Who's Afraid of the Fourth Man?

[f4f3]

This isn't what I was expecting to be blogging about tonight. I expected to be talking about my Caledonian odyssey this weekend (Drumna-fucking-drochit?) or the kicking we gave the Bastard English or possibly the Guardian giving page one space to a racist and religious diatribe from one of our greatest living postcard illustrators, and probably I will, but I read yesterday's Guardian Review over dinner, and something caught my eye.
In the Guardian Book club column, John Banville writes entertainlingly about his decision to write a novel based on Antony Blunt. At one point he writes:
"Like so many of my generation I have been, and indeed, still am, fascinated by the Cambridge spies."
And I stopped, and crinkled up my brow. I'm not fascinated by the Cambridge spies. I'm not vaguely interested by the Cambridge spies. I don't, if truth be told, really give a shit about the Cambridge spies. Nobody I know gives a shit about the Cambridge spies, and nobody I've ever spoken to seems to give a shit either. I've always thought I was immune from the Oxbridge chip on my shoulder. I didn't go there, nobody else I know did either, and it never seemed even an option to worry about from my point of view. But I do wonder that somone could say that "So many of his generation" did care. I tend to regard myself as pretty mundane, in that my interests and fascinations are pretty reflective of everyone else's, but I seem to have a blind spot here.
So, knowing that some of my F's out there did go to Oxbridge, is anyone out there fascinated by this? Am I in this particular way less than mundane? Or is it an example of the lensing affect caused by so many of our opinion formers coming from such a closeted background?

Comments

[rhythmaning.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but you are not of his generation. John Banville was born in 1945; the post-war, cold-war politics of the 50s and 60s meant that the Cambridge spies did get a lot of interest.

[liadnan]

Precisely.
I don't think anyone of our generation cares that much, whether they were at Oxford or Cambridge or not. But to our parents it was a massive thing.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

I think that was a bit of laziness on my part, not checking Banville's date of birth, but I was interested to see if the fascination, if there was one, was dying away. I'd also make the slightly presumptious claim that it meant very little to my parents or their generation, except for those who had an Oxbridge background - I'll amend my laziness by scurrying off and checking where Banville went to University.

Petards, hoist upon:

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

According to Wikipedia:


"Educated at a Christian Brothers' school and at St Peter's College in Wexford, he did not attend university."

So at least ONE non-Oxbridger was fascinated by the Cambridge spies...

[liadnan]

I honestly would be surprised if interest was limited to those who actually had an Oxford background... Burgess and Maclean in particular rocked the nation I think.
"Irish novelist John Banville was born in Wexford in Ireland in 1945. He was educated at a Christian Brothers' school and St Peter's College in Wexford. He worked for Aer Lingus in Dublin, an opportunity that enabled him to travel widely. He was literary editor of the Irish Times between 1988 and 1999. Long Lankin, a collection of short stories, was published in 1970. It was followed by Nightspawn (1971) and Birchwood (1973), both novels. "

I thought he was TCD actually, which would amount to Oxbridge equivalence at least in the social sense. But it would seem not. I've never heard of St Peter's, and suspect it isn't National University of Ireland either.

[rhythmaning.livejournal.com]

I can also remember the fuss when Blunt - who if I recall correctly was the curator of the Queen's art collection - was exposed as a spy - sometime in the 70s, I think. 1979 - I ckeched on Wikipedia; I had thought it was earlier.

Interesting - he was named by Margaret Thatcher...

[liadnan]

Blunt was keeper of the Queen's pictures, yes, a post in which he performed rather well: I've read some of his art criticism. Not entirely sure how much access it gave him to state secrets.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Probably the best thing written on Blunt was Bennett's (I think?) "A Question of Attribution" which I thoroughly enjoyed (without, of course, being fascinated by it).

[liadnan]

See, oh obsessive one, I don't think I've ever read anything about him, or any of the rest of them, as opposed to by him save stuff in the Sunday newspapers and reviews of things and references in novels. J'accuse....

(Oh and I've read Attorney General v. Blake, but that's different. Barking decision too.)

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

I didn't read it, as that would have required actual effort on my part, I watched it, on the BBC.

Prunella Scales as HRH and a Fox, probably Edward as Blunt.

[liadnan]

Ah right. Does ring a vague bell to be honest.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

It made clever and extended play on what makes something (a picture or a spy) a fake, and if a fake could still have value.