Two viable solutions suggest themselves to me. The British Order of Merit, of which there are at any time only twenty-four members, offers a model for something new and different that might be contemplated for a modern Australia which now has an ample, in fact disproportionately large pool of distinguished artists, writers, architects, composers, choreographers, scientists and thinkers from which to select a few of the best, and place them over the background noise of, now, thousands of other no doubt worthy people in public life. Élitist? Yes, of course.

The other solution is probably better. Apart from the Congressional Medal of Honor (of which since the Civil War to date less than 3500 have been awarded for valour), there is no national honours system in the United States, and everyone here lives quite contentedly with that. Indeed, there is a sinister way in which orders of chivalry not so subtly reinforce social strata by hoisting onto the bottom rung of the ladder a worthy retired postmistress with fifty years’ dedicated service in the trenches with consistently poor remuneration, for example, whilst chiefs of the Australian Defence Force, High Court judges, governors-general and wealthy newspaper proprietors perch not so precariously on top. Do we need it? Do we want it?

Whilst contemplating those questions, I suppose it is also important to consider whether anyone in their right mind would ever have the guts to turn down a Nobel Prize, knowing that today each one comes with a cheque for ten million Swedish kronor.

Angus Trumble, New Haven, Connecticut

Praise them, praise them

Dear Editor,

I see that Mr Allington has written complaining about the poor representation of artists on the honours list (October 2008). I’m of the same mind. That is the reason why I have nominated people in the creative arts field. It is not difficult, but entails much paperwork. So far I have succeeded in helping a local choir director–musician–teacher to get an honour.

The problem, as I see it, is not one of Establishment sensitivities but of artists not wishing to go through the process. Given the insular nature of our ‘arts sector’, it is likely that jealousy will take over and that it becomes difficult to find enough people to laud and support the nominee. We don’t need another conspiracy theory or more committees, just unstinting praise and hard work to get them onto the honours list.

Thea Biesheuvel, The Gap, Qld

CORRECTION

Louise Campbell’s letter regarding Susanna de Vries’s Desert Queen: The Many Lives and Loves of Daisy Bates, which was published in the October 2008 issue, contains a mistake which was introduced at ABR. Louise Campbell wrote: ‘Nor was there ever any rumour that Frank Packer was her baby’s father. Her son, Robert Hill, was well informed by his mother of the fact that Robert Clyde Packer was his father.’ We suggested, in parentheses, that this particular Robert Clyde Packer (whose dates were 1879–1934) was Frank Packer’s elder son. He was not: he was in fact Frank Packer’s father. The confusion was with Frank Packer’s elder son of the same name (1934–2001). We regret the mistake and apologise to Louise Campbell. Ed.