday but I thought Crikey readers might like a condensed version of the publishing fiasco as retailed by The Guardian today (so perhaps needs to be read with bit of care; remember David Leigh is the author of his the book in which he revealed the password to the cables file; apparently it has been optioned by Hollywood, as has the NYT book!). Lawyers and publishers (then Hollywood) all earning their fees with nary a dollar in Assange’s pocket (yet). Assange is no angel but he certainly seems a naif in this hard-edged world.
    Emphasis is mine.

    (guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/22/julian-assange-memoir-argument)
    Julian Assange autobiography: why he didn’t want it published
    David Leigh, James Ball and Esther Addley Thursday 22 September 2011 21.47 BST

    Canongate, (run by Jamie Byng), and the US publishers Knopf agreed to pay £600,000 and $800,000 respectively for the rights, with Knopf paying $250,000 in advance. Canongate also agreed to pay upfront O’Hagan’s ghostwriting fee, believed to exceed £100,000.

    Canongate also negotiated a crucial loophole in the contract, which it was eventually to invoke. “If … the manuscript has not been delivered by the prescribed date or its final form is not acceptable to the Publisher, the Publisher has the right to decide whether to continue to publish the Work. If the Publisher decides to continue to publish the Work the Proprietor agrees that all typescript or notes relevant to the said Work shall belong to the Publisher.”

    The money went into the client account for the Assange defence fund, administered by solicitor Mark Stephens, who was conducting Assange’s criminal defence. Assange now claims he thought he was getting the services of top QCs and solicitors pro bono. But FSI, which says only the initial advice tendered was free, eventually put in bills that in total are reported to exceed the advance.

    …..a draft manuscript by March, as required. But Assange refused to sign off on it. Some sources suggest that, after failing to sell the Hollywood film rights to his memoirs, Assange realised that all future payments on the book would be swallowed up by his lawyers.

    One benefit for the publisher, however, is that under the get-out clause in the contract it will no longer be obliged to pay the second and third tranche of the advance – a saving of £350,000. Canongate has, however, promised to pay Assange any royalties he is due after the paid-out advances have been recouped. Some observers still believe that Assange stands to make a small fortune from his eventual royalties.

  • 4
    Posted Friday, 23 September 2011 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

    Who else is going to change the world, Marty? Greenpeace?”

  • 5
    michael r james
    Posted Friday, 23 September 2011 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

    A little typo, obviously should have been menagerie but perhaps also Freudian?:

    Le Ménagier De Paris (often abbreviated as Le Menagier) is a French medieval guidebook from 1393 on a woman’s proper behavior in marriage and running a household. It includes sexual advice, recipes,[1] and gardening tips. Written in the (fictional) voice of an elderly husband addressing his younger wife, the text offers a rare insight into late medieval ideas of gender,[2] household, and marriage.

    4th grade, Mark?

  • 6
    zut alors
    Posted Friday, 23 September 2011 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

    “Vanity in a newspaperman is like perfume on a whore; they wear it to conceal a dark whiff of themselves.”

    I reckon the book would be worth buying purely for this remarkable observation.

  • 7
    db
    Posted Friday, 23 September 2011 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

    Does he really talk like that? Apt or not the quote or misquote looks like a very contrived bit of written stirring instead of a spoken comment. While Assange is not perfect it does look like there’s a bit of strawman construction going on with this book.

  • 8
    Guy Rundle
    Posted Friday, 23 September 2011 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

    Michael

    as i noted in my report yesterday, Assange argues that he and Canongate had renegotiated for delivery in 2012, and that as part of that process, the existing contract was cancelled. He alleges that the publisher only got hold of the existing MS. when ghost writer Andrew O’Hagan’s researcher accidentally let them get a copy.

    So, if true (and who knows) not naive enough to let the publishers have a copy, without them acquiring it by subterfuge.

    Yes, the suggestion that Leigh et al have ‘several sources’ suggesting that Assange bailed because he realised the advance would be swallowed up by legal fees, need to be taken with, ironically, the usual salt. I dont doubt there are sources, but the question of who they are and whether they know anything is pretty crucial.

  • 9
    AR
    Posted Friday, 23 September 2011 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

    If I had to choose between a passionate individual and a faceless/amoral corporate entity it would be easy, if wrong headed. As in betray my friend or my country.
    The more highly organised an entity the worse it treats mere mortals, as anyone who’s ever had to deal with HR in any company with more than a couple of hundred employees, apologies to the Great Sage Dilbert.

