And what of the word imaginative? Does it take no imagination to draw back from self and perceive the workings of writing in relation to its contexts? Does it not require a force of imaginative power to think philosophically, to break out of the circle of cause and effect and guess what else might be possible?

And is it not a creative process to find connections, linking the many creative moments in ways that frame and highlight each of those moments? The more interesting and rich the source text the easier it becomes, it seems to me, to be ‘creatively imaginative’ in a work of non-fiction, so that David Marr on Patrick White is accepted quickly as the excellent writing it is, but something less obviously grand is going to have more trouble being okayed by our collective judgement, since that collective judgement scorns the work of searchers, and wants answers. I don’t want to denigrate Marr’s biography at all, and only point to its huge acceptance to suggest that it belongs to the acceptable form of critical endeavour, since it mostly tells us about the life, facts, gives us answers, frames the text, and provides a neat response to a raggedy bunch of questions about a man we wanted to take to our literary heart.

Acceptance does matter when it comes to the role of the analyst and critic. Academics have a hard enough time, but there are some whose contribution to our literary culture is as creative and imaginative as you like. Take, for example, the work of Helen Daniel. This critic has produced books such as Liars, a study of contemporary Australian novelists, and Expressway, a brilliant idea for a collection of stories using a painting as a common theme, an idea so creative that it’s been copied since. Good ideas are like that.

Critics are often academics, since academics are often committed to the necessity of keeping up their skills, reading other criticism widely, developing their theoretical knowledge – all of which are necessary if criticism and analysis and even reviewing are not to become stale and predictable. Helen Daniel has a PhD in Australian Literature, but has worked as a bookseller for many years while she has been establishing and developing her profession as a critic. When she applied for a Literature Board Grant this year, her credentials were faultless; a number of successful books and a writing project assured of a publisher. But Helen Daniel writes like no one else in Australia, and her dedication to Australian writing means that she is, I would imagine, one of the most informed critics we have. Certainly she is the most generous with her time and advice. I know that the Literature Board has many many worthy applications, and every person who missed out will have a strong case as to why they should have been among the fortunate few. But it seems to me a pity that this unique application was not seen for what it was – unique. The commitment of Helen Daniel as a creative and imaginative critic, her contribution to Australian writing, would seem to me to put her at the very top of any grant list. And this comment is meant less as a criticism of the difficult decisions made by the Board than as an acknowledgement of the contribution made by critics such as Helen Daniel.

I look forward to bringing you ABR again next year.