Regularly added bite-sized reviews about Literature, Art, Music & Film.
Voltaire said the secret of being boring is to say everything.
We do not wish to say everything or see everything; life, though long is too short for that.
We hope you take these little syntheses in the spirit of shared enthusiasm.
(Adelaide Entertainment Centre, 25 May 2026)
Split Enz arrived in Australia in 1975, at that stage more-or-less a New Zealand cabaret act [‘art rock’ as Glenn A. Baker and Stuart Coupe termed it in their book, The New Music (1980)]. Wonderfully weird, their oddball appearance and intricate songs gave them a certain cachet, but after some musicians moved on, the original line-up that included Tim Finn, Eddie Rayner and Noel Crombie were joined by Tim’s brother Neil (later of Crowded House fame, and, briefly, and surprisingly, Fleetwood Mac).
Melody Maker opined that “they are one of the few bands with any originality to have emerged over the last twelve months.” Their albums Dizrythmai and Frenzy further enhanced its reputation but what really broke through commercially were the white-noise single, ‘I See Red‘, and the triple platinum album True Colours (my copy is the one with blue and orange shapes).

Whilst broken-up long ago, they have reunited over the years and in Adelaide on Monday night, they did their 1,013th gig, the final one of the tour, before a packed and joyous Ent-Cent crowd. Hotels and restaurants nearby were packed beforehand. The concert started with a lovely set by Vika & Linda Bull and the Bullants. Then the lads ‘appeared’ (they took the stage under a covered sheet): 2 Finns, Eddie Rayner (keyboards) and Noel Crombie (percussion, design), plus James Milne (Bass and vocals) and Matt Eccles (Drums).
They gave us a magisterial lesson in power-pop, a power play of amazing sights and sounds. Starting with a squawking ‘Shark Attack,’ they followed-up with ‘History Never Repeats’ and the show was underway. Largely comprised of driving rock songs, there were interspersed some ballads, including the forlorn classic, ‘I Hope I Never’ (song list below, I think I missed one or three).
Once or twice, a lead singer’s voice came near to cracking but all proved true. The performances were superb.

All in all, one of the best concerts we’ve attended, and we’ve seen a few.

Adelaide, 24 May 2026 (Directed by Nicholas Cannon)
We had last caught Gounod’s rather strange take on the Faust legend in Sydney over 10 years ago. Co-opera is somewhat of a boutique company, formed in 1990, that takes the art form on the road and provides opportunities for young aspirants. At the rather unusual venue of the observatory on Hackney Road, the auditorium more apt for dinner theatre than opera, a group of young players (see credits below) belted out Gounod’s pretty music with gusto. Very ably supported by a solitary piano (kudos to Sachiko Hidaka), and with innovative use of a sparse set with minimal props, the production was indubitably worthy of serious funding and development.

Hats off in particular to Faust, Mephistopheles and particularly Marguerite.
Creative Staff:
Stage Director Nicholas Cannon
Musical Director Brian Chatterton
Pianist Sachiko Hidaka
Cast:
Faust Robert Macfarlane
Margeurite Livia Brash [6] / Amelia Price [2]
Mephistopheles Eugene Raggio [8]
Valentin Jeremy Tatchell [8]
Wagner Christian Evans [8]
Siebel Alexandra Grave [6] / Naomi Flatman [2]
Marthe Vanessa Shirley [6] / Barbara Rennison [2]
On-stage Chorus
Soprano 1 Amelia Price [6] / Emily Kelsal [2]
Soprano 2 Naomi Flatman [6] / Alexandra Grave [2]
Tenor David Visentin [8]
Bass Christian Evans [8]
Continue Reading →All My Sons is more-or-less bulletproof. It has been compared to great Greek tragedy, particularly Oedipus (by the playwright himself, among others), and its power derives principally from the way the plot ambles like slow-moving lava, to its shattering conclusion.
That said, a production can diminish a great play, and in the new National Theatre, they have managed this to a degree. It is a long piece that takes a great deal of time and exposition to set up that great last act, so absent making some small cuts (possibly through legal negotiation and with all due respect to the author, now long departed) an interval would have come as something of a relief. The minimalist set was perfectly fine, although some variation would have been more satisfactory. The lighting and musical effects were distracting and, in the case of the music, intrusive and annoying.

