Here, There, Gone: An Interview with Sir Nicholas Hytner

Nicholas Hytner’s Othello was so good I saw it twice.  It’s not the first time Sir Nick has wowed the critics.  And I somehow doubt it will be the last.  I perch comfortably outside his office, staring at black-and-white action shots of hit after hit: Adrian Lester in Henry V, Simon Russell Beale in Much Ado About Nothing, James Corden in One Man, Two Guv’nors.  If there’s such thing as a grammar of theatre, Hytner is fluent in it.

These days, he needs little introduction: the Cambridge alumnus who arrived at the National Theatre in 1990 has become one of Britain’s most well-respected directors.  One bookshelf in his office hosts a glass poster for One Man, Two Guv’nors; another holds mugs commemorating the first night of each Shakespeare play he’s directed.  The Othello mug sits atop an unfingered script on the glass coffee table that separates us.

“None of these texts exists in isolation,” Hytner says, as if he’s noticed me looking at the mugs that sit side by side on the shelf.  “You kind of take [their] temperature;” he tells me, “every time you put them on, probably every time you read them, the temperature will change.”  Indeed, Hytner is well known for his modern adaptations (Othello takes place at a military base that recalls recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan), and that fact underpins much of his philosophy: “what it says about our world is as much to do with our world as it is to do with the text.”

The air conditioning shuts off.  Hytner apologises, gets up, fiddles with the machine.  It’s the first time I’ve looked outside since I entered the room.  Late afternoon, and the view must be one of the best in London.  The last sunbeams dance on buildings that spear the sky—Blackfriars Bridge, St Paul’s, the Gherkin beyond—each mingling with each.  It feels as though the current of the Thames is driving daylight away, pushing it inch by inch towards the margins of evening.  It’s not long before he returns to his seat, clears his throat, and resumes: “If you’re performing Shakespeare, you’re only ever going to take a snapshot of it.  There’s always next time.”

It’s difficult not to be drawn in by the wonderful mildness of Hytner’s voice, and the diagonal smile that flashes across his face whenever he stumbles upon the mot juste.  I ask which Shakespeare character he identifies with most.  For a moment, he sits forward in his black leather chair like a kid forced to pick between his favourite toys.  “Benedick I like enormously,” he concludes.  What attracts him so much to the protagonist of Much Ado About Nothing (aside from the actor he cast to play him, Simon Russell Beale) is his willingness to do “something suicidally brave for Beatrice,” his adversary-cum-lover, when he challenges his former best friend Claudio to a duel he has little chance of winning.  Hytner doesn’t even think “you’d want to hang out with Hamlet as much as you’d like to hang out with Benedick.”

On Hytner’s watch, Shakespeare has become a vital force in the National’s bloodstream.  In fact, an awful lot has changed since his first days in the job way back in April 2003.  He settles a jeaned leg lightly on the coffee table, before reminiscing: “I do look back on 2003 and think that almost every one of the big decisions could have gone the other way.”  Fortunately, they didn’t.  Jerry Springer the Opera turned out better than expected (“and the people it offended it was good news to offend,” he adds); new plays in the intimate Cottesloe Theatre saw success; and His Dark Materials took the plaudits.  “They all worked—every single one.”  His relief and disbelief, even ten years on, is palpable.

“I wonder what I would say,” comes his inquisitive reply when I ask what advice he’d give to his former self if he could rewind a decade.  He pauses for a while.  I’ve got used to his way of sending his words across to me like chess pieces, each move contemplated and considered: “I think I would say, ‘you will never regret being wild and bold, and turning down the tasteful option in favour of the rough, provocative one.’  That’s what I’d say,” he reaffirms, this time with certainty.  “Ticking over” isn’t the Hytner way.  “I’ve never regretted having messy things,” he says, “but I’ve regretted having boring things.  I’ve hated that.”

What people think of his work barely registers.  “I don’t care really.  I don’t care,” he reiterates firmly.  He seems more genuine than blasé: “I’m very happy to get from day to day, and year to year.”  His chair rotates slightly, and leans his chin gently against finger and thumb.  Theatre is demanding at the best of times, but it hasn’t jaded him.  “To a very large degree,” he continues, “if I get to my last day here without the place sliding down the pan; if I can feel that for 12 years, it has deserved its title and it was as good as it needed to be, I’ll be very happy.”

And his legacy?  Hytner’s not too bothered about that, either.  He draws a parallel, hands moving in sync with voice, between theatre and film: “movie directors very much build up a legacy: it’s there, it’s immovable.  They spend their retirement going from retrospective to retrospective and festival to festival being lauded and honoured,” he laughs.  But the beauty of theatre lies in its ephemerality; night after night, season after season: “it’s here, it’s there, it’s gone.”

