Heath, in Lyons and Arnold (eds), 2001, pp. 69–82. As Heath points out, there is a strong racial dimension to censorship policy: what was virtuous and moral was inevitably also homogenous and white.
‘Prohibited books’, Herald (Melbourne), 13 September 1901, p. 1.
Smith, House of Commons Hansard, 8 May 1888, vol. 325.
Heath, 2010, pp. 101–07.
‘Melbourne, Saturday’, Age, 17 July 1889, p. 8.
Daily Telegraph (Melbourne), 30 July 1889, cf. Coleman, 1963, pp. 4–5.
On the stand, Professor Edward Morris of the University of Melbourne would prompt considerable laughter from the public galleries when he said that, after reading the books, he felt he ‘needed a bath’, that his ‘moral tone’ had not been lowered because he had been ‘on guard’ while reading the books, and that only time could tell whether he had fallen from his ‘high estate’. See Day, 1996, p. 104.
‘Prohibited literature’, Daily Telegraph, 21 September 1901, p. 9.
Coleman, 1963, p. 12.
1904 New South Wales Royal Commission on the Decline of the Birth Rate and on the Mortality of Infants in New South Wales Report, vol. 1, p. 32.
Heath, in Lyons and Arnold (eds), 2001, pp. 69–82. Justice Windeyer ruled in 1888 that information about birth control was not obscene.
General order 978, in Coleman, 1963, p. 20. H.N.P. Wollaston would write in 1904 that ‘the question of what is indecent is so largely a matter of taste that no definition can be given which is entirely satisfactory to all minds’. See Wollaston, 1904, pp. 35–36.
Marr, 2008, p. 464.
‘Trade and Customs: the interesting history of a great department’, Life: a record for busy folk, Melbourne, 15 November 1907, p. 446.
Heath, 2010, p. 95.
Garran, 1958, p. 221.
Moore, 2012, p. 73.
Ibid., p. 77.
See, in particular, Barnes, 2014, pp. 75–93.
Norman Lindsay, ‘Norman Lindsay loses his temper at last with officialdom’, Smith’s Weekly, 31 May 1930, p. 8.
‘Banning a book’, Argus, 19 January 1933, p. 8.
‘Books and morals’, News (Adelaide), 18 January 1933, p. 4.
‘Brave new world’, Herald (Melbourne), 9 February 1933, p. 14.
‘Censorship of Books’, Cabinet decision, 9 May 1933, Papers of Thomas White, National Library of Australia (NLA) MS 9148.
‘Book censorship: Advisory Board’s duties’, Sydney Morning Herald (SMH), 14 July 1933, p. 12.
Barnes, 2014, p. 78.
For background on Ball, see Koyabashi, 2013, pp. 35–38. For an authoritative account of the league’s activities, see Barnes, 2014, pp. 75–93.
Sendy, 1983, p. 68.
W. Macmahon Ball, ‘Book censorship’, Age, 16 February 1935, p. 23.
White to Jieland, 5 September 1935, Papers of Thomas White, NLA MS 9148.
It also stirred his combative side. White pushed back, hard, on critics in the press; he claimed that the Book Censorship Abolition League was disingenuous about its aims and that it wished to allow the proliferation of indecent and obscene material — that is, pornography. He quoted inaccurate figures about the instances of censorship, and conflated works that had been banned for indecency with works that had been banned on grounds of sedition. Interspersed with this were some credible arguments for a degree of censorship. The most compelling was that the Commonwealth’s withdrawal from censorship would result in inconsistent application of censorship across the country, as each state would deal with works differently; moreover, this argument ran, any move to liberalise the importing and distribution of political works would allow obscene works, too.
