Stuck-in-a-Book’s Weekend Miscellany

Another Saturday at work for me, but nothing planned for the evening – X Factor or Iris Murdoch?  Hmm.  It should be an easy choice, but I have to admit that I’m finding The Sea, The Sea rather ponderous.  It’s a book group choice, and I do think it’s very good, but it’s not light reading.  And it is long.  You know how I feel about long books.  Over 500 pages of tiny font.  Huh.  I might be shouting at Louis Walsh instead…

Well, now that I’ve got that off my chest, I’ll throw a book, a blog post, and a link your way.

1.) The book – came from Tara Books, an Indian company which produces really beautiful books.  I wrote  a bit about them here, two years ago, and now they’ve sent me another gem.  To celebrate Dickens’ centenary (which has rather got lost in the whole Olympics fever, but let’s remember it now!) they’ve produced a gorgeous copy of Dickens’ Pictures from Italy, illustrated by Livia Signorini.  I think it would make a brilliant Christmas gift (oh, so early, sorry!) for any fan of Dickens in your life.  If that person happens to be you, then… so be it! ;)

2.) The link – was sent to me by my friend Rachel, and is about the language of P.G.Wodehouse.  Fun!

3.) The blog post – is by Karen/Kaggsy – the first person to review Guard Your Daughters after the mad rush for copies which happened when I waxed enthusiastic about it!  Read Kaggsy’s review here, and revisit mine here, if you so wish.  She lucked out with a lovely (if oddly irrelevant to the book) cover for her copy – go have a gander.  (If you have reviewed Guard Your Daughters, on a blog or LibraryThing or whatever, then let me know!  I’m hoping to gather together reviews…)

‘Modern Reviewing’ by H.G. Wells

Now and then I like to share interesting findings with you, so you can reap the benefits of my trips to the library and research for my DPhil.  I thought this brief article by H.G. Wells – published in a magazine called The Adelphi (edited by Katherine Mansfield’s husband John Middleton Murray) in July 1923 – might be of interest.  Not only is it about Lady Into Fox, which a few of you have read or want to read, but it comments on the whole business of reviewing.  And things in the world of reviewing have changed surprisingly little in 90 years!

‘How many people have read Lady Into Fox by David Garnett?  Most of us round and about the professional literary world have done so, but has it got through yet to the large public of intelligent readers beyond?  I very much doubt it.  Our critical reviewing people are cursed by a sort of gentility that makes them mumble the news they have to tell; busy doctors, teachers, business men, and so forth, have not the time to attend to these undertones.  No doubt Lady Into Fox has been praised a good deal in this mumbling, ineffective way.  But has it got through?  In the newspapers we ought to have more news about books and less hasty essay writing by way of reviewing.  A book, bad or good, gets its two or three or four or five inches of “review” in the papers and then no more about it.  You cannot tell from most book reviews whether the book matters in the slightest degree, whether it has any significant freshness in it at all.  The good things are hustled past public attention in a crowd of weary notices, weak blame, weak praise, and vague comment.  Newspapers don’t treat tennis or golf in that fashion.  A new golfer is shouted about.  Why was there no shouting about Stella Benson’s The Poor Man or Gerhardi’s Futility – shouting to reach the suburbs and country towns?  Both these are wonderful books and only quite a few people seem to have heard of them yet. Lady Into Fox is the most amazingly good story I have read for a long time.  I don’t propose to offer criticisms.  I accept a book like this; I don’t criticise it.  I have nothing to say about how it is done, because I think it is perfectly done and could not have been done in any other way.  It is quite a fresh thing.  It is as astonishing and it is as entirely right and consistent as a new creation, a sort of new animal, let us say, suddenly running about in the world.  It is like a small, queer, furry animal I admit, but as alive, as whimsically inevitable as a very healthy kitten.  It shows up most other stories, all these trade stories that fill the booksellers’ shops, for the clockwork beasts they are.’

Great British Bake Off: Semi-Finals!

Drum-roll please, ladies and gents – it’s the semi-finals!

This may seem to have come around rather quickly, since I only started recapping two episodes ago, but hopefully that just means that we’re all still super-excited, and my jokes have yet to wear thin.  I’m definitely in the right mood for a GBBO recap, since on Monday I made gingerbread cake from Mary Berry’s Bakes and Cakes.  I didn’t have the right fat, flour, sugar, or treacle/syrup ratio, and my hopeless oven took 1hr 40 to bake it instead of 50 minutes, but… they are delish!

