Showing posts with label W S Gilbert. Show all posts
Showing posts with label W S Gilbert. Show all posts

Monday, 13 June 2011

Paris Turned Topsy-Turvy (a rejected article)


Right, I've waited long enough. The paper obviously isn't going to do anything about the article I wrote for them, so here it is.



On Thursday 8 September 1870, an Englishman was roaming the streets of Paris. He was there as a Special Correspondent for The Observer, and he was looking for news. The Franco-Prussian War was at an effective end. The French army had been routed, Napoleon III had been captured by the Prussian army, and the Prussians were marching on Paris unopposed. Everywhere, Parisians stopped in the street and discussed the situation in loud voices.


“It does seem strange,” the Englishman wrote, “that nowhere are to be found the strong-lunged thousands who shouted ‘Vive l’Empereur!’ and ‘Vive l’Empire!’ when the ex-Emperor started for the frontier eight weeks ago.... I have not heard one word of sympathy for the deposed Emperor from any Frenchman to whom I have spoken on the subject. Nothing but savage, unreasoning abuse....”


Everywhere he looked, he found fantastic, absurd happenings, which he reported to The Observer with sardonic detachment.


The man’s name was W.S. Gilbert. He had not yet written any of his comic operas with Sullivan, with their cartoonish, topsy-turvy view of life, love and politics, but his attitudes had already been formed. He saw life as a crazy sideshow of unreasonable events. His experiences in Paris did nothing to shake this view.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


In April 2010, I was in the middle of researching and writing a biography of Gilbert. I knew that Gilbert had gone to Paris as a correspondent for The Observer, because late in his life he wrote an autobiographical article called “The Lady in the Plaid Shawl” in which he said as much.


The article was mainly interested in recounting a funny incident which occurred to him at the time, and Gilbert’s biographers take great pleasure in retelling this story. But nowhere, in any biography or in any of the extensive literature on Gilbert and Sullivan, could I find any reference to the actual reports he was supposed to be sending to the paper. According to Gilbert’s account, he spent about ten days in Paris (actually it was six), but he was recalled because the Prussian army was approaching and “no letters from Paris would be likely to reach [The Observer] after the investment.” The biographers seem to have taken this to mean that he sent no reports at all.


However, I decided to check. I wish I could pretend that I made my discovery after an arduous trawl through a dust-filled newspaper archive. But the nature of research has changed immeasurably in the past ten years. All I had to do was click onto the Guardian and Observer website and pay a small subscription fee to search the digital archive. After about two minutes I found two long reports, dated 7 and 8 September, which made me want to rush round the house whooping.


They were published in the issue for Sunday 11 September 1870, under the headline: “War Correspondence. Paris Preparing for the Siege. (From Our Special Correspondent.)” Though unsigned, their authorship is not in doubt. Not only is the style consistent, but one story related in the Observer dispatches is repeated with very little variation in Gilbert’s “Lady in the Plaid Shawl.”


The story goes like this. Gilbert was travelling by train from Calais to Paris, and he shared his compartment with four Frenchmen. They appeared to be suspicious of him, and he wondered if this was because his full name was printed on his hand baggage, and his middle name happened to be a German one (Schwenck). He tried to allay their fears by handing them a visiting card on which he had written the word “Observer”, but this made matters worse, as they considered this might be another word for “spy.” He finally reassured them by pointing out that “a professional Prussian spy would scarcely advertise his calling on his visiting cards.”


Gilbert’s style and world view sing out from the Special Correspondent’s every sentence. At one level I am very puzzled why no one had noticed their authorship before. But actually I know the reason full well. They weren’t found because no one looked.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Gilbert was not really a news journalist. He reviewed plays. He was a prolific contributor to the comic paper Fun, providing humorous and satirical squibs, not to mention the whimsical verses which he called The Bab Ballads. He was a writer of burlesques and farces. It seems an odd choice to send such a man to report on the biggest story in Europe. But all the London papers were dispatching correspondents to the beleaguered French capital, and the supply of suitable men was limited. Gilbert could at least speak and understand colloquial French, having lived for five years in Boulogne when he was growing up. Writing in haste, he produced six thousand words over two days, a direct and honest account of what he saw and heard around him. The incidents are like a series of vivid snapshots, seen for a moment before passing on.


