Melbourne Writers Festival 2018 – the first weekend

I attended four sessions over the first weekend of the Melbourne Writers Festival.

Assisted Dying: What’s Next?

Saturday began with a hot topic – assisted dying. I chose this session because of its relevance to my voluntary work in palliative care. Unfortunately, although the session was informative, the panel was entirely pro-VAD (Voluntary Assisted Dying) and therefore it was not the ethical debate I was hoping for.

Take-home message? That the VAD Act gives people the opportunity to have discussions about end-of-life, and that these discussions improve our ‘death literacy’.

Living Dyingly: On Writing Death

More death! Next I headed to a session with Buddhist monk, Gyatso; doctor, Leah Kaminsky; and journalist, Deepanjana Pal. All three panelists had written about death, and each had done so for different reasons – Leah said, “I realised I was terrified of death so knew I needed to confront and explore it. It was like a pizza chef being scared of dough…”.

Gyatso’s writing about mortality was deep and complex, although he looked up from his reading and laughingly exclaimed “Don’t wait for the diagnosis, we’re all dying!”

Deepanjana spoke about death through a cultural lens. Listening to her talk about the complexities of female infanticide in India made me determined to get a copy of her novel. She noted that from her experience as a journalist, most female infanticide happens not because mothers ‘prefer’ sons, but because they don’t want a daughter to have to live the way they have.

Her novel is written from the perspective of a doctor who performs selective abortion. She said, “Violence in fiction is often articulated through the female body. I wanted to explore the thought processes of the perpetrator, take the focus off the body.”

The Mind Examined

I know Catherine Deveny puts some people off-side but I was prepared to hear what she had to say about her personal battle with mental illness. She has co-authored a book on mental health, Mental, with psychiatrist Dr. Steve Ellen. Although they seemed an unlikely duo, Deveny explained that she pulled Ellen away from ‘text-book-speak’, while he grounded her with science and practical advice.

Ellen’s view on treatment of mental illness was clear and straightforward – “For nearly every medical illness, we have a plan – for example an asthma plan where you do a, b and c. It’s the same for mental illness. Have a plan, try different things, have time limits attached.” He emphasised that we don’t have all the answers and that what works for one person may not work for others.

I very much liked Ellen’s ‘first-aid’ approach – he said that patients will often ask why they are depressed/ anxious/ have a personality disorder. While noting that “…everything in psychiatry is a spectrum”, he said that the simple answer is that no one knows for sure. As a psychiatrist, his task is to address the ‘How can I help you right now?’ question. Once progress has been made on that front, you can delve into the ‘why’.

There were some terrific audience questions and in particular, one about writing a memoir when your family disagree with your memories. Deveny’s answer was fascinating – “Writing is very much like therapy. It’s about creating a narrative that makes sense.” She noted that your family may not like your version of events but that with memoir “…it doesn’t have to be accurate, but it does have to be authentic.” Interesting.

Finally, at the book signing, Deveny had a range of stamps – they were all funny and it was hard to choose (I was tempted by “This book was stolen from the bedside table of Tony Abbott”) but in the end I went with something that I often say to my husband(!) –

Sacred Texts: The Book That Made Me a Feminist

I was a bit excited about this session, mainly because at one MWF planning meeting I said “I always like to ask authors ‘What book made you a reader?’ Marieke loved that question (actually, we spent quite a bit of time answering that question…) and look! The ‘Sacred Texts’ series. So I am obviously feeling completely up myself.

Before getting into the nitty-gritty, I have to say the session was expertly chaired by Zoya Patel – she was funny, smart, and on target. The panel – Neko Case, Maxine Beneba Clarke, Michelle Law, Hollie McNish and Emily Nussbaum – each had to nominate the feminist text that ‘set them alight’. The selected texts and the stories that went with them were surprising and entertaining.

Neko Case nominated her college art history text, Gardner’s Art Through the Ages. The book was inches thick and included only five female artists. It began what Neko referred to as her ‘chronic mathematics’, where in every situation, in everything she read/ watched/ listened to, she would ask ‘Where are the women?’. Reflecting on her time at university and the fact that the texts were all written by white males, she said, “Maybe we should get our money back from the institutions we went to? It was very expensive to learn about no women.”

Emily Nussbaum shared memories of an album and book combination, Free to Be – You and Me by Marlo Thomas. The songs were all based on a simple message – that all people should have all possibilities. Emily said that one song in particular stood out because it scared her – Girl Land – “There’s something to be said for frightening children into feminism.” (Girl Land is terrifying!).

Growing up, Maxine Beneba Clarke felt that being black was the bar, as opposed to being female. Although she had a deep love for The Babysitter’s Club series, the book that she returned to over and over was Liza Lou And The Yeller Belly Swamp by Mercer Mayer. Maxine identified with this little black girl who had to find her way around  constant obstacles. She tracked down a copy of the book for her own child and was surprised and amused to discover that it was written by a white male!

