
As today's date grew closer, I noticed that Keynes was the central character in THE STANDARD OF LIVING, a new play by James Curtis (Dear England) at the Theatre Royal, Haymarket, London. I was keen to know how the subject of economics worked on stage, as might other History Girls and blogpost readers. Even Rory Kinnear, as Maynard Keynes, as the beginning of the play, announces ‘Many of you are feeling daunted by this subject matter.’
“I knew about Keynes’ ideas from studying economics, but nothing of his life story, and I soon fell down a rabbit hole of memoir and biography. As I gorged on the struggles of a lost world, I wondered: why had nobody made fiction out of Keynes? His life is significant, colourful and moving: not only did he set the foundations of the postwar order, revolutionise economic theory and transform capitalism, he also made and lost fortunes as a financial speculator, fell in love with a Russian ballerina – Lydia Lopokova – despite having previously lived as a gay man, hid Cezannes in hedges, hobnobbed with everyone who was anybody – including Churchill and Lloyd George, and outraged the establishment time and again while also ending up as Lord Keynes and a Director of the Bank of England. (And breathe.)

Yet nobody wrote about him. At least they did in the form of biographies and articles, but in the literary world of novels, plays and films, which has created almost an industry out of Woolf and Bloomsbury, he only ever appeared as a bit part. Yet he was the Bloomsbury member who actually did, if any of them did, change the world.
So I decided to seize the gauntlet. This was a rich and neglected story, and also one I could tell. I had studied economics, and worked briefly (like Keynes) as a graduate in the British civil service; I knew Cambridge (one of Keynes’ stomping grounds) quite well. Keynes-obsessed, I wrote a film script (a thing I’d always vowed never to do, so few get made), a TV pilot, a stage play, and two novels. I wouldn’t say I got zero interest from the literary gate-keepers, but it was mainly blank faces and unreturned emails, and with the pre-publicity for James Graham’s new play The Standard of Living, I now understand why: because ‘Why would anyone go to a play about an economist?’ was the message that came loud and clear from any journalist reporting on it.
I knew of course that I wouldn’t be the only writer ever to see Keynes’s appeal. In recent years there’s been several novels about Keynes and even a musical. I sometimes avoid others’ versions (I’m working, slowly, on a third Keynes novel) but it’s also at times irresistible to see how other writers tackle the same material, and despite feeling a bit proprietorial, I usually enjoy their versions a lot. James Graham is the celebrated writer of many political dramas, I’ve enjoyed and admired his plays. I bought my ticket and went to London. Here are some thoughts.
THE STANDARD OF LIVING: THE PLAY
I found lots to enjoy in The Standard of Living. Rory Kinnear’s Keynes brought out the humanity and vulnerability of the man wonderfully (maybe slightly less his intellectual firepower: Bertrand Russell said, “When I argued with him, I felt that I took my life in my hands”). Lydia Lopokova’s eccentricity can so easily lapse into caricature, I think – but here she was absolutely spot on and portrayed with great charm by an actual ballerina, Natalia Osipova. The about-turn of Keynes from gay man to her love-lorn suitor was deftly done and the warmth of their relationship beautifully conveyed. The dancing was lovely to watch (though I think there was a missed opportunity to make it more than decorative to which I’ll return) and there was some wonderful wit and humour. It presented a delightful version of Duncan Grant. It did try and get the economics across, with some success (I’ll come back to this). The contemporary photographs moved me, as they always do, in documenting the human catastrophe of the Great Depression. It checked off a lot of the key events of Keynes’ life, although in such a packed life it inevitably left a lot out.
