Rating: 
Summary: Objective, affectionate, fascinating
Review: I find this book to be an objective and affectionate treatment, in line with the biographer's job to report events in a subject's life that shed light on his art and point of view. In describing Herriot's impoverished childhood in crowded city tenements, Lord plausibly explains the vet's infatuation with the Yorkshire Dales. If Lord's depiction of Herriot's wife as a controlling and sometimes difficult woman is jarring, it is in line with Herriot's real life persona of an accomodating and sensitive man who tries to placate people and smooth out tough situations. If the book drags a bit, that is because there are no high drama or scandals. The most interesting parts to me are Lord's descriptions of Herriot's writing style, handling of fame and wealth, and complex relationship with his boss Donald Sinclair. Since these parts come in the second half of the book, don't stop reading halfway through! While Lord does not say that Herriot's family objected to his writing this biography, there does seem to be an overabundance of interview material derived from individuals outside of the family, and almost none from within. But I don't see where this is due to an abusive or irresponsible treatment of Herriot's life. Herriot is in no way 'trashed'. The most delightful thing I walk away with from this book is how close the real life Herriot was to the fictional.
Rating: 
Summary: Bogged down with inane details
Review: I knew James Herriot was really Alf Wight, I didn't need to know that he had a rather embarrassing problem with his bum, that his wife was a bit of a witch and the names/dates of people who graduated from schools he attended. The pace is faltering and gets bogged down with all these inane details. In somewhat tumultuous times, James Herriot brought us a world of beauty, grace and humor. Graham Lord seems to be able to destroy that with a few chapters. The author gave himself so many pats on the back for his early review of Herriot's work, that I am surprised he can still stand straight!
Rating:
Summary: A pretty disappointing book
Review: I looked forward to reading this book and frankly it irritated me. The author claims what a great guy Herriot(Wight) was and then goes on to write something that is negative and prickly and I don't know what.Gee, the things Wight wrote in the books were not the whole truth? And the characters he portrayed in the book were a bit more human and flawed than the books indicated? Ot that ,*gasp*,he had flaws, too? Boy, that is a crime against humanity, I'll tell you. And Wight on his father's birth certificate put down that his father was a musician instead of a laborer? Now, that really is earthshaking. The author misses the whole point of what Herriot/Wight wrote. They were great yarns written with warmth and humor and that is what people loved, not whether they were the total truth or not. It is one thing to write a biography but it is another to absolutely delight in pointing out the trivial inconsistencies in a person's account of their life or in pointing out all the flaws and blemishes as if the world depended on it. I recall that Herriot himself in the introductions to his books implies there is a lot in there that is not totally factual. Personally, this seems like the work more of a frustrated, jealous competitor than someone who claimed to be a friend. It is one thing to try and discern the truth about someone, it is another to use petty and vapid inconsistencies (unlike real flaws) to bring a person down and that is exactly what this author has done. If Wight had portrayed himself as a loving family man and abused and mistreated his family this approach might be warranted; but to do it over such trivial nothings is pathetic. I suspect his family must have felt the same way,because in the book only his son Jimmy is quoted directly and the photos in the book are all from outside sources i.e publicity photos from the TV series and other public images; none are close family pictures. They must have suspected the author's intentions I believe. Overall, this book is not worth the cover price IMO
Rating: 
Summary: Did not portray the James Herriot that I had in my mind
Review: I was dissapointed in this book. Herriot could make you see a visual as you read his stories, whether true or fiction they were great. Graham Lord just sort of let the air out of the baloon.
Rating:
Summary: Highly disappointing
Review: I was looking forward to reading this book, as I greatly enjoyed Herriot's books, especially the first one (or two). The writing reminded me of term papers I read in college. Lord shows no feeling for the magic of Herriot's storytelling. There is not a trace of humor in this book. There is no discriminination between important and unimportant life events or influences. The best part is the introduction; it unfortunately convinced me to buy the book. I couldn't even finish it. Very disapponting for someone who makes his living reviewing other books.
Rating:
Summary: Disillusioning
Review: I was very disillusioned after reading Lord's book. While it may be factual, the illusion I had of James Herriot before reading this book was more important to me than possessing the facts of Wight's life. If you cherish the warmth, kindness,and humility of Herriot's books, maybe you'd better pass on reading Lord's biography. Wight's son, according to Lord, is currently writing a biography of his father, to be released later this year.
Rating:
Summary: If you love James Herriot you will hate this book...
Review: If you love James Herriot you will hate this book... The author in attempting to tell the "true" story spends much of his time diminishing Herriot. I actually threw the book out of a speeding car window.
Rating:
Summary: Herriot's reality makes his novels the more remarkable.