Napoleon had surrendered to the Prussian forces on 1 September. When Gilbert travelled to Paris by train on the morning of Wednesday 7 September, he saw a nation in chaos. Passing through Amiens at five in the morning, he found the station’s waiting rooms crowded with refugees. He noticed a “rough, surly-looking peasant” feeding an old, sick dog with a feeding bottle “with as tender a care as if he had been bringing up a new-born baby by hand.”


At Creil, “I saw one family who must have been miserably poor, marching along the high road away from the station. They were six or seven in number and one bag, about the size of a bolster case, held all their moveable property. This was carried, not by either of the two strong young men, who formed part of the dismal procession, but by an elderly woman, apparently 60 years of age. This family actually had no means to pay a railway fare at such a crisis, and were hurrying away from the danger on foot.” This was a topsy-turvy world that he was entering, where heavy loads were carried by grandparents in order to save the strain on young and vigorous men.


On 4 September, when the Government in Paris learned of Napoleon’s capture at Sedan, they declared a new Government of National Defence, and the Empire silently became a Republic ruled by moderate leftists. Gilbert, arriving in Paris three days later, found the city in a state of stunned confusion.


It was a wet, dismal day. He wandered the streets in search of the excitement that must surely accompany “a new-born revolution and an irresistible enemy within 50 miles.” But Paris had all the seething excitement of a wet blanket. “The Boulevards are all but deserted, the proprietors of the innumerable cafés have taken in their chairs and their tables.”


He found a crowd outside the Hotel de Ville, where the provisional government was set up, but “it was a quiet and orderly crowd, and appeared utterly depressed by the rain in which they were standing.” When he tried to sneak into the hotel and get a scoop, his plan was foiled by a “stout and bespectacled” National Guardsman who spotted him and said he needed a pass. Gilbert noted the man’s comments and made a strategic retreat.


Walking across the Place de la Concorde, he found the statues decorated with tricolours and garlands, and patriotic inscriptions scrawled at their base. A “draggle-tailed battalion of the Line, the 39th,” crossed his path, “untidily dressed and apparently lax in discipline, the men falling out of their ranks to talk to passers-by. Some had stoppers in their chassepots [rifles]; some had great coats and some had none.”


Gilbert considered himself an expert in military matters, having been a member of various volunteer forces in Britain since 1859, and he was not impressed by the military discipline of the volunteer militia, the Francs Tireurs, which consisted largely of muscly Bretons and other provincials. He noted in horrified tones that he had seen them throw their rifles into a pile in the middle of a road: “The rifles had no muzzle stoppers, and the drenching rain poured into the open barrels. One stack of arms had fallen, and lay in the thick mud.”


He investigated the Francs Tireurs’ encampment behind the Palais de l’Industrie, peering into their tents until he was challenged by a non-commissioned officer. The man barked: “Que desirez vous, monsieur?” Gilbert replied nonchalantly, “Monsieur, j’admire votre magnifique bataillon,” and strolled off. This was about as far as he got in the field of investigative journalism.


“Altogether, considering that a besieging army is within fifty miles of the capital,” he wrote, “this has been a particularly dull day in Paris.” The shops remained open, though after a thorough investigation he found the theatres closed, rather to his disappointment. He had hoped to vent a little virtuous anger at the expense of a theatre-going public who still wished to be entertained as the Prussians marched down on them, but in the event it seemed they didn’t, so he couldn’t.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


He was woken on the Thursday morning by battalions of the Gardes Mobile passing under his window on their way to meet the Prussian army. “I hope their innate bravery will compensate for their unmilitary appearance,” he wrote, “for a more miserable, weedy set of men I have never seen, even in an English militia regiment.” They carried their tabatiere rifles with “an air of pleased curiosity” which didn’t inspire him with much confidence. “They will fight bravely enough, poor fellows, but it is hardly to be expected that they will fight well.”


Later, strolling down the Rue de Rivoli, he found a highly symbolic scene. A toy shop had arranged a window display of a toy siege. “The pasteboard battlements are defended in the most heroic fashion by undaunted Frenchmen, and the attacking party, consisting of grotesque Prussians, are flying ignominiously, terrified by the dramatic attitudes of their irresistible enemies.” The display was surrounded by a crowd of appreciative Parisians. Gilbert concluded: “Frenchmen are children.”