Soon enough, that will be the fate of Sir Nicholas’ tenure at the National.  But, characteristically, he won’t make a point of his departure: “I don’t think I want to do a big farewell spectacular,” he tells me.  “I’ve got 18 months more, I’m just finishing off the planning for next year, and I think I should just try and do the same as I’ve always tried to do.”  He shifts in his chair and his voice sinks low, as if he doesn’t want to presume too far: “at some point, I guess I’ll want to do what everybody else has done—sit down and try to write about what I’ve found out so far.  But I’d much prefer just to go on and work.”

The National will be a strange place when Hytner steps down from his post in 2015.  I, for one, am too young to remember what it was like before he took the helm.  One thing is certain, though: his successor has the mother of all boots to fill.  We stand, exchange thanks, and he opens the door.  I take a last look out of the window, before exiting, stage left.

Interview with Nadilyn Beato – Wildlife Illustrator

Nadilyn Beato has established a strong reputation amongst reptile lovers as an extremely talented painter, sculptor and digital illustrator, even attracting the attention of Tomahawk Reptiles to make a sculpture of their logo. She’s also the mastermind behind powerhouse reptile breeder BHB‘s logo, and countless others. She found some time in her busy schedule to answer some questions about herself, her work, and her love of nature’s more exotic animals.

Nadilyn Beato

Firstly, tell us a little about yourself.

My name is Nadilyn Beáto, I’m a 23-year-old New York-based Freelance Illustrator/Designer. I graduated from Parsons School of Design with a Bachelor of Fine Arts with a concentration in Illustration in May of 2012.

How did you get started in art, both personally and professionally?

I’ve been making art since I could get my hands on crayons.  Art is my passion and after I graduated from high school I decided to continue my education doing what I love to do.  I attended Parsons School for Design on a HEOP grant, which stands for Higher Education Opportunity Program.  I started to freelance when I was a sophomore in college.  The government decided to cut TAP grants and I had to take out loans to cover the cost of my tuition.  Attending college full time gave me very little time to find a part time job.  I decided to freelance and I was fortunate enough to get some jobs from people who appreciated my work. I recently graduated last May, and earned a Bachelor of Fine Arts with a concentration in Illustration.

Your website, apart from being incredibly well designed, showcases some astounding work of a range of wonderful and exotic animals. What do you use as a basis for the animals that you don’t have as pets?

For animals that I don’t have as pets I get my reference from a variety of photos.  I used to use several photos for reference when creating a piece.  There are always certain aspects from other photos I like to merge together in my mind to create the final piece.

boa
A boa constrictor pendant
Although you are a wildlife illustrator, a look at your prints and sculptures shows a large body of work focused on reptiles. Compared to the number of people with cats and dogs, reptile ownership is a relatively small niche; was it a conscious decision to focus on that market over other animals?

I mainly focus on reptiles because I own a lot of reptiles.  I feel most people only associate “cute” with soft and furry animals and reptiles are not considered beautiful.  I think this stems from the media and a common misrepresentation of reptiles. Reptiles are beautiful and every time I create a piece I want to immortalize my subject’s beauty for others to appreciate.

Do you prefer doing one over the other, for instance the paintings over the sculptures?

I like doing both equally. It is always fun to switch things up once in while.  I am very grateful I am able to work with a variety of mediums.

A digital illustration
A digital illustration; view the making of in the video below

A look at your Facebook and Instagram pages indicate that much of your work is relatively small – pendants, prints, daily creature drawings etc. Then came the tremendous sculpture commission from Tomahawk Reptiles, of the pied python on the axe, which seemed to be much bigger than your usual work. Do you find such projects daunting,and is there any size job you would refuse?

I actually enjoy working larger.  My Senior Thesis in college was a collection of 6 very large sculptures ranging from 7-12 inches tall.  The biggest I have made was 12 inches tall; I am always open to any bigger commissions.

Nadilyn's sculpture for Tomahawk Reptiles
Nadilyn’s sculpture for Tomahawk Reptiles
Following on from that, what would be your ultimate commission? Would you enjoy being immersed in a project that lasts months, like a huge King Kong on the Empire State, or do you prefer the smaller gigs where you work on a wide range in a short space of time?

My ultimate commission would be maybe a life-sized pet, like a lizard or snake.  I think that would be a great challenge and a fun experience.

gbb
Tarantula pendant
leopardgecko
Leopard Gecko pendant
You’ve drawn, painted and sculpted everything from rats and parrots to lizards and crocodiles, and your pets include tarantulas. Do you have a favourite animal?

That is a tough question.  I really like all animals but if I had to choose one it would be a Tarantula.  I love how unique and interesting they are.  They are gorgeous little creatures misunderstood by society and judged for their appearance instead of the good they do.  They consume a lot of pests in the wild.  They are just adorable little fluffy critters.

ryan_c
Monitor painting
Is there a favourite animal to sketch or sculpt? Are the long shapes of snakes less challenging than a feathered animal or spiky lizard?

