Also:

“They reflect the tastes of a certain kind of Australian reader: someone interested in fraught family relationships and rugged individual struggles against untamed nature. These stories tend to take place in period – especially colonial – settings. What notion of ‘Australia’ do these books encourage their readers to identify with?”

I would say that one of the central purposes of literature in any culture is to question and discuss its moorings. The books are well-regarded because they tap into concerns and insecurities that have been raised for people within a society. Authors also pick up on cultural currents, leading to significant emphasis on colonial settings etc. I think using the arts as a way to look at the past or current discomforts is a hugely important reflex.

I am also cynical about the notion of a “self-sustaining, self-consciously literary notion of Australiana”. I think this says more about the reader than the author - it seems to be cultural cringe to me. Australian authors write about Australian subjects. They are often topical, because writers (not all, but some) want to be part of a cultural conversation. Think about whether you would apply this label to American authors who set their novels in New York, or South Africans who set theirs in Cape Town. Of course it is self-conscious - they are writing about their lives and their societies. I would also say it is a lot more diverse than your portrayal.

Finally, I do understand what you mean about people defining themselves by the novels they read, and their amazing dedication to understanding suburbia etc. However, I don’t agree that novels like The Slap only “appeal to the sensibilities of a comfortable, educated and politically progressive Australian audience.” Have you researched whether people who grew up in a similar suburb might see the portrayal as particularly accurate, if not slightly more grotesque? I have had one friend tell me that it was so close to the bone for her she almost couldn’t read it.

I guess this article really highlights all the story ideas that I have put on the back burner!

I’ve read plenty of Carey, Garner and Malouf, just not those listed. I own several Winton books but can’t bring myself to read them.

Kat’s totally right - the lists are of what people would like to be seen to read rather than what they actually read. That BBC list of the 100 MUST READS that came out last year rang so false - “Hamlet” was one book, and “The Complete Works of Shakespeare” was another. “The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe” appeared alongside “The Chronicles of Narnia”. If someone asks you what your favourite book is, and you give the title of a series of books, it’s a pretty sure bet that you haven’t read any of them.

And I’ve only read four of the books on the list. The last Australian book I read was one of the Phryne Fischer mysteries; it’s probably not going to make any best of lists, but it was fun.

But my use of “excellent” in this context is probably more accurately: “Based on what I know about what I tend to enjoy in a book, and what I have heard about this particular book, I would probably really love it if only I could get over the fact that reading it would make me that sort of person.”

How do you know a book is excellent if you haven’t read it?