this is historical fiction at its very best. The story, we know. She is telling the story of the life and work of Thomas Cromwell, Master Secretary to Henry VIII, and this book tells the last three weeks or so of the life of Anne Boleyn, with references to earlier times. We know the ending (and Anne has long been a hero to me) but the story still is gripping.
The notions are contemporary: "This is about, which will you have: Henry Tudor or Alessandro Farnese? The King of England at Whitehall, or some fantastically corrupt foreigner in the Vatican?"
German scholars speak "the many varieties of their tongue" - as they do today, and it was German scholars who were the Protestants that Henry was not.
Old England: "Did they pick the quinces? It can't be long till we have frost. I feel it in my bones."
Anne, indeed, is called "a bag of bones" and the book says judges herself more harshly than any others can. When taken to the Tower she cries out that the lodgings are too good for her. She has not after all, had a son for Henry. Though the daughter she had for him lives to be the greatest monarch England has known. Arguably. And with red hair.
Those condemned long for life despite themselves: "you think you cannot keep breathing, but your ribcage has other ideas: rising and falling, emitting sighs. You must thrive in spite of yourself, and so that you may do it God takes out your heart of flesh, and gives you a heart of stone."
Cromwell, in this book, says "they do not say she is innocent. They are not able. It may be that she is, but none of them will give his word on it."
"I have only a little neck", says Anne. "It will be the work of a moment."
Wednesday, 30 May 2012
Tuesday, 29 May 2012
Obliged to Offend: What Christopher Hitchens left behind
Obliged to Offend: What Christopher Hitchens left behind
and more of us should read him, and think on these things.
and more of us should read him, and think on these things.
right or left? it's all kicked off in Strasbourg
 |
| Dieudonne |
Write a letter to the President, when something actually needs doing? That's not how to get things done. An elected representative, or someone who hopes to be one, should be taking action, not writing letters. Remind you of anyone?
Amanda Coe, What They Do In The Dark
I don't remember why I bought this book, I may have seen a review of it some months ago, or someone might have recommended it to me. Anyway it was an interesting read, though not a pleasant one. Set against the background of a film shoot in the mid-1970s, it is superficially about an unlikely relationship between two girls from very different backgrounds, but in fact is a coming of age story and is about character and the crushing of assumptions. As a great many books are. The most obvious word for it is "dark" - but that implies that Something Horrid Happens and you guess what it is from about page 17. Not the case here. Something Horrid does indeed happen, and it is shocking, and I still feel a bit sick from having read it yesterday, but it is Not What You Think.
I don't know how old Amanda Coe is, but I suspect she is too young to remember what life was like in England in the mid-1970s, at least as an adult. The period detail is there, and is OK, but there is not quite enough of it, and it does not quite convince - as if she does not have the confidence to put it all in. A book that starts with the obituary of a child star and has the context of a film starring Dirk Bogarde as a paedophile (well, who else would you have cast, in the 1970s?) might be about exploitation and corruption, might it not? No, actually, in this case.
Amanda Coe has, apparently, written scripts for the TV programme Shameless, which I have seen once or twice and found lame and unconvincing. It shows. I didn't grow up on a sink estate, but I know that people from Rough Backgrounds are not really as she writes them. I know enough to know that. The character of the child Pauline, from just such a background, deserves a more rounded treatment than she gets. But the fact that I can even write this in this way shows that I believed in the characters, to an extent - I could also immediately see all the characters in a TV series. Which is presumably what Amanda Coe intended. I wonder if it will happen. I can't say I liked this book, but I was mad to know what happened next, and ill with dread at the Something Horrid that looms larger with every page you turn (which I didn't, because I read it on a Kindle, but you know what I mean). And that's no small achievement. This was her first novel, and I shall look out for what she comes up with next.
I don't know how old Amanda Coe is, but I suspect she is too young to remember what life was like in England in the mid-1970s, at least as an adult. The period detail is there, and is OK, but there is not quite enough of it, and it does not quite convince - as if she does not have the confidence to put it all in. A book that starts with the obituary of a child star and has the context of a film starring Dirk Bogarde as a paedophile (well, who else would you have cast, in the 1970s?) might be about exploitation and corruption, might it not? No, actually, in this case.
