John Leather gets his come-uppance

[Mirelle]

For those who have yet to see the March edition, there is a very good letter in the back, running to two pages, written by a man who most certainly knows what he is talking about, taking John Leather's curiously condescending waffle in the 200th edition to pieces.

I recommend it highly.

I suspect that I am not the only one who is tired of Leather telling us all what a bunch of idiots and softies we all are. Leather has bitten the hand that feeds him once too often.

 

[Kristal]

Leather\'s hide soundly tanned?

Good show. Yes, I was a little bemused by that article too - particularly in an issue which sought to promote the more sentimental aspects of old boat ownership rather than the nitty-gritty reality.

I also wholeheartedly disagreed far more vehemently than I usually would with a piece of writing, as I am a staunch defender of media freedom and impartiality.

And finally, I'm pretty sure that if I did begin to regard my own old lady with the pragmatic distance Mr Leather suggests, she'd probably stop being so nice to me (we seem to have the relationship between a patient and capable governess and her often foolish but devoted charge). And I dread to think what would happen then...

/<

 

[tillergirl]

For those of us too mean to buy it what has he done to offend two stout bastions of common sense?

 

[Kristal]

Contempt.

Mr Leather always seems to write with an attitude which in many of his pieces comes across as discernibly smug, and in this particular article, seems downright contemptuous.

To begin with, he suggests, if not damningly argues, that the designers of well-thought-of pleasure craft are revered above their station (seemingly ignoring the process of design evolution that prevails in everything, not just boats). That elderly working boats which have become pleasure craft are admired despite the "faults" they display in their new occupations. The rest of the article seems to sneer at the sentimentality many feel for their boats, adopting instead the viewpoint that plastic is a far more durable material, that owners of older vessels are indulging in "escapism" under the illusion that they are reliving a bygone age, and that the preservation of our little (and not so little) ships would "astonish the long-departed owners and participants".

He is, of course, mostly correct - however, it seems that to publish such an item in a magazine which must, by it's nature, appeal almost entirely to ridiculous sentementalists such as myself; who quite happily throw time, money and a great deal of love at their boats; who don't subscribe to the throwaway attitude of those rich enough to comission racing yachts that sometimes prevailed in the golden age of yachting, or recognise the importance that old working boats hold in the history of their respective countries; and who rather like indulging in a pastime, nay, a way of life, that doesn't make economic sense, but makes us very happy... well, it seems, pure and simply, absurd.

Reading back, that all seems rather pompous. Sorry about that! But rereading the article prior to submitting my reply to Mirelle somewhat p****d me off.

 

[trouville]

Re: Contempt.

Is he still writing?? i read some of his articals years ago about work boats,then i just found him to be way out of reality. Other than a plastic motor boat ive always had wooden sailboats and far prefer my old Hillyard to a plastic boat.but if i had followed leathers advise i would have long ago given up with wood.

 

[tillergirl]

Re: Contempt.

Thanks for that. I think I join you and Mirelle although what business I have objecting to that view when I haven't even bought the mag is probably a good argument.

I suppose the reality is that its a very odd world. I have not read many of Mr Leather's books but living on the edge of it I have, of course, read 'The Salty Shore' which is precisely built on sentimentality. I suppose it could be argued as history but it is really sentimentality and I see no harm in that although the author ought not to sneer at sentimentality in others. I doubt there is a perfect boat made and I'm afraid I stopped taking Classic Boat because I rather objected to what I saw as its snobbery in talking about classics. Is he suggesting that we should pack up all this nonsense of keeping Thames Barges alive - workhorses that were designed for a short working life which has now past?

 

[Leon_Steyns]

I'm on of those "who have yet to see the March edition", because it wil take at least two weeks before a copy will get here... /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

But I'm anxious to reed the letter (read: another copy of CB201 will be sold /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif), although I was initially looking forward to the article on Uffa Fox.

As for the article "What is a classic boat?", I only had a look at the drawings and I almost diagonally read the 'conclusion'. My suggestion would be to keep mr. Leather away from museums at any cost! After all, paint has gotten much better since the Renaissance tempera... /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Greets, Leon Steyns.

 

[ianwright]

,,,,,,,, and I don't much care for Mr Leather's own design ideas. His boats look very,,,,,,,,,,, um ,,,,,,,,, uninspiring, to my uneducated eye.
IanW

 

[Kristal]

Who cares? The whole point of a boat is to use it for a bit, having thrown stupid amounts of money at it's designer and builder, then pay twenty crew, be disappointed with it's performance, and let it rot on some river bank somewhere.

Or fill it with fish for fifty years and sink it across a harbour entrance, but for goodness sake, don't be so ridiculous as to be drawn into this aesthetical or sentimental nonsense about maintaining the damn things way past their sell-by date. You're merely lingering under an illusion of some fanciful bygone golden age.

K "Leather" Hansen