He was baffled by the attitudes he encountered. He always expected people to behave rationally, and he was always disappointed. The fact is that the people of Paris were in a state of heightened nervous apprehension and reacted in ways which Gilbert did not understand. They were sometimes boastful and melodramatic, sometimes cool and phlegmatic, and never, from Gilbert’s point of view, reasonable. Though bemused by much of what he saw, he was enough of a journalist to be able to report it. His account reads like a show of mad events passing before the reader’s eyes.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


In the train to Paris, Gilbert had heard the four Frenchmen in his carriage discussing the situation, and telling each other that every man, woman and child in Paris would rush to defend the city. Gilbert interrupted to suggest that women and children would not be much use on the battlements. But the Frenchmen had their reply: the women would cut off their hair and the children would twist it into bowstrings. Gilbert asked them whether they were about to join one of the volunteer forces in Paris, but that replied that on the contrary they planned to travel on to Marseilles that evening. He commented: “The loudest and most frothy declaimers throughout Paris appear to be those who are on the point of leaving it for a haven of absolute safety.”


The city murmured with windy talk and crazy rumours. They said that the catacombs were filled with barrels of petroleum, to be exploded as the Prussians entered Paris. They said that the cellars of the Hotel de Ville were full of gunpowder, also the Louvre, that the gas mains would be pumped full of petroleum when the occasion arose. “In short, no scheme for the destruction of the invaders, should they ever desecrate the sacred soil of Paris, is too horrible or too extravagant to find ready credence just now.”


The streets teemed with soldiers. The Francs Tireurs handled their arms clumsily as Gilbert looked on, unimpressed. At intervals, crowds gathered round some battle-scarred hero who displayed his wounds and told his tale of courage. “Showers of sous, half-francs, and francs fall into his cap, and occasionally a broad five-franc piece clatters among the humbler coin.”


The United States had recognised the legitimacy of the provisional government, and that afternoon he saw a band of soldiers and others heading for the house of the American minister as a gesture of goodwill, carrying flags and shouting, “Vive la Republique!” and “Vive l’Amerique!” Gilbert unfortunately couldn’t get close enough to hear the details of what happened when they reached the house, but, he reported drily, “everything was quite satisfactory, and [the minister] and the procession parted on the very best of terms.”


He saw a man, “a miserable-looking creature,” arrested as a spy. He probably felt rather vulnerable himself, as a foreigner in a volatile war-torn city. If he had been arrested the British Embassy would probably have left him effectively unprotected. As he explained, the British Ambassador refused to recognise the new government and would only deal with the Corps Legislatif, “which no longer exists.” It was a thoroughly Gilbertian situation, and a frightening one.


Nothing of what he saw or heard made any sense to him. The boastfulness, the extravagant gestures, the absurd rumours, the soldiers marching and the lower-class roughs buying swordsticks and the newly-formed corps of police trying to keep order without weapons of any sort, the atmosphere of suspicion, the wounded soldiers displaying their injuries to the admiring crowd, the men of all classes standing in the streets and making speeches to the passers-by, all had the vivid inconsequence of a dream. He tried to understand the politics, but could only communicate his bewilderment. In other times he had been willing enough to mock Napoleon III, but now he found himself with nothing but sympathy for the deposed Emperor. “To renounce an Imperial regime and go to the other extreme because their Emperor has disappointed them is about as reasonable as it would be to renounce money for ever, because you have been swindled into taking a bad shilling. So, indeed, it seems to me, who am in truth but a poor politician.”


On the Friday, Gilbert dispatched his Thursday letter by travelling to Boulogne and posting it there. He then returned to Paris. The lines of communication were starting to close. If he wrote further dispatches, we do not have them. He left the city on Monday 12 September, the railway bridge at Creil being blown up just after his train had crossed it. The Siege of Paris began, lasting over four months. The heightened absurdities he had seen developed into something more grim.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


The dispatches are hasty pieces of journalistic record, and they don’t pretend to be anything else. Most of his writings are, frustratingly for a biographer, personally unrevealing. He seemed to take great care to wrap himself in a cloak of impersonality. But these two Observer letters tell us much about his attitudes and philosophy.