Amanda Coe has, apparently, written scripts for the TV programme Shameless, which I have seen once or twice and found lame and unconvincing. It shows. I didn't grow up on a sink estate, but I know that people from Rough Backgrounds are not really as she writes them. I know enough to know that. The character of the child Pauline, from just such a background, deserves a more rounded treatment than she gets. But the fact that I can even write this in this way shows that I believed in the characters, to an extent - I could also immediately see all the characters in a TV series. Which is presumably what Amanda Coe intended. I wonder if it will happen. I can't say I liked this book, but I was mad to know what happened next, and ill with dread at the Something Horrid that looms larger with every page you turn (which I didn't, because I read it on a Kindle, but you know what I mean). And that's no small achievement. This was her first novel, and I shall look out for what she comes up with next.
Monday, 28 May 2012
the life of Dickens
I said that his would be the year in which I would read Dickens, never having really done so - I had the Pickwick Papers read to me during a series of childhood bouts of tonsillitis and I am glad of it, and have seen a number of films. Also I have read A Tale of Two Cities. But that is about as far as it goes. So now is the time. So I thought I would find out about Dickens' life. I had heard a lot of rather snooty people who Know About Books mention "the blacking factory" - but it turns out he worked in a factory as a teenage boy, putting labels on tins of shoe polish. Who hasn't done that sort of job? Well, not writers in the middle nineteenth century, that is for sure.
Claire Tomalin has written rather a good tour of Dickens' life. He had some good epithets, describing the Tories of the time as a ruthless set of bloody-minded villains". One thing I did not know is that Dickens was invited to stand as Liberal MP for Reading in May 1841, his friend Thomas Talfourd (after whom a street is named, in Park ward, east Reading) having tried to persuade him, without success. I think all MPs for Reading should have a street named after them. Don't you? There has only ever been one female MP for Reading. Who was that? Oh, please yourselves.
Dickens was hugely adventurous, travelling in America, and in France (well, Strasbourg) by bone-rattling coach, mostly, and touring his work - his readings from his works were hugely popular - and was vastly physically energetic. He was married, and had quite a lot of children, and got tired of his wife - this much is clear - and shacked up with another - probably - and may or may not have had a child with her, but if he did, it died. He did not go to a university, and had to work enormously hard all his life, and died before the age of 60, after at least one stroke.
He was a slim man, largely it seems because of his lifelong love of vigorous exercise. His food and drink intake was problematic. Late in his life, while touring, his intake was like this:
"At 7 in the morning, in bed, a tumbler of new cream and two tablespoonsful of rum.
At 12, a sherry cobbler and a biscuit.
At 3 (dinner time) a pint of champagne.
At five minutes to 8, an egg beaten up with a glass of sherry.
Between the evening readings, the strongest beef tea that can be made, drunk hot.
At a quarter past 10, soup, and any little thing to drink that I can fancy."
A food and drink intake like this, if continued for any length of time, would have resulted in not only skinniness and chronic constipation but an enlarged liver. Which is probably what killed him.
Well, there was a lot of exuberance, and a lot of intolerance, and a lot of energy. Now to read the books. Or as many of them as i can. The Tomalin biography is a pretty good introduction.
Claire Tomalin has written rather a good tour of Dickens' life. He had some good epithets, describing the Tories of the time as a ruthless set of bloody-minded villains". One thing I did not know is that Dickens was invited to stand as Liberal MP for Reading in May 1841, his friend Thomas Talfourd (after whom a street is named, in Park ward, east Reading) having tried to persuade him, without success. I think all MPs for Reading should have a street named after them. Don't you? There has only ever been one female MP for Reading. Who was that? Oh, please yourselves.
Dickens was hugely adventurous, travelling in America, and in France (well, Strasbourg) by bone-rattling coach, mostly, and touring his work - his readings from his works were hugely popular - and was vastly physically energetic. He was married, and had quite a lot of children, and got tired of his wife - this much is clear - and shacked up with another - probably - and may or may not have had a child with her, but if he did, it died. He did not go to a university, and had to work enormously hard all his life, and died before the age of 60, after at least one stroke.
He was a slim man, largely it seems because of his lifelong love of vigorous exercise. His food and drink intake was problematic. Late in his life, while touring, his intake was like this:
"At 7 in the morning, in bed, a tumbler of new cream and two tablespoonsful of rum.
At 12, a sherry cobbler and a biscuit.
At 3 (dinner time) a pint of champagne.
At five minutes to 8, an egg beaten up with a glass of sherry.
Between the evening readings, the strongest beef tea that can be made, drunk hot.
At a quarter past 10, soup, and any little thing to drink that I can fancy."