My favourite animal to sketch and sculpt would be a snake.  It is always a challenge when it comes to painting the patterns on snakes, but I love challenges.

Chameleon painting
Chameleon painting
Who are your inspirations, in life and for your work?

My inspirations are nature, my pets and Thomas Shahan.  I love his illustrations and macro photography.  He takes macro shots of jumping spiders and I feel that his photos make people appreciate the beauty of those unique little critters.

Where do you hope to be in 10 years’ time?

In 10 years I hope to continue making art and doing what I love to do.  I really want to work for zoos doing anything art related, or work for wildlife conservation organizations creating art for their fundraising campaigns.  In the end anything animal or art related would be awesome.

To view Nadilyn’s work, order her work or put in a custom order:

Website

Facebook

Twitter

Instagram

Etsy

Tumblr

Vimeo

Behance

Interview with Deborah French

//
//
Deborah French is the author of A Brief Moment in Time, a memoir chronicling her experience of raising two children with special needs. A review of the book can be found here, and the link to it on Amazon can be found at the end of this interview.

How did the start of the book come about? Did you decide it was time to tell your story, or did someone else prompt you?

I introduced myself to ASD Publishing in a submissions email for my children’s book.  I received an almost immediate response asking me to consider writing down my personal journey and sending a manuscript back to them for consideration.  I remember reading the email with a quizzical brow thinking ‘Seriously, could I do this?’  I have always loved writing and had dreams of becoming an author as a teenager, so I asked my husband for the laptop, sat down and wrote Chapter 1, The Moment.  And that was it.

The book is such a beautiful insight into your life and covers truly sensitive issues that I found I needed to read it slowly; digesting the information and reality of the situation as I went. Did you find it very difficult to write, retracing each moment and did you have to take it slowly?

The first three chapters were written within a few hours. I was surprised at the speed at which I was able to retrace my steps because up until that point, of course I had recalled the emotional trauma of birth but had yet to take that journey so intimately again. I was also aware that as I was reliving those first few days, I was about to share my story and my most shameful feelings with the world, that fact was overwhelming and frightening. Once I had I passed the first hurdle however and I was able to re read the first chapters without sobbing, everything flowed very smoothly from then on. Those moments of my life had been bottled up for a long time; once I began to write I couldn’t stop.

You’ve constructed a very natural narrative, following your life chronologically. Did you sit down and simply let the story flow, or did you plan out how you would write it?

Once I had made the decision to write my story I felt the only appropriate place to start was from the day I walked into the hospital to give birth to Amariah. From then on I didn’t plan to tell my story chronologically, it just worked out that way because I was able to explain my emotional development more accurately through each experience.

Your writing is very honest and really helps the reader to connect with your experiences, but was there anything that you wanted to include and couldn’t because of time or space constraints?

I could have certainly continued on but as you have described it takes some time to digest the information and the reality of the situation. It was important to find the right balance. I didn’t want to overwhelm the reader, I wanted to make sure that by the end of the book they could connect with the sense of happiness and contentment that we feel despite our circumstance. This was an important point for me to drive home.
I was surprised by the move to Israel and very interested to learn about the help that is available there.

What prompted this move? Primarly we moved because we were advised to live in a hotter climate for sake of Amariah’s health. During those early years she was plagued with chest, throat and sinus infections and the warmer climate has certainly helped with that. Secondly and most importantly, the facilities available to those with special needs is incredible. Amariah is only seen by a paediatrician during routine doctor visits through the regular health service. There are countless nurseries and schools for children with a range of special needs, both separate and integrated into the mainstream system. Therapies and after school programmes are readily available with free transportation from the council to and from our door step. There is also considerable emphasis on supported living and employment opportunities for adults with special needs, which is a consideration for all parents. The question of ‘what’s next?’ still keeps me up at night but I take comfort knowing that we are living in a society that thrives on how it cares for those less fortunate.

Throughout the book your focus is always on the children and their progression, but marriages have fallen through with much less pressure. How did you maintain your relationship and social life through it all?

My husband has an uncanny way of making me laugh, especially when I’m crying. He has often said that ‘If we don’t laugh about it then we will go nuts.’ And I agree with him. The challenges that we have faced have also never created an issue between us, our task has been to work on how we handle our own emotional pain and support each other in the way we both need.
As far as our social life goes, we enjoy as much private time as we do socialising with friends and family. We regard our social time as ‘taking a break’. Sometimes it’s hard to switch off from reality but there will always be something to worry about and time out is good for everyone.

Has the book and subsequent publicity had any effect on the school life of Henry and Amariah, such as raised awareness from friends or negative effects?

From the feedback that I have received so far, including your own review, I can see the effect my story will have on raising awareness. I have always said that ignorance breads fear which in turn breads intolerance and predjuidice. The more informed people are about children and adults with special needs the less they will fear them and the more society will accept those with disabilities. I hope that in some way my story will inspire more integration at a grass roots level between families, friends, teachers and their pupils. As far as Henry and Amariah are concerned, A Brief Moment in Time is merely an extension of these efforts, we work tirelessly everyday to inform those around them to ease their integration. It’s a working progress.