Martin, 1993, p. 202. For a further example of Menzies’ liberalism on these questions during this interwar period, see the minutes of his 9 November 1937 meeting with leaders of the Council for Civil Liberties. Calling him ‘a liberal influence’ in the cabinet, those leaders would ask Menzies for help removing postal restrictions on the circulation of a Yugoslavian newspaper, and debate with him the provisions of the War Precautions Act that allowed the prosecution of individuals for inciting the overthrow of the government; see National Archives of Australia (NAA): CP450/7, 284.
Lyons, Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates (CPD), vol. 150, 22 May 1936, p. 2243; Douglas, 2002, pp. 150–51.
Sir Robert Garran was appointed to this position. For Garran’s views on censorship, see Garran, 1958, pp. 391–94; for criticism of Garran’s work, see Moore, 2012, pp. 33–35.
Fisk to Wilson, 8 September 1941, NAA: C4480, 23.
Wilson to Harrison, 9 September 1941, NAA: C4480, 23.
Hasluck, 1997, pp. 61–65.
Harrison, 16 September 1941, annotation to Fisk to Wilson, NAA: C4480, 23.
‘Joyce too much for Mr Hughes’, SMH, 22 September 1941, p. 9.
‘Harrison’s hair stood on end’, Sun, 19 September 1941, p. 4.
Payne, 1980, pp. 30–31.
Fullagar J, 1948, ‘R v. Close’, Victorian Law Reports, p. 467. Fullagar’s writing on context and the existence of community standards would be cited internationally.
Iliffe, 1956, p. 134.
Kennedy to Allen, 16 May 1945, NAA: A3023, folder 1945/1947.
‘Best-selling American novel banned’, SMH, 1 August 1945, p. 3. Winsor would be profoundly unimpressed with this. ‘I don’t care whether Senator Keane likes my book or not,’ she said, after she was informed of the ban. ‘Apparently, he does not like English history. I don’t make English history. The English did it first. I only wrote about it. When a reporter writes a murder story, you don’t hang him for murder.’ See ‘Author critical of Sen. Keane’, SMH, 4 August 1945, p. 3.
Kennedy to Dedman, 1 May 1946, NAA: C4480, 23.
Fred Osborne, interviewed by Ron Hurst, NLA Oral History, TRC 4900/108.
‘Transport Publishing Company Pty Ltd et al v Literature Board of Review’, 1956, HCA 73, 99 CLR, pp. 111–31.
Page, 1970, p. 127.
Peter Cowan, interviewed by Stuart Reid, October 1991–August 1992, NLA Oral History, TRC 287, pp. 9–10, 46.
Pamela Williams, in Rigg and Copeland (eds), 1985, p. 61.
Meere to Henty, 30 May 1957, NAA: C4480, 23.
Meere to Henty, unspecified date, July 1957, NAA: C4480, 23.
For a detailed account of the ban of The Catcher in the Rye, see Nicole Moore, in Dalziell and Genoni, 2013, pp. 181–87.
Dutton, 1994, p. 373; ‘Book not banned’, Canberra Times, 26 September 1957, p. 1.
‘Censorship by customs clerks should end’, SMH, 21 September 1957, p. 2.
Henty, CPD Senate (Sen.), vol. 11, 25 October 1957, pp. 815–16.
Henty, CPD Sen., vol. 12, 14 April 1958, pp. 577–80.
Coleman, 1963, p. 31.
Murray-Smith, in Dutton and Harris (eds), 1970, p. 84.
Chapter 3: Another country
‘The James Baldwin banning’, Australian Book Review, June 1963, vol. 2, no. 8, p. 122.
As Moore notes, Customs officials had been confiscating copies of Another Country for at least six months before the board recommended its ban in May 1963. See Moore, 2012, pp. 237–38.
Binns, ‘Another Country’ report, 27 May 1963, NAA: C4419, whole series.
Dutton, Wighton, and Harris, ‘Open letter to Senator Henty’, Australian Book Review, June 1963, vol. 2, no. 8, p. 122.
Muir, 1983, p. 186.
Ibid., p. 184.
