Hilary Mantel makes a good point

[juneau]

She shouldn't have said it, since it's bitchy and uncalled for (and I actually find HM rather odd, if I'm honest), but after a good couple of years in the media spotlight I struggle to think of one thing the Duchess of Cambridge thinks or believes in. She never gives an opinion, she barely speaks, she just looks pretty and smiles.

'she describes her own gaze as that of a 'cannibal' - hardly flattering!'

Not flattering, but revealing her hostility and aggressive outlook.

Well garlic I suppose that yours is the charitable explanation of the 'paper cut-out' image of Kate, though there are others which seem more compelling - given how long she's been the focus of media attention whilst waiting around.

'revealing her hostility and aggressive outlook' - bit of a round and round discussion - I used that example to counter the argument that she felt her gaze was rather special, so special it made the queen turn to look at her, and now you say well that reveals her hostile and aggressive outlook. It reveals that she is aware of her own role as observer, certainly. I don't think anything in her essay reveals her to be hostile or aggressive. Uncompromising, acutely perceptive, unforgiving in parts, but not aggressive or hostile.

I think there is something in what Garlic says about the reasons behind the blandness.
Obviously we don't know, but it seems likely to me that William and Kate will have thought hard about deflecting the media circus, and concluded that being as boring as possible is both the best thing for the monarchy and best for themselves.

I think there is hostility in her article and that is why it is unpleasant and why the Daily Mail has been able to find such an easy target and why the politicians have piled in to side with the many people who have found it distasteful.

Mantel's words, one of which is 'cannibal', have created an open goal for the Mail and have resulted in the feeding frenzy and furore.

She dished it out, now she has to take it.

But it is unpleasant to see all the big gun politicians pile in against her.

I think it is more than that Tunip though - I think Middleton has made a deliberate decision to be NOT like Diana - I mean Diana was by turn sanctified and demonized by press and made out to be mentally unstable, the best way to undermine a woman. But it taps into something greater about society's perception of women - the best kind of women are those who 'don't make a fuss' about anything, and look physically perfect at the same time, in an effortless way. [no eating disorders for example] The way a woman should appear within society is pretty narrow and does not allow for any real extremes of character. Middleton conforms to that, partially I am sure to protect herself but how do we know she is actually made of more than the sum of those parts? her lack of public passions/commitments is one thing [up to the new charitable appointments transpiring this week]. The point is, it doesn't really matter what my perceptions of KM are - neither mine or anyone's negate Mantel's acutely perceptive observations. IMO.

What does she have to take claig? disagreements about her observations are one thing. Vicious personal insults are another. She called her own gaze that of a cannibal's, no one elses. Do you think vicious personal insults about her appearance are warranted? How odd.

Have you read the whole essay claig?

She stirred the pot, now she must eat the dish.
She placed herself in the kitchen, now she must feel the heat.
She delivered the lecture, now she can't hide behind the sofa.

er ok. Have you read the essay?

'Have you read the whole essay claig?'

I made it through three quarters of it, but that was enough to understand where she was coming from.

I don't like to see her personally attacked, but she is an adult and I feel there was hostility in her article. It is inevitable that there will be attacks against her too. That is the real world. What one says has consequences. I am sure she realises that. I hope the big guns stop pounding her, but it comes as no surprise that they are.

I just find it hard to imagine how you could feel she was deserving of such personal vitriol having read the essay. Strange world I guess.

I'm going to unwisely persist with these points for a bit.

To my reading, Mantel failed to observe her own role in her observations; not her own existence, which some of you have assumed I meant. She strikes me as very interested in herself, but lacking self-insight. She committed the sin of projecting her ideas & feelings onto her audience. To tackle this kind of "reflection of a reflection" subject really well, self-knowledge is essential.

Mantel strikes me as narcissistic and I used the word carefully when posting about her royal traction stare. In that post, I said I'm interested to know why she did it. Several respondents assumed I used the word "aggressive" as criticism. That is interesting in itself. I said was curious to know why she stared aggressively, not that I felt she shouldn't.