You keep busy with raising awareness for special needs and having activities for special needs children. Do you have any hobbies outside of that part of your life?

I love to cook.  I have enjoyed hosting and entertaining our family and friends as well as running cookery demonstrations for adults and lessons for children.  I believe that cooking is a life skill that all children should be taught from a young age.  I have also run courses for children with special needs and have seen the improvements in their concentration and coordination whilst working towards the finished dish.
Apart from this I love to spend time with my husband and children relaxing and having fun experiences.  We try to take time off from our hectic lives even for a short time just to get away and spend the day together. This is a very important part of my life.

How has the reaction to your book been so far, and has it differed from your expectations?

I anticipated that it would have an impact of some sort because birth is an experience anticipated by all and experienced by most and there is always a sense of fear that everything may not go according to plan.  Even if the reader doesn’t have a child with a disability they will be automatically transported back to their own experience during the read and will connect with my experience.
In saying that, I could not have hoped for the response that I have received.  I haven’t made so many people cry in such a short time in my life!  It has been so wonderful to hear that our story has touched the hearts of so many people and, what’s more, I have been so delighted to hear that other mothers in similar situations have headed to my advice and reaped results with their children.  I could not have hoped for more.

Do you have any plans for a follow-up to A Brief Moment in Time, telling readers what the experience is like as the children have got older, or how things are changing in a broader perspective for the special needs community?

I wouldn’t rule that out.  I am currently developing other projects to help raise awareness through my writing for children with special needs and I have also completed a picture book to help prepare children on the autistic spectrum for their first day of school.  So there are lots of directions to follow.  I like to take one step at a time.

 

Interview with Sherri Hayes

The combination of FBI agent and professional footballer is an unusual one. What made you come up with the idea?

Gage’s profession was decided in the first book of the series, Behind Closed Doors. After that, it was a matter of finding the right woman for him. I knew she needed to be strong, both physically and mentally, yet vulnerable, too. Rebecca took shape from there.

Which idea came first, the professional footballer being stalked, or the romance between an FBI agent and her project?

Gage and his stalker were first. There are hints in Behind Closed Doors about Gage having a stalker. Rebecca’s character didn’t begin to take shape until the very end of writing Behind Closed Doors.

You go into quite a lot of detail about the football games. Is this a personal passion of yours?

I grew up watching the Cleveland Browns with my dad. Back then it was not unusual to find me right there along with him shouting at the television. Of course, during playoff season, it’s not uncommon to find me doing that now, either.

As Rebecca relaxes and allows herself to be seduced by Gage she gradually becomes used to the more provocative outfits that he picked out for her. Was this an intentional statement about female sexuality and a woman’s right to dress as we please?

It was more a statement about Rebecca herself. I tend to write what is right for my characters, their personalities, and their growth. Everything else is secondary. In Rebecca’s case, she viewed her ultra conservative clothing as an outward sign of her poise and control over her life and situation. Gage gave her the freedom to release some of that, and realize her world wasn’t going to fall apart if she did.

Your main characters get engaged and have a child relatively quickly by today’s standards. Did you have any alternative endings in mind when you were writing?

Neither of those things were planned when I started writing their story. When I write a story, I generally only have a vague idea of where it’s headed. Outside of that, I let the story flow, and the characters guide where we end up. I knew they would end up together, but they surprised me with the ending.

How did you find writing the erotic scenes and are there any family members who will be forbidden from reading it? (Grandparents, etc.)
This is my sixth published work to date, and all of them have had love scenes of one shape or form. Writing them doesn’t bother me. I do what I feel is appropriate for the plot, scene, and characters. As for family…the only family that reads my books is my mom and she loves my romances. She once told me that my love scenes were what a woman wants but rarely gets.

Who were your literary influences for this book?

I love to read, but I wouldn’t say there were any specific literary influences for Red Zone.

The obvious question is, what was your take on 50 Shades of Grey and did it inspire you to write your own erotic romance?

My first book published six months before 50 Shades of Grey, so no, it didn’t inspire me. While I read part of the fan fiction when it was posted, I haven’t read the books since E.L. James published the trilogy.

Do you see yourself more as Rebecca or Megan and is any part of the story autobiographical?

I relate more to Rebecca than I do Megan. While I wouldn’t say any of the story is autobiographical, there are parts of Rebecca’s past and personality that are similar to mine.

Was there a man that you had in mind when creating Gage’s character?

I tend to visualize personalities more than physical traits when I write my characters, so no. All of my characters come purely from my imagination.

What made you choose the romance genre and not Sci-fi or fantasy, for example?

