tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18101425080630829052024-03-13T12:09:56.222+00:00The Last OprichnikFiction is Everything - Everything is FictionJasper Kenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06629648886901894662noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1810142508063082905.post-78513046601533607282018-07-17T10:17:00.000+01:002018-07-17T10:17:35.580+01:00The House of Special Purpose<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_QlU7lNI4M5RmODd8FQ5Nx4EiWBCPietvuDNXWguZfyaiuIwcVO3uXOOUYR3BRsJIEC5r8IfvwUQkg_tqBE-_26DAM3WR7Im4Rr3Xowxs0ohiaUuz7XRxC3wwGNLltptcqW3BjMMyzi-p/s1600/romanovs.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="The Romanov Family" border="0" data-original-height="681" data-original-width="968" height="281" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_QlU7lNI4M5RmODd8FQ5Nx4EiWBCPietvuDNXWguZfyaiuIwcVO3uXOOUYR3BRsJIEC5r8IfvwUQkg_tqBE-_26DAM3WR7Im4Rr3Xowxs0ohiaUuz7XRxC3wwGNLltptcqW3BjMMyzi-p/s400/romanovs.jpg" title="The Romanov Family" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Nikolai II and his family.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">One hundred years ago today, on July 17 1918, the deposed tsar, Nikolai II, was murdered, along with his wife, his son and his daughters, at the 'House of Special Purpose' in Yekaterinburg, Russia. In my novel <i>The Last Rite</i>, our hero, Mihail Konstantivich Danilov meets Nikolai earlier that year, and has a vision, through the tsar's own eyes, of his approaching fate.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="Text">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>I</b></span>nstantly I was in a different place. A narrow stairway leading
down to a cellar. It was night – the early hours. In my arms I was carrying a
boy. He was thirteen years old, but small for his age, weak, ill. There was a
queue of us on the stairs, but soon we were in the cellar. There wasn’t much
room, not for eleven of us. I looked at the faces around me. My wife was there,
and my four daughters. The four others were the only ones who had remained
loyal to us; my physician, a footman, a maid and a cook. Around my ankles
scampered my little spaniel, Joy. She had remained loyal too. I turned round,
back towards the stairs. They’d said we were being evacuated. Evidently we
would have to wait here some time.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Text">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>‘Could you bring
some chairs?’ I asked.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Text">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The man standing
at the bottom of the stairs, our gaoler, shouted up. Moments later three hard
wooden chairs were brought down. I placed my fragile son in one and offered the
second to my wife. I took the third. Then the room began to fill, with more men
coming down the stairs. Soon the little cellar was preposterously crowded. I
had to stand up again, just to see what was going on. There were eleven of
them, not counting our gaoler, the same number as there were of us. That in
itself was suspicious. They tried to spread themselves through the room, each
pairing off with a single member of my family or our entourage, as if
fulfilling the promise made on some fantastical dance card. But in the cramped
space it was impossible to move anywhere.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Text">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The gaoler
cleared his throat. He had a piece of paper in his hand which he read from.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Text">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>‘In view of the
fact that your relatives are continuing their attack on Soviet Russia, the Ural
Executive Committee has decided to execute you.’<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Text">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>I turned quickly
to look at my family. ‘What?’ I whispered. ‘What?’<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Text">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The gaoler
repeated the sentence, reading it again, though it was short enough for him to
remember by heart. I wondered where they would take us to perform the act, how
much time we had, whether they would separate us – the men from the women, the
adults from the children. I began to pray that in the coming hours we would
have time properly to say goodbye.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Text">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>But the gaoler
had scarcely finished speaking when his hand emerged from his pocket holding a
revolver. He was standing just two feet away from me. He fired and I felt a
thump against my chest. My legs grew weak and I began to fall. The gaoler fired
again, but not at me. I heard my little boy scream and then fall silent. Until
then I had felt no pain, but now every agony shot through me. I could not move,
I could not speak, I could only perceive, and I knew that that would not last
more than a few moments.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Text">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The other
assassins had rifles rather than pistols and they began to fire. Bullets
ricocheted across the cellar. Bodies fell – I could not see who – and the
monsters finished them off with bayonets. I tried to breath, but could not. Nor
did I want to. My heart had been still for seconds now, blown apart by the
bullet. My eyes gazed out across the cellar floor, across the pools of blood to
where the spaniel pawed at the dead face of my beloved son. I tried to reach
out to him but I knew there was no point. My only consolation was that we had
died in the same moment.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />Jasper Kenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06629648886901894662noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1810142508063082905.post-74272725817724409662016-10-08T17:01:00.000+01:002016-10-08T17:01:11.959+01:00Sweeney was Smooth – Sweeney was Subtle<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Review: Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street.</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>88 London Road, Brighton, 4 – 29 October 2016.
</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgObDYz8RjPVJvpLAuiogrQ4vSl6VVSYTwkMZ88miElP8rxnbsSg0dShCwy7sbOqlvvADJ8fpmPFXg_xh70XS8Kf1BsdX1_gbqZjIzv7hC4z2USfNW-icurcdqUPe-f4vLEso5WoYyOc8Q0/s1600/5stars.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="38" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgObDYz8RjPVJvpLAuiogrQ4vSl6VVSYTwkMZ88miElP8rxnbsSg0dShCwy7sbOqlvvADJ8fpmPFXg_xh70XS8Kf1BsdX1_gbqZjIzv7hC4z2USfNW-icurcdqUPe-f4vLEso5WoYyOc8Q0/s200/5stars.png" width="200" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2kGQaKWOxU6JMqe6oIyxoHV4ubjiZvj1QQzGefztBsMILjJJas7Vw17-r2Y7X3FsVpcHPIetR6px9qipEV47UAbvB65aDmETCaI_s-BdffMPwCuJXwDku3kJiEI8oWo15KyUG7_-0p513/s1600/SweeneyWebCrop2-564x348.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="195" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2kGQaKWOxU6JMqe6oIyxoHV4ubjiZvj1QQzGefztBsMILjJJas7Vw17-r2Y7X3FsVpcHPIetR6px9qipEV47UAbvB65aDmETCaI_s-BdffMPwCuJXwDku3kJiEI8oWo15KyUG7_-0p513/s320/SweeneyWebCrop2-564x348.jpg" width="320" /></a>Aficionados of this weblog may note a couple of disturbing trends: the only books I seem to review are about Jack the Ripper and the only shows are productions of <i>Sweeney Todd</i>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Perhaps this reflects something of my macabre predilections, but the basic reason is that I only like to review subjects that I really know something about, and I’ve seen sufficient productions of <i>Sweeney Todd</i> to make even professional stick-shakers back away in fear.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There have been big productions of <i>Sweeney Todd</i> and small ones, and director Conor Baum’s interpretation is definitely at the small end of the scale, with just eight actors covering all the roles and the work of the chorus. Productions of this size can flounder, but Baum exploits the limitations entirely to his advantage. The small, claustrophobic space at <a href="https://88londonroad.com/whats-on/sweeney-todd" target="_blank">88 London Road</a> is perfect for the gothic atmosphere and is used flawlessly to convey the variety of scenes visited as the story progresses, whilst maintaining its centre of Todd’s tonsorial parlour glowering above Mrs Lovett’s pie shop down below.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWL93pYMHnz7hmprELU3i9xhpk7BQxnXiwyFdBcjUVicsR4XNolHVZo1Qbem7YDf1NkeJCBa9Bdo2lSRc1bKclwUDwYNg9wKog-E9DdBZp3GWFuk9061FRJ98HHM3bHpCihIovIWjxGrKU/s1600/CtisojwWIAAbpQT.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWL93pYMHnz7hmprELU3i9xhpk7BQxnXiwyFdBcjUVicsR4XNolHVZo1Qbem7YDf1NkeJCBa9Bdo2lSRc1bKclwUDwYNg9wKog-E9DdBZp3GWFuk9061FRJ98HHM3bHpCihIovIWjxGrKU/s320/CtisojwWIAAbpQT.jpg" width="303" /></a>The mechanics of that set are vital to any production of <i>Sweeney</i>. It needs to work for Pirelli’s semiconscious body in the trunk, his hand reaching out and grasping; for delivering Todd’s victims down from his chair; for those victims to arrive in the cellar below. And on top of that we need a convincing bake-oven to boot. For any production that does not have an infinite budget, these can be a sticking point. Some ignore the problems; others bodge the solutions. Here, Cath Prenton’s set combined with some clever direction worked excellently, showing those things that could be achieved on stage and smoothly allowing our imaginations to fill in what couldn’t.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The cast did astonishing work in covering their own main roles plus countless minor parts. All sang wonderfully, though some seemed to get into the skin of their character a little better when singing than when speaking. Clear exceptions to that would be Alice Redmond (Mrs Lovett), Samuel Clifford (Beadle Bamford) and Alistair Higgins (Tobias), all of whom gave entirely convincing performances throughout. Indeed, Higgins was one of the best Tobys I’ve seen, avoiding the pitfall of being too sweet and just a bit too ‘musical theatre’. Anthony is always a difficult role to cast, and while Dale Adams sang it wonderfully, his presence on stage was more than a little too graceful to fit in with the grittiness of the rest of the cast. A bold but effective decision was made to cast Rebecca Bowden as both the beggar woman and Adolfo Pirelli. Pirelli requires a high tenor voice which is sometimes rewritten or simply fluffed. It was wonderful to hear Bowden hitting those notes clearly and beautifully – a full octave higher than the score. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUEuRtRyr1sCaJxGSNCi1IG1Fnk46AP27NcTDvkuCCajAttt_Lq6z_G6r5zzd_DMQPTT9u9O6KI95kJyBibpr-EZYntQTxOX8uCf7VH1RrotlEB2cTklMVSPgI55v20ECqXd91QwlkfSTe/s1600/Ali-Higgins-276x276.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="140" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUEuRtRyr1sCaJxGSNCi1IG1Fnk46AP27NcTDvkuCCajAttt_Lq6z_G6r5zzd_DMQPTT9u9O6KI95kJyBibpr-EZYntQTxOX8uCf7VH1RrotlEB2cTklMVSPgI55v20ECqXd91QwlkfSTe/s200/Ali-Higgins-276x276.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Alistair Higgins</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Like the cast, the orchestra was similarly pared down to just three: cello, keyboard and piano, from which musical director Ellen Campbell conducted. At times this led, understandably, to a few gaps in comparison with the Broadway recording with which many in the audience will be familiar, but at others it was fascinating to hear individual musical lines that are often lost in the hubbub. The same was true of the choral numbers performed by just eight voices. Here nothing was lost (except perhaps the occasional oomph of a choir of sixty emitting a forte fortissimo ‘Swing your razor wide, Sweeney!’) and everything was gained. Each vocal line was clear and could be appreciated either on its own or as part of the overall harmony. As anyone who has sung them will know, these choral numbers are fiendishly tricky, and without exception the cast performed them brilliantly, in many cases with only a single voice on each line. As far as I could tell the score was complete with the exception of the tooth pulling (which is commonly cut) and <i>The Tower of Bray</i>, which I have to say I’d have liked to hear.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsbYmC63l5SkqluWBB-0DtCml-_OzRsPNo4eCc22-wk_ORtRI5yofdPYSDjPcrVPyvgVkem62FK37tUA3ksUCzEmaratFjggd3TPt-6JiJHhsexijJayQrUhjJVozwpS27qxV9RE0ecRLL/s1600/CqxnbsTWIAAMcmY.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="140" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsbYmC63l5SkqluWBB-0DtCml-_OzRsPNo4eCc22-wk_ORtRI5yofdPYSDjPcrVPyvgVkem62FK37tUA3ksUCzEmaratFjggd3TPt-6JiJHhsexijJayQrUhjJVozwpS27qxV9RE0ecRLL/s200/CqxnbsTWIAAMcmY.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Alice Redmond</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For any show as well-known as <i>Sweeney </i>cast and director must be working constantly to keep things interesting for an audience who for the most part know exactly what is coming next. Here there were always subtle and interesting things going on, such as the changing newspaper headlines for each scene and indeed the whole setting of the story as being some kind of newspaper report. And it’s always a treat to hear a new joke in a familiar text, in this case from Alice Redmond – <i>prima inter pares</i> of a hugely talented cast – during <i>By the Sea</i> with ‘I’ll be there slipping off your [pause] slippers.’ It may have been done before, but it was new to me.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I’d always recommend to someone who’s never seen <i>Sweeney </i>to go and see almost any production, including this one. The stronger recommendation is to those who have seen the show before – and Brighton’s full of them. This production really will add something to your appreciation of the show. And the good thing is it runs till the end of the month.<br />
<br />
<hr />
<br />
<i>Links</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<a href="https://88londonroad.com/" target="_blank">88 London Road's website</a>.<br />
<a href="http://thelastoprichnik.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/come-and-visit-your-good-friend-sweeney.html" target="_blank">My review of English National Opera's 2015 production of <i>Sweeney Todd</i></a>.<br />
<br /></div>
Jasper Kenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06629648886901894662noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1810142508063082905.post-51362183631248972622016-10-06T09:51:00.000+01:002016-10-06T16:12:02.514+01:00A Toe in the Water – Part One<div style="text-align: justify;">
Self-publishing.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Sounds a bit like self-publicity, doesn't it?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Others may disagree, but I think I'm rather poor at the latter (though I'm <i>trying </i>to do better, literally at this very moment). The question I'm currently contemplating is whether or not I'll prove to be any good at the former.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKu2ymiVy3eZH91sjmusi8ARSr_iDWXYFvub7HcflqKSd_9rfONjOW02QL01kiEO4DXn7jt2r-DCPQrSJ2F9hkobFgeA-7owizdV4tD5-dTP5u4oNb66B1Mn-j4s2KayLBDxN5HjUgu_eD/s1600/LateWhitsunCover.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-align: justify;"><img alt="Late Whitsun Cover" border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKu2ymiVy3eZH91sjmusi8ARSr_iDWXYFvub7HcflqKSd_9rfONjOW02QL01kiEO4DXn7jt2r-DCPQrSJ2F9hkobFgeA-7owizdV4tD5-dTP5u4oNb66B1Mn-j4s2KayLBDxN5HjUgu_eD/s320/LateWhitsunCover.jpg" title="Late Whitsun Cover" width="200" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
My new detective novel <i><a href="http://www.jasperkent.com/#CharlieWoolf-LateWhitsun" target="_blank">Late Whitsun</a></i> is due out next Thursday, October 13th. Everything’s ready to go, pretty much, and so now I’m faced with a hiatus; the calm before the … well, let’s hope for some kind of storm.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And so now would seem like a good time to share my experiences so far, and I choose this moment before publication specifically because I have no idea whatsoever if what I’ve done will prove to be effective or otherwise. The proof of that pudding will be reported here later in <i>A Toe in the Water – Part Two</i>, when I hope to be describing the spectacular success of the whole venture – or its desperate failure – or something betwixt the two. Then, perhaps, will come <i>Part Three</i> in which with the wisdom of hindsight – the only kind there is – I’ll look back and consider what I should have done. Hopefully it will consist of just four words: ‘Exactly what I did.’ Some hope.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But for now my head is still full of what I’ve been working at over the last few weeks and months: the mechanical rather than creative process of turning the original script into something that can be sold to and read by the world at large. I’m lucky in that I’ve have previous books that have gone out through a mainstream publisher (<a href="http://www.jasperkent.com/#DanilovQuintet" target="_blank"><i>The Danilov Quintet</i> </a>from <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.co.uk/" target="_blank">Penguin Random House</a>). That means I know what needs to be done – know what the steps are and to some extent have seen others performing them. There are pros and cons of having people to do things for you. Obviously it’s less work, but sometimes you have to bite your tongue when you think you can do better. Doing it yourself means doing <i>everything </i>yourself – or delegating it, though it’s still your responsibility. Some of those tasks are fun, others tiresome.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQkYLvif_5loVMjtskj-jZD0PM77u124kKHNKDXsHNUs8jm7htdsm0myMmYJ2kKSQi6DablukBG0EU3ymYjgG3UIudgCm6y3QbeCBX24Jsx-t3g64xLAfbuFyY1FJR34mKYzDS27ECp8IL/s1600/AllCovers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="Danilov Quintet Covers" border="0" height="99" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQkYLvif_5loVMjtskj-jZD0PM77u124kKHNKDXsHNUs8jm7htdsm0myMmYJ2kKSQi6DablukBG0EU3ymYjgG3UIudgCm6y3QbeCBX24Jsx-t3g64xLAfbuFyY1FJR34mKYzDS27ECp8IL/s320/AllCovers.jpg" title="Danilov Quintet Covers" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Danilov Quintet</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So here’s what had to be done:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
