Semi-Sincere Apologies

My Dear,

So what you are telling me is that you wrote me an observation a few weeks back. That I never responded to your observation at the time. And that I then trounce out the same observation as my own in my last letter to you. (Ref: Afghanistan, Holmes).

Well: all I can tell you is this – consider yourself elevated to the rank of Great Writer! You share among with many of the literary giants the honor of having planted a life transforming idea in my mind that I then completely forget. In fact: I make it a point not to remember good reads – that way I can go back over them as much as it pleases me with ever fresh impressions.

Case in point, besides your letter:

A few years back, having read Disgrace by Coetzee, I was asked by a friend whether I’d recommend it or not. I did – not only recommended she read it, but seeing as she was an avid dog-breeder, I gave her the volume since I was sure it was “one of the most touching stories about dogs I had ever read. Beautiful scenery, and fantastic portraits of the relationship between man and beast”.

She came back and asked me if I was off my rocker. Her personal appraisal of terrible rape-scenes and general moral decay was that it was not the most flattering of pictures of the dog industry.

Me, I had no recollection of any of the horrid bits, and since Disgrace is made up of exclusively horrid bits, it seems I had constructed an entirely different story in my mind. Full of tropical helmets and velvet eyed spaniels, it seems.

Or to abbreviate the start of this letter: oops.

As for promising some sort of criticism of Holmes after the weekend, ditto oops. You see, I am finding old Sherlock quite unbearably dull and have given him up in favour of another man: Richard the third. As portrayed by Josephine Tey in The Daughter of Time.  This is one book I don’t want to spoil for you if you haven’t read it yet (but it did come out back in 51 so I am rather supposing you have) so I won’t mention anything about the glorious plot.  What I will do however, is wax lyrical about the TYPE of reading it forces me to do: wikipedia in hand.

You see, The Daughter of Time assumes knowledge in the reader of our history, namely, the history of Richard III, his times, and his father’s times. Now I for one am more than a little bit rusty on this subject. Normally, not knowing anything about a subject might be a bit of a hindrance when it comes to getting on with your reading. But this is written in such a captivating manner as to make me greedy for more information. So far I have googled approximately 15 historical personages – and this is only half way through what is really rather a slim volume.

My knowledge is growing exponentially. It makes me feel as though I am accomplishing something. I finally understand the charms of non-fiction writing – and it is a very light-hearted piece of detective fiction that is showing those charms to me.

I very much look forward to having to do it all over again next week…

But however, I shall not discard Holmes completely. I fact, now that I know I can look forward to writing one of those really killing reviews that are always the most fun to read, I find myself suddenly motivated to finish it off. Perhaps that is how we should approach Parade’s End also: with a view to being able to analyze how come it’s so unreadable.

Or was that another one of your ideas just stolen?

My very best love and blushing cheeks,


This entry was posted in Letter from Rose and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s