I assume that we accept a mixed-race marriage in a small 1940s mid-west American town. Joe Keller (Bryan Cranston) is an engineering and manufacturing tycoon, who was away sick the day his company supplied a batch of dodgy parts for P-40 planes to the US Air Force that caused the deaths of 21 pilots. Spot welding was deployed to cover the cracks in the parts. The Keller’s eldest son, Larry, is missing in action, presumed dead, which Mrs. Keller (Marianne Jean-Baptiste) refuses to accept. Youngest son Chris (Paapa Essiedu) wishes to marry Larry’s girl, Ann (Hayley Squires), causing all sorts of psychological heat. Meanwhile, George (Tom Glynn-Carney), the son of Keller’s jailed business partner, arrives to allege that his dad took the fall for you-know-who.
The plot has more coincidences than an Agatha Christie whodunit, but it does play like a dream in Miller’s sure hand. In this production, the performances are a bit patchy. We give a shout out for Glynn-Carney as the damaged son of Keller’s business partner, although he is dressed like a meth-head. We also liked Cath Whitefield as the catty next-door neighbour, and Jean-Baptiste as Ma Keller, who balances well the salad of emotions she tosses about. Cranston is the star of course, but his performance was not bang-on: too many flourishes and he lacked (strangely) the inner menace of the protagonist. All that said, however, it is a production worth catching at a local cinema (as TVC did) as opposed to flying to London and handing over £250 for a theatre seat.

(By Helen Parsons) (Wakefield Press, 2026)
The Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John tell of the Christ in the wilderness. Luke 4:1-8, for example, in the King James version, reads:
“Here Christ confronts the world as abattoir.
He’s right down on the stony barren ground
where eagles tear the flesh from a dead deer….
Spencer was down there too. He’d been
betrayed, and he had torn his family apart.
Deer and eagle, he was both of these.” [Eagles’]
To be quite honest, the paintings were, for this reader, an acquired taste. I was ignorant of them until I read this book. Perhaps they struck me initially as too much Arthur Boyd for my taste; perhaps it was the lingering disappointment with the WA Art Gallery, that houses the paintings (we’re informed; there was no sign of them when I went there last year). Yet the poems helped me return to the paintings and realise what Spencer was trying to do. In his time of personal trial, he got succour from the legendary struggles of Jesus and at the same time he managed to show us a man as much as a prophet. And in a three-cornered synthesis (one might hazard τριάς if one had ancient Greek) Ms. Parsons offers this personal insight:
“His Jesus kneels before a block of stone.
He puts his hands together like a child
and gazes upward, childlike, questioning.
I wonder whether Spencer looked like this
in this beleaguered period of his life.
It’s how I often see my father look,
as he waits in his armchair in the Home,
his memory shot and no release in sight.” [‘Prayer’]
There is nothing ‘thin’ about this slim volume. Its concision masterfully conceals a rich and thoughtful reflection of how we all think and feel, when alone, when looking back in anguish, when facing the future with fear, and when having those snatches of joy in the everlasting present.
Continue Reading →
(Directed by Baz Luhrmann) (2025)
Luhrmann’s biopic, Elvis – The Movie came out in 2022 (reviewed here), and whilst it was in preparation, Baz learned of the existence of over 60 boxes of 35mm and 8mm film footage of Presley in concert, in rehearsals and interviews. They were stuck in a Warner Bros vault in a salt mine in Kansas, of all places, negatives near to perishing, with no accompanying sound. Luhrmann had to spend a lot of his own money, and two or three years technical time, to have selections of the film retrieved and synced to existing audio.

What results is a mesmerizing display, a hectic pastiche of Elvis’ Las Vegas concert residence (1969-1976, hundreds of shows) in the main, revealing his great discipline in getting the songs just right, including on harmony and orchestration (while he was funny and highly respectful in rehearsal with his superb backing band and superb backing singers, the devotion to quality of performance was remarkable). There’s no formal narration; rather it’s a kind of superior home movie, brilliantly edited, showing Elvis goofing-off with his musician friends, singing song after song, schmoozing with stars of stage and screen* at after parties, letting women of all ages hurl themselves at him, and giving the kind of scintillating and physically and mentally energetic stage performances that would kill most people, and which perhaps killed him in the end. We never get a complete song**; scenes and songs move on as restlessly as the Man, who, throughout, comes across as sensible, modest and kind, which can’t be the whole truth, but still.