Last week they made crackers (yawn), chocolate teacakes (why?) and gingerbread structures (astonishing) and my favourite baker, Cathryn, went home.  It was past her bedtime, and the producers were worrying that she’d get sulky.  So we’re left with just four bakers battling it out for the final…

Brendan, a.k.a. The Brend, who is using GBBO to audition as the voice of the Speaking Clock:

At the third stroke, the time… sorry, I mean, “I’m nervous.”

Danny, who is lovely and proficient but, in that mysterious way of some reality contestants, entirely unmemorable.

“Danny who?  Oh, ME!”

John, whose distinguishing characteristic is bleeding a lot, and having wildly different hair in his VTs than he is sporting in the tent.

It was all swoopy before.

Scottish James, who had better be wearing jazzy knitwear this week, no matter what temperature it is, or Edinburgh Woolen Mill will be filing for bankruptcy.

It’s no use looking over there, James, I can see UNPATTERNED BLUE.

I’m totally Team James now (which, following recent episodes, almost guarantees his exit) so, with that in mind… on with the semi-finals!

It’s French Week, which is appropriate given the news that France will be showing their own Great British Bake Off (presumably with some sort of change of name, non?) and inspires this attractive shot of presenters Sue and Mel.  (It feels wrong not to call them ‘Mel and Sue’ – maybe they, like Ant and Dec, should always stand in alphabetical order?)

Uncanny.

The bakers are definitely feeling the pressure, as they tell us in those vague sort of interviews which don’t really achieve anything other than reminding the viewer that it’s the semi-final.  “The stepping stone towards the final,” The Brend confides.  “The final is just one step away” adds John, helpfully.  Scottish James (who is wearing a PLAIN BLUE T-SHIRT, the horrors) says that people seem more ‘withdrawn’.  Lots of people have been withdrawn, James.  That’s how the show works, m’dear.

For the Signature Challenge, they’re making three types of petit-fours (oh, the irony, &c.) – meringue, choux pastry, and so forth – and twelve of each.  Since we’ve not seen lovely Mary Berry and fierce sweetheart Paul Hollywood yet, here they are.  Paul, it seems, is mid-linedance, but we shan’t hold that against him.  For all I know, Mary’s about to launch into a do-si-do.

Petit-fours were originally served as an after-dinner course, Paul tells us, and while Mary simply requires them to be small (I reckon I could do that), Paul stipulates that they be small, exquisite, and perfect.

The Brend is making these delights:

He tells the camera that he is a perfectionist, and impossible to live with.  Yes, I imagine it would be a nightmare to have those clipped tones tell me the time, sponsored by Accurist, every three seconds.  But I’m always impressed when people make pastry swans on this show, and presumably pastry cygnets are the same, writ small.  Yet again, the BBC Colouring-in department has only the least appetizing shade of yellow available – those friands look like Victorian baths filled with melted traffic cones.  (Incidentally, Heston Blumenthal is considering that very recipe for his new show.)

Paul goes up some points in my estimation by asking Brendan whether or not his cygnets will be sat on a blue  buttercream sea, fish and all.  Maybe he’ll go minimalist this week?  The Brend disregards the question altogether, and ploughs on with his description of lime-filled friands.  I love me some limes, so I’m not going to argue with him, although nobody has explained what a friand is.

The other three bakers are making macaroons.  Mel warns, on the voiceover, that one baker is being a bit risky with the traditional recipe.  Without being told, I knew this would be Scottish James.  He has become the tent’s version of James Dean – unpredictable! rebellious! called James! – and, adorably, he smirks guiltily when admitting that he’s making chilli sugar…

He laughs at Paul for not having had chilli, raspberry, and lime together before.  Oh, Scottish James, please win.  Although answering Paul back might not be a longterm strategy… look what happened to Cathryn “Oh, that’s a bit harsh” er, Baker.  I don’t know her surname.

