Temp, I saw that interview as well and I agree with your assessment, as ever I found her deeply unsettling. The contrast you mention between the voice and presentational style and her chosen subject matter and approach jars. I see her, not so much as an iron fist etc, but as a vivisectionist's scalpel hidden in a caressing hand.

In a rather unfavourable review of her collection that I read yesterday it says: Dissatisfying as many of these stories are, their worse crime is that of tone. Throughout there is a sneer, as if the narrators of each are eyeing the world with detached disdain

Perhaps in her work she reveals a flash of that scalpel.

ferval wrote:

Temp, I saw that interview as well and I agree with your assessment, as ever I found her deeply unsettling. The contrast you mention between the voice and presentational style and her chosen subject matter and approach jars. I see her, not so much as an iron fist etc, but as a vivisectionist's scalpel hidden in a caressing hand.

In a rather unfavourable review of her collection that I read yesterday it says: Dissatisfying as many of these stories are, their worse crime is that of tone. Throughout there is a sneer, as if the narrators of each are eyeing the world with detached disdain

Perhaps in her work she reveals a flash of that scalpel.

Absolutely - "a vivisectionist's scalpel hidden in a caressing hand" is perfect.

But it's true you can't fault her history - I still am awestruck at the reference to heart-shaped Fugger bags; she got that lovely little detail from Mattaeus Schwarz, a man I'd never heard of. But then who has?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22766029

PS Remember that line from Land Down Under - "I met a strange lady; she made me nervous..."?

Temperance,

"But she's interested too in the ones "who didn't die - until they died". Her comments about The Assassination of Margaret Thatcher made it clear that this was no politically motivated rant against a detested woman. The short story is actually about how history happens - or doesn't happen - sometimes in a split second. She spoke of "roads not taken" of "doors not opened". Mantel really was in her Windsor flat that day in 1983 when history didn't happen: when Thatcher emerged from the private hospital and wasn't assassinated. But she could have been. Had an IRA intruder gained entry into the flat, a gun could easily have been fired from the writer's kitchen window. But there was no IRA man, no gun and history went on as before. Nothing changed. But it might have done. That is her point - a historical one, not a political one."

No political agenda too then...and in reality Thatcher escaped nearly to an IRA bombing...I still remember the actuality of that day on our TV screens:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brighton_hotel_bombing

Temperance, I read once the whole thread and among others reading Nordmann's latest comments in this thread I got gradualy aware that I have not enough knowledge about Hilary Mantel to utter some opinion among people who read her books (me, only one and years ago) and who know her personality from interviews...and I see now that I let me lead by comments about the Thatcher novel from Dutch readers without having enough background and doing enough research ...

Thank you all nevertheless to provide this background and especially Temperance for having had the patience to explain it all. And I will stay silent for the rest in this thread for the above mentioned reasons...

Kind regards and with esteem, Paul.

Paul - I don't know if you can access this programme. It is the one ferval and I watched on Saturday:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04kfwzh/the-culture-show-20142015-8-hilary-mantel-case-histories

What a bright smile the lady has.

Ferval - I like the comment (at the beginning of the programme) that Mantel "neatly skewers suburbia". Your quotation -  from a review I think you said - is also spot-on:

Dissatisfying as many of these stories are, their worse crime is that of tone. Throughout there is a sneer, as if the narrators of each are eyeing the world with detached disdain.

But is detached disdain a crime? I suppose the supremely intelligent just can't help it - we must all seem such worms to them. But let us nevertheless keep wriggling.

PS Here's a picture of that trendy accountant, Matthaus Schwarz. He does look a bit of a fashionista, doesn't he - some of the pictures in his book were sort of 16th century selfies, if you can have a selfie painted by someone else.

Oh lord, Temp, please reassure me. In a dark corner of my fuddled little brain, there's a wee voice whispering -"Are you sure you're not judging this woman by some pathetic standard of what a woman should do, think and appear? If a man said (in deep, masculine tones of course,) and wrote as she does, would you think the same way?"

Am I just being irredeemably sexist? Help!

Thank you MM, duly corrected.

ferval wrote:

Oh lord, Temp, please reassure me. In a dark corner of my fuddled little brain, there's a wee voice whispering -"Are you sure you're not judging this woman by some pathetic standard of what a woman should do, think and appear? If a man said (in deep, masculine tones of course,) and wrote as she does, would you think the same way?"

Am I just being irredeemable sexist? Help!