She delivered the lecture, now she can't hide behind the sofa. - made me chortle! It's remarkable to see so many intellectually-talented women rushing to Mantel's unconditional defence, seemingly on the grounds that she's an intelligent woman. How odd - especially given that many of the same posters have criticised Kate, another intelligent woman.

To you, everything that you don't understand is "odd". You repeatedly said that you thought that Stoic's response was "odd, odd, odd", and you said to me

'Do you think vicious personal insults about her appearance are warranted? How odd.'

You think it is a strange world. I don't.

I didn't say attacks against her are warranted and I don't like to see them and I don't like to see the Prime Minister comment about it either, but I think they are to be expected. That is the real world, not the strange world.

Right, so you don't think vicious personal attacks about her appearance are warranted? Ok. Better to stand on your own two feet than bring in another poster to support your argument.

You think they are expected. You don't think it is a strange world where an intelligent piece can be so grossly misinterpreted and the subsequent misinformed outrage turned into such personal vitriol.

Ok then.

'Mantel strikes me as narcissistic'

I think there is something in that. She is an observer who cannot put herself in Kate's position. She sees the portrait of Kate as a real reflection of Kate, when it is the opposite in my opinion. She stares but cannot see, she dissects but fails to understand. She looks at an image and can't see reality. She makes assumptions about Kate's personality without having interacted with her.

She believes her view is real and can't see that she is an observer who withdraws from what is real and sits behind a sofa. She concentrates on sausage sticks placed on the floor and fails to see what it was all for.

Her self-absorption, her belief that she is unique in her stare, causes her to misunderstand a real person and leads to a distasteful dissection of a real person who cannot answer back.

'She sees the portrait of Kate as a real reflection of Kate,'

No, she doesn't. You've misunderstood.
She's presenting it as one facet of the externally created "Kate".

' You don't think it is a strange world where an intelligent piece can be so grossly misinterpreted and the subsequent misinformed outrage turned into such personal vitriol.'

I don't think it is strange at all. Her piece contained some unflattering comments about Kate and that type of thing winds a lot of people up. The Daily Mail then highlights it and stirs it up and that even brings Miliband and Cameron in to make comments. That is the real world.

It's not odd, it's not strange, it is real.

Exactly, Claig!

Tunip, I see that is what Mantel meant to do. IMO she failed.

She presents her own perceptions as "ours". Does she think for you?

I think you have completely misunderstood the essay.

'She's presenting it as one facet of the externally created "Kate".'

That portrait by the artist is not externally created to flatter Kate. In my opinion it was a crap portrait and did not show the real Kate at all, which is why there was some shock and a lot of media attention about that portrait.

Mantel says

'But in her first official portrait by Paul Emsley, unveiled in January, her eyes are dead and she wears the strained smile of a woman who really wants to tell the painter to bugger off. One critic said perceptively that she appeared ?weary of being looked at?. Another that the portrait might pass muster as the cover of a Catherine Cookson novel: an opinion I find thought-provoking, as Cookson?s simple tales of poor women extricating themselves from adverse circumstances were for twenty years, according to the Public Lending Right statistics, the nation?s favourite reading.'

The portrait was crap in my opinion, and yet Mantel reads meaning from it as of it were a true reflection of Kate's feelings. Instead of Mantel accepting the portrait as a real reflection, she would do better to ask how come the portrait was so different from reality.

I have read HM's full piece and would recommend others do too. Daily Mail does not summarise properly. This is not a personal attack at all but an interesting read.

^^ This.

I was unsure what to think yesterday, read the full essay today and it really isn't about Kate at all...

Also, did anyone really expect the DM to write a balanced and unbiased piece of journalism?!

'She presents her own perceptions as "ours". Does she think for you?'

Her perceptions are in fact so far removed from ours (or the majority's) that the Daily Mail found an easy target.

Her perceptions are not the Daily Mail's and it turns out they are not Miliband and Cameron's either.

'Does she think for you?'

No.
Does she think of Kate?
Did she think before she spake?

Off to purchase some alcohol. This is a subject that requires liquid refreshment to make the crucial points clearer.