The Hilary Mantel and Royal family furore
Has anyone else heard about Booker prize winner, Hilary Mantel's, controversial speech on Royal Bodies, presented for the London Review of Books? I saw it yesterday in my twitter feed and clicked on it out of interest. As someone coming to it as a cultural historian, as a writer and as someone who comes from a country that has little love left for
( Read more... )
The very fact that people discount her entire speech as 'vile' or 'unfair' just because she is not Royalist is ridiculous. I don't think Mantel wants to see them crash and burn. Her call to Kate was to grow some back bone. Her call to the Royal family was to grow the fuck up before life choices did it for them.
And I keep hearing this repeat of it's not what she said, it's how she said it. Come off it. How else could she have made her point? It seems to me that she had a great deal of sympathy for a family that she feels is no longer relevant.
To the last sentence, that just reinforces how strong the Royal myth is. It just reinforces how much the Royal's are perceived as untouchables. They aren't. A nation's pride? Only if you are Monarchist which Mantel is not. Besides which, if this is poisonous diatribe, I'd hate to see her and other academics get really angry.
For Australians, her speech is very mild. But then, we've been trying to become a Republic for years. My best friend violently hates the Queen ("What's she ever done for us other than take our money?) and my Mum still remembers the Whitlam affair ("God save the Queen, for nothing will save the Governor-General." One of the most famous moments in Australian political history)
Reply
I don't discount her speech at all. As I have said, I have read it twice, just to make sure I'm not being biased. But either way, I'm rather neutral on the whole affair as a) I'm not a citizen with a monarchy and b) I've never been invested in the royals in any way. They just ARE. I've never romanticised, idolised or daydreamed about them. I feel more sorry for them than anything, but not enough to make judgement calls against a writer I've never heard of before, much less care about.
I was directed to this article well over two weeks ago by a friend. I don't read/watch the news. Or read magazines. This woman and her opinions are pretty much unknown to me. I read the article, but did not follow the supposed brouhaha in the other papers or reports and I certainly have no vested interest in aligning my opinion with anyone else's.
Everything has a tone. Tis the biggest complaint on the Net! 'Well, I didn't mean it like THAT.' Even though what they said came across differently than how they meant to say it. Text is black and white. Flat. But how a person thinks, feels and their motives can come through very well when you read HOW that text is laid out. How it reads to you. What feelings it invokes in you. And I'm just saying that the feelings her article (which was overly long anyway) invoked in ME might just be the same things it invoked in everyone else out there. How they articulated their feelings I do not know, nor do I really care. But I found her writing venomous, gleeful and petty and it made me uncomfortable. Valid points or not, how she puts those points across is the big thing. And while she wrote a provoking article, she missed her own point about getting the ideas out there. She got them out there, but she contradicts herself twice and she pissed people off so badly, they haven't heard a damn things she's said. I'm not pissed, I just feel she was attacking an institution that she obviously dislikes. Royalist or not, how can you condemn someone for not having a backbone, then bitch because she gets one and she looks cold or blank?
Mantel obviously is not a monarchist, but she offers no solutions to the problem either. I live in a country without a monarchy, so...not so invested. But if you are going to point out a problem so vehemently? At least offer a solution. Keep all scathing remarks (however delicately put) to yourself. If you are reporting something (with or without offering a solution) keep neutral. Now, I know this was an opinion piece and her opinion is hers and congrats to her. I just think she could have pedaled it a little softer, because it seemed less that she was putting out an opinion and more like she was shit stirring, then defending herself when she got the very reaction she wanted. She knew how this would come across and yet put it out there anyway.
For people who are invested in a different direction (such as hate for the monarchy from your friend), this would be a positive article. And therefore any objection to her tone, remarks, attitude on paper would be seen as 'siding with THEM'. As it is, I don't know about THEM, but I know I'll never read an article from her again if this is her standard work. Opinion or fact pieces there is suppose to be some neutrality. Or at least a solid statement about what you think. Not purile waffling with doses of sneering. She is not writing in her diary - she is writing an article that went international. If she wanted to make a point, she lost it - since it seems everyone is scraping over the content - and not the ideas WITHIN that content.
