Left

Although I try to avoid dichotomies, I think the talks I attended can mostly be split into two camps. There were those about writing, and those about politics (I've given indicators on my itinerary to show which is which). Just because one is a writer doesn’t mean that they have to talk about writing, and I knew this going in. However by the end of the Saturday (where I’d say out of the seven sessions I attended, five were about politics) I realised, that although I have an interest in politics and society, I wasn’t getting what I wanted out of the festival. As a writer (we’ve all heard the ‘no such thing as an aspiring writer’ speech), what I was most interested in hearing about was writing as a craft. More specifically, the processes authors go through when writing novels. On the Saturday, only one session I went to involved fiction authors (though this is more poor foresight on my behalf than a criticism of the schedule, which did its job in catering to a variety of interests). When writing my itinerary earlier in the week, I’d lined up a few talks on Sunday that dealt with social justice and, again, Australian politics. But after attending five sessions in a row, I was very tired of hearing about important issues and wanted something more entertaining, something that felt like it would cater to my needs as well as my interests (which David Astle absolutely did, with my last minute decision to see him instead of Social Justice turning into what was probably my favourite session of the weekend). 

Now, I want to quickly talk about the politics sessions I attended the day before, and why they weren’t as fulfilling for me as I had hoped. I’m very much what you’d call a leftist. I’m passionate about feminism and achieving social justice for those who weren’t born with the privileges I have. So this was my crowd. I don’t think anyone could successfully argue that the festival did not cater towards the left. I thought I would love this. However, there didn’t seem to be much critical arguments being put forward. I’d like to give a special mention to the Make It New session for being the only panel of the weekend not to mention Donald Trump, Brexit or Pauline Hanson. Literally, I kept a record, out of the eleven talks I attended over the weekend, that was the only one. On that, actually, they were often lumped together, ‘this is what’s lead to the emergence of Trump or the Brexit results, or the re-emergence of Pauline Hanson’ was a common statement, without there ever being an acknowledgement that the three have occurred in different countries, with different political situations, for different reasons. In talks directly about Australian nationalism, a discussion of Pauline Hanson with an offhand ‘it’s the same as Trump’ seems a little lazy on behalf of the guests (Kerry O’Brien in particular, whose I held to a higher standard in regards to political discourse). Observing the crowd, too, another disturbing occurrence I noticed was that people nodded and mmmed most at the simple statements. Not the succinct summaries at the end of a lengthy and detailed explanation, but the flashier, overarching statements. Perhaps this is just another instance of me being slightly too cynical, but I got the feeling that people went to these talks not necessarily to be challenged, but seeking validation for their own views (views of which I share). 

There was this one person who hosted a panel, I think they may have been a last minute replacement, so they probably weren’t as familiar with the guests’ backgrounds as they could have been. Anyway, this host said some things that the audience didn’t agree with, and the audience let her know. There was murmuring, followed by some actual booing. The thing is, though, this host didn’t actually push any views; they simply asked a question, and put forward some thoughts that went against the consensus that had been established. One of the writers was quick to jump in and answer the question with a thoughtful response, but I was shocked by the behaviour from the audience. I’m not sure if it’s surprising or not, but the audiences for the ‘writing sessions’ seemed to me more open minded and more critical than the ‘political sessions’ audiences. (I’m pretty sure we all rolled our eyes at that one guy yelling out during the Julian Assange session.) 

I suppose what I’m getting at is that even though I lean so far to the left I’m practically falling over, there didn’t seem to be much room for open discussion. It was very biased, I guess is what I’m saying, even if that bias suits my own views. I wasn’t expecting a debate, but the only time somebody played devil’s advocate, they were booed. I try to have an open stance on even the issues I’m stubbornest about, trying to understand others’ perspectives rather than dismissing them as inherently wrong. So although I tended to agree with most of what the guests spoke about, along with the rest of the audience, I feel as though they could have risked being a little more controversial and push against their own ideas at times. Oh well. At least it didn't lean the other way.

(PS when I wrote this up in Word it was titled Echo but now it (along with the post below this) is a pun.)