Some people go through life radiating empathy: they have an instinctive understanding of other people’s points of view, even those that are radically different from their own. Gilbert was the precise opposite of this kind of person. He seemed to go out of his way to view other people with a kind of detached and intelligent incomprehension. It’s as if he wished to be alienated from his own society. The Special Correspondent of these reports, drifting through the streets of Paris and observing the bizarre events around him, tells us clearly and for sure one very startling thing: Topsyturvydom was not just a comic technique. It was how Gilbert saw the world.


The operas take great delight in mocking the powerful in their fancy costumes. Gilbert clearly considered that all pomp and circumstance were in some measure idiotic. But in these articles he more or less tells us that he was politically a Conservative. He was certainly no friends of the Socialists. Working people were “roughs”, and the Parisians were fools for having deserted their Emperor. Perhaps he remembered his Paris adventures when he wrote The Gondoliers nearly twenty years later and made fun of Venetian “red Republicans” who want to impose absolute equality on everyone: “The Noble Lord who rules the State--/The Noble Lord who cleans the plate--/The Noble Lord who scrubs the grate.” But more importantly, his Paris experiences confirmed his deep-held belief that human behaviour made no sense whatsoever.

Wednesday, 8 June 2011

The Pixie in the Armchair

My book, Gilbert of Gilbert and Sullivan, has an epigraph, a quotation from the Czech writer Karel Capek:

"... the English also contain pixies. They are enormously solemn, solid and venerable; suddenly there is a sort of rumbling within them, they make a grotesque remark, a fork of pixie-like humour flies out fo them, and once more they have the solemn appearance ofan old leather armchair."

Unfortunately this has been hidden away in the book a bit, on the reverse of the title page; and it's been put directly underneath the dedication, so that a casual reader might mistake it as referring to the dedicatee; but it is, in my mind, an important part of the book, and it is intended as a key to Gilbert's character.

I think it illuminates a vital part of English character, certainly as it used to be: that combination of surface respectability and normality and boringness, and underneath it all a broad streak of anarchy. Gilbert was a stolid middle-class man with a passion for money as a gauge of worth; but his mind was filled with fairies and absurdities, and the imaginative part of him despised the money-grubbing that his everyday self was so concerned with. Maybe that partly explains the anger that underlies so much of his work.

Has the English character changed? Do we still have that combination of reticence and anarchy, or has it been destroyed in two world wars and the sixties revolution and the hoodlumism of the eighties? Is the anarchism now all outward-facing and visible to the world? Have the pixies been let loose from the armchairs? Personally I feel like a rather old-fashioned English person such as Capek had met in England in the 1930s. I have a strong tendency to conform, to do as I am told; but when I write there is a savage other half that tends to show itself sooner or later. And somehow this seems to me to be how things should be.

Tuesday, 8 February 2011

In the beginning

Maybe I shouldn't say too much about this at the moment, but let's just say it looks like the BBC will be doing its bit to mark the Gilbert centenary.... More later, possibly.

I have a strange between-projects feeling at the moment, though I should be pressing on with the articles to publicise the book. I am also trying to write a play (actually two plays, a biggie and a little one-acter for a local showcase called Page to Stage) and there are other distractions as well. I stayed in yesterday, intending to write, but ended up wasting practically every minute. So today I went out and I've already achieved more. For one thing, I'm writing this blog!

I've nothing to say today, so maybe I could spend ten minutes describing the origins of the Gilbert biography. I've been obsessed with the man since I was about fifteen, and for about ten years my G&S friends have been saying I should write his biography. Abut three years ago I started tinkering with the idea. I wrote a ridiculous draft of a first chapter in which I thought I could get away with skimming over his childhood and starting with the "interesting" bit, his first plays (written at the age of 30). Because the fact is that I always find the early "childhood" chapters by far the most boring part of any biography, and naively I thought they might be unnecessary in Gilbert's case because so little is known about his early years. However, as I tried to proceed on that assumption it rapidly became more and more obvious that this could not possibly work. How can you construct the building without laying the foundation? Without Gilbert's childhood, he is incomprehensible. He is a miraculous goblin without motivation or background.

But still the problem remained. If you look at the previous biographies you see that very little has been written about his childhood, and the overwhelming impression is that there is no evidence to fill in the details. But as I dug more I realised this was not really the case. David Eden's deliberately provocative book W.S. Gilbert: Appearance and Reality contains a wealth of new information (and speculation) about Gilbert's family background, though assembled in no very coherent order. For my own satisfaction (I still didn't have a book contract at this point) I tried to reassemble Eden's information in a logical order, weeding out parts that I did not feel were supported by the facts (such as his contention that Gilbert's father was an alcoholic who had admitted himself into a lunatic asylum for his own good--an interesting idea, but one with no concrete support at all except father Gilbert's own descriptions of delirium tremens and lunatic asylums, written as part of novels and researched articles).