Inevitably I had some reservations. It was a real whistle-stop tour for one thing, crowding thirty plus years into a two hour play. Blink and you miss the battle of the gold standard or Bretton Woods. In this rattling tour of Keynes’ Greatest Hits, Bloomsbury seemed too prominent. Did we really need Lytton Strachey and Dora Carrington and Virginia Woolf and Vanessa Bell and Duncan Grant? Strachey was only significant in the early part of Keynes’ life, Carrington I doubt was significant at all, Woolf and Bell were but it doesn’t really come across in the play why. By contrast, Keynes’s life as statesman, City of London investor, political operator and Cambridge intellectual were underplayed. (And sorry, while those who worked with him may have disliked him, I don’t think they ever got his name wrong!)
There were so few scenes of Keynes thinking, writing or teaching – or smoking for that matter, the usual accompaniment to his intense intellectual work. (Tragically, as if turned out.) There’s no real sense of someone who was wrestling, as he saw it, to completely transform the whole system of economic thought.
“I believe myself to be writing a book on economic theory which will largely revolutionise, not I suppose at once but in the course of the next ten years, the way the world thinks about economic problems.” Keynes in a letter to George Bernard Shaw, 1935.
One scene that jarred for me was when Keynes retreats to Cambridge in the 1930s (and he’d always been rooted in Cambridge, despite what the play implies) and Lydia and Duncan casually suggest that Keynes should write his own General Theory, a bit like Einstein. The title ht deliberately echo Einstein, but Keynes’ attempt to dismantle economic orthodoxy for his academic peers was no impulsive gesture or gimmick. And to suggest that the result was seen as a bit of damp squib compared to Hayek’s very different book, as the play perhaps inadvertently does, is a real distortion I think.
Keynes as Economist
One of the great challenges with fictionalising Keynes (as I know from experience) is how to handle the economics. This play does not sideline it. There’s a rather nice explanation of the multiplier but it’s mainly speech: surely the stage offers a chance to provide visual explanations of the ideas? And with all those lovely dancers!
Here’s how I tried to do this with Lydia’s dancing in Mr Keynes’ Dance.
“She gave him a surprised look then obliged. There, in the winter light from the windows, she lifted her right leg behind her and stretched out her left arm, her chest and head held high, and with the same graceful line proceeding from finger to toe. All was a smooth, poised curve.
Maynard said, ‘Richard, lift her left arm.’
Richard, after a startled second, obeyed. Lydia smoothly adjusted her position to remain still balanced, arms and leg still extended.
‘Now lower her leg.’
‘Go on,’ said Lydia kindly, and so he obediently pushed on an ankle and she readjusted effortlessly.
‘Now give her a good shove.’ And as Richard, taken aback, hesitated: ‘Go on!’
She smiled invitingly at him, so he gave her a push in the small of the back. With the most elegant of jumps she adjusted her position, and resumed her graceful, effortless arabesque. She looked like she could stay there all day.
‘Aha,’ said Maynard, pleased. ‘You see? Lydia is the economic system according to orthodox theory. Every jolt, every shock to the system, and she adjusts at once to reach a new equilibrium. This is the economic system we teach students. The system according to Classical or Neoclassical thinkers.
If Lydia were the economy, there would be no imbalances, no unemployment, no depressions. Richard, stand on one leg.’
‘Me?’
‘Go on! Indulge me.'
Feeling like a prize fool, Richard took Lydia’s place on the hearth rug, then clumsily adopted a version of an arabesque. He felt like an ungainly stork.
‘Lydia, give him a push.’
Very gently, Lydia pushed his raised foot. Richard immediately began to wobble. Unable to regain his balance, he staggered, then toppled onto the hearth.
I was also doubtful about using the conflict with Hayek as the main way of exploring the economic clash of theories. First, it’s not historical: yes, Keynes and Hayek did apparently sit on top of King’s College Chapel doing fire warden duties together during World War II, an irresistible dramatic scene, but I don’t think Keynes ever considered Hayek his key adversary; he was only one of many critical voices in the storm of controversy caused by Keynes’ ideas. Keynes himself seems to have taken a benevolent approach to the younger economist: when Hayek published The Road to Serfdom, he wrote kindly saying that he agreed with much of it.