Hollie McNish cited Matilda as her feminist role model, or Lisa Simpson, which prompted Michelle Law to say that her heroine was Amy Sedaris’s character in the TV show, Strangers With Candy. Michelle’s book pick was Tender Morsels by Margo Lanagan.

A robust discussion about the representation of women (and minorities) in literature followed and my notes include gems such as, “I love the sociopathic qualities of Pippi Longstocking…” and “It’s not all about the Wonder Woman role models…good to have the crazy, out-of-control, disgusting…they show that we can drop our boundaries and be vulnerable” (both from Emily).

The discussion ended with an insightful and hopeful comment from Neko – “A new generation of scholars will bring women back from history. The reclaiming is going to be an exciting thing to see.”


9 responses

  1. A really interesting post Kate. I’ve probably told you before that most of my career has been in palliative care, and so I’m always fascinated by discussions around death. It’s a shame the panel couldn’t have included more debate on the issue, it would have been really interesting to see if an anti-VAD speaker thought they could still have end of life discussions the pro-VAD group felt open to.

    When I was training, the first module we did was on patient narrative. I totally agree that it doesn’t have to be accurate – and also the narrative is constantly re-written, so aiming for accuracy will only be useful for so long, authenticity at that moment of writing will probably last longer and be more useful.

    Oh dear, I’m going on… you’ve posted on 2 subjects very dear to me 🙂

    I’ll just end by sharing that I went to a ‘Heroes’ fancy dress party once dressed as Lisa Simpson! (And to a dead celebrities one, which was sort of a heroes one too, as Frida Kahlo – I do like a fancy dress opportunity…)

    • The VAD debate has been raging in Victoria, the state where I live, as it is the first State to introduce VAD. The Act comes in mid-2019.

      I think people do have the right to decide how they live (or don’t live) their lives however what is left out of the pro-VAD position is the logistics of VAD and the other people implicated. I think there is a misconception that you give yourself ‘one injection’ or swallow ‘one pill’ but as you would know, it is far more complicated than that and therefore inevitably requires the assistance of others. I worry about those others. Who looks after them? What ethical turmoil are the doctors, nurses and pharmacists in? The public debate seems straightforward, the reality is vastly different and that’s not being presented.

      Yes, I agree that authenticity endures – you’ve said very eloquently 🙂

      Heroes is a great fancy dress theme (and Lisa is an excellent pick).

  2. Great write up, Kate, sounds like you went to some great sessions. The audiences in Melbourne must be very switched on cos the bit I always hate at these sessions is the audience questions. I have NEVER heard an intelligent question asked. It’s always people waffling on in their own narcissistic fashion, usually trying to prove they’re more intelligent than the writer 🙄

    • Haha! Maybe the Melbourne audiences are terrified after Lionel Shriver called out stupid questions a few years ago (and I saw Jonathan Franzen do the same to someone who was talking about themselves not his book!).

      This year they are only having questions at small events – anything held at Federation Square in the main auditorium is panel discussion only. I think it’s better – although you do get some good questions from an audience, a decent moderator will cover the main themes anyway. Zoya Patel, who chaired the panel I saw, was incredible – she’s young enough to be a bit ballsy and ask some cheeky questions, but nevertheless she was in complete command.

  3. I would have enjoyed all of these sessions! There was a Death Cafe at the festival I went to on Monday, and I considered going but decided it was inappropriate to attend just out of curiosity and that I should really have a good reason to go.

  4. Enjoyed your right up Kate. You are better at being succinct than I am. I want to capture everything – which is good for me, but not my readers.

    I was interested by your paragraph on the memoir question: “one about writing a memoir when your family disagree with your memories. Deveny’s answer was fascinating – “Writing is very much like therapy. It’s about creating a narrative that makes sense.” She noted that your family may not like your version of events but that with memoir “…it doesn’t have to be accurate, but it does have to be authentic.” ” I had a family discuss an autobiographical novel on my blog where the family disagreed with the novelists version of events but seemed to recognise that that was his view. It’s a tough area when the family you are writing about is still alive – in one sense “accuracy” is hard to define. You can only write about your experience – and as Deveny says you must do that authentically.

    I feel sorry for Kim. Of course, we’ve all experienced those narcissistic questions, or those questions by people who haven’t been listening, but like you, I’ve been wowed by some great questions.

  5. Pingback: Six Degrees of Separation – from Where Am I Now to Growing Up Asian in Australia | booksaremyfavouriteandbest

  6. Pingback: Tissues at the ready… (four grief memoirs) | booksaremyfavouriteandbest

Leave a Reply to madamebibilophileCancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.