Kildea's book on Britten

[Bryn]

" ... when all the composer's symptoms are considered there can be only one conclusion" - Kildea

and that conclusion is, 'I have a book to sell'.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

" ... when all the composer's symptoms are considered there can be only one conclusion" - Kildea

and that conclusion is, 'I have a book to sell'.

[amateur51]

" ... when all the composer's symptoms are considered there can be only one conclusion" - Kildea

and that conclusion is, 'I have a book to sell'.

Too true.

If syphylis is 'the great imitator' as Kildea advises us, how can it be that the surgeon took one look at the state of Britten's aorta & pronounced (very quietly!) 'syphilis'?

The fact is that there is a very simple serological test for syphilis for which a sample could be taken without raising any speculation. This apparently wasn't done which leads me to think that there was no good medical reason for doing so.

The gossip however leads elsewhere ... Ker-CHING!

[Ferretfancy]

Too true.

If syphylis is 'the great imitator' as Kildea advises us, how can it be that the surgeon took one look at the state of Britten's aorta & pronounced (very quietly!) 'syphilis'?

The fact is that there is a very simple serological test for syphilis for which a sample could be taken without raising any speculation. This apparently wasn't done which leads me to think that there was no good medical reason for doing so.

The gossip however leads elsewhere ... Ker-CHING!

One of the anaesthetists who was present at Britten's operation has said that he had examined the aorta, and there was nothing unusual except the heart disease itself.

what will I gain from reading this book? Very little.

[Black Swan]

One of the anaesthetists who was present at Britten's operation has said that he had examined the aorta, and there was nothing unusual except the heart disease itself.

what will I gain from reading this book? Very little.

I am afraid this is just crass journalism. I too have read the account of the Anesthetist and have more faith in his medical qualifications than Kildea's. I don't understand why authors have to try to sell books on hype. Really poor form on my part and I won't be buying or reading Kildea's book.

[Mary Chambers]

Two letters from medics in answer to Kildea's defence of his theory:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/jan/31/benjamin-brittens-symptoms-dont-add-syphilis?INTCMP=SRCH

It's a rather depressing aspect of journalistic values that the original story was picked up at once by newspapers here and in other countries, but they aren't so far bothering to repeat the arguments against it.

I also find it a bit strange that it's considered so 'sensational', because even if it were true it wouldn't really be terribly important. However, a biography that will be widely read should attempt to tell the truth.

[Sir Velo]

Two letters from medics in answer to Kildea's defence of his theory:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/jan/31/benjamin-brittens-symptoms-dont-add-syphilis?INTCMP=SRCH

It's a rather depressing aspect of journalistic values that the original story was picked up at once by newspapers here and in other countries, but they aren't so far bothering to repeat the arguments against it.

Mary, what's also so depressing is that few journalists bothered to investigate the truth of Kildea's theory before giving him free publicity for him and his squalid little book. Instead, it was left to members of the public to refute this entirely fictional account. Lazy journalism. There's a surprise.

[Ferretfancy]

Mary, what's also so depressing is that few journalists bothered to investigate the truth of Kildea's theory before giving him free publicity for him and his squalid little book. Instead, it was left to members of the public to refute this entirely fictional account. Lazy journalism. There's a surprise.

Yes, it reminds me of the newsroom competition for the most grabbing headline. The winning entry was " RANDY VICAR IN MERCY DASH TO PALACE! "

Journalists love the idea of the syphilitic genius dies in a garrett -romantic souls !

[ahinton]

As I've not yet acquired or read Kildea's book, I realise that it behoves me to be appropriately circumspect in anything that I might say about it but, having read a number of journalistic commentaries (not least from the anæsthetist for Britten's 1973 operation, whose account is surely more worthy of trust than most if not all others?), it does look as though Kildea's focussing of one eye on drawing attention to himself and upping the book's sales by means of cheap sensationalist journalese has caused him to take his other eye off the fact of having shot himself in the foot (and being helped to do so by those medical professionals who dissent from the tale that he seeks to present); that said, it would be a pity if too many people are discouraged from having anything to do with this book just because of this, although one can understand the view already expressed here that if Kildea's prioritising of the need for sensationalism over that for thorough and painstaking research has caused him to mislead the reader over the circumstances and cause of Britten's death, it's perhaps inevitable that some prospective readers might feel inclined to assume that the entire volume might be equally ill-considered and less than reliable.