First, as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_Beeton" target="_blank">Mrs Beeton</a> might have put it, write your novel. I hardly need to go into how you do that – it’s very simple – but it does count as one of the fun tasks and no one else can do it for you (<a href="http://www.jamespatterson.com/" target="_blank">James Paterson</a> notwithstanding).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Second, in discussion with various mainstream publishers decide that self-publication is the best route for you. Again, we don’t need to go into details, but switching genres (in my case from horror to crime) is a big factor here.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Third, get feedback. The problem is not finding people who’ll read your work, but finding those who’ll give you honest, useful feedback. The risk is that your friends and relations will be wary of causing offence, and may not have the expertise to judge anyway. Again, I think having been published previously helps here for several reasons: it gives you a better idea of how to fix any problems identified, it gives you a better idea of who to get feedback from and it makes it easier for the reader to treat you as an author rather than just as a friend. On this front I have particularly to thank Katie Piatt, Chris Horlock and Helen Casey.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Fourth, get the script copy-edited. This is a job for a professional. You can find organizations who will do this for a fee online, though I was lucky enough to have a friend (the inestimable Peter Lavery) who is an expert at such things. It’s always astonishing to discover from a copy-edit just how much rubbish one is capable of writing – and reading again and again without noticing. Even if you don’t agree with the editor’s suggestions, the benefit is that you are forced to think individually about every sentence – every word – you’ve written.</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTnj4ygOtsL9BezGtEChHkQ0WdqrbnjiFKy8N7wACkA30ZZE9L5sXIsiCiutAQsJ9fySsRh_XTVmERMfrb8HHMGmbL0hthlFBfp4oJSHF2qR7a6pBAMgu0W_bfe4PqFN4nEAzIcZ8UMk_K/s1600/CopyEdit.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="The Copy Edit" border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTnj4ygOtsL9BezGtEChHkQ0WdqrbnjiFKy8N7wACkA30ZZE9L5sXIsiCiutAQsJ9fySsRh_XTVmERMfrb8HHMGmbL0hthlFBfp4oJSHF2qR7a6pBAMgu0W_bfe4PqFN4nEAzIcZ8UMk_K/s320/CopyEdit.jpg" title="The Copy Edit" width="233" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Copy Edit</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It’s worth noting a subtle but significant difference in the process here between self-publishing and going through a publisher. With a publisher, you get the copy-edit and you go through it and approve, alter or reject the changes suggested. Your notes go back to the publisher and get incorporated into the script. When you’re self-publishing, <i>every </i>change you make has to be incorporated into the script by you yourself – extra work for you. It can make you tend to reject more of the suggestions than you might have done, but it does also encourage you to think in depth about all of them.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Fifth, proofread. You have to do this yourself, but it’s essential to get others to do it too. Call in favours and perhaps call in professionals.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Sixth, choose your platform. Maybe I should have though more about this one, but went for Amazon (<a href="https://kdp.amazon.com/" target="_blank">Kindle Direct Publishing</a> for e-book and <a href="https://www.createspace.com/" target="_blank">Create Space</a> for print) on the basis of ‘No one ever got fired for choosing …’ (A phrase originally applying to <a href="http://www.ibm.com/uk-en/" target="_blank">IBM</a> – whatever happened them?) I’d originally thought Kindle only, but using Create Space for a print version is only a little more effort and it seems like a waste not to exploit all the effort you've put in so far.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Seventh, proofread again.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Eighth, design a cover. For me, this is one of the really fun bits. I’ve absolutely no artistic talent, but I have become pretty handy with <a href="http://www.photoshop.com/" target="_blank">Photoshop</a>. Alternatively, platforms like Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP) provide some good cover templates, but even then I’d suggest doing some customization yourself. Again there are companies online which will do this for you, but by the look of a few such covers I’ve seen, they really don’t have their heart in it like the author would. Obviously you can get someone to do it for you, but a good cover image would be expensive. As with things like the copy-edit, pull in favours if you need to.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9Sw4_-nVvhcbYLc7vFBuxtji3wkQBLlNGvvBzwgp1D7MhDiBur8X41F79P1wYlNkm_Zg-NB31wb8i_UM4NC79dJW06KzmiZNDrYITAFb4cgHddaIZinI5U2yPOE2-NOUCpv-uhbmWWFEA/s1600/295px-Blurbing.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="The First Blurb - By Gelett Burgess" border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9Sw4_-nVvhcbYLc7vFBuxtji3wkQBLlNGvvBzwgp1D7MhDiBur8X41F79P1wYlNkm_Zg-NB31wb8i_UM4NC79dJW06KzmiZNDrYITAFb4cgHddaIZinI5U2yPOE2-NOUCpv-uhbmWWFEA/s400/295px-Blurbing.jpg" title="The First Blurb - By Gelett Burgess" width="245" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The First Blurb</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Ninth, write your back cover copy – your blurb. Odd word that, but used throughout the industry (see <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blurb" target="_blank">here</a> for its origins). I’ve seen companies offering to do this for you too, but that seems very odd to me. If you can put together the tens of thousands of words that make up a novel, you ought to be able to manage a couple of paragraphs to sell your story. I suppose my publishers would have written the blurb for me, but I’ve always done it myself, in collaboration with my editor. And bear in mind, of course, that’s it’s not just going on the back cover – the kindle edition won’t even have one. This is what is going to make people want to read your book.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Tenth, proofread yet again. It always astounds me how many minor errors I find on every iteration of proofreading. For me it’s mostly missing words (‘he went the shops’) mistaken words (‘it was and very interesting book’) and homophones (‘it was all to much’). I think I’m more aware of them when self-publishing. With a publisher the last time I read my work is with the page-proofs and I might catch a few mistakes there, but I know that a team of professional proof-readers is also going through them. I presume they do a good job, but I can’t say for sure, since I’ve never read the final printed version of one of my own books. It’s always been someone else’s problem. Now it’s my problem.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
One thing I’ve always done is read the text out loud, usually at least twice, once much earlier in the process while I’m still drafting, and again at around this point. It’s good for checking that the style is working, particularly with dialogue, but it also tends to catch different kinds of mistakes from those you’ll find when reading to yourself. But still errors get through, because you autocorrect as you’re reading, before the words even get to your conscious mind. For this book, I tried a further trick of using text-to-speech software to read the book back to me. The software makes no mistakes and then you process it with a different part of your brain (I reckon) from when your reading. I certainly caught a few errors this way – though obviously not those of punctuation and homophonic spelling. Don't get too depressed by the monotonous delivery making your story sound dull.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8mcljxgC9SlpR4kti1VS7SsXOHESUwbY416ppsIs6S92jm-SQRJbyHhzJV3761y1YgIFDS0qO2ICuOxb8rOrB9JAtXhETLiO-fNWpphlOCtLBa-XOiHVC7a1s0eBvIfIZR0KVKXuNzjiU/s1600/OnThePage.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="The Formatted Page" border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8mcljxgC9SlpR4kti1VS7SsXOHESUwbY416ppsIs6S92jm-SQRJbyHhzJV3761y1YgIFDS0qO2ICuOxb8rOrB9JAtXhETLiO-fNWpphlOCtLBa-XOiHVC7a1s0eBvIfIZR0KVKXuNzjiU/s400/OnThePage.jpg" title="The Formatted Page" width="266" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Formatted Page</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Eleventh, format. At this point your script is going to split into an e-book version and a print version. That means you really want to have finalized your text by now – from here on any mistakes you discover (and you will) will have to be corrected separately in both versions. The e-book version is fairly easy, since the actual formatting is done on-the-fly by the e-reader itself; just follow the guidelines that KDP (or your chosen provider) gives. Print formatting is more work and actually, I found, rather fun. You can download a template, but then you’ll have to copy over your text and fit it to the new page size. For me it’s interesting work and the exciting thing is that at this point your work starts to <i>really </i>look like a book – the same as when you get page proofs from your publisher.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Twelfth, yes, proofread again. All that mucking around with formatting, you’re bound to have made some mistakes.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thirteenth, upload. This is pretty quick and easy. For both e-book and print you’ll then be able look at an electronic version of the finished product. For an e-book, this is exactly what your customers will be getting, whereas of course for the print version it’s not quite the same thing. Order a physical proof for one last check, not so much for content but for formatting, cover and print quality. Mine’s due to arrive later today.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Quick rant here. Amazon’s Create Space charges for proofs and other author copies; that’s perfectly fair. They also charge for postage for these copies; again, no problem. However, they only print these copies in the USA, so the shipping costs to the UK are huge, particularly if you want to get them in any reasonable timescale. Customer copies are printed in the UK, so it’s not a problem in that case, but I’ve found no good reason they can’t do that for author copies.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And finally, publicize, which is perhaps a better subject for a later article. For now, I’m following the advice of others: get reviewed online, use social media, tell your friends.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And, of course, blog.
<br />
<br />
<br />
LATE WHITSUN is available from <a href="http://amzn.to/2dafYXr" target="_blank">Amazon</a>.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Jasper Kenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06629648886901894662noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1810142508063082905.post-88882979631977739502016-10-05T11:18:00.000+01:002016-10-06T16:08:18.583+01:00Press Release - Late Whitsun<div style="text-align: center;">
PRESS RELEASE<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 48pt; text-shadow: 3px 3px 4px #505050;">LATE WHITSUN</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
by Jasper Kent </div>
<br />
<b>Published October 13th 2016 </b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiA7ScWh_IvTudYBDVOUIf4lpaWEewCwI8v4W61bOjTL7doKbzHJb3YF8tI_ubKfR0R6HX04oLY0F3scga7gFbLIY0JH6Q7-ZajrkokS9wyAIzGd0ThZ_hhiZieZPP6oCDVhQhDV6gy8dEu/s1600/LateWhitsunCover.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Late Whitsun Cover" border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiA7ScWh_IvTudYBDVOUIf4lpaWEewCwI8v4W61bOjTL7doKbzHJb3YF8tI_ubKfR0R6HX04oLY0F3scga7gFbLIY0JH6Q7-ZajrkokS9wyAIzGd0ThZ_hhiZieZPP6oCDVhQhDV6gy8dEu/s400/LateWhitsunCover.jpg" title="Late Whitsun Cover" width="250" /></a></div>
Bestselling horror author Jasper Kent turns to crime fiction with LATE WHITSUN, the first in the Charlie Woolf series of mysteries.<br />
<br />
Set in Kent’s adopted hometown of Brighton, not long before the outbreak of World War II, LATE WHITSUN combines elements of Agatha Christie, Raymond Chandler and Graham Greene to produce a refreshingly new style of whodunit.<br />
<br />
<b>Brighton, 1938 … </b><br />
<br />
Charlie ‘Big Bad’ Woolf thought it would be easy money, and there’s precious little of that for a private detective in a seaside town. It was just a trip up to London to hand over an envelope – a favour for his old partner, Alan O’Connor. But Woolf couldn’t resist taking a peek inside.<br />
<br />
The pictures were unadulterated smut; a man and a girl in a hotel room. Blackmail, pure and simple – right up O’Connor’s street. Woolf was happy to be rid of them, handing them over to a masked man in a London park.<br />
<br />
When he gets home, O’Connor’s waiting for him, which is a surprise. The bigger surprise is that he’s dead; a bullet through the eye. Woolf is the prime suspect, but when he discovers that the man in the photographs is a German diplomat and the blackmail is being run by MI5, things get more complicated.<br />
<br />
It seems obvious who killed O’Connor, but Woolf soon realizes that he’s the only one who cares. With war looming, the good of the country counts for more than the arrest of a murderer. If he’s to see the killer caught, Charlie Woolf must prove that the crime has little to do with the world of espionage …<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIZJg2Iqdy1FWcoOwMAc02JXLNbCTYYwX_i06D_EpH59y47QVjalqANdL1ewYM8qefc0tS3_7qGyIBuEWdwqbusozJuzZNqkj8_G72fnP7Mh0fmx8nTKzdyqrsKLiIKqTZ20H5ICPGklQL/s1600/Jasper+Kent+1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Jasper Kent Headshot" border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIZJg2Iqdy1FWcoOwMAc02JXLNbCTYYwX_i06D_EpH59y47QVjalqANdL1ewYM8qefc0tS3_7qGyIBuEWdwqbusozJuzZNqkj8_G72fnP7Mh0fmx8nTKzdyqrsKLiIKqTZ20H5ICPGklQL/s200/Jasper+Kent+1.jpg" title="Jasper Kent Headshot" /></a></div>
<b>About the author: </b><br />
<br />
Jasper Kent was born in Worcestershire in 1968, studied Natural Sciences at Trinity Hall, Cambridge, and now lives in Hove. TWELVE, the opening book of his historical horror series THE DANILOV QUINTET was one of the bestselling debuts of the year. As well as writing novels, Jasper works as a freelance software consultant. He has also written several plays and musicals.<br />
<br />
In addition to other projects, Jasper is planning two more Charlie Woolf novels: THE STALACTITE MAN and TO MUDDY DEATH.<br />
<br />
To find out more, visit <a href="http://www.jasperkent.com/">www.jasperkent.com</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>Acclaim for Jasper Kent’s DANILOV QUINTET:</i><br />
<br />
<b>‘An accomplished, entertaining blend of historical fiction and dark fantasy.’</b> – THE TIMES<br />
<br />
<b>‘Rich historical insight and compelling storytelling.’</b> – WATERSTONE’S BOOK QUARTERLY<br />
<br />
<b>‘A bloody good tale.’</b> – PUBLISHERS WEEKLY<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>‘Leaks Russia from its very pages.’</b> – SAN FRANCISCO BOOK REVIEW<br />
<br />
<b>‘You will love Jasper Kent for all eternity. I sure do.’</b> – ELITIST BOOK REVIEWS<br />
<br />
<b>‘A brilliant book.’</b> – HISTORICAL NOVEL SOCIETY<br />
<br />
<br />
Jasper Kent is available for interview.<br />
<br />
Review copies (print, PDF or MOBI) on request.<br />
<br />
Contact:<br />
<br />
<a href="mailto:info@jasperkent.com">info@jasperkent.com</a>Jasper Kenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06629648886901894662noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1810142508063082905.post-74821401050951472392015-11-21T11:58:00.000+00:002016-10-08T17:05:37.599+01:00Review: They All Love Jack<br />
<i><a href="http://amzn.to/1SaB7Lz">They All Love Jack - Busting the Ripper</a></i> by Bruce Robinson<br />
Fourth Estate 2015<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRkI8d-B-JLzvoIVlM5sZPBTbGO6tf2sfGIze3TigvnKw7pWanr1vJ20hOj0gsxEf9XgpamKML4l5s4-JjS6OptuiZmHTYRpU2FCR2QoD5r4mXbRPDfAE4dJKRbFrG504v8_yWsiX8lYCu/s1600/2stars.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="38" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRkI8d-B-JLzvoIVlM5sZPBTbGO6tf2sfGIze3TigvnKw7pWanr1vJ20hOj0gsxEf9XgpamKML4l5s4-JjS6OptuiZmHTYRpU2FCR2QoD5r4mXbRPDfAE4dJKRbFrG504v8_yWsiX8lYCu/s200/2stars.png" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPEruIgtfd-Yc3zWBahA9PgINY6KQnwcrrBBURl32AglN8_b2XswuNvSun9-PP0D-S2vv4pGp-qbiPjw79v4QjGW2BowZxqb6TL5swQ4jpt4Zf6E1lg9ZsdJMnKc0T3s3tS_i_Thg4t64K/s1600/TALJCover.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="They All Love Jack" border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPEruIgtfd-Yc3zWBahA9PgINY6KQnwcrrBBURl32AglN8_b2XswuNvSun9-PP0D-S2vv4pGp-qbiPjw79v4QjGW2BowZxqb6TL5swQ4jpt4Zf6E1lg9ZsdJMnKc0T3s3tS_i_Thg4t64K/s320/TALJCover.jpg" title="They All Love Jack" width="216" /></a></div>
Bruce Robinson - best known as the writer and director of <i><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094336/">Withnail and I</a> </i>- believes that Michael Maybrick was Jack the Ripper. The question is: why?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Not why did Maybrick do it, but rather: why does Robinson believe it?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I've read enough Jack the Ripper books in my time for me not to expect the cut-and-dried proof of culpability that is so often promised by overoptimistic subtitles along the lines of <i><a href="http://amzn.to/1Okr05G">The Final Chapter</a></i>, <i><a href="http://amzn.to/1SaBqpH">The Final Solution</a></i> or <i><a href="http://amzn.to/1SaBpSD">Case Closed</a></i>. I'm just looking for a reasonable case to be made, which might lead others to investigate further, perhaps to bolster the case, perhaps to refute it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To that end, I find a good starting point is to discover why the authors first came up with their initial suspect - why they believe they've finally cracked it. In the case of <a href="http://amzn.to/1Okr05G">Paul H. Feldman</a> and others who suspect James Maybrick it's pretty obvious: the discovery of a diary which, if genuine, inescapably suggests James Maybrick was the Ripper. In the case of <a href="http://amzn.to/1SaBpSD">Patricia Cornwell</a> suspecting <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Sickert">Walter Sickert</a> it was because ... er ... someone mentioned to her that he was already a suspect.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7ECb8JyGTAqpH4K3_rYgQ98BgA23vl_oD7MQaPnmK_RZoR3qCFdYvBM6MAJ0rzM278jhRfhs_DPCS529EfYyEt7t4eZ15YlMmoJ6CPjjUZbgBwstEDc-_bg9BnXTuU1eutXY2IadC7KF7/s1600/SickertAndJamesMaybrick.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="Walter Sickert and James Maybrick" border="0" height="276" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7ECb8JyGTAqpH4K3_rYgQ98BgA23vl_oD7MQaPnmK_RZoR3qCFdYvBM6MAJ0rzM278jhRfhs_DPCS529EfYyEt7t4eZ15YlMmoJ6CPjjUZbgBwstEDc-_bg9BnXTuU1eutXY2IadC7KF7/s400/SickertAndJamesMaybrick.jpg" title="Walter Sickert and James Maybrick" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Suspects: Walter Sickert and James Maybrick</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And so something must have led Bruce Robinson to suspect Michael Maybrick, yet he never mentions what it was. One can only assume that the reason is the obvious one: that Michael's brother James was already a suspect, but since the initial suspicion is such a large part of why an author believes in their case, it really should be shared with the reader. Not to do so seems to be an attempt to portray a false aura of impartiality. Cornwell attempts much the same trick, leaving unmentioned virtually any of the books that had gone before, both those that claim Sickert was the Ripper and those that refute it. Robinson does discuss the diary, but never makes clear if it, or anything else, was his starting point.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But it's not where you start it's where you finish, and Robinson's starting point doesn't much matter if in the end the case against Michael Maybrick is clear. Not iron-clad; simply clear.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The problem is that in all of the 800 plus pages, Robinson doesn't even attempt to make a case against Maybrick. The best I can pull together is this:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><i>1) The Ripper was a Freemason. Michael Maybrick was a Freemason.</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Personally, I think there is a case that the Ripper might have been a Mason. It's not strong and there's nothing much here that's not been derived from previous works on the subject, but it's possible. Robinson certainly produces clear evidence that Maybrick was a Mason. But the problem is hardly worth pointing out. Robinson himself spends pages bewailing the fact that British society was riddled with Freemasons. The Ripper connection could point to any one of them. Again the question arises: why Michael? Again there is no answer.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><i>2) Michael Maybrick matches one of the few eyewitness descriptions.</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Robinson spends a lot of time discussing how the police either ignored or suppressed the evidence of <a href="http://www.casebook.org/witnesses/mpacker.html">Matthew Packer</a>, a fruiterer who claimed to have seen a man accompanying <a href="http://www.casebook.org/victims/stride.html">Elizabeth Stride</a> shortly before her murder. Given Robinson's belief that the police - particularity Commissioner <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Warren">Sir Charles Warren</a> - were trying to cover up the the true culprit, Packer's testimony takes on additional significance. Sketches were published based on Packer's description, and certainly one of them looks a little bit like Maybrick.</div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNaXfAFbd-mq6-unEEtlRFkPwAEzwRKLwrONg_XXFaGhv3NwuEu2DFAd2eUyb4kH1wLf6wUMpevam7NjHIUdGxiMD4NS9VV1jI_kIdu6-lhLFbAuQx3qbsvmgz9TMxB16HBh4gP31M8FkQ/s1600/dtsketches.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="Packer's Suspect" border="0" height="172" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNaXfAFbd-mq6-unEEtlRFkPwAEzwRKLwrONg_XXFaGhv3NwuEu2DFAd2eUyb4kH1wLf6wUMpevam7NjHIUdGxiMD4NS9VV1jI_kIdu6-lhLFbAuQx3qbsvmgz9TMxB16HBh4gP31M8FkQ/s320/dtsketches.jpg" title="Packer's Suspect" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Sketches from the Daily Telegraph 6/10/1888</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7_52oLZuFTsojmZniaxW0lS12I5UuFaPQ_iiHyiT9f5PPlFpeLhNAI2ohAybw4BE2ym6eHJvy3j6CXbUrkKgXIDjuebIDp2VpkgxKPQ-wfVc491FtGv68uGNYYUErTTSm-6iHW8fWLy55/s1600/mmaybrick.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="Michael Maybrick" border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7_52oLZuFTsojmZniaxW0lS12I5UuFaPQ_iiHyiT9f5PPlFpeLhNAI2ohAybw4BE2ym6eHJvy3j6CXbUrkKgXIDjuebIDp2VpkgxKPQ-wfVc491FtGv68uGNYYUErTTSm-6iHW8fWLy55/s320/mmaybrick.jpg" title="Michael Maybrick" width="269" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Michael Maybrick</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Evidence at last?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Clearly not - and for the same reason that the masonic link is not evidence: thousands of people could roughly match that sketch. Indeed, a vagrant called John Langan was arrested in Boulogne on the basis of the sketch, and later found to be innocent. Or was it <a href="http://www.casebook.org/suspects/barnett.html">Joe Barnett</a>, <a href="http://www.casebook.org/victims/mary_jane_kelly.html">Mary Kelly</a>'s lover, and for some a Ripper suspect?</div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh78NzPw1dPKD-nGhVQJMT-nu8mBiL9MQT8gXbCCZ5pgKwCDlr34CbAp8Qnemn-LUw1WX7PNFj2hfv3SCpxY4ql7tSkEsd1zuOf8jC8nrqrdNLIXF9L0Wi6PdcE0jw6nv-c2NsEctZhHtno/s1600/JoeBarnett.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="Joe Barnett" border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh78NzPw1dPKD-nGhVQJMT-nu8mBiL9MQT8gXbCCZ5pgKwCDlr34CbAp8Qnemn-LUw1WX7PNFj2hfv3SCpxY4ql7tSkEsd1zuOf8jC8nrqrdNLIXF9L0Wi6PdcE0jw6nv-c2NsEctZhHtno/s320/JoeBarnett.jpg" title="Joe Barnett" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Joe Barnett</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The sketch is so rough it could be any one of 10,0000 men. But the problem for Robinson is more profound than this.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Packer did not just provide a sketch. He watched Stride and the man standing side-by-side for almost half an hour and described the latter as between 30 and 35 years old (younger in some versions of his statement) and of medium height (5'7"). Michael Maybrick was 6'1" and 47 years old at the time of the murders. Packer may or may not be a reliable witness, but whatever testimony he offers, it stands against the idea that Maybrick was the Ripper.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><i>3) The Whitechapel murders cluster around Toynbee Hall.</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
