Hardy annual
Sir: I am surprised that Mr Seymour-Smith had time to step into Max Gate (19 July), as his sneer at the Thomas Hardy Festival is so riddled with inaccuracies his nearest viewing would seem to be from a London armchair. The pavilion in Kingston Maurward Park was not a centre (the lively art-work bewildered most viewers). Hardy was surely the centre; and with all the wealth of his genius and com- passion to choose from, why repeat that probably sour grapes tale about Hardy's inhos- pitality?
Even a glance at other reviews of the festi- val would enlighten Mr Seymour-Smith as to the choice of this year for the celebration, and instead of presuming about the Japanese visi- tors' admiration, why not ask them to explain their shared delight in nature, their influence by a series of English poets teaching in Japan?
The `blunderingly inept' film has delighted audiences by its superb photography and music, however much they may miss Hardy's strength of character studies and story-telling. Tickets have been available to all who applied early enough, and local gentry were not the blessed few who heard C. Day Lewis, as he was unfor- tunately ill anyway, though his paper was read. Although I discern no valid proof in Miss Deacon's wish to give Hardy a child, I did attend her lecture on Hardy and the Monies; Mr Seymour-Smith, once again, has his facts wrong. Why does he not complain that some two dozen scholars and teachers of Hardy did not also give lectures at the festival?
'One does not wish to be too sour.' Mr Seymour- Smith should have experienced the kindness of local hosts, the enthusiasm of the inter- national scholars, the team spirit and hard work behind the venture, the magnificent flower dis- plays in the churches, the obvious pride in their Mr Hardy, Dorchester, Dorset, and beyond, which the good folk of that region dis- played. Perhaps a Dorset cream tea (not laid on for the festival) would have sweetened that regrettable sourness?
Previous page
