Bit harsh from Hilary Mantel?

I can't help thinking that all the OTT Diana worship and hysteria didn't die with her. It has just lain dormant until the D of C came along and she is now being regarded as a close personal friend and angrily defended by people who have never met her. (And who also seem not to have read the offending speech.)

Which section of the population was the article intended for? Who reads the LRB? Are many simple Royalists numbered among them? Who adopts a joky, dismissive attitude to the Royals? Who, having accepted honours and invitations, then ridicules and pillories the Royals? I don't think we can assume that Mantel was an innocent in this or that she wasn't fully aware of her audience.

I think she was writing for her audience, Lily. As a small and unscientific sample of two LRB readers, OH and I read the article as typical of what we would expect. If she had written it for a tabloid paper it would have been a daft idea, but in the context it seems perfectly reasonable.
Surely context matters?

Why would she want to be 'innocent' in the way you speak of anyway, lily? Criticism and incisive discussion, either direct or indirect, of parts of our culture is allowed in a (relatively) free and civilised society.

Agreed Anno. The article was dull and hackneyed. She was misguided in choosing Kate as her example. This was not some young virgin bride chosen as the unfortunate and naive Diana was, purely as a brood mare. The question that Lily raises is an interesting one. Did she mean to create such a furore or did she misjudge?
I think you've (over) made your point about freedom of speech bags it seems to be your only a favourite theme. Perhaps you would do well to allow others the same privilege without resorting to petty point scoring and mocking the opinions of those who dare to differ?

I've argued with views that differ from my own, orca, as have others. I agree that lily has raised an interesting point; that's why I commented on it – to further the discussion of that interesting point.

It's difficult to argue with the sharp bites of a killer whale, though. That I have to admit. Do you think you could be a tiny bit less personal in your comments? It's getting a bit tiresome to be targeted. Cheers.

Did wonder for a minute there Bags!

Who the flip regards the Duch of C as a close personal friend. #stuckupandsnotty #again

I meant about the sanity thing btw

It was pre coffee, jings, and a bit daft. So unlike me, eh?

I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to guess at what she thought might happen. I think she would probably note that the tabloid press had wilfully misunderstood, taken remarks out of context, omitted all the words like "seems" and "appears", which tell us that she is talking about other people's perceptions of KM and removed the detailed historical background. They then print a story designed to create a furore and rub their hands as their sales go up. Oh and lots of people miss the point about the media using the royal family for its own murky agenda. Neat.

#truthwilloutorsomethinglikethat

Hear, hear, mamie!

I commented above (this thread is getting very looong) that what Mantel said was seized on by the meeja and misrepresented. She's a clever woman and when I used the word ' innocent' I meant naive, not fully aware of the possible consequences of her speech. Her lecture was misinterpreted and misrepresented but that doesn't automatically make her views valid or palatable. She has books to sell and the good opinion of the bien-pensant to maintain.

Mamie, the editorial decision to highlight the 'Kate' content on the front cover of LRB positively invited other media, and chance viewers of bookstalls, to latch on to that aspect of HM's long, occasionally odd and rambling, but quite interesting piece. You say that context matters, but LRB, with or without HM's consent, took the 'Kate issue' out of context.

You also say, quite rightly, that the tabloid press wrote what they did to see their "sales go up". Isn't that just what LRB was up to?

Right on, grumppa!

a very sensible and perceptive article which puts the whole debate in perspective.

Like it, grumppa . Same behaviour from both types of publication, then? #who'd'athunkit?

Will read your link, anno, but there's a severe flapjack shortage in my house at the moment that I need to remedy.

anno and Gaby Wood, thank you from the heart!

The flapjack is in the oven. #yousneededtoknowthat

<much chuckling>. I did enjoy that. Can you tell?

The Gaby Wood article, I mean.

bags I am so sorry that you felt targeted.

This is a link to the current LRB issue.
www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n04/contents
I can hardly believe that people would buy it as a sensationalist read. Is it that widely available on bookstalls? I thought it was mostly subscription.

Yes, thanks Anno, the Gaby Wood article in the Telegraph is excellent. How interesting that they published one of her original remarks and it passed without comment at the time.

Mamie, you're right. It's usually unwise to take what the media says as the honest and unvarnished truth. It's at best an approximation of the truth - their angle on it is often purposely to ensure it raises the ire of the public - great headlines is the name of the game. I feel a bit sorry for Hilary Mantel but she's been round the block a few times so I suppose she won't be too surprised at anything she reads about herself in the press. And I speak as an ex-journalist!