Kildea's book on Britten

[HighlandDougie]

It sounds to me as if Kildea is the Rita Skeeter of the Muggle world.

I had to google 'Rita Skeeter' to discover that she is supposedly the purveyor of poison-pen stories. If one has read Paul Kildea's biography (which I would guess that EA has not?), such a description of him as a biographer is, simply, a travesty. While one may dislike his writing style (and I have some sympathy with Mary Chambers's irritation at some of the rhetorical flourishes), it is fundamentally a serious and properly researched work, with the caveat that he has let himself down by relying on hearsay in relation to the claims about syphilis and the likelihood that Britten was infected by Peter Pears. The claim is not implausible but the fact that there can be no proof of it means that it should have been omitted. That flaw aside, it is fairer, more balanced and more perceptive about the music than the previous biography of BB which I know (that by Humphrey Carpenter). I don't think that I can bring myself to read another biography of him quite yet but, when the time comes, I shall certainly read that by Neil Powell, happily on sale at my local bookshop.

[amateur51]

I had to google 'Rita Skeeter' to discover that she is supposedly the purveyor of poison-pen stories. If one has read Paul Kildea's biography (which I would guess that EA has not?), such a description of him as a biographer is, simply, a travesty. While one may dislike his writing style (and I have some sympathy with Mary Chambers's irritation at some of the rhetorical flourishes), it is fundamentally a serious and properly researched work, with the caveat that he has let himself down by relying on hearsay in relation to the claims about syphilis and the likelihood that Britten was infected by Peter Pears. The claim is not implausible but the fact that there can be no proof of it means that it should have been omitted. That flaw aside, it is fairer, more balanced and more perceptive about the music than the previous biography of BB which I know (that by Humphrey Carpenter). I don't think that I can bring myself to read another biography of him quite yet but, when the time comes, I shall certainly read that by Neil Powell, happily on sale at my local bookshop.

I'm immediately more attracted to Neil Powell's book because apparently it deals more with Britten and his demons and in an empathic way. I daresay I shall read both in good time, perhaps when they have reached my local charity shop

[Mary Chambers]

I had to google 'Rita Skeeter' to discover that she is supposedly the purveyor of poison-pen stories. If one has read Paul Kildea's biography (which I would guess that EA has not?), such a description of him as a biographer is, simply, a travesty. While one may dislike his writing style (and I have some sympathy with Mary Chambers's irritation at some of the rhetorical flourishes), it is fundamentally a serious and properly researched work, with the caveat that he has let himself down by relying on hearsay in relation to the claims about syphilis and the likelihood that Britten was infected by Peter Pears. The claim is not implausible but the fact that there can be no proof of it means that it should have been omitted. That flaw aside, it is fairer, more balanced and more perceptive about the music than the previous biography of BB which I know (that by Humphrey Carpenter). I don't think that I can bring myself to read another biography of him quite yet but, when the time comes, I shall certainly read that by Neil Powell, happily on sale at my local bookshop.

I also had to google Rita Skeeter!


I think you are largely right. It is fairer than Carpenter, certainly, but I have the feeling that Kildea is too far distanced from Britten's time and place to understand what made him tick. Powell doesn't tell me anything much from a biographical point of view that I didn't already know, but there is an intuitive understanding there that I feel is lacking in the Kildea.

Random examples of Kildea's irritating style - the adjectives clunky and plunky, the verbs traipsed, stomped and penned, a reference to 'coloured' servants, a description of Imogen Holst as 'a spinster, literally and in character'. What generation is he, for heaven's sake?

[Sydney Grew]

Principally for Britten enthusiasts, but also for others, I would like to draw attention to the long article in the Times Literary Supplement of the twenty-second of March. It is written by Mr. Bostridge the singer, occupies with its two entire pages pride of place at the beginning of the issue, and reviews six books, including the one which is the subject of this thread. We learn much that is of interest about the composer and his productions, and especially about the way he and Strawinsky influenced each other over the years - which rather surprised me. "Kleenex at the ready" remarked little Igor about the Requiem.

[Flosshilde]

Kildea is too far distanced from Britten's time and place to understand what made him tick.

Rather a curious qualification (or lack) for a biographer? It would dismiss any biography written by someone living more than a generation after the subject (or even written by someone who wasn't of the same generation as their subject), or restrict them to a bald account of activities. Surely a decent biographer would research the time & place to gain that understanding (& that wouldn't be difficult for a subject so close to us in time as Britten is)?

[Mary Chambers]

Rather a curious qualification (or lack) for a biographer? It would dismiss any biography written by someone living more than a generation after the subject (or even written by someone who wasn't of the same generation as their subject), or restrict them to a bald account of activities. Surely a decent biographer would research the time & place to gain that understanding (& that wouldn't be difficult for a subject so close to us in time as Britten is)?

You are right, I suppose - but how do we know whether the conclusions drawn are correct? I notice misinterpretations in biographies of Britten simply because I am close to his era - he was the same age as my parents, more or less. I remember much of the time he lived in. If I'm reading a biography of Mahler, say, by a British writer (hypothetical example) I'd have little idea of whether he'd got it right or not - would probably have to accept what he says.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I notice misinterpretations in biographies of Britten simply because I am close to his era - he was the same age as my parents, more or less. I remember much of the time he lived in.

Does that make you the same generation as, say, Humphrey Carpenter (b 1943), Mary?