Reply
In my opinion it wasn't purile waffling- it was a speech of the length called for by the event Mantel was at and on the topic called for- (media and society). By the way, I have never read Mantel who is a twice booker prize winner and nor do I intend to. It's not my genre. I found her speech to be crystal clear as did many others. Just as many others did not. I have already judged them for it. Make of that what you will.
For the record I am not like my friend. I am undecided on the monarchy question though I also believe they need a serious update. And re my statement about Kate and a backbone- she doesn't have one publically. The only things we know about her are the things that the PR machine manufactures beforehand for us to see. To me that isn't controversial. It's pretty obvious. Princess Diana's personality bled everywhere- that is what Kate must never do. Mantel dares to ask why?
Clearly it is a question that people still aren't comfortable with answering.
Reply
Pps: Mantel wasn't shit stirring. She was discussing the image of Royalty that the public and the media and indeed the royal family demand from a feminist perspective. Just because a number of people take her argument out of context doesn't make her argument unclear. It makes people's inability to grasp an academic argument more apparent.
Reply
I am able to grasp academic argument. But I didn't see this article as such. To me, academic is related to a group of individuals that have one field - and is shared in that field to a wide extent. This was an opinion piece. An article in a major arena and while her books are academically slanted (and listed as part of her credits in the article), this piece was not an excerpt of them (as far as I am aware - but then, I've never read her books).
To say that someone disagrees or does not see the point is just that. They disagree or do not see clearly the point she was trying to make. I think she had one. She had a good one. But I feel her point was lost and my opinion of her work was colored by this article. I am reasoning enough to know I will not see her view because of how she states that view. Therefore it will be futile for me to read anything else by her because my view of her as a writer has been set by this piece.
It does not make me unable to grasp it. I have seen something that others did not. Just as those same others did not see what people such as I did. Does not make what we think invalid, nor does it contest our ability to understand it. To say that someone's opinion or thoughts on something is due to their being unable to comprehend it is unfair and is an opinion in and of itself. I will not say you don't have that right to that opinion - but when you say that, you are essentially saying that anyone who does not see this as a feminist argument, that anyone who does not see this as crystal clear as you is a moron. And while those who read, understood and appreciated this article may or may not have intelligence and comprehension, it is not fair to say that those who did not get out of the piece what you did are lacking these abilities.
Reply
Yes, I acknowledge that that makes me an intellectual snob and no I don't particularly care.
But alas, I am out of spork stabs as author Jim C Hines would say.
Freedom of speech exists until the Royal's or religon are involved, then it becomes uncalled for diatribe. I am with Mr Pullman on freedom of speech:
"It was a shocking thing to say and I knew it was a shocking thing to say. But no one has the right to live without being shocked. No one has the right to spend their life without being offended. Nobody has to read this book. Nobody has to pick it up. Nobody has to open it. And if you open it and read it, you don't have to like it. And if you read it and you dislike it, you don't have to remain silent about it. You can write to me, you can complain about it, you can write to the publisher, you can write to the papers, you can write your own book. You can do all those things, but there your rights stop. No one has the right to stop me writing this book. No one has the right to stop it being published, or bought, or sold or read. That's all I have to say on that subject."
So I guess I'll take a leaf from his book and stop getting so offended (and offensive). If only the people needlessly attacking Mantel would do the same.
Reply
And yes, everyone should have a voice. That voice should be heard. And though reality and the world is rather shocking in itself, a shake up now and again doesn't hurt. Making people stop to think NEVER hurts.
Mmmm...tis the text I tell you! The text! I guess I had better do the same *bows and smiles* And touche. To easy to get offended or rattled with these discussions. That's why I usually prefer to discuss things face to face. Seeing someone's body language and facial expressions lends to the debate for me and gives me information I can't get through the written word.
Saying that, I probably would have appreciated her speech more!