Review: James Herriot's stories about a country vet in the 1930's and 1940's present a warm, fascinating set of yarns about a bygone time. The Herriot reader intuitively understands that the real story is not the literal set of cures and pet names listed in the stories, but instead, a Yorkshire culture that was swiftly passing before what then was considered modernity. The Herriot universe is peopled with charming farmers, the whimsical and amusing fellow vets, the Farnon brothers, and a world of amusing coincidences among the vet cases assigned to Mr. Herriot. In his biography, Graham Lord sets out to show the real vet behind the novelist. In so doing, he portrays a fellow who was, as in the books, a rather shy, quiet, likable man. Some Herriot loyalists in some instances may be alarmed to discover that Mr. Herriot's real life was not as idyllic as the books, and that the books contained a fair bit of fiction. On the whole, though, the reader will understand and appreciate that the Herriot stories are not bounded by inquiries such as "was Siegfriend Farnon really as charming as the character in the books?" or "was the real-life Helen a bit more domineering than the one in the books?". Graham Lord's bio is a straightforward read, which,while largely sympathetic, spends a fair bit of time trying to show that some of the Herriotverse was mythic. The style of the writing is clear and easy. The format of the bio is fairly conventional, though we are in the main spared the sort of speculation about the inner philosophies of grandparents that mar some literary bios. The bio is reasonably short of hyperbole. The real puzzle of the Herriot life is how this natural storyteller developed his craft and evolved such a fully-formed fictive universe. The Lord bio devotes some attention to this issue, but not nearly enough. Instead we are left with anecdotes suggesting that the Herriot novels are only fifty percent fact. This is really beside the point, much as it is irrelevant whether a historical Sir John Falstaff was really a buffoon. I recommend this bio, as it shows a life quietly but in the main well lived, and a writer who developed fascinating material from a creative imagination and a colorful perspective on the everyday.
Rating:
Summary: Mr. Lord, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Review: Mr. Lord could have written a good book. He has the tools and the know-how, and he did his research. He made one fatal error, however. Actually he made not one, but two mistakes. The first mistake is that his starting point is wrong. As a trained journalist, he does as a journalist does - he keeps trying to find "dirt", or rather manufacture dirt - all in order to give us a "balanced view". One can't help feeling, as one reads interview after interview, that Mr. Lord has somehow picked only the disgruntled, caustic and jealous remarks to print. The second mistake was in underestimating "James Herriot"'s fans, and familys goodwill towards him. He treats his subject manner as just another subject, as routine grist for the gossip mill, but Alf Wight was not that kind of person. He was a person totally out of Mr. Lord's scope and understanding. He underestimated Mr. Wight's fans and family's tolerance for having his name besmearched, and, indeed, his son wrote another book in response, a beautiful book about his father, and in it he easily refutes all Mr. Lord's accusations - and turns Mr. Lord into a laughingstock. Because anybody who has read the two books side by side - which I just did - would realize that Mr. Lord has indeed made a laughingstock of himself.
While there are some good parts to the book, they are very much overshadowed by the other parts. There are two good chapters - in the middle - which were written factually - the chapters dealing with the content of James Herriot's first books, and the publishing history. There is a good reason why this is so - Mr. Lord was indeed part of the publishing business and would have been privy to that sort of information.
But much of the book is exactly what he accuses James Herriot of writing - pure fiction. It would take too long to point out every one of Mr. Lord's mistakes, but I would like to simply write just a few of the many mistakes Mr. Lord makes. The rest, if you still want to read this book, you could find out for yourself.
The first accusation Mr. Lord makes about James Herriot is that Alf Wight did not write a semi-autobiography, but rather pure fiction. He maintains that even if this were so, it would not matter, because the books are still entertaining. With that salve to his conscience, he methodically starts to take apart many stories in an effort to prove them fiction.
His first assertion - that it would not matter if it were actually fiction, is simply not true. It would matter, and matter a lot, to both his fans and friends and family. His son says as much in his book- that it would matter a lot if his books are fiction. Fortunately for us, Mr. Lord does not bring a single proof that could stand up to scrutiny. His method seems to be - I don't think this story is true, so it's probably not. That's it. Not one single proof. For instance, he says that Alf Wight's memoirs of his war years are fiction - because the dates are wrong. He says that Alf Wight joined the army in March, 1941, and was discharged two years later, and therefore his story that he was called up to the RAF while his wife was expecting their first child is a fictional story. His son, in his book "The Real James Herriot" explains that he enlisted in the RAF in March, but was NOT CALLED UP until 15 months later, in November 1942, when his wife was indeed, expecting their first child. Is it possible his son and wife might know when he joined the RAF better than Mr. Lord? Especially since Mr. Lord actually admits that he is going from hearsay - since the RAF would not give Mr. Lord access to their records, claiming that they were still classified? This should be enough of a blooper to discredit Mr. Lord; however, there are many, many more - so many that it would be funny if it were not also very, very sad that someone could so easily print a book full of lies and get away with it (by prefacing all his explanations with "perhaps" he covers himself from libel, I suppose).
