When | Why |
---|---|
Jan-20-15 | typo |
Excerpt from
Carl Rollyson
A PRIVATE LIFE OF MICHAEL FOOT
PREFACE
This is not a conventional biography. I rely not on documents but almost exclusively on recorded interviews and memories of Michael Foot constituting a raw record of conversations not smoothed over by a biographical narrative. This is a book about process. I show how I went about obtaining my story, which ostensibly concerned Jill Craigie, the subject of To Be a Woman: The Life of Jill Craigie. But Michael, who entered Jill’s life in 1945, was such an important source that inevitably I learned as much about him as about her.
This seems to be a hard process. Does this process take skill to do? With modern technology and mass media, this makes me ask, can the average person (say someone in our class for instance) write a non conventional biography?
I think it is difficult to acquire so much knowledge of a person by either interviewing them or having first hand experience by sitting with them through breakfast, lunch or dinner and still keep out the kitty gritty details which they might not want to disclose in a biography. How is it possible to write a biography and still maintain a decent if not respected relationship with the main subject? Questionable!
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
The biography will be in full detail. Instead of just telling the process, the facts learned will paint an image of the person. In doing so, it will also show you the process based on how you place the info in the biography
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A example of a raw record is when you are trying to find a source or a statement for a news story and it could be changed, while as biography is whole depth of research, interviews and images.
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
I agree with Junior Martinez’s opinion about a raw record. There is something we have to keep in mind when the word “biography” comes up. A biography is someone’s life story with the most important details of that person’s life written by another person. This includes her/his social life status, what did or didn’t do this person, every single detail that for society should be important to know about someone life, a biography will include it, if the person who wrote the biography did his/her homework about that person.
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
Of course not because the most important details can be 2 or 3. Or maybe just one. You can tell someone’s story in a really short piece of writing, it all depends who the person is.
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A biography connects the raw findings together through narrative. At its completion, the biography becomes a source for someone else as an overall depiction of a person. A raw record will show the process or the investigation that the author took in order to discover the subject. In a sense, the author becomes a character: the first person narrator. The raw record will evoke a different feeling than a traditional biography would. The reader is discovering the subject with the narrator.
Narratives usually have a voice. If a biography has a certain voice, then it can possibly skew the perceptions from raw records of his life. Things that have been said by him or memories of him portrayed in a narrative biography will not have the same raw affect as something that he says himself in an interview.
By relying soley on recorded interviews and memories, he is making way for a new narrative to be interpreted.
Another way of looking at the term “raw record” is that it’s unaltered nor manipulated. Staying as close to the truth, it’ll consist of primary sources and as discoveries are made the biography will simultaneously take form.
I think the biography will smooth out and make more understandable the raw record of conversations. It can also smooth over the raw record by providing the whole biographical story.
A biography can smooth over a raw record by providing the full story that illuminates the raw record of conversations
Raw records are bits and parts of the biography!
Readers come to biographies to learn about the subject, not the biographer. And yet the biographer is, in a sense, half the story. Or as Paul Murray Kendall put it in The Art of Biography, every biography is an autobiography. So this book is an effort to show how a biographer struggles to tell his own story even as family and friends cherish differing narratives about that same subject. My wish is to highlight these clashes of perception rather than reconcile their discrepancies.
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
I just explained this in my comment to the first question. I’ll try to elaborate more. The biographer becomes a character, the first person narrator. It’s his journey that the reader is really reading about. So it’s his story, which centers around the subject. The reader will form a certain opinion of the biographer (Professor Rollyson in this case) and of how he went about his research and reporting.
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
Every writer has a voice.
Readers have the power to identify pieces of a writers personality by dissecting their writing. This is also true of biographers. With all of the information that they would have to learn about the subject, the subject becomes sort of at mercy to the voice and style of the writer.
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
I agree. I think that the author always has the power to manipulate their words in any direction they’d like, this is heavily seen in news writing as well.
The biographer is half of the story because the biographer narrates and decides what aspect of the subject’s life is important. The biographer would mold the subject’s life with their objective interpretation of them, and they would choose what narrative elements to tell about the subject’s life. Whether they use dialogue as a perspective from other people, or they use a specific vocabulary, the biographer uses their voice to tell the story of their subject’s life.
The biographer drives the biography in the direction he or she sees fit. Biographers are consistently digging for refreshing and relevant information then putting the pieces together. As readers are reading the biography, they’re looking in on the biographer’s thought process. So they’re very much a part of the story rather it’s being done consciously or unconsciously.
I feel that the biographer is half the story as he/she has to tell the story and by telling the story he/she has to put themselves in the body of the person they are writing about, in order to strongly and accurately execute someone’s lifestory
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A biographer is half the story because he tells the story of another person through his/her perspectives. Therefore, the story is half facts and half his/her views on the life of the person he is writing about.