I also found other sources of information in Gilbert's own articles. His humorous articles for Fun include a good number of evidently autobiographical fragments which, amazingly, have not been used bhy previous writers. They describe his school days, his early affections, his time working at the Education Office. Other articles illuminate such matters as his view of childhood in general--"the most miserable period of our existence" he called it, as I recall without going to the faff of checking the quotation--and his early adoration of the pantomime Harlequinade.

I tinkered with this first chapter for about a year. Then, through a process which I will not describe in detail bt which boils down to knowing someone who knew a publisher, I got my contract, and I set to work with a will. I had already amassed enough new material (from the Fun columns) to convince me that it was worth doing. I took a research trip to London, and I made an entirely new Discovery which made me realise that previous biographers really had not covered the territory as I had thought, and that there really were new things to find out about Gilbert. That's a story for later, I think. But I will say this, not going into detail. At every stage of the writing I kept finding out new things which revived my interest in the project just as it flagged. Maybe it was finding his war dispatches for The Observer, maybe it was discovering a new article by him describing his "last client", and maybe it was reading the reviews of his plays which laid bare how much some of the critics loathed him. But it all added up to create (I hope) something like one of my early ideas of what the biography should be: a kaleidoscopic view of the man from all kinds of angles, contradictory and incoherent and multi-faceted. That book would have been called Aspects of Gilbert, in case you're interested.

Another idea I had was to write a seriously eccentric biography arranged like an encyclopedia under different headings. That would have been called The Gilbert Encyclopedia: An A-Y of Gilbert. Everyone I told about that objected that with a bit of finessing I could easily find an entry or two for Z (characters in some of his plays, like Zeolide and Zayda). I don't think they realised I wanted it to be an A-Y: it would be funnier. However. The eccentric ideas fell by the wayside, and what I've ended up with is something like a conventional biography, though with the slight oddity of not attempting to be utterly comprehensive as most biographies try to be these days.

That's enough for one day.

Friday, 31 December 2010

About the Book

I think one of the things I'm going to write about in this daily blog is the process of writing my book Gilbert, of Gilbert and Sullivan (to be published in May 2011 by The History Press). By the way, I realise that I've said "write" and "writing" in that first sentence, and I've just spent a few seconds worrying about it; but I've now decided that stylistic nonos are probably just to be expected in a daily blog, so just let me apologise briefly--I apologise for my prose--and then we can move on.

GOGAS is a biography of W.S. Gilbert (1836-1911). There have been biographies before, of course. Edith Browne's (1907) was really a kind of extended newpaper profile, based on interviews with WSG, chatty, a bit woolly round the edges, but with some invaluable snippets of information nestling in the wool. Dark & Grey (1923) is full of affection (too much so for some tastes, as if his friends were not allowed to speak well of him), and quotes many of his letters. This is surely the best way of allowing us, the readers, to become acquainted with him: let him speak to us directly.

In 1957 Hesketh Pearson's Gilbert: His Life and Strife was published. It made use of his private papers, which had just been made accessible to research. Pearson was a real writer, and the book is brilliant, entertaining, and informative. It is also, in many key respects, misleading and inaccurate.

Jane Stedman's biography of Gilbert, published in 1996, was in fact the first to include a reasonably full account of Gilbert's life. I found, and still find, this astonishing. The book is flawed, but its achievement in mapping out the territory is immense. For the first time Gilbert's life before Sullivan was recounted as if it were of interest.

My book is the first biography of Gilbert since Stedman's, though Michael Ainger's "dual biography" of Gilbert and Sullivan (2002) contained a good deal of new research about Gilbert's life. I have attempted two things. The first thing is to carry on Hesketh Pearson's good work in writing an account of Gilbert's life which is readable as a narrative. I'm not sure how well I've succeeded in that one; the proof will be in the eating.