*hugs*
Agree to disagree it is...*laughs*
Reply
But that's the thing. It may well be the text's tone but Mantel had every right to use that tone. That's freedom of speech. That's what shakes things up. Then again, that means I have to extend you the same curtesy in allowing you to express your problems with her tone. Unfortunately, most people aren't taking issue with the tone. They are blatantly misconstruing what even you concede is a slegehammer obvious argument.
Reply
True. I just took exception - never meant to imply that she had no right to use it. (Sorry if I did!) Just that I found it personally uncomfortable for me and that I cannot read anything of hers without 'hearing' that tone. And that's all me and my perceptions. It really has nothing to do with Mantel herself or the subject she was writing in.
LOL! Another truth! This discourse hasn't even really touched on the CONTENT of her speech/article, lol! Just how she chose to say it. I'm sorry, for some reason I'm finding that funny *Stifles a giggle*
I do agree with a lot of her points and find them thought-provoking. Though yeah...sledgehammer, lol!! I just wish she had...said it differently? I dunno. I just feel there was too much lost that could have been discussed rationally and it's terrible that people want to argue the question, when the question itself is valid.
Reply
Mmmm...I am glad you got something out of it that I did not. I'm glad someone could actually see her views and appreciate them, much less agree. I try not to judge people on their views, but I can see how that may be easy to do as this is a political view for many, not just a point of interest to be discussed.
Oh, I figured you weren't. You were very precise in stating that this was her view. And you are indeed correct - they need updating and they need some scrutiny from their people...and not just as a fascinating object. A lot of big organisations and institutions need to be looked into, questioned and overhauled. But the day that happens...
Poor Diana. I truly loved the image, the freshness she brought to the royals. But I can see where they fear that, too. She was exposed - overly so - and yet she did so much good. Not all good, I never believed she was a saint, but she tried to be the best she could be, using her position as one to aid, not hide behind. We need more of that from all of our political bodies.
Alas, even in this day and age, the frontmen are the ones feeding us information. And it does more harm than good. I don't really follow anything with Kate (don't read/watch the news stories), so I definitely have no real concrete opinion on the woman. I just find it ironic that Mantel isn't a Royalist and yet they ARE how she makes her livelihood. Takes all kinds, though. For and against to give voice to the people.
Even if it was a question they were comfortable answering, the bad thing is - you wouldn't get the same answer from two people. If everyone could just sit down and have a REAL discussion, maybe something would change. If there could be more face to face and less reporting behind closed doors, maybe then real change could be effected.
But then, you should see the throw-downs between Dems and Reps in my state, lol!!
Reply
Ironically the things you write about the frontman is exactly what Mantel was on about. Kate could be a second Diana. So far she is toeing the so called 'Firm' line. For me, this is rather disappointing but who knows yet- early days and all.
Lots of others got her argument- just read The Guardian and The Observor comments rather than The Daily Fail and The Sun. Mind you, Mantel's speech was also never intended for anyone but academic types. Just because the tabloids had a slow newsday doesn't change that.
Mantel isn't a Royalist and yet they ARE how she makes her livelihood
This is of course very true and thanks for reminding me. However, to be fair to Mantel she does acknowledge this ironic fascination in her actual speech.
Reply
True, but that bit (in my eyes) was lost in her own observations. Still wanting to see what Kate will do (as will be reported by my friends from around the world). So far, I know she's married to William and pregnant. That's about it.
Mmmm...good point. Newspapers will take about anything nowadays and run with it. And I do kinda feel bad for Mantel now that I think about it. A speech got turned into controversy that everyone has something to say about.
I do remember that, lol! Found that actually amusing and rather tongue in cheek. One of the few highlights of that piece.
Reply
As for Kate, the fact that all you know is that she is married to Will and pregnant says it all.
Edit to explain: doesn't say anything about you, but about what we know of the real Kate.
Reply
*Nods* I see your point there. I was probably late with the information, but if that is all the information there IS...well, that speaks all by itself. I am woefully ignorant of a lot of things (like royals and their movements and what not), so if I know just about as much as anyone else? Yeesh.
Reply
Leave a comment