The raw power, the exertion, the total command of the show and the audience, is incredible. There have been many giants of popular music throughout the 20th century, as there are in our current century, but Elvis Presley remains unsurpassed. When he covers songs made famous by others, for example (Bridge Over Troubled Water, Polk Salad Annie, You’ve Lost That Lovin’ Feelin’), he somehow manages to own them. In terms of charisma, energy, and humility, he stands apart from every pop star.

Conversations on a triple murder trial (By Chloe Hooper, Helen Garner, and Sarah Krasnostein, 2025)
Erin Scutter was born in 1974 . Her mother Heather is said, rather vaguely, to have been an academic (“an expert in children’s literature”) and her father, even more vaguely, “a company director”. Although her mother is important in this tale, her father is not.
In May, 2025 Erin (now Patterson) was tried for three murders and an attempted murder. Famously, in 2023, Patterson had invited her estranged husband Simon, his parents, his aunt and his uncle, to lunch at her house in Leongatha, New South Wales. Simon declined the invitation the night before, which sparked an angry text from Patterson. It’s no surprise that Simon declined, given that he is said to suspect that Patterson had tried to poison him three or four times previously. One wonders if he tried to dissuade his relatives from attending. Patterson served individual beef Wellingtons, mashed potatoes and green beans. Patterson’s lunch was served on a plate which was a different colour from the others.
Within days, three of her guests were dead and the fourth was in a coma. The cause of the illness – the ingestion of deadly mushrooms – was not in issue. Nor was the source of the poisoning – mushroom duxelles in the Beef Wellingtons. The question was whether Patterson had deliberately or accidentally included the death cap mushrooms. Her behaviour, post-lunch, was suspicious, to say the least. You would have to be a fungal spore living under leaf litter on the forest floor not to know the outcome of the trial, so it is no spoiler to say that Patterson was convicted.
“Renowned writers” Helen Garner, Chloe Hooper and Sarah Krasnostein worked together to write this discursive book, travelling between Melbourne and the Latrobe Valley Law Courts. The writers outline Patterson’s unsettled history. Despite being apparently a gifted student at high school, she tried various careers, sued an employer for unfair dismissal and is reported to have been unpopular in at least one workplace. (It is to be noted, however – in case the detail of her scholastic aptitude came from Patterson herself – that she is an unreliable narrator.) At the time of the lunch she was apparently planning to study midwifery and taking steps toward gastric band surgery. Patterson told her guests that she had cancer, in order to cover her expected near future rapid weight loss. That was a lie. She had previously claimed to have, or was afraid that she had, a whole raft of illnesses.
Erin and Simon married in 2007. Patterson was financially well off, having inherited from her paternal grandmother and mother. Patterson became a Christian, as were most of her in-laws. During the marriage, Erin found Simon to be controlling and his family to be demanding, although, at the trial, she claimed to love them. In the 2020s there were upsetting incidents on both sides and after several reconciliations the Pattersons Ffinally separated in 2015. The two children of the marriage remained with Erin.
Patterson was a member of Facebook groups which discussed true crime. Her relationship with the (mostly) women online seems to have been one of her few “functioning” relationships and she shared personal details (sometimes untrue) with them.
Chloe observes both the journalists and spectator women in the gallery at the court, the women “sitting forward, listening intently. Notebooks open, pens in hand, I kept thinking they could be Erin.” Chloe asks, “Is our bearing witness actually more high-minded or are we dressing up our own motives.?’” Sarah says, “…we have to look at our own interest in the case. Is it any different from that gleeful, ogling schadenfreude?“
Helen makes an interesting observation about “public grief” during the trial, then goes on to answer Chloe’s and Sarah’s question in the negative. “It’s a rent in the social fabric and it’s grievous and horrible, but I would hate to think I was just perving. There is that element, of course, but you hope that by the time you’ve got a certain degree of skill as a writer, you can become useful…I think it’s useful work.”
In a scattered fashion, the authors attempt to answer everyone’s questions. The most pressing one being: why did Patterson do it?