The second thing I've attempted in the book is more difficult to describe. You will, I hope, understand that what I'm writing here is a first draft of what I'm trying to express. Maybe I'll say it better later. But, well, here goes. Most accounts of Gilbert's life treat his work with Sullivan as the only interesting or important thing he ever did. It is practically assumed that his life only began with his first successful collaboration with Sullivan, Trial by Jury in 1875, when he was 38 years old. (I have even seen him described as having been a young man at this time, which is crazy, especially in a Victorian context.)

The fact is that Trial by Jury heralded the start of Gilbert's third career as a writer. The first began in 1861 when he started writing for the comic journal Fun. Under Fun's slightly boozy wing Gilbert flourished as a cartoonist, satirist, dispenser of vitriol, and, increasingly, as a writer of wild and brilliant verse. His second career started in 1866 when he began writing for the stage. By 1875 he was known as a cynical, clever, and unpleasant playwright, who could never be relied upon to provide the right happy ending or to make his heroes and heroines as lovable as was considered necessary. Even then, he was known as a purveyor of "topsyturvydom." He turned all established values upside down, and the result was too realistic to be borne. His imminent demise as a writer for the stage was being predicted; the public would not stand for it. The fact is that Victorian audiences wanted to be comforted; they wanted their values upheld. Gilbert scorned many of these values, and he kicked them into the mud. No wonder he was disliked.

Gilbert and Sullivan opera was his third career. With the help of Arthur Sullivan's music and Richard D'Oyly Carte's management he became a rich and respected figure. He became a pillar of the establishment. My book contains an account of these years of triumph--of course. But I must tell you that it is the earlier years, the years of struggle when his plays and poems seemed to express his mind more freely, that really interest me.

There has been a turn of the tide in recent years, and writers have started to describe Gilbert in monstrous terms. He was undoubtedly ambitious, sometimes arrogant, and in many ways inflexible. It puzzles me that these should be considered unusual characteristics. But these were the characteristics which helped him to rise to the top of his profession. And I believe one of the keys to his unusual character can be found by examining the first thirty years of his life. Here I will make a bold statement because it is true. I am the first person to give a decent account of the first thirty years of Gilbert's life. And I think this is a shocking statement. Previous writers have tended to ignore these first thirty years as an irrelevance. No wonder that certain other writers have decided he was a monster: his marked characteristics appear to have arrived in the world with no background or cause, like Richard III who, according to Tudor propaganda, was born with hair and teeth. That is one of the perceptions which I want to alter.

Gilbert was a flawed man. I think that will come through in the book. But he was a great man. He was loved as well as feared. He changed English and British culture. He focused the satirical and ironic parts of British culture, creating a new kind of deadpan humour. He felt, deep in his bones, that the world was absurd, and this very modern perception infuses everything he wrote. It can be said without exaggeration that he was an Absurdist before Absurdism was invented.

And that, I think, is enough for one day.

Wednesday, 29 December 2010

What is GOGAS?

Hello. My name is Andrew Crowther, and I've written a book called Gilbert, of Gilbert and Sullivan (hence GOGAS). It's going to be published by The History Press in May 2011. It's a biography of William Schwenck Gilbert, who wrote the words of the Gilbert and Sullivan operas, as well as being the foremost dramatist of his time, and a pioneering director, and a gifted cartoonist, and a notable wit, and much else besides.

I'm writing this because the next few months look like being interesting. I think, I hope, that the book will make at least a small splash; that it will get at least one or two proper reviews. My publisher is encouraging me to help publicise the book by placing a few articles in a few related periodicals, and by giving talks and so on. I have one or two ideas of my own as well....

All of this is new to me. I'm not a professional writer, though I consider myself a reasonably accomplished amateur. I can spell all the words that I use, and my grammar's as good as my neighbour's, to quote Iolanthe. I've also written several plays which have received warm reactions from audiences in Bradford, where I live. The biography is as well written as I can make it, and I've tried to make it a readable narrative, rather than the collection of facts which a lot of biographies seem to be these days.

2011 marks the centenary of Gilbert's death. It also sees the 175th anniversary of his birth, and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his first professional work. I will be heavily involved in various events connected with the Gilbert Centenary celebrations, as I am the secretary of the W S Gilbert Society, and I know quite a lot about the old devil.

The aim is to write an entry every day--inspired by Richard Herring's "Warming Up" blog. It should only take thirty minutes or so. Thirty minutes a day.... It doesn't seem impossible. Well. We shall see.