Precision is the order of the day; to make sure each is the same size, the macaroons are being piped out into circles by Danny, John, and Scottish James.  Although there doesn’t seem to be a huge similarity between the drawn circles and the piping in this particular shot:

Danny is making, amongst other things, Orange and White Chocolate Langues de Chat. Literally translating as ‘cats’ tongues’.  In case that wasn’t clear (and an electric whisk is being used throughout Danny’s interview with the judges, so it’s entirely possible that the typical BBC2 audience member can’t hear a word that’s being said) Mary, amazingly, does this:

I love her more each minute!

Danny, perhaps bravely trying reverse psychology, suggests that they are usually ‘hard and disappointing’, and resists all attempts on Mel’s part to get her to adopt a French accent.

We’ve not visited John yet – he’s usually the sage of the group, dispensing wisdom in the form of irrelevant platitudes, but today he settles for promising ‘bejewelled’ madeleines (which gets an ‘ooo’ from Mel and Mary, and stony silence from Paul).  I was hoping for something along the lines of ‘The madeleine makes me contemplate mortality’, but I can wait.  I can wait all day, John.

Brendan’s choux pastry cygnets, if prophetic, don’t bode well for his eventual placing in the Great British Bake Off…

Sue then sidles up, and he offers to let her put one of the cygnet necks into a bun – before immediately transforming into everyone’s strictest teacher, and telling her to watch him do it properly, and that if she acts like a child she’ll be treated like a child.  (Well, maybe he didn’t say that bit.  But the point stands.)

To do him justice, he does declare it perfect afterwards.  Good old The Brend.

While Sue is enjoying herself, it’s up to Voiceover Mel to put on her usual tone of danger and doom, warning that one baker is about to commit a ‘potentially disastrous patisserie faux-pas.’  (I’d eat a patisserie faux-pas right now; sounds delicious.)  Is it Danny, under the watchful eyes of Hollywood and Berry?

At least we now know what Mary would look like with a big blue beard.

No, nothing so interesting.  It is – but of course – Scottish James, doing something even I know you shouldn’t  do – adding water to his melting chocolate.  But apparently he does know what he’s doing – melting them together, then whisking them together over ice to make a mousse.  Impressive, Scottish James, you renegade, you!

This obviously isn’t a chocolate mousse, but it encouraged me.

There are so many different types of cake to get through here, so I’m just going to give you the vaguest of impressions of the judges’ comments.  And, after three recaps, I still haven’t screencapped Mary Berry eating like a pirate.  I’ll save something for the finale.

James gets commended for his flavours and originality, but Paul considers his tarts too big – ‘afternoon tea’ rather than petit-fours.  I reckon I could manage.

Danny’s cats need to see a vet asap, if their tongues look like this, but she gets a mostly positive assessment.  Mary comments on the ‘good bake’, while Paul’s grammar is either improving, or I’m ceasing to notice it.

John’s don’t fare quite so well.  Mary says that his madeleines ‘somehow or other, should have a better appearance’.  In Paul’s less delicate parlance, ‘the look is terrible’.  John begins to look rather folorn.

The Brend has somehow managed to restrict his colour palate to beiges and browns, and gets excellent critiques for all his petit-fours.  Mary thinks she’s in Paris – perhaps angling for a job on the new French series, or perhaps the amount of sugar she’s eaten in the past few weeks has addled her brain?

Paul seems obsessed mostly with the size of everyone’s petit-fours, and I get the feeling that he’d have greeted little cardboard cut-outs with joy, so long as they were the right size and shape.

For the Blind Challenge they all have to make a Fraisiere – which I have never heard of, but which makes Brendan raise his eyebrows in consternation, and thus MUST be difficult.  Or pose no opportunity for bright orange fondant flowers.  I imagine either would chill The Brend to the bone.

The recipe they must all follow is very sparse – the first step is ‘make a genoise sponge’, for instance.  Here is the one which Mary Berry made earlier – I hope she made it herself, anyway, although she calls it ‘scrummy’, which isn’t very modest.  But she’s right, it does look scrummy.

Mel says it’s the ‘little black dress’ of the patisserie world.  It’s that sort of inexplicable nonsense which reminds me that we haven’t had the Here’s Some Facts About Regional Cakes segment, where poor hapless Mel is dragged up to Lancashire to witness the genesis of an Eccles cake, or Sue is forced to sit through an out-of-work actress pretending to be a boisterous 18th century cook.

Oh.  I spoke too soon.

I’m going boldly to ignore the history of someone who made ovens, or something.  Mel and Sue have obviously revolted, as neither of them are present in this segment – various biographers and ‘experts’ are forced to babble, instead, at anonymous cameramen.

I don’t know what they were talking about, but there were nice pictures.

Back in the tent, everything’s a little tense.  They all comment that they’ve never made a ‘creme pat’ quite like this.  Well, folks, I’ve never made a creme pat at all.  Adorably, Mel and Sue gossip at the side (“How’s Danny doing?”  “Danny’s doing well.”  “Oh, good!”) like anxious parents on the side of a school football field.

Was that offside, do you think?”
“I have no idea what that means.”

John especially is struggling, and the way the editing is going, I’d be very surprised if he weren’t on the first train back to whereverhe’sfrom.  Over on the prehistoric table, The Brend is getting along pretty well.  Mel pops over to offer some encouraging words (among which, no joke, is included “Amazeballs”) and he not only completely ignores her, he basically shoves her out the way:

That’s not gonna win you any friends, Brend.

But when they’re all unveiled, it’s actually Danny’s which is looking rather the worse for wear…

…and a few minutes later…

Could John be safe after all?

Overall, I’m pretty impressed – but Paul just says “One or two of them look pretty good.”

The placings, you ask?  In last place, of course, is poor Danny.  Believe it or not, The Brend is third.  It’s very close for first place, but James just pips John to the post.  John, brilliantly, calls James a ‘wily minx’.

This establishing shot is so gratuitous, but… awwww.

And onto the Showstopper Challenge – a choux pastry gateaux!

As usual, I’m flagging in my recap by now (always by the most exciting challenge!) so here are some quotations, before we see the finished results…

“I’m interested in your passionfruit curd.”

“Less is more is my new motto.” (The Brend, no less!)

“Although the gateaux is usually in the shape of a bike-wheel, James is planning to go further.”  (Oh, James.  Never change.)

[Mary] “How are you going to construct it?”  [James] “I… don’t know.”  (Attaboy.)


“What the hell is that?” (Sue’s encouraging words.)

[Insert Yet Another Historical Segment Here.]  But Sue gets a trip to Paris out of it, and a man in green trousers gesticulates at her.

AND she’s not wearing a blazer! 

Before this programme started, I was trying to remember John’s distinctive characteristic – and now I’ve remembered; he has mini-breakdowns every episode.  His choux pastry doesn’t rise very well, and he starts madly wandering back and forth, gibbering, while Mel becomes ever increasingly like a tired single mum with a stroppy teenager, and beseeches him to calm down.  Bless them both, it works.  If Cathryn’s spin-off sitcom never happens (and it still should), then I want Mel and John to have their own guidance counselling segment on morning television – are you listening, TV producers?

Time for the final judging of the episode – once we’ve seen three more rabbits in establishing shots.  It’s like a casting call for Watership Down, here.

The Brend’s actually does look understated, somehow!  ‘Exceptional job on the display’, says Paul, shocked into proper grammar.  No ‘displayingly good!’ or ‘it’s the exceptional’ in sight.  They love the flavour, crust, colour, and everything.  I worry a little for Mary’s teeth when she comments on the ‘crunch’, as they sound like they’re disintegrating.

Danny’s also gets complimented on appearance, but they think it’s gone a bit over the top on the amount of rosewater.  “You were brave to pick rose,” says Paul.  That’s what they said to Jack in Titanic.  Badoomtish.

James’ bike amuses everyone, and declared absolutely lovely by Mary, but Paul had hoped for more volume.

Finally, John‘s is another one which is complimented on its appearance – they have all got that in the bag this week – and they love the passionfruit flavour too…

So, who will go home??  My money right now (some hours after it finished being broadcast, and thus null and void at any bookmakers) is… Danny.

Am I right?

Er, yes.  Star Baker is James, again, and leaving is, indeed, Danny.  A lucky save for John.

“Er, let go now, Danny…”

She gives the sweetest exit interview ever – about how the people in her life have been excited about her success, and that she feels valued.  Now I feel a bit bad for being mean to her… but I love them all, really, even The Brend.  Honest.

Next Tuesday – the final!  And an all-male final, at that.  I am man, hear me whisk!

My predictions are Third: John, Second: The Brend, First: Scottish James.  What do you reckon?

See you then!

