What do you think?
Rate this book
The swinging sixties
The changes that occurred in England during the 1960's.
REVIEW: http://tonymusings.blogspot.ca/2009/0...
SUNDAY, 15 MARCH 2009
"The Swinging Sixties" by Brian Masters: A Review
This is a portrait of the decade, painted by one who lived through those years as a young man; as such, although basically a reflection the cultural changes of those times, it is also enlivened by the use of personal anecdote; this is often brought in to support his arguments and analysis.
The basic thesis of the book is that "the spirit of the Sixties threw out the servility, the apologies, the guilt, and celebrated with loud fanfares the qualities of affability, of tact and of tolerance."
Although he admits that this change was marred, to some extent, by the later legacies of the decade, Brian Masters argues that the benefits outweighed the consequences.
In support of this, he gives particular mention to the "decline of puritan values", with these being replaced by "a more open morality", marked by less attention being made to formal modes of conduct; he considers how this effected changes in the areas of censorship, public life, law reform, theatre, and popular music. He also looks at the changing public relations of the royal family, and the CND marches.
One of the most interesting and amusing chapters is entitled "Retreat of the Censor". This concerns the celebrated trial of Penguin books for promulgating editions of D.H. Lawrence's novel "Lady Chatterley's Lover"; the book was banned because it was considered to be "indecent and obscene". At the trial, the defence called upon "eminent academics who would underwrite its literary worth, and one schoolgirl who would declare that she had not been depraved or corrupted by reading it." The prosecution, unable to find a single expert to support his case, confined himself to a ludicrous opening speech (in which he asked the semi-literate working class jurors: "is this a book that you would wish your wife or your servants to read?") and a statistical summary of "the number of times certain offensive words had occurred in the text".
Ostensibly, this was a battle between those who saw themselves as champions of free speech, freeing literature from the shackles of an outdated morality, and those who saw themselves as the guardian of moral values. But what was the truth behind this picture?
Penguin books, despite their insistence that they were simply "making the great classics of the world available in cheap editions", had printed a massive number of copies of the book. It is clear that their motivations were not unconnected with profit; they had "tactfully sent a dozen copies to the DPP as a statement of intent", which triggered the trial, and gave them the attendant publicity to sell out all these copies after the trial.
The self-same "experts" who had declared "Lady Chatterley" to be a literary masterpiece consequently went on to defend - with much the same arguments - William Burrough's "The Naked Lunch"; this is a book which Masters describes as "one of the most crassly written and unpleasant novels in circulation". It is likely that the motives of the experts were honourable enough: they thought that they were fighting for a freedom in print, not dissimilar in principle to the freedom of speech.
However, the methods used brought disrepute upon literary judgement, even if they did gain the desired end.
But what of the defence? It appears that the principle concern was the fact that copies of "Lady Chatterley" might be available in a "cheap condition"; in other words, they would be accessible by the masses. Subsequent trials under the "Obscene Publications Act" regarding books confirm this hypothesis. Hardbacks, out of the pocket of the average man, although flouting the law, did not give rise to legal proceedings. It is apparent that they were safe for sale because they would only be available to the rich, and it was assumed that the rich were incorruptible! This sort of hypocrisy (allied to class-prejudice) motivated the defence of censorship, and all the claim of highest moral principles was, in general, a smokescreen for the paternalistic imposition of values on one class by another. The guardians of moral values do not seem to have held truth as a value worthy of defence!
This is an interesting book, but it may make the reader somewhat cynical; in such an eventuality, it would be suitable to recall the maxim: a cynic is what an idealist calls a realist!
REVIEW: http://tonymusings.blogspot.ca/2009/0...
SUNDAY, 15 MARCH 2009
"The Swinging Sixties" by Brian Masters: A Review
This is a portrait of the decade, painted by one who lived through those years as a young man; as such, although basically a reflection the cultural changes of those times, it is also enlivened by the use of personal anecdote; this is often brought in to support his arguments and analysis.
The basic thesis of the book is that "the spirit of the Sixties threw out the servility, the apologies, the guilt, and celebrated with loud fanfares the qualities of affability, of tact and of tolerance."
Although he admits that this change was marred, to some extent, by the later legacies of the decade, Brian Masters argues that the benefits outweighed the consequences.
In support of this, he gives particular mention to the "decline of puritan values", with these being replaced by "a more open morality", marked by less attention being made to formal modes of conduct; he considers how this effected changes in the areas of censorship, public life, law reform, theatre, and popular music. He also looks at the changing public relations of the royal family, and the CND marches.
One of the most interesting and amusing chapters is entitled "Retreat of the Censor". This concerns the celebrated trial of Penguin books for promulgating editions of D.H. Lawrence's novel "Lady Chatterley's Lover"; the book was banned because it was considered to be "indecent and obscene". At the trial, the defence called upon "eminent academics who would underwrite its literary worth, and one schoolgirl who would declare that she had not been depraved or corrupted by reading it." The prosecution, unable to find a single expert to support his case, confined himself to a ludicrous opening speech (in which he asked the semi-literate working class jurors: "is this a book that you would wish your wife or your servants to read?") and a statistical summary of "the number of times certain offensive words had occurred in the text".
Ostensibly, this was a battle between those who saw themselves as champions of free speech, freeing literature from the shackles of an outdated morality, and those who saw themselves as the guardian of moral values. But what was the truth behind this picture?
