One important item to come out of the recent controversial Productivity Commission report is the recommendation for revised statistics on the Australian book trade. This article reviews the reprinting of Australian writing around the world.
I don’t know diarist William Bunn personally but I know that on February 6 he was “Reading Sunshine and Snow” and that he had “read it nearly through”. You may wonder why someone would care what Bunn had on his bookshelves at the start of February, but Bunn felt it important enough to record this [...]
Embedded within any statistical analysis of Australian literature are definitional issues over the research sample.
For quite a while, I’ve been shaping up my response to the recent Productivity Commission Research Report …
The tension between British and Australian publishers has long been a central thesis of antipodean print culture histories.
Perhaps new empiricism, in its perceived relevance to Australian literature and the humanities in general, is a system of analysis that represents what Fredric Jameson lamented as the ‘depthlessness’ of postmodernism, privileging the consumption of visual images over deeper, critical forms of thinking?
The nature of this article is to question the basis for the Sydney- and Melbourne-centric view of Australian literary production … but to do so from a regional state-by-state (and territory) statistical perspective.
While Australians and New Zealanders acknowledge Anzac Day, it is important to look beyond modern perceptions and to review what our ancestors thought about the events which ultimately led to this national annual remembrance.
Like Mark Twain’s stroll through Australia’s abbreviated history, the Internet has ‘acres of the most strange and fascinating things’.