I’ve always loved reading romance novels, and I write what I like to read. There is something about reading about a couple falling in love that draws me into a story, and makes me want to see them get their happy ending.

When did you decide that you wanted to be a writer?

Writing was something I sort of fell into. It wasn’t anything I’d ever considered as a career path growing up. In fact, I didn’t start writing my first story until I was thirty. It wasn’t until three years later when my publisher approached me after reading some of my online writing that I ever considered being a writer.

Have you got any advice for budding erotic novelists?

The best advice I can give any writer, erotic or otherwise, is to write what you like. If you don’t like the story, then chances are, no one else will either. It also makes the work of writing much more enjoyable.

Do you believe that erotic fiction empowers women?
In a way, yes. I believe it gives women more freedom to learn what they might potentially enjoy sexually with their partners, and that’s always a good thing.

An Interview with Peter Hitchens – Shouting into the Wind

“I didn’t arrange that,” Peter Hitchens blushes.  A stranger has just told him of her appreciation for everything he stands for and, for once, he’s been caught off guard, disarmed by praise.  The stone wall of rhetoric, dogmatic conviction and obduracy against which I’ve been fighting an attritional struggle for the past hour is felled in an instant.  And I can’t help feeling relieved.

We’re in Starbucks showing our solidarity with their tax avoidance – well, Hitchens is.  “I’m a very bad interviewer,” he opens, slipping into the rich baritone of the ‘Hitchens’ voice that so melodiously beguiles and bewitches, “partly because I’m usually more interested in myself than the other person.”  And he has reason to be.  After all, Peter Hitchens is a hell of a lot more interesting than most other people; I’ll give him that.  Columnist and blogger for The Mail on Sunday, author of five books on drugs and God, crime and politics, reporter from more countries than you can count on two hands – it’s a CV that would dwarf most.

But, if you’ll believe him, no one’s taking him seriously.  Never mind, though: the fact that they aren’t will hardly matter soon enough.  Indeed, the world as we know it is preparing for its final curtain call.  This is the end of civilisation according to Peter Hitchens.

Characteristically, Hitchens has been one of the more outspoken commentators on the recent Sandy Hook massacre that has reignited the debate on gun laws in the US.  “People don’t think about anything most of the time,” he notes about the arguments against gun ownership in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, “It’s just intellectually moronic to close your mind to the possibility that something other than guns are at issue.”  He’s thought, he’s decided, and I’m not about to change his mind: “I’m bored by this subject.  If someone produced a gun in here I’d be as scared as the next man – probably more so because I’ve seen what happens when a bullet passes through a human body.  It’s not nice, I’m not in favour of it.”

Hitchens rests his arm over the railing next to our table, as he attempts to deconstruct the myths of gun control.  To him, the reasoning is unsound.  Indeed, until 1920, he maintains, the UK’s very own gun laws “were so lax they made Texas look effeminate.”  And what about the rarely reported knife massacres in China?  Guns aren’t the only things capable of causing havoc, he argues.  “This problem of increasingly frequent gun massacres is new,” Hitchens goes on, “It’s not something that’s been going on during the entire period that the United States has had relaxed gun laws.  In fact, its gun laws have become increasingly restrictive over the past 30 or 40 years.”  His tone is such that it almost caresses me into submission.  Almost.  But I’m not convinced.  Fifteen of the 25 biggest mass shootings worldwide in the last half-century have taken place in the US, a country with double the number of guns per person compared with somewhere like Yemen.  Hardly coincidental, I might suggest.

“It’s theoretically arguable that the existence of law-abiding gun owners in places where people start shooting provides some protection,” Hitchens digresses as I inwardly cringe, noticing the tell-tale signs of the strand of thought with which he’s aligning himself – the NRA honchos and their ‘more guns, fewer shootings’ claptrap.  For someone who prides himself on logic being his weapon of choice, this doesn’t seem awfully logical to me.  “Take the Anders Breivik incident,” he explains, “Had there been anybody on that island in possession of a legally owned gun, a law-abiding sane person, they could have dropped him from 300 paces, and that would have been the end of that.  Good thing, no?”  Well, yes… provided that you haven’t taken into account how many more Anders Breiviks might crop up if guns were readily available.

Yet still his claim is that the problem lies elsewhere: “It’s a case of the old saying,” he recalls, “‘When the wise man points at the moon, the fool looks at the finger.’”  Focusing on guns is a lame distraction.  In the world according to Hitchens, we’d bite the bullet and scrutinise “a scandal as big as thalidomide” much more closely.  Most of these shootings, he’s convinced, have involved anti-depressants or illegal drugs (and sometimes both).  However, “the reason we don’t look there is because it’s fashionable to be against guns and it’s fashionable to be in favour of anti-depressants and marijuana.”  Hitchens takes a gulp of his coffee and shakes his head irately: “Fashion shouldn’t govern thought.”  I couldn’t agree more – but contrariness is fashionable too, I think to myself.

