I think anything could be achieved with the current tools of CGI. But I don't think that's what the story's author, Joan Lindsay - or Peter Weir, for that matter - would have wanted. The film utilises subtlety and understatement to allow audience imaginations to 'confabulate', or fill in the bits that seem to be missing.
The point regarding the eighteenth chapter (made into "The Secret of Hanging Rock") that constantly seems to be overlooked is that it was excluded by mutual agreement by both the author and her publisher. This is not a controversial process in the writing game, I would have thought, and so the portrayal of this is as a 'secret' is akin to calling what used to be discarded celluloid on the cutting room floor 'secrets' of the motion picture to which it used to belong. It's a drafting and editing process; nothing more or less. The final work that is communicated is what matters.
Several years later, Joan Lindsay gave an interview to the Arts Australia Council where she exclaimed that, "...it was like dropping a stone into the water...I felt that...the thing that happened on St. Valentine's Day went on spreading, out and out and out, in circles, from that first thing that happened. And it went on, and it affected so many lives, and so many people, and so many generations ahead, and before and after..."
This vision of a 'ripple effect' is quite different to what was depicted in the eighteenth chapter, and vindicates its exclusion.
reply
share
HijodelCid
11 years ago
Chapter 18 does exist; 'tis not as if Lady Joan wanted it to remain unknown forever.
God is subtle, but He is not malicious. (Albert Einstein)
reply
share
couzijn
11 years ago
As far as I know, there is no material evidence whatsoever that proves beyond reasonable doubt that Joan Lindsay wrote that '18th chapter'. There is no manuscript, no will, and no authorized written agreement between Lindsay and her publisher about this so-called 'missing chapter'.
What material evidence do you have for a 'mutual agreement by both the author and her publisher' about the exclusion of an '18th chapter'? Is it available? Is its authenticity beyond reasonable doubt?
There are many reasons to doubt the authenticity of the so-called 'missing chapter'. And if it is a sham indeed, we would wrong the famous Joan Lindsay once more by putting it into film. During her lifetime, Lindsay was *very* vocal about the fact that there was no 'solution' to the mystery, and that she wanted no 'solution' to be included in her book.
reply
share
MobiusPub
11 years ago
The only material evidence I can proffer is expert testimony from one of her former editors at Cheshire Publishing, Sandra Forbes, who has been interviewed a number of times in the media on the subject of the excluded chapter. Her latest radio interview was within the last twelve months given to a Queensland (AU) radio station.
The fact that it was written by Lindsay is hardly controversial; the fact is that Lindsay didn't like it and received similar advice from her publisher, John Taylor. They both thought that its exclusion was best for the story. Surely she would not be the first author who has ever received such advice? Is this not a normal part of the editing process?
And it turned out to be a good decision, not only for the effect of the story on the readership, but also for the consistency of her story-telling. In an interview for the Arts Australia Council in 1974 - seven years after her book's release and one year before the motion picture - the imagery she had for *what* might have occurred was vastly different, and more sophisticated in my view, from that of the discarded eighteenth chapter.
I suppose any other evidence you seek is in the hands of her estate and her literary agent. If the eighteenth chapter had been fraudulently released under her name, I'm sure we all would have heard about it.
Perhaps the only point of criticism I have is its posthumous release as "The Secret...". I think this elevated public expectations to a level which led to great disappointment. But what else would you expect from a discarded chapter?
reply
share
couzijn
11 years ago
Thank you for your reply. You still take it for granted that it is a 'fact' that 'Lindsay didn't like the 18th chapter' and that she 'received similar advice from her publisher, John Taylor'. I once more note that I have seen no material, convincing evidence to support this so-called 'fact'. It is a 'fact' that any fraudulent publisher should like to see presented as 'fact' while it is not.
'Expert testimony' will not do; too much personal involvement. What I need is material evidence. If Lindsay did offer a manuscript to her publisher, then *where is it*? If she did agree to retract it, and wrote so in a letter, then *where is it*? If Lindsay wrote her publisher a letter, asking to publish the 18th chapter after her death, then *where is it*? If Lindsay has asked a notary to put this in her will, then *where is it*?