Let’s start with the childhood. Patterson’s was (she says) an unhappy one. “My mum was ultra weird her whole life. We had a horrible upbringing. Mum was essentially a cold robot. It was like being brought up in a Russian orphanage where they don’t touch babies”. Sarah noticed, “how the choice of beef Wellington links to Erin’s mum – it was a dish she made on special occasions.” Chloe said, “There’s a matricidal quality to killing off your mother-in-law and her sister [another Heather].” The authors surmise that Patterson felt under-appreciated. She had no real friends, no real marriage, low self-esteem and issues with her weight.
Sarah “..Perhaps she was not being respected or recognised the the way she felt entitled to be, or in the way her own mother was.” Her family was “not appropriately grateful”. She was offended by “slights real or perceived , and Erin didn’t get the respect or the love or inclusion she felt was her due…And she started to feel resentful”. The authors ask, “Why is the public fascinated by a female poisoner? It’s archetypal. Adam and Eve and the apple. It’s throughout myths and fairytales.” There is also the mythical and fairytale nature of mushrooms themselves, and their link to Patterson’s mother. Chloe…”…mushrooms often appear in children’s literature. As houses, characters, in potions and having a transformative effect. They grow in the dark, So, it’s strange to me that Erin couldn’t bear her mother and rejected that childhood, and yet this had elements of a fairy story her mother might have read to her…”
Sarah: “I keep thinking about psychological poison – the way the emotions that derive murder grow in darkness. Like mushrooms. All the dark feelings and personality traits we’re taught to hide or be ashamed of lurk there, in our psychic shadow”. Chloe: “the death cap…exists in an ‘obligate relationship’ with oak trees: it is bound to their tree in order to survive. Erin too was introduced into the community and needed this oak-like family in ways which she didn’t fully understand.”
The authors come up with interesting comparisons between the net of fungus underground, society, law and media. They also consider how Patterson could have thought she would get away with it? And surmise that Patterson (who was often described as very intelligent) thought that she was smarter than everyone else, that country hospitals wouldn’t test for death cap mushrooms. Suggesting that Patterson felt angry, betrayed, an outcast, particularly with the family supporting Simon, Sarah says that she may have thought “’Like, I’ll take them away from you, even though they mean this much to me.’ Or maybe they didn’t mean that much to her.”
This is an easy book to read. The conversational style is engaging but scattered. Helen Garner always inserts Helen Garner into her writing and here, it is in the shape of raves about her divorce, which would be better excised. There are more serious faults in the writing which should have been picked up by an editor. Author Sarah Krasnostein, who “holds a doctorate in criminal law and is admitted to practise in New York and Victoria” refers to “Erin’s power of attorney, another woman from her true-crime Facebook group…”
The error is repeated: Chloe “…He realised that Erin’s power of attorney was sitting…”; “Erin’s power of attorney and Facebook friend is still in residence at the property”; Sarah: “The power of attorney is now hanging out around the court with Simon’s media adviser…” – As any first year lawyer knows, power of attorney is a concept. A Power of Attorney is a document, pursuant to which an attorney (the donee of the power) is appointed. Here we have a document, or a legal concept, with long hair, wearing a chic poncho, sitting, residing, posting on Facebook, and hanging around a court.
Worse still, this trio of award-winning, hard-nosed journalists come to notice, rather than ignore, the trope about Patterson being a witch. Chloe’s friend “hates that Erin Patterson is being treated as a witch.” At one point, Helen says: “The witchy thing makes no impression on me whatsoever. At no point have I been attracted to that theory even momentarily”.
Later in the trial they lapse into conversations about “The Mushroom Trial Fog”: “Helen: “…Oh, this is real fog”. Chloe: “I do feel like somehow Erin has cast it.” Sarah: “I had that thought as well, like somehow she’s conjured from the subterranean cell, from her furrowed brow, this haze which has sprung forth fully formed.” Chloe: “It’s a miasma of why?” Helen: “I actually feel quite scared of her…I think she knows how to read our notebooks through our bags.” All this is presented without any suggestion that it is a just a joke.
The fairytale theme continues. In 2021 Patterson feared that she had ovarian cancer. Her hands outgrew her wedding rings. Chloe says, “A wedding ring knows the truth about its wearer. Every time she tells a lie, the ring shrinks. She grows bigger. The ring gets smaller and smaller.” As Helen says, “everything becomes a metaphor in a story like this.” And that is unfortunate.