“The anti-depressant scandal is so huge,” and he’s cross with the failure of his trade to report it.  Hitchens carefully explains to me that it’s a “known fact” that the pills induce “suicidality, a tendency to feel suicidal,” but that nobody seems to care: “If people were constantly dying of a physical disease after having taken a pill that was supposed to cure them, the suspicion would be thrown on the efficacy of that pill.” But self-interest shuts the door to examination – on the part of “an awful lot of people in the media” who are taking these drugs, the “huge number of doctors” who prescribe them “out of laziness and a desire to get rid of patients,” and the pharmaceutical companies whose profits keep on soaring.

Hitchens fidgets in his chair slightly, before candidly admitting: “My engagement with the argument about drugs is purely to point out that everybody is talking balls.  I don’t have the slightest illusion that anything I say is going to make a difference.”  It’s the first sign of Hitchens’ distaste for the modern world – and its distaste for him.  “It’s coming, it will come,” he prophesies, “If you’ve read Brave New World, soma [the hallucinogenic consumed ubiquitously in Huxley’s novel] is on its way.”  Illegal drugs, according to Hitchens, have been systematically decriminalised in recent decades by the UK.  He rubbishes my suggestion that Portugal has seen notable successes since decriminalising possession of all drugs in 2001, regarding the Cato Institute’s conclusions as self-serving: “The evidence is that they had an agenda.  Besides, Portugal hasn’t decriminalised to anything like the extent that Britain has,” he explains, swooping up his coffee mug and leaning back once more.

Regulation of the drug market is a cowardly kowtow to the “stupid people that take them,” Hitchens believes.  But what about the tens of thousands of preventable deaths in Mexico, or the Taliban-swelling destruction of Afghanistan’s poppy fields (the only crop that yields its farmers any sort of livelihood)?  “Well, they’re caused by the selfish cretins who encourage the trade.  They’re on their conscience.”  He disputes the idea that decriminalisation would, in one fell swoop, eradicate (or at the very least, significantly reduce) the nefarious effects of just these two examples.  The way I see it, prohibition has been ineffective – it’s changed nothing but the girth of the criminal underbelly.  Peter Hitchens has no time for such arguments, though – indeed, his writings deny the very existence of a policy of ‘prohibition’ in the UK – and he’s not afraid to show his impatience with them: “Oh it’s pathetic, sub-intellectual drivel!  Any thinking person would easily see through it if they were given half a chance, but it’s fed to them as truth,” he complains.

Lazy thinking is a bugbear of Hitchens’, not least when it comes to God.  Which is why I’m a touch surprised that he appears jaded by the conversation when I bring it up: “I’m reduced to repeating things I’ve said over and over again,” he sighs, “It’s a matter of saying that either this is a created universe, and it is therefore the product of a mind in which we live and move and have a purpose that is discoverable, or it’s a meaningless chaos in which nothing we do has any significance.”  Life without faith, for him, is necessarily devoid of meaning and happiness: “You live, you die, it’s over.  There’s no justice, there’s no hope, those who are dead are gone and we have no souls.  Why would you want that?”  The trouble is that Hitchens’ argument smacks of teleology, even though it’s dressed up as rationalism – he wants there to be a meaning, a narrative he can follow with his finger down a page, a universal and unalterable understanding that is discoverable.  Therefore God exists.  Persuaded?

Above all, what religion gives Peter Hitchens is justice and morality.  “I don’t care whether you need him or not,” he expounds in pugnacious style, “Human justice, as we know, is a completely fallible thing.  Yet we all desire justice – I bet you do.  If it isn’t happening in the temporal sphere, there’s only one sphere in which it can take place: the eternal.”  Hitchens believes that a world without religion would substitute morals for ethics.  And we’d be poorer for it: “Ethical codes change all the time.  What’s more, they usually change to suit powerful people who need them to.  But God does not change; justice does not alter.”  My mind wanders momentarily, and I wonder whether he would agree that Henry VIII’s divorce proceedings – on which Hitchens’ Anglicanism was founded – constituted precisely the kind of change to the Church’s morality (at the behest of a very powerful person indeed) that he’s disparaging in the secular world.

There’s no doubt in his mind, though, that the Church of England is in decline.  According to census figures, the percentage of UK citizens classifying themselves as Christian nosedived by 12.4 per cent between 2001 and 2011.  “Christianity has more or less talked itself out of existence,” Hitchens acknowledges, “It lacks confidence and in many cases is espoused and headed by people who don’t really believe in it anyway.” It’s a depressing indictment of his own dearly held faith.  “This will be an Islamic country in 60 or 70 years’ time, I think,” he continues, resting his hands lightly on the table, “When the fundamental religions of modern life – namely, uninterrupted economic growth and an endlessly expanding welfare state – have proved to be false, which they are doing as we speak, there will be a religious revival in the Western countries and Islam is very well placed to take advantage of it.”