Even so, why should the nature of Britten's premature death be the subject of such attempted sensationalism in any case, more than 36 years after it occurred? It seems to me that the worst aspect of all of this is the disproportionality that now arises from the extent of focus on that subject as compared to focus on Britten's achievements as conductor, pianist and composer from his childhood until his early 60s; even if, as has been suggested by at least one commentator, Britten died at a time when he was about to embark on a great new phase of his creative career, this undue focus on the circumstances of his death would surely be justified only had he died in what could reasonably be described as "suspicious circumstances" - and mercifully not even the Kildean sensationalists are going so far as to suggest that!...

[ahinton]

Journalists love the idea of the syphilitic genius dies in a garrett

"Garret", ff; the ubiquitous and egregious Lesley might otherwise sue. Otherwise, point well taken.

[amateur51]

Two letters from medics in answer to Kildea's defence of his theory:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/jan/31/benjamin-brittens-symptoms-dont-add-syphilis?INTCMP=SRCH

It's a rather depressing aspect of journalistic values that the original story was picked up at once by newspapers here and in other countries, but they aren't so far bothering to repeat the arguments against it.

I also find it a bit strange that it's considered so 'sensational', because even if it were true it wouldn't really be terribly important. However, a biography that will be widely read should attempt to tell the truth.

Bravo to the two doctors

I looked at this book in Waterstones last evening before going to the theatre. I was interested to see that Kildea has credited himself with writing two previous books about Britten & his music. Perhaps the search for a new angle (in order to sell 'another book by Kildea' led him to give credence to the syphilis theory?

The play I was going to see is The Judas Kiss by David Hare at The Duke of York's Theatre, starring an extraordinary performance by Rupert Everett as Oscar Wilde, about the days of Wilde's trial and his life subsequently. The irony of my having glanced previously at the Kildea book and the wrapt attention of the audience and the standing ovation that greeted Everett at the curtain made me conclude that while many things have 'moved on' since Wilde's and Britten's time and indeed in my lifetime, some things remain of gruesome fascination to others.

[ahinton]

Bravo to the two doctors

I looked at this book in Waterstones last evening before going to the theatre. I was interested to see that Kildea has credited himself with wring two previos books about Britten & his music. Perhaps the search for a new angle (in order to sell 'another book by Kildea' led him to give credence to the syphilis theory?

The play I was going to see is The Judas Kiss by David Hare at The Duke of York's Theatre, starring an extraordinary performance by Rupert Everett as Oscar Wilde, about the days of Wilde's trial and his life subsequently. The irony of my having glanced previously at the Kildea book and the wrapt attention of the audience and the standing ovation that greeted Everett at the curtain made me conclude that while many things have 'moved on' since Wilde's time and indeed in my lifetime, some things remain of gruesome fascination to others.

Sadly, I fear that you've hit the nail squarely on its head.

[kernelbogey]

I haven't followed this thread in detail, nor read Kildea's piece. However I would be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt to the extent that he will be contractually bound to publicise his book; and it is more than likely that some bright publicist at the publisher has seized on the syphillis story as a route to getting lots of press coverage. I've no idea how deeply involved in all this Kildea is personally, but it is simplistic to criticise an author for 'having a book to sell' when they can be carried along, willingly or otherwise, in a tide of publicity generated by the publisher who, after all, has invested in the project.

[ahinton]

I haven't followed this thread in detail, nor read Kildea's piece. However I would be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt to the extent that he will be contractually bound to publicise his book; and it is more than likely that some bright publicist at the publisher has seized on the syphillis story as a route to getting lots of press coverage. I've no idea how deeply involved in all this Kildea is personally, but it is simplistic to criticise an author for 'having a book to sell' when they can be carried along, willingly or otherwise, in a tide of publicity generated by the publisher who, after all, has invested in the project.

Whilst this is indeed true in principle, what's under the microscope here is what Mr Kildea has actually written and what he's subsequently said and written in defence thereof rather than what might have been seized upon noisily by some opportunist PR person at the publishers.

[kernelbogey]

Whilst this is indeed true in principle, what's under the microscope here is what Mr Kildea has actually written and what he's subsequently said and written in defence thereof rather than what might have been seized upon noisily by some opportunist PR person at the publishers.