- This topic has 41 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
It seems Sir Henry feels that Brough Scott misrepresented to him what would be in the book when he initially asked for co-operation. Sir Henry gave access to Brough Scott and feels that the final product did not accord with the original representation of it.
Sir Henry has placed a statement on his website:
Wow! I haven’t received my copy yet so can’t really comment but what an extraordinary turn of events.
Surely Henry should have been allowed to read it before it was published?
Have you read it MV?
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
Intersting response from Sir Henry.
I was looking forward to reading it, but will not buy it now having seen Sir Henry’s statementI wasn’t aware a writer had to ask permission to write a biography about someone? I remember Brian Clough stating once that he didn’t even know a few of the ones about him even existed.
Am I mistaken or has something changed?
I wasn’t aware a writer had to ask permission to write a biography about someone? I remember Brian Clough stating once that he didn’t even know a few of the ones about him even existed.
Am I mistaken or has something changed?
I’m sure you are right PC but a decent one would surely be hard to do without the cooperation of the man himself and the people closest to him, staff etc. Besides Brough spent more than a year at Warren Place so Henry was clearly on board with the idea.
I suppose in Henry’s eyes there was a "gentleman’s agreement" on what could and could not be included and Brough has in his opinion crossed the line.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
I wasn’t aware a writer had to ask permission to write a biography about someone? I remember Brian Clough stating once that he didn’t even know a few of the ones about him even existed.
Am I mistaken or has something changed?
I’m sure you are right PC but a decent one would surely be hard to do without the cooperation of the man himself and the people closest to him, staff etc. Besides Brough spent more than a year at Warren Place so Henry was clearly on board with the idea.
I suppose in Henry’s eyes there was a "gentleman’s agreement" on what could and could not be included and Brough has in his opinion crossed the line.
Yes, I see. Seems a little strange that Scott would even agree to let Cecil hand pick what was going in this "Biography". To then break his word makes it a double error really.
Surely if Scott wanted to do a "warts and all" Biography (surely the only way to go?), the lazy sod could have done some research and fojulnd plenty of sources (ex-colleagues, ex-staff, jockeys, rival trainers, owners).
A cynical man might think he’d lied to Cecil to gain some money spinning Frankel "exclusives" while he could.
Prospective authors do not need permission to write someone’s biography. What they seek from the subject is co-operation; permission to talk to current staff, access to the stables, horses and gallops, recommendations from the subject to his friends and former employees to speak with the author. If the author does not get all this the book is likely to be bare and uninteresting. If the author says one thing to get these permissions and recommendations, but then does something else with the book, then the unhappiness begins.
I received my copy last Saturday. It is much like any other trainer’s biography, but with the obvious addition of the personal problems that so interested the newspapers at the time. That section is called “The Depths”, some 29 pages in a book of 324 pages. The production values of the book are not good; the Racing Post did not do a good job on that side; the black and white pictures mingled in with the text are woeful, the quality of the paper and printing is not the best. The actual text is quite ordinary, there is not much new, and I felt it did not do justice to the achievements and personality of the man himself.
Sir Alex Ferguson refused to have anything to do with Michael Crick’s biography of him, called " The Boss." Ferguson refused point blank to have anything to do with it and thus contributed nothing towards the book. Crick went ahead and wrote it regardless.
However, I have much sympathy for Sir Henry Cecil in this case. It would seem that Brough Scott has flagrantly disregarded his wishes. Sir Henry is right to feel aggrieved.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
Shock! Horror! servile racing hack upsets village grandee
There’s no such thing as bad publicity Henry, watch the sales soar
For those that get off on such things I was under the impression that the allure surrounding Cecil was as much due to his ineptitude with
Homo
as his genius
with Equus
so Mr Scott is only doing what would be expected of him, surely
Redacted biographies abridged to suit the subject at the request of the subject, I ask you: this is Newmarket not North Korea
Shock! Horror! servile racing hack upsets village grandee
There’s no such thing as bad publicity Henry, watch the sales soar
For those that get off on such things I was under the impression that the allure surrounding Cecil was as much due to his ineptitude with
Homo
as his genius
with Equus
so Mr Scott is only doing what would be expected of him, surely
Redacted biographies abridged to suit the subject at the request of the subject, I ask you: this is Newmarket not North Korea
Not when certain elements of the text were purportedly agreed upon beforehand. Scott renaged on his word. He is a cad and a bounder – in keeping with the flowery phraseology you are so patently fond of, Drone, my jolly good fellow.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
I can understand Henry’s upset. If the book proposal was put to him as one focussing on his training achievements only, then it was never intended to be a biography as such.
But I also have to ask why, when Brough asked questions about things outside the area of agreement for the book, i.e. the training side, Henry and others answered. A simple "no comment" or "that has nothing to do with the training" would have made his point/view clear. To be asked about his illness/personal problems, give answers to said "off limits" questions and then complain afterwards seems to be to be a bit naive on Henry’s part.
I can understand Henry’s upset. If the book proposal was put to him as one focussing on his training achievements only, then it was never intended to be a biography as such.