‘Freedom to read?’, Bulletin, 28 March 1964, p. 7.
Richard Walsh argues that regulations forcing newspapers and magazines to be sold through newsagencies were a way to control those newspapers and magazines. The Newsagents Association of NSW and the ACT (NANA), dominated by the mainstream press companies, was never going to
accept small, radical publications such as Oz and allow them to be sold in newsagencies. This forced Oz to have the paper sold on the streets. ‘We had found another way. It was illegal,’ Walsh says, ‘but there really was no reason why we couldn’t do it.’ Author’s interview with Richard Walsh, 15 May 2019.
Sullivan, 1998, p. 129.
Author’s interview with Richard Walsh, 15 May 2019.
Author’s correspondence with Peter Grose, 11 June 2019.
Richard Walsh, ‘Twilight of sanity’, Oz, no. 2, May 1963, pp. 4–5.
‘Abortion’, Oz, no. 1, April 1963, pp. 4–5.
Author’s interview with Richard Walsh, 15 May 2019.
Neville and Walsh, ‘Letter from editors’, Oz, no. 5, December 1963, p. 5.
Neville, 1995, pp. 28–29.
Author’s interview with Richard Walsh, 15 May 2019; Neville and Walsh, ‘Letter from editors’, Oz, no. 5, December 1963, p. 5.
Neville, 1995, p. 31.
‘What a mock!’, Obscenity, no. 2, p. 22.
‘Oz in brief’, Tharunka, 13 September 1963, p. 7.
Oz, no. 6, February 1964, p. 1.
‘The judgement of Mr Locke’, Oz, no. 14, October 1964, p. 9.
Richard Walsh, ‘Twilight of sanity’, Oz, no. 2, May 1963, pp. 4–5.
Crowe v Graham, 1958, 121 CLR 375, p. 394.
‘Trial by jury in obscenity cases’, SMH, 23 June 1967, p. 4.
Mackerras, in Clune and Turner (eds), 2006, pp. 387–99.
Evan Williams, ‘The Chief Secretary once said Hell!’, SMH, 4 October 1968, p. 2.
Willis, New South Wales Hansard Legislative Assembly, 28 September 1967, pp. 1773–79.
‘Bill to prohibit reading under-16s’, SMH, 18 January 1967, p. 1; ‘Bill to force out “smut pedlars”’, SMH, 29 September 1967, p. 5.
‘Play ban theatre seeks advice’, SMH, 26 July 1968, p. 4.
Anthony Blackshield, ‘America Hurrah’, SMH, 26 July 1968, p. 2.
Tasker, in Dutton and Harris (eds), 1970, pp. 39–44.
This account draws on Bacon, 2011; Moorhouse, 2007, pp. 5–35.
Author’s interview with Wendy Bacon, 26 June 2019.
See Tharunka, 24 February 1970, pp. 3, 5; 3 March 1970, p. 10.
‘Eskimo Nell’, Tharunka, 18 March 1970, p. 32.
Frank Moorhouse would expand on this point, arguing that justifying the publication of material on the basis of its literary merit was, in effect, meeting the establishment — synonymous with the censors — on ‘its own terms’. See Moorhouse, 1980, p. 9.
Author’s interview with Wendy Bacon, 26 June 2019.
Wendy Bacon, Val Hodgson, and Alan Rees, ‘Eskimo Nell’, Tharunka, 18 March 1970, p. 3.
Moorhouse, 1980, p. 5.
‘Tharunka obscenity charges’, SMH, 18 August 1970, p. 10.
‘Nun’s habit fined’, SMH, 13 February 1971, p. 8.
Wendy Bacon, ‘Sex and censorship’, Lot’s Wife, 18 March 1971.
Chapter 4: The lady
Quinn to Comptroller-General, 11 October 1950, NAA: A425, 1964/8571. Expurgated editions were allowed into Australia; however, it appears that Customs did not retain an unexpurgated edition with which to compare those expurgated editions.
