BOOK PROPOSAL

 

LINK

It transpires that the forces of the FLUXISH are coming together to embark up a

YELLAboox7250 for the amusement and bemusement of the

Launcestonian diaspora wherever they are in the world

WATCH THIS SPACE

ALBERT VAN ZETTEN _ FLOODING IN LAUNCESTON

 

GLANCING at an article titled "Flooding a Fact of Life" (The Examiner, August 8, 2020), some interesting comments were made by Launceston mayor Albert van Zetten and I quote: "Even with the improved protection afforded by the levees, it was impossible to defend against flood events". 

He further said "it is important for Launceston residents to be aware that the levees are not a guarantee against flood. 

Given the ground conditions in Invermay, there is a risk of failure, the adequacy of the system cannot be guaranteed. In a one in a 200-year event under our current climate conditions, buildings in the area stretching from Newstead College across Invermay, all the way to the Star Theatre could be unsafe and vulnerable to structural damage. Our mayor and his councillors have allowed large building projects to go ahead and may shortly be asked for a cultural centre and auditorium to also be built on this flood plain. 

In defence of this, may Cr van Zetten encouraged residents in low-lying areas to have a flood plan? Would number one on that list be to buy a small boat? 

Ron Baines, Kings Meadows.

HENRY'S LETTERS

GOOGLE SEARCH CLICK HERE  

Paperback, 252 pages 

• Published January 1st 1981 by Time Warner Paperbacks (first published March 31st 1980)
• Original Title The Henry Root Letters 
• ISBN … (ISBN13: 9780708818886 
• Edition Language. English 

REVIEWS

• SOMEBODY CALLED CLARK …. I wish to protest most strongly about everything: Henry Root, the splendid, splenetic creation of eccentric lush and journo William Donaldson (1935-2005), is a self-made, spittle-flecked oddball who writes brazen and demented letters to the famous, powerful and rich. Supposedly a wet fish merchant from Fulham, he is an avatar for a lot of the to-the-right-of-Attila-the-Hun, Thatcher-supporting, mildly racist, entitled, liberal-baiting mansplaining that was de rigeur and absolutely unchallenged in the Spectator/Private Eye yachts and casinos circles that Donaldson frequented. (For a reminder of the flavour of the times, see Private Eye's disgusting homophobia under conceited old plop Richard Ingrams - the least of which is a regular cartoon called The Gays by Michael Heath, which at least had the virtue of being occasionally funny. ................ Donaldson's ghastly creation wrote outrageous, threatening, scurrilous and outlandish letters to public figures, praising, insulting or attempting to bribe them. His heroes were few, but those who were, to Root's mind, "sound" - principally Mrs Thatcher, the Dowager Lady Birdwood and James Anderton, "God's Cop", the self-appointed guardian of Greater Manchester's morals. ................ Time has not been kind to Root. Not only have so many of the people approached here faded from the memory that one can't quite remember why they were laughable, but some of the attitudes verge on bullying and prejudice in a way that's now well beyond the bounds of acceptability by today's mores. ................ When he hits a target full on, or when the target responds with good grace or a sense of humour, it's hilarious, however. Kenneth Kendall, the elegant and generous newsreader who later went on to host Treasure Hunt following Anneka Rice's arse round Great Britain, answered Root's impertinent enquiry about his dental health with wit and elegance, returning the preferred pound note with the answer that his dentist should supply the Polygrip at his own expense, and supplying an autographed photo for Mrs Root. Esther Rantzen doesn't come out quite so well - there's a disagreement about whether the BBC should pay Root for some unusable script material, and Rantzen sends the same response to two different letters - the first from Root praising the show, the second, again thanking him and saying how much they appreciate viewer contributions is in response to his missive which says simply, "Dear Esther, You're a fat idiot and your show's a disgrace." (Angela Rippon, by contrast, comes out of this rather well.) ................ If further recommendation be needed, then surely there is none finer than Glenda Slagg/Linda Lee Potter: "About as funny as pushing somebody fully clothed into a swimming pool." 

• SOMEBODY ELSE … Back in 1979, people with too much time on their hands could send actual letters to leading politicians, judges and other luminaries of light entertainment, and expect a reply. The sender of these letters – a cantankerous crusader against pornography and modernity, and for hanging and Mrs. Thatcher – is a comic invention. But the replies are real. Together, they provide a powerful impression of what life must have been like in late-Seventies Britain for a retired trader in wet fish, seeing his country overrun by lesbians, lefties and other losers.

• ANOTHER PERSON … Sending Harriet Harman a pound to buy a pretty dress still makes me laugh now. Or saying that Henry Root Junior thought Cliff Richard was working behind the makeup counter at Boots makes me think, but for "Congratulations" go he. ................ I love this book and his laugh out style at trying to rankle celebrities and people in the public eye. Just as good were a few who took the time to read his letters and send back equally funny replies. Published in 1980, what would Henry Root of the wet fish emporium make of the A to Z listers of today.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Sir, 

It was not unexpected that we should find in the Examiner today the City of Launceston’s ‘smoothed over’ 2018 in review report card. All of us out here in voter land who have been called upon to write such reports know the drill all too well. Consequently, we can read between the lines. ............... This report could have been abbreviated to something like: attendance, adequate; application, must try harder; fiscal outcomes, disturbing; result generally, suboptimal. In fact, it could have been even harsher but hard truths are as unpalatable to give as they are to receive. ............... The real issue here is that the City of Launceston’s Council is not up for anything like criticism or critical review. Council operatives also know that in order to get advertising placement these days newspapers are no longer able, or willing, to engage with criticism of any kind. So by necessity, they are up for smoothing over histories. ............... Actually, governments, newspapers, corporations, universities even, will take whatever content they can get just so long as it does not cut too deeply and doesn’t challenge what passes for in-house wisdom or expertise on any level. ............... It is speculated that Launceston Council has a fully staffed ‘media department’ with an ‘operating budget well in excess of $1Million’ to enable it to get over this critical review issue. ............... The Vladimir Lenin quote that goes “A lie told often enough becomes the truth” underpins this class of marketing but it was Adolf Hitler who knew that the lie had to be “…big enough lie and [told] frequently enough, [for it to] be believed.” ............... Ever since ordinary people, with fingers crossed, have had to trust the Ancient Greek fable teller, Aesop, when he said, “a liar will not be believed, even when he speaks the truth.” ............... So, the really, really big question here is, why bother burdening us at all with this unbelievable tosh? It is a really good question when all that is happening is one year is merely turning into another. ............... Ray Norman Trevallyn

_____________________________________________

The fable The tale concerns a shepherd boy who repeatedly tricks nearby villagers into thinking wolves are attacking his flock. When a wolf actually does appear and the boy again calls for help, the villagers believe that it is another false alarm and the sheep are eaten by the wolf. In later English-language poetic versions of the fable, the wolf also eats the boy. This happens in Fables for Five Year Olds (1830) by John Hookham Frere, in William Ellery Leonard's Aesop & Hyssop (1912),[5] and in his interpretation of Aesop's Fables (1965) by Louis Untermeyer.[6] The moral stated at the end of the Greek version is, "this shows how liars are rewarded: even if they tell the truth, no one believes them". It echoes a statement attributed to Aristotle by Diogenes Laërtius in his The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, in which the sage was asked what those who tell lies gain by it and he answered "that when they speak truth they are not believed".[7] William Caxton similarly closes his version with the remark that "men bileve not lyghtly hym whiche is knowen for a lyer"... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf

OPEN LETTER: THE MORAL RIGHT OF AUTHORS ... AND LETTER WRITERS TOO!

In the past when the issue of the 'Moral Rights Of The Author' has been broached the very idea of it being applicable was pooh-poohed – and vociferously. But that was a while ago and quite a bit has changed since then. In the past when the issue of the Moral Rights came up the assertions were:

Click on an image to enlarge

1. "this legislation does not apply to newspapers" as the "industry standard has always been ........"
2. "when you submit a letter to the editor you are entering into a contract that allows ............"
3. "the newspaper has standards to uphold relative to spelling, grammar and syntax and thus ...."
4. "there is limited space and it is industry practice to shorten letters given this and ............"
5. "the paper reserves the right not to publish material it considers unsuitable and thus ......... " etc.

For the most part all that is so and probably quite reasonable ... to a point. In a contemporary context, and given current community standards, what failed the 'appropriateness test' in say Y2000 no longer does in so in so very many cases.