Maybe. But if you are, so am I. I said before she thinks like "a certain type of man". They baffle me too - and I irritate them. I had a difficult conversation with one such on Saturday night. Ended up I wanted to thump him and he most definitely wanted to thump me. In the end we agreed not to agree to differ.

But it could have been the strong wine wot done it.

Seriously, I think that's a very fair question - I'm still puzzling over this woman and my response to her and to her brilliant writing. I admire her so much, yet am uneasy at the "disdain" aspect of her work. She's suffered a great deal in her life (see her autobiography, Giving Up the Ghost, such an interesting title), both physically and mentally, and I think it has made her cruel. One telling thing - in my much vaunted and bragged about meeting with her - Lord, five years ago now - when I eventually recognised her and said, "You're Hilary Mantel, aren't you", she replied - vastly amused - "Yes I am. You can touch me if you like."  I immediately poked her arm. She made me feel exactly the way some men do when they obviously find you sweet but quite idiotic. You want to say - "Don't judge me too soon, matey. Don't be so ready to weigh and measure me - and find me wanting."

But I witter, comme d'habitude. Back to me ironing.

Deleted


PS : Seriously how does one completely delete a recently posted message? You manage to do it Temp, but when I try all I get is a still posted, but blank, message. How does one delete a posting?

I sometimes get a "delete" option along with "quote" and "edit". But perhaps El Supremo just puts that there for me as a hint that I've posted something particularly daft. (Joke.)

Come on MM, don't you start the 'thinking better of it' routine, spontaneity is everything here!
I had read you post and I can't see why you chose to delete it, you cheeky little metrosexual you.

Me! Metrosexual? Pretensious, moi? If you (or indeed anyone else) could see me this afternoon in my tatty old apron ... up to my eyes in making mango chutney, drying mushrooms, and attempting to preserve some confits de canards ... I rather think you wouldn't readily use that term!

Ferv, I only deleted when I realised that I'd mistaken what the conversation was about, or had moved on to, .... plus I did also make some rather silly comments! But you are right - this is a message board and we are effectively in conversation and so what is said is done. I concur that we should generally stand by what we have posted, and so should rarely delete. Mea culpa.

Perhaps I was mistaken about ferval's meaning, not you, MM. What an odd business this message board conversation malarkey is. Full of misunderstandings, embarrassments and confusions. I'm dying to delete my Dead Poets' post at this very moment, but I'm trying hard to resist: I shall go and put the wheelie bin out instead. I am a compulsive deleter - I probably need help.

Good programme on BBC2 tonight - Horizon -  Is Your Brain Male or Female?  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29405467

Ooooh, did anyone notice if Hilary has a longer ring than index finger on her left hand? That's meant to signify high testosterone impact in utero and thus a more masculine neurology. I do, if that's of interest. Now I'm wondering about Philippa G and Philippa L as well, I bet they've got dinky, dainty ones.

Temperance,

"Paul - I don't know if you can access this programme. It is the one ferval and I watched on Saturday:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04kfwzh/the-culture-show-20142015-8-hilary-mantel-case-histories"


No, Nielsen and I aren't allowed to see or hear the BBC I player...it was the same with the 7+ Arte programs...I wrote a letter to Arte Paris, that the French overseas territory of Mayotte had the 7+ access and why not Belgium...received an answer that they were working on the problem and indeed now we have access...not sure if it is due to my letter...(I know Mayotte while there is a friend of the family, doctor overthere with a contract from the French government)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayotte


Temperance, nevertheless thank you very much for the effort to enlighten me about Hilary Mantel.

PS: I don't engage in the tricky male/female debate...and even less in the length of ring and index finger...yes, Ferval I read it too in some scientific? paper...

Kind regards and with esteem to you both,

Paul.

Paul wrote:

PS: I don't engage in the tricky male/female debate...

Coward.  

Well, here I am in me pretty pink tutu quite unable to do that awful lego puzzle. I nearly got the angle one right though. The boy monkeys with the trucks were extremely funny. ("Boys love anything with wheels".)

Interesting programme, especially the comments from the Cambridge research team that told us that autism represents "the extreme masculine brain."*

But very much off-topic - a sign of an unfocused female brain. Back to our Hilary at once.

*Simon Baron-Cohen FBA (born 15 August 1958) is Professor of Developmental Psychopathology at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom.He is the Director of the University's Autism Research Centre, and a Fellow of Trinity College.He has worked on autism, including the theory that autism involves degrees of mind-blindness (or delays in the development of theory of mind) and his later theory that autism is an extreme form of what he calls the "male brain", which involved a re-conceptualisation of typical psychological sex differences in terms of empathising–systemizing theory

I started watching the Hilary Mantel interview on iplayer but had to abandon it.  She did freak me out rather.  Still I have never read any of Ms Mantel's work (she's on my list) so should reserve judgement until I have done so.

