Most of my time is currently being divided between painstakingly working through the page proofs of a novel scheduled for publication at the end of November, and trying to ensure that members of our York U3A who are venturing cautiously out of their homes to involve themselves once again in their widely differing interest groups are going to be as safe from Covid-19 as we can make them.
Were I ever to venture an application to become a Mastermind contestant, my specialist subject would not be either Risk Management or Health and Safety. But the basics are relatively straightforward as long as the parameters within which one is working are clear and relatively constant. We pressed the starter button on indoor meetings last week with a ream of cleaning, access and other requirements in place, only to find our selves suddenly subject to the Boris & Matt ‘Rule of Six’ Act. Having been heavily, and justifiably, criticised for increasingly confused messaging for the past few months, Matt Hancock declared that the time had come for the message to be ‘absolutely clear’, which inevitably meant that for some people it is anything but clear. The rule precludes ‘social gatherings’ of more than six people, but is not applicable in educational and business settings. Our language classes, for example – German, French, Italian and Latin – are unquestionably educational, but the Friends Meeting House where we rent rooms is not an ‘educational setting’ – or is it, given our educational activities there? It is a ‘business setting’ in that it rents the rooms to us, but would the government regard it as such? It is undoubtedly a ‘religious’ setting, but we aren’t using it for religious purposes. We are still waiting for absolute clarity, as is the Third Age Trust to whom we look for guidance (and insurance cover).
Proof reading wouldn’t be my specialist subject either. Last time around I sent back 84 out of 440 pages that needed minor corrections – typos, the odd word left out, punctuation (mainly misplaced or absent commas), and so on – and felt it was a job pretty well done. That was until the proofs came back for checking and I decided not just to check that the corrections had been made, but to proofread the whole lot again. That time I sent back 90 pages. I also try to be alert to plausibility where the minor details are concerned as I go along. Could a protest march from the assembly point to the City Hall in Sheffield, for example, really be completed in the time I allowed? By the time it gets to the proof reading stage it is much too late to start asking oneself whether the major points on which the plot depends are plausible. But that, like Covid-19 risk management, is time-dependent too.
I wrote about fictional plausibility in my entry for July 10 and chose, as an example of what wouldn’t be regarded as plausible in a novel, the appointment of Chris Grayling, ‘Failing Grayling’, to the Chair of the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee – ironic as the ‘Intelligence’ bit would have been. As it happens, Boris’s cunning plan was foiled and Grayling wasn’t appointed. In July it would have been regarded as too wildly implausible to choose as an example of possible fictional implausibility the idea of a government Minister of any political complexion standing up in Parliament and brazenly acknowledging that the legislation our government was about to introduce would be a deliberate transgression of international law. A Conservative Government of the United Kingdom deliberately reneging on a treaty it had willingly signed up to less than a year ago? Come off it!
More implausible still would be a Prime Minister boldly declaring that the international illegality he was embarking on was, in fact, to protect the one precious thing his actions seemed ineluctably bound to destroy. There is no way the extraordinarily hard-won Peace Accord in Northern Ireland could survive the erection of physical check-points for customs and excise purposes along the border with Ireland, which Johnson is effectively daring the EU to set up to ensure the integrity of the European single market in the absence of the checks at the Northern Ireland ports which Johnson signed up to in the Withdrawal Agreement, but is now intent on ratting on. On reflection, describing Johnson’s behaviour as ‘ratting’ is unfair to rodents that can’t be expected to abide by any moral code as they go about their business of eating, sleeping and breeding. Boris Johnson isn’t stupid. He way well have been, probably was, too lazy to read the detail of what it was he was signing up to, but its full implications will have been explained to him, and he is now, for once, refusing to make one of his regular U-turns. He isn’t stupid, but he is deeply immoral, and the way he is behaving is as far out of bounds where fictional plausibility is concerned as it is when it comes to international law. But then one would only have to go back two or three years for it to have seemed wildly implausible that any dystopian writer could get away with imagining that a man like Boris Johnson could ever be appointed as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.