Penguin books, despite their insistence that they were simply "making the great classics of the world available in cheap editions", had printed a massive number of copies of the book. It is clear that their motivations were not unconnected with profit; they had "tactfully sent a dozen copies to the DPP as a statement of intent", which triggered the trial, and gave them the attendant publicity to sell out all these copies after the trial.
The self-same "experts" who had declared "Lady Chatterley" to be a literary masterpiece consequently went on to defend - with much the same arguments - William Burrough's "The Naked Lunch"; this is a book which Masters describes as "one of the most crassly written and unpleasant novels in circulation". It is likely that the motives of the experts were honourable enough: they thought that they were fighting for a freedom in print, not dissimilar in principle to the freedom of speech.
However, the methods used brought disrepute upon literary judgement, even if they did gain the desired end.
But what of the defence? It appears that the principle concern was the fact that copies of "Lady Chatterley" might be available in a "cheap condition"; in other words, they would be accessible by the masses. Subsequent trials under the "Obscene Publications Act" regarding books confirm this hypothesis. Hardbacks, out of the pocket of the average man, although flouting the law, did not give rise to legal proceedings. It is apparent that they were safe for sale because they would only be available to the rich, and it was assumed that the rich were incorruptible! This sort of hypocrisy (allied to class-prejudice) motivated the defence of censorship, and all the claim of highest moral principles was, in general, a smokescreen for the paternalistic imposition of values on one class by another. The guardians of moral values do not seem to have held truth as a value worthy of defence!
This is an interesting book, but it may make the reader somewhat cynical; in such an eventuality, it would be suitable to recall the maxim: a cynic is what an idealist calls a realist!
- GenresHistory
237 pages, Hardcover
First published October 1, 1985
About the author
Brian Masters
47 books82 followersBrian Masters is a British writer best known for his biographies of mass murderers, including Killing for Company, on Dennis Nilsen; The Shrine of Jeffrey Dahmer; She Must Have Known, on Rosemary West; and The Evil That Men Do. He has also written about the British aristocracy and worked as a translator.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
February 23, 2017
Not an objective history of Britain in the 1960s, but a personal view from Brian Masters of a period which was, at the time this book was published (1985), apparently rather denigrated.
Masters devotes chapters to ‘Swinging London’, ‘The New Morality’, ‘Retreat of the Censor’ (about the Lady Chatterley’s Lover trial, and other court cases over supposedly obscene books), the Profumo scandal, homosexual law reform, the theatre, pop music, the Royal Family, and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
Masters is evidently more enthusiastic about some of these subjects than others. The chapter on theatre is full of effusions about productions he saw and loved, while the chapter on ‘Pop’ — mostly about the Beatles — perhaps shows its true colours by opening with a discussion of Plato. While able to bring himself to admit the Beatles could be classed as musicians, Masters can’t do the same for the Who, and hardly mentions any other bands.
Masters (whose authored books, I’m glad to see, includes one on the murderer Dennis Nilsen, and another entitled Great hostesses), has mixed feelings about the sixties. He sees it mostly in terms of a reversal of the previous state of things, in which the young deferred to the old and the middle and working classes took their fashion cues from the upper echelons of society. Masters finds some things to praise about this new state of affairs (greater informality in social relations, the doing away of old and outdated laws), but is also critical of what he sees as the triumph of self-interest and lack of thinking about the consequences among the rising generations. In his conclusion, he connects this to a feeling, in post-war Britain, that the victory against fascism abroad only resulted in impoverishment at home, leading to an eventual reaction amongst the generation that grew up under rationing and post-war gloom. An interesting argument, but one which seems to assume that the youth revolutions of the 1960s only happened in Britain.
Masters devotes chapters to ‘Swinging London’, ‘The New Morality’, ‘Retreat of the Censor’ (about the Lady Chatterley’s Lover trial, and other court cases over supposedly obscene books), the Profumo scandal, homosexual law reform, the theatre, pop music, the Royal Family, and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
Masters is evidently more enthusiastic about some of these subjects than others. The chapter on theatre is full of effusions about productions he saw and loved, while the chapter on ‘Pop’ — mostly about the Beatles — perhaps shows its true colours by opening with a discussion of Plato. While able to bring himself to admit the Beatles could be classed as musicians, Masters can’t do the same for the Who, and hardly mentions any other bands.
Masters (whose authored books, I’m glad to see, includes one on the murderer Dennis Nilsen, and another entitled Great hostesses), has mixed feelings about the sixties. He sees it mostly in terms of a reversal of the previous state of things, in which the young deferred to the old and the middle and working classes took their fashion cues from the upper echelons of society. Masters finds some things to praise about this new state of affairs (greater informality in social relations, the doing away of old and outdated laws), but is also critical of what he sees as the triumph of self-interest and lack of thinking about the consequences among the rising generations. In his conclusion, he connects this to a feeling, in post-war Britain, that the victory against fascism abroad only resulted in impoverishment at home, leading to an eventual reaction amongst the generation that grew up under rationing and post-war gloom. An interesting argument, but one which seems to assume that the youth revolutions of the 1960s only happened in Britain.
August 1, 2018
A Slow starter, The cover made it look like the main thrust was entertainment but really only 2 chapters related to it. the other topics had various measures of interest.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews