Goes to show the first duty of a writer, journalist or politician is to interest readers or voters. If attractive written works or speeches subsequently lead to humanitarian benefits all the better.

The obscurity of much Australian writing is like our Film Industry in the last 15 years (since Lantana perhaps). Experimentation (actually and consciously emulating French Film elitism) has merely excited doting critics and a snooty serious minority of SydMels.

Planta

I must admit I did wonder at the point of this article, since Elizabeth herself makes the point that a writer's message is lost if no-one reads her work. Perhaps Ashton's work is too obvertly polemical to interest most readers.

The title of the article really gives the whole thing away.
Placing "dominant", "Hollywood" and "inherently reactionary" in one title sentence isn't probably the most subtle way to let us know all the things Elizabeth doesn't like.

Our taste in books as in art is so very subjective.
However most of us will agree that a good book will
make the reader hear, feel and see. It will provide
an "aesthetic experience." To most of us the story
(narrative) is of paramount importance and the story
should have the power to absorb the reader totally.

The reviewer's critique in this instance has given us
enough of a glimpse at least to me - to want to borrow
the book from my local library. It seems that the author
(as described here) has given her readers enough of her
knowledge, perception, and understanding of the world
of others, and of themselves, the many dimensions of the
experience of being human. That in itself encourages me
to want to read the book.