What do you think?
In Bed/Elephant
In Bed with an A Journey through Scotland's Past and Present Kennedy, Ludovic
- GenresNonfiction
404 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1995
About the author
Ludovic Kennedy
46 books16 followersLudovic Henry Coverley Kennedy was a Scottish journalist, broadcaster, and author. He received an honorary doctorate from the University of Strathclyde in 1985 and also held similar posts at the Universities of Edinburgh and Stirling. He was knighted in 1994 for services to journalism.
He was a member of the crew of the British destroyer HMS Tartar that took part in the pursuit and destruction of the German battleship Bismarck in May of 1941. 'Sub-Lieutenant' (1942) told of his naval experiences and 'Pursuit' (1974) told of the sinking of the Bismarck.
He undertook many campaigns on behalf of people who had been wrongly convicted of murder, including Derek Bentley and Timothy Evans and also wrote an account of the trial of Stephen Ward following the Profumo affair. He also wrote an account of the murders at Ten Rillington Place.
He married actress Moira Shearer (1926-2006) on 25 February 1950 and the couple had four children.
He died of pneumonia at Salisbury, Wiltshire on 18 October 2009.
He was a member of the crew of the British destroyer HMS Tartar that took part in the pursuit and destruction of the German battleship Bismarck in May of 1941. 'Sub-Lieutenant' (1942) told of his naval experiences and 'Pursuit' (1974) told of the sinking of the Bismarck.
He undertook many campaigns on behalf of people who had been wrongly convicted of murder, including Derek Bentley and Timothy Evans and also wrote an account of the trial of Stephen Ward following the Profumo affair. He also wrote an account of the murders at Ten Rillington Place.
He married actress Moira Shearer (1926-2006) on 25 February 1950 and the couple had four children.
He died of pneumonia at Salisbury, Wiltshire on 18 October 2009.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
July 4, 2013
As an Englishman I would probably say this should be obligatory reading. I only say 'should' as I am not completely sure of the book's intentions. If it was to deomnstrate to the reader south of the Scottish borders that her dominant neighbour has not always treated them with the respect they deserve then I consider this first rate reading material. That said, I had the feeling when writer it the reader was still on the battlefield of Bannockburn and all of England, past and present were there frothing at the mouth desperate to exploit the northern nation for all its worth.
One cannot blame the sins of a father on their son. If we do not agree on that there cannot be any progress in international relations. Too much damage has been done and can never been undone, only understood and not repeated. That is where this book comes in.
No one who ever admired Dr. Johnson will ever come away feeling quite such awe for him after putting down Mr. Kennedy's book. They will instead discover Boswell and the great philosopher David Hume, a favourite of mine and an example for many. Hume was the Socrates of his day living as he did in the Athens of the North, who strived for truth in the face of contemporary unreasoning. He has even written a two-volume history of England no less.
My beef (Angus of course) with the book can be best summed up in two simple examples. Firstly, the title of the book. The elephant is naturally England in this case, an adorable animal you will agree. The problem with the simile is that it falls into the same criticial trap that enfuriated Kennedy in the first place and sparked him to write the book. He begins in an outrage that an English writeer, who he considers to be all of England, dared to write a book entitled 'Our Troublesome Neighbours'. If that was so bad then why go and do the same thing, if not worse? So, for me it got off to a hypocrticial start, which I was prepared to oversee and it was well worth the forgiveness.
The second example was to refer to Scotland as 'the worst treated of all England's colonies'. Now, we really did hit rock bottom. If any colony were to win this despicable title then that would surely be Ireland, who has had its fair share of suffering meted out to it even by the Scots, Robert the Bruce included.
Added to that, Scotland made its international mark under the British Empire and Scottish names jump out from the pages of history. So, they certainly were not held back by the English in this regard. In fact, 50% of the Indian Civil Service was Scottish which far oustrips its share of privileged positions for a population of its size. You only need to take a look at the great architecture of Edinburgh and Glasgow to see how well they did out of Empire and the tail end of slavery. Yes, Glasgow made money out of the slave trade. It was even said at the time that for every Englishman that had made a fortune out of Empire there were ten Scots.