Temperance, is the Simon Baron-Cohen you cite any relation to Sacha (Ali G) Baron-Cohen?

They are cousins, LiR.

Sorry, I'm dragging this even further off topic but I came across this in another place and it's devised by the aforementioned Simon Baron-Cohen. The results seem not to show any substantial difference between men and women.

http://socialintelligence.labinthewild.org/mite/

I am very wary of ever bringing up Hilary Mantel and/or Thomas Cromwell ever again, but here is a snippet from the Daily Mail about the BBC production of Wolf Hall.

The costumes look really authentic.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2790697/pressure-heats-damian-lewis-author-hilary-mantel-warns-bbc-not-turn-tv-version-wolf-hall-nonsense.html




That bottle of Evian water gets everywhere.

Blimey, he'll give Carrie quite a shock if he reappears wearing that lot.

Daily Mail: "Pressure heats up for Damian Lewis as author Hilary Mantel warns BBC not to turn TV version of Wolf Hall into 'nonsense'."

Well if she was that worried she shouldn't have sold the rights - no doubt for a pretty sum - to the BBC should she!

Quite MM.

Didn't like the books and am not so keen on the thought of a telly adaptation of it, but if Damian Lewis is in it then that is that. I'll be giving it a definite miss.

ferval wrote:

Blimey, he'll give Carrie quite a shock if he reappears wearing that lot.

The mob in Tehran should be well impressed. I hope he comes out with that brilliant line: "I'm the King of England: when I pray, God listens."

Oh, goody - it's starting next week. BBC2 Wednesday 21st January at 9.00pm.

Marks and Spencer Luxury Mixed Nuts and Chateauneuf-du-Pape at the ready.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/wolf-hall-damian-lewis-is-a-sinister-henry-viii-in-new-bbc-trailer-9949523.html

Couldn't resist!  

I hope you are not suggesting, sir, that we ardent Dame Hilary fans are in any way similar to the hysterical mob who anxiously awaited the BBC dramatization of The White Queen? They had a clock counting down too, I believe.  

I'm surprised they've put Wolf Hall on BBC 2 and on a Wednesday night - it would fill the Sunday 9.00pm Homeland void nicely.

Complaints about historical accuracy are starting already:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2916587/The-actress-pretty-play-Jayne-Seymour-house-built-Historians-spot-inaccuracies-new-BBC-Henry-VIII-drama-Wolf-Hall.html

However, our Damian certainly looks splendid:

This might upset a few people.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11352169/Hilary-Mantel-Not-everyone-will-get-Wolf-Hall-but-I-wont-dumb-it-down.html


Saying she refused to reduce it to “clichés and over-simplifications”, she emphasised the high-brow material would make it even more enjoyable for those intelligent enough to understand it.  


I look forward to some lively debate here!

This might upset a few people as well.      

There has been some discussion and controversy surrounding the forthcoming film of Hilary Mantel’s Wolf Hall, centred on the size of the actor’s codpieces. It is alleged that they have been made smaller than would be historically accurate in order to avoid upsetting American audiences, who may be uncomfortable with such blatantly virile fashion items.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/12/wolf-hall-film-codpieces-status-sex

Parallax, your thoughts on this outstanding issue would be welcome.

Clothing trends reflect social conditions, and the Tudor period was a time of war, change and insecurity. In response to this, men adopted a style of clothing that emphasised their manliness and virility to mask their inner insecurity.

It is probably no coincidence that the simple codflap began its transformation into the codpiece in Germany, the home of the Reformation. It is difficult for us today to comprehend the shattering effect this schism in the church must have had on the people who lived through it, whose solid world appeared to be breaking apart.

Gosh, I had no idea that codflaps started off in Luther's Germany. That man was responsible for so much. I wonder if Protestants had bigger ones than Catholics?

Seriously though I have also seen it suggested that, since the development of the codpiece coincided with the arrival and spread of syphilis in the beginning of the 16th century, such large codpieces might have simply been to accommodate bandaging, poultices and padding around the far from virile privy parts. Certainly syphilis has been suggested for Henry's apparent infertility as well as some of his ill-health and mood changes. And doesn't Hillary Mantel in Wolf Hall make a suggestion that Francis I of France also had problems in the codpiece?