The biographer has half of the power of the story because he is in complete control of how he perceives the life of his subject, and can tell the story in whichever way he/she would like to tell it.
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
Like Jona said above, a biographer would traditionally take his journey out of the narrative and write “objectively” about the subject. Since this will be about the biographer, his interactions with others about the subject is crucial to the story. In a sense, those that clash in perception become characters in this story. Exposing different points of view of the subject will only expand the reader’s view of the subject. Adding the discrepancies juxtaposes the biographer’s point of view (though they are his recordings of others’ perceptions).
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
Being able to be as clearly objective about certain matters gives more credibility to the biographer. I agree with Hayley, the biographers interactions with the subjects’ acquaintances are crucial, because that can be the deciding factor when a reader is trying to figure out if they like a character or not.
If there is an unbias towards sources of information, then the reader is at a greater liberty to perceive what they want.
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
Perhaps because creating the scene of the interview would make a bias in the readers mind, and it could pave a path for negative view on the biographer in some way?
It is also not part of the story being told. The story is about the subject of the biography, not about what happened during the biographers’ researching process.
The phrase “clashes of perception” means the obstacle biographers face when writing the story of another person without their subjective thoughts being depicted.
The clash is actually a cross way where the biographer’s view is taking the spotlight away from the subject. The narratives between the subject and the storyteller are merging when they are not supposed to be. The biographer needs to separate himself from the work.
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
There is value, too, in showing the rough edges of biography, the stops and starts, in an unapologetic fashion. I have to wonder, as well, if there has ever been a biography that has treated a British political and literary figure in quite so revealing a fashion.
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
The wondering can imply that this type of biography of this type of person may be the first of its kind. The reader would assume that the biographer did some research by reading other biographies about British political and literary figures. That the “revealing” that will take place is something daring and honest. To say “I wonder” sets the standard for the biography.
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
As a reader it makes me believe that there is more to the biography, a piece that the biographer can’t find or is still pondering on.
Being a biographer, you are automatically expected to be knowledgable about many pieces of work from different avenues of time and place.
Stating “I wonder” gives the wonderment a sort of rarity and valuable factor. If the writer has to wonder about a form of publication existing, that would mean whatever does exist gets more value because it was not as well known as another.
This is my opinion, what I usually think when I see writers using that phrase.
Biographers most likely have streams of questions pertaining to their subjects. Even the best of biographers have moments of “I’m not sure..” or “I wonder.” That’s part of the process, wondering, discovering and searching. In this context saying, “I wonder,” questions if anyone has every thought of showing the behind the scenes of making a biography.
“I wonder” feels like the biographer is still not 100% sure on all the parts of the story he/she intends to reveal to known and unknown audiences. I also feel like it means, the biographer will be somewhat opinionated on the person whose life is being written about.
I think the words “I wonder” implies the biographer is thinking beyond it’s subject.
Personally, I think “I wonder” is used as a tactic to remind the reader that the author is in control of the story and which direction it will take. I understand that it can be a protective tactic as well, but I see it as a subtle comment that tells the reader that they can only believe in as much as the author decides to share.
2000
1
“Here’s my library, which, I’m sorry to say, is a bit of a mess. Jill used to [huh!] reprimand me.” The huh! does not do justice to Michael’s high-pitched wheeze, or capture the wry pleasure he took in recalling her scolding. The Hampstead home on Pilgrim’s Lane she had so beautifully refurbished had a shabby and dishelved appearance now—rather like its surviving rumpled owner. The room was lined with bookshelves, top to bottom, and even had a wall of bookshelves that could be moved like a door, opening to a smaller room congested with more books and papers. The library seemed to serve as a huge storage vault: A long table was piled high with books, books blocked up an unused fireplace, and the floor supported still more heaps of books and papers.
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
It show his real self. He was surounding by papers and books, maybe a more comfortable place for him.
The place is a mess. Though I infer that Michael and Jill … or at least Michael, knows where everything is, maybe. The description of the cluttered room reveals the relationship between Michael and Jill. He’s a bit messy and she’s not, but she’s tolerant of him. He teases her by mimicking her reprimands. I could only imagine her reprimands were constant, but not so serious.
Hayley already said this, but I get a sense of the setting. I see the library the shelves, the room. I find this strange though because it is not what I expect from a Biography. I would expect to get details about the person instead. But it works though, as it shows the personality of the person because of how they treat the room.
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
Setting seems to be a good tool of the writer. Should be added to Steven King’s toolbox.
It paints a picture for the reader.
A biographer tends to focus on scenes and imagery, letting the reader take from it what they may.
The mess described were only that of books and papers, and it could have correlated with the persons relationship with not only other people, but also with their life work.
The details tell you how important Jill was to Michael’s being. With Jill, Michael was constantly organized and tidy, and without his wife Michael was the complete opposite. The paragraph says a lot more about Jill and her relationship with Michael than about being messy or not.
I details of this paragraph reveals the dependency of Michael on Jill.
Everything is disorderly. He’s let go and see’s no need to tidy up anymore. He has a liking towards reading, but even more so now that Jill isn’t there. He, maybe purposely, gets lost in his mess in attempt to not miss Jill as much as he does.
It had been nearly five years since I had last seen Michael. Then we had talked in a cozy sitting room surrounded by books but also lovely furnishings. I had come to discuss Rebecca West, the subject of my biography, and Jill was not only telling me about the writer and woman she befriended and grew to love, she was producing Rebecca’s first scrapbook of articles, the ones West wrote just after she had abandoned her family name, Cicily Fairfield. “Look,” Jill said, pointing to Rebecca’s own handwriting announcing, “Rebecca West born on 11 December 1912.”
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
This switch to another room contrasts to the first room and to an old time. The subject of the paragraph is the writer. By using “I” and placing himself in the scene directly, he is introduced. It establishes what connects the writer to Michael. In this case it’s from researching for an old biography.
Being in the messy room, it would be hard to focus on anything but the extreme mess. In the new room with books as well as lovely furnishings, it gives this scene a more positive feel, and it switches the reader to focus on something else besides the messy room.
I think this switch means a transition to one period over another. To reminisce of the old times.
It could be used to reflect back on life with Jill, everything is cozy and lively. Also the previous paragraph reflects on Michael’s character as this paragraph shows Jill’s character, how loving and trusting she is with her beloved friend Rebecca.
Now Jill was dead. I had missed her memorial service because I had recently moved and Michael had sent the notice to my old address. I first met Jill just after Michael retired from Parliament in 1992. They couple were selling their cottage in Wales. Over dinner Jill asked me if I knew anyone who might like to buy it. “A good place for a writer,” she added, smiling at me. Her “big eyes,” which both her daughter and an ex-lover, William MacQuitty, extolled, seemed to swallow me up. I wanted to buy the place on the spot, such was her charm—and Michael’s. They displayed not just the good humor biographers experience during interviews that go well, but also extended an affection that amounted to a blessing.
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
The biographer had a good relationship with Jill. To write about Michael is personal, which is probably why the biographer chose to write in this fashion.
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
I think that, like most people who interview a lot of people, biographers always have a hope beforehand that the person or people will not only be nice, but also helpful and courteous.
The fact that Jill and Michael were so much more than that were the blessing that he felt.
It also made her death more sad, because this revelation about the authors attitude shows that he cherished her as more than just another interviewee.
The biographer had a good relationship with Jill. They cared for one another and I have a sense there was affection involved.
Just with the first sentence, “Now Jill is dead,” I could feel the biographer’s pain. From the personal way this paragraph is being written, it’s clear that the biographer respects and cares about them very much. This paragraph also shows how easily likeable Michael and Jill were.
When Michael greeted me at the entrance to their home just three months after Jill’s death, his pallid complexion shocked me. I thought that I had arrived at death’s door. He had aged more than a decade. I remembered that he sometimes stumbled, even with a cane, but now he was all wobble. Yet his voice was as strong as ever and just as engaging as always.
Very clever transitioning choices. First we’re taken into Michael’s personal space after the death of Jill, it’s messy and disorganized, then to when Jill was alive and then back to Michael, describing his appearance three months after Jill’s passing. I would think it would’ve been confusing, but it flows.
I had come to discuss doing Jill’s biography. In order to ascertain if Michael would be receptive to my overture I had consulted my agent Gloria Ferris, who had represented Michael’s biographer, Mervyn Jones. Gloria and Mervyn thought Michael would be. So I had then written Michael, simply saying that I felt a terrible loss myself when I read Jill’s obituary in The New York Times. Perhaps it was too soon to think about a biography, but if he should decide he wanted one, I asked him to keep me in mind. Two weeks later he called me at my home in Cape May County, New Jersey: “You are the one to do it! Jill would have approved!”
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
The details of the house reflected Jill’s personality. It was messy, which she probably was not, but it was messy at her approval.
I see the value in setting it up as he lived for and about Jill. While the mess can be attributed to laziness, or Jill being the glue to keep his life in order, it can also be seen as a memorial to Jill. Almost as if he let the house go into a quasi-state of disrepair because he tried to leave it as it was. The house wasn’t a mess when she died, but gradually grew into one because Michael didn’t want to change anything.
I get an image of my room of a man who is completely broken. His house is dusty and his bed undone. I get a sense of a wrecking ball in turmoil as Miley Cyrus would have said it. Meh :/
I knew that both Jill and Michael had liked my biography of Rebecca West, but just how much quite astounded me. I had kept them apprized of my progress on the book, sending them chapters for their comments. Jill could be exceptionally critical, especially on the subject of feminism, and I worried that she would find my chapters on Rebecca’s early years as a radical feminist wanting. But her praise was more than gratifying. Michael later touted my book in his biography of H. G. Wells. They had discussed my work often, Michael said.
Michael had published articles in praise of Rebecca West’s patriotism. Unlike many others on the Left, he did not find her fierce anti-Communism troubling. Indeed, it was in accord with his own mission to develop a Socialism that would provide the world with an antidote to Soviet tyranny. Mervyn Jones told me that while researching his biography of Michael, he had been impressed with the vehemence of Michael’s own anti-Communism as expressed in the hard Leftist Tribune, which Michael edited for several years.
Biographers are often made to feel like supplicants. But Michael’s first phone call was a wooing, making me feel that as the biographer of Rebecca West I was conferring an honor on Jill. He provided me not just with unfettered access to Jill’s study. I was to live with him whenever I was in London. I was to go about the house as if it were my own. I could rifle through every drawer, cupboard, room and receptacle. I slept on a sofa bed in Michael’s library. Each night before retiring, I would go through a shelf or pile of books (his only filing system) filled with letters and reviews and notes. Every night brought a new revelation. A few letters from Mary Welsh, Hemingway’s fourth wife, whom Michael had known in the war, were tucked into Hemingway books. In a debunking biography of Michael’s hero, Aneurin Bevan, founder of the National Heath Service, I read Michael’s comment on the flyleaf, which began “read with rising anger . . .”
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
It also puts a pressure on the biographer, because if they are contacting family and friends of the subject, and they learn all sorts of information, they feel like they must be careful in the way they portray the subject.
They are supplying the readers, and family, with memories of the subject that will now live forever.
The mere idea of a person becoming friends with you or forming a relationship with you through the sole purpose of writing about your life, can be distressful. I mean where is the fine line between having dinner with your biographer and chit-chatting and worrying if something slips out which you do not want to reveal to the rest of the world?
Now from a biographers perspective there is equal pressure. Where do they draw a fine line between revealing everything and then keeping a cordial relationship with their subjects?
I simply do not find it easy to write without being offensive.
I often thought of Boswell and Johnson during my stays with Michael Foot. In Michael’s company, I was very much a Boswell, keen to get the great man to talk. I recorded everything, compiling a hundred hours of Michael reminiscing and nearly another hundred of others commenting on him. Scholars estimate that Boswell spent something like 400 days in Samuel Johnson’s company. Over a period of three years and ten trips to England, I lived for something like 100 days with Michael. Boswell knew Johnson much longer (more than 20 years), but he did not live with his subject and see him throughout the entire course of a day and night. I was with Michael from breakfast to lunch to drinks and dinner and usually more talk right up until bedtime. I watched the cycle of Michael’s days and became a part of them, sometimes locking up the house at night or taking messages when he was away for part of a day—and once having to rush down the stairs of his Hampstead house and into the street to pick up him where he tripped and fell.
Michael was a gallant man who rarely let down his guard. But with me, perhaps because I was American and because we spent so many continuous hours together, he would sometimes reveal himself. He was profoundly angry the night I had to pick him up in the street. Sitting at the kitchen table he nearly sobbed and said, “You don’t know what it is like to grow old. You don’t know.” His humiliation was palpable.
Our conversations—like most conversations—were circular. Michael would keep coming back to the same topics, digress, then lose his place—“I was just . . . [un-huh] . . . I was just . . .” A soundtrack accompanied his conversations. He could not walk without making noise, groaning in different octaves and punctuating many expressions with a “whee!”
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
I think the biographer cannot chronologically put stories together from such conversations. I think it rather distracts the biographer from their intention of getting more details from their subject.
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
Michael wanted my biography of Jill to do what she could not do for herself: write the whole story of what it means to be a woman. Like the subjects of Daughters of Dissent, her never completed epic about the struggle for female suffrage, Jill saw herself as a dissident fighting for recognition.
2
Our March meeting lasted for nearly two hours. Toward the end of the interview, I brought up Michael’s relationship with Julie, Jill’s daughter by her first marriage:
[CR] Mervyn mentions that when you first married Jill, Julie wasn’t happy about that.
[MF] We’ve had our problems over the years, but . . . anyhow you talk to her . . . anyhow I don’t think we had much trouble. We had some other . . . you talk to Julie. You’re going to see her tomorrow?
I did. Michael was never one to discuss relationships in depth. I would have to press him again and again—usually in response to what others said—to get him to open up. His pauses were blanks I had to fill in by talking to others.
Michael was not openly recalcitrant, but he would often cut off discussion by reverting to the sort of encouragement that became a refrain in our relationship: “Anyhow, Carl, I’m very glad that you’re doing it. And I’m going to have a sleep now.”
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
To echo Channelle’s thoughts, Michael’s encouragement can be seen as an escape from reality. When you approach the difficult realities of what is happening, it’s human nature to try and back away from the confrontation of something harsh. I feel that’s what Michael is doing here.
It is encouragment but also ambiguity in the part of Michael. I think this vagueness comes from his disinterest in disclosing certain parts of his life.
Even as Michael was heading off for his nap, and I was backing out of Jill’s study, where our first conversation about my biography of her took place. I stopped and said, “I’ve just got to take a quick peek in here [a drawer]. I want to see if it contains more manuscript.” As I fingered photocopies and note cards, Michael said, “There’s nothing to be hidden.” I took him at his word.
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
3
“Michael’s life is one long love affair. It is a love affair with the Labour Party, a love affair with Hazlitt, Swift, H. G. Wells, and my mother,” Julie told me over drinks in a pub the next day.
Julie first caught sight of Michael right at the end of the war, shortly after her mother had made her film The Way We Live, shot in bombed-out Plymouth and featuring a cameo performance by Michael Foot who was campaigning for a parliamentary seat during what became the Labour landslide of 1945. Jill, a beauty, had her pick of men and was then involved with a handsome suitor, her producer William MacQuitty, while at the same time conducting an affair with a good looking painter, Dennis Matthews. She was also still married to her second husband, Jeffrey Dell.
Yet to Julie’s amazement, Jill set out to captivate Michael early on. “He was the most revolting specimen of a man I’d ever seen,” Julie recalled. “He had asthma and eczema. How could my mother touch him, let alone get in bed with him?” This shy, myopic man appealed to Jill because unlike so many of her other lovers, he talked of building a better world and took her entirely on her own terms, barely inquiring about her past. What he did know only made him prouder of his conquest. He would later brag to me about how Jill had led on so many men. He spoke of winning her. During the early days of their courtship, she had shown up at a miner’s gala event in Durham with another man, “But,” he chortled, She came home with me.”
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
It seems that Julie is very direct and honest about her mother and Michael, from the way she sees it. Michael, when it comes to tougher topics, answers brief, offers another source to ask, or sends his encouraging dismissal. Her blunt honesty may have some tension behind it based on whatever type of relationship she had with Jill and Michael.
Michael’s brothers, by his own account, were astounded when he won Jill. Brought up as a strict Methodist, Michael never had the easygoing attitude toward sex that seemed second nature to Jill. With Jill, Julie could talk about sex freely, sharing the most intimate details of her relationships. Sex, in Michael’s Plymouth home, had been unmentionable: “Don’t put your hands under the covers, young man!” his mother admonished him.
“Slowly, slowly, slowly,” Julie began to appreciate Michael. Although she found him reticent and difficult to have fun with, he was always there for her when she was in distress. “He took me to movies like Ivanhoe and Scaramouche I loved to see and that mother was not interested in at all.” Later, as Julie developed a love of opera, she would share record albums with Michael. “He thinks he shared everything with Jill,” Julie noted, adding that Jill would say, “I’m not the one who loves opera.”
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
Julie is adding a dimension to Michael’s point of view. She’s not opposing it, but her perception is different. She’s part of the “clashes of perceptions.” She saw Michael as irritating, but kind and thoughtful. Her point of view of her mother is different than how Michael talks about Jill. This is obvious. Jill is her mom, she would see her in a different light. Also, Julie talks about Michael and Jill in a way that is clearly different from the biographer’s perception of them. Perceptions are different because of the relationships they all had with one another and the factors of life that impacted those relationships.
Michael’s trusting nature, his absolute faith in Jill, irritated Julie. The director Ronnie Neame, who employed Jill in the 1950s to write screenplays for The Million Pound Note and Windom’s Way, was, Julie recalled, “always round the house.” The teenaged Julie became suspicious. As soon as Michael came home, she would say, “Ronnie’s just left.” Michael, never one to become jealous, would laugh and call Julie Iago. There was something wrong with a man, in Michael’s view, if he wasn’t in love with Jill. He scoffed at the idea of Ronnie as Jill’s lover when I raised the subject with him later, and Julie did the same, even though she admitted, “Michael was a loving man but no sexual athlete, and my mother was a sexy woman.” Jill once confessed to Julie that Michael had “many wonderful attributes, but after five years their sex life was virtually over.” Michael would make the most of his romantic revivals with Jill during their many trips abroad, especially to Venice, but Jill’s own journal reveals how terribly disappointed she was by his flagging sexual appetite.
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
So far it seems that Julie keeps going back to how Michael was not sexually competent for Jill and how Julie is open with talking about that. Whereas Michael seems to talk about his relationship with Jill on a different level. Julie’s voice, the quotes and details the biographer chooses to use from her, admits details about Michael that Micael would probably never talk about.
“Was Jill jealous of Michael?” I asked Julie. “You can’t publish this if Michael is still alive,” she replied, her voice dropping. “She had cause to.” I mentioned Jill’s comment in a published interview that if Michael had an affair she did not want to know about it. “She knew about it,” Julie said, “and it devastated her.” Julie then began to tell me in capsule form the story of Michael’s affair with Lamia (not her real name). “It isn’t publishable,” she repeated. I agreed, although in the end, I published part of the story in To Be a Woman after a struggle with Michael and those close to him about what was really central to the story of the Foot-Craigie marriage.
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
The decision to publish something and not publish something can affect the story that is trying to be told.
Publishing something against someone’s permission can damage a relationship. But not adding certain details can taint the story in a way that could reflect poorly on the subject.
In this case, I was surprised to read that Michael had an affair because the quotes from Julie kind of made him sound like he wouldn’t do that. But adding this paragraph revealed Jill’s nature. Julie had kept saying how her mom was sexy and confident, but then for Julie to admit how upset and vulnerable she was from this affair. It makes her more human and is valuable to the story of the biographer trying to write Jill’s biography.
Jill stuck by Michael, “out of love,” Julie believed, “but also out of a sense that he was making a contribution to society. She was the most subservient feminist ever. Intellectually, she was a feminist, but in her behavior she was not.” Recalling the marriage’s dynamics in the 1970s and thereafter, Julie noted that if Michael wanted a cup of coffee and Jill was writing her book, he got his cup of coffee. She was always complaining about these interruptions. “Why not go away for six weeks and finish your book?” Julie would ask her. “But who would take care of Michael?” Jill’s replied. No one—not Julie, not anyone—could take care of Michael as Jill did. To Jill, Michael was “special.” And then Julie added, “Excuse my language, but fuck that! He was just a man. I took issue there, strongly.”
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A specific issue I feel need to be sorted out here is Michael’s general laziness. He is portrayed by Julie as oafish and selfish, often impeding Jill’s work. According to Jill he is also “special,” while Julie can’t even find a shred of this apparent trait in Michael.
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
“I think my mother had quite a tough time with Michael. He adored her in a cerebral way, but she had to do all the dog work.” He was attentive. He brought Jill flowers and gifts, often consulting with Julie about what Jill might like best. But to Julie, Michael never put Jill first. “He did on a certain level. He only wanted to hear praise of her after she died. But that tells me that he realized he had not worshipped her as he should have done.”
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
Julie saying that Michael realized he hadn’t “worshipped Jill as he should have done” is what she thinks. It’s pure perception based on how she infers what he says. Also this reveals how Julie thinks a woman, like her mother, should be worshipped. However that should be, it’s not how Michael did it.
After listening to Julie over the course of three years, I did begin to wonder why Michael never gave Jill the space or time she gave him. I could never formulate the question in a way that would not seem accusatory, especially to a man who was still grieving. But in retrospect, I wish I had asked: “Michael, did you ever—especially after you retired from public office—just say to Jill, ‘Why don’t you go off and finish your book. I’ll get on.’” Indeed, there were all sorts of friends and family—as I discovered—who were quite willing to coddle him. Other than complaining to others—as Jane Carlyle did about her mate—Jill never made an issue of her husband’s selfishness. And perhaps, for all sorts of reasons, she did not really want to finish her book, but the nagging question is why he did not do more to encourage her. He was interested in her work. He read it and made editorial suggestions (which he did not want me to mention in her biography for fear this would somehow diminish her achievement), but as far as making some significant alteration in a life built around him, he seemed incapable of proposing a plan for her book that would free her to confront the formidable task of telling the story of women’s struggle for equality.
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
Michael claims to have made various editorial suggestions to Jill’s books over the years, and had enough of an impact that the biographer felt the need to include them, despite Michael not asking for them to be included.
Michael was the male partner in a dance, but he did not know how to lead. Or rather, he led by default, since Jill did not challenge his authority. He simply filled a vacuum. As a political man, he would have the same problem: He had a solid group of adherents, but he could not use that base to assert his authority. He was a sort of effigy of a great men. And he seems to have known it, since he became leader of the Labour Party only after considerable prodding from Jill and others. It would have looked cowardly not to accept the leadership. But Michael was a sort of hollow man, as he acknowledged with self-deprecating humor during his 1983 campaign against Margaret Thatcher: “I’m here to impersonate the leader of the Labour Party. What have I been doing the rest of the week? You might well ask.”
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
4
“Did you see Michael yesterday,” Mervyn Jones asked me before we sat down to lunch at his flat in Brighton. “People say he is so old and frail. But Jill said to me once, ‘You know, Michael is as tough as old boots.’” Although they had once been close friends, Mervyn had little contact with Michael now, the result of some bad blood over his biography of Michael. I should have taken this development as a warning sign.
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
I asked Mervyn about Michael’s pronounced limp, occasioned by surgery after a catastrophic car accident in 1963. “I haven’t dared to ask him, but it’s painful, isn’t it, just for him to move?” I had never heard Michael complain, although his explosive grunts made me wonder. But Mervyn did not take the question seriously, simply saying Michael had stiff joints “like old people do.” And this was very much the way others close to Michael saw matters. Indeed, rather than seeing the strain he was under because of his disability, more than one friend called Michael’s straining “nervous energy.” Michael was like some mechanism constantly agitating and lacking a muffler. He had not merely endured a severe physical injury, he had turned his crippled condition into a kind of performance—like a merry pirate with a peg leg, an Ahab without animus. But there was fury in his temperament and even hatred, especially for traitors to the cause like David Owen, who had split off from the Labour Party during Michael’s leadership, and whom Michael called a “mountebank.”
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
This comment relates back to the comment about Michael’s anger because it shows how personal Michael takes anything that is in opposition to him. Mervyn isn’t friends with him anymore due to differences in his biography, and Own is considered a traitor for leaving the Labour party.
Mervyn only noticed Michael’s shortness of breath during walks on Hampstead Heath. Michael had been an all-day walker for much of his life, but at 87 the rises robbed him of air and he had to stop frequently to tell his anecdotes. Yet he was still taking buses and clattering along with his cane, sometimes hitting posts with it for emphasis. The walking stick had also become a prop, an animated exclamation mark. Sometimes Michael would wave it high and take my breath away, since I was certain that he would take a tumble. He would later wave the stick high while standing atop picturesque Dubrovnik, and I worried whether he would topple over in an off-balance movement, plunging into the sea. Michael’s word for his condition was “rickety.”
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
5
Mervyn listened to me expatiate on my enthusiasm for doing Jill’s biography:
[CR] My experience with them was as equals. When we went out to dinner, or when I was in their home, the back-and-forth between them was marvelous. I had no sense that this was simply Michael Foot’s wife. I liked the whole feeling of that, and when I read her obituary, I thought, “if I can work that into a biography . . .”
[MJ] Yea [I can now detect on the tape recording Mervyn’s unexpressed dismay]. Well, there are problems.
I pressed Mervyn to explain.
Well, I think a certain legend is being created about Jill, which came through in my own obituary. I wouldn’t stand by it. It was eulogistic--for Michael’s sake, of course. And so were the speeches at the memorial service.
I assured Mervyn that after writing about Lillian Hellman, Martha Gellhorn, Rebecca West, and Susan Sontag, I was prepared for problems. “That’s what Gloria said. ‘He knows what problems are,’” Mervyn laughed, and continued: “The legend is that she was a great feminist, and I just don’t think that was true. She really didn’t get on with other women. . . . The only person who considered Jill Michael’s intellectual equal was Michael. You’re going to have trouble with that.” I heard echoes of Julie’s criticism of her mother in Mervyn’s rather harsh assessment.
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
Mervyn had had a rough time with Jill over Michael’s biography, which she thought neglected her own role in Michael’s life, mischaracterized her experience as a mother, and failed to capture Michael’s domestic side. To Mervyn, Jill seemed rather high handed. “When Jill said we’re having dinner, it was a royal command. If you were doing something else, she would say, ‘Drop it.’” This aspect of Jill did get short shrift in my biography. Michael objected to Mervyn’s remarks, which I included in a draft without using Mervyn’s name, and I could see that unless I identified my source, neither Michael nor the reader would take the criticism seriously. Mervyn warned me that Michael would not be able to see—or admit?—that Jill had an overbearing quality.
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
What enchanted Michael? I asked Mervyn. “Beauty,” he said, but then added:
For a political man to have a wife with a career of her own and was an achiever you could be proud of was at that time unusual. Labour leader wives were uneducated. But most people thought of Jill as Michael Foot’s wife. That’s not what you want, and that’s not what Michael wants. That’s a big hurdle in the writing of the biography.”