Cabinet submission no. 975, ‘Unexpurgated editions of “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” by D.H. Lawrence’, 16 January 1961, and ‘Notes on Cabinet submission no. 975’, 10 February 1961, NAA: A4940, C3263.
Cabinet minute no. 1205, ‘Unexpurgated editions of “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” by D.H. Lawrence’, 16 February 1961, NAA: A4940, C3263; Cabinet notebook, ‘EJ Bunting, 6 February 1961–3 May 1961’, NAA: A11099, 1/50. There are rumours that Menzies was most responsible for maintaining the ban on Lady Chatterley. Stephen Murray-Smith writes that Menzies was ‘revolted by this story of the interpenetration of the working and middle classes’ and that this spurred his involvement (in Dutton and Harris (eds), 1970, p. 86). Geoffrey Robertson (2019, pp. 66–67) cites a story from Frederick Osborne, then minister for repatriation, to the effect that cabinet had expected to rescind the ban after the UK trial, but that Menzies — declaring he had read the book and was ‘not going to allow’ his wife to read it — insisted on the ban remaining in place.
Labor MP Les Haylen accused the government of being wary of antagonising the socially conservative Democratic Labor Party, whose votes Haylen suggested the government wanted in the Senate. See Haylen, CPD House of Representatives (HoR), vol. 30, 8 March 1961, pp. 49–54.
Denham Henty, ‘Press statement’, 29 June 1961, NAA: D596, 1961/2081.
‘The Trial of Lady Chatterley by RALPH, CH–Release in Australia’, NAA: A490/1, C4178.
Kenneth Anderson, interviewed by Mel Pratt, NLA Oral History, TRC 121/90.
Sheppard and Buckley, it appears, knew each other through the Council for Civil Liberties, and had met in the mid-1950s while on a delegation to Cyprus. See ‘Kenneth Donald Buckley — Volume 1’, NAA: A6119, 479 Reference Copy.
A.W. Sheppard, interviewed by Ann Turner, NLA Oral History, TRC 2725.
Ken Buckley, interviewed by Ann Turner, NLA Oral History, TRC 3018.
Author’s interview with Leon Fink, 6 March 2019.
Sheppard to Penguin, 10 February 1965, Papers of A.W. Sheppard, NLA MS 8029, Box 3; author’s interview with Leon Fink, 6 March 2019.
‘“Chatterley” book on sale today’, SMH, 15 April 1965, p. 4.
Murray-Smith, in Dutton and Harris (eds), 1970, p. 87. Sheppard later claimed that Max Harris refused to take copies of Trial so he would not run the risk of prosecution in South Australia. Solicitor and novelist Keith Thomas, writing twenty-eight years after the fact at Sheppard’s request on the matter, recalled calling on Sheppard to hear how Trial was going. Sheppard, who had received a letter from Harris, explained his refusal thus: ‘It’s not his show and he wouldn’t get any kudos out of it.’ See Thomas to Sheppard, 19 December 1992, Papers of A.W. Sheppard, NLA MS 8029, Box 4.
Sheppard to Rylah, 22 April 1965, Papers of A.W. Sheppard, NLA MS 8029, Box 3.
Sheppard to Anderson, 22 April 1965, Papers of A.W. Sheppard, NLA MS 8029, Box 3. Sheppard repeated his reminders about military rank: ‘Not that it is really relevant, but I might state, to stress my sense of responsibility, that I served for the whole period of the last war, rose to the rank of substantive colonel, was awarded MC, and my enlistment number was NX 68 (which shows that I enlisted early!).’
‘The ghost of Lady Chatterley’, SMH, 13 May 1965, p. 2.
