Book Notes: "An Orderley Man" by Dirk Bogarde

An Orderly Man by Dirk Bogarde

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


This is the third of Bogarde's autobiographical works. I am reading these in random order as I stumble upon each book in second-hand book stores. Yet there is a continuity in Bogarde's writing that seems to make it easy to piece together. Each work is a standalone wonder of personal stories that are somehow vividly interesting. I "discovered" Bogarde after reading Thomas Mann's Death in Venice and then watching the movie of the book. I also "discovered" Mahler. After watching the movie, I have become more aware of the name of Dirk Bogarde and this has sent me on a mission to read all of his works (15 I believe). An Orderly Man is of interest because it covers the period of Bogarde's portrayal of Gustave Aschenbach. The work brings to life Visconti and other famous Art House directors and screen writers and presents in sharp relief the life of an English actor of the period working on the Continent versus the excesses of fame and fortune in Hollywood. Bogarde's humility shines through and it is difficult not to admire the "underdog" and his trials and tribulations. Mind you, living in Provence and existing by acting and writing are hardly the banal stuff of most people's lot. Yet the stories are fascinating, Bogarde makes a wonderful success of writing about writing (and acting) and finishing each of his books so far leaves me calmly contented and eager for the next book.



View all my reviews

Book Notes: "Nightwood" by Djuna Barnes

Nightwood by Djuna Barnes

My rating: 3 of 5 stars


While it is not fair to compare Barnes to other authors (and on International Women's Day it was poignant to read T.S.Eliot's foreword suggesting that Barnes is one of the few good female authors), I could not help but feel like I was reading a cross between Thomas Mann and Franz Kafka, with a touch of Gertrude Stein. The discussion of night and day was interesting, especially after reading Scott Fitzgerald's "The Crack Up" from Esquire magazine in 1936 which touched on similar ideas. Given that Nightwood and "The Crack Up" were both published in 1936, it is clear that the period represents a significant change in the style and tone of literature from the greats of the 1920s. Nightwood has intrigued me enough to want to read Barnes' earlier work. What distinguishes Barnes' dialogue from Charlotte Brontë and Mary Shelley was that when I felt it was far too long for realistic conversations, the author indicates that the listener had also tuned out (on occasion). I found this clever and kept me intrigued, whereas Brontë and Shelley drag on with their dialogue without apology, and I find this hard work to stay interested. Not so with Djuna Barnes and I am glad I found this gem at the Argyle Emporium in Goulburn the other day.



View all my reviews

Ideas Boom: Focusing on positives masks growth opportunities

Business Council of Australia - Innovation from BCAcomau

There is a great deal of talk at the moment about innovation: how to do it and why we need to do it. The Australian Government is calling it "The Ideas Boom".

But while the rhetoric and political spin have freshened up the stale conservative nature of Australian political debate, the Prime Minister's desire to encourage an "agile" and "disruptive" economy is proving more difficult than meets the eye.

The institutions - or "the rules of the game" - are glossed over in terms of "cultural change" (see the BCA presentation above), but there is barely an attempt to understand what holds us back and why.

Two days ago, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that Harry Johnson found the easiest way to overcome the obstacles facing entrepreneurs in Australia was to move to the United States. His ideas will boom elsewhere.

So why is it that there are so many obstacles to innovation in Australia and why, despite the current focus on the "Ideas Boom", is there no agenda for change? Governments in Australia hold a deep-seated belief that they can direct policy outcomes by throwing money at various programs (or "programmes" - how readily people follow government trends!). The endless "Ideas Boom" funding advertisements popping up in the middle of "The X Files" are a case in point.

After many years studying institutions and trying to innovate in a variety of sectors, I have experienced time and again a general lack of willingness on the part of leaders to confront the obstacles to innovation in organisational, policy and regulatory systems. My favourite approach, for example, is to ask everybody in an organisation to list three things that currently make their job difficult - I refer to this as the "pet peeve" technique. The idea is that where job difficulties overlap, fixing these first can give you a "quick win" in improving existing systems. Invariably, I am told by leaders that we should focus on the positives, not the negatives, and that allowing everybody to have a whinge will only lead to no good.

But let's think about this from an individual perspective. What if you were to reflect on your own performance by only looking at the positives? Imagine a person who refused to look at the negatives while attempting to be a reflective practitioner? It would be the worst kind of outcome. The individual would think they were great while the rest of the world thought quite the opposite. Why is it any different for governments, businesses, or, indeed, leaders?

If innovation is to become widespread and a real, rather than rhetorical, part of the Australian economy, there needs to be some genuine reflection on the part of governments, policy-makers, and business leaders.

What is clear is that throwing money at innovative projects is not a long-term solution (other than government ticking off a policy agenda item, for example "we have invested in innovation to the tune of $X million"). There needs to be a "first principles" review with some deep and hard reflection.

If the ideas boom is to materialise, then focusing on the positives won't help to change the barriers to innovation. Only by identifying the underlying problems that led to the current "innovation crisis" will enable us to find solutions with impact. Otherwise, focusing on the positives will only reinforce the current problems while masking the real opportunities for growth.

Culture, after all, is "the way things are down around here" in response to the "rules of the game". If innovation is about creating something new, then trying to change the culture without changing the rules is the opposite of innovative.