A distinct sense of resignation penetrates nearly everything Hitchens says.  He appears to see himself as a modern-day Cassandra, shouting truth into the wind whilst everybody else’s back is turned.  There’s a certain earnestness in his voice when he laments that he has “absolutely no influence over the politics of this country.  Maybe you do,” he offers.  “The existing political system is incredibly intolerant of dissent.  And it keeps me out,” he notes as though he’s living in 1984, but still he keeps fighting his corner, “I’m treated as a sort of licensed lunatic.  Nobody reads my books; nobody listens to anything I say.  All I can say is that I’ve tried.”

And just when I think we’ve reached the nadir of this conversation, he hits back with a sucker punch: “The jig is up, the country’s finished, Western civilisation’s over.  It’ll be the Chinese writing the history of this place.”  His advice?  Emigrate: “If I were you, I’d leave tomorrow.  But I’m too old, I couldn’t make a living abroad now.  I’m stuck.”  He tells me how he’d board the first plane to Canada, because “it’s a sensible, well-governed place and its people have a good sense of humour.”  But that does nothing to take away the sour taste of his doom and gloom end of days story.  “We’re watching the end of an ancient and once rather wonderful civilisation,” he meditates wistfully, “You’re watching the end of it.  It’s how these things go – neither with a bang nor with a whimper, but with the country sinking giggling into the sea.”

At length, we get up to leave.  Maybe it was something in the coffee, but I felt sure I’d walked into Starbucks feeling about five feet taller than I did now.  We shake hands, and I watch as he flings a scarf over his shoulder and strolls back to another day at the office, another day in the world of Peter Hitchens.  It’s all well and good, but the trouble is that I’m not quite sure the world that Hitchens thinks he lives in really exists.  At least, I hope it doesn’t.

Interview: C J Stone

C J Stone is something of a literary heavyweight, with four books under his belt and former columns in such media outlets as the Guardian and Mixmag. So it with great pleasure that we welcome him to The Daily Opinion, where Lizzie Wright puts him under the spotlight. You can also read her review of The Trials of Arthur here.

 

What made you and Arthur decide to write this book and what did you hope to achieve with it?

I’d wanted to write a book about Arthur ever since I first heard about him in 1996. It seemed such an unlikely and at the same time inspiring tale. Unfortunately I wasn’t able to get a book deal for the project then. However, in 1999 I had just started to write a book about the protest movement of the time, and approached HarperCollins with the idea. It just so happened that Arthur had also approached HarperCollins and, as the editor already knew of my work, she decided to ask me to complete Arthur’s book for him. This was the origin of the book, The Trials of Arthur: The Life and Times of a Modern Day King originally published by Thorsons/Element (an imprint of HarperCollins) in 2003. The Trials of Arthur: Revised Edition, which you are reviewing here, is a heavily rewritten version of that book.

Arthur and I met the editor, Louise McNamara in September 1999 and we discussed what we wanted to get out of the project then. Arthur described it in these words: “If I can do it, anyone can!” In a sense you can take this as the motto. If some dysfunctional kid from a council estate can transform himself in such a memorable and dramatic way and make a real difference to the world, then so can any one else. Thus it is a book about someone writing their own story in life and making it come true.

For me the initial project remains. It is still a book – perhaps THE definitive book – about the protest movement of the 1990s, but using Arthur’s story as the thread around which everything else is woven. So it contains, amongst other things, the history of the road protest movement, the history of the Stonehenge campaign, the history of Reclaim the Streets and the history of the various mobilisations against the Criminal Justice Act in 1995 & 1996. It also includes a history of the neo-pagan movement, and a history of bikers, plus there’s a bit of my own history too, of how I came to meet Arthur.

 

You’ve written in a tone that makes the book accessible to anyone, but who was your initial target audience?

We wanted the book to be accessible to anyone, and while we had a core audience in mind (protesters, pagans, druids, bikers, hippies, and anyone interested in alternative culture) we also wanted it to be read by the general population. It’s a book about changing the world, but the world will never change until everyone gets involved.

 

Was there anything that you left out from either your or Arthur’s life that you would have loved to include?

The book ends in the year 2000 with public access to the Stonehenge monument having been reinstated, so anything that has happened since then is missing. Obviously Arthur hasn’t stopped there, and there have been many campaigns since, but the book would never have ended and the 2000 cut off date seemed appropriate. Also Arthur and I had many adventures during the writing of the book which never made it in to the final text: like the time we went to the Faslane Peace Camp near Glasgow with Mog Ur Kreb Dragonrider and met a man who thinks he’s John the Baptist and Arthur got himself arrested, or the time when I ended up sleeping in a bin outside Countess Services near Amesbury.

You can read those stories here: http://christopherjamesstone.wordpress.com/2012/11/19/the-trials-of-arthur-revised-edition-is-a-brand-new-book/

 

The overall tone is one of joy and contentment. Did you have to change your view of more painful events to maintain this tone?