They certainly do. <a href="http://www.toynbeehall.org.uk/">Toynbee Hall</a> was (and is) a charitable welfare centre at the heart of the East End. At the time of the murders it was often used as a venue for concerts and other entertainments for the local people. Michael Maybrick - by profession a singer and composer - might well have gone there to perform. Indeed Robinson offers much evidence to demonstrate that several of Maybrick's friends and colleagues did visit the hall. And yet he offers no direct evidence that Maybrick himself was ever there. That's not to say that Maybrick was never at Toynbee Hall, but whatever evidence there is would surely point to one of those we know was there - several of whom were Freemasons - than to someone who may or may not have been. And even then, Tonybee Hall is far from being the only building in Whitechapel which the the Ripper might have used as his lair.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><i>4) All the Ripper letters were genuinely written by the murderer AND Michael Maybrick wrote all the Ripper letters.</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Clearly if both these propositions are true then it's an open and shut case, but they're both patent nonsense. The Ripper letters came from all over the country - indeed all over the world - and were written in a variety of hands. Most Ripperologists (Robinson doesn't much like Ripperologists, mostly because of their failure to spot what is so obvious to him) regard few or none of them as genuine. That's not to say that some or many of them may be genuine, but you really have to make a case for each one of them - not take on a blanket assumption. Hundreds were received and Robinson treats them all as being sent by the murderer - even those which don't even make that claim themselves and are merely letters <i>about </i>the murders.</div>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnsueWhUbEpikhvm9F1udyN_KCW-ydk-TxlP6JnzP9fvSIlWoM2GDtGAMqwS_imjNxaq3HQtgq9iw53NwDW1LtmPFJ1UTk8o-zb11uB-nDYLBCOR9-xbpfjlChPeHBHrKYO4MuwhZ9c4KS/s1600/FromHell.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="From Hell" border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnsueWhUbEpikhvm9F1udyN_KCW-ydk-TxlP6JnzP9fvSIlWoM2GDtGAMqwS_imjNxaq3HQtgq9iw53NwDW1LtmPFJ1UTk8o-zb11uB-nDYLBCOR9-xbpfjlChPeHBHrKYO4MuwhZ9c4KS/s320/FromHell.jpg" title="From Hell" width="223" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The 'From Hell' Letter</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The evidence that Maybrick wrote the letters is insulting to the reader. The letters came from all parts of the country and Maybrick, in visiting concert venues, travelled across the country. But for all that, Robinson offers only one example of an occasion when Maybrick was in the right city at about the right time to coincide with a letter's posting. This should be a rich source of evidence. Maybrick's concerts were widely advertised in newspapers. One might expect a clear analysis cross-referencing letters with concert venues, but none is given. Whether Robinson shunned this kind of forensic approach, or pursued it and decided not to include the results, I don't know.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Robinson explains the letters from the USA by pointing out that someone could board a ship in a British port (say Liverpool), post a letter in the on-board mailbox and then leave the ship. The letter itself would travel to the States, be franked there and then would come back on the next boat, apparently sent from abroad. It may well be that this could be done, but there are still a few dots to join up in demonstrating that it <i>was </i>done, that it was done by Michael Maybrick (rather than anyone else who happened to be in Liverpool sometimes) and that the author was the Ripper.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As to the handwriting, well as Robinson points out:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Michael Maybrick himself had many styles of handwriting, and used many different pens - his table was 'littered with quill pens', noted the </i>New Era<i> article.</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There's no direct evidence to support the idea of multiple handwriting styles - but it's evidently a well-known characteristic of people who have several pens.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Even if you ignore the nonsense of travelling from one side of the country to the other in a single day, and having multiple handwriting styles, the fundamental problem remains. Like all evidence based on the letters, it's a case of the <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy">Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy</a>. With hundreds of letters to choose from, you're bound to be able to find clues suggesting almost anybody.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
-</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And that's really it for the case against Michael Maybrick. He was a Freemason who looked a bit like one sketch of a possible suspect. The real reason for accusing him is that he's the brother of James Maybrick - who's a much stronger, though still unlikely candidate. The trouble is, James Maybrick has already been 'done'.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Robinson spends the last section of the book looking at the death of James Maybrick and subsequent trial of his widow, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Maybrick">Florence</a>, for her husband's murder. His belief is that it was Michael who in fact killed James and then contrived to frame Florence. In comparison with his charge that Michael was the Ripper, Robinson offers better (i.e. some) evidence, but what's new is not good and what's good is not new. The fact that Florence was innocent has been known widely asserted since the time of the trial and has been covered by many. Robinson provides some reasons to believe that Michael was responsible, but it's not close to convincing. And anyway, the book is supposed to be about demonstrating that Michael Maybrick was Jack the Ripper, not that he killed his brother.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDkxraXsvqYbLGerB4ldhMoWC5mc7VVxfTy8tyRnr6qd53Wsq7-_WQdARENE6I3tK_0noO6Yx-SFBMQoXmYWpQFQBs5reLUOCjrjtRQa28g9fueUNHBdH1ex3kjfVW-OFepe_Tungh5d7w/s1600/Jack_the_Ripper-_The_Final_Solution.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Jack the Ripper - The Final Solution" border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDkxraXsvqYbLGerB4ldhMoWC5mc7VVxfTy8tyRnr6qd53Wsq7-_WQdARENE6I3tK_0noO6Yx-SFBMQoXmYWpQFQBs5reLUOCjrjtRQa28g9fueUNHBdH1ex3kjfVW-OFepe_Tungh5d7w/s200/Jack_the_Ripper-_The_Final_Solution.jpg" title="Jack the Ripper - The Final Solution" width="123" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There are a few positives from the book. Robinson makes a clear case for the incompetence of the Metropolitan Police in investigating the crimes, and conveys it with a evident passion, as he does his description of the inequalities of Victorian London. But this is no substitute for logic and accuracy. He bases most of his Freemasonry theory on work already done by Stephen Knight (in <i><a href="http://amzn.to/1SaBqpH">Jack the Ripper - The Final Solution</a></i>) and others, but then misrepresents Knight's position on many important details, claiming that Knight said:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><i>The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Albert_Victor,_Duke_of_Clarence_and_Avondale">Duke of Clarence</a><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">1</span></sup> was the Ripper.</i> No, Knight said the Ripper murders were done by others to cover up Clarence's morganatic marriage. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><i><a href="http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/castofthousands.crook.html">Annie Crook</a>, Clarence's supposed wife, was a prostitute.</i> No, Knight says she worked in a sweet shop. (I may be being unfair here. Robinson actually describes Crook as a 'whore' and it's hard to know whether this is meant to be taken literally or is just another of the abusive epithets he scatters through the book.)</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><i><a href="http://www.casebook.org/victims/tabram.html">Martha Tabram</a> was a Ripper victim.</i> No, Knight sticks to the canonical five and regards Tabram as being the victim of a different killer.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><i><a href="http://www.casebook.org/victims/eddowes.html">Catherine Eddowes</a> was one of the women who tried to blackmail the establishment over Clarence.</i> No, Knight claims Eddowes had nothing to do with the blackmail and was killed because she was mistaken for Mary Kelly.</li>
</ul>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
All these may be small errors, but they reflect a sloppy attitude to research. If I can spot all these mistakes in the two paragraphs Robinson writes on a subject with which I am familiar, why should I trust his reporting on other matters with which I am less so?</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
-</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The figure of Clarence and Robinson's habit of flinging abuse at the characters he describes leads on to one of the book's more unsettling, if peripheral aspects. Robinson describes the Duke of Clarence's probable involvement in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Street_scandal">Cleveland Street Scandal</a>. Again there's nothing new here - a male brothel on London's Cleveland Street was raided and there was evidence that Clarence had been a client. Homosexuality was illegal at the time, but moreover many of the boys working there were under-age even by today's laws. </div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thus when Robinson describes Clarence as an 'effete little useless pederast' it's possibly true and given the nature of the crime it's difficult to object completely to the level of invective. It's disturbing, however, when his name-calling takes a more generally homophobic turn. Terms such as 'nancy' seem to say more about the writer than the individual described. In discussing Michael Maybrick's motive (that he was gay and therefore - obviously - hated women) Robinson gives us:</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>I don’t actually know if Maybrick was homosexual, but predicated on that infallible adage, 'If it walks like a duck, etc', he was probably a bit of a ducky.</i></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Aside from the fact that Robinson doesn't 'actually know' very much at all about the case, one can't help feeling that those encounters with Uncle Monty, as told in <i>Withnail and I</i>, left a little bit more of a scar on the memory than we might have imagined.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSdw5HJLu82xaSLonE6tAxw3MA8dGbu3ASdaUFjIf5uMFkGMtJqEL08ZmRGQ6v_TPXgApjG9F7w-Tk-68JtxwDruR6DZYMQhGEp8TrMyUIZ533bHlL2IWWRrwblVAs4yrXqIGb2G6TNv5F/s1600/Richard-Griffiths.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="Uncle Monty" border="0" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSdw5HJLu82xaSLonE6tAxw3MA8dGbu3ASdaUFjIf5uMFkGMtJqEL08ZmRGQ6v_TPXgApjG9F7w-Tk-68JtxwDruR6DZYMQhGEp8TrMyUIZ533bHlL2IWWRrwblVAs4yrXqIGb2G6TNv5F/s400/Richard-Griffiths.jpg" title="Uncle Monty" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Richard Griffiths as Uncle Monty</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Admittedly it's somewhat refreshing to read a book on Jack the Ripper that displays an angry contempt for the failures of Victorian jurisprudence rather than mere historical disinterest, but it should cut both ways. Robinson is at perhaps his most passionate when describing two flagrant miscarriages of justice: Florence Maybrick's conviction for the murder of her husband and the case of William Barrett, tried (though acquitted) for the murder of 8-year-old <a href="http://victorianripper.niceboard.org/t1032-murder-of-john-gill">Johnnie Gill</a> in Bradford in December 1888 (where Robinson can be particularly sure of Barrett's innocence since he knows that the Ripper/Maybrick, in a surprising change of <i>modus operandi</i>, was in fact the killer).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Both Florence Maybrick and William Barrett were almost certainly innocent - there was no more than a hint of a <i>prima facie</i> case against them. Robinson is right to berate those who tried to condemn them.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Perhaps though, in the case of Michael Maybrick where Robinson provides not even that much in the way of evidence, he might consider the plank in his own eye first.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<hr style="text-align: justify;" />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: smaller;">Notes:</span></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<sup>1. </sup><span style="font-size: smaller;">Prince Albert Victor didn't actually receive the title Duke of Clarence until after the time of the murders, but this is generally how he is referred to.</span></div>
Jasper Kenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06629648886901894662noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1810142508063082905.post-25481565795018042292015-04-13T13:16:00.000+01:002016-10-08T16:26:30.267+01:00Come and Visit Your Good Friend Sweeney<br />
<i>Review: Sweeney Todd - English National Opera, London Coliseum.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIXeA4UhJ5zpfm0qGVLkAzgeRjmn_P_lwZsGz4KE6pRhp6p23EeaN-w5C2fVoldtXBEGqfVvWACrDeEPPY-2aKW1zsdwJ_Ofi8rRDP5z7n1ef9j2W4Zae8RNP3_r8Km2Q4FyxL74nyD9WE/s1600/4stars.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="38" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIXeA4UhJ5zpfm0qGVLkAzgeRjmn_P_lwZsGz4KE6pRhp6p23EeaN-w5C2fVoldtXBEGqfVvWACrDeEPPY-2aKW1zsdwJ_Ofi8rRDP5z7n1ef9j2W4Zae8RNP3_r8Km2Q4FyxL74nyD9WE/s200/4stars.png" width="200" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiD27EgJX4di49u7YVmQLPaJLC-4_h-Tm7b4e92z14r94hOiC7GOZ7DHqwJklbqrzywmOTXbdmsi3jeRAR7VjCNUVAmmc5vV6i0FP0Ecy8IC0Jqr-r9o8Gpd_9RZr8uRwe3y9RFcSGFrMFh/s1600/03e4345298ec3b6fb48090952d608ee3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Sweeney Todd" border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiD27EgJX4di49u7YVmQLPaJLC-4_h-Tm7b4e92z14r94hOiC7GOZ7DHqwJklbqrzywmOTXbdmsi3jeRAR7VjCNUVAmmc5vV6i0FP0Ecy8IC0Jqr-r9o8Gpd_9RZr8uRwe3y9RFcSGFrMFh/s1600/03e4345298ec3b6fb48090952d608ee3.jpg" title="Sweeney Todd" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Dontcha hate it when you're enjoying a show, but the rest of the audience are clearly enjoying it more? Or, more accurately, when the rest of the audience are making it clear that they're enjoying it more? <i><a href="http://www.sweeneytodd.co.uk/">Sweeney Todd</a></i> at the London Coliseum was a good show, but a standing ovation? What are the audience going to do when they see something really great?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I've seen quite a few <i>Sweeney</i>'s in my time, both professional and amateur. The best two were probably the version starring Michael Ball and Imelda Staunton at Chichester in 2011 (later transferred to the Adelphi in London, where I saw it) and The Royal Opera House production of 2003.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4h8lOHxIg6wGl8E2ycd2Kvgd9UbuNcfbW7qQ9144zb6Mc0DmtEp9_UadGVtOmnpHDyTdo9t_IByQVD2Osyh0BzCDSUGT8epF8HOQzDKLFXZlliTrtQcC7Nbxx2ta4fhPv_Ov7VVZTpKE8/s1600/7534_full.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Sweeney Todd" border="0" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4h8lOHxIg6wGl8E2ycd2Kvgd9UbuNcfbW7qQ9144zb6Mc0DmtEp9_UadGVtOmnpHDyTdo9t_IByQVD2Osyh0BzCDSUGT8epF8HOQzDKLFXZlliTrtQcC7Nbxx2ta4fhPv_Ov7VVZTpKE8/s1600/7534_full.jpg" title="Sweeney Todd" width="320" /></a>The ENO production comes in behind these, but not so very far behind. The most notable feature is that it's 'semi-staged'. This is probably its biggest fault. Sweeney's music and lyrics are among the best of the twentieth century, and stand up easily to concert performance and to recording. On the other hand, the sheer gruesomeness of the razors, the chair, the oven and much more really do lend the story to a full staging. Even the most parsimonious amateur productions try to make some attempt at realism with these aspects.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In being semi-staged, this production fell between the two stools - and worse than that, it opened by deliberately emphasizing the point. Throughout, the entire orchestra is on stage (impressive both visually and aurally) and the show opens with the cast lining up in front of music stands to sing, at which I felt a certain disappointment - but then came the twist. Midway through the opening number, the cast rebel, throw aside their music and stands, kick over some unnecessary set decoration and overturn the unconvincing grand piano to make it into a rostrum as they transform the stage into something more dynamic.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The point seems to be that we don't want this fusty concert staging, we want a full production! I quite agree, but it's a shame that this revolution can only deliver semi-staging. This is Liberal Democrats raging against the Tories, before pusillanimously adding, but let's not go as far as Labour.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
That said, some of the staging was very effective. Todd's chair didn't deliver his victims down a chute to the bakehouse; he simply covered their faces with a cloth and let them walk quietly away, which worked fine. I've certainly seen it done worse: an amateur production where victims had to do the 'walking downstairs behind the desk' trick. Ultimately though, the limitations of the staging, particularly in the final scenes, meant that for me the tension did not build quite as well as it usually does.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
The big production numbers were generally well choreographed, the best of them being the Act II opener, <i>More Hot Pies</i>, which worked to a climax of Mrs Lovett being lauded by her adoring customers in a style that echoed Marilyn Monroe in <i>Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend</i>.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhI_ZufzbKyWR00XxbdotFAiGYnURPntVx_e4S8Mb5gznaTGneWAHf7tbz4pmStJ8NVjKdj3pHQcNkALq0woe507BUlpuNMdvuI7VU1lIv2rguk_5EAqgA96_hwCT41rffJ7ratn1Dqm2EN/s1600/11995.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img alt="More Hot Pies" border="0" height="112" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhI_ZufzbKyWR00XxbdotFAiGYnURPntVx_e4S8Mb5gznaTGneWAHf7tbz4pmStJ8NVjKdj3pHQcNkALq0woe507BUlpuNMdvuI7VU1lIv2rguk_5EAqgA96_hwCT41rffJ7ratn1Dqm2EN/s1600/11995.jpg" title="More Hot Pies" width="200" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoGX7I5JtQP4oVCBa2-_liIBezneOMpNQJ5oswIpeF5W78EW4p9e4E7xfsPTIl6fBaOYjJBktCp7KfXplF-HJ4ZVk5cv4A47btDSX7kfMG_kD6atpEj_TVRoBSBHoUuDp0dWQO5fUaKopY/s1600/gentlemen-prefer-blondes-marilyn-monroe.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoGX7I5JtQP4oVCBa2-_liIBezneOMpNQJ5oswIpeF5W78EW4p9e4E7xfsPTIl6fBaOYjJBktCp7KfXplF-HJ4ZVk5cv4A47btDSX7kfMG_kD6atpEj_TVRoBSBHoUuDp0dWQO5fUaKopY/s1600/gentlemen-prefer-blondes-marilyn-monroe.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The on-stage orchestra was used to mixed effect. A plus-point was the interaction with violinists and flautists when Todd and Lovett discuss pies made from fiddle and piccolo players. In some instances, the musicians' equipment was used for props. This worked well when conductor's baton was used as a comb, or when one of the double-bassists' stools was used as Todd's preliminary barber's chair.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But the idea got more strained when musical props were used that did not come from the orchestra. A cymbal was used to represent (geddit?) the dish that pies were served on, but (unless I missed it) this was brought on as a prop, rather than taken from the orchestra. And the kettle drum which Lovett uses as a worktop (geddit? - no, hang on, it's a pie shop, not a tea shop) was twice brought on by stage crew, breaking any real connection with the orchestra. Similarly the trombone used to grind the meat (ged... no, don't even bother) was not taken from a trombonist; it was just an extension of the idea of musical instruments, the concept of why they were there having been forgotten.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