Keynes, of course, did not know (as we do) that Hayek’s book, published at the end of Keynes’ life, would achieve an almost accidental fame and influence, becoming the the inspiration for the anti-Keynesian Thatcher/Reagan revolution. I say accidental, because what would have happened if it had not by strange quirk of chance been serialised in Reader’s Digest?
More importantly, by setting up Hayek – a young Austrian immigrant – as his opponent, the play obscures the way the economic orthodoxy Keynes attacked was deeply embedded in the British establishment and in the intellectual tradition he inherited. In my book, Montagu Norman, the Governor of the Bank of England, is Keynes’ key adversary, along with Otto Niemeyer of the Treasury. Keynes was battling with the key beliefs and interest of the elites, and he did so at dinner parties with Churchill, hearings at the House of Commons, in the pages of the Liberal Party manifesto, in dining societies in the City of London, in the pages of The Times, and of course in his academic writing. He upset former collaborators and must have felt pangs about what he was doing to the legacy of his own mentor, Alfred Marshall. He was trying to show that not only was laissez-faire – what he called “the economic juggernaut” – inhumane, it was intellectually flawed and potentially disastrous.
There’s little in the play – other than some wonderful photos of the Great Depression – to bring home the people who were at the sharp end of these debates either: for example, the miners who were starved back to work in the 1920s, after Keynes’ advice on the gold standard was ignored. Lydia’s story could have been important here. She was exiled by the Russian Revolution, her brother persecuted by Stalin, her mother dying in the Siege of Leningrad. She was real, living breathing evidence of the suffering caused when a political and economic system collapses. It’s no wonder that she had no patience with those in her circle who flirted with Communism, and I’ve no doubt she strengthened Keynes’ resolve to try and create a more humane capitalism.
Which brings me to a final point: what is at stake in Keynes’ story. The plays says, several times, that Keynes’ primary question was “What is a good life?” Yes, Keynes did address this, notably in his famous essay Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren, and I think Bloomsbury did provide him with his personal model of a “good life” based in friendship and art (perhaps a model that some seeing this play might think inadequate, and late in life he may have agreed).
But I don’t think that was the driving question for him, but a more existential question: How to save civilisation itself. Keynes saw the complacent but peaceful world of his youth destroyed in the Great War; at the Paris Peace Conference, he feared politicians would smash the remnants beyond repair. With the disaster of the Great Depression, and the rise of totalitarianism, there was no doubt civilisation was on the brink. It’s a more perilous picture than a search for the “good life”, and a more profound struggle.
The play, so immersed in Bloomsbury, inevitably underplays this. The Arts Council is not the culminating achievement of Keynes’ life, even if his artistic friends (or a modern West End audience) think so. In fairness, I doubt they did. (I’d add I received a major Arts Council award myself, once upon a time, for a novel that still languishes unloved. I’m very grateful but … well, perspective!)
But that’s my interpretation – and maybe my own projection?
CHASING GHOSTS
It’s a peculiar thing to rummage in somebody’s life and construct a version for one’s own purposes. Would Keynes have even approved? I’ve often (rather guiltily) asked myself this. He never gave interviews, and after his death his widow, Lydia, was even more private: she refused to engage with his biographers or attend events to aggrandise his memory. She was happy to let her own by-its-nature ephemeral stage career pass away unrecorded.
Yet Keynes was aware of the power of phantoms. “Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist,” he wrote, and ideas don’t live on only in the pages of academic journals but in the stories of their originators. Whatever fictional version of Keynes is the most true to the man himself (and he was a man who changed his ideas like quicksilver: “when the facts change, I change my mind” he claimed . He wanted his ideas to have an impact on the world.
Recreating Keynes through the imagination, in myriad ways and forms, is one way of making that happen – and in times that are coming to seem as fragile as his own.
