i went along to the university to catch three lectures and discussions which confirmed my absolute distaste for writers and publishers who manipulate the market through their self important lenses of distorted perceptions.
first up are three young women publishers who all share a great interest in getting writers to get published, they go on about the submission process and the fucking way a writer and publisher has a special relationship. now this may occur in small publishing houses, but let me tell you when i asked a permanent question that shocked the whole panel and made them withdraw into silence at the end of their talk. they were speechless.
i simply asked how much does the writer actually get from the sale of a book valued at AU$30 which is the average cost of a paperback here in the clever country.
the answer, reluctantly avoided by our experts was offered by an audience member at $2.50 to which i replied, 'then its similar to the music buisness, artists exploited for their talent but a bunch of marketers who sell.'
the panel just nodded and left.
next up was the young arab australian writer michael mohammed ahmad who was promoting his book, 'the lebs,' and while his energy and passion is great it's completely and dangerously misguided. he hates white culture, white people and white society. he's so filled with intellectual hate his three degrees and access to academic brainwashing are his fallback position when arguing his case.
i liked him, i liked his inner writer but basically his brain is controlled by ideologies that will never make humanity better, they always fail. he's just to far gone to see it. his hero is the australian boxer jeff fenich who trained so hard he shat his pants rather than leave his training program. he sees that as conviction whereas i see that as a glitch in his training. if jeff was so disciplined and in control he should have trained his bowels first not succumbed to soiling himself in a gym while training. it's not really what i consider a mark of respect, more of an indication of ignorance. micheal puts back a lot into his 'black' community but it's antagonistic to white people, it's basically racist although mike can quote malcolm x as to why it is not. i would have preferred a writer who hates white people to say 'i'm racist, i hate white people' than someone to use an academic argument that is weak, out of space time, and irrelevant.
i bought a copy of his book, when he signed it the first question he asked me was, 'what's your background brother?'
i told him i was from earth.
but what i wanted to tell him was i am not your brother.
next up was a discussion with a group of internet news providers, which turned out to be nothing literary at all but a bunch of socialists having a platform to knock the usual suspects.
i tuned right out and at one point back in, only to hear one of the most respected internet journalists make an allegation about the australian newspaper in some articles it had been writing over the last two editions that was about debating societies at university. he suggested that the australian did not want women on them but he did not know i had read the pieces and he was misrepresenting, actually telling lies about the content. the australian was suggesting people are placed on panels as they have skills not because of their gender. it's a nuanced argument and there are vast and complex repercussions for women having a position based on being a woman rather than skill or talent.
it really was pointless arguing with a room filled with zombies, i just ate some nice food they offered me and left with my mind made up, i would never step foot in a university again as they are crammed full with dumb people.