By definition though, this was never going to be a production that stands or falls on its staging. Musically, it was pretty top-notch. The orchestra and chorus sounded good, and the supporting cast were generally excellent. Jack North's Tobias managed to avoid the straight-out-of-theatre-school precociousness that such a young role can sometimes deliver. Rosalie Craig's Beggar Woman was too young to make any sense in terms of plot, but a difficult role was excellently sung. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkIGXkJ6ttbwN_WOpN0uIWtTfCGgWoCdV5NOQImmnlMGmHz8Isf6KmIZL3MwjsDjeMoFJ4ODNx3AxBHzuDlFd3dDdJMcyypoePzzA_DLQCj8IKy-y0PRSfd4VwB-gKRA5SVF-WVqu3aGYd/s1600/17-Emma-Thompson-Bryn-Terfel-Sweeney-Todd-London.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Emma Thompson and Bryn Terfel" border="0" height="221" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkIGXkJ6ttbwN_WOpN0uIWtTfCGgWoCdV5NOQImmnlMGmHz8Isf6KmIZL3MwjsDjeMoFJ4ODNx3AxBHzuDlFd3dDdJMcyypoePzzA_DLQCj8IKy-y0PRSfd4VwB-gKRA5SVF-WVqu3aGYd/s1600/17-Emma-Thompson-Bryn-Terfel-Sweeney-Todd-London.jpg" title="Emma Thompson and Bryn Terfel" width="320" /></a></div>
Emma Thompson as Mrs Lovett and Bryn Terfel were both on top form. Terfel's bass brought a strength and sustain to the music that you don't hear in more musical-theatre voices, and his acting was just right in a part that has to be mostly understated, but of occasional devastating passion. Thompson's voice is a contrast in style, and has a clear break in it that I thought would irritate, but which I quickly got used to. She performed the comedy well, but not as well as much of the audience seemed to think.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The jokes in <i>Sweeney Todd</i> I find much like the jokes in Shakespeare: they're witty rather than funny and you've heard them a dozen times before. They need a lot of clever delivery to make them fresh, and while that was often successful, it can't be done on every line. Maybe I do the audience a disservice in assuming they're all familiar with the show, but even heard for the first time, many of the gags just aren't laugh-out-loud funny. And some of the best are impossible to deliver well. For example, Mrs Lovett's 'That's all very well,' after Todd's devastating rendition of <i>Epiphany </i>is impossible to time because of the thirty seconds of applause that follow the song. And yet it got a big laugh - not a reflex, visceral convulsion at the humour, but a demonstration to the rest of the audience that the joke was got. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It's worth mentioning some of the cuts that were made. The two acts were 85 minutes and 55 minutes, so there was no real tightness on time, which makes me wonder at the reasoning behind some of it. As is often the case, the tooth pulling section of <i>The Contest</i> (don't think <i>Seinfeld</i>) is cut and having seen it both with and without I can't say I feel too strongly either way. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
More unusually though, all the toing and froing over Pirelli's death has gone. Traditionally he's throttled by Todd, but not quite killed, and dumped in a trunk. Then there's various business with both Lovett and Tobias coming up to look for him, while Pirelli's hand waggles, caught in the lid of the trunk, until Todd finally despatches him with the razor. I'm not sure it ever works that well, and probably would do less so in such a big theatre. But what the scene does do is set up the unpleasant ambiguity of Lovett's relationship with Tobias, fulfilled in the second act where her affection for him is revealed as pure sentimentality. As it is, Tobias simply disappears until the beginning of Act II.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The strangest cut, however, is not to include <i>The Tower of Bray</i> in <i>Parlour Songs</i>. While it's never going to be a hit, it's not long and is particularly haunting as a trio with Tobias below in the bakehouse. (This was attempted with <i>Sweet Polly Plunkett</i>, but wasn't contextualized and didn't work so well musically.) Additionally the dialogue around <i>The Tower of Bray</i> provides for some good jokes: 'LOVETT: How many bells are there? BEADLE: Twelve.' - I might even have laughed at that (though I've achieved as much by telling you that I might have).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In the end, it's about expectations. I love <i>Sweeney </i>and I was very slightly disappointed by a production I'd had high hopes for. Impertinent of me though it may be, I suspect some of the standing ovators were overcompensating for similar disappointment. For a seasoned Todd-follower there was plenty to enjoy and, as there always is, a little to criticize too. For a novice, I'd have to recommend full staging - maybe Thompson and Terfel should give it a go.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Jasper Kenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06629648886901894662noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1810142508063082905.post-91491017526751040432015-03-16T12:10:00.000+00:002017-08-25T09:35:22.806+01:00I Am Not As Other Men<div style="text-align: justify;">
Last year the results of an experiment were published that demonstrated that Americans are irrationally prejudiced against atheists<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><sup>1</sup></span>. Participants were described the life of an evident psychopath who in his youth tortured animals and in later years murdered homeless people. They were then asked if it was more probable that this person grew up to be 1) a teacher, 2) a Christian teacher, 3) a Muslim teacher or 4) an atheist teacher.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The results were that almost half the people surveyed went with an atheist teacher (with lower figures for a Christian teacher and even lower for a Muslim teacher).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The problem is that all those answers are wrong - categorically and unarguably wrong. It must be more probable that the person was a teacher. Given that there are some teachers who are not atheists, it is clearly more likely that the person (that any person) is a teacher of unspecified religion rather than an atheist teacher (or indeed a teacher of any other faith). Even if you hold the strange opinion that all teachers are atheists then options 1) and 4) become equal. It cannot be more probable that the person is an atheist teacher.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It's an example of what is known as the Conjunction Fallacy<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><sup>2</sup></span>, an example of Cognitive Bias<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><sup>3</sup></span> that occurs in many situations.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In Britain it affects political opinion, as a recent survey reveals.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now when it comes to economic policy, I reckon I'm a tad to the right of the UK population as a whole - which puts me way to the right of most people I discuss politics with. I should emphasize that this is only with regard to economics - on social policy I'm reliably informed that I have opinions so liberal they make David Cameron feel physically ill<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><sup>4</sup></span>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
That said, I think that I am on the right because of my opinions, not the reverse. I have made no decision that I am right wing and therefore adopted opinions favoured by the right. Indeed, in the past those same opinions have put me slightly to the left of centre.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And as most of us do, I'd always thought that most other people think like me. Not that they come to the same conclusions as me, obviously, but that they base their alignment on their opinions and not <i>vice versa</i>. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A YouGov survey conducted last week demonstrates that I was wrong<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><sup>5</sup></span>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Participants were asked the same question regarding various public services ranging from hospitals to banks. The question was whether the service was best run by the public sector, the private sector or that it doesn't matter as long as standards of service are maintained. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The answer is no-brainer. It doesn't matter as long as standards are maintained. That's assuming that people actually want good public services, which for the most part I'll take as read. But given that assumption, the answer is just as clear as that the psychopath is more probably a teacher.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Seems I'm in a minority, however. Our survey said:</div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiO49Rad3-ETbEClc1KMrgjCfkhYanWjXTWLgroYygACyay48EwddrXxy2oI5VvitnCZR3BSbu7-NqA7-uFaDuMsL8T5mkFol7mw6Y-kXPR3luzqNmGkHqeRWU8nQgwt7Uv7R4nBPmcbvW2/s1600/nationalisation.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="295" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiO49Rad3-ETbEClc1KMrgjCfkhYanWjXTWLgroYygACyay48EwddrXxy2oI5VvitnCZR3BSbu7-NqA7-uFaDuMsL8T5mkFol7mw6Y-kXPR3luzqNmGkHqeRWU8nQgwt7Uv7R4nBPmcbvW2/s1600/nationalisation.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The immediate conclusion we might draw from these results is that 18% of the population want hospitals run by the private sector, but I see something far more depressing. What we can read from that first line is that 92% of the population do NOT want standards to be maintained in hospitals. Given the choice between standards and observance of political dogma they chose their own flavour of dogma.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now you might disagree with my interpretation, you might say that what people are saying is that they favour public hospitals <i>because </i>that's the best way to maintain standards. That may be how people are thinking, but if so it's another fine example of the Conjunction Fallacy. Only if you have absolute certainty that your way of doing things is the way that maintains standards do the two options become equivalent. That's a megalomaniacal degree of certainty. And even then, it only makes the two options equal, so the answer should be 'don't know'.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I've tried to think of other explanations. Maybe the participants were just too busy to think about it and defaulted to a dogmatic response? But the problem is that here the pragmatic answer<i> is</i> the easy answer: we want what's best. It's only in the real world that things get difficult, when asking for what's best prompts the difficult follow-up question: and how are we going to achieve that? If people aren't even prepared to think in the easy case, what hope have we in the difficult?</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I can't make sense of it, and yet it makes sense of much of my experience of politics. I'd always assumed that people were like me, that even when we disagree on policy our starting point is what is best for the country. But it turns out that that isn't the case - when asked directly, most people favour dogma.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What's missing from the survey is a more direct, neutral question: Do you favour a) whatever maintains standards or b) an ideological solution. I suspect in that case more would favour option a), but if so it would only tell us that people don't recognize their own opinions as ideological.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There was one further breakdown of the data, however, looking at the tendency to choose the pragmatic option (maintaining standards) broken down by party support:</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7vtdaOPaQvQ6-TSvTMiwI4e40sGg3aNM2Do3vUhkO1_7a-HARyzV_SL_25TWYkqJnBF-znv-NylXY6ecSDxmJ7f0qqDho1sHKqNVA_fNAi8NLqWKV4kisf8zSVWXBSZi2VPVigN2bFjkJ/s1600/ideo.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="226" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7vtdaOPaQvQ6-TSvTMiwI4e40sGg3aNM2Do3vUhkO1_7a-HARyzV_SL_25TWYkqJnBF-znv-NylXY6ecSDxmJ7f0qqDho1sHKqNVA_fNAi8NLqWKV4kisf8zSVWXBSZi2VPVigN2bFjkJ/s1600/ideo.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In all cases but one, Conservatives were more likely to choose the pragmatic option than Labour voters. It's not great news for them - the pragmatists are still a minority - but it still seems to be a significant difference.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Which is odd, since one of the most common accusations thrown by the left is that is that it is the right who are ideologically driven. It seems that if there is a difference, dogmatism is slightly more a feature of the left.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But that's a digression. Being pragmatical doesn't mean that you come up with better policies, but it does at least give you a chance. If you can't even admit that you'd prefer good standards to the implementation of an ideology, what contribution are you really making?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'll always place myself firmly in that minority cyan block in the middle of the chart. And if, like most people, you don't place yourself there, then what's the prospect of any discussion between us?<br />
<br />
UPDATE: For a good general introduction to cognitive biases try <a href="https://www.geekwrapped.com/cognitive-bias-survival-guide" target="_blank">this handy guide</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">1. <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0092302">http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0092302</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">2. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">3. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">4. <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/feb/01/prisoners-vote-may-elections-compensation-claims">http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/feb/01/prisoners-vote-may-elections-compensation-claims</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">5. <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/03/12/nationalisation-ideology-beats-pragmatism/">https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/03/12/nationalisation-ideology-beats-pragmatism/</a></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Jasper Kenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06629648886901894662noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1810142508063082905.post-25353244405722609802014-10-21T11:36:00.001+01:002014-10-21T11:39:25.022+01:00What Have the Russians Ever Done for Us?<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhAxowpVzgGsWWt71yRgXQBb2X04ZwRdIJjTN035QwWXVCKmOR_2r_j6RHmA5JsmWM-zbubkTQrBca5tQmIffzCPkBJNCMJLTABB4M6g0WL0L7oa3CTRMDvBKlyuTemHCtr5aHGN0WfE8I/s1600/Stravinsky.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Igor Stravinsky" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhAxowpVzgGsWWt71yRgXQBb2X04ZwRdIJjTN035QwWXVCKmOR_2r_j6RHmA5JsmWM-zbubkTQrBca5tQmIffzCPkBJNCMJLTABB4M6g0WL0L7oa3CTRMDvBKlyuTemHCtr5aHGN0WfE8I/s1600/Stravinsky.jpg" height="212" title="Igor Stravinsky" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Name some great composers of the twentieth century. Chances are a few of them will be Russian: Prokofiev, Rachmaninov, Stravinsky, Shostakovich. For me, the last two are particular favourites. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiT9w1SeSE-GoEHWktcoLoU1v7ZaRVE3EYRbI64cM4NT2fSvwWuO77mQrJ-s76zetfDAJjmgBR9QvRyz6jI9knw93Tv5iciPUe8aZREVCtvTHrGKbakqW9deIlwkK3ml31HeBy38VXAvpgt/s1600/Shostakovich.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Dmitry Shostakovich" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiT9w1SeSE-GoEHWktcoLoU1v7ZaRVE3EYRbI64cM4NT2fSvwWuO77mQrJ-s76zetfDAJjmgBR9QvRyz6jI9knw93Tv5iciPUe8aZREVCtvTHrGKbakqW9deIlwkK3ml31HeBy38VXAvpgt/s1600/Shostakovich.jpg" height="200" title="Dmitry Shostakovich" width="131" /></a></div>
Igor Stravinsky was twenty-four years older than Dmitry Shostakovich, but perhaps a bigger difference between them was that Stravinsky never lived in the Soviet Union, while Shostakovich spent his entire adult life there. By the time of the Revolution, Stravinsky was already famous and travelling the world. The two composers did not meet until 1962, when the totalitarianism of Stalin had begun to thaw under Khrushchev and the eighty-year-old Stravinsky at last felt it was safe to visit his homeland. A banquet was arranged at the Metropole Hotel in Moscow in honour of Stravinsky, with Shostakovich in attendance. Aram Khachaturian, another great Russian – well, Georgian – composer, witnessed their meeting:
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<i>They were placed next to each other and sat in complete silence. I sat opposite them. Finally Shostakovich plucked up the courage and opened the conversation:</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>‘What do you think of Puccini?’</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>‘I can’t stand him,’ Stravinsky replied.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>‘Oh, and neither can I, neither can I,’ said Shostakovich.</i><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">1</span></sup></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I find it hard to disagree with them. However entertaining Puccini’s music is, it is only the climax of a West-European and specifically Italian style that had developed over the previous century. The Russian’s were doing something quite new.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKAlNnlPIUgzCfB6k1ofH3x52jukf5E2Sy2BKu_ekr5XfUC_EaVjEg6O5PzbQx2zwFpx847XRO2WJiPVHJhCRrvi52NkyMXGYcObf2csYbnUEv44ymlzijNW65k0BNnfy2LtCZ7sXwzBQo/s1600/2008_0425Russia0119.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Alexander Pushkin" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKAlNnlPIUgzCfB6k1ofH3x52jukf5E2Sy2BKu_ekr5XfUC_EaVjEg6O5PzbQx2zwFpx847XRO2WJiPVHJhCRrvi52NkyMXGYcObf2csYbnUEv44ymlzijNW65k0BNnfy2LtCZ7sXwzBQo/s1600/2008_0425Russia0119.JPG" height="240" title="Alexander Pushkin" width="320" /></a>And it wasn’t just in music. Name some great novelists – of any century. You’ll probably start off with quite a list of English or English-speaking writers, but after that it won’t be long before you get to Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, and not much longer to Bulgakov, Pasternak, Gogol and Nabokov (whom you might already have listed, since he wrote novels in both English and Russian). If you allow the constraints to expand a little you might also include Chekov as a playwright and Pushkin as a poet. And that’s just to list the household names (my household, anyway).
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This blossoming of literary talent occurred over the shortest of periods. To go from Pushkin to Tolstoy is almost to go from Chaucer to Shakespeare. From one of the first to use his native language (as opposed, in both cases, to French) to the archetype of writing in that language. It was a transition that took Britain over two centuries, but took Russia scarcely three decades. And Britain has rarely been in the same league as Russia with regards to composers. As for artists, perhaps Britain does better overall, but just as our music has no Stravinsky, our art has no Kandinsky.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaanamQCdpco2k00t6qIvaIfbHm0kL15rGYe0LR146AeFSq078XyLcroScaUx0rqAPjjlviaKYQip_jTtqgSspgiBUQQwR7Zpb5YNpZOsDW-uYo1R9KRWEHNwgPM2X2ku1n3Iyu1OgQuyH/s1600/first-abstract-watercolor-1910.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="First Abstract Watercolour - Vasily Kandinsky, 1910" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaanamQCdpco2k00t6qIvaIfbHm0kL15rGYe0LR146AeFSq078XyLcroScaUx0rqAPjjlviaKYQip_jTtqgSspgiBUQQwR7Zpb5YNpZOsDW-uYo1R9KRWEHNwgPM2X2ku1n3Iyu1OgQuyH/s1600/first-abstract-watercolor-1910.jpg" height="298" title="First Abstract Watercolour - Vasily Kandinsky, 1910" width="400" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Like Shostakovich, Vasiliy Vasilievich Kandinsky was in Russia at the time of the Revolution, but was able to leave in 1921. He settled in Germany – until the Nazis closed the Bauhaus, where he taught. He moved to France, soon to find himself once again under Nazi rule when they invaded. He died just four months after Paris was liberated. Long before that, in 1910, he produced a painting which he appropriately titled <i>First Abstract Watercolour</i>. It was just that – the first truly abstract painting. Kandinsky went on to produce many others, and founded an entire art movement.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Kandinsky equated painting with music and tried to imitate music’s inherently abstract nature. He called many of his works compositions and experienced art and music synaesthetically. Early in his career he wrote:
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Colour is the keyboard, the eyes are the hammers, the soul is the piano with many strings. The artist is the hand that plays, touching one key or another, to cause vibrations in the soul.