It’s interesting you should use the words “joy and contentment” to describe the tone of the book. I’m not sure that was the intention. Certainly it is a very funny book in places. You couldn’t go round in a white dress calling yourself King Arthur without arousing plenty of laughter. That is one of Arthur’s greatest traits, his ability to laugh at himself. Without it you would inevitably have dismissed him as a loony. The joy of the book – which I agree is there – is in its unwavering commitment to challenging the forces of repression. Standing up for what is right, although it is hard at times, always leads to a feeling of joy. But “contentment”? I’ll accept that it is there as you have felt it, but I can only explain it as the inevitable consequence of the writer, me, doing what he loves the most, i.e. writing. As for painful events, well there were many, of course, but being able to laugh at them is one of our human characteristics and I wouldn’t be human if I didn’t like to have a laugh.

 

What was the writing process like? Did you and Arthur reminisce as you wrote or was there a strict outline that you followed?

It was quite hard at first trying to get an effective working method, and the book took much longer to write than either Arthur or I had expected (much to Arthur’s frustration at times). We decided to use the first person plural (“we”) as the narrative voice at an early meeting, and later Arthur came down to my home town and we worked out the structure of the book between us. After that I would ring Arthur up and we would have long conversations during which I would take notes. At other times I would set Arthur writing tasks, getting him to describe certain people or certain events in his own words, so there is a lot of Arthur’s own writing embedded in the text. There are also two complete chapters that are entirely Arthur’s, and no part of the book went ahead without us discussing it and agreeing on it. Arthur says now that we had many arguments during the writing of the book, and I guess this is true, but in the end we worked together remarkably well I think, considering that we are both complete egotists.

 

Although you portray the world of King Arthur through very understanding eyes, did you come across many sceptics who could not understand it?

You’ll see from the above link that I had a lot of trouble with this. It wasn’t people’s scepticism that worried me (I’m a professional sceptic myself) it was their downright hostility. One of my main antagonists during the writing of the book, who made it a personal quest to ridicule the whole project, died of alcohol poisoning in the Philippines, so you have to ask which of us had more of a grip on reality. Also, as I’ve often pointed out, if you look at the state of our current world, and then compare that to what Arthur is doing, which would you judge to be the sanest and most down-to-earth? I know which one I would choose.

 

The world of The Trials of Arthur is very different and more restrictive today. What would your advice be to young adults reading your book?

Is the world more restrictive today? Yes, you might be right. But that’s the point about Arthur and me, we never took those restrictions as inevitable. My advice is to follow Arthur’s philosophy and to “go for it”. Remember, the restrictions that are placed upon you are man-made and can always be challenged. That is Arthur’s lesson. One of the stories he likes to tell is the one about the custody sergeant at Salisbury gaol. Every year from 1990 till 2000 Arthur would step through the four mile exclusion zone which the powers-that-be had placed around Stonehenge on the solstice and get himself arrested. He was taking on the British government, the police, the law, the landowners, the entire might of the British establishment. So every year he would end up in Salisbury nick, and every year the custody sergeant would say, “you’ll never win you know Arthur,” and Arthur would say, “you just wait and see whether I win or not.” Well we all know now who was right now that open access to Stonehenge has been reinstated and Arthur no longer has to spend solstice night in Salisbury gaol. Let that be the lesson. Never give up. You may not always win, but, as sure as damn it, if you do give up you will be certain to lose.

 

Yours and Arthur’s journeys are far from finished. Will there be another book about them?

Arthur and I will always be friends, and, no doubt, there will be other writing projects involving him in the future, but, for now I’d like to say that this particular project is finished. It was started in 1999 and the first version of the book came out on 2003, but I was never happy with the result. I only really completed the book to my satisfaction in 2012, so it has been a long hard haul. Thirteen years of hard labour. I’m happy with the end result – I can honestly say it’s a great book – but I really need to move on now.

 

Writing has obviously been a major part of your life. Who are your literary influences?

There are many, but, just to name a few: William Golding, particularly an obscure but fascinating book called Free Fall, which came out in 1959. I’ve reread it several times and I would recommend it to anyone. After that it was Kurt Vonnegut, whose style I have flagrantly stolen. If you want to know what a good book should read like, then you couldn’t do better than taking a look at Kurt Vonnegut. After that it was Robert Anton Wilson who wrote the Cosmic Trigger trilogy, and Prometheus Rising, both of which I would recommend. I also like the historians, EP Thompson, Christopher Hill and Eric Hobsbawn, but my most consistent influence has to be William Blake, particularly the Marriage of Heaven and Hell, which I’ve read and reread countless times, and which still offers new insights every time I look into it. You have to read the facsimile edition, however, to get the best out of it. It was designed as a work of art, and you need to look at the images as well reading the words. It is a book whose central meaning will never die.