Five From the Archive (no.10)

In case you’ve not spotted this feature before at SiaB, it’s one where I look back through my 5+ years of blogging, and pick out five reviews of good books which have an interesting or unusual connection…

Reading At Freddie’s made me wonder why I hadn’t previously thought of today’s FFTA topic, since it is one which I actively seek in the books I read… and then I was surprised by how few I could find in my past reviews.  But enough to compile a list for you!  (I would have included Wise Children by Angela Carter, but it already appeared under books about twins.)  As always, feel free to use the idea and logo, and do add your own suggestions in the comments – in fact, this is a category for which I’d really value suggestions, especially novels, so put your thinking caps on!  (oh, and the cartoon took AGES, so… you’d make my day if you said something nice about it!)

Five… Books About The Theatre

that theatre…

1.) To Tell My Story (1948) by Irene Vanbrugh

In short: A largely forgotten name now, Dame Irene was once a much-loved stage actress – she was Gwendoline in the first The Importance of Being Earnest; co-founded R.A.D.A., and appeared in the first British colour film.  She also appeared in many of A.A. Milne’s plays, which is what attracted me to her autobiography.

From my review: “Although Vanbrugh rarely delves into her private life too deeply, she does talk about becoming a widow. Much of To Tell My Story moves away from tales of specific performances to more general, and very fascinating, ruminations upon all manner of aspects of acting – from etiquette, to creating a part, to being in a revival.”

2.) And Furthermore (2010) by Judi Dench and John Miller

In short: One of Britain’s – nay, the world’s – favourite actresses gives anecdotes from her many years of success on stage and screen.  (It makes for a fascinating contrast and comparison with Irene Vanbrugh’s autobiography.) 

From my review: “As a rule, a biography focuses on the career and an autobiography on the childhood – or so I have found – so it’s nice to have an autobiography which looks mostly at the area which interests me most. Because it is Dench’s decades of theatrical experience which captivate me – each play seems to come with its own amusing or intriguing incidents, and I love the atmosphere conveyed of being part of the company.”

3.) The Town in Bloom (1965) by Dodie Smith

In short: Friends reuniting and reminiscing 45 years after their youth spent in a ‘club’ kicks off a novel about a girl’s life in the 1920s theatrical world, with some intrigue and romance thrown in.  First half brilliant, second half tedious… the brilliant first half earns the novel its place in FFTA.

From my review: “It was a brave, and a delicious, decision on Dodie Smith’s part to make Mouse no prodigy – she is an appalling actress, and no amount of advice from Crossway can make her anything else. So, instead, she starts working in one of the theatre offices with Eve Lester, a kind, sensible, and wise woman in an environment of those who are often kind, but rarely the rest.”

4.) Being George Devine’s Daughter (2006) by Harriet Devine

In short: Best known to most of us as a blogger, Harriet’s father was the director George Devine.  This book combines autobiography with biography of him, and offers the fascinating perspective of a child who met everyone in the theatre.

From my review: “It must be tempting, writing about oneself and one’s family, to have all sorts of references to jokes the reader won’t understand, or people who are relevant for one story but never again. Harriet doesn’t do this – there is nothing here that would be edited out if the book were fiction; it all comes together to form a structured narrative whole. Throughout it all, Harriet’s tone is beautifully honest and thoughtful, without being unduly introspective or (conversely) coolly detached. It is the perfect tone for autobiography.”

5.) The Dover Road (1921) by A.A. Milne

In short: Not about theatre per se, but I had to include a play somewhere.  An eloping couple found their car breaks down outside a very curious hotel… and meet a very interfering (and hilarious) proprietor.

From my review: “Yes, the scenario is a little contrived, but who cares about that – The Dover Road is a very funny play about the benign meddling of Latimer and the various mismatched pairings under his roof.”

At Freddie’s – Penelope Fitzgerald

One of my undergraduate friends at university spent seminars comparing everything – everything – to either King Lear or Ulysses.  It got a little wearying, bless him.  But I seem to have developed the same affliction with Muriel Spark.  So many writers I read seem to have the same slightly stylised dialogue and deadpan narrative, or unusual characters who refuse to comply fully with the accepted norms of conversation and life. Never has a novel felt more Sparkian (yes) to me than Penelope Fitzgerald’s At Freddie’s (1982) – to