So many opportunities to 'prove' beyond reasonable doubt that Joan Lindsay did write that 18th chapter. So many opportunities, and none of them taken.
I would be curious. Why wouldn't you?
Can you tell me where I can find the interview with Lindsay 'for the Arts Australia Council in 1974'?
reply
share
MobiusPub
11 years ago
I'm not clear on the type of material evidence you seek. If, as you posit, there are fraudulent publishers willing to promote the current position, surely any printed document to the contrary, presented forty six years later, could also be argued as fraudulent. I doubt if they could establish any absolute certainty.
Our current understanding will, in fact, do for me. I find the evidence persuasive. On balance, I think it is the most likely explanation of what occurred.
Having said that, I do think your question is a good one and I will bear it in mind. Likewise I would be very interested if compelling evidence surfaced to support your contention.
Her 1974 interview is here:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xf521f_joan-lindsay-interviewed_people?start=2#.Ua2PEpXuiqA
and is also featured in one of the extras to the DVD of the 1975 movie.
Good luck with your search.
reply
share
couzijn
10 years ago
I think that I was quite clear and rather concrete on the type of material evidence I seek. Please see my last post. Manuscripts, typoscripts, annotations, letters, wills, that is all right for me. Yet there are none.
Yes, documents could be challenged as well. Yet there is a possibility that they are accepted, too. The idea that they *could* be challenged is no valid reason to stop submitting them.
I respect your viewpoint (that 'the current understanding will do for you' etc.) But it is nothing but a re-presentation of a viewpoint that is being challenged. No matter how many times that point of view is re-presented. It does not contribute to the discussion.
So the discussion does not stop here. Still I am waiting for material evidence of Lindsay having written that '18th chapter'. So far, none occurred.
reply
share
MobiusPub
11 years ago
There is provision in law which supports the contention that the posthumous attribution of Chapter 18 to the author is correct.
Specifically, it relates to an author's moral rights. From the Australian Writers' Guild:
"...this can be found in Article 6bis of the International Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and Part IX of the Copyright Act 1968 in Australia.
It represents the most basic and important foundation on which an author's reputation and career are built and their right to be recognised as the author of their work.
Moral rights are a creator’s non-economic/personal rights in a copyrighted works or film they have created. Specifically they include the right to:
• be identified and attributed (i.e. credited) as an author of their work;
• not to have their work falsely attributed (i.e. credited to another); and
• ensure their work is not subjected to derogatory treatment (i.e. treated in any manner harmful to the author's honour or reputation)."
So if the author's name had been fraudulently attributed to 'Chapter 18', what is the likelihood that her estate or literary agent would do nothing about it?
reply
share
sigmundfreud79
11 years ago
"So if the author's name had been fraudulently attributed to 'Chapter 18', what is the likelihood that her estate or literary agent would do nothing about it?"
If there's money to be made a lot of people will keep their mouths shut.
Anyway, chapter 18 is totally out of step with the tone of the preceding book. Likewise it would be ridiculous as part of the film. It would completely rob the story of it's power, not to mention would likely just look really silly. It can be fun to ponder what ifs about how they could've ended the book and film differently, but Picnic is perfect as is.
reply
share
couzijn
10 years ago
It is a good thing to know that I am advoocating Lindsay's NON-authorship of "The Secret" in her lawful interest. Because she apparently has a right to NOT being called the author of "The Secret" if, in fact, she is not the author.
You move on by asking what is the likelihood of Lindsay's estate (or her agent) *not doing anything* about a potentially erroneous attribution of "The Secret" to Mrs. Lindsay. Well, I don't know about that likelihood and I don't care. Lindsay's estate is not the highest authority in this matter; science is.
So even if the estate or Lindsay's agent are doing nothing (for passivity, laziness, misinformation or whatever reason) it does not prove a thing.
reply
share