A broadcaster, an aristocrat and a ghost form a triangle in which the one person who cannot speak is the one everyone is discussing
In Piers Morgan, Earl Spencer and the Diana Memoir, the satire begins with a trio that is also a triangle: Piers Morgan, Earl Spencer, and Diana. The comedy lies in the juxtaposition. One is a broadcaster, one is an aristocrat, one is a ghost. The article suggests that the memoir conversation is not only about Diana; it is about the people who talk about her. The satire is that Diana is mediated by others, some of whom knew her well and some who never did. The article implies that this is how memory works. The dead are spoken for by the living.
The literary criticism here concerns the role of the intermediary. Piers Morgan is a broadcaster. Earl Spencer is a brother. Both are gatekeepers of a kind. The article implies that they shape access to Diana. The satire is that neither is neutral. The article suggests that each has his own agenda. And the agenda is not necessarily Diana’s.
The piece also targets the genre of the interview. Interviews are performances. They are staged, edited, and promoted. The article implies that a television conversation about the memoir is not only a conversation; it is a production. The satire is that the production becomes the message. The article suggests that the interview is often about the interview.
The Frame Around the Frame
In literary terms, the article works through the metaphor of the frame. Diana is framed by the broadcaster. She is framed by her brother. She is framed by the memoir. The article suggests that there is no outside the frame. The satire is that Diana is always already interpreted. The article implies that we never see her directly. We only see the frames.
The deeper theme is the ownership of memory. The article suggests that memory is contested. Many people want to own Diana’s memory. The satire is that no one can. The article implies that memory is not a possession; it is a process. And the process is endless.
The tone is cynical, almost weary. The article does not fully trust anyone; it observes everyone. The reader is invited to imagine the green room: the makeup, the small talk, the cameras. The satire is that the interview is a ritual. The article implies that we have seen it before. And we will see it again.
Ultimately, the piece is a meditation on the impossibility of direct access. The article suggests that we can never fully know the past. We can only know the stories. The satire is that the stories are told by people with interests. The article implies that Diana has become, in part, a narrative. And the narrative is carried by broadcasters and relatives. They are not neutral historians. They are intermediaries. And that is the problem the satire wants us to see.
The Media Round Around Swan Song
The memoir has been promoted through a sequence of interviews and extracts rather than advance review copies. In one sit-down interview reported by The Nightly, Earl Spencer stood by his claim that the then Prince Charles said Diana would be forgotten “soon enough,” and questioned the Palace’s rebuttal.
The book was published by Michael Joseph, a division of Penguin Random House, and, as Reuters reporting carried by the Canberra Times recalled, the Earl famously used his 1997 funeral eulogy to castigate the royal family. Broadcasters, including those like Piers Morgan who have built careers on royal commentary, now act as the relay stations between that grief and the audience. The London Prat’s point is that every relay adds its own static.
SOURCE: https://prat.uk/piers-morgan-earl-spencer-and-the-diana-memoir/