Our theories at The Varnished Culture (for what they are worth) :-
Nora (Renate Reinsve) is an acclaimed actress. She lives in the family home which changes from traditional, dark and maximalist to sleek, pale and minimalist during the film. Which is better – messy, intricate family life or a cleaned-out refurbished freedom, with everything open to view? Nora, as a child, decided that the house was happiest when full of people, – namely her parents, her sister Agnes (Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas) (Ibsen seems to be getting a workout here) and herself.
Now that they are adult, Nora is a bit miserable. We think it’s more than just being Scandinavian. Perhaps it’s because of the affair she is having with her married coworker or because she is monumentally unfit to be a stage actress due to her crippling stage fright (rendered in such a manner that the cinema audience is amused and appalled while the audience in the film are merely bored and restive). Perhaps it’s because, until very recently, she has still been living at home with her mother. She isn’t living with Dad Gustav (Stellan Skarsgård) because he took off years ago. At the time when Sentimental Value commences, the only reason poor sad Nora is not living with her mother is because she has just died. Mum was a psychotherapist, who worked from home, which might go some way towards explaining everyone’s problems. Although Agnes is more well-adjusted than Nora, being married (worryingly, her husband looks a lot like Nora’s forbidden beau) with a son. However, Agnes is still a bit messed-up after having starred in one of her father’s films in her childhood.
Due to an implausible (and fixable) oversight, the property in which mother and daughters lived after Gustav left, still belongs at least in part to their father. Gustav is a cheerful, alcoholic, self-absorbed and philandering film director with whom the sisters have a poor relationship. Curiously, the daughters seem to feel no ill will or resentment toward their father when they are forced to sell the house because of his interest in it. They promptly start cleaning it up, which leads to sentimental musings and a comic moment with a vase.
Meanwhile, Gustav, a big deal in the international film scene, attends the wake (at which we are reminded that eavesdroppers hear things they wont like), then appears at a special screening of his earlier film, set in World War II (the film in which Agnes appeared). A famous American actress, Rachel Kemp (Elle Fanning, doing her best but miscast), admires the film and arranges to meet Gustav. There is a dawn beach scene after a night of rejoicing (one of the few silly scenes which could have been excised from this overlong but generally wonderful film). This reviewer is pleased to say though, that there is no hint of a romance between Gustav and Rachel, which she awaited with trepidation.
Gustav wants Nora to play the lead role in the movie which he has just written. He says he wrote it for her and this is where it gets confusing. The script is and isn’t about the fate of Gustav’s mother, it is and it isn’t about Nora, and it is and it isn’t about Gustav as a boy. It certainly isn’t about Agnes who isn’t the star anymore. Nora wants nothing to do with it. Rachel accepts the role but simply can’t ‘find the character’; rather like a role of hers in real life.
This is not a film with secret revelations. Everyone talks through things they have obviously been churning over for years. No-one says, “I never told you this, but…” to which another character replies, “I didn’t know that about you. Now it all makes sense!” The acting is slightly heightened, rather like an Ibsen production. The cinematography is cool and creates a sense of spareness and strain.
This is an excellent and intriguing film. Not new, not surprising, but well worth seeing. The final scenes are confusing at first but make sense gradually and are very fitting.
Continue Reading →
(By Jean Raspail) (1973)
[Trigger Warning]Western self-loathing has been increasingly documented, with the focus rarely on shame (the healthy recognition of past cultural excesses and infamies) but more particularly on Guilt and Submission. And white people have had their anti-racism homework set. Despite and perhaps because of this, we’ve seen, in recent decades, an elitist multi-cultural rejection of assimilation, an undocumented invasion of the West, run by an unholy trinity of criminal networks, corrupt NGOs and cynical governments (on the supply side, sending away not-their-best; on the demand side, pursuing a growth mirage and co-opting a furtive voting demographic). With care comes control, but not of the ‘guests’, resulting in lack of cohesion, fragmentation, ghettoization, erosion of a governing consensus, race-shaming, and a sense at least of ‘replacement.’ After all, “no-one is illegal on stolen land“!