POSTSCRIPT
After I wrote this, I went to look at others’ reviews of the play. . . I notice that many reviewers think too much was crammed in: with which I agree. I seem to be alone, though, in disliking the emphasis on Hayek. I was also intrigued that Bloomsbury seemed to inspire quite so much disdain: I wonder if this is because Keynes’ story puts them in a particularly bad light (which it definitely does) or if their general appeal is waning? Exciting Bohemian progressives or just tiresome, self-absorbed snobs?
Finally I’d add that the first person to fictionalize Keynes seems to have been John Buchan, who knew Keynes and disliked him. I haven’t read those yet but I’m certainly looking forward to it!
“Since the war, everything’s changed. The powers-that-be hold to the old mantras … but how far can you push people? Until they rise up and throw the government down?”
When the brilliant and mercurial Maynard Keynes walks out on the Paris Peace Conference, he seems destined for obscurity. But in the crisis-ridden 1920s, he soon finds himself back on the public stage. A man of fierce intelligence and hidden susceptibilities, he is not afraid to speak the truth to a political elite blindly determined to push the world to the brink of collapse.
Dancer Lydia Lopokova has fled revolution and is now seeking her own personal salvation. The last thing she expects is a life-changing encounter with a Bohemian economist. In a divided world where neither their Bloomsbury friends nor the powerful elites seem to realise the dangers, their encounter will have long-reaching consequences. (Longlisted for the Peggy Chapman-Andrews Novel Award/Bridport Prize.)
The sequel to the much-praised Mr Keynes’ Revolution follows Maynard and Lydia into the 1930s and the challenges of political turmoil and the Great Depression.
1926. Maynard Keynes has long been a thorn in the side of the British Establishment: an irritant to the Treasury, the Bank of England and his fellow academics alike. Rejected for his radical ideas, he has made an unlikely marriage to a Russian ballerina, her eccentricity charming him almost as much as it infuriates his highbrow Bloomsbury friends. But as the world around them changes, Maynard and Lydia cannot stay cocooned in their private refuge for long.
While Maynard frets about the ever-growing dole queues, and plans his route to power by way of the magnetic Lloyd George, Lydia is tormented by the thought of her family in Leningrad. Exiled by the Russian Revolution, she has found fame and fortune as the star dancer of Diaghilev’s celebrated Ballets Russes. Yet however demanding the role of stage celebrity, it is less challenging than that of the supposedly respectable and fortunate Mrs Keynes: the scrutiny of a crowded theatre less intense than from those convinced her marriage is heading for disaster. In truth for Lydia and Maynard, marriage was always a gamble, and their life a dance where nobody is ever quite sure of the steps.
Then comes the Wall Street Crash, followed by a depression the likes of which the world has never seen. In the turmoil of the 1930s, the intellectual Maynard finds that answers must be sought in the most unlikely places.
Set during some of the most momentous years of the twentieth century, this novel explores the lives of two figures at the heart of those economic and cultural upheavals: John Maynard Keynes, considered by many as the most important economist of all time, and one of Time Magazine’s most significant people of the twentieth century, and the celebrated and eccentric Russian ballerina, Lydia Lopokova. Beginning in the “roaring twenties”, with ever-growing unemployment queues and a General Strike that pitches the whole labouring class against the governing elite, their journey takes them from the heart of the Bohemian Bloomsbury Group in Sussex, to Leningrad in Soviet Russia, to New York in the grip of the Great Depression, to the quiet colleges courts of Cambridge. The supporting cast ranges from a Welsh kitchen maid to pioneering socialist Beatrice Webb, fascist leader Oswald Mosley, politician Winston Churchill and writer Virginia Woolf.
A sequel to Mr Keynes’ Revolution, which was much praised for the depth of its research, and the way it deftly interwove economic ideas and history into a story of personal relationships and romance, Mr Keynes’ Dance is another intellectually daring and page-turning historical novel, which continues the tumultuous and surprising story of Maynard and Lydia.

