And if true, I thought, what does that say about Michael?
6
“Gloria mentioned a woman at Tribune who was in love with Michael. She could only remember her first name, Sheila,” I told Mervyn. “That was my impression too,” he answered. “Mind you, she hated Jill, presumably because she was in love with Michael.” I encountered Sheila Noble on several occasions in Michael’s home, where she would come for a day to help him with his correspondence. When I asked her for an interview, she just smiled and shook her head. “Sheila adored Michael. I don’t believe she ever had an affair,” Mervyn said. “The other person to see is Elizabeth Thomas, Michael’s personal secretary—way back, in the 1940s. Then she started working at Tribune, and then when Michael became a minister she was his political advisor. They were never lovers, I don’t think.” Mervyn was wrong on that last score, as I learned later from Michael himself in a rather trying scene. Like Sheila, Elizabeth rebuffed my request to interview her about Michael and Jill. It is apparent now that certain women formed a cordon sanitaire around Michael, one that Jill grew to resent.
Did Michael ever stray with other women? I asked Mervyn.1 “I’m convinced it was a rare event,” he replied.
Actually, Elizabeth Thomas, an extremely sensible woman, told me an anecdote about Michael straying. He spent a night with another woman. He came home at breakfast time, and Jill was completely furious and said, “I’m divorcing you.” He managed to smooth it over. My respect for Elizabeth is that Elizabeth had never told me the story before, and she didn’t want to tell me this story while I was writing a biography of Michael. If I put it in, the press would have fun with it. It would have run away with the biography, of course.
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
I was beginning to feel uneasy about falling into the authorized biographer’s trap of becoming privy to secrets that could not be divulged. I could see that I was heading toward some kind of confrontation with Michael. The way he handled it would be another means of assessing his character.
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
Talk about Michael sex’s life segued into a discussion of Arthur Koestler’s rape of Jill, a story that Michael himself first revealed in a review of a book about Koestler. He caused an uproar in the press and among Jill’s and Michael’s friends. Frederic Raphael wrote a piece questioning Jill’s account, suggesting she had exaggerated or perhaps had even led Koestler on. And there were other skeptics, although another woman came forward, writing a letter to the press that described Koestler’s assault on her (she managed to escape being raped). Then it was revealed that Koestler had also raped one of Dick Crossman’s wives.
Jill had kept the rape secret for more than 40 years—supposedly not even telling Michael--but had blurted it out late one night at a small party with her friends, many of whom I would interview on subsequent trips to England. Mervyn was skeptical about the story, although he believed Koestler quite capable of rape. Mervyn had asked Jill, “Did you tell Michael?” She hesitated, and said, “Michael saw the scratches on my arm. He said, ‘What’s this?’ And I didn’t tell Michael I was fully raped but that I was assaulted and that it was Arthur.” It all seemed a strange story to Mervyn, especially when Jill said Michael’s response was, “Well, you have to admit he’s a very good writer.” Mervyn thought this was an unbelievably “crass thing to say. A man has raped your wife—I couldn’t believe Michael had said this.”
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
I’ve learned that Michael had a passive attitude about the other men that were interested in his wife. However it seems as if Michael didn’t care that other men pursued Jill, and the fact that Michael didn’t confront Jill about these men showed me that he always had faith in his relationship with Jill.
As I pieced together the story of Jill’s rape for my biography of her, I realized there was a missing element: exactly what Michael knew and what he did about it. I spoke with him many times about the rape but never came close to comprehending what, in the end, was the truth. But I also held back certain testimony, which led me to believe that Mervyn’s assessment of Jill and his belief in Michael was misguided. The Koestler rape became just one of many instances when Michael did not stand by Jill. To do so, would have meant an ugly confrontation with his wife’s rapist, a writer Michael would continue to rhapsodize over in our conversations.
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
1 “Michael always struck me as being an exceptionally monogamous person,” said his old friend Mike Bessie. “Did I think the same thing was true of Jill? I never observed in all the years of their marriage any signs that she longed for other male companionship.”
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
Added January 20, 2015 at 2:15pm
Title: typo
Excerpt
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
The biographer is the first person narrator.
There’s a sequence of events, though not in chronological order. Different events that have a common thread about Michael or Jill.
There’s suspense. I want to know how Jill died. What happens to Michael now. What other secrets are there?
It’s written in the active voice.
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
Dialogue intertwines with the narrative. Dialogue gives the interviewees their own voice and not the biographer’s interpretation or paraphrase of what they say. In some dialogue’s the tone of their voice is added by the biographer such as when describing Mervyn’s dismay in his voice.
Logging in, please wait...
0 archived comments