Manning Clark

Clark’s style so far was eclectic but somehow conform with any historiographical book written at the time in terms of type of criticisms. He did not made large use of world wide economic theories and class struggle. He was referred for his work as a generally lefty author, reputation he ended up living with peacefully. All conservatives kept strongly criticising his views on history, often just due to his reputation as a left-wing historian, more that for its real radicalism.

Clark took part in different movements as he had such an active political life initially. But when he started his meeting with the two major exponents of lefty ideologies, Donald Horne and Patrik White, he was at the centre of attention of the cultural press in Australia. The intellectual right got mad at him. He was denounced by the same magazine he was once a member of, The Quadrant.  Also the Murdoch denounced him on the basis of assumptions that he was bigot and making re-emerge what Australian should have been ashamed of: its sexism, racism and general religious conservatism.
He was unfairly compared with Geoffrey Blainey, Australia most orthodox historian also member of the “black armband” and who became a hero of the right with his racist speech, in 1984, criticising massive invasion of Asian immigration to Australia. Clark responded to such attacks becoming a more ferocious spokesman, but that simply created more enemies and further attacks. These ideological wars were so devastating and disorientating for the public mainly because most of the participants had been colleagues or in similar parties in the past.
As we were aware of Clark leading reputation on the press and media and as an eclectic historian, we can imagine how most of the criticism were made on this basis and not on the basis of his political though, often left aside. Hi career in this time declined, as well as his reputation as historian. The last two tomes received no attention, as he was not credible anymore for the intellectuals. They were accepted by the community of intellectual as a last effort of the author to leave some of his philosophical and political views to his compatriots, nevertheless they were never taken seriously. As he was at the end of his life, he started becoming repetitive and less innovative, reasons why he was disregarded as an author. Even one of his majors reader, friend and critic Peter Ryan confessed after his death that the quality of his work declined enormously in the last phase of his life.  For the V tome many historian agreed on saying that the poor content of his work was greater. At the same time they were reluctant about writing it publicly, as Clark was about to die.

Clark had this amazing talent to depict his character in a very fictional way, following around history their tragedies. His technique worked perfectly to narrate character like MacArthur but lacked of depth when he used them to describe more complex historical issues of the 20th century.  The general tendency was for  young historians to disregard very much of the global economic, social and political overview of Australia and this contributed to Clark’s unpopularity. Clark’s strong fatalism in his historical interpretation was at the centre of the attack as well.
Bill Cope pointed out how the irony and fake determinism behind Clark’s work left his second-generation reader more and more incredulous. The old historian was now being isolated from both the political and social scene of his times. As the way to see history in Australia changed and Clark did not modernised enough his thoughts in order to be part of it. Even some of the most moderate historian defined Clark’s progress prevention and his inability to engage in debates and accepts contrasting views a central key of his failures as historian.