[Mary Chambers]

Does that make you the same generation as, say, Humphrey Carpenter (b 1943), Mary?

Um....yes Touché. I'd better shut up. (I know what I mean, though )

[Flosshilde]

I know what you mean, too, & sort of agree - the biography that is all speculation & putting thoughts into the subject's head or speech in their mouth might as well be a historical novel, & I dislike people taking a 20th century (or even 21st century) view of the past. But with some research into the society & culture of the time some suggestions might be made about their motivation for actions. I'm reading Claire Tomalin's biography of Dickens (even more removed from our time than Britten ) & I'd like her to indulge in a bit more speculation - about why Dickens' wife, despite him not appearing to have much interest in his children, was almost continually pregnant; & the nature of his friendship with Forster, for example. It can only be speculation, but I feel that [I]her /I] speculation, based on the research she must have done, might be worth more than mine.

[antongould]

Not to open old wounds but there is a long medically detailed article in this week's New Statesman by Hywel Davies one of the cardiologists who, seemingly unwittingly, let the syphilis story out of the bag. Both he and Donald Ross who carried out the operation, while they believed that syphilis was present, refused to release the information. Commenting on the blood test he says "...a negative blood test does not rule out the disease, especially in a patient who had been treated heavily with penicillin, as Britten had."

He ends "On the basis of Ross's surgical report and his unequivocal opinion, it seems Kildea is substantially right in what he says, though some amendments to wording, to reflect what we now know from the report, could be made to the next edition of his book. ..."

[amateur51]

Not to open old wounds but there is a long medically detailed article in this week's New Statesman by Hywel Davies one of the cardiologists who, seemingly unwittingly, let the syphilis story out of the bag. Both he and Donald Ross who carried out the operation, while they believed that syphilis was present, refused to release the information. Commenting on the blood test he says "...a negative blood test does not rule out the disease, especially in a patient who had been treated heavily with penicillin, as Britten had."

He ends "On the basis of Ross's surgical report and his unequivocal opinion, it seems Kildea is substantially right in what he says, though some amendments to wording, to reflect what we now know from the report, could be made to the next edition of his book. ..."

Oh dear, you can also find other 'experts' who say that it was quite common at the time for an early streptococcal infection such as Britten had in USA to lie dormant for decades only to re-emerge when the person has further surgery (i.e. body stress).

When I was training as a dentist at Guy's Hospital in the 1970s (where Donald Ross worked) we were always told to ask patients about any experience of rheumatic fever; if they told us about it, we just had to administer precautionary antibiotic therapy and proceed with the drilling & filling.

However it was less common but not beyond the realms of possibility at that time to find cases of undiagnosed/ untreated syphilis and we were taught to spot that too.

[antongould]

The whole article is not, I think, yet available but this is ......I worry I may not have correctly represented the article and it is obviously better that it is read in full


"..........
Hywel Davies: Unravelling the mystery of Benjamin Britten’s death

The leading British consultant cardiologist Hywel Davies unravels the mystery of Benjamin Britten’s death. Paul Kildea’s recent biography, Benjamin Britten: a Life in the 20th Century, claims that Britten died from the long-term effects of syphilis.

At the time of publication there were, writes Davies, “very public denials of this, some of them by people who could not possibly know one way or the other”. Davies was a friend and colleague of the surgeon, Donald Ross, who operated on Britten’s heart in 1973. He has also examined medical records recently placed in the Britten-Pears library, and reveals that “during an ordinary conversation in his house in the late 1980s, Ross chose to tell me that Britten’s heart was syphilitic . . . I took him at his word, knowing that his opinion was that of a seasoned professional at the peak of his power in his field of expertise.”

In conclusion, Davies argues that “syphilis was and still is a major diagnostic possibility” and that Kildea is largely correct in his claim. “I have taken a position in this matter largely because I find that the strongest evidence we have is that of the surgeons and I do not believe their conclusions should be cast aside lightly.”

[amateur51]

The whole article is not, I think, yet available but this is ......I worry I may not have correctly represented the article and it is obviously better that it is read in full


"..........
Hywel Davies: Unravelling the mystery of Benjamin Britten’s death

The leading British consultant cardiologist Hywel Davies unravels the mystery of Benjamin Britten’s death. Paul Kildea’s recent biography, Benjamin Britten: a Life in the 20th Century, claims that Britten died from the long-term effects of syphilis.

At the time of publication there were, writes Davies, “very public denials of this, some of them by people who could not possibly know one way or the other”. Davies was a friend and colleague of the surgeon, Donald Ross, who operated on Britten’s heart in 1973. He has also examined medical records recently placed in the Britten-Pears library, and reveals that “during an ordinary conversation in his house in the late 1980s, Ross chose to tell me that Britten’s heart was syphilitic . . . I took him at his word, knowing that his opinion was that of a seasoned professional at the peak of his power in his field of expertise.”

In conclusion, Davies argues that “syphilis was and still is a major diagnostic possibility” and that Kildea is largely correct in his claim. “I have taken a position in this matter largely because I find that the strongest evidence we have is that of the surgeons and I do not believe their conclusions should be cast aside lightly.”

Thanks anton

In the absence of a blood sample, it's an easy position to take to shore up your reputation, I'm afraid. I'm amazed that no Wasserman test was done for syphilis at the time, just for the record and for the convenience of future surgeons. The 'social niceties' argument doesn't hold water.