Temperance wrote:

Clothing trends reflect social conditions, and the Tudor period was a time of war, change and insecurity. In response to this, men adopted a style of clothing that emphasised their manliness and virility to mask their inner insecurity.

It is probably no coincidence that the simple codflap began its transformation into the codpiece in Germany, the home of the Reformation. It is difficult for us today to comprehend the shattering effect this schism in the church must have had on the people who lived through it, whose solid world appeared to be breaking apart.

Gosh, I had no idea that codflaps started off in Luther's Germany. That man was responsible for so much. I wonder if Protestants had bigger ones than Catholics?

Temperance,

what one learn here all these days on this forum. I have to admit that I first thought about the flaps of the "mantel" (not Hilllary...) of the "sirs"...
https://www.google.be/search?q=cod+flaps&biw=1199&bih=731&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=bH29VJ6qDcGqU4ragtAN&sqi=2&ved=0CDAQsAQ&dpr=1

But now I see...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codpiece

Kind regards from Paul.

Meles wrote:

Seriously though I have also seen it suggested that, since the development of the codpiece coincided with the arrival and spread of syphilis in the beginning of the 16th century, such large codpieces might have simply been to accommodate bandaging, poultices and padding around the far from virile privy parts. Certainly syphilis has been suggested for Henry's apparent infertility as well as some of his ill-health and mood changes. And doesn't Hillary Mantel in Wolf Hall make a suggestion that Francis I of France also had problems in the codpiece?

She does indeed - on page 408 of Wolf Hall. Francis I is here in conversation with Anne Boleyn (1532 in Calais):

They speak in French for an hour...No doubt they are discussing the new alliance; he seems to think she has another treaty tucked down her bodice. Once Francis lifts her hand...and for one moment it seems he intends to lay her little fingers upon his unspeakable codpiece. Everyone knows that Francis has recently taken the mercury cure. But no one knows if it has worked.

"The mercury cure", plus baths to sweat out the infection, were the standard 16th century treatments for the Great Pox. There is no record that Henry VIII ever underwent "the cure": the accounts for his many and various medicines do not mention mercury, and there is no evidence that he disappeared for around six weeks to undergo the baths and other medical interventions. David Starkey (Six Wives) and Robert Hutchinson (The Last Days of Henry VIII) both dismiss the syphilis rumours. I could quote the relevant passages, but don't want to bore you all to death.

However, I will quote this weird little snippet. It's from the 1529 Act of Attainder against Wolsey. One of the Cardinal's more heinous crimes was apparently that of trying to infect Henry with syphilis via the royal ear:

"...the same Lord Cardinal, knowing himself to have the foul and contagious disease of the great pox, broken out upon him in diverse places of his body, came daily to your grace, rowning (whispering) in your ear and blowing upon your most noble grace with his perilous and infected breath to the marvellous danger of your highness, if God, of his infinite goodness, had not better provided for your highness."

Only 1 day: 13 hours: 4 mins: 38 secs to go!

Ears were huge liabilities in medieval times. For many centuries the Catholic Church would have everyone believe that Jesus's birth of an immaculate virgin did not preclude sexual intercourse on his mother's part but that Gabriel (the dirty bastard) had done the deed through her auricle. An incubus with a penchant for the incus was Gabby.

nordmann wrote:

Ears were huge liabilities in medieval times. For many centuries the Catholic Church would have everyone believe that Jesus's birth of an immaculate virgin did not preclude sexual intercourse on his mother's part but that Gabriel (the dirty bastard) had done the deed through her auricle. An incubus with a penchant for the incus was Gabby.

Wasn't it the Holy Spirit, not "Gabby" who was actually responsible - or is that a mere technicality?

If it were not that I have promised never to mention God-stuff ever again here - I would start a thread on the history of the Virgin Mary. It is an interesting subject - well, I think so.

But failing a thread, this is a good book by Miri Rubin:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2009/feb/14/miri-rubin-mother-of-god

While grounding Mary securely in the rituals of the everyday brought her closer to the lives of ordinary Christians, it caused problems for theologians. The business of how Mary could be both virgin and mother was not simply a sticking-point for literal-minded Jews. One solution was to suggest that Mary had been impregnated by the Holy Spirit through her ear, which sounds not only gynaecologically unlikely but downright ticklish. And even if you accepted this stuttering substitution of one orifice for another, there was still the tricky business of how the Virgin could have gone through labour and still remained intacta. Worried thinkers such as Gilbert Crispin, abbot of Westminster, responded with the image of sun passing through a pane of glass illuminating its colours without cracking its design. Something similar, apparently, had happened when the baby Jesus popped out.

