Sir: I’m very encouraged to see you doing such wonderful work supporting Boris Johnson in his bid to be Mayor of London…
Why we need Boris
Sir: I’m very encouraged to see you doing such wonderful work supporting Boris Johnson in his bid to be Mayor of London (Leading article, 21 July). Yes, it’ll be a great laugh and yes, Boris is a great personality and a good match for Ken, but that’s not why I think it’s so important.
It is crucial for Boris to become Mayor because if, as now seems likely, David Cameron and his team of young lightweights are blown away by Gordon Brown at the next election, Boris will be the only high profile Conservative in the country. We’ll need him desperately to remind voters that politics doesn’t have to be about giving ever more power to a growing government; that there is a party that stands for freedom, and protects tradition and community at the same time. Boris Johnson may seem sometimes a little light on policy, but the important thing is that even if he doesn’t articulate Conservatism, he epitomises it.
Derek Harman
Petersfield, Hants
Sir: You got it just right. The incarceration of Lord Archer robbed us of what could have been one of the great political contests of all time — Jeffrey against Red Ken. Connoisseurs of politics as theatre can only weep at what might have been. Now Boris has entered the ring and the nation lives in hope once more. Boris versus Ken, Dumbledore against Rasputin. In the cant phrase of our time, bring it on.
Chris Nancollas
Yorkley, Glos
Defence against the dark arts
Sir: Deborah Ross’s review of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix was unworthy of The Spectator (Arts, 21 July). I had better set out my stall: I’m afraid I am among those ‘middle-aged wierdos’ she is likely to spot reading the books on the Tube. I also acknowledge that she may well be right about the film. Certainly my own opinion of the two I have seen is that they do not do justice to the books, largely because the humour seemed to have got lost in the transition from book to film. But I am no film critic and nor, it seems, is Ms Ross.
My objection to this review is that she used it to launch a personal attack on J.K. Rowling, although she did at least have the grace to admit to her envy of the author’s wealth. Having done that, perhaps it would have been wiser to concentrate on the film, at least long enough to learn that Harry Potter’s cousin is called Dudley and not Douglas, and spared us gratuitously spiteful comments about a ‘miserable’ J.K. Rowling ‘snacking on ground-diamond toasties and bathing in champagne’.
Furthermore, if she wants to watch films during which teenagers ‘shag’ each other, on the shaky basis that that is what ‘real’ teenagers do, there is no shortage of such films, but she shouldn’t begrudge the relative rarity of those in which they don’t.
J.K. Rowling has been responsible for enticing millions of children all over the world to read well-written books encompassing an original storyline imaginatively and humorously told and, unusually, successfully conveying the message that there is a clear line between good and evil. Magic is merely the medium. She has earned her £600 million — and the right to look miserable if she wants to.
Finally, I feel sorry for Ms Ross’s young son, already cynical enough to think that magic ‘doesn’t really count’. Presumably children’s classics such as Winnie the Pooh, Wind in the Willows, The Jungle Book or Peter Pan were all lost on him. A live teddy bear? Talking animals? Flying children? Fairies? Don’t be silly.
Peta Seel
Nassiet, France
Re writing history
Sir: I am astonished by Robert Stewart’s review of my most recent book, The Fears of Henry IV (Books, 21 July). Why exactly is it ‘graceless’ of me to point out that Henry IV is the least-biographied English king since the Conquest? Why does he describe that same phrase (‘least-biographied’) as ‘sense-defying’? It is true.
Mr Stewart criticises me for suggesting that we can learn a lot more about a mediaeval man by looking at him sympathetically, through a biography, instead of sitting in judgment on him in a pompous, we-are-certain fashion. Patently lacking the knowledge to evaluate the actual assertions and suggestions in my book, he criticises instead the manner of them. In particular he does not like my use of ‘probably’ and ‘must have’. Perhaps he would like to enlighten the rest of the world as to how we can declare the whole and absolute truth about the past? He cannot have it both ways. Innovation needs to be exploratory
but, in writing history, one must still alert the reader to where something is doubtful.
Ian Mortimer (Dr)
University of Exeter
Call to arms
Sir: I disagree entirely with Gavin Beck (Letters, 21 July). Major Maxwell’s letter suggesting the reintroduction of National Service was sensible and imaginative. The lack of self-discipline, the laxity of conduct, the carelessness of dress and posture which are so shocking in the younger generation would all be cured at a stroke. It did my generation no harm whatsoever to undergo the discipline of military life at the age of 18, and we learned a work ethic that has remained with us to this day.
Some years ago, my husband and I sat in a crowded station and we commented on the remarkable difference in the appearance and gait of the different generations. The older people, both men and women, walked with energy and a straight back while the younger ones slouched along, barely bothering to lift their feet from the ground. A little square-bashing would have cured that!
Mrs. Noreen J. Pryor (ex-WRNS)
by email
Fruitless
Sir: It comes as no surprise to hear that the EU has classed the tomato as a ‘World vegetable’ (Life, 14 July). The EU operates in a world of its own but in the real world the tomato is, of course, not a vegetable but a fruit.
James Beazley
Aston-on-Clun, Shropshire
Comments