Recent examples of this can be seen in the un-trammelled entries into country of people neither vetted nor documented – millions of them, in Spain, France, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, the UK, across the southern border into the US, in Canada, Australia, and elsewhere. Leading to calls for intifada and the one-state solution; incursive slaughter of infidels and destruction of churches around the globe (think Israel east of Gaza, and the templates of Nigeria, Senegal, Syria or Sudan); tubes and buses and nightclubs bombed; a Manchester concert massacre; beheading and knife-wielding; graffiti on and burning of synagogues and Jewish schools and restaurants; defacing of ‘colonialist’ statuary; a mass shooting on Bondi Beach; murder at the Charlie Hebdo office, the Bataclan and Nice; out-of-control serious crime seemingly everywhere, including vast fraud in Minnesota via Somali ‘Quality Learing’ centres; gang violence; illegal street trading; parallel societies; welfare, health and housing squeezes; civil unrest when authority seeks out ‘sanctuary’ to enforce immigration law; hate and scant regard for sanctuary hotels (countries); a culture of cancellation and ‘de-platforming,’ and a general malaise. When my father came to Australia, he had English, but his cohort made sure to master the national language. Today, in my State, when civil court process is issued, a mandatory notice accompanying it comes in 10 different languages.
In a strange way, Malthusian prejudice accompanied this tyranny of guilt. In The Population Bomb, which surely influenced Raspail while writing his own book in 1971/72, Paul and Anne Ehrlich described their experience of Delhi:
“The streets seemed alive with people. People eating, people washing, people sleeping. People visiting, arguing, and screaming. People thrusting their hands through the taxi window, begging. People defecating and urinating. People clinging to buses. People herding animals. People, people, people, people.”
The Ehrlich view (lined-up with Nietzsche’s observation that “the earth has a skin and this skin has diseases; one of these diseases is called ‘Man‘”*) did not exactly come to pass, yet Raspail, writing in a splenetic rather than scientific or philosophical way, seems to have been something of a seer.
His rather remarkable dystopian book (re-published in 2025, the 100th birthday of the author, in a rare English translation) is wildly uneven, somewhat forced, chock-full of scatological references and vile and reactionary ranting, and yet, it is prescient to a spooky degree. Written in the early 1970s, it countenances mass migration (in the story, a million people in an armada of leaky boats, from the Indian sub-continent rather than the Maghreb or Middle East) to the European continent, that creates an existential crisis among various progressive and naively tolerant governments. Tolerance gives way to panic, and the “panic liquifies, annihilates.”
Raspail had the idea for this book, when, looking out over the Mediterranean from the Côte d’Azur, he suddenly wondered, not quite knowing to whom he referred, “What if they came?” Perhaps Chancellor Angela Merkel, Presidents Mitterrand and Chirac, Joe Biden, every British PM of the last 20 years, and even the current Australian Government, should have closely read this book, confronting though it is?
There is a thin line between (1) concerns about the effect of Multi-Culti on national identity and social cohesion, and (2) out-and-out racism. Sometimes these lines are blurred from passion, or carelessness; sometimes as a matter of deliberate policy (I’m talking about all frequencies of the political spectrum, now!). The tyranny of guilt, written about eloquently by Pascal Bruckner, had its genesis in works such as Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth (1961) and the new left activism of the likes of Jean-Paul Sartre, who called for colonizers/oppressors to starve and the colonized/oppressed to brutally subjugate them. And the West is now, all around the world, promoting such developments in a pious paroxysm of guilt. Social segmentation dressed-up as ‘social justice.’ As Nathan Pinkoski says, in his introduction to this new edition, in the post WWII years, “the West fattened its body but lost its soul.”**
Some extracts from the book are illustrative of the vitriol and the sometimes dazzling absurdities that have since become fact.
Young Frenchman tells old one about the coming reckoning: “I think you’re perfect. That’s why I hate you. And it’s here, to your house, that I’ll bring the most wretched ones tomorrow. They know nothing about what you are, about what you represent. Your world means nothing to them. They won’t try to understand…Sitting on their haunches, they’ll watch as your armchairs go up in flames…”
“Passports, nations, religions, ideals, races, borders, and oceans – all nonsense!”
Sometimes, Raspail seems to channel Céline, apart from the ellipses: “Also waiting that night were the garbagemen, streetsweepers, and sewer cleaners of all the garbage dumps throughout the Paris metropolitan area; the orderlies and bedpan technicians of all the hospitals; the dishwashers of the workers’ cafeterias; the unskilled laborers of Billancourt, Javel, Saint-Denis, and elsewhere; the lopsided gas and electricity navvys; the chemical industry wretches; the machine pushers; the troglodytes of the Métro; the stinking drudges of the filthiest jobs, and so many others, representing a hundred essential trades that had slipped from the limp hands of the French. Altogether, a few hundred thousand blacks, Arabs, and sundry other swarthy peoples, somehow invisible to the eyes of the ostrich-like Parisians and of whose true number no one had the least inkling ever since the authorities started doctoring the statistics, for fear of too brutally awakening the sleepwalking capital from its tranquil slumber.”