I do like the description of poor old Gilbert Crispin as "a worried thinker" - that makes two of us then.

Off-topic, but not my fault.

It could well have been Gabby operating under the influence of too much holy spirit (a bit like myself this morning though in my case it's more Aqua Vitæ than Spiritus Sanctus).

Now, if I could only find a virgin with a willing ear or two!

I'm sure there are some out there on the internet who would be happy to accommodate even this most unusual auricular fantasy.    

On a serious note - are there any art images of this strange version of the Immaculate Conception? Surely not - it's just too bizarre.

Nope, they all stop short at the foreplay stage:



Here, for example, Gabby helpfully points Mary in the direction of the local Eye & Ear clinic.

Why is this discussion making me think of Joe Orton?

Ooooo Ferval,  



Mind you at school during the Christmas service of the nine lessons and carols I always thought the gospel of St. John said,  "and the Angel Gabriel came under her", rather than ".... unto her". But I was only about twelve.

Came onto her, I thought.

Does Gabriel even have a willy? We were taught that the angels all lacked their naughty bits - like Action Man and Barbie.

Or was it "Came on to her"? ... that is he tried to snog her, while drooling sweet nothings into her ear, and clumsily attempting to cop a feel? 

That would probably been my interpretation at fourteen.

MM wrote:

sweet nothings in her ear

One way of putting it.

Actually so is that.

What a filthy book the bible is!

I take it then from the above exchanges that no one here wants to discuss the history of Mariolatry in Europe from the Edict of Milan to the present day? Suit yourselves, you boring lot.


EDIT1: have deleted whinge about life being unfair. What's the point? On or off topic - who cares anymore?

EDIT2: there was an interesting discussion on BBC2 Newsnight about  Wolf Hall/Bring Up the Bodies essentially being the pragmatism vs. principle debate. Principle, in the person of the "stiff-necked" (unfortunate adjective) Thomas More, is clearly in for a hammering. Mention was also made of how the production relates to our own times, the religious fundamentalists being the people of "principle", everyone else being the "pragmatists".

For anyone interested, here is the Newsnight interview with the director of the BBC2 production of Wolf Hall, Peter Kosminsky. Starts at 41.25:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b050g3ql/newsnight-20012015

Not a single one of these to be seen on last nights prog;



So much for Wolf Hall

The Sweating Sickness, a disease which appeared in the 15th and 16th centuries and which is still unidentified;

http://www.csuchico.edu/geop/Flash%20Gallery/Pittman.swf

I have been awaiting Temps take on the BBC production of Wolf Hall - so far - and you have gone quiet, Temps. I was enthralled - the essence was well distilled; enigma triumphs again.

Me too, P, I keep looking to see her thoughts.
I must own up to the two books still lying here mostly unread but that was a conscious decision once I heard that this adaptation was planned. Too often have I railed at lousy transitions from print and found that watch and then read to be the best order, the book being almost inevitably so much better. Thus I am able to regard it as entity in its own right and not get hung up on any discrepancies or departures from my mental pictures. That being said, I loved it and, despite having as you must realise by now only the sketchiest knowledge of the background and frankly not an overwhelming interest, navigated the chronology and who the various participants were with ease. This production may even help me to overcome my irrational dislike of Damien Lewis.

The night before I had watched Smiley's People and was very struck by both the resemblances between Smiley and Cromwell as characters and by Guiness and Rylance as sublime actors.

So come on Temp, we're waiting..............

Same here, I fully expected to see Temp on here yesterday, but no. (too much Chateauneuf-du-Pape?)

Wiki credits Claire van Kampen  with advising on the original Tudor music. I believe this is one of the tunes used:

Priscilla wrote:

I have been awaiting Temps take on the BBC production of Wolf Hall - so far - and you have gone quiet, Temps.

It were all right, I suppose, if you like that sort of thing.

I am quiet because I am having a massive huff at life in general. Someone I thought I liked very much (no one here, I hasten to add) told me on Wednesday (on balance, not a good day), that I talk too much   . So, I have decided to go all subdued and enigmatic for a bit, even though I am actually dying to talk about Thomas More being presented as an unpleasant, religious, middle-class, intellectual snob, Wolsey being a bit too likeable and Cromwell's impeccable taste in soft furnishings.


I'll be back to normal by tea-time tomorrow (probably).