Australian Literary Journalism and “Missing Voices”: How Helen Garner finally resolves this recurring ethical tension

Joseph, S

Australian Literary Journalism and “Missing Voices”: How Helen Garner finally resolves this recurring ethical tension

Joseph, S

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Journalism Practice, 2016, 10 (6), pp. 730 - 743
Issue Date:: 2016-08-17

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Accepted Manuscript VersionAdobe PDF (204.58 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Joseph, S https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4978-6633	en_US
dc.date.available	2020-05-25T19:22:23Z
dc.date.issued	2016-08-17	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Journalism Practice, 2016, 10 (6), pp. 730 - 743	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	1751-2786	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/43528
dc.description.abstract	© 2015 Taylor & Francis. Australian author Helen Garner has written three of the most debated literary journalism texts in Australia in the past 20 years. All book-length, all literary in articulation, all dealing with traumatic legal cases—but all with crucial missing voices. Choosing to write into trauma as both witness and story-teller, Garner creates a certain inter-subjectivity throughout her work: her voice is witness to others’ traumas; and as a character within the texts, story-teller of those traumas. But there is a recurring component of voicelessness in each of the three texts which will be delineated and discussed in this paper, with the principal focus on her latest text, This House of Grief: The Story of a Murder Trial. How does Garner manage to tell the story ethically when the main protagonists refuse her interview? With this absence of voice, is this text still an ethical rendering?	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Journalism Practice	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1080/17512786.2015.1058180	en_US
dc.title	Australian Literary Journalism and “Missing Voices”: How Helen Garner finally resolves this recurring ethical tension	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	6	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	10	en_US
utslib.for	2001 Communication and Media Studies	en_US
utslib.for	2005 Literary Studies	en_US
utslib.for	1903 Journalism and Professional Writing	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences/Creative Writing Program
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CPCE - Centre for Creative Practices and the Cultural Economy
utslib.copyright.status	open_access
pubs.issue	6	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	10	en_US

Abstract:

© 2015 Taylor & Francis. Australian author Helen Garner has written three of the most debated literary journalism texts in Australia in the past 20 years. All book-length, all literary in articulation, all dealing with traumatic legal cases—but all with crucial missing voices. Choosing to write into trauma as both witness and story-teller, Garner creates a certain inter-subjectivity throughout her work: her voice is witness to others’ traumas; and as a character within the texts, story-teller of those traumas. But there is a recurring component of voicelessness in each of the three texts which will be delineated and discussed in this paper, with the principal focus on her latest text, This House of Grief: The Story of a Murder Trial. How does Garner manage to tell the story ethically when the main protagonists refuse her interview? With this absence of voice, is this text still an ethical rendering?

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/43528