A certain book

J R Moehringer (the ghost) also write Andre Agassi’s acclaimed memoire, so it would be interesting to see the writing style used there

I forgot to add Merlot - that was very, very funny!

…eleven pages of comment on a book most people haven’t read.

But is there anyone left in the world who hasn’t heard at least some of the incendiary things Harry has alleged?

I doubt it maddyone, but that's the point of it really. Taking a quote completely out of context (which some of them are) is hardly leading to a fair interpretation is it? I was also surprised when I got to some of those bits that some quotes were innacurate or just plain wrong.

Mamie

I also noticed the short sentences and paragraphs at the beginning, but as I got further into it and the style changed I assumed that had been a literary device to reflect the recollections of a young boy. Did nobody else think that?
As for the "book for readers with a short-attention span" remark - well I have actually read it and personally found it required quite a bit of attention and thought.
Interesting thread really - eleven pages of comment on a book most people haven't read. 🤔

Having read it, Mamie, did it change your view of Harry, Meghan, William, Charles, the monarchy in general?

As I understand it much of what Harry has said can be proved historically by known events to be inaccurate or just plain wrong.

The Opah interview changed my opinion of both Harry and Meghan. I have an extremely difficult relationship with my sister who suffers from mental health issues. However whilst I might mention this to friends or on this anonymous forum, I would never go on television and take part in an interview about how difficult our relationship has been ever since her problems began some thirty five years ago. I wouldn’t embarrass either myself or her in such a way.

Not of William and Kate Sarah75, but yes a bit to Charles. You certainly see what an appalling goldfish bowl like existence it is and the horrors of press attention. This is not particularly from anything Harry says.
It is 400 pages long and as I said before you have to read beyond the lines of the text.
Yes there factual errors and they are annoying.

Mamie

Not of William and Kate Sarah75, but yes a bit to Charles. You certainly see what an appalling goldfish bowl like existence it is and the horrors of press attention. This is not particularly from anything Harry says.
It is 400 pages long and as I said before you have to read beyond the lines of the text.
Yes there factual errors and they are annoying.

Interesting, thank you.

Mamie
to read beyond the lines of the text.
Which means adding your own perspective to what you read. If everyone does that, there will be Harry’s truth, embellished with what people have read between the lines of the text. Thus adding to the fiction.

No it really doesn't Mollygo. Reading between and beyond the lines is something we teach in schools. It means that you can infer from the text something that is not explicitly said.
For example if you start the book thinking Harry is a complete fool, the chapters that relate the roles that he was given in the army tell you that he is far from that. You don't get to fly Apaches in combat if you are an unreliable fool.
Actually Sandhurst and the army are amongst the most interesting bits. I think it is a pity (my inference) that he left, you get the impression that he was happiest there.

I think Molly knows all about teaching inference

Our teaching styles obviously differ. 😂
It is interesting though. I started with many of the assumptions on here, which is why I read the book. For me and for others I know who have also read the book, perceptions changed.
I have already posted criticisms of the book on this thread so won't repeat them, but I really don't think anyone can understand it properly without reading it.
I can now see how soundbites hastily translated from Spanish are not the be all and end all.

Mamie on another of these Harry-themed threads, a poster has read online that he described his £32 million wedding as being on a ‘shoe string’.
Does he say that, do you know? Thank you

Front page news on the Telegraph,with yet another sour-faced picture, Harry's book could have been twice the length: 'I cut memoir in half to spare my family.'
Apparently he held back disclosures for which the king and the Prince of Wales 'would not ever forgive him' if made public, things 'that happened between me and my brother,and to some extent between me and my father, that I just don't want the world to know'.
So please, just shut up.

FannyCornforth

Mamie on another of these Harry-themed threads, a poster has read online that he described his £32 million wedding as being on a ‘shoe string’.
Does he say that, do you know? Thank you

I have had a quick look from Chaper 37 onwards and can't see that. There is a bit of a disagreement when William allegedly suggests having it in the church in Tetbury. I do think that the whole wedding chapters are one of the bits where "recollections may vary" and certainly lots of it sounds a bit petty and entitled. I can imagine it in a Mumsnet wedding thread. 😂
Sorry I can't be more precise; I think it would have leapt out at me, but can't be certain.

