Skip to main content

Small is beautiful

I have had my fingers burned in the past by taking part in a small literary festival. The Brympton Festival, near Yeovil, involved a lovely location, but was a disaster because hardly anyone turned up, and the festival organisers were unable to pay the promised expenses. But when they work well, the small literary festival can be a delight - and never more so than last weekend with the Kempsford festival, just a few miles from where I live, which I attended both as a speaker and audience member.

Arguably it was thanks to Roy Hattersley, who sadly was unable to speak due to illness - but this left a last minute slot to fill, which saw me giving my time machine talk. The festival ran for three days and featured a fascinating range of speakers from Barry Norman to Douglas Hurd. We had everything from a Countess turned historical novelist to an MP who is an expert on the Tudors.

There are several reasons this festival worked so well. The venue was unusual, to say the least - a large village church with unusually comfortable seating and stunning architecture. The organisers combined enthusiasm and professionalism - the whole ran smoother than any festival I've ever attended, including the big ones. And the range of speakers was top quality, but compact enough that I could happily have attended every session on all three days.

As it was, apart from my own talk I only made it for Barry Norman and Chris Skidmore (on the battle of Bosworth). Norman was someone I've grown up with on TV, and who has certainly fostered my love of film, so it was great to hear him speaking in person - and he proved to be a wonderful raconteur, ably assisted by Tim, the festival's MC, who ran the session as a Q&A. Skidmore made me realise just how ignorant I am of British history, and gave a chilling description of the death of Richard III as part of his explanation of how the Tudors came to power.

However, next time around, I will certainly be attending far more of the talks, if this year's line-up is anything to go by. I just love the eclectic mix of topic and the genuine crossover of education and entertainment. When you think that I could have been watching Britain's Got Talent if I hadn't attended the festival, there was no contest - far more of us should be going to events like this, rather than sitting slumped on the TV. And I haven't even mentioned the cakes and wine. I do wonder if the term 'literary festival' puts some people off because it sounds too highbrow and unapproachable - where instead this was thought provoking, warm and fun.

You can find out more about the festival at its website. If you live anywhere around the confluence of Wiltshire, Gloucestershire and Oxfordshire (yes, I know, counties don't flow, but you know what I mean) it makes Kempsford well worth visiting, I'd recommend keeping an eye out for future events. I think the next one is due in 2016.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more