But I also have to ask why, when Brough asked questions about things outside the area of agreement for the book, i.e. the training side, Henry and others answered. A simple "no comment" or "that has nothing to do with the training" would have made his point/view clear. To be asked about his illness/personal problems, give answers to said "off limits" questions and then complain afterwards seems to be to be a bit naive on Henry’s part.
It was noticeable from the start of the book that there are no direct quotes from Sir Henry at all, except those that were already in the public domain, eg. previous newspaper or TV interviews. There was no apparent occasion when Brough Scott had any one-to-one conversations with Sir Henry. It is obviously one of the big disappointments of the book that there are no insight from the man himself about the glories of the past, his great horses, about how his training methods have changed over the years (if at all), the split with the Maktoum family, his childhood, his education, his life before training, etc. It seems that Brough Scott never had a good enough relationship with Sir Henry to persuade him to talk at all.
It was noticeable from the start of the book that there are no direct quotes from Sir Henry at all, except those that were already in the public domain, eg. previous newspaper or TV interviews. There was no apparent occasion when Brough Scott had any one-to-one conversations with Sir Henry. It is obviously one of the big disappointments of the book that there are no insight from the man himself about the glories of the past, his great horses, about how his training methods have changed over the years (if at all), the split with the Maktoum family, his childhood, his education, his life before training, etc. It seems that Brough Scott never had a good enough relationship with Sir Henry to persuade him to talk at all.
Ah, MV you may have read the book, but I couldn’t possibly take your reviews on it seriously when I had already noticed a succinct appraisal from racing’s giant of literary criticism, none other than Ian Balding:
"Brough’s book is a masterpiece and does the maestro full justice"
he reveals (in a big advert for the book).
Any similarity between Mr Balding and Tom Paulin is probably coincidental. Mr Balding’s ‘genius’ status is as yet unconfirmed…
Mike
When I was a teenager my mother railed against ‘modern’ pop groups and their music (as is the job of all parents). What changed her mind was a line from a Simon & Garfunkel song – "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".
There are fewer truer sayings. If you ask me how much I will pay you for that old set of Timeforms and I say, ‘Somewhere between £75 and £100. Let me have a look through them properly." Come deal time, which of those figures is the one you recall? Exactly, while my memory resurrects the £75.
I strongly suspect there has been duplicity on neither side, simply Simon&Garfunkelism at work 45 years on from The Boxer.
I understand how revered he is as a trainer [and rightly so] but I can’t help but feel that he has been a bit of a ‘cad and a bounder’ with women and can’t expect everything to be brushed under the carpet in a biography. [Sorry; needed to getthatoffmechest; will go and hide now…]
…on the subject of Simon and Garfunkel saw a documentary about Art Garfunkel a while back and was surprised to learn how contoversial they were at the time; I tended to think of them as very main stream and establishment..Personally I was surprised that Brough Scott was actually allowed to write the book in the first place. Sir Henry would have been better to have given his story to a far less well known author who would possibly have managed to get around the difficult periods in his life in a more sympathetic manner.
I have to disagree that Sir Henry’s statement will make people rush out to buy the book. I was actually looking forward to reading it and almost ordered it on line today, but now I will not buy it.
Brough Scott caught Sir Henry at a vulnerable time in his life, the responsibility of training the greatest flat horse of his career and his brave fight against cancer, who can blame him for not having the strength to oversee exactly everything that Brough Scott was digging up for his book, he probably had it in the back of his mind that he wouldn’t even see the book published.
Most of us know the rough times that Sir Henry went through with his wife Natalie and the Jockey in the Shower scandal, the Maktoums taking their horses from his care, the years in the wilderness without many winners and the sad death of his twin brother.
Hopefully now that he is getting stronger and Frankel is safely tucked away at Stud he may be able to, with help, write the true story of his eventful (and have to add priveleged) life as Richard Burridge did about Desert Orchid when he wanted to add a more personal aspect to the story of The Grey Horse which was missing from Jonathan Powell’s book.
Things turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out...Personally I was surprised that Brough Scott was actually allowed to write the book in the first place. Sir Henry would have been better to have given his story to a far less well known author who would possibly have managed to get around the difficult periods in his life in a more sympathetic manner.
I have to disagree that Sir Henry’s statement will make people rush out to buy the book. I was actually looking forward to reading it and almost ordered it on line today, but now I will not buy it.
Brough Scott caught Sir Henry at a vulnerable time in his life, the responsibility of training the greatest flat horse of his career and his brave fight against cancer, who can blame him for not having the strength to oversee exactly everything that Brough Scott was digging up for his book, he probably had it in the back of his mind that he wouldn’t even see the book published.
Most of us know the rough times that Sir Henry went through with his wife Natalie and the Jockey in the Shower scandal, the Maktoums taking their horses from his care, the years in the wilderness without many winners and the sad death of his twin brother.
Hopefully now that he is getting stronger and Frankel is safely tucked away at Stud he may be able to, with help, write the true story of his eventful (and have to add priveleged) life as Richard Burridge did about Desert Orchid when he wanted to add a more personal aspect to the story of The Grey Horse which was missing from Jonathan Powell’s book.
Post of the year!
with 
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.