Not A Brough Scott Fan Then, Henry

Sheikh said:
It's Henrys life not Broughs. He shouldn't have written about elements he was asked not too, simple.
Click to expand...

Not simple. That’s not what you do. Like I say it’s not supposed to be a PR exercise. Scott is there to interpret Cecil’s life as honestly as he can. It’s not about vanity press.
 
SteveM said:
Scott is there to interpret Cecil’s life as honestly as he can.
Click to expand...

That wasn't his brief.

If Clint Eastwood had been given a brief to make a film which told the story of J Edgar Hoovers career and instead he made the crock of **** film that he did, would you say that he had done a good job?
 
SteveM said:
Brough Scott is pretty good at doing this sort of thing and doesn’t write for the vanity of himself or his subject. Cecil finds this sort of stuff excruciatingly embarrassing, which is why he has resisted publication for so long. He is not proud of certain phases in his life/career and would have liked to avoid airing them. But the book is not a PR exercise for the Cecil yard, the writer needs to be as honest as he can be. If it lacks humour and sparkle we can’t write brilliantly all of the time (some of us never). I suspect people will come to love the warts and all version of Cecil more than the sanitised version. So don’t be too hard on Brough or Henry, they both have different expectations about it.
Click to expand...

Big fan of Henry myself but tend to agree. The only point is if Scott has lied to him that is not acceptable. Looking forward to reading it, turned up today.Some great pics included.
 
simmo said:
Why should any of that contribute to a persons opinion on whether or not he is a boring writer?
Click to expand...

Is it just me, or despite the camaraderie most of the six billion people on earth are a bit bored really aren't they? Or boring rather?

I'm like the most interesting guy you could meet. I go about my daily business, come home, sit on racing forums, debate with people I've never met and don't even know, maybe beg The William Hill online help desk for a free bet based on my losses, then toss myself off to sleep thinking about that bird I saw at the bus stop at lunchtime.:)
 
High Rate said:
Is it just me, or despite the camaraderie most of the six billion people on earth are a bit bored really aren't they? Or boring rather?

I'm like the most interesting guy you could meet. I go about my daily business, come home, sit on racing forums, debate with people I've never met and don't even know, maybe beg The William Hill online help desk for a free bet based on my losses, then toss myself off to sleep thinking about that bird I saw at the bus stop at lunchtime.:)
Click to expand...

Being a boring person and being a boring writer are two different things entirely.

Sneak any pics with your iphone?
 
SteveM said:
Brough Scott is pretty good at doing this sort of thing and doesn’t write for the vanity of himself or his subject. Cecil finds this sort of stuff excruciatingly embarrassing, which is why he has resisted publication for so long. He is not proud of certain phases in his life/career and would have liked to avoid airing them. But the book is not a PR exercise for the Cecil yard, the writer needs to be as honest as he can be. If it lacks humour and sparkle we can’t write brilliantly all of the time (some of us never). I suspect people will come to love the warts and all version of Cecil more than the sanitised version. So don’t be too hard on Brough or Henry, they both have different expectations about it.
Click to expand...
at last someone who thinks before he speaks:lol: Seriously though you make the most valid of points when you state that the book is "NOT a PR excercise for the Cecil yard"

That would be no better than Steven Segal making a documentary about Steven Segal and saying look at me I'm brilliant.

If Sir Henry expected a journalist of Brough Scott's reputation to write this is half of my life instead of this is my life it would appear he picked the wrong guy.

Sir Henry should think Bill Clinton and realise that 99% of the people who read the book have nothing but respect for him and nothing Brough Scott or anyone else says will change that.
 
SteveM said:
Brough Scott is pretty good at doing this sort of thing and doesn’t write for the vanity of himself or his subject. Cecil finds this sort of stuff excruciatingly embarrassing, which is why he has resisted publication for so long. He is not proud of certain phases in his life/career and would have liked to avoid airing them. But the book is not a PR exercise for the Cecil yard, the writer needs to be as honest as he can be. If it lacks humour and sparkle we can’t write brilliantly all of the time (some of us never). I suspect people will come to love the warts and all version of Cecil more than the sanitised version. So don’t be too hard on Brough or Henry, they both have different expectations about it.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. It's a biography, not an auto biography. HC has had some sh*te times and some amazing times - he's a brilliant trainer but his private life may, at certain times, been less than ideal and undoubtedly affected his business, so I can't see why you wouldn't expect to have that also covered in a 'proper' bio.
 
Finished the book last week - wasnt the most exciting read ever and in some places wandered off a true line (grackle noseband required!) but otherwise wasnt bad. Glad I didnt buy a full price paperback and only had it on my Kobo as I had to keep going back to it.

As for the private life stuff, it wasnt that dramatically written and Brough almost seemed embarassed in the writing to have to cover it but it needed to be there as it was the story of the life of the person. Without it there would have been two chapters - Steve Cauthen Years and Frankel.

Would I recommend it - cautiously yes but a book worthy of any awards no.
 
Back
Top