Thoroughly enjoyed reading this, having only come to the magnificent Mrs P earlier this year and with the rest of Taylor’s work yet to discover. I’m over the moon that my teen idol, David Baddiel, is an appreciator of her writing! I couldn’t get hold of the recent adaptation after I’d read the book, but it sounds like that’s not such a bad thing. I did enjoy the Play for Today on YouTube.
Thanks, Claire, I'm glad you enjoyed reading it; and lucky you, still having all those Taylors to read! I was a bit hard on the Hollywood film, perhaps, but it just doesn't make sense given that hotels like the Claremont had gone by the time it was made; it's a shame but not surprising that the studio didn't have the imagination to throw some money at a period production. Anyway! Yes, fascinating about Baddiel; there's a Radio 4 bookclub where he chats about Mrs P, it comes up if you search for Baddiel/Palfrey/Radio 4. Thanks for subscribing!
You’re right, of course: Angel is atypical and extraordinary. Fascinatingly disconcerting to read and feel sympathy for such a solipsistic character - hard to think of another writer who achieves that with so little authorial comment to guide the reader.
I did see the film, not least because Una Stubbs was in it - all too briefly. I remember little about it other than the fact that it didn’t really work. How could it? It’s another case of the adaptation dilemma: how to convey more than the events of the narrative.
Ah. Another one to avoid then. Skimming the Hilary Mantel Introduction for this newsletter, I loved this: 'Angel is a book in which an accomplished, deft and somewhat underrated writer has a great deal of fun at the expense of a crass, graceless and wildly overpaid one. Taylor is a writer of impeccable taste, while Angelica Deverell is a high priestess of schlock.' Magnificent! (And Una's appearances were always all too brief. I'm sure it won't surprise you that she was a complete joy to work with on Pillars of the Community at the NT, in which, sadly, all she had to do was relay Ibsen's exposition.)
Excellent stuff. I love Elizabeth Taylor and had put off reading this one until last year. Good grief, it’s good. I can completely see why trying to write a plot summary proves difficult. Someone I know claimed the book was simply depressing and boring... which, in summary (or on a superficial read) it does appear to be. But Taylor’s genius lies in the way she controls and illuminates what is beneath the surface.
As for the screen versions, it would take an extremely astute director and screenwriter to capture that quality. Thanks for the tip-offs.
Thanks, David. I'm so pleased (and not surprised) that you love it. Yes, she's all about what's going on underneath. I can see why it's not for everyone but I was so touched by it. I take it you've read the atypical ANGEL? Absolutely extraordinary central character, without a shred of self-awareness, without any understanding of irony, with no sense of humour. From a novelist who is so gently comic and ironic, the effect is disconcerting! (I've not seen the Romola Garai film of that and wonder what it's like?)
Thoroughly enjoyed reading this, having only come to the magnificent Mrs P earlier this year and with the rest of Taylor’s work yet to discover. I’m over the moon that my teen idol, David Baddiel, is an appreciator of her writing! I couldn’t get hold of the recent adaptation after I’d read the book, but it sounds like that’s not such a bad thing. I did enjoy the Play for Today on YouTube.
Thanks, Claire, I'm glad you enjoyed reading it; and lucky you, still having all those Taylors to read! I was a bit hard on the Hollywood film, perhaps, but it just doesn't make sense given that hotels like the Claremont had gone by the time it was made; it's a shame but not surprising that the studio didn't have the imagination to throw some money at a period production. Anyway! Yes, fascinating about Baddiel; there's a Radio 4 bookclub where he chats about Mrs P, it comes up if you search for Baddiel/Palfrey/Radio 4. Thanks for subscribing!
You’re right, of course: Angel is atypical and extraordinary. Fascinatingly disconcerting to read and feel sympathy for such a solipsistic character - hard to think of another writer who achieves that with so little authorial comment to guide the reader.
I did see the film, not least because Una Stubbs was in it - all too briefly. I remember little about it other than the fact that it didn’t really work. How could it? It’s another case of the adaptation dilemma: how to convey more than the events of the narrative.
Ah. Another one to avoid then. Skimming the Hilary Mantel Introduction for this newsletter, I loved this: 'Angel is a book in which an accomplished, deft and somewhat underrated writer has a great deal of fun at the expense of a crass, graceless and wildly overpaid one. Taylor is a writer of impeccable taste, while Angelica Deverell is a high priestess of schlock.' Magnificent! (And Una's appearances were always all too brief. I'm sure it won't surprise you that she was a complete joy to work with on Pillars of the Community at the NT, in which, sadly, all she had to do was relay Ibsen's exposition.)
Excellent stuff. I love Elizabeth Taylor and had put off reading this one until last year. Good grief, it’s good. I can completely see why trying to write a plot summary proves difficult. Someone I know claimed the book was simply depressing and boring... which, in summary (or on a superficial read) it does appear to be. But Taylor’s genius lies in the way she controls and illuminates what is beneath the surface.
As for the screen versions, it would take an extremely astute director and screenwriter to capture that quality. Thanks for the tip-offs.
Thanks, David. I'm so pleased (and not surprised) that you love it. Yes, she's all about what's going on underneath. I can see why it's not for everyone but I was so touched by it. I take it you've read the atypical ANGEL? Absolutely extraordinary central character, without a shred of self-awareness, without any understanding of irony, with no sense of humour. From a novelist who is so gently comic and ironic, the effect is disconcerting! (I've not seen the Romola Garai film of that and wonder what it's like?)