The abrupt announcement of the closure of Meanjin, a prominent literary journal in Australia, has ignited widespread discontent within the cultural community. This decision, made by Melbourne University Publishing (MUP) on purely financial grounds, is seen by many as a significant loss to Australian literary heritage and an alarming indicator of the precarious state of arts funding in the country.
Founded in 1940, Meanjin has served as a platform for countless Australian writers and intellectuals. The institution’s sudden closure, with no prior consultation or warning, raises serious questions about the future of similar cultural organizations across Australia. Outrage has surfaced from various stakeholders, including contributors, readers, and notable figures in the literary world, such as Peter Carey. The Booker Prize-winning author publicly lamented the decision, sharing letters he received from Meanjin in the 1970s and criticizing MUP for dismantling a vital part of Australian literary culture.
Australian literature faces numerous challenges, including a lack of financial support and a shrinking publishing market. Despite the recent establishment of Creative Australia, which aims to bolster writing and literature, public funding for literary endeavors remains significantly lower compared to other cultural sectors like performing arts and visual arts. This disparity contributes to a difficult environment for writers, where many struggle to make a living and excellent work often goes unpublished due to financial constraints.
The impact of Meanjin’s closure extends beyond its pages. The redundancy of two key editorial staff, Esther Anatolitis and Eli McLean, signals a broader decline in the arts sector, with recent cuts in various academic disciplines across Australian universities. As noted by cultural critic Graeme Turner, universities, which once nurtured cultural institutions, are now seen as potential threats to their survival.
Financially, the rationale behind the closure seems perplexing given the substantial resources at Melbourne University. In its latest annual report, the university disclosed revenues of $3.2 billion and assets totaling $12 billion. The university allocated $74.6 million for staff development and $21 million for promotional expenses in 2024, raising questions about the claim that Meanjin’s closure was necessary due to financial constraints.
Critics argue that cultural organizations like Meanjin should not be expected to operate as self-sustaining entities. Instead, they require support and investment to fulfill their mission of fostering creativity and intellectual discourse. As Catriona Menzies-Pike, former editor of the Sydney Review of Books, pointed out, there are typically options available to cultural organizations in financial distress, including fundraising or restructuring efforts, rather than outright closure.
The handling of Meanjin’s closure has also drawn ire within the arts community. The lack of transparency and communication from MUP has left many seeking answers. Although MUP’s chair, Warren Bebbington, has made brief media statements, the board has remained largely silent, prompting speculation about the future of the journal and the rationale behind the decision.
Plans for a protest against the closure are already underway, reflecting the growing discontent among those who view the decision as emblematic of a broader disconnect between universities and the communities they serve. The ongoing Senate Inquiry into misgovernance in Australian universities has amplified concerns that these institutions are losing their cultural legitimacy.
Supporters of Meanjin are hopeful that another university or publisher may step in to continue its legacy. A crowdfunding initiative aimed at establishing an independent Meanjin could also provide a viable path forward. If MUP no longer wishes to publish the journal, now is the time for them to transfer the intellectual property and back catalogue to an entity that does.
As the cultural landscape in Australia continues to evolve, the fate of Meanjin serves as a reminder of the importance of supporting literary institutions that contribute to the nation’s cultural fabric. With the right backing, the original vision of founding editor Clem Christensen—to create a journal that enriches Australia’s intellectual and aesthetic discourse—can endure and thrive in a new form.