Another example of Mr. Lord's innuendos - he quotes from one of Mr. Herriot's books that James Herriot was taken aback by the red (and squished) face of his newborn son, and asked the nurse if there was something wrong with the child. Mr. Lord asks how can this story be true if he is a vet? Just so, explains his son, animals are born much more fully formed than humans are. (A horse is born already able to walk as soon as he is born). Mr. Lord falls flat in the mud.
Mr. Lord quotes James Herriot as saying that 90% of his stories are based on real life. Mr. Lord asks how that can be - when the Herriot books say that he joined Seigfried's practice in 1937, when he actually started working there in 1941? Mr. Lord, I think we are ready for a lesson in English. Do you know what the words "based on true life" means? "Based" means "based", not "actually, exactly, fact". When he first started writing, he was hoping to remain anonymous, and therefore disguised his stories so that the people he was writing about would not recognize themselves. He changed the location of his practice to the Dales, he changed the dates, he even changed the characters - some from a man to a woman, for example. He put two stories into one, etc. etc. This all falls under the heading of "based on real life".
There are many, many more examples of this in his book - where he "proves" that James Herriot was writing fiction - and he has no proof whatsoever. Not even one single time.
If there is one person writing fiction, that person is Mr. Lord. Mr. Lord spends two entire chapters on a conjecture of how Alf's childhood might have been like - all based on the assumption that Alf had grown up in grinding poverty. These chapters become almost a farce when we read his sons portrayal of his real childhood - although his parents were not rich they were certainly never poor, and Alf had a very happy childhood. He also explains the economics of why this was so. Which puts Mr. Lord's two chapters of conjecture on how Alf's unhappy childhood might have been like in the category it deserves - pure fiction. While the poverty of the under-class in Glasgow in the 1920's is certainly very sad, it definitely does not belong in a biography of Alf Wight.
Another mistake that Mr. Lord makes is that he constantly contradicts himself. For example, in one chapter he spends many paragraphs conjecturing on why Alf was always poor, when he should have had a thriving practice - and the fanciful castles he builds in the air are very elaborate indeed. And yet in another chapter he quotes a neighbor as saying - "oh, they claimed they didn't have any money but that wasn't true. They had money for everthing - a tennis court, ballet lessons for Rosie, etc." This came across as a vitriolic statement, but of course in contradiction to his earlier assumption that he was poor. Mr. Lord, you can't really have it both ways, can you?
Another example - he constantly quotes Eddie Steanton throughout the book, with all kinds of outrageous comments, yet he himself quotes one of Eddie's colleagues "oh, Eddie always exaggerates, you can't believe everything he says". And later in the book it comes out that Eddie had had a falling out with Alf Wight, and I would assume that his "memories" might be somewhat tainted by those sentiments. And yet Mr. Lord accepts Mr. Streaton as a fully credible source.
As matters stand now, this book is laughable and barely deserving of a review - except for one thing: if Mr. Wight's son would not have written his own biography, Mr. Lord's fictious book would have remained as the factual biography of Alf Wight. He would have succeeded in besmirching Alf Wight's name with his book full of lies (oh, excuse me, fiction). The fact that his son wrote his own biography, and a beautiful and moving one at that, has turned Mr. Lord's book into a joke, a book that his fans would not touch with a ten-foot pole, but Mr. Lord did not know that in advance. He tried to change James Herriot's fans opinion of their idol, by trying to find "dirt" on him, and that was a very low thing. The fact is that he fortunately did not succeed, but that does not take away from what Mr. Lord tried to do.
Mr. Lord, shame on you!
Rating:
Summary: If you want the dirt on James Herriot, look no further
Review: Reading this book reminded me of why English journalists are so often disliked and distrusted by the people they cover. It's not that I didn't want to hear that James Herriot's books are largely fiction, or that his real-life partner Donald Sinclair was in fact rather lazy and stuffy, or his wife something of a shrew. I just didn't want to hear it this many times, in this much detail, or in this annoyingly strident, self-important tone. The book actually has a lot going for it--Lord has a good, clean, writing style, and seems to have done a lot of solid research. But he can't seem to control his reporter's impulse to "get the goods", to dig up all the stuff that his subject didn't want us to know and make it the centerpiece of his book, and finally that ruins it. To see this treatment administered to a thoroughly decent human being, by somebody who was supposed to have been a friend, makes me wonder why *anybody* would ever talk to an English reporter.
|