A.W. Sheppard, interviewed by Ann Turner, NLA Oral History, TRC 2725. Sheppard’s letter to Arthur Rylah was similarly unsubtle. ‘I am writing to you personally about the above matter,’ he told the chief secretary, ‘firstly because you might remember our meeting on more than one occasion in the mess of 2/14d Fd Regt., when I was AA and QMG NT Force, and would therefore believe me to be a responsible individual.’ See Sheppard to Rylah, 22 April 1965, Papers of A.W. Sheppard, NLA MS 8029, Box 3.
‘Action by police over sale of book’, SMH, 5 May 1965, p. 4; A.W. Sheppard, ‘Accustomed as we are …’, Nation, 7 August 1965, pp. 21–22.
Flesch to Sheppard, 28 April 1965, Papers of A.W. Sheppard, NLA MS 8029, Box 3.
Sheppard to Flesch, 29 April 1965, Papers of A.W. Sheppard, NLA MS 8029, Box 3.
Cabinet submission no. 768, ‘Literature censorship — publication in Australia of prohibited book “The Trial of Lady Chatterley”’, May 1965, NAA: A5827, Volume 23/Agendum 768.
‘EJ Bunting — Notes of meetings 5 May 1965–26 May 1965’, NAA: A11099, 1/73.
Dutton, 1996, p. 73.
A.W. Sheppard, ‘Why were these books banned?’, Papers of A.W. Sheppard, NLA, MS 8029, Box 5.
Commonwealth Government Gazette, 26 October 1967, iss. 93, p. 5854.
Dunstan, 1968, p. 201.
‘Single authority on literature censorship’, 27 August 1964, NAA: A5827, VOLUME 12/AGENDUM 394.
‘Cabinet notebook, notetaker EJ Bunting, notes of meetings 1 September 1964–7 October 1964’, NAA: A11099, 1/69.
Blackshield, in Dutton and Harris (eds), 1970, pp. 17–18.
Altman, 1970, pp. 236–39.
Murray-Smith, in Dutton and Harris (eds), 1970, p. 85.
Author’s interview with Joan Masterman, 11 February 2019.
Altman, 1970, pp. 236–39.
‘Banned material in book’, SMH, 19 February 1970, p. 9.
Phillips, 1969, pp. 508–13.
Chapter 5: A literary onanism
Roth, 2016 [1959], p. 173.
Roth, 2016 [1975], p. 203.
McDaniel, 1974, p. 22.
Roth, 2016 [1975], p. 204.
Ibid., p. 205.
Kleinschmidt, 1967, pp. 123–25. Literary scholar Jeffrey Berman was the first to make the connection between Kleinschmidt’s article and Roth. See Berman, 1980; and Mosher and Berman, 2015, pp. 63–81.
Roth, 2016 [1975], pp. 29–36.
Roth, 1967a, pp. 104, 107, 191–93.
Roth, 1967b, pp. 385–98.
Roth, 1988, p. 155.
Roth, 2005 [1969], p. 1.
Ibid., p. 45.
Roth, 2005 [1969], p. 22.
Ibid., pp. 17–20.
Ibid., p. 134. There is also a strong hint that it is this same liver that is served when Portnoy’s father invites to dinner a colleague named Anne, a Gentile with whom — Portnoy comes to believe — his father has been sleeping. Certainly, as Portnoy relates it, his father’s discussion of the liver is overlaid with sexual innuendo and Judaism.
Ibid., pp. 57–60.
Ibid., pp. 36–37.
Ibid., pp. 258–68.
Roth, 2016 [1975], p. 19.
Roth, 2005 [1969], p. 274.
Brauner, in Royal (ed.), 2005, pp. 43–55.
Roth, 2016 [1988], pp. 156–57.
Albert Goldman, ‘Wild blue shocker’, Life, no. 58, 7 February 1969, pp. 52–57.
Time, 3 January 1969; ‘The Roth book’, New York Times Book Review, 14 July 1968; Raymond Sokolov, ‘Alexander the Great’, Newsweek, 24 February 1969, pp. 51–52.
The Trials of Portnoy Page 28