Keep this in mind and the claim of Scotland being the worst of England's colonies is a poor surrender to passionate anger. So, on these points and others like them the book falls down, and I have no trouble reading literature that criticises old England. Nevertheless, such writing needs to be done with an ability to be self-critical, if not we cannot have an intelligent dialogue. It would be like reading something penned by an elephant, beautiful creature that it is.
Having read the book, many moons ago now, I remember much of it and was encouraged to read more by Hume and Boswell, though I was saddened to discover that nationalism could be so blind, one-sided and sculpted to suit one's own purposes. The Scots are after all from Ireland and invaded mainland Britain about the same time the Angles, Saxons and Jutes entered the south. While the Teutonic tribes displaced the southern Celts the Scots displaced the Picts, who were really the ones the Romans couldn't defeat. As a result have today two nations called Eng-land and Scot-land, not Celt-land and Pict-land.
So, while the English must remove the plank from our eye we in turn hope that our esteemed neighbours, who we do respect enormously despite the national desire to discover that we don't, can remove their splinter.
If this had been the proposition of Ludovic Kennedy's book then it would have been one of the most potent forces for reconciliation, but it saldy moved in the opposite direction.
Despite all said, if you love Scotland and its multifarious history populated by moments of true glory then this is a must read.
One cannot blame the sins of a father on their son. If we do not agree on that there cannot be any progress in international relations. Too much damage has been done and can never been undone, only understood and not repeated. That is where this book comes in.
No one who ever admired Dr. Johnson will ever come away feeling quite such awe for him after putting down Mr. Kennedy's book. They will instead discover Boswell and the great philosopher David Hume, a favourite of mine and an example for many. Hume was the Socrates of his day living as he did in the Athens of the North, who strived for truth in the face of contemporary unreasoning. He has even written a two-volume history of England no less.
My beef (Angus of course) with the book can be best summed up in two simple examples. Firstly, the title of the book. The elephant is naturally England in this case, an adorable animal you will agree. The problem with the simile is that it falls into the same criticial trap that enfuriated Kennedy in the first place and sparked him to write the book. He begins in an outrage that an English writeer, who he considers to be all of England, dared to write a book entitled 'Our Troublesome Neighbours'. If that was so bad then why go and do the same thing, if not worse? So, for me it got off to a hypocrticial start, which I was prepared to oversee and it was well worth the forgiveness.
The second example was to refer to Scotland as 'the worst treated of all England's colonies'. Now, we really did hit rock bottom. If any colony were to win this despicable title then that would surely be Ireland, who has had its fair share of suffering meted out to it even by the Scots, Robert the Bruce included.
Added to that, Scotland made its international mark under the British Empire and Scottish names jump out from the pages of history. So, they certainly were not held back by the English in this regard. In fact, 50% of the Indian Civil Service was Scottish which far oustrips its share of privileged positions for a population of its size. You only need to take a look at the great architecture of Edinburgh and Glasgow to see how well they did out of Empire and the tail end of slavery. Yes, Glasgow made money out of the slave trade. It was even said at the time that for every Englishman that had made a fortune out of Empire there were ten Scots.
Keep this in mind and the claim of Scotland being the worst of England's colonies is a poor surrender to passionate anger. So, on these points and others like them the book falls down, and I have no trouble reading literature that criticises old England. Nevertheless, such writing needs to be done with an ability to be self-critical, if not we cannot have an intelligent dialogue. It would be like reading something penned by an elephant, beautiful creature that it is.
Having read the book, many moons ago now, I remember much of it and was encouraged to read more by Hume and Boswell, though I was saddened to discover that nationalism could be so blind, one-sided and sculpted to suit one's own purposes. The Scots are after all from Ireland and invaded mainland Britain about the same time the Angles, Saxons and Jutes entered the south. While the Teutonic tribes displaced the southern Celts the Scots displaced the Picts, who were really the ones the Romans couldn't defeat. As a result have today two nations called Eng-land and Scot-land, not Celt-land and Pict-land.
