Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘John Moat’

It seemed a mad thing, to go all the way to deepest Devon and back in a day. But not to go – well, that would be like not visiting the Fisher King because it seems a bit of an effort.

Symbolizing the goal of the quest? The standing stone in the maze  at Totleigh Barton.

The occasion was so special. After John Moat was diagnosed with cancer at the end of last year, his great friend, Lindsay Clarke, conceived the idea of putting a book together, an anthology of the Imagination, in John’s honour. It was supposed to be a surprise, but not a few kittens were let out of little bags by excited and enthusiastic contributors. But John’s a gentleman and would say things like, ‘I’m not sure what Lindsay’s up to but…’

John (left) and Lindsay – the kind of friends poems are made of.

Lindsay and his contributors laboured hard to get the book together by March. Once it was completed, he presented it to John, who read it at proof stage. ‘Plotinus in a gym slip,’ he pronounced on reading my contribution. I’m still working out whether that was a compliment. I’ve been told to presume it was.

Then the next thing was the launch party, to be held on St Swithun’s Day at Totleigh Barton, the home of the Arvon Foundation which John founded with John Fairfax. Three hours by train from Oxford to Exeter was easy enough, but getting from Exeter station to Totleigh seemed  impossible. On the map it’s a mess of wiggly lines, in Parzival’s quest, the equivalent of  the foggy marsh. Really, this journey was a silly dream and inconceivable. John said so himself: ‘Don’t come! It would be mad!’ But then, from being an editor, Lindsay shape-shifted into a travel agent and the next thing I knew, an itinerary from trainline.com arrived. It all began to look feasible.

When I discovered that Jules Cashford was in Oxford for the weekend, and that we could go together to Totleigh, that was the clincher. We’ve never had the time for an extended talk and this journey would give us three hours (predictably, it was not enough).

Briony Lawson, sculptor, with Alice Oswald and Jules Cashford

At Exeter we found other guests from the same train, Maggie Gee and Satish Kumar’s wife, June. (That tireless pilgrim, Satish, having lectured in Oxfordshire on Saturday evening, was giving a talk in London on Sunday morning and didn’t catch up with his wife at Totleigh until about 4pm). We piled into the taxi John had sent to collect ‘the Four Graces’ and I took the front seat. While those in the back had what sounded like a fascinating conversation about writing and publishing, I talked to the taxi driver.

He lives in Okehampton and hates it. Why? Because it has no restaurants and night life. Given that I was on a quest to see the Fisher King, I repressed my distaste at his idea of the good life and our conversation went pretty deep. I heard about his Thai wife and her cooking. We spent the really curvy part of the journey, through countryside of voluptuous hills and dales I would dearly loved to have gazed at in silence, talking about his skills in marketing and all the gambling games and lotteries he makes up. He is a very clever guy. I dropped in a suggestion that he quit taxi driving and open a Thai restaurant in Okehampton, perhaps embedding it in a pub, which seems to be happening more and more these days. I left him quivering with thoughts, ideas and anticipations. I could do no less – he was a nice guy and I wish him well in his endeavours, even though I will not be going within a hundred miles of them.

And so, finally, we turned up the drive to what must be one of the most beautiful spots in all England, a thatched house set in wild gardens that hosts and has hosted over the years so many aspiring writers and their tutors.

One of Totleigh’s many wild corners

About thirty people had gathered to pay tribute to John. Now. there are some luminaries amongst the contributors, like Seamus Heaney and Carol Ann Duffy. Even Ted Hughes contributed, but with a piece written presumably when he was still alive. The contributors, however, were not chosen for their fame as much as for their relevance to John and some of us, including John himself,  have not been blessed with fame or awards. John Moat is almost like the god of the unsung poet and, as he said in his short address, what do gongs count against this, a gathering of such fine minds and loving hearts?

A musician, a child and a sculptor form a uke band to entertain us. Child steals the show.

In this summer of almost ceaseless rain, on this, St Swithun’s Day, it did not rain. The sun shone. Why is it, when the sun shines, that the rain is so quickly forgotten? It seems as if a fine day is, somewhere deep in the soul, considered normal, the standard against which all other days are judged. Yesterday was an Ideal Day, a Perfect Day, which embraced what for many of us was a crowd of strangers in a happy unity.

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
    For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
    Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
    This day shall gentle his condition;
    And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
    Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,
    And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
    That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.

Except we were not fighting of course, but eating chocolate mousse cake with great blobs of clotted cream.

The snapper snapped. Photographer Andrew Lawson caught working.

Then again, perhaps we are soldiers, each faced with the common enemy of self-criticism, judging and measuring ourselves against others. So, Olympics and Jubilees aside, given that 2012 is the Year of Shakespeare, let’s hear from the master on self worth:

When in disgrace with fortune and men’s eyes
I all alone beweep my outcast state,
And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries,
And look upon myself, and curse my fate,
Wishing me like to one more rich in hope,
Featured like him, like him with friends possessed,
Desiring this man’s art, and that man’s scope,
With what I most enjoy contented least;
Yet in these thoughts my self almost despising,
Haply I think on thee, and then my state,
Like to the lark at break of day arising
From sullen earth, sings hymns at heaven’s gate;
For thy sweet love remembered such wealth brings
That then I scorn to change my state with kings.

I was lucky enough to have several conversations alone with John but in the one where I finally approached the sacred question, ‘What ails thee, Uncle?’ (or, in our terms, ‘What do you suffer having chemo?’) we were interrupted, so there was no luminous moment when I beheld the Grail.

But it was there, shining its light on the day and the company, the Grail, the greatest gong of all: Love.

According to all common measures my writing has failed. I have not achieved fame or wealth and certainly no gong will ever come my way. But because of my writing, because it is loved by John Moat, I was one of the blessed company yesterday, and that is the kind of wealth that really counts.

John and Jules

‘The Gist’ is available now for pre-order on Amazon and promises to be a terrific read. It’s suggested that all attending Arvon courses should read it before going. I suggest that all writers, aspiring or otherwise, read it now. Because the Gist is the gist, the very kernel of the imaginative process. John Moat is now in his ‘most creative period’ and has realised that the Imagination he has worked with all his life is responsible for who he is. The Imagination is the maker, the writer but its tool.

Arvon Foundation Writing Courses

Parzival by Lindsay Clarke

Read Full Post »

There is an ancient story from the Indian tradition about an arrow-maker whose attention to his work was so focussed and fine that he was unaware of a boisterous wedding procession passing by his window. The moral of the story seems to be that this state of mind leads to mastery of your art.

I am just checking the second set of proofs for A Gift for the Magus. How many times has this book been edited? Let me count them. At least four times by me, including use of software programmes such as Editor. Once by a proper editor. It has been edited so often and so thoroughly that it seemed barely necessary to hire a proof reader, so we didn’t. I went through it, then David did. I found an awful lot – not mistakes particularly, just opportunities for improvement – and David – with a little trumpet fanfare on each occasion – found the things I’d missed. But our typesetter is as quick as she is patient and sent back a second set on Monday. So all I had to do was to check that the corrections had been made correctly. Wasn’t it?

I am currently enthralled by Iain McGilchrist’s The Master and His Emissary – the Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World. It was recommended to me in rapid succession by Lindsay Clarke, John Moat and Maggie Ross, so I had to read it, all 500 pages. So far (page 163) I am finding it a continuing revelation that shakes my philosophical foundations (but leaves them intact). As Maggie Ross said in a talk, ‘With neuroscience, you don’t need your neoplatonic philosophy.’ I found that as exciting a prospect as terrifying. So now I’m a little way along in this journey of modern science – science as science should be – open-minded, full-hearted and questing.

One of things it is forcing me to reconsider is attention. I’ve always been taught in my philosophy school that there are three states of attention: focussed, broad and scattered. McGilchrist (so far) has only spoken of the first two and linked them to left hemisphere (focussed) and right (broad). Apparently birds watch for predators with the left eye, and look out for the group with the right one. (I was circled by a little egret recently which I took to be a magical communion across species until I realised I was the subject of a left-eye survey.)

I was speaking to a writing-proof-reading-philosophical friend yesterday, asking him how one might avoid making mistakes in the first place. His reply was ‘pay attention’. Yes, but what kind of attention, and to what? If I were scanning a text looking for typos, then I could practise the attention of the arrow-maker. But I’m not just looking for typos. If I were, I’d have sent the first set of proofs back with less than five corrections when in fact there was a scribble in red on almost every page, PLUS the chapter which had mysteriously got left out (how did that happen?). It seems to me I need to have an eye as much to the wedding procession as to the arrows. I need to have my attention everywhere at once.

Here’s what I’m looking for and finding: typos (these days a euphemism for mis-typing) spelling mistakes, clunky sentences, repetition of words or rhymes or homophones, punctuation (sigh), consistency (this one is complex and of astonishing depths of subtlety, such as when to give pope a capital P and when not to), hyphenated words at line-ends, ambiguities, and downright howlers.

To be honest, I think it all comes down to me in the end. I could pay the earth for the best ever proof reader but he/she wouldn’t find everything, and I’d be the one to discover that, so I may as well do it myself. Godstow Press is an Indie, but mainstream publishers, forever cutting costs and using Spellchecker instead of a human brain, make this an issue of as much – if not more – concern to their authors.

So here I am at the end of the second set and what do I find on the closing pages? Saint Mathew spelt with one ‘t’, and Cosimo de’ Medici referring to Ghiberti’s bronze doors of the Florentine Baptistry as ‘the gates of paradise’ – a sweet metaphor thought up by Michelangelo a generation later. And so, instead of cheering and throwing flower petals over my own head for finding these two things, I suffered deep despair and a building depression,  haunted by the questions, ‘What have I missed?’ and ‘Must I read it again?’

What have I missed? Bring on the gorilla!

In a now famous experiment by Simons and Chabris, subjects were asked to watch a short video clip showing a basketball game in a relatively confined indoor setting. [I've struck out the description of the test because it's more fun to do it yourself: ]

… As they and others have neatly and dramatically demonstrated, we see, at least consciously, only what we are attending to in a focussed way (with the conscious left hemisphere). Since what we select to attend to is guided by our expectations of what it is we are going to see, there is a circularity involved which means we experience more and more only what we already know. Our incapacity to see the most apparently obvious features of the world around us, if they do not fit the template we are currently working with … is so entrenched that it is hard to know how we can ever come to experience anything truly new. [McGilchrist p.163]

Or spot our ommissions.

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 210 other followers