Britten's Heart Pathology

[visualnickmos]

I'm not sure whether we should bother with the ravings of Kildea. We may as well give credence to Enid Blyton, Michael Gove or fortune tellers.

If this forum had a "like" button, I would press it.....

[Flosshilde]

But why do you consider his book 'ravings'? Given the evidence his hypothesis can hardly be considered the work of a mad man, but perfectly reasonable. From the responses of some people one would think that Britten was being accused of being a mass murderer, not that he perhaps had an infection that was comparatively common.

[Barbirollians]

Yes but the point I find rather odd is why has Hywel Davies decided only to go into print after the death of Britten's GP who attacked the whole hypothesis .

Moreover, he does not explain the complete failure to inform Graham Hayward or Dr Michael Petch let alone the expert on cardiac syphilis Dr Goh who found no evidence in the notes of any symptoms reported consistent with syphilis .

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

But why do you consider his book 'ravings'? Given the evidence his hypothesis can hardly be considered the work of a mad man, but perfectly reasonable. From the responses of some people one would think that Britten was being accused of being a mass murderer, not that he perhaps had an infection that was comparatively common.

Maybe "ravings" it a little OTT, and it isn't impossible that BB did have the disease at some stage in his life. It is the self-promoting style of the book that I find offensive. it seems to say: "Here is a book that will shock you, rather like a Channel 4 documentary that may not be particular good."

[Flosshilde]

Maybe "ravings" it a little OTT, and it isn't impossible that BB did have the disease at some stage in his life. It is the self-promoting style of the book that I find offensive. it seems to say: "Here is a book that will shock you, rather like a Channel 4 documentary that may not be particular good."

was it the book that was self-promoting, or was it the newspaper that selected that particular part to print? Who decides which sections of a book are published in newspaper serialisation? The author, publisher, or newspaper? I would think that the author is the last person to have any say.

[Mary Chambers]

I seem to remember Kildea saying that the book would contain at least one startling new revelation. I was rather relieved when this was all it was, and it wasn't new anyway.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Most biographies have some kind of agenda, or a desire to paint the subject in a particular way. Michael Kennedy's Master Musicians bioigraphy is reverential; Humphry Carpenter's is more racy, with elements of an episode of Eastenders, though it remains informative; Kildea seems to be as I said - like a Channel 4 documentary.

[HighlandDougie]

Kildea seems to be as I said - like a Channel 4 documentary.

I think that we've been here before, as I remember taking EA mildly to task for making some fairly sweeping comments about a book which I suspected he might not have read. I assume from the choice of wording, "seems to be", (as in, "it is alleged") that that might still be the case, although I rather hope not. Kildea's book is a serious piece of work, which is by and large well-researched and non-judgemental about its subject. I think that his inclusion of what are, pace the article in the New Statesman and other references, unsubstantiated assertions about the underlying cause of Britten's heart failure lets him down and, as shown by the reaction from, inter alia, contributors to this Board, detracts from what is probably the best general biography of its subject. As I embark on an exploration of the 'Collected Works' which has been sitting reproachfully next to the hi-fi for the last ten days, having read Kildea will enhance my understanding of music which I largely admire but can't say that I really - yet - love.

I'm struggling even to think of a Channel 4 documentary but I'm sure EA is right in his comments about their general lack of quality.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I think that we've been here before, as I remember taking EA mildly to task for making some fairly sweeping comments about a book which I suspected he might not have read. I assume from the choice of wording, "seems to be", (as in, "it is alleged") that that might still be the case, although I rather hope not. Kildea's book is a serious piece of work, which is by and large well-researched and non-judgemental about its subject. I think that his inclusion of what are, pace the article in the New Statesman and other references, unsubstantiated assertions about the underlying cause of Britten's heart failure lets him down and, as shown by the reaction from, inter alia, contributors to this Board, detracts from what is probably the best general biography of its subject. As I embark on an exploration of the 'Collected Works' which has been sitting reproachfully next to the hi-fi for the last ten days, having read Kildea will enhance my understanding of music which I largely admire but can't say that I really - yet - love.

I'm struggling even to think of a Channel 4 documentary but I'm sure EA is right in his comments about their general lack of quality.

To put the record straight, I have read the three biographies of Britten I mentioned. I was careful to avoid absolutes in my previous post, as I recently lent the Kildea to a friend in exchange for the Carpenter, and was unable to check thoroughly.
But I take the general point about making sweeping statements in "print" which can lack the subtleties of the spoken word.

[HighlandDougie]

Many apologies, EA, for doubting that you had read the Kildea. I'm sorry that you've taken a scunner to it as I think he's very good on BB's music and generally sound on the other bits, apart from the death issue (as FF said in msg 9 - and I apologise for paraphrasing him - "He died. Now just get on with it"). A bit more sérieux than Carpenter anyway.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]