This book was recommended to me as a reasonably accurate take on sex-work in Australia. I've heard of the book before, but had little interest in the dramatic-miserable-memoir genre it seemed to belong to. it has been winking at me on the reader for a while, and got a guernsey during some bouts if insomnia this week.
There was enough dramatic-miserable-memoir, or at least pretty repetitive stories about sex, to make me glad it wasn't longer. But there were two things I hadn't expected.
Firstly, the approach of straight memoir combined with Holden's particular style and intelligence, means instead if grand narrative, we get truthful contradictory effects from choices and ambivalent feelings. Holden deisnt seem to feel it is necessary to explain whether sex work made her 'better' or 'worse', or to portray heroin as either nightmare or bliss. It is obvious that Holden has a number of social critiques (there are endearing self-deprecating anecdotes about her regaling clients with them) but she has chosen to keep them out of the book. This allows the reader to make up her own mind.
So when I say that Holden's story clearly illustrates a basic truth about sex work - that for women who enter it willingly, it represents a solution to their problems, not a cause* - it's worth pointing out that it is my interpretation of the book, not Holden's.
*of course, sex work can bring with it it's own problems clearly. just like most between-a-hard-rock-etc choices do. And sometimes, it is clearly a crap solution. but if anti-prostitution campaigners spent more time trying to deal with the problems for which sex-work is a solution, we'd all be better off.
The second surprise was how familiar this all was. Holden is of my age, studied the same course, and I lived in Melbourne during the early years the book covers, hanging out in the same suburbs and rough social mileu. Don't get me wrong, I've never sold sex or taken heroin, but I had friends who did. Some parts of the story were so familiar, I had to wrack my brain to see if I could have known Holden (I didn't). living in South Melbourne, I walked past several brothels every day and night, dodging the young men in tracksuits who came reeling out. Strangely, the novel filled me with a strange nostalgia, as well as recasting parts of a story I hadn't understood. I think mine and Kate's generation were badly served by drug education, which was frankly scare based. I remember struggling to understand how heroin users could be functional, and yet still addicts. none of it made any sense to me, brought up on "one hit=junkie=zombie" propaganda. And while I loved Trainspotting, no-one I knew spoke in a Scottish accent.
And yet, in many ways Kate's story echoes exactly the scare campaigns we were taught. Take drugs, scam your parents, walk the street - she swerves before the overdose step, but it would have been a real risk. The difference isn't the broad brush sweeps, it is the humanity. The not-a-zombie. The portrayal of junkies as zombies, like sex-workers as abused dolls, serves to justify taking choices away from them, by criminalising behaviour, or infantalising regulations such as compulsory removal of children, or denial of access to benefits unless behaviour changes. It denies what seems to me to be a basic principles - if you are going to help people, give them control over their own lives. Recovery from anything - illness, bad choices, shit luck - requires regaining power. And that means control.