I must say I do wonder what sort of Reith Lecture a Sir David Irving would give, if he were ever rehabilitated. #reithlectures— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 21, 2017
Thinking of Eliot:— Tracy McConville (@TracyMcConvill2) June 22, 2017
In a minute there is time
For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse.
So many revisions.
Although I'd remembered it as divisions and revisions, which seems more appropriate in this context. Our remembered histories can divide us.— Tracy McConville (@TracyMcConvill2) June 22, 2017
The truth should not divide us. We should always make a point of being guided by truth, logic and morality.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 22, 2017
While Mantel's words and sentences are always eloquent and evocative, she has done no more than say the truth is an oft-interpreted thing.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 22, 2017
In our increasingly censorious times, I am sure historians feel the need for guidance on what is the politic interpretation of history.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 22, 2017
You will be interested to hear that I have written to him and asked him to give a talk as if it were a Reith Lecture. He may just ignore me.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 22, 2017
It occurs to me that David Irving is less likely to ignore me if I reproduce in my blog the message I sent him, so this is what I will do.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 22, 2017
My most remembered lines of Eliot's Prufrock are "I grow old, I grow old, I shall wear my trousers rolled."— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 22, 2017
"And time yet for a hundred indecisions,— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 22, 2017
And for a hundred visions and revisions,
Before the taking of a toast and tea."
You mustn't think David Irving regrets his interpretation of history. He knows what he has given up. He must know posterity will honour him.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 22, 2017
I trust you are well and enjoying the fine weather.
I don't know if you have heard Hilary Mantel giving the Reith Lectures and if you have, I wonder what you thought of them. They didn't seem to be saying anything much to me so far other than commenting on the difficulty of getting at the truth and being criticised as a historian if one's readers do not quite agree with one's version of history or facts.
If it were me, I thought to myself, I would be talking about the professional hazards of being a historian. It is not enough just to be a good story teller with a reputation for soundness in the matter of historical research, one must contend with the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune in a sea of troubles.
Having recently seen Richard III, it seems that Richard could easily have been unfairly demonised for Tudor purposes, and was perhaps the Hitler of Tudor times.
It seems from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_historiography that the practice of factionalised history is not really new. The categories of historiography mentioned are helpful and interesting, are they not?
While it is seems unfortunately the case that it is unlikely that you will be invited by the BBC to give a Reith Lecture or given a knighthood, I am sure your admirers would very much appreciate it if you could give us a Reith Lecture!
With kind regards
21 June 2017
Replacing Holocaust Denial as a Concept
Talk by David Irving in London - 19 September 2009
A rapprochment between British Nationalism and Libertarianism?
David Irving talk on 25 February 2012
A rabbi understands free speech, while the Atheist Humanist Society do not
David Irving, make a TV documentary on Nazism and become Lord Irving of Nazism!
Whom would I choose if both David Irving and Peter Mandelson proposed to me?
British establishment more invested in the idea of punishing David Irving than Zionist Jews
Is coming to a reasonable interpretation of the Wannsee Protocol "Holocaust Denial"?
How free is speech in the West when you can be imprisoned for saying the wrong number?