The Madwoman's Underclothes: Essays and Occasional Writings

`Her own side' might be the best answer, but it is still liable to create the wrong impression. On the one hand Germaine Greer is impossible to pigeonhole in any established camp or movement, even as a `radical' whatever that is. On the other hand it still seems to me that even as a solo voice she eludes classification too. I don't hear her as trying to establish for herself some individual and distinctive niche as, say, Anne Coulter might be thought to do. Nor do I really believe that she is setting out to shock for the sake of shocking. She is a kind of strident voice of rationality, and that is actually no kind of paradox or oxymoron. She must carry a load of emotional and psychological baggage from her upbringing and her background just as we all do, but she carries it lightly, or seems to. She will ignore conventions blithely, but not just for the sake of ignoring them; and when she seeks attention (which is what any writer is doing) she seeks it for her ideas and arguments. Even the stridency needs some qualification. Her prose is shapely and clear, and although she can turn out some memorable statements the style is all at the service of the thoughts and not driven by a gift or urge for phrasemaking as such, something that could be said of either Muggeridge or her friend Clive James.What gives people problems with Germaine Greer, it seems to me, is her sheer phenomenal articulacy. She can cover more ideas per square paragraph than probably any other journalist I know, but she never seems to lose her thread or lose focus. As we toil along in her wake it's easy to become irritated and frustrated, and that, on top of people's emotional blocks, is no doubt why she arouses resentment. Another notion that I feel is not applicable to her is `extreme'. Indeed she is off orthodoxy's radar at times, but that is not what `extreme' means. I have to come back to it - if her opinions annoy you, try refuting them for themselves without appeals to majorities, silent dumbstruck or other, and see how you get on. It is a perfectly valid answer to many a drastic insight that public opinion will just not wear such a concept, but it is an answer rooted in prudence and practicality, not an intellectual answer. However even prudence should not prevent any of us, as thinking individuals if not as political agents, from seeing clearly when conventional wisdom is talking rubbish and Dr Greer is talking sense, as in her ironic comments on the views of Dr Rhodes Boyson in the matter of adoption of children by same-sex couples in A Modest Proposal.This collection of writings is also a pleasant reminder of a couple of eras, for those of us who are old enough. If you want to get an idea of just how Germaine Greer really related to `The Underground' and other such soi-disant radical movements there are some highly readable essays here and some trenchant assessments of some of the publicity-minded figures linked with these movements, such as Richard Neville. In particular, there is a brilliant demolition in the essay starting on p51 of this edition of a wretched and snivelling piece of pampered and posturing self-pity by one fun revolutionary of a kind drearily familiar in the early 70's. I do not give the title here because it is not actually Germaine Greer's title but one she quotes from the organisers of the festival in question.Not all the pieces here were published previously, although all were intended for publication. The selection seems to me to show the author at her multi-talented best, and I expect that has been her intention as well. The period covered is 1968-1985, and it is very interesting to try to work out how many right horses and how many three-legged mokes Germaine Greer has backed. Right at the end there is a lengthy and highly serious piece on the resettlement programme in Ethiopia, a programme widely attacked in the western media. What comes over loud and clear is the sheer irresponsible laziness of a great deal of this comment, and the feeble-minded reliance on conventional anti-communist platitudes that she found being trotted out under the disguise of informed reporting. Do not jump to conclusions, either from that or from her sympathetic coverage of a conference in Cuba, that she is anything that can be termed `left-wing', or if you are tempted to do so please note her withering remarks on the behaviour of the Soviet personnel. If there is anything `extreme' about Germaine Greer it is her extreme mental honesty. Extreme also is this book's sheer readability and entertainment value so far as I am concerned. Not all reviews that I have noticed seem to me to have captured the flavour of the writing. Some other reviews quoted in extracts on the back of the book hit that nail on the head better, I'd say, but of course this is only my own viewpoint and you have to find the book first to see what these latter reviews have to say. If the period covered holds any interest for you, if you find exhilaration in mental alertness, mental honesty and a truly remarkable communicative ability I think you will enjoy this collection. If you are not too sure how you may react, try the book anyway and assess yourself on a stuffiness-scale from 1 to 10.

Love Greer

Fine book.

I bought this just to read her 1971 "Suck Magazine" submission. It is a worthwhile read. However, her prose is a bit disjointed, and certainly does not flow smoothly. I also found some of the language difficult to understand. I'm not sure whether this was because she wrote in the vernacular, or a British dialect.This collection would be especially useful for anyone who wants some context for a tumultuous era.