</i><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">2</span></sup></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibTGOYAo8SkR8gnrqul6mXW16g7VoIpQoSQXKa6BlX1h58xP3N0xs4fFUbxmc8Way5Rjg3vWfAlvflGHVey8NFrettm5PAZagKPOnKBnQebb037dq8PbNr-Gwfvv1Urh8DCEFhNlJbrk69/s1600/Composition+VII.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Composition VII - Vasily Kandinsky, 1913" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibTGOYAo8SkR8gnrqul6mXW16g7VoIpQoSQXKa6BlX1h58xP3N0xs4fFUbxmc8Way5Rjg3vWfAlvflGHVey8NFrettm5PAZagKPOnKBnQebb037dq8PbNr-Gwfvv1Urh8DCEFhNlJbrk69/s1600/Composition+VII.jpg" height="266" title="Composition VII - Vasily Kandinsky, 1913" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Stravinsky and Kandinsky knew each other in Paris in the 1930s, though unlike the artist, the composer left France for America before the German occupation. It was long after the Russian Revolution, and longer still after each man’s personal revolution in his own field of art. The 1910s were a decade that changed the world in many ways. Politically the impact of the First World War and the Russian Revolution cannot be underestimated, and we shouldn’t forget the Xinhai Revolution in China or the Easter Rising in Ireland. The sinking of RMS Titanic is still remembered today and marks the apogee, and therefore the endpoint, of mankind’s blind faith in technology. Kandinsky produced the first abstract painting in 1910, but it was in 1913 that Stravinsky’s revolution became violent.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Le Sacre du Printemps</i> (<i>The Rite of Spring</i>) was first performed at the <i>Théâtre des Champs-Élysées</i> on 29<sup>th</sup> May 1913. The fact that it caused the audience to riot is well-known, and not entirely overstated. But the production itself was revolutionary, both in terms of its music and its choreography. The première has been described as ‘the most important single moment in the history of twentieth century music’<sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">3</span></sup>. The whole of the production team was made up of Russian émigrés: Stravinsky, the composer; Vaslav Nijinsky, the choreographer; Nikolai Rerikh, the set designer; Sergei Diaigilev, the producer. None of them died in the country of his birth. It was in the Russian Empire that their talents first went unrecognized, but in the Soviet Union that they knew they would not be free to express themselves as artists.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEix17vzFTJwDsdDL4qzCpNKfRC8ssm-XDTqIwFPYjopPT1G5euMR-NJfQC-sS5Ad7SGwjd72Qkaw_wT_w32AukWeKuSEoJmiCN7YJSpKODHCYBgHjAnEFPG88uj02mmLIfUDX2hodOjYCus/s1600/RiteofSpringDancers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Dancers from the première of The Rite of Spring" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEix17vzFTJwDsdDL4qzCpNKfRC8ssm-XDTqIwFPYjopPT1G5euMR-NJfQC-sS5Ad7SGwjd72Qkaw_wT_w32AukWeKuSEoJmiCN7YJSpKODHCYBgHjAnEFPG88uj02mmLIfUDX2hodOjYCus/s1600/RiteofSpringDancers.jpg" height="250" title="Dancers from the première of The Rite of Spring" width="400" /></a></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But art did flourish in the Soviet Union, even under Stalin, though the lifestyle of those who produced it was precarious. The Soviet leader regarded himself as an expert on every aspect of Russian life – military, economic and cultural. In each field he was arbitrary. In 1929 Mihail Bulgakov found himself unable to make a living when the Soviet government banned the publication of his novels and the production of his plays. But at the same time Stalin intervened personally to protect Bulgakov from arrest. And yet when Bulgakov wrote to Stalin, asking for permission to leave the Soviet Union on the grounds that he was not able to practise his profession, the dictator refused. He died in 1940, but it was more than two decades before many of his major works were published. When they were it became clear why they had been regarded as so dangerous – although he was not always critical of the regime.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjMVeY2rD9oByOVmKbqrZDwgUMThX2NUSngZAox4A8Gb4RA9H-Xb-j8Hi_oXmW0tc-P_2M07iNc264yZ2OviZwsVlp8-IvZVm2q4nZQ5b_WCRpxw_UKYTdn2oC9UFVqRI3UXRxd3mVwrFY/s1600/Stalin.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Joseph Stalin" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjMVeY2rD9oByOVmKbqrZDwgUMThX2NUSngZAox4A8Gb4RA9H-Xb-j8Hi_oXmW0tc-P_2M07iNc264yZ2OviZwsVlp8-IvZVm2q4nZQ5b_WCRpxw_UKYTdn2oC9UFVqRI3UXRxd3mVwrFY/s1600/Stalin.jpg" height="200" title="Joseph Stalin" width="132" /></a></div>
Music did not convey so obvious a message. As Kandinsky had observed, music is by its nature more abstract than literature – harder to identify with a political opinion. Dmitry Shostakovich’s work was at first found to be favourable by the authorities. His opera, <i>Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk</i>, was initially described as a work that ‘could have been written only by a Soviet composer brought up in the best tradition of Soviet culture.’<sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">4</span></sup> But that was before Stalin had seen the opera. Soon after he did, articles criticizing it began to appear in <i>Pravda</i>, and Shostakovich’s earlier works began to be critically reappraised. The same year, 1936, Shostakovich completed his Fourth Symphony. As with Bulgakov’s works, the symphony wasn’t performed until decades later, in 1961 – but at least the composer was alive to witness it. He was luckier than many around him; this was the era of the Great Purge, when many were arrested and executed, including his brother-in-law.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But Shostakovich was no fool. He changed his compositional style and his Fifth Symphony was a huge success. An official review praised him for ‘not having given in to the seductive temptations of his previous erroneous ways.’<sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">5</span></sup> During World War II he wrote his Seventh Symphony – titled <i>Leningrad</i>. One of its first performances was in the city after which it was named, at the time under siege by the Nazis, the scores smuggled in to be performed by the city’s starving orchestra. It is still regarded as a memorial to the 25 million Soviet citizens who died in the war.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4B9BgJaIffKQTvl50cNWyhCiTDc8xO-nVEf4GxCg-UlYcMclm0CEHLp1H9bCBcC7DGLf1PSfqKBNBJ32lhlgByZ8NDWa4Hro6Bk9VbKh6u_fCu8EY6HbBzhNYzGkg8v4adAXeigfnhHwz/s1600/Seige_of_Leningrad.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="St Isaac's Cathedral, Leningrad, during the siege" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4B9BgJaIffKQTvl50cNWyhCiTDc8xO-nVEf4GxCg-UlYcMclm0CEHLp1H9bCBcC7DGLf1PSfqKBNBJ32lhlgByZ8NDWa4Hro6Bk9VbKh6u_fCu8EY6HbBzhNYzGkg8v4adAXeigfnhHwz/s1600/Seige_of_Leningrad.jpg" height="270" title="St Isaac's Cathedral, Leningrad, during the siege" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
But despite his success, Shostakovich was once again denounced in 1948, along with Prokofiev and Khachaturian. With Stalin’s death he gradually came back into favour. In 1960 he joined the Communist Party, but only so that he could become General Secretary of the Composers' Union.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It would be a preposterous exaggeration to claim that all of Russian culture can be compressed into a period of less than two centuries, but from the viewpoint of the West, it can seem like it. From – to choose a couple of arbitrary points – the birth of Aleksandr Pushkin in 1799 to the death of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in 2008 one could pick almost any decade and find a great work of art produced by some Russian or other. Most of it was produced by individuals whose lives were oppressed by a totalitarian regime, or who had fled such a regime for the freedom of the West. Russia now is in a strange place politically – more liberal than it has ever been, and yet still authoritarian by the standards of the rest of Europe. In the past it has been the birthplace of revolutions in every field of culture which have swept the world. It’s difficult to see much hope for the prospect of another, but Russia – that riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma – can always surprise.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">1. E.Wilson, <i>Shostakovich: A Life Remembered</i></span><br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">2. Hajo Düchting, <i>Wassily Kandinsky, 1866-1944: A Revolution in Painting</i></span><br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">3. Thomas Forrest Kelly, <i>First Nights – Five Musical Premiers</i></span><br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">4. Dmitry Shostakovich (compiled by L. Grigoryev and Y. Platek), <i>Shostakovich: About Himself and His Times</i></span><br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">5. E.Wilson, <i>Shostakovich: A Life Remembered</i></span>
</div>
Jasper Kenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06629648886901894662noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1810142508063082905.post-72857120601179092192014-10-12T10:54:00.000+01:002014-10-12T10:54:31.773+01:00Tell Me More, Tell Me More<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
With the publication of <i>The Last Rite</i> – the final instalment of <i>The Danilov Quintet</i> – imminent, it’s time for me to make a confession: I didn’t make it all up. Admittedly the stuff about vampires and a curse on the blood of the Romanov emperors was all my idea, but as for the rest of it I pride myself on my attention to historical accuracy. It’s always pleasing to read reviews that say how well-researched the books are, and I’m often asked for recommendations of books which go into the history behind the quintet in more detail.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So I’ve gone back through my library and picked out a couple of history books for each period covered – those that I particularly remember from the many others that I trawled through to uncover the minutiae of Imperial Russian life.<br />
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
Twelve – 1812
</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://amzn.to/1srvCyP" imageanchor="1" style="display: inline !important; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8ABzd_7_61SRYJoF_Z6VCkfaIQdsg23_y-1xx0Gq7vsXDHtQUxbLwIGJ6n4VGBOwTz3rOO4WpEEsISv2IxgMPonUrrSnRYsyd6KtWoWAaa6bTYOcZ2-BNdznS3NfCS-S_b9h5Q3ptVAhD/s1600/all1.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<a href="http://amzn.to/1191ahH" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRPn84MIsIMUIXzrk8czFVyY24hmC8-JFMbJteu3gkMgbUJFfNIXYkDsDjvM_jvKDptOQkpIULnDUteG0u3du8paTozfuZWq-VjRRMDyxgn5gjcguFllo7Q34Go0YwF7k1FhCY6BD9pUt8/s1600/Zamoyski.jpg" height="200" width="130" /></a>I first read Adam Zamoyski’s <i><a href="http://amzn.to/1191ahH">1812 – Napoleon’s Fatal March on Moscow</a></i> before the idea of writing <i>Twelve </i>ever occurred to me. It clearly left something of an impression, and the freezing winter nights of the French retreat came back to me as the ideal location for a vampire tale. I have his biography of Chopin lined up to read soon.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://amzn.to/1s6HJ1B" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEip-lIq4pcyuvdBp5xR7VFYVFdsOP5ZnXKrW_B2quN0Y8drgiAkJxUVM6uI-h5MlLD8Ynz2QgmVrfkh975ioz7BrxHPR7AlmdNYXJerTXsFa1hNqn-HVBykpNwKk7D8JsjFLK7X_9yJPSgj/s1600/Olivier.jpg" height="200" width="129" /></a>Once I’d plotted <i>Twelve</i>, I realized that if I was going to make it authentic I’d need an in-depth account of Napoleon’s occupation of the old Russian capital. I had to go back to 1964 to find something good enough: <i><a href="http://amzn.to/1s6HJ1B">The Burning of Moscow 1812</a></i> by Daria Olivier. There’s a fascinating amount of detail in a book that covers just five vital days of European history.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
Thirteen Years Later – 1825
</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://amzn.to/1srvK1x" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi56pvHanyWKMhiNY-gbTyVYQ065oY8ue7NBo2G8h8Vd-ejqmiJZJwbQMJHzIDpl8j8WiBTGr5PRBwsVXf-o9QImQTd9JxK2F0tI_dTYhcv57MOm1IMhsVXwObk4PBVBD1ps2bOI2oBvAgk/s1600/all2.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://amzn.to/1w0Ny3r" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4Hlb7wBNkt7T1Dloa1GaZlwakM87mVI3EJYinsl19Z7pkWgpYNSG4aw790abXJDVfaZMmZlWGB3hIycLvJvaB43qNN9hS0s9QVhLy_d2LQYfvbuKa1JJfKT3ZLIwqbqv41tI6ZnZd9AhB/s1600/Troubetzkoy.jpg" height="200" width="130" /></a></div>
In historical terms, <i>Thirteen Years Later</i> covers two closely related events: the death of Tsar Alexander I and the Decembrist Revolt – an uprising of army officers against his successor Nicholas I.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://amzn.to/1sBph36" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhdnLT9HLJCStZzXMtNlGCZbA8QUVFYxt_lOxKqEg89sI8rGMPlKSGjku0yXjemEyJ5sel5rryd8e4ank24FBkQHhYfq7DZBJ2sTuiGCi1v0tpGs-ZAMqyrcX4-Y1vPZvb8DWOg7eH_RKq/s1600/Mazour.jpg" height="200" width="130" /></a>One of the joys of writing historical fiction is the freedom to choose which path to follow when historians themselves are unsure of the truth. Often my choice is the less likely – and therefore more fascinating – path. Since 1825 there has been a persistent rumour – even within the Romanov family – that Alexander did not die then, but faked his own death in order to be free of the burden of ruling Russia. The threads of the story are brought together wonderfully in Alexis S. Troubetzkoy’s <i><a href="http://amzn.to/1w0Ny3r">Imperial Legend</a></i>, although unlike me, Troubetzkoy does not suggest that the tsar’s disappearance was down to the fact that the blood of the vampire Dracula flowed in his veins.<br />
<br /></div>
<div justify="" text-align:="">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The fame of the revolutions of 1917 has somewhat obscured the uprising of 1825, leaving it hard to find thorough histories of the subject. This time a detailed study came from 1937 with Anatole G. Mazour’s <a href="http://amzn.to/1sBph36">The First Russian Revolution</a>, 1825. It’s fascinating to wonder just how different the world might have been if the uprising had succeeded.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
The Third Section – 1854-1856
</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://amzn.to/1p1gQZD" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiptTtqy05m436lkzxRUk14ySk05XlvERw3i5UHoaXdfEZetrVzocHM2n_fpW3UZJHbUA7S5FacdroPFsswDPs-XblXO7pG7ipl6KQZJn4Ew1h7jcdLlziG09EPubk7ttmsR4tKErOAS6ds/s1600/all3.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://amzn.to/1suKnB6" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsN9JfYD-WiCrLvnykqnEpyObJKfZHxHiqwb6nBAQUZMVMU5WMWZEXt8vI8nkT2IE8WMJysGd-OcAjq7U14g4XK1h4upVkRXhI8ua49epSxjQKOweqyejmRAYXzMMO4iTCD03hNBwBRI5O/s1600/Books+009.JPG" height="200" width="132" /></a></div>
Although I read plenty on the Crimean War for research, it was other aspects of the period that caught my attention. The title of the novel comes from The Third Section (sometimes translated as Department) of His Imperial Majesty’s Own Chancellery, a rather long-winded name for Tsar Nicholas I’s secret police. <i><a href="http://amzn.to/1suKnB6">The Third Department</a></i> by P. S. Squire, written in 1968 provides a good understanding of the organization. It’s easy to see a thread that stretches on to the Ohrana, the Cheka, the NKVD and the KGB (and perhaps beyond).
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I fear that my fascination for the next selection may not be shared by all, but the development of the railways, and particularly the building of the St Petersburg to Moscow railway, was essential to the modernization of Russia. Richard Mowbray Haywood’s <i><a href="http://amzn.to/1suKJYo">Russia Enters the Railway Age, 1842-55</a></i> has detail invaluable for anyone writing about the period, and the storytelling still delivers a highly readable text.