  • 10
    Policeman MacCruiskeen
    Posted Friday, 23 September 2011 at 11:02 pm | Permalink

    Down here on Mutton Bird Island we don’t give a stuff about Assange’s personal history, personal life or whether or not he knows how to really treat a female impersonator. We just reckon he’s a game changer so we’ve awarded him our highest public honour - the Antechinus Medal which the O’Leary boys reckon is appropriate because o’ the way that aforesaid native marsupial performs intercourse for 28 days solid before its hair falls out, its tail drops off and it karks it. We’ve also given ‘im lifetime membership o’ the Armed Wing of the Hippie Party o’ Mutton Bird Island. An all round top lad.

  • 11
    Posted Saturday, 24 September 2011 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

    I doubt if the Antechinus would be getting much if it had been under house arrest without charge for nearly a year: ask Aung San Suu Kyi.

    Burma and the U.K. — champions of human rights. :S

  • 12
    michael r james
    Posted Saturday, 24 September 2011 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

    Guy, the extra detail in that Guardian piece suggests pretty strongly that JA had/has little legal recourse. It doesn’t seem like it was “accidental” that O’Hagan gave the publisher the draft, he too was probably obliged by his contract, and seeing as he had been paid £100k in advance by the publisher directly. Assange should have had an agent handle this stuff because at least they would have protected him against all these other sharks including his own lawyers. Having the half mill advance go directly to the lawyers was a bit of a blunder but I suppose the poor sod doesn’t even have a UK bank account (and even if he did, could he trust it wouldn’t be sequestered by the Brits, or even Australians?). He needs to establish a secure method of payment (and beyond Wikileaks) both to receive any future royalties, but also I would bet he could garner enough worldwide donations to cover his legal bills.

    But you know who I have fantasized about writing the definitive account with Assange? This Australian bloke who has enough gonzo journo cred, has written political campaign books, has sympathetic political credo, is a fellow Melbournite if not quite gliterati, is in London/Europe, has personal knowledge on the Swedish gender politics…..and on top of that has been king hit by Nick Davies…..

  • 13
    michael r james
    Posted Saturday, 24 September 2011 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

    Fourth attempt with last past of the failed post.
    MICHAEL R JAMES
    Posted Saturday, 24 September 2011 at 5:51 pm | Permalink
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Third attempt. Cannot see the problem.
    MICHAEL R JAMES
    Posted Saturday, 24 September 2011 at 5:49 pm | Permalink
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Groan, this moderation system is clearly broken.
    MICHAEL R JAMES
    Posted Saturday, 24 September 2011 at 5:46 pm | Permalink
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    …………………………………………………………………..
    But you know who I have fantasized about writing the definitive account with Assange? This Australian bloke who has enough gonzo journo cred, has written political campaign books, has sympathetic political credo, is a fellow Melbournite if not quite gliterati, is in London/Europe, has personal knowledge on the Swedish gender politics…..and on top of that has been king hit by Nick Davies…..

  • 14
    zut alors
    Posted Saturday, 24 September 2011 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

    Michael R,

    I suspect it was the g0nz0 word which brung you undone. It has another meaning in the 21st century.

  • 15
    michael r james
    Posted Saturday, 24 September 2011 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

    Zut, no, that part finally got through. The earlier part of the original post has consistently failed. Still is. I don’t think it can be particular words but some complex combination. Obviously it is too touchy as this has been going on for weeks at Crikey for many posts. (the reason I tried various tricks to get around it is that I know it is unlikely there will be human intervention until Monday)…..

  • 16
    Posted Sunday, 25 September 2011 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

    When I posted my comment, the Crikey server said it was down. I checked back a few times during the afternoon, but it was still down. I don’t know if this affected the moderation process in some way.

  • 17
    michael r james
    Posted Sunday, 25 September 2011 at 10:27 pm | Permalink

    Guy, the extra detail in that Guardian piece suggests pretty strongly that JA had/has little legal recourse. It doesn’t seem like it was “accidental” that O’Hagan gave the publisher the draft, he too was probably obliged by his contract, and seeing as he had been paid £100k in advance by the publisher directly. Assange should have had an agent handle this stuff because at least they would have protected him against all these other sharks including his own lawyers. Having the half mill advance go directly to the lawyers was a bit of a blunder but I suppose the poor sod doesn’t even have a UK bank account (and even if he did, could he trust it wouldn’t be sequestered by the Brits, or even Australians?). He needs to establish a secure method of payment (and beyond Wikileaks) both to receive any future royalties, but also I would bet he could garner enough worldwide donations to cover his legal bills.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...