I've had to rejiggle the feeds a little to ensure no-one misses out on the new Salmon and Dusk. If you're using either of the old feeds for S & D, you might now find yourself missing out on After Dusk.
If you'd like both Salmon & Dusk and After Dusk on a single feed, the one to use is this:
The second in a new series of adventures for Salmon & Dusk
Artist Joe Miller is about to hit the big time. But on opening night for his first exhibition, a stranger tells him to stop painting. If he doesn't, he'll unleash something terrible on an unsuspecting world.
For Joe, this idea might be too intriguing to resist.
The second in a new series of adventures for Salmon & Dusk is now complete.
Artist Joe Miller is about to hit the big time. But on the opening night for his first exhibition, a stranger tells him to stop painting. If he doesn't, he'll unleash something terrible on an unsuspecting world.
When Joe doesn't listen, his work starts to take on a terrifying life of its own. Can detectives Salmon and Dusk stop him painting us all into a corner?
I sometimes worry that people like me are responsible for Andrew Bolt's position as Australia's top blogger.
I don't want him getting the wrong idea, I'm not a true believer. Or disbeliever, as the case may be. As a teacher, I was fond of using his pieces to teach persuasive language, due to his transparent use of language techniques.
More than that, in terms of entertainment value - as long as you like your entertainment tinged with disbelief and pity - it's hard to beat. For years, I was convinced his persona was a fiction, if not the man himself: a great experiment in irony.
But then, see him speak, with those dull, humourless eyes and you'll realise this is no performance. This is a man who can't quite understand why the world is the way it is.
Luckily for him, he's not alone. There are, in case you preferred not to know, a lot of people out there who find it endlessly frustrating that their views are not borne out by the world around them. I can understand that. When I was younger, it was a source of serious upset to me that a) I wasn't Spider-Man and b) I would probably never own a TARDIS.
(Note that I had to qualify that last statement with 'probably'. I mean, it could happen, couldn't it? If I wished really hard? No? Well, fuck you, universe!)
A certain amount of denial or willing ignorance is, to be honest, essential for one's sense of well-being.
If someone tells us everything's okay, a lot of us are going to be ready to listen. But, when the world seems less and less the sort of place we want it to be, it's inevitable this denial is going to be challenged now and then.
Appearing on right-wing-wingnut Hannity's show, lecturing leftist Michael Moore attempted to share some facts about the recent credit crunch. It was clear Hannity didn't want to know. Perhaps he was protecting his viewers, worrying they didn't want to know either.
People do have opinions that differ from ours, which is difficult. Tell me about it. We all like to be right. (Luckily, I always am.) But there is a difference between avoiding an argument and avoiding proving ourselves wrong. Which brings me to Bolt's favourite bugbear - climate change.
Now, Bolt prefers the term 'global warming', as most sceptics do. Why? Well, probably because it simplifies an incredibly complex climate mechanism and gives us two options: cold and hot. It allows for powerful arguments like this: "Is it cold today?" "Why, yes." "Aha, so global warming is a lie."
Possibly I'm misrepresenting the arguments by over-simplification, but Bolt can hardly complain on that score. His favourite argument is that, since the hottest year on record (in terms of global averages) was 1998, global warming is over. Besides, we've had, like, some really nasty winters since then.
The first point, of course, is misunderstanding the difference between an overall warming trend and a year that was anomalously hot (Australia's hottest year was 2005, by the way). The second point returns us to the 'cold' vs 'hot' simplification. What climate change promises, in the short term, is more extreme weather events, hot and cold.
Now, like Bolt, I'm not a climate scientist. But I'm not a doctor either and if, say, 90% of doctors say I will die without taking medication, I'll take my medication. Even if it makes life a little less comfortable for a little while.
If the same number of doctors see me a week later and tell me I don't need the medication and everything's fine, I'll be quite genuinely happy.
Professor Richard Dawkins, outspoken atheism advocate, says in his book The God Delusion that he only considers himself 6/7 sure that there is no God. He's just going by the evidence but, like a good scientist, he's willing to change his mind if more compelling evidence comes to light.
I feel this way about climate change, having written on connected issues for a few publications. Not too long ago, I compared Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth with Martin Durkin's Great Global Warming Swindle. Both were far from perfect, but it was Durkin's that unnerved me.
Its claims were startling, sending me back to the books, wondering if Gore and his kind had it wrong. They did, on a few points. Durkin, on the other hand, grossly misrepresented his facts and figures in an attempt to prop up theories that had been long discredited. You can find details here. (Warning: ABC site, so full of lefties. You may feel safer here or here.)
One of the reasons I still enjoy reading Bolt's blog is to find the various anti-warming theories he has dug up. Some, it must be said, appear genuinely confronting. Until you do a bit of independent research. (Crikey did just this with two bits of 'evidence' Bolt recently seized upon. A summary of arguments against most of his favourites can also be found at the Guardian.)
But lately, it's begun to bore me. I'll read a study talking about the cooling of the oceans and already know how he'll misinterpret it. We all like a bit of denial, but it tends to be a bit more effective when it's a bit less transparent.
Years ago, I saw a wonderfully obscene stand up performance by Sean Hughes who, having been exposed to Daryl Somers, wondered if the plaudit "All-round-entertainer" was Australian slang for "c*nt". Certainly, in the actually-rather-lovely light of Thursday morning, Somers and his entourage were all looking like a bunch of complete all-round-entertainers.
If ever we need a warning of the perils of nostalgia, then the creaky resurrection of 80s variety show Hey Hey, it's Saturday will be there as a steaming beacon. It's appropriate that our lust for simpler times should bring with it a clear reminder of the sort of bigotry that we prefer to forget. Both Hey Hey and its casual racism belong in the past. Hopefully, after last night, they will stay there.
The controversy around last night's "Jackson Jive" performance did achieve something significant, however. It actually managed to interest me in Hey Hey, It's Saturday. I vaguely remember the show as being the impossibly long and boring thing that stopped Channel 9 showing a film on Saturday evenings. And, as Marieke Hardy said in today's Green Guide, it's comforting to see it's just as shit as I remember.
The reaction from the media overseas has been suitably damning. The reaction from the media here has, frankly, been slightly embarrassing. News.com.au led the way by asking the public whether they felt the incident was racist. Aside from the blacked-up morons, additional highlights for me included:
the Kamahl cartoon
the "allriiight" from whoever the fuck it is who laughs in that sinister way in the background
Somers summing up by saying "there's a lot of colour on this show." No, really.
As of this evening, 69 per cent of 30,000 Australians didn't think any of that was racist. To me, this is more damning than the act itself. Sure, there's a certain amount of the cultural cringe in my embarrassment but, on this occasion, we don't need to worry that people from "more sophisticated" parts of the world might look down on us. They are looking down on us. The general online reaction from defiant Australians can be neatly summed up by the following comment from an article on the Telegraph:
Just because Australia isn't as brow beaten by the poltically correct brigades of the world. Doesn't mean we're racist.
In other words, youse guys need to lighten up and learn how to take a joke.
Now, I like a joke, as you may have noticed. My sense of humour also leans slightly to the black side (no pun intended). You may have noticed that too. Here are some reasons I didn't get this one:
The lack of irony.
Actually, that's pretty much reason enough. Had the joke been about a group of unreconstructed whiteys who didn't realise it wasn't appropriate to dress up in blackface, I might have laughed.
A friend asked today if it would have been offensive to women had these men dressed up as women. I would argue in some cases it might have been, but this is to say nothing of the aped imagery particular to the Black and White minstrels.
Chris Lilley has recently shown it's possible to skate the thin ice of racial parody - doubtless John Safran's forthcoming show will do the same - but to unironically reference a clumsy racial parody that, in the UK, was seen as racist as early as 1967 shows a terrifying lack of self-awareness. And, whether we like it or not, reflects badly on the culture that allowed it to go to air.
In this, Somer's half-hearted apology at the end of the show missed the point. Apologising for offending Connick Jr is like saying to your partner "I'm sorry you feel upset whenever I have sex with your friends, poor you". Neither is it sufficient to say "I guess in your part of the world that might have been inappropriate". Come off it, Australia might be backward, but we're not that backward.
Possibly the strangest defence comes from the skit's frontman. He said it was "ironic" people should accuse him of racism, since he's of Indian descent. Quite honestly, I'm not sure what he means.
Does he mean that only white people can be racist? Or does he mean it's ironic that an Indian man could be accused of being racist when everyone knows Australians hate Indians? I worry it might be the latter.
The short answer is I seriously underestimated my recent workload.
A more extended answer would detail the death of my PC - taking After Dusk 3 with it - and the subsequent death of my iBook, taking what was stupidly my only copy of the next Salmon and Dusk story. Whichever celestial entity looks after technology must be seriously displeased with me.
Honestly, it's all been rather depressing. But, you know, these things happen. To me. A lot.
The good news is that I'm a fair way into a replacement Salmon and Dusk tale (can't quite bring myself to rewrite the lost story just yet) and I only have three weeks left of my journalism course. After that, it's all unemployment and roses. (Apart from a three week newspaper internship.)
So, I'm hoping the new Salmon and Dusk story will be with us by the end of the month. After that, we'll be seeing a bit more of Kilbey and co.
In the meantime, I'll do a better job of keeping in touch.
Thanks (again) for your patience!
ps. I invite you all to check out my journalistic blog over at www.wickedtocare.com - lots of cultural and media commentary and a bit of swearing (not on my part, of course.) You'll all be most welcome.
After eleven years of potato-headed rule, it's comforting to know that Australia finally has a good Aussie bloke as PM. At least, that's the message being put out - however subliminally - by the Rudd party. Kev might look like a church-going accountant, but he's as red-blooded an Aussie as Peter Russell-Clarke. (More of him later.)
How do we know our Kev's a good 'un? Because he's more than happy to tell those Labor party f**kers to f**k off if they're not f**king doing what he f**king wants them to. How do we know this? Well, Labor told us. Glenn Milne of News Ltd broke the story, revealing "hardened" party staffers were left "shocked" by the outburst. Rudd might "cultivate" an image of cool-headedness, Milne reminded us, but sometimes he does like a bit of a strop.
According to sources present, Mr Rudd said: "I don't care what you f---ers think!" He then went on, singling out Senator David Feeney declaring, "You can get f---ed", before asking, "Don't you f---ing understand?"
- Sunday Herald Sun, 20 September 2009.
If Milne is expecting the Australian populace to share his shock at this outrage, he may be disappointed. Rudd himself was unapologetic, using the outburst as an example of his "robust" commitment to tackling important issues. A shame then the issue in question was how much the government was spending on printing. Still, a few f-bombs are unlikely to hurt the PM's standing any more than a quick visit to a strip club or describing the financial crisis as a “shitstorm.”
Milne was quick to jump on the strip club incident as damaging to Rudd’s electoral chances but, again, had misread the national character. Rudd may have seemed red-faced, but a bit of nocturnal naughtiness gave his bland character some appealing coarse edges. Here was a fun-loving bloke who liked the occasional drink and occasionally woke up with one or two things to regret. Who couldn’t identify with that?
Of course, there remains a whiff of antiseptic to these sweary shenanigans. Listen to Rudd say “shitstorm” and you wonder if that hesitation isn’t him checking his foul tongue but instead checking he remembered to swear. Similarly, this week’s f**king leaks seem more deliberate than accidental. Next week we’ll probably hear that Rudd scribbles “Anarchy” symbols across the top of Parliament House notepaper. And, once, he left a dirty coffee cup in the sink, instead of putting it in the dishwasher. The Rebel.
Still, Rude Rudd can go too far. Not six months ago, the reported tongue-lashing of an air stewardess did deliver a slight wobble to his standing and spark accusations that our blokey PM was "Un-Australian". On the face of it, here was a man using a position of authority to dominate his inferiors - not very egalitarian, really. So why don't we care that he branded a whole swathe of his staff f**kers?
Susie O'Brien, in a rather tedious opinion piece, might have (somewhat) inadvertently put her finger on the problem. Imagine if Kev had been talking to Therese like that, she suggested, would we still be so unmoved? And there we have it: it's just not Aussie to swear at a sheila. They're delicate flowers, those chicks.
As it is, Rudd soon might not need to make an effort at playing the rude boy. A new Greenpeace campaign seeks to make his own name a dirty word with its new Dirty Kev campaign, warning the PM to clean up his act when it comes to coal.
Once again though, Rudd probably has a good read on the Australian populace. He knows that the majority of Australians want action on climate change, we just don't care what the action is. In fact, a newspoll this week suggested most Australians would rather Rudd made whatever changes are necessary to get his Emissions Trading Scheme through the senate, than for us to have to go to the polls again. And fair enough, elections do put a hole in your Saturday. Besides, didn't we used to like it when it didn't rain? Harden the f**k up, greenies.
For a masterclass in Australian swearing, let me leave you in the crude but capable hands of Peter (G'day) Russell (G'day) Claaarke. (Warning: might seriously offend sheilas.)
Myke Bartlett is a writer, journalist and the author of the series of podcasted stories 'The Terrible Business of Salmon & Dusk.'
He also wrote the podcasted novel 'Electricity.'
USER STATUS
Anonymous
does not have a status.
Latest Status Updates
mdh5663
Myke, Electricity gave me an inkling of the possibility but How To Disappear Completely confirmed it - your're a genius. I am anxious to hear the rest of your work. Keep it coming!
25 weeks ago
mdh5663
does not have a status.
myke
Thanks mdh, great to hear you enjoyed Electricity and thanks for the kind words! Welcome to the site.
26 weeks ago
mdh5663
Myke, I just finished listening to "Electricity" and was blown away! You've a great way with language and you're one helluva an actor! Keep up the great work!
Subscribe to this podcast
