You are here:   Columns >  Open Season >
 
September 2008

Jennings herself had strong views on the sort of fame to which we are now addicted. When in her 1950s heyday the attention ceased to be about her work and became focused on her, she felt it simply got in the way. She always avoided poetry readings. When fans appeared, seeking her out at the issue desk of the library in Oxford where she worked, it drove her into hiding.

In later life, she avoided interviews wherever possible. If cornered on a park bench or in the greasy spoon café where she worked (J.K. Rowling was not the first), she would direct the conversation away from herself and on to God. Her musings on spirituality and her lifelong search for clarity – “only one thing must be cast out and that is the vague”, she once said – were what principally concerned her.

At a recent books festival event, I was part of a panel of biographers on stage. Who, we were asked, are the subjects waiting to be “done”? Most of the names to emerge were, I’m afraid, the sort of literary celebrities with sufficient quantities of the 21st-century corruption of fame to hook a publisher. It was, we all agreed, a sad state of affairs, and one that meant that engrossing lives of great personal and professional substance were being overlooked – as, indeed, they are in almost every field of human endeavour.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Christopher Bray
August 28th, 2008
10:08 AM
To which the Conservative can only say, so what? If the market has decided there is no profit to be made from your proposal, then either accept that your hobby (like that of so many people) won't pay you a living, or write something publishers want to publish. No, I don't hold with it entirely, either - but surely the contrary position (the one implicit in Peter's piece) sits uneasy in a magazine devoted to the bottom-line of free-market economics...

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.