Hello everyone,

General:
First of all, I’d like to thank you all for the very nice things you’ve said about my term at the helm. However, I have enjoyed it all very much, and that wouldn’t have been possible without such a wonderful group of members. The success of the group has been the result of great cooperation and appreciation of each other’s writing. This is a considerable achievement for all of us.

I have to say a big thank you to all of you who have helped with challenges and other items, but a big word of thanks must go to Sally for her wonderful work on the website. Meeting Sally a couple of weeks ago was a most pleasurable occasion. Christine – and Margaret before her –have made keeping a record of member’s writing and associated activities into an art.

I feel the general standard of writing – without trying to analyse it – has improved over the four years. Judging the last two challenges especially was extremely difficult, and there was really very little between the best and the least successful. I sense from the comments of judges that others feel this also.

I’d like to say why I want to pass the leadership on. I believe very strongly that leadership of any group (in whatever guise – Chairman etc.) should not last more than 3 years at a time (I can’t count the first year as that was just an experimental year). If it lasts more than that, it will tend to become the property of an individual rather than of the group. I don’t know whether I have been going in the right direction – when one is involved closely, it is easy to lose sight of perspective. Changing the leader will avoid this, and David will no doubt from time to time introduce variations in our activities (his ideas on the cliffhanger and telephone stories have met with enthusiasm) which I would never have thought of. However, I have no intention of leaving the group, and having recently met one member, I would like to meet more if the opportunity arises although I felt it would not be in keeping with my original aims of the group had I done so earlier.

The second reason is that I will have reached the age of 79 this summer. I fortunately still enjoy good health, but I am still trying to fit too much into my life, with the result I am achieving less in the way of finished products. I have several projects I am pursuing (some writing, some mathematical, and some other). We have a one-acre garden which is fairly demanding at times, and I walk 1,000 miles a year to keep fit (I have done since the year 2000). I have to bear in mind that friends and relations are all ageing at the same rate as I am. I am also getting approached more about my early days in computing. I have now given up my annual photographic exhibitions (only small ones with about 16 prints) which I have done for 22 years. Everything changes – but one thing will not change – I still want to be part of Alpha.

So the change from me to David will take place over the summer, and he and I will be in regular contact, and I know that next season will be eagerly anticipated. I hope also that I will be able to read the stories that have been sent in, and to catch up on the last few logs which are now getting referred to.

Now to other matters.

Tautologies:
As far as I know, we’ve never even mentioned tautologies, but here’s one which amused me. It was seen in Northern Ireland at a building development in a commuter district, where the developer hung out a slogan:

Has anyone else come across anything like that?

du Maurier Festival:
Every year, the du Maurier Festival takes place at Fowey in Cornwall. It lasts for about 10 days around the date of Daphne du M’s birth (i.e. the first half of May). A small ‘village’ is erected right by the cliffs overlooking the sea, and there is a programme of about 150 ‘events’ Amongst these, we search and manage to find two on one day which we feel may be interesting: we’ve done this for six or seven years now. Many of the events are simply geared towards entertainment, while we look for lectures.

This year we went to two. The first was by Salley Vickers, the author of Miss Garnet’s Angel. I haven’t read it, but it is highly regarded. Salley Vickers is a most entertaining and enjoyable lecturer, speaking with an easy confidence. Particularly memorable was her description of plans to make a film of the book. She has had six producers wanting to do this, but I don’t think there is any actual work at the moment. She claims that it is probably more financially rewarding not to have a film made than to have one, presumably since all of them pay a retainer while they suss how they will tackle it. She described how one of them asked her if she would write – or be involved in writing – the film script, and then said to her “Have you ever read the book?”. But, as she says, that isn’t a silly question, because you are so involved in writing it that you know all the environment within which you created it, that you never see it as readers actually see it. Another producer said that she should read the book and then throw it away and before writing the film script. This quite apart from the generalisations that some of them made – “Well, it’s all about attitudes to (various philosophical view points).” There were other comments about her other books – like the fact that she always started with someone dying! But she gives an excellent talk.

The second was by Celia Robertson, who has just published “Who was Sophie?”. She wasn’t nearly as much at ease in introducing this biography of her grandmother. She had completed considerable research, and she conveyed a great deal of her own emotion about the research. Sophie was originally Joan, a child of somewhat eccentric musical/theatrical parents who started writing poetry. She was encouraged by Virginia Woolf, and actually had two books published, although probably of small print runs. She married an orthodox well-qualified scientist, and the war years affected their marriage (which produced 3 children) by the family going to Australia to work. She effectively had a breakdown, and was sent back to the U.K. for treatment – and, one suspects, to get her out of the way. She gradually disappeared from view – even to Celia’s mother – changed her name to Sophie, and ended up in Nottingham area, where she was well-known at local pubs. I really enjoyed the talk, and I want to read the book. The talk was as good as the morning one, but in a completely different way. Again, if any of you get the chance to hear her, I think you’d enjoy it.

Book Reviews:
If I might add to Christine’s excellent idea about circulating stories, I suggest that when you read a book over the summer, you write a review of it. It’s good practice to get your thoughts in order after you’ve read one, and I like to do that. I had to go away this week, but I had some time, so I started on Kathy Reichs latest paperback “Bones to Ashes”. Now I know that not everyone will like her topics, but I would suggest that even if you don’t, next time you’re in Waterstones or other bookshop, read the first chapter. It’s a superb opening chapter, I think, to catch the potential reader’s interest! I’ll write the full review when I’ve finished reading it!

I’ll also send round a story at the same time, as well as a little personal history.

Best wishes to you all,

- Olaf