</div>
<br />
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
The People’s Will – 1881
</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://amzn.to/1qEWDIE" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxARbOL4GTapqzgU8PHPM4Npo59dnyZSvNvh6xRdy1v1LuQbz1Prc4OMgoPzOTLDebKDhss0jN3weF_tlTKnAz7VeVffwlteO22kZLDvKSAV7zjZjPHB_p8TybIVEJIwWtJ1hNeII05vwR/s1600/all4.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://amzn.to/1EKlntu" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgTTYyabuFqvYIIiUlW7rF0uxq4EIbbqnirYVvAx0FEtNORksapwbQmmK3eSMNmIDEkzR3GjVdH55adsQEekbk0zCl9S4vKkrr26XC__heukRmRfDH2stHVsg6TGTHKQTiWIEqylfW-sks/s1600/Radzinsky.jpg" /></a></div>
Another decade, another tsar and another failed revolution. The People’s Will was a terrorist organization that murdered Tsar Alexander II – although the ensuing revolution they had hoped for never came to pass.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://amzn.to/1vYrF2D" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzXZlGG6rYcJ1j-wSumdmCW6brT0FawlGz7o-EnQNWEtiGcHIidgaUqqD-lyNAdEJH37nR7ebcOFdEVLkXzzcAUZCif38BZu71ubl2WEPHC1XolMvzTZdKZzmFqmuBwy6PVmtx1MELPMpz/s1600/Croft.jpg" height="200" width="150" /></a>I couldn’t find one single all-encompassing text on the events and had to piece things together from several sources. In <i><a href="http://amzn.to/1EKlntu">Alexander II – The Last Great Tsar </a></i>Edvard Radzinsky gives a highly readable account of the life and death of Russia’s most (perhaps only) liberal tsar, though betrays a little more partially than most historical biographers do.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Historical fiction relies on detail and this is often found not in the broad, sweeping brush of a generalist, but in the biography of the one of the bit players. Lee B. Croft’s print-to-order <i><a href="http://amzn.to/1vYrF2D">Nikolai Ivanovich Kibalchich – Terrorist Rocket Pioneer</a></i> gives an account of the life of one of the leading members of The People’s Will – the man who designed the bombs that killed the tsar and also a prototype rocket intended to take travellers to the moon.<br />
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
</h3>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
The Last Rite – 1917-1918
</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://amzn.to/1srvPSC" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHg57MYyDn1EIym48eSI9LA9iOAB7PISD7Jmgv_GuGCjAzvPk-dIiVTTlup7RlWunUGwSFQCyaX5dZ1wE2mklQYhpFxa9Q5qzrCeZ1BZEPnv75XUX8jfJNQsu-l6Ajzuqa3ony0Z8FQuCP/s1600/all5.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://amzn.to/1suLBwj" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrRw7oEPihh9pcOUOxR3ijh25WSqNv4CzXr1ScNobAMh0sXVslbBDFJziXe-ouBGoo-GOJZNE2xKNQY2doMNSlivO0T16oIAK_V4NSenVNYlgsrDrccd-CnNI8wXMVqS45CoTNw7ESGR-C/s1600/Figes+1917.jpg" height="200" width="128" /></a></div>
Not since I wrote <i>Twelve </i>had I researched a period that was so well covered in the history section of bookshops. In all of twentieth century history only the World Wars have been as well documented as the Russian Revolution, so my selections here are the best of many. The first is very well known, and its reputation is not overstated: <i><a href="http://amzn.to/1suLBwj">A People’s Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891-1924</a></i> by Orlando Figes. It is both wide-ranging and detailed and takes full advantage of the benefits of hindsight.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://amzn.to/1qK3GzR" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_D5v91bDLIzCdeURi5jGmWLA9oNpBr9QHb3Elu-x2FvkgcbHRQMHaTdRVzPOsCoyUSEU9LVzndOWusrymhMN9Xz-OLBmPZfga-lQ-cvbBPnLcTiqGujqC4OJrx1qlgXwWFxdGmwDaFWAi/s1600/Reed.jpg" height="200" width="130" /></a>Quite the reverse can be said of <i><a href="http://amzn.to/1qK3GzR">Ten Days That Shook the World</a></i>, a first-hand account by American journalist John Reed of his experiences of the Bolshevik coup. Such a personal account, from a man who does not attempt to hide his admiration for Lenin and his comrades, must be treated carefully as a contribution to the historical record, but is unrivalled in its evocation of what it was like to be on the streets of Petrograd at that time.</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
One Book to Rule Them All, One Book to Find Them
</h3>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://amzn.to/1195zBg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBH7JNFGaD1Lt_rJ-H3dksWvD5SFhaAHfpMsuYT2aLxIymBW4SoLCntnmDAX9-OrqXeZz0n34YQ7b2u1rHM2wTj_pSeSWk0qIXf99zYfHBfoJgf_p2hpN5_P1aSOK_v4HH9oWws1an3xE6/s1600/Figes+Dance.jpg" height="320" width="218" /></a></div>
There’s one last book I’d like to mention, one which attempts to cover the whole of Russian history, often eschewing the lives and deaths of the tsars and the battles they won. Again it is by Orlando Figes: <i><a href="http://amzn.to/1195zBg">Natasha’s Dance – A Cultural History of Russia</a></i>. Aside from fictional sources such as Tolstoy’s <i><a href="http://amzn.to/1sBs8cc">War and Peace</a></i> (from which Figes’ book takes its name), I found nothing that gives a better feeling for what Russia was actually like in the century leading up to the Revolution.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br /></div>
Jasper Kenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06629648886901894662noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1810142508063082905.post-44273691315417801432014-03-22T17:15:00.001+00:002014-03-22T17:15:53.229+00:00The Wicker Man – The Final Cut<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheTTgNey5meEdNTYUQcelUvzELJrYadvVHTqTCECsTDcBx-6sduaVw4rPjM3HKYilirOK-Ga31ERYGlzwZZlszYTE3ije4nGA6ZBWZ71M2uSkLS5_SmjUl49LeUqQxtGvdlDcpu-QaTpyk/s1600/wicker-man.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="The Wicker Man - The Final Cut" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheTTgNey5meEdNTYUQcelUvzELJrYadvVHTqTCECsTDcBx-6sduaVw4rPjM3HKYilirOK-Ga31ERYGlzwZZlszYTE3ije4nGA6ZBWZ71M2uSkLS5_SmjUl49LeUqQxtGvdlDcpu-QaTpyk/s1600/wicker-man.jpg" height="320" style="float: right; margin-left: 5px; margin-top: 10px;" title="The Wicker Man - The Final Cut" width="223" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Like <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054215/" target="_blank"><i>Psycho</i> </a>and <i><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063442/" target="_blank">The Planet of the Apes</a></i>, <i><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070917/" target="_blank">The Wicker Man</a></i> is a film for which I
cannot remember not knowing the twist.
<br />
<br />
In the case of those two it’s conceivable that there really
never was such a time; the films are so well entrenched in popular culture that
I may have known what happens at the end even before I saw them. I doubt the
same is true of <i>The Wicker Man</i>. I’d
never even heard of it before I first saw it. I must simply have forgotten the
experience of discovering for the first time the climax of Sergeant Howie’s
visit to Summerisle. That’s a shame, because it’s quite a surprise … and for
the benefit of the handful of people who’ve not seen the film I won’t reveal it
here.
<br />
<br />
I first saw <i>
The Wicker
Man
</i> late at night on the BBC sometime in the late 70s or early 80s. This
version would have been the theatrical release. By all accounts it was a rushed
edit done by a production company that had little confidence in the success of
the movie. That said it’s still an extraordinary film and is the version that
has primarily given <i>The Wicker Man</i> its
reputation and following.
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkWoNO8lfMWeySr3oBfxMybW9TQcxsMZhJ505j8f2ChTY5IE-ISaY3NqqsjVhP2F_QBZf6sLJA_k16z0R4mCknYZR-rppXUKgo5M0ivAfVVaI8N90el69NOdqlVi-lrEiGjXo5iOUhutud/s1600/robin-hardy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Robin Hardy" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkWoNO8lfMWeySr3oBfxMybW9TQcxsMZhJ505j8f2ChTY5IE-ISaY3NqqsjVhP2F_QBZf6sLJA_k16z0R4mCknYZR-rppXUKgo5M0ivAfVVaI8N90el69NOdqlVi-lrEiGjXo5iOUhutud/s1600/robin-hardy.jpg" style="float: left; margin-right: 5px; margin-top: 15px;" title="Robin Hardy" width="280" /></a></div>
In 2002 <i><a href="http://amzn.to/Q1clUg" target="_blank">The Director’s Cut</a></i> was released; director <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hardy_(film_director)" target="_blank">Robin Hardy</a> made use of unused footage to produce something closer to his original
vision. It’s a full fifteen minutes longer. I think I’ve only ever watched this
DVD once for the tangential reason that it has no subtitles. My girlfriend is
deaf and so our frequent viewings (and believe me, we watch it a lot) have been
confined to a DVD of the theatrical release that came free with <i><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk" target="_blank">The Guardian</a></i> one weekend – but which did
have subtitles.
<br />
<br />
Last year marked the 40<sup>th</sup> anniversary of the film
and saw the release of a <a href="http://amzn.to/1dl9OPd" target="_blank">new DVD</a> containing three versions of the movie - the
theatrical release, the director’s cut and a new ‘final’ cut – along with some
documentaries, a CD of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Giovanni" target="_blank">Paul Giovanni</a>’s amazing music and even a flyer urging us
to get the sheet music for the soundtrack (duly acquired). And it has subtitles.
<br />
<br />
Recently we watched all three versions back-to-back, and so
I thought I’d share my thoughts on the differences.
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJ0KNZtVeInILiH6-T6p_bXx1bFdoTrOkxlcmqWQjAfRYQ8h7dhqHRtHPRwnEWsoom-TdeWOYis_z9J3y5fT6XBQHHjXfeJpLlfcYoX52C1yQ7rV_GT1J349f69UhXSP1TBa3Xq1L-x5Cj/s1600/wicker+tree.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="The Wicker Tree" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJ0KNZtVeInILiH6-T6p_bXx1bFdoTrOkxlcmqWQjAfRYQ8h7dhqHRtHPRwnEWsoom-TdeWOYis_z9J3y5fT6XBQHHjXfeJpLlfcYoX52C1yQ7rV_GT1J349f69UhXSP1TBa3Xq1L-x5Cj/s1600/wicker+tree.jpg" style="float: right; margin-left: 5px; margin-top: 15px;" title="The Wicker Tree" width="150" /></a></div>
The director’s cut is the longest at 99 minutes. While one
might have an instinct to regard any director’s cut as definitive that’s certainly
not the same as saying it’s the best. On the one hand Robin Hardy is clearly a
great director because he directed <i>
The
Wicker Man
</i>. On the other hand he wrote and directed <i><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0323808/" target="_blank">The Wicker Tree</a></i>, which I found to be actually worse than the <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0450345/" target="_blank">US remake</a> of <i>The Wicker Man</i> starring
Nicholas Cage – harsh words I know, but I stand by them.
<br />
<br />
One gets the impression that the director’s cut has tried to
use every inch of footage that could be found. In many cases just a few seconds
are added to the beginning or end of a scene. I’d have to question whether
there really was any benefit in putting these back in, but equally I can see no
reason for taking them out in the first place. In terms of the director’s cut
as a film in its own right, however, there is the problem that the quality of
the inserted clips is much lower than that of the theatrical release, so they
do rather stand out. In a sense that’s an advantage in that it makes it easier
to spot the differences. The final cut doesn’t obsess quite so much on
restoring every last second and also has better quality restoration, so the
extra material is less obvious – but not invisible.
<br />
<br />
The two major differences between the various versions come
in the film’s opening and in the events of the two nights that Howie stays at
the Green Man Inn.
<br />
<br />
The theatrical release opens with the titles showing over
Sergeant Howie’s flight from the mainland to Summerisle, accompanied by Paul
Giovanni’s eerie adaptation of <i>
The
Highland Widow’s Lament</i>, seguing into <i>
Corn
Rigs
</i>. The director’s cut begins with quite a long section on the mainland
revealing Howie’s religiosity and virginity and presenting the story of the
arrival of the letter summoning him to Summerisle. The final cut has a very
short sequence showing Howie in church, before going into the titles. One gets
the feeling that both the later cuts are somewhat restricted by the fact that
the only print available has the titles over the flight to Summerisle and that
the option of completely putting them elsewhere is not available.
<br />
<br />
With regards to the opening I have to say that the
theatrical release wins hands down. This is a film about a clash of cultures
and therefore it should begin with the point at which those cultures meet. We
know as little about Howie (aside for our preconceptions based on his uniform)
as we do about the islanders. Placing all the action on Summerisle conforms to
the idea of Aristotelian unity of place.
Almost all of what is covered in the director’s cut (which reminded me
of a dull episode of <i><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0129723/" target="_blank">Z-Cars</a></i>) is dealt
with in seconds by Howie saying he is looking for Rowan Morrison and showing
the islanders the letter and the photograph. His religious life is dealt with
neatly in flashback.
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpNwFmmcTi70zuSERrTjnKj7XVJeMBiE0derQNj3GSLFDi3S0xh0wwtCBIZTNvBJnw6pw1kNZezCacVE1krN2DfZYeDWR9RxiJixGon3OpjbkG2m7h7IIFCV_AjeM2_f_zHBXHtY4S5ZmE/s1600/islanders.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px;"><img alt="Islanders" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpNwFmmcTi70zuSERrTjnKj7XVJeMBiE0derQNj3GSLFDi3S0xh0wwtCBIZTNvBJnw6pw1kNZezCacVE1krN2DfZYeDWR9RxiJixGon3OpjbkG2m7h7IIFCV_AjeM2_f_zHBXHtY4S5ZmE/s1600/islanders.jpg" title="Islanders" width="100%" /></a></div>
<br />
The final cut appreciates that most of the setup is
unnecessary, but still puts in a very brief sequence of Howie in church on the
mainland before going into the standard titles. It’s a compromise and an
unnecessary one. The theatrical release gets it right: it hits us straight away
with the visual spectacle of the view from the seaplane, the sound of the
traditional folksong and the concept of a policeman going somewhere to do
something. Anything before that is mere distraction.
<br />
<br />
The nights at the Green Man change quite substantially. In
the theatrical release Willow tempts Howie on his first night at the inn and
nothing much happens on the second night. In the other two versions the
temptation occurs on the second night. The first night covers probably the
biggest cut from the theatrical release. Lord Summerisle stands outside the inn
and presents a young man to Willow to achieve his manhood with her. While they
are together Lord Summerisle outside recites a speech beginning <a href="http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/wwhitman/bl-ww-song-2.htm" target="_blank">‘I think I could turn and live with animals’</a>, based on a poem by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Whitman" target="_blank">Walt Whitman</a>, and there
are strange, symbolic shots of a snail on a leaf.
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjt_4AlF39nnOX4TTEKEl5dvB56I5od8UNPuBZGCuFWWXrwpr9_KvVoUDsYjjjaslRg3Qw90i1nFXznerKUdtbP-T5YQI0UfEOx_dLrrCPW2lWC3ScrP3RrFMrI9r7g4NhWxu_vqpMOUwkp/s1600/Willow.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Willow" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjt_4AlF39nnOX4TTEKEl5dvB56I5od8UNPuBZGCuFWWXrwpr9_KvVoUDsYjjjaslRg3Qw90i1nFXznerKUdtbP-T5YQI0UfEOx_dLrrCPW2lWC3ScrP3RrFMrI9r7g4NhWxu_vqpMOUwkp/s1600/Willow.jpg" style="float: left; margin-right: 5px; margin-top: 15px;" title="Willow" width="210px" /></a></div>
Clearly this is an important scene, both in establishing the
sexual permissiveness of the island in general and of Willow in particular, and
of showing Lord Summerisle as completely integrated with that aspect of the
island’s life. However, I think its inclusion is a mistake.
<br />
<br />
In the theatrical release Howie (and the audience) first
meets Lord Summerisle after this first night. Summerisle seems modern, affable
and tolerant. In contrast with Howie he appears to be by far the more
reasonable man. This doesn’t work if we the audience already know just how
weird he really is. As the film progresses Summerisle still stands out as a
beacon of sanity – as someone who indulges the island’s religion to just the
extent that on the mainland he might indulge Christianity without having any
real conviction for it. It’s only at the end, after Howie appeals to him, that
we discover that he genuinely believes.
<br />
<br />
A compromise might have been to swap the events of the two
nights, so that we still get to initially see Lord Summerisle as a reasonable
man. I can’t say whether that was considered, but I doubt whether it would have
been achievable with the available footage. Even so, it would spoil the track
of our appreciation of Summerisle’s character as the film progresses.
<br />
<br />
One minor scene is interesting. Only in the director’s cut
does Howie seek out the island’s doctor and ask about the death of Rowan
Morrison. It is the doctor who refers him to the Public Records Office. It’s a
very short scene, but it makes sense in that the doctor <i>is</i> the person a police sergeant would ask. I’m surprised it wasn’t
included in the final cut.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhejD6KplZygJjSh_J3634hvNDPtUFASdpTsmnfKlyMsZfyVQWLhT56GEBZhfXNsrWUKdwQ5-krMq8qRo4hnkg7IA0pcJ5U24Ev_l97AoPa2eIUvreBrPTE2u8pMZXnaZCDvSL4dkSmcMCp/s1600/christopher-lee.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Christopher Lee" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhejD6KplZygJjSh_J3634hvNDPtUFASdpTsmnfKlyMsZfyVQWLhT56GEBZhfXNsrWUKdwQ5-krMq8qRo4hnkg7IA0pcJ5U24Ev_l97AoPa2eIUvreBrPTE2u8pMZXnaZCDvSL4dkSmcMCp/s1600/christopher-lee.jpg" height="230" style="float: right; margin-left: 5px; margin-top: 15px;" title="Christopher Lee" width="320" /></a></div>
There’s one area in which I’ve always expected to see more
footage and never have in any version. On the morning of Mayday Howie conducts
a house-to-house search for Rowan. This has always seemed a little rushed to me
and looks as though it’s been cut down from a longer (quite conceivably <i>too</i> long) sequence. To site a particular
event, there is a point where Howie goes into a bedroom, pulls back a curtain
and reveals a stone spiral staircase leading down. It seems obvious he will go
down there to continue his search, but in the theatrical release he does not.
It’s always bothered me and so when I first saw the director’s cut I expected
to see what was down there, but the scene is just the same, as it is in the
final cut. I can only presume that footage of him going down the steps is
unavailable, but I’d have to question why none of the versions have thought to
cut the spiral staircase completely and not leave this issue hanging.
<br />
<br />
That said I do think the search sequence (with only very
slight differences across the versions) works and needs to be as pacey as it is
– it just does have the feeling that it was cut down from something less slick
rather than having originally been written and directed in its current form.
<br />
<br />
In the end the only significant differences across the three
edits are the pre-title sequence and Lord Summerisle’s speech outside the Green
Man. The story is that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Lion_Films" target="_blank">British Lion</a> was not keen to release the film at all and
did the edit for the theatrical release simply to have something that they
could distribute. That may be true, but it doesn’t necessarily mean they made a
bad job of it.
<br />
<br />
The opening of the film seems to me unquestionably best in
the theatrical release. The scene on the first night is more debatable, but
overall I think the story flows better without it.
<br />
<br />
I’ve watched The Wicker Man many times and I will again in
future. And for variety I will probably watch all the versions. But the one
I’ll watch most – the one I’d recommend – is the theatrical release.
