What do you think?
Rate this book
The Bush by Don Watson
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
July 26, 2026
I was enthusiastic about the first 100 pages or so of The Bush by Don Watson. He tells of his growing up on farms in the Gippsland. I did have to make allowances for his belief – common among many who grow up on rural properties – that such an upbringing is superior to that of townspeople and city dwellers. But as the narrative progressed with a multitude of information and ideas – although containing much of interest – I wearied and looked forward to the last page.
Sometimes it was a stretch to connect the chapter titles to the content of the chapter. However, the contents of the chapters is always of interest. He has many quotes from books and articles. Rosa Praed, Mrs Aneas Gunn, Albert Facey, Oscar de Satge, John Oxley are favoured sources. He travels Australia recording many conversations with people on the land. Two recurring themes are the degree to which white settlement has destroyed the landscape/environment and the dispossession of the Aborigines. And he has a passion for trees.
He does appreciate nature and can write affectionately about it.”A kookaburra’s laugh sent a signal that something essential was still right with the world.”
With so many facts – professionally referenced - presented to me I found it hard to take cognisance of them all. Some stood out (to me): blow flies came to Australia from India or South Africa, the value of saltbush as a feed, non-native trees and grasses (weeds) can be better suited to the Australian landscape than native ones, triodia , spinifex can grow to be two meters tall, owls and carpet snakes can control rats on macadamia farms.
I like his take on Australians (white). (Although I still hold Russel Ward’s The Australian Legend superior). Hobby-farmers and “real farmers” referring to their properties as being “in the bush.” Without using the word “jingoism” he describes – and deplores – examples of it. He questions the Australian reliance on the Anzac legend: “part fact, part fable: the story’s meaning depends . . on what has suited Australians to make of it.” Watson asserts “the bush holds some of the same Homeric power.” And in his final pages – before an interesting Appendix – comes: “So long as . . . we go on looking at the bush for flattering images of ourselves, we must remain to some degree unacquainted with both parties.” I assume the parties to be us and the bush.
Sometimes it was a stretch to connect the chapter titles to the content of the chapter. However, the contents of the chapters is always of interest. He has many quotes from books and articles. Rosa Praed, Mrs Aneas Gunn, Albert Facey, Oscar de Satge, John Oxley are favoured sources. He travels Australia recording many conversations with people on the land. Two recurring themes are the degree to which white settlement has destroyed the landscape/environment and the dispossession of the Aborigines. And he has a passion for trees.
He does appreciate nature and can write affectionately about it.”A kookaburra’s laugh sent a signal that something essential was still right with the world.”
With so many facts – professionally referenced - presented to me I found it hard to take cognisance of them all. Some stood out (to me): blow flies came to Australia from India or South Africa, the value of saltbush as a feed, non-native trees and grasses (weeds) can be better suited to the Australian landscape than native ones, triodia , spinifex can grow to be two meters tall, owls and carpet snakes can control rats on macadamia farms.
I like his take on Australians (white). (Although I still hold Russel Ward’s The Australian Legend superior). Hobby-farmers and “real farmers” referring to their properties as being “in the bush.” Without using the word “jingoism” he describes – and deplores – examples of it. He questions the Australian reliance on the Anzac legend: “part fact, part fable: the story’s meaning depends . . on what has suited Australians to make of it.” Watson asserts “the bush holds some of the same Homeric power.” And in his final pages – before an interesting Appendix – comes: “So long as . . . we go on looking at the bush for flattering images of ourselves, we must remain to some degree unacquainted with both parties.” I assume the parties to be us and the bush.
Displaying 1 of 1 review