Saving the Australian War Effort in 1916? The Significance and Impact of Global Climatic Conditions and Pests on William Morris Hughes’ Negotiations with the British Government

Taking up the thesis of Dipesh Chakrabarty (2009) that human history (including cultural history) on the one hand and natural history on the other must be brought into conversation more than has been done so in the past, this presentation will focus more closely on the significance and the impact of global climatic conditions and pests on the negotiations that Australian Prime Minister William Morris Hughes carried on with the British government between March and November 1916. Whereas Australia had been able to sell most of its produce in 1914 and 1915 the situation looked more serious in 1916, not least due to the growing shortage in shipping. It was therefore imperative for the Australian government to find a way to solve this problem, not least because it wanted to keep up its own war effort at the pace it had been going so far. In this context intentions to make or press ahead with a contribution to a war perceived to be more total those of the past interacted with natural phenomena such as the declining harvest in many parts of the world in 1916 as a consequence of climatic conditions as well as pests in many parts of the world.

“But look: we have sat here too long”: Hilary Mantel’s tightrope walk of present-tense usage

Even after Hilary Mantel has won the Man Booker prize two times in a row with Wolf Hall and Bring up the Bodies, her novelistic account of the life of Thomas Cromwell, her intriguing decision to write these historical novels in the present tense gave cause to surprisingly little extended comment beyond a perfunctory nod to its evocation of immediacy. This presents not only a lacunae in the discussion about Mantel’s novels, but is also symptomatic for a change in the contemporary critical evaluation of present-tense narration in general. If present-tense narration once used to be a marker for experimental daring and might even have implied a certain hostility towards fictionality, Mantel’s novels give ample evidence that literary sensibilities have changed. In order to understand the scope and nature of this change, my paper puts Mantel’s use of the present tense in the context of both the historical development of present-tense usage and the ample contemporary landscape of present-tense narration. This allows me to show that the complexities of present-tense usage belie a reduction of its effect to an evocation of immediacy. Rather, I argue, Mantel uses it for a delicate tightrope walk between proximity and distance, history and fiction, authenticity and imagination.