“The world seems to be controlled, not by a single orchestra conductor, but by a new apocalyptic beast, a sort of anonymous, omnipresent monster who has vowed, first and foremost, to destroy the West.”
“There is no longer such a thing as the Third World,^ that’s just a word (sic) you’ve invented to keep your distance. There’s just the world, and this world will be submereged by life. This country of mine is but a river of sperm that has abruptly changed course and is now flowing West.”
“All the idleness, the heat…They’ll make demands. They’ll demand independence. And why not? A hundred unlivable nations have representatives on the benches of the UN. We’ll just invent a hundred and first!”
“At the very same moment, seven thousand two hundred and twelve high school teachers told themselves that they would begin their courses the next day with a debate on racism. Whether their subject was mathematics,. English, chemistry, geography, or even Latin in no way changed the matter.”
Progressive broadcaster Durfort, as the armada looms: “…I say to you, my friends, we are all men of the Ganges!”
A Frenchman born in India telephones the radio station: “You don’t know my people, their filth, their fatalism, their idiotic superstitions, their atavistic resistance to change. You have no idea what you’re in for if this fleet of primitives falls upon you.”
“The pope published a maudlin little press release…The international civil servants…so many rats draped in UN cheese…agreed to wait. The only distant reaction worth noting came from Australia…They lived like nabobs in that vast, empty country, assured of the limitless wealth of their mines and livestock. But, above all, they knew how to read a map…In rather veiled terms, the Australians were being encouraged to steel their hearts against pity…and the Ganges fleet encouraged to stay clear of her shores.”^^
“India burns its dead. As soon as it left port, so did the armada. At least those who died on board, not those who fell into the water, who were but miniscule fleas fallen from the flanks of the wave-shaken armada. Many died, above all old people and children, already exhausted before they even came on board, starving wretches at the end of their rope, finished off by insane hope.”
“The great migration unfurled its carpet. And certainly not for the first time, if one cares to look into the past of mankind. Other civilizations, neatly labeled in the display cabinets of our museums, had already suffered the same fate. But mankind rarely heeds the lessons of its past…what is culture if not a pious inventory of the past?”
Two opposing camps. One believes in miracles. The other no longer does. The one that will raise mountains is the one that has kept its faith. It will conquer. Mortal doubt has sapped all energy in the other. It will be conquered.” “Paradise had already changed hands, and hatred made faith all the stronger….It’s probably a new form of modern warfare, where the enemy attacks unarmed, protected by his wretchedness….never once did this multitude seem to realize that this country upon whose soil it had just landed might belong to others.”
“In the international organizations responsible for Third World problems, one does not make a career for oneself by relying on the truth.”
“For every errant socialite, there is always a threshold beyond which the spirit of caste once again takes the upper hand…”
“The minister carefully examined his 1937 model Soviet revolver. He rediscovered those forgotten gestures and, this time, the old revolver did not jam. The minister was found slumped at his desk, his torso lying on the table, his head resting in a pool of blood, which his open mouth seemed to be drinking after having spat it out. On a sheet of paper, just before dying, he had strangely written: “Might as well water them myself…””
“As the barman in the first-class lounge concluded before quitting his job and then his life, a knife planted in his back, “when all’s said and done, I prefer the rich. At least when they’ve got to puke, they go to the trouble of doing it in the toilet!””
“The true right is not serious. This is why the Left hates it, rather like a hangman must hate a victim who laughs and jokes on his way to the gallows. The Left is a conflagration that devours and consumes in deadly earnest. All appearances notwithstanding, its parties are as grim as one of those parades of puppets in Nuremberg or Beijing.”
“Here were two men, each of them instruments of fate for their side. One crossed the oceans, encountered the other, and, in a flash of inspiration, killed him, as if he recognized him.”
