The lives of the saints

The real heroes were the two journalists at the ABC who chose to reveal the truth and have paid a terrible price while choosing not to self-promote

The world of Australian letters is incestuous. Friends routinely review and promote each other — sullying the critical waters and making it difficult for readers to know what is worth their money and time. Occasionally, this inbred criticism sparks a feud between warring literary clans (see: Laura Elizabeth Wollett’s recent Sydney Review of Books piece on The First Time podcast). More often than not, it produces criticism that reads like vanilla ice-cream, sweet and soft.

Kevin Foster’s review of David McBride’s memoir is anything but vanilla. Foster has an opinion of the author and his book, and he prosecutes that opinion. Speaking as a reader, it is informative. Speaking as a reviewer, it is measured. Speaking as an author, it is tough.

I’m not saying I agree or disagree with the Foster review, by the way. What I’m saying is that critical takes such as Foster’s review of the McBride book are essential points of reference for informed, interrogative reading.

As for McBride, his social media temper tantrum over the review is juvenile. Don’t get me wrong, I understand why he’s upset about the review; I’ve received bad reviews, too. But here’s the thing: a free and fierce critical culture is, like corruption bodies and whistleblower protections, a cornerstone of our democracy.

The bottom line is we can’t have a vigorous literary culture without vigorous critics. That’s why I’m glad Foster wrote and ABR published the McBride review.

This reads more like a vindictive Facebook post than a scholarly review. ABR says Kevin Foster is a "fearless, cogent, informed reviewer". In this case he is not, he is an aggressive, dismissive critic of David McBride, not an informed reviewer of a text.

Ironic that McBride and his supporters flock to criticise this review en masse. How dare it be suggested that McBride is self-interested, something the book appears to inadvertently reveal? It's a review of an autobiography, and so the subject's opinion of themself as told in the book is highly relevant. The reviewer has indicated that the value in the book might be what McBride is inadvertently saying, rather than what he intends to say.

As a book review, this is lacking. Even as an ad hominem attack, this is lacking. David may not have been the whistleblower you wanted, but he did identify that SOTG structures (and the entire Operation Slipper architecture after about 2009) were fundamentally morally compromised - like so many people I interviewed in my books about the Afghan war - and then he did something about it, which almost nobody did. This fact must at least be grudgingly acknowledged somewhere.