<br />
<br /></div>
Jasper Kenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06629648886901894662noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1810142508063082905.post-3972136151297504762012-02-13T10:26:00.008+00:002012-02-13T20:36:27.551+00:00Review: The Autobiography of Jack the Ripper<div><p><em>The Autobiography of Jack the Ripper</em> by James Carnac.<br />Bantam Press 2012.<br /></p><p>This review contains spoilers.</p></div><div><br /></div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXEtOSywxXXpXRY9hsqF3OCehRWTDEcfxAn5km7tdWzT9EDCrv2YypzDKYG6g3OkeXI5hESGjDQyNMYpn7VRTxA3xoou5aBLRUQTpfYgp_24pJocyZrUm-ftn_H2oBH1XyjvCIDqh9HvDV/s1600/51Elu8LNmRL._SL500_AA300_.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 199px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXEtOSywxXXpXRY9hsqF3OCehRWTDEcfxAn5km7tdWzT9EDCrv2YypzDKYG6g3OkeXI5hESGjDQyNMYpn7VRTxA3xoou5aBLRUQTpfYgp_24pJocyZrUm-ftn_H2oBH1XyjvCIDqh9HvDV/s400/51Elu8LNmRL._SL500_AA300_.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5708570349687479202" /></a><span xmlns=""><p>When I'm chatting to religious types, as I'm prone to do, one question which often comes up is why they believe that the Bible (or whatever their tome of choice may be) is the unadulterated word of God. There are many answers, but a lot of them boil down to the simple logic: it is the word of God because it claims to be the word of God. Now while it may be easy to see the circularity of such an argument, it does act as a reminder of just how many books are out there that claim to be something that they are not. My favourite is Umberto Eco's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Name_of_the_Rose"><em>The Name of the Rose</em></a>, in the foreword of which the author recounts the story of his discovery of a manuscript by the Benedictine monk, Adso of Melk. Eco, so he claims, is merely the story's translator. (As Paul Begg points out in his notes on <em>The Autobiography of Jack the Ripper</em>, George MacDonald Fraser made a not dissimilar claim when introducing <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Paget_Flashman"><em>Flashman</em></a>.)</p><p>And so James Carnac's 'autobiography' comes with its own foreword, describing how it fell into the hands of its discoverer, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_George_Hulme_Beaman">Sydney George Hulme Beaman</a> (famous not least as the creator – I kid you not – of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toytown"><em>Larry the Lamb</em></a>).<br /></p><p>If the subject were not the Whitechapel Murderer, I doubt whether the question 'is it genuine' would ever come to mind. Had it not been for the emergence, two decades ago, of <a href="http://www.jamesmaybrick.org/">James Maybrick's</a> supposed diary, would the world of Ripperology spend any of its valuable time considering if James Carnac (of whom no historical trace has been found) were actually the Ripper? To be honest, not too much valuable time has been spent. The noted Ripper expert <a href="http://www.casebook.org/authors/interviews/paul_begg.2.html">Paul Begg</a> gives us 30 odd pages of quite reasonable analysis, but leaves many potential lines of enquiry unexplored (or at least his exploration unreported). Even if the name of every character in the book had been changed, it would still not be too hard to find reports of the inquest of a doctor (Carnac's father) in Tottenham who cut his wife's throat and then his own, nor of the road accident in which Carnac lost a leg, nor of his death in a gas explosion near Russell Square. But such enquiries would take time and effort, and although Begg has in the past shown his skill and willingness to put these into an investigation, it must be hard to find inspiration when one knows that all clues will come to nothing. Carnac's work screams from every page that it is a work of fiction.<br /></p><p>Which is not to say that it is a fake. People often say that the <a href="http://www.shroud.com/">Turin Shroud</a> is a fake, but what they really mean is that they are now convinced that it is not something that they once suspected it might be. To be a fake, it must be proved not to be what its creator intended people to believe it to be. If the Turin Shroud turns out to have been a cover for the tortured body of <a href="http://www.shroudstory.com/glossary/Jacques-deMolay-polemic-Shroud-of-Turin.htm">Jaques de Molay</a>, or an early experiment in photography by <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5706640/Turin-Shroud-is-face-of-Leonardo-da-Vinci.html">Leonardo da Vinci</a>, then it will genuinely be that thing, and not be a fake anything else. The fakery is only in the minds of those who want to believe.<br /></p><p>Thus <em>The Autobiography of Jack the Ripper</em> is no fake. It is merely a work of fiction with a forward that is intended to add verisimilitude, much like <em>The Name of the Rose </em>or<em> Flashman</em>. As a work of fiction, how does it stand up?<br /></p><p>To be clichéd, it's something of a curate's egg. The story is divided into three parts – Carnac's early life, the Ripper murders, and the events leading to his death. Of these, the first part is by far the best. Despite the author's repeated (and perhaps telling) insistence that he has no skill in writing, there is good pacing and some nice turns of phrase. The story covers the gruesome death of his parents, his own growing bloodlust, his conversations with the mysterious 'Voice', his discovery of his family's macabre history and his encounter with the embodiment of the evil that has haunted every generation of his ancestors.<br /></p><p>Great stuff! And whilst not approaching the quality of <a href="http://www.hplovecraft.com/">H.P. Lovecraft</a> or <a href="http://www.litgothic.com/Authors/mrjames.html">M.R. James</a>, it's of the same kidney. Part two, covering the Ripper murders themselves, disappoints. Here one might almost suspect that the author genuinely is trying to convince us that he is the Ripper. As a writer of historical fiction, I know that is better to add invented detail to make a scene more convincing and that I will get little comeback for minor inaccuracies. However, the cursory coverage of the murders in Whitechapel suggests an author who fears getting caught out in his mistakes. Even then, as Paul Begg points out, he does make many mistakes – often ones that would have been easy to check.<br /></p><p>But the real problem of part two is its failure to deliver on Carnac's motivation. Part one has convincingly told us of his growing desire to see and feel a knife cutting into living human flesh, and told us that this was to be the reason for his becoming the Ripper. But once he does kill, we hear nothing of his reaction to finally committing the act to which he has so long been drawn. Nor is there anything to explain how a desire simply to cut a human throat spirals into the squalid, uncontrolled evisceration to which the Ripper descended at <a href="http://wiki.casebook.org/index.php/Miller's_Court">Miller's Court</a>. In his foreword, Hulme Beaman tells us that he has 'removed and destroyed portions of the manuscript which contained details particularly revolting to me.' It should be noted, that there is no trace of any such censorship of the typescript (which, I add in passing, is irritatingly referred to as a manuscript throughout the book). This sounds to me more like an author's pretended excuse for not going into a level of detail that he guesses would be unacceptable to his readership, but in reading part two it almost seems that the author has forgotten the groundwork he laid in part one, or that part two was written first, or perhaps even by a different author.<br /></p><p>Part three is different again. It is a short tale of a murderer hoist on his own petard, for which there is no real requirement that the murderer be Jack the Ripper. The events take place forty years after the Ripper murders – close to the time the document seems to have been written. This section begins like the rest as a first person narrative, but the twist in the tail is delivered as a separate coroner's report, thus neatly avoiding the necessity for Carnac, like <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+34&version=NIV">Moses</a>, to be the narrator his own death. The problem here though is that this seems to defeat the conception of the entire work as being an autobiography. One would at least expect a further note from Hulme Beaman explaining his later discovery of the coroner's report. Perhaps that would be just too pat. What is confusing though is that the coroner's report was written out using the same typewriter as the last part of Carnac's autobiography.<br /></p><p>Ultimately my guess would be that the autobiography is in fact an amalgamation of three short stories – or perhaps even two, with the middle Ripper section added rather cursorily to link them and to increase public interest. While this does still leave questions, many of which Begg raises, over numerous inconsistencies even this is taken as a work of fiction, I don't see any of them as particularly serious. We all from time to time (or is it just me?) send half-baked ramblings to our editors in the knowledge that we'll have the chance to iron out the wrinkles later on. Moreover, there's nothing to suggest that this was the final revision of the work. Hulme Beaman died in 1932, only a few years after the document's presumed date, so it may have been a work in progress.<br /></p><p>In the end, I think that this is a book that may appeal more to the aficionado of early twentieth century horror than to the Ripperologist. Luckily, those are two groups between which there is a substantial overlap, which includes myself. The biggest question that remains for me is whether Hulme Beaman really is the author of this work of fiction, or whether he added his foreword to the work of another.<br /></p><p>Personally, I like to think that Hulme Beaman wrote it himself. It's a heck of a lot better than <em>Larry the Lamb</em>.</p></span>Jasper Kenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06629648886901894662noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1810142508063082905.post-64327787377316297072012-02-02T10:37:00.002+00:002012-02-02T10:45:00.711+00:00Give Me the Blame – Just Give Me the Boy<span xmlns=""><p>So Fred 'The Shred' Goodwin has been stripped of his knighthood, and we all feel better for it. At least, I'm presuming we all feel better, otherwise the whole debacle would have been a bit of a waste of time and effort, wouldn't it? And the really nice thing is that while we all feel better, the <em>ci-devant</em> himself is probably weeping few tears at once again being plain old Mr Goodwin. He was after all, a banker, and thus his public humiliation might count for little in comparison with pert pieces of copper coinage that he can still thrust without cease into his trouser pockets. Though maybe that's not such a good thing after all. Maybe as we all come to appreciate just how little he has been saddened by these events, we will ourselves realize how little we have been made happier.<br /></p><p>Fortunately the former knight is not the only person who is having his life made deliberately worse in these times of trouble. There are calls to reduce the salaries and bonuses of rich bankers and there are plans to cap the maximum benefits that a family can receive. Now there may be good reasons for this, both in the case of bonuses (the money could be better spent on recapitalization; incentives should be restructured to promote long term growth) and benefits (intergenerational unemployment impoverishes both the nation and the individual). There also arguments against them (more money to bankers means more tax the exchequer; cutting benefits may actually cost more if families have to be rehomed). But that's not the main thrust of the debate. In both cases the argument at the forefront is that the people in question do not deserve this money, therefore they should not get it. It is not fair. And for the rest of us the advantage is not that we become richer, but that we feel happier to see others made poorer.<br /></p><p>And why not? The government has recently been looking into what makes people happy, and it seems that being happy is not the same as being rich. Perhaps this is the alternative to capitalism that is being suggested – a world where happiness is maximized instead of wealth. And how better to be happy than to watch others made poor? As Gore Vidal put it, it is not enough to succeed – others must fail. In reality, I'm not sure that most people really want an alternative capitalism – we just want a return to that good old fashioned capitalism that used to work, before it stopped laying its golden eggs a few years ago.<br /></p><p>Which talk of golden eggs brings us to Jack, and the beanstalk, and the giant. The title of this blog comes from Stephen Sondheim and James Lapine's magnificent <em>Into the Woods</em>. Towards the end of act 2, our heroes are menaced by the giantess who threatens to destroy their village unless they hand the boy, Jack, over to her, whom she blames for the death of her husband. As is to be expected, there follows a round (and indeed a song) of blame allocation, where the characters attempt not to solve their problem, but to determine whose fault it is. To which the witch counters:<br /></p><p><em>No, of course what really matters<br />Is the blame,<br />Somebody to blame.<br />Fine, if that's the thing you enjoy,<br />Placing the blame,<br />If that's the aim,<br />Give me the blame-<br />Just give me the boy.<br /></em></p><p>Now I'm not saying that handing over Jack is the right thing to do (I'm reminded of those utilitarian questions about pushing a fat man into the path of a runaway train full of passengers), but at least the witch is addressing ways to solve the problem. And perhaps the government, and the opposition, and the press and all of use might do better look for policies that might improve the lot of us all, rather than make things worse for a few – be they a rich few or a poor few.<br /></p><p>So there we are. I've allocated the blame, and that's made me feel a little bit happier. Now I'm off to do some work, and make myself a little bit richer.</p></span>Jasper Kenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06629648886901894662noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1810142508063082905.post-62793184139040257312011-07-28T13:00:00.003+01:002011-07-28T13:05:28.529+01:00The Transworld Book Group Reading Challenge!<span style="font-style: italic; ">Twelve </span>has been included in Transworld's <a href="http://www.between-the-lines.co.uk/?p=1378">Book Group Reading Challenge</a>. Choose any four books (that's to say<span style="font-style: italic; ">Twelve </span>plus any other three) from the list of fifteen and be sent copies to review on Amazon or on your own blog.<br /><br />Full details <a href="http://www.between-the-lines.co.uk/?p=1378">here</a>.<div><br /></div>Jasper Kenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06629648886901894662noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1810142508063082905.post-53722052940855483302011-07-26T09:54:00.003+01:002011-07-26T09:59:56.479+01:00Full Fathom Forty<a href="http://www.jasperkent.com/Images/FullFathom40%20b.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 223px; height: 314px;" src="http://www.jasperkent.com/Images/FullFathom40%20b.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />My short story <span style="font-style: italic; ">Ben </span>will be featuring in the British Fantasy Society's fortieth anniversary anthology, <span style="font-style: italic; ">Full Fathom Forty</span>.<br /><br />The anthology will be published at the end of September in time for the British Fantasy Convention in Brighton, and a fee copy will be given to all BFS members.<br /><br />A <a href="http://s256537080.websitehome.co.uk/index.php/bfs-publications/33-bfs-books/1521-full-fathom-forty-revealed" target="_self">full list of contributing authors and ordering details</a> for non-members are available. A Brief description of the story <span style="font-style: italic; ">Ben </span>can be found <a href="http://www.jasperkent.com/Novels.aspx?openAt=11" target="_self">here</a>.Jasper Kenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06629648886901894662noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1810142508063082905.post-5752843867947718572011-07-11T12:30:00.003+01:002011-07-11T12:36:31.146+01:00New Look WebsiteIn preparation for the publication of <i>The Third Section</i>, I've done a major overhaul of my website.<div><br /></div><div>Experience the new look at <a href="http://www.jasperkent.com/">www.jasperkent.com</a>.</div><div><br /></div>Jasper Kenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06629648886901894662noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1810142508063082905.post-83770309203843997842011-07-07T09:30:00.006+01:002011-07-07T09:45:14.423+01:00The Third Section<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyxwZGuCbubCHaKnsgU5GYOdZggvgIp6Vo47gteU8VgJyC1LiD_Y4As8IfznL2QjuDrVWHCdFuKCG6QFtpQqdvvuRzqrvPfe86MBujCPsMk1vktyk47BRAqowLXESC2eMledVy-APjVR13/s1600/TTSCover.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 259px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyxwZGuCbubCHaKnsgU5GYOdZggvgIp6Vo47gteU8VgJyC1LiD_Y4As8IfznL2QjuDrVWHCdFuKCG6QFtpQqdvvuRzqrvPfe86MBujCPsMk1vktyk47BRAqowLXESC2eMledVy-APjVR13/s400/TTSCover.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5626525809272831106" /></a><br />Here's the cover of<i> The Third Section</i>, the next instalment of <i>The Danilov Quintet</i>.<div><br /></div><div>It's published in the UK by Bantam on August 18<sup>th</sup> and in the USA by Pyr on October 25<sup>th</sup>.</div><div><br /></div><div>Artwork is again by the wonderful Paul Young.</div><div><br /></div>Jasper Kenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06629648886901894662noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1810142508063082905.post-7487818069848400192011-04-26T08:56:00.003+01:002011-04-26T18:45:49.347+01:00Nun of Thee Above<div>UPDATE: FOR REASONS THAT YOU'LL SEE IF YOU READ THE COMMENTS SECTION, THIS WHOLE IDEA TURNS OUT TO BE A BIG PILE OF DOGGY-DO. MY APOLOGIES. I LEAVE THE POST UP ONLY AS A MEMENTO OF MY STUPIDITY.</div><div><br /></div>The proponents of AV claim (and I hope that if you've been following these pages, you'll accept the claim is false) that AV guarantees that the winner has the support of more than 50% of those who voted. Even in those cases that the claim is true, it's still just a quirk of the fact that if a candidate doesn't get 50%, then they are repeatedly given additional votes until they do.<div><br /></div><div>But if we really wanted all MPs to have more than 50% of the vote, even under First Past the Post, it would be quite simple:</div><div><br /></div><div><i>If a constituency gives no candidate 50% support, then that constituency doesn't return an MP.</i></div><div><br /></div><div>(Note that this approach wouldn't work under AV, since at least one candidate always gets more than 50%.)</div><div><br /></div><div>It's a radical approach, but it has its pros and cons. The main pro is that it is something that would <i>really </i>encourage candidates to seek a broad base of support. The con is that it would leave many (perhaps most) constituencies unrepresented.</div><div><br /></div><div>Under FPTP, and under AV, we do have a mechanism to indicate that we don't want any of the candidates to represent us at Westminster - we don't vote. At the last general election, 35% of the UK took that option, more than the fraction who voted for many of the winning candidates. </div><div><br /></div><div>The problem is, there's more than one reason for abstention. It may be to wish a plague on all their houses, or it may be because we couldn't be bothered, or were away on business, or whatever. We can demonstrate that we really do care enough to go to the polling station, by turning up and then spoiling our paper, but even then there is no way to distinguish between the conscientious abstainer and those can't tell the sharp end of the pencil from the blunt one.</div><div><br /></div><div>What we need is a genuine box in which to put our cross, labelled NOTA - None Of The Above.</div><div><br /></div><div>Would it have much effect? Perhaps not.</div><div><br /></div><div>Under FPTP, the NOTA votes would be counted and would certainly be of interest if NOTA came in third or second or even (dare we hope?) first place. But it wouldn't actually make any difference. </div><div><br /></div><div>Under AV, NOTA would have less impact. The winning candidate would still get over 50% (it can't be avoided). If a voter put NOTA as their first choice, and then listed the other candidates, then they would be saying, 'I don't want any of these candidates, but if I have to have one of them, here's my order of preference.' Well, the fact is you <i>do </i>have to have one of them, and so your NOTA vote would instantly be dismissed and the process would carry on as normal with your second-choice vote being counted.</div><div><br /></div><div>But what if, as suggested above, you <i>could </i>have none of them? What if, under FPTP or AV, NOTA was counted like any other candidate and could win. It would be rare I think, but it's an option that would allow voters to truly express themselves. Under FPTP things would be, inevitably, simple. If NOTA gets more than any other candidate then NOTA wins and the constituency returns no MP.</div><div><br /></div><div>Under AV things are (inevitably) more interesting. The NOTA selection could go anywhere in the list that the voter chooses - top, bottom, or middle. And suppose you list the candidates in the order A, B, C, NOTA, D, E , F. That would be saying, 'I'm happy to have A or B or C as my MP, and of them, here's my order of preference. I don't want any of D, E, F, but if it comes to it, I do still have a order of dislike.'</div><div><br /></div><div>That's really quite expressive. Under standard AV, however much you loathe and despise candidate F, you still have to list them to get the most of you vote, you put them last, seemingly suggesting that you would like them to be your MP, just that you'd like others more. By putting that NOTA break in there, you're effectively producing one list of candidates you like and another of candidates you don't, and putting the BNP (sorry, candidate F) at the top of that list. (It has to be said that this is a point of perception, not something that directly effects the result, but perception is important.)</div><div><br /></div><div>There's still one problem, however. In a constituency where NOTA wins, the people don't get a representative in Parliament. The best I can come up with is that the runner-up gets forced to go to Westminster, but doesn't get a salary. I can see the fairness of it, but I can also see how it might produce an MP who slightly less than enthusiastic about their job - which was really the whole motivation for electoral reform.</div><div><br /></div><div>But that's a detail. The important thing is to modify AV by adding this NOTA option. So who's with me? Who will make their voice heard? Who will climb up onto the roof tops and shout out the slogan to all who will listen:</div><div><br /></div><div>'Vote NOTA-AV!'</div>Jasper Kenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06629648886901894662noreply@blogger.com26tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1810142508063082905.post-57458942204175168342011-04-25T09:06:00.003+01:002011-04-25T10:13:32.312+01:00Why Stop at 50%?I've been too negative - pointing out inaccuracies in claims made in favour of AV, when nobody really cares how the system actually works anyway; it's about the spirit of the change.<div><br /></div><div>So for this post and the next, I'm going to be more positive, and suggest some alterations to the electoral system that might in some small way improve things. (And for this first one, I'm indebted to Katie Piatt for setting me along this line of thought.) Let's begin.</div><div><br /></div><div><i>A supporter of First Past the Post, a supporter of AV and a third-world dictator (I won't name them) are sitting in a pub (I will name it - the </i>Good Companions<i>, in Brighton). </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>The FPTP supporter says, 'Under my system, the winning candidate has the highest number of votes.'