So, while the English must remove the plank from our eye we in turn hope that our esteemed neighbours, who we do respect enormously despite the national desire to discover that we don't, can remove their splinter.
If this had been the proposition of Ludovic Kennedy's book then it would have been one of the most potent forces for reconciliation, but it saldy moved in the opposite direction.
Despite all said, if you love Scotland and its multifarious history populated by moments of true glory then this is a must read.
December 9, 2021
The writing throughout was of the highest quality and meant that it was an easy read and the writing brought to life Scotland and the Scottish people. If I was judging it on the quality of writing alone it would be near five stars, but alas its not.
This was a book which played up to the idiosyncrasies of the writer and therefore order wise until the last third it was all a bit of a jumble and all over the place. This meant that a lot of the book didn't come together as a whole but a stand alone pieces.
The writer also relies too much on presenting his own opinions as facts and thus whilst he speaks movingly and persuasively on Scottish nationalism, he only seems to speak in negative terms of Scottish unionism and downplays its popularity. Having lived for a time with a Scottish unionist I feel the book ignores that there is popular support for unionism as well as nationalism in Scotland.
The writer also writes well about English prejudices when it comes to Scotland, but too often falls in to stereotypes about all English and all Scottish people to back up his opinions. Although stereotypes often contain a kernel of truth, its not the whole truth and sweeping statements presented as fact detract from the book and present a picture to the reader which is not entirely true.
The way the writer writes of Scottish history for instance on Mary Queen of Scots and the viking heritage of Scotland and connects it to his own life story and connection with Scotland is well done and personalises the book.
This is a decent book, but its held back by a writer relying too much on stereotypes and presenting his opinions as facts, when often the reality is much more complex.
This was a book which played up to the idiosyncrasies of the writer and therefore order wise until the last third it was all a bit of a jumble and all over the place. This meant that a lot of the book didn't come together as a whole but a stand alone pieces.
The writer also relies too much on presenting his own opinions as facts and thus whilst he speaks movingly and persuasively on Scottish nationalism, he only seems to speak in negative terms of Scottish unionism and downplays its popularity. Having lived for a time with a Scottish unionist I feel the book ignores that there is popular support for unionism as well as nationalism in Scotland.
The writer also writes well about English prejudices when it comes to Scotland, but too often falls in to stereotypes about all English and all Scottish people to back up his opinions. Although stereotypes often contain a kernel of truth, its not the whole truth and sweeping statements presented as fact detract from the book and present a picture to the reader which is not entirely true.
The way the writer writes of Scottish history for instance on Mary Queen of Scots and the viking heritage of Scotland and connects it to his own life story and connection with Scotland is well done and personalises the book.
This is a decent book, but its held back by a writer relying too much on stereotypes and presenting his opinions as facts, when often the reality is much more complex.
January 29, 2016
I really enjoyed this personal choice of English history “bricks” over the centuries. Using his personal family background and even Boswell and Johnson ‘s lives and travels through England the reader is provided with information about the prehistoric settlement of Skara Brae on Orkney, the '45 rebellion in which Bonnie Prince Charles emerges as not really a heroic figure, the adventure of the Stone of Destiny taken away from the Westminster Abbey by Scottish patriots in 1950, etc., etc. I recognize that if someone has no interest or memory of some historical periods the reading can be quite boring.
April 23, 2010
I will concede that this book is well written and apparently much loved in Scottish historical circles, but I simply cannot slog through any more of Boswell's treks around the country. Between Boswell this and Boswell that and the tiny type (no, it couldn't be my eyesight is failing!), my attention has flagged and petered out to nonexistence.
November 11, 2014
A fine history of Scotland's complex relationship with its southern neighbour. It is best read with Allan Massie's book on the same ground as well as Magnus Magnusson's history.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews