The ’self-published’ novel in question is about how a few hundred people survive the corpse-drenched streets of Sydney’s CBD after a devastating bird flu pandemic kills millions in a two day period.

The novel, for now, is a few chapters long.

The first chapters were published on a private MySpace literary group, where a few dozen other writers, and readers, rip and tear and shred each other’s work. And they ripped and tore and shredded mine. There were at least six people that I’m aware of from Sydney who were part of that group. Some of them were professional writers posting their comments under other names.

If someone read my novel chapters there and commented on them elsewhere, I can’t stop that from happening.

The novel, called ‘Dead Sydney’, will be published in instalments in a blog as I write them and I hope whoever reads it will feel like commenting, good, bad or otherwise, as each chapter goes up.

As far as I can determine, Blair’s only proof for my ’socketry’ is a similarity of writing styles. He can’t stop sub-editing, even on his days off.

I would have engaged the commenters at Blair’s blog, but it was closed to new registrations. As TB’s site administrator, Andrea Harris, said in comments there a few weeks back : “This Is Not A Democracy”.

She wasn’t kidding.

Funny - Ken knows him first as the political predictable and finds it difficult to get to the other stuff. Me - I know him from Broadway Babies Say Goodnight and can’t believe the other stuff.

I find Steyn hilarious. And he knows a great deal about song-craft too. I’ve found a lot to learn in his writings.

I can see how many would find his drone about the Muslim demographics in Europe a touch repetitive. But if it is indeed an important point to make, and I for one believe it is, and since most people dip in and out of the political debate like gulls into the sea, it would seem insensible not to keep these observations where eyeballs can see them more or less consistently.

kevin

Ingolf,

I find this exchange far too interesting to leave without one more sally. You are free not to respond of course.

The Kennan quotes you mentioned, I notice, are from 1985 and 1987 respectively. This will have some bearing on my opinions of them.

The first one rings true, but the second I am not so sure about. In fact the second quote seems shot through with misunderstandings. For instance, how can we look at “Soviet positions” in any country around the globe without even knowing where all of them were, or what they were doing? Yes let us not exaggerate, he says, to which I say fine. But let us also not assume that where the lights are off, everyone is tucked safely in bed. Let us not exaggerate the extent of knowledge about Soviet dealings around the world either.

And this goes to one of my personally-held rules about Soviet studies. And it is the following: Until Mitrokhin and Perestroika, nobody knew much of anything. And, as much as Kennan had an even hand and a keen mind, he was still a product of his time and the information available.

And this is the benefit the Soviet information control machinery accrued. That even reasonable men, wrong assuming some degree of complete knowledge, could make egregious errors in judgment on the Soviet threat.

Thus Kennan could assume, also, that Russia merely sought to establish “ideological enthusiasm and political loyalty” in third worlds countries. This misunderstands the role that sowing pure mischief was part of Soviet foreign policy.

Because it is mostly open societies who believe in human rights and worry about terrorism, it is they who must contend with the strife in the world beyond their borders. Authoritarian regimes are far more protected from radicals and care not a whit about human rights. In fact, instability in strategic regions can be a bulwark to an Authoritarian country, as in the case of the Soviet Union.

Prior to Mitrokhin especially, it seems from the evidence, (except for an ignored and ridiculed handful, Robert Conquest comes immediately to mind), western academics were mostly “useful idiots”, to use Stalin’s famous phrase. So were a huge number of journalists and politicians. And not just those who were being paid for their services by the Politburo. The effects of this mass stupefaction of the western medias are in blatant evidence today.

A few examples: There was a highly touted symposium of many of the most celebrated western Sovietologists organized in ‘85. Soviet economic success was the topic du jour. Later information demonstrated that each and every one of these “experts” was either prevaricating or a propaganda dupe. And very famous names were on the dais, I believe Galbraithe and Hobsbawm among them.

From personal experience: Speaking with some good friends last year on the AIDS crisis, the rumor that AIDS had been created in an American laboratory was bandied. Now, after the wall fell, Gorbachev himself admitted that this rumor was a KGB concoction. That my friend still carried the rumor, but was untouched by the admission, reflects quite clearly the quality and anonymous permeability of Soviet propaganda.

You also say, “If a cause, or set of beliefs, is not inherently strong enough to withstand the criticism it may recieve in a free society, then in my view there’s every likelihood it deserves to fall.” To that I reply that I would agree in the case of a perfect marketplace of information. But since that perfect market doesn’t exist, your statement does not hold water. The media is inherently biased towards, again, broadcastability, and populist dramatics, which tend to veer wildly between anti-authoritarian and jingoistic stances, often at the incorrect times. Not to mention political theatre, which is almost wholly founded on exploiting the emotionalism and miseducation of the masses by the media and divisiveness for petty partisan gain. And not to mention pure digestible simplicity.

To end this conversation, I should like to add that I am much more a liberal than you know. And in much greater sympathy with many of your beliefs than I am letting on. I was putting forth a more headstrong argument than I would normally with the hope that you would drive back with something ultimately swaying. Or at least paradigm-shifting. I consider your statement “I accept without qualification that the views you express are deeply held and entirely genuine” to be another condescension. I am sure we can both agree that a deeply held belief is not worth a damn if it does not have currency on the ground. I am perfectly willing to be swayed by new information, as I am sure you are.

Speaking of which, I hope you will find the time to read the two volumes currently available from the notes of Vasily Mitrokhin (edited by Christopher Andrew.)

Best wishes,
Kevin

Mind you, I don’t read him that much (once or twice) at the most.

I listened to a speech of his on the radio and it wasn’t runny at all, just smug and up himself.

I suppose if that’s funny, well, ha ha.

Unless you’re the sort of person who sanctimoniously refers to it as “Invasion Day”, in which case I don’t wish you anything good at all.

Glad to see you’re open to different interpretations of Australian history.

I don’t classify and dismiss or worship writers based on their ideological positioning, as I’m sure you know. I don’t read Mark Steyn’s stuff all that often, but on the odd occasions when I have I’ve found it fits my above description i.e. predictable partisan polemic.

Are we talking about the same bloke?

I think Steyn is a brilliant, often achingly funny writer who is in his element when he dissects popular culture. His linked assault on the lugubrious, cobwebbed Victorian horror that is “Advance Australia Fair” was a tour de force. Comparing him invidiously to Peter Martin is a bit like saying that Coles is better than DJ’s foodhall because Coles has got more stuff.