Editorial: Catton among pigeons

Eleanor Catton has stirred up a few commentators with her words.

A lot has already been written about Eleanor Catton and her remarks about New Zealand, New Zealanders and our politicians.

What started with a few comments at the Jaipur Literary Festival in India has snowballed into an issue that has defied the usual short window of newsworthiness and public interest.

Catton said New Zealand, like Australia and Canada, was dominated by "neoliberal, profit-obsessed, very shallow, very money-hungry politicians who do not care about culture ... They would destroy the planet in order to have the life they want. I feel very angry with my government".

Whether or not you agree with her, she's allowed to have a crack if she feels like it. Some people disagree. They called her "ungrateful" and worse. They revealed how much public funding she'd received, as if that was relevant, as if it was hush money that should ensure good little authors don't bite the hand that feeds.

Catton should have expected a response - she'd made a provocative statement. Instead the predictable reaction from certain quarters was fuel for her fire as she attacked "the New Zealand mainstream media" and "the powerful Right" who try to discredit and silence those who question them.

She promised to tell foreign media about the "inflammatory, vicious and patronising" things New Zealand media had been saying about her. In a post-Charlie Hebdo climate it's easy to get dizzy trying to keep track of these swirling freedom of speech issues. Surely if one party should be free to criticise, others should be free to question that criticism?

Catton raises important questions, but her argument is badly damaged by 1) generalising and complaining about New Zealanders claiming her Man Booker Prize success as their own, and 2) her suggestion that the only reason she missed out on the supreme New Zealand Book Award was because of "tall poppy syndrome".

It's fantastic that Catton has spoken out with her concerns - more public figures should. But they have to be able to accept that they are public figures and their views are open to public criticism.