Interesting Mamie.
There would seem to be a disconnect between what he says in the book and subsequently, and what he says elsewhere. In both the Netflix docuseries and in the Tom Bradby interview he distinctly said he and Meghan were ready to "move on".
Move on to what? More vitriol, more nasty comments shout his family? He is like a loose cannon.

He is like a loose cannon.

Yes.

I'm trying to think if I can ever remember anyone, politician, celebrity or royal who has ever been held to such account for their words and actions, and their perceptions so challenged. I don't think there has.
Others have deliberately misrepresented or airbrushed their past to maintain a certain image and that has been totally accepted, no questions asked. So apparently Harry's main problem is he will keep trying to be honest about things and isn't sweeping enough stuff under the carpet. Weird!

I also considered how things said in the past would now be decimated on social media sites. Charles' "Whatever love means" would have provided so much ammunition!

FannyCornforth

I think Molly knows all about teaching inference.
Thanks FC.

Mamie
No it really doesn't Mollygo. Reading between and beyond the lines is something we teach in schools. It means that you can infer from the text something that is not explicitly said.

Yes I know what inference is, I actually teach it, but I’m also aware, as you surely must be, that people infer different things, depending on their POV, and that is what will be happening with Harry’s book.

Glorianny 👏👏👏

So apparently Harry's main problem is he will keep trying to be honest about things.

I’m glad you added keep trying to your sentence. He’s already proven to be dishonest about some things in the book and in what he says, but we should in your view, excuse that because he’s trying to be honest.
It’s his truth, his whole truth and nothing but his truth. Probably with a bit of inference from Meghan, but I’m only reading between and beyond the lines about that.^ as Mamie suggests. 🙂

Joseanne

Interesting Mamie.
There would seem to be a disconnect between what he says in the book and subsequently, and what he says elsewhere. In both the Netflix docuseries and in the Tom Bradby interview he distinctly said he and Meghan were ready to "move on".
Move on to what? More vitriol, more nasty comments shout his family? He is like a loose cannon.

I think he is still a deeply troubled man. The book makes you much more aware of the complexities of his background and experiences and the fact that life in a gilded cage is not at all easy. At the heart of it, (in my humble opinion), is the fact that rightly or wrongly he blames the press for the death of his mother. The impact of their actions on his earlier relationships with girls sounds credible to me and I think most people would agree that the attacks on Meghan by sections of the press were appalling.
I don't think they have dealt with it in the right way, but I can understand why he wants to put his point of view. I certainly don't agree with his attacks on others who can't answer back.

Misrepresenting or airbrushing one's past is one thing, but when this is done at the expense of others in order to make them look as bad as possible, that's another thing entirely.

I seem to remember at the time, and certainly when the marriage broke down that a great deal was made of that remark in the media Glorianny.

He's assuming that his father and brother will forgive him for what he's said already eazybee, and suggesting there's a lot worse that he could have said, is hardly going to help.

To be forgiven he'll need to ask for forgiveness.

Indeed Mollygo people will infer different things, but I didn't understand what you meant about their inferences "adding to the fiction". Do we as readers change a book by our responses? Interesting A level question. 😂

But he says the ball’s in their court.

Mamie

Indeed Mollygo people will infer different things, but I didn't understand what you meant about their inferences "adding to the fiction". Do we as readers change a book by our responses? Interesting A level question. 😂

Really Mamie?
You’ve read the comments in the media including on GN and you don’t think
we as readers change a book (or what we read) by our responses?
We don’t change the words that are written, but each reader takes their own understanding of the text as you pointed out earlier, by Reading between and beyond the lines.
If the original isn’t true, do you think what’s inferred when Reading between and beyond the lines is going to change that?