“When the official history of this D-Day of brotherhood later came to be rewritten, their rout was presented as merely the vanguard moving inland to prepare “reception centers…” Half in shock and half in terror, the little darlings held their noses and then got the hell out of there. Never had they expected a good cause to smell so bad. A lack of maturity, that’s all. Everyone knows that it’s the evil causes that smell best – progree, prosperity, money, luxury, excess, higher morality, and all the rest of it…”
Raspail’s book has a recurring line throughout – “Perhaps this might be an explanation” which is really as tedious and unnecessary as Vonnegut’s “So it goes” in Slaughterhouse-5. Yet somehow, it seems apposite, as Vonnegut’s seemed to him.
As of writing now, the world is hardly contending with a creature it cannot name: the Islam-o-nut. The Quran, full though it is of poetry and compassionate and merciful thoughts, swerves wildly into sword verses that promote the extirpation of infidels (plus those apostates in Iran, who’d like to be cut a little slack, or at least some journalistic interest). From this arose the concept of Intifada (or, as Taylah Swift might put it, ‘Shake it Off’). The last word of God and the last of the line of the great religions, its adherents mandate shaking off what went before and signing up to the new-replacing-deal (whichever half of the Schism that happens to be).
A lot of Raspail’s scorn is for sclerotic authority and especially the cringeworthy Fourth Estate. As we see today in the denial of plain-as-face facts, the practice of transcription rather than criticism of the managerial class, the omission of covering uncomfortable topics and events, the downright lies and distortions, antisemitic tropes, blood libels and cartoons, the judgment without curiosity and the sheer partisan fawning, these professional failures have failed-up and fomented the present discontents.
[* Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra, 1883/85] [** Raspail was, apparently, a staunch and old-school Roman Catholic.] [^ Or “the Global South“…] [^^ A communiqué very reminiscent of Prime Minister John Howard on 28 October 2001: “…we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.”] Continue Reading →
(A celebration, at the Governor Hindmarsh, Adelaide, 31 January 2026)
The first record I bought with my own money was Transformer, which started a lifelong love of the music of Lou Reed. And a discovery of his really diverse work, travelling from poems of urban depravity to ones of great love and beauty. Did get to see him once, and he was wonderful, but he was definitely emblematic of the truism, ‘never meet your idols.’
Orson Welles didn’t sell a huge amount of tickets, but he made every moviegoer want to be a cinéaste. The Velvet Underground made every amateur musician want to start a rock band. Commercially poison; its influence immeasurably outstripped its record sales. Reed and his cohort exulted in their unpopularity, Lou’s favourite quote being “the flowers of evil are in bloom. Someone has to stamp them out before they spread.”*
Reed’s success as a solo artist began in the 1970s but plateaued when he declined to keep making more ‘Transformers’, instead embarking on heart-rending concept albums such as Berlin and The Bells.
A celebration of Reed’s work (he died in 2013) has been staged around Australia, and we caught the show at the Gov, where an impressive number of excellent musicians were fronted by Robert Forster (The Go-Betweens), Mick Harvey (The Bad Seeds/The Birthday Party), the great Dave Graney, Rob Snarski (The Blackeyed Susans), and Stefanie Duzel in the role of Nico, who all took the lead or lead duo for the songs.
They took the stage an hour late (that’s rock ‘n’ roll) but made up for that with a stunning set that covered a lot of Reed’s immense catalogue. Of course a few personal favourites were not covered, but so what? The song-list (and I’m sure I’ve missed one or two) ran as follows (not necessarily in order):
Rock and Roll Heart / What Goes On / Vicious / Venus in Furs / I’m Set Free / Sally Can’t Dance / Satellite of Love / Caroline Says / I Can’t Stand It / Perfect Day / Stupid Man / Pale Blue Eyes / The Bed / Sunday Morning / Charley’s Girl / Kill Your Sons / Waiting for My Man / Walk on the Wild side / Femme Fatale / Slipaway / Sweet Jane / and for a great finale, Rock & Roll. A worthy effort, and night.
Only one quibble: the Gov had a stage with limited seating under cover and more seating in the garden patio area, from where you could hear the concert, but not really see it, because most folks inside were standing. Once when the Velvets played Texas, in the early 1960s, Lou asked the crowd to “pull up your cushions…or whatever else you have with you…that makes life bearable in Texas.” If the venue had cushions inside, we could have all seen the show. That’s an old man’s quibble, but after all, oldies were the predominant demographic on the night.
[*Mick Wall, Lou Reed: The Life (2013)] Continue Reading →