A food and drink intake like this, if continued for any length of time, would have resulted in not only skinniness and chronic constipation but an enlarged liver. Which is probably what killed him.
Well, there was a lot of exuberance, and a lot of intolerance, and a lot of energy. Now to read the books. Or as many of them as i can. The Tomalin biography is a pretty good introduction.
Thursday, 24 May 2012
it gets better - Mr Salter engages in dialogue!
he has commented on the Chronicle story referred to - like this:
Just for the record. My solicitors were contacted by officers from Operation Weeting earlier this month regarding some phone records that had just come to light and which are currently the subject of investigation. Ms Griffiths is of no relevance to the attempt to bribe a police officer in 2000 in the wake of my spat with the NoW over their Sarah's Law campaign and only of passing relevance to impersonation incident in 2004 which was a follow up by the NoW to her Mail on Sunday deselection allegations.
Along with other former MPs I agreed to provide Tom Watson with examples of illegal behaviour by News International to assist his evidence to the Leveson Inquiry. I remain convinced, as I said in my statement, that there was a culture of criminality in parts of News International which had a corrupting effect on our public life. I await the outcome of the three police enquiries and Leveson with considerable interest.
Martin Salter
I'll refrain from fisking for a little while, would be interested in what readers think. It is not his usual prose style, especially the missing article in line 4, would simply point out that if he was seeking to provide Tom Watson MP with examples of illegal behaviour he has not done so. It was not illegal to go to his house and try to speak to him. Oh and Mr S - why did you not sue? Especially over the fraudulent housing allowance claims 1997-2001? Hein?
Just for the record. My solicitors were contacted by officers from Operation Weeting earlier this month regarding some phone records that had just come to light and which are currently the subject of investigation. Ms Griffiths is of no relevance to the attempt to bribe a police officer in 2000 in the wake of my spat with the NoW over their Sarah's Law campaign and only of passing relevance to impersonation incident in 2004 which was a follow up by the NoW to her Mail on Sunday deselection allegations.
Along with other former MPs I agreed to provide Tom Watson with examples of illegal behaviour by News International to assist his evidence to the Leveson Inquiry. I remain convinced, as I said in my statement, that there was a culture of criminality in parts of News International which had a corrupting effect on our public life. I await the outcome of the three police enquiries and Leveson with considerable interest.
Martin Salter
I'll refrain from fisking for a little while, would be interested in what readers think. It is not his usual prose style, especially the missing article in line 4, would simply point out that if he was seeking to provide Tom Watson MP with examples of illegal behaviour he has not done so. It was not illegal to go to his house and try to speak to him. Oh and Mr S - why did you not sue? Especially over the fraudulent housing allowance claims 1997-2001? Hein?
my response to the lies
The Reading Chronicle published this yesterday, so here is my response to it. I have also put it in the comments box on the story, and they have said they will publish a shortened version in the dead-tree remix.
I read with interest your copy of a press release from a Mr Martin Salter titled "Ex-Reading MP tells Leveson he was a News of the World target". Apparently Mr Salter is upset that the now defunct News of the World ran an "unpleasant" story about him refusing to back its Sarah's Law campaign in 2000. Poor love. Journalists not always being nice about people in public life? That must have come as a terrible shock to the notoriously publicity-shy and reclusive MP. Understandably still traumatised 12 years later by the dreadful discovery that there are parts of the print media which are sometimes unwilling to copy out his press releases, Mr Salter has attempted to heal those wounds by providing his tale of woe as evidence for Tom Watson MP to present to the Leveson inquiry. What Tom Watson was thinking when he agreed to accept this stuff is another matter. But I have read Tom Watson's ghostwritten book "Dial M for Murdoch", which is not only crammed with inaccuracies but reveals that Tom Watson at one stage believed himself to be mentally ill. We're with you on that, Tommy-boy! Mr Salter takes up the story. The News of the World went to his home! Shock! Horror! They had a photographer! Anguish! Terror! He was indeed terrified. He had to stay away from home for the Whole Day! In case the Nasty Men came back! I am reliably informed that he spent the day in Reading West, where he knew the press would never find him. They were searching for him, of course, in Reading East. A cunning stunt, I'm sure you will agree.
Anyway, the reason I have taken up my pen is that Mr Salter's press release contained the following:
"In 2004, former Reading East MP Jane Griffiths, (punctuation errors either Mr Salter's or the Reading Chronicle's) attempted to "smear" him with "a series of wholly false and ridiculous allegations" in an "angry interview" with the Mail on Sunday after she was deselected by her local Labour party." First, matters of fact. No smear. A smear is an allegation, usually untrue, but anyway intended to make the person it is about look in some way bad or as though they have done something they have not done. Everything I said in relation to Mr Salter was factual. Not only this, but he said so himself at the time, telling MPs and anyone who would listen that he had "coughed to the dope". (No, me neither. I think it's a secret language they speak in Staines.) "Ridiculous" my words may have made Mr Salter seem, but "false" they were not. If they had been, why did he not sue me? He brags about his litigiousness often enough. Also, I was not "angry" during the interview. The journalist and I had a good laugh together. I've let the journalist know about this nonsense, and I have of course contacted both Tom Watson MP and the Leveson inquiry team. Second, why was this nonsense given in evidence to the Leveson inquiry? There is no connection with phone hacking. Except in Mr Salter's dreams. He tells us that on the day in question the Horrid Newspaper Man made 20 calls to him, which he ignored. He also tells us that to this day, eight years on, he is still "trying to figure out" if there had been "an attempt to illegally access his voicemail messages". No evidence for it, Martin. Sorry mate, you're just not interesting enough.
I am grateful to the delightful Sally Stevens of Berkshire Media for allowing me the opportunity to reply to the nonsensical falsehoods peddled by Mr Salter in the pages of the Reading Chronicle. It does the heart good to know that not all newspapers allow lies and smears to go unchallenged
I read with interest your copy of a press release from a Mr Martin Salter titled "Ex-Reading MP tells Leveson he was a News of the World target". Apparently Mr Salter is upset that the now defunct News of the World ran an "unpleasant" story about him refusing to back its Sarah's Law campaign in 2000. Poor love. Journalists not always being nice about people in public life? That must have come as a terrible shock to the notoriously publicity-shy and reclusive MP. Understandably still traumatised 12 years later by the dreadful discovery that there are parts of the print media which are sometimes unwilling to copy out his press releases, Mr Salter has attempted to heal those wounds by providing his tale of woe as evidence for Tom Watson MP to present to the Leveson inquiry. What Tom Watson was thinking when he agreed to accept this stuff is another matter. But I have read Tom Watson's ghostwritten book "Dial M for Murdoch", which is not only crammed with inaccuracies but reveals that Tom Watson at one stage believed himself to be mentally ill. We're with you on that, Tommy-boy! Mr Salter takes up the story. The News of the World went to his home! Shock! Horror! They had a photographer! Anguish! Terror! He was indeed terrified. He had to stay away from home for the Whole Day! In case the Nasty Men came back! I am reliably informed that he spent the day in Reading West, where he knew the press would never find him. They were searching for him, of course, in Reading East. A cunning stunt, I'm sure you will agree.
Anyway, the reason I have taken up my pen is that Mr Salter's press release contained the following:
"In 2004, former Reading East MP Jane Griffiths, (punctuation errors either Mr Salter's or the Reading Chronicle's) attempted to "smear" him with "a series of wholly false and ridiculous allegations" in an "angry interview" with the Mail on Sunday after she was deselected by her local Labour party." First, matters of fact. No smear. A smear is an allegation, usually untrue, but anyway intended to make the person it is about look in some way bad or as though they have done something they have not done. Everything I said in relation to Mr Salter was factual. Not only this, but he said so himself at the time, telling MPs and anyone who would listen that he had "coughed to the dope". (No, me neither. I think it's a secret language they speak in Staines.) "Ridiculous" my words may have made Mr Salter seem, but "false" they were not. If they had been, why did he not sue me? He brags about his litigiousness often enough. Also, I was not "angry" during the interview. The journalist and I had a good laugh together. I've let the journalist know about this nonsense, and I have of course contacted both Tom Watson MP and the Leveson inquiry team. Second, why was this nonsense given in evidence to the Leveson inquiry? There is no connection with phone hacking. Except in Mr Salter's dreams. He tells us that on the day in question the Horrid Newspaper Man made 20 calls to him, which he ignored. He also tells us that to this day, eight years on, he is still "trying to figure out" if there had been "an attempt to illegally access his voicemail messages". No evidence for it, Martin. Sorry mate, you're just not interesting enough.
I am grateful to the delightful Sally Stevens of Berkshire Media for allowing me the opportunity to reply to the nonsensical falsehoods peddled by Mr Salter in the pages of the Reading Chronicle. It does the heart good to know that not all newspapers allow lies and smears to go unchallenged
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)