For instance, in regard to expletives that would have failed to pass muster in Y2000, well they are currently well accepted as a vernacular idiosyncrasy and totally/quite acceptable – 'bloody', 'bugger' & 'bastard' by way of example. I could suggest other words too but I imagine that my point is made. In any event, removing such words would be more than churlish today and a devaluation of the cultural paradigm in which language operates ... and in which they were used and invoked in most cases. 

It'd be an example of linguistic vandalism to fiddle with language in this way ... but so be it!

Arguably, it is no longer appropriate to recontextualise the meaning of a text by editing out such expressive and culturally laden words, words in common use, word with multi-layered culturally determined meanings in search of 'the proper way'. 

Nonetheless, if a newspaper wished to demonstrate the extent to which it is out of touch with current community standards and cultural realities they might well do so if they must. But, they cannot, and should not, enlist letter writers into their distorted world view it seems.

Unsurprisingly, the newspapers adopting such a conservative and outmoded stance might well become the butt of counterproductive jokes and possibly much more ... say via social media.

Of course there are ways to bring all this into a contemporaneous reality – and with contextual currency. 

A case in point being The now somewhat famous Byron Bay free community newspaper, The Echo which led the way very early on in the 1990s when it generally: 

• Published letters IN FULL almost irrespective of length;

• Was 'light handed' in its editing, typically asking contributors to resubmit or agree to changes rather than exclude them;
• Did not publish defamatory material;
• Signalled that some editing had taken place if there had been any by saying so at the end of the item – Edited for length, Edited for syntax, Edited on legal advice, Edited with writer's permission and sometimes ...  Letter not published on legal advice. 

• The Echo's contract with its readers and contributors typically meant that almost every letter was published in full either in the weekly HARDcopy or the ONline version when there was one. 

It was early dat but the  built its very successful enterprise on CITIZENjournalism and from a very obscure place it became famous well beyond  NSW's 'Northern Rivers.

Many of these letters were politically sensitive and/or contentious in regard to litigations to do with 'community and/or property development'.

It is now some time since I had any direct contact with The Echo but when I did I was a more than occasional contributor to their 'Letters' section. 

I'm a 'Mullumbimby Boy' and the paper was my mother's 'local' and she consistently invited me to write on the "family's behalf" in relation to some contentious local government issue or other. So, I write here from direct experience.

The Echo knew full well on which side their bread was buttered. Local newspapers largely rely upon their 'Letters Section', ' For Sale Advertisements' and 'Births, Deaths and Marriages Advertisements' for their daily readership as I'm sure you're fully aware. 

Currently just about all other news can be sourced elsewhere, and often more expediently, as I'm sure today's editors are all too aware.

When an Editor, as Editor, or a Sub-Editor in their employ, cut text from a submitted letter, almost unavoidably they impact upon the meanings invested in it. Almost invariably the decision 'to edit' will be subjective and thus contentious not to mention open to criticism ... ridicule even. For example, in removing the word "not" from any sentence, well unquestionably its meanings are changed.

I submit that if such editing (sub-editing) has not been contested up to now it's possibly because the Moral Rights legislation is not well known or well understood  – even by newspaper editors it would appear.

Cutting to the chase, my letter on Jan 10 that was published Friday last. [LINK] • [LINK TO ORIGINAL SUBMISSION]. However, it has been drawn to my attention that it was heavy handedly edited without my permission despite there being 5 days to get such permission in accord with fair dealing my moral rights and the intellectual property invested in it. 

Therefore, I ask why that permission was not sought? Furthermore, I ask why The Examiner might be so disrespectful of its letter writers' intellectual property?

I look forward to your response.

Regards,

Ray Norman

Trevallyn 

TAS 7250

CONTEXT REFERENCES

• Moral Right Information – Arts Law ... Click Here
• Moral Rights legislation – Definitions ... Click Here
• Copyright Amendment (Moral Rights) Act 2000  ... Click Here

EVEN letters written with a thumbnail dipped in tar, even written in another language, technically, can now be scanned and published in the 21th C if there is either the will or the wit to do it. The 21st C offers a whole new paradigm!

"One day everything will be well, that is our hope. Everything's fine today, that is our illusion”  ― Voltaire

"A compromise is the art of dividing a cake in such a way that everyone believes he has the biggest piece." – Ludwig Erhard