</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>The AV supporter says, 'Ah! But under my system I can guarantee that the winning candidate has more than 50% of the votes.'</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>The dictator says, 'That's nothing. Under my system I can guarantee that the winning candidate gets 100% of the votes.'</i></div><div><br /></div><div>As it turns out, both the FPTP and the AV supporter are understating their positions. </div><div><br /></div><div>In FPTP, we can make guarantees about percentages. If there are four candidates, then it is guaranteed that the winner will get more than 25% of the votes. If there are three candidates, then it's 33%. If two, then 50% (the equivalent of the last round of AV) and if there's only one, then you can guarantee 100% support (the dictator's system).</div><div><br /></div><div>So if we want, as AV claims, more than 50% support for the winner but still have FPTP, that's easy - we just restrict the number of candidates to two. The problem is obvious - how do we determine those two?</div><div><br /></div><div>AV is essentially an answer to that question. It manages it all in one election, but effectively takes multiple votes across a series of elections. If there are four candidates in total then we have a vote between those four. The loser drops out and their votes are transferred to the next round of three. At this stage we can only be sure that one candidate gets at least 33%, so again we drop out the loser, transfer the votes and now have an election of two in which someone (it's mathematically guaranteed) gets more than 50% and the result is called.</div><div><br /></div><div>But why stop there? Why halt this repeated process of dropping out the losing candidate? Now the second place candidate drops out, his votes are transferred to the only remaining candidate, and the winner can be declared as having 100% support.</div><div><br /></div><div>But that's silly. Clearly no one believes that the winner has 100% support, in just the same way that no one believes it in a dictatorship. The winner may be the most popular candidate, but the 100% support is meaningless - it's just an inevitable consequence of the mathematics.</div><div><br /></div><div>But in just the same way, under AV as it is proposed, the 50% is meaningless - it's just as much an inevitable consequence of the maths, a statement which though true, cannot be false. I'd like to see a winner under AV who <i>didn't</i> get 50% of the vote.</div><div><br /></div><div>I say that the percentage is meaningless, but perhaps a better term is 'not interesting'. If I were to tell you that the last five presidents of France all got more than 50% of the vote in the final round, it would not be interesting. And I use the term in a slightly technical sense - by 'not interesting' I mean it provides no information that you couldn't otherwise have inferred. French presidents have to get more than 50%, just as AV candidates do - that's the system.</div><div><br /></div><div>However, if I told you that in 2007 Sarkozy won with 53%, whereas in 2002 Chirac won with 82%, that would (might) be interesting. Clearly there was something different about Chirac's election compared with Sarkozy's. (There was - Chirac was standing against the fascist Le Pen.)</div><div><br /></div><div>But under AV, as currently proposed, we don't get that sort of information. If I were to tell you that in one constituency the winner was Smith with 53% and in another the winner was Jones with 58% the actual percentages tell you nothing of interest. Jones my actually be less popular than Smith. </div><div><br /></div><div>Why? Well in Jones' constituency, voting went to the final round. Jones got 58% and his opponent got 42%. </div><div><br /></div><div>But Smith reached the 50% finishing post while there were still three candidates left. He got 53% and his opponents got 20% and 27%. If the AV process had continued to the next stage and the third place candidate had dropped out then the redistributed results might have given 63% (or more, or less) to Smith and 37% to his opponent. Now Smith's 63% can be more fairly compared with Jones' 58%.</div><div><br /></div><div>So why is this not the way AV is proposed to work? Why do we stop counting as soon as one candidate passes 50%? Well, it could be argued (I have done) that the purpose of elections is primarily to choose an MP, not to divine other related information. But I'd also argue that getting other information is useful, if it doesn't affect the actual result, which this doesn't.</div><div><br /></div><div>It could be argued that counting every constituency through to the final round would be expensive, but we already know that there is no additional cost to AV elections, so even if my proposal proved to be twice as expensive, twice nothing is still nothing (and that's the simplest bit of maths you're likely to see on this blog for a long time).</div><div><br /></div><div>It could be that proponents of AV realise that if this approach were followed then in some seats (safe seats under FPTP and still safe under AV) this extra transfer of votes might mean the winner getting maybe 80% or occasionally 90%, and that's getting a bit too close to the dictator's 100% and could give away the game that all the percentages are just artefacts of the system. I doubt it, because I doubt many of AV's proponents have thought it through to that extent.</div><div><br /></div><div>But that's my proposal. If AV succeeds at the referendum, make a slight amendment to it:</div><div><br /></div><div><i>In every seat, counting should carry on to the final round of two candidates, even if a winner can be determined earlier, so that comparison of winning percentages across constituencies operates on a level playing field.</i></div><div><br /></div><div>Any takers?</div>Jasper Kenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06629648886901894662noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1810142508063082905.post-69112365261608007892011-04-24T08:36:00.007+01:002011-04-24T09:56:50.367+01:00I'm Backing AV 110%(Sorry to go on about it, but I'm just fascinated by mathematics.)<div><br /></div><div>One of the headline reasons being put forward in favour of AV is that it means that no one can become an MP without winning more than 50% of the vote (assuming every voter uses all of their votes, which is a detail I'm not too fussed about). I'm not sure this is such a great thing, since some of that support might be, to say the least, grudging, coming from voters who could actually think of six or seven candidates that they would rather have had than the winner for whom their vote was finally counted.</div><div><br /></div><div>However 50% is still 50%. And what's really great about AV is it's not only the winner who gets more than 50% of the vote, so might some of the losers.</div><div><br /></div><div>Let's return to the constituency I mentioned in my last post, but give it a more definite result. First-choice votes go:</div><div><br /></div><div>Labour:<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>15,000</div><div>Liberal:<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>11,000</div><div>Tory:<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>9,000</div><div><br /></div><div>The Tory drops out and let's suppose 7000 of his second-choice votes were for the Liberal. The Liberal now has 18000, which is more than 50%, and wins. First-choice votes of one candidate plus second choice votes of another gives greater than 50%.</div><div style="color: rgb(41, 48, 59); font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; "><br /></div><div">The trouble is, the Labour candidate also got more than 50% if you add the first choice votes of one candidate and the second choice of another. The Labour first-choices plus the Liberal second-choices (assuming a reasonable split) also come to greater than 50% . (It's actually mathematically possible that the Tory could get more than 50% too if the Labour candidate's second choice votes were largely for the Tory - but that's unlikely).<div style="color: rgb(41, 48, 59); font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; "><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span">So 50% is a necessary but not sufficient condition to win an AV election. How then is the winner decided? We could go back to a FPTP-style approach, where it's the candidate with the highest number of votes (first and second choice combined), but in this example, that would probably be Labour. Here the Liberal wins with more than 50% of a particular set of first and second choice votes, but still fewer than the combination of votes that Labour got, but didn't get counted.<br /><br />So the total number of votes cast is more than 100%?</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></div><div>Let's consider the definition of percentage. The percentage of votes for a candidate is:</div><div><br /></div><div>(n / T) * 100</div><div><br /></div><div>where n is the number of votes received by the candidate and T is the total number of votes overall. </div><div><br /></div><div>But that term T could actually have several meanings. It could be the total number of voters, or the total number of votes cast or the total number of votes counted. (It could also be the total number of eligible voters, but turnout is a problem under any system.) Under FPTP those three definitions of T are all the same thing, because FPTP is one person-one vote.</div><div><br /></div><div>But AV gives several votes to each voter. (You can argue that it's a good thing, but you can't deny it - the voter gets to indicate support for more than one candidate. It may not be that multiple votes are counted, but multiple votes are cast.) If you go with T being the number of voters, then it's clearly true - the winning candidate has more than 50% of the vote. In this case, 51%.</div><div><br /></div><div>But if T is the total number of votes cast, with three votes per voter (assuming that there were no other candidates and that every voter used all their votes) that gives a total of 105,000 votes - and the winning Liberal candidate gets (18,000 / 105,000) * 100 = 17%.</div><div><br /></div><div>On the other hand, if T is the number of votes counted, things get more complicated. In the first round, 35,000 votes were counted. The Tory dropped out and so in the second round a further 9000 votes were counted, giving a T of 44,000. So now the winning Liberal candidate's percentage is (18,000 / 44,000) * 100 = 41%. Not a bad result for a winner under FPTP, but this is AV, which supposedly guarantees the winner gets more than 50%. You may think I'm being unfair, counting those second-choice Tory votes into T with the same weight as first-choice votes, but if you do, then you must surely also object to them being counted into n (the votes for the winning candidate) with equal weight - that's one of the main objections that many people have to AV.</div><div><br /></div><div>So the question that we must all answer, whether we are pro or anti or could not care less, is:</div><div><br /></div><div><i>What is your definition of T?</i></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></div></div">Jasper Kenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06629648886901894662noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1810142508063082905.post-59358715996506626402011-04-20T10:11:00.004+01:002011-04-20T14:27:30.191+01:00Electile DisfunctionI won't deny it; <a href="http://thelastoprichnik.blogspot.com/2009/09/people-have-spoken-lets-ask-them-again.html">I've been mildly opposed to the Alternative Vote</a> ever since Gordon Brown first mooted it as an opening gambit in his attempts to form a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats back in 2009, over six months before the general election.<div><br /></div><div>But one objection that I'd never really held with was the idea that AV is complicated. All the voter has to do, so they say, is write down the numbers 1 to 9 (or whatever) in order of preference. It's simple - in much the same way that solving a Sudoku is simple (or indeed that <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNfGyIW7aHM">playing the flute</a> is simple, according to Monty Python). </div><div><br /></div><div>But the more I think about it, the more complicated it gets. Problems can occur in many areas, but the one I'd like to focus on is the phenomenon of the second choice marginal.</div><div><br /></div><div>Let's consider an imaginary constituency with just Tory, Liberal and Labour candidates (or one in which other, less popular candidates have already been knocked out in earlier rounds of AV). I use real party names rather than abstractions such as A, B and C not to express any party bias, but because it's easier to follow and easier to decide whether such a scenario could really happen. Suppose the first choice votes are roughly:</div><div><br /></div><div>Labour:<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>15,000</div><div>Liberal:<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>10,000</div><div>Tory:<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>10,000</div><div><br /></div><div>'Roughly?' I hear you bellow. 'Surely we must be accurate here.' Well, yes and no. If this were a First Past the Post election, then those kind of round numbers are quite clear enough to show that Labour wins. Of course, even under FPTP we have marginals if the two leading candidates are close, and then accuracy matters, but under AV we also have the possibility of this kind of second choice marginal (or, indeed, third, fourth of fifth choice) where precise counting even for second place really matters.</div><div><br /></div><div>More marginals? Isn't that one of the key aims of AV; to force parties to genuinely campaign in more seats, rather than just focussing on the few marginals that matter so much under FPTP? True enough, but you might find that what they're campaigning for isn't quite what you'd expected. </div><div><br /></div><div>Under AV the winning candidate needs to get more than half the votes cast, so in this case the winning post is 17,500. (Odd, isn't it, that it's AV that actually has the fixed finishing post, and so-called First Past the Post that doesn't?) No one here has 17,500, so we have to consider those second choice votes. </div><div><br /></div><div>We can ignore the Labour second choices, because they're never going to be counted, though they'll probably be mostly for the Liberals. The Tory second choices are likely to be mostly Liberal too. Admittedly there may be a lot of support from Tories for, say, UKIP, but we're assuming they've been eliminated by now. At this stage, a Tory's second choice can only be Labour or Liberal (or nothing, but that's another story).</div><div><br /></div><div>As for the Liberal voters, let's assume they spilt 50-50 amongst Tory and Labour. In reality, there might well be more of a bias towards Labour, but it doesn't much matter. With Labour only needing around 2,500 to win, the Liberal spilt could be up to 75% pro <i>Tory</i>, and the mathematics would still be much the same.</div><div><br /></div><div>So, we had Liberals and Tories on about 10,000 each. Time to be specific. Let's suppose that the Liberal got 10,005 and the Tory 10,000. The Tory drops out and his second choice votes get allocated. We've assumed they're mostly Liberal and very few Labour, and so it seems reasonable that the Liberals will pick up the extra 7,500 they need and will win. This is exactly the sort of result that AV is supposed to achieve. The Liberals come second in the first round, but win on the second round.</div><div><br /></div><div>But just suppose it goes the other way. Suppose it's the Tory who gets 10,005 and the Liberal 10,000. Then the Liberal drops out and <i>his </i>second choice votes get reallocated. We've assumed it's a 50-50 spilt, so Labour gets 5,000 more votes and wins. Just read that again: </div><div><br /></div><div><i>The Tory is more popular than the Liberal and therefore Labour wins.</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>And on top of that, the difference is the matter of just a few votes. Under FPTP a few votes will matter in a marginal, but at least there a vote for Labour will help Labour, a vote for the Liberals will help the Liberals. Here it's the swing between Tories and Liberals that determines a result between the Liberals and Labour.</div><div><br /></div><div>So what's a Tory voter to do? In this particular constituency, they know that their favoured candidate has no chance of winning, so the next best option is for the Liberal to win. But if they vote Tory first and Liberal second, that actually increases the chance of Labour winning, by pushing out the Liberal on the first round and thereby getting his second choices counted. It's a better bet for the Tory to vote Liberal first and Tory second, so that the Tory drops out and his second choice votes go to the Liberal. It's classic tactical voting; if you're a Tory afraid of Labour, vote Liberal.</div><div><br /></div><div>In fact, it's better than tactical voting under FPTP. Not only does the Tory vote for the Liberal mean one more vote for the Liberals; if it makes the Tory candidate drop to third, it means <i>thousands</i> more votes for the Liberal as all those second choices get counted.</div><div><br /></div><div>And it's not just Tories who can vote tactically. Remember the set up: Liberal second place is good for the Liberals; a Tory second place is good for Labour. So why don't a few hundred Labour supporters tactically vote Tory? It costs a few hundred votes, but if it pushes the Liberals into third and reaps a few thousand Labour votes it's a worthwhile reward.</div><div><br /></div><div>In both styles of tactical voting, there is a powerful psephological lever in operation. Switching a small number of votes away from your first choice party can actually liberate a huge number in favour of the result you want. It may take a fair deal of voter management from the political parties, but guess what? - they're good at that.</div><div><br /></div><div>And what about recounts? Let's go back to that scenario where the Tory gets 10,005 and the Liberal 10,000. That means Labour wins. The Liberal isn't happy and there's only five votes in it, so it's worth asking for a recount. But the thing is, the Tory (with Nick Berry's <i>Every Loser Wins</i> ringing in his ears) isn't happy with it either - because Labour wins. So both the winning and the losing candidate (in the second and third place play-off) will be asking for a recount. At least under FPTP it tends to be the loser who wants a recount and the winner who doesn't. It puts the returning officer in a difficult position of perhaps having to act against the requests of <i>both</i> candidates.</div><div><br /></div><div>And will those candidates have enough information to decide whether a recount is worthwhile. With different second choice voting patterns, it's quite possible that the Labour candidate would win regardless of who comes second. Would the Tory and Liberal candidates know that before deciding whether it's worth bickering over the few votes that determine second and third place?</div><div><br /></div><div>Of course, we've been looking at a specific example which won't occur everywhere. But with 650 constituencies, this sort of thing could crop up more than once, along with other permutations that aren't even dreamt of here.</div><div><br /></div><div>Putting the numbers 1 to 9 nine in order has never been more of a challenge. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Jasper Kenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06629648886901894662noreply@blogger.com19tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1810142508063082905.post-69585389040840928792011-03-14T14:36:00.001+00:002011-03-14T14:38:56.335+00:00As Seen on TV<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 14px; ">TWELVE got a brief mention on the BBC's Culture Show last week. Here's the excerpt.</span><div><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 14px;"><br /></span></span></div><br /><object width="425" height="332"><param name="movie" value="http://www.bbc.co.uk/emp/external/player.swf"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><param name="FlashVars" value="config_settings_showUpdatedInFooter=true&config_settings_bitrateFloor=400&config_settings_showPopoutCta=false&config_settings_showPopoutButton=false&config_plugin_autoResumePlugin_recentlyPlayed=false&config_settings_suppressRelatedLinks=true&config_settings_skin=silver&config=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ebbc%2Eco%2Euk%2Femp%2Fiplayer%2Fconfig%2Exml&playlist=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ebbc%2Eco%2Euk%2Fiplayer%2Fplaylist%2Fp00fdqf5&config_settings_showFooter=true&"><embed src="http://www.bbc.co.uk/emp/external/player.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="425" height="332" flashvars="config_settings_showUpdatedInFooter=true&config_settings_bitrateFloor=400&config_settings_showPopoutCta=false&config_settings_showPopoutButton=false&config_plugin_autoResumePlugin_recentlyPlayed=false&config_settings_suppressRelatedLinks=true&config_settings_skin=silver&config=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ebbc%2Eco%2Euk%2Femp%2Fiplayer%2Fconfig%2Exml&playlist=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ebbc%2Eco%2Euk%2Fiplayer%2Fplaylist%2Fp00fdqf5&config_settings_showFooter=true&"></embed></object>Jasper Kenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06629648886901894662noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1810142508063082905.post-28674520176870073082011-03-10T21:09:00.003+00:002011-03-10T21:15:27.632+00:00The Third SectionFor those of you who just can't wait, I've posted the prologue to <i>The Third Section</i>, the next installment of <i>The Danilov Quintet</i>, on my website. Read it <a href="http://www.jasperkent.com/Excerpt.aspx?page=TTSPrologue">here</a>.<div><br /></div>Jasper Kenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06629648886901894662noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1810142508063082905.post-57312457653434946502011-01-16T18:57:00.004+00:002011-01-16T19:05:09.188+00:00Will the Real Cliff Townshend Please Stand Up?A fascinating story from the 1950s <a href="http://falseclifftownshend.blogspot.com/2010/12/theft-of-cliff-townshends-name.html">here</a> on my father's blog concerning his landlord, who claimed to be the saxophonist Cliff Townshend, but in fact wasn't.<div><br /></div><div>The story is made yet more intriguing by virtue of the fact the real Cliff Townshend was Who guitarist's Pete Townshend's father, though at the time he would he would only have been in short trousers.</div>Jasper Kenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06629648886901894662noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1810142508063082905.post-64956609648804720122010-12-30T19:58:00.002+00:002010-12-30T19:59:47.628+00:00Ave Versus Christus! Ave Jerry Goldsmith!<div>Another instalment of Borders Babel Clash.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Click <a href="http://bordersblog.com/scifi/2010/12/30/clay-susan-griffith-and-jasper-kent/ave-versus-christus-ave-jerry-goldsmith/">here </a>for the full post.</div><div><br /></div>Jasper Kenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06629648886901894662noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1810142508063082905.post-77363554419521828312010-12-27T20:06:00.001+00:002010-12-27T20:34:13.954+00:00Best Speculative Fiction of 2010<i>Thirteen Years Later</i> is number 10 in Pat's Fantasy Hotlist's top ten of speculative fiction titles of 2010, following on from <i>Twelve</i>'s position of 6 in the same list in 2009.<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; border-collapse: collapse; "><br /></span></div><div>Full details at <a href="http://fantasyhotlist.blogspot.com/2010/12/top-10-speculative-fiction-titles-of.html" style="color: rgb(96, 40, 60); text-decoration: underline; ">Pat's Fantasy Hotlist</a>.</div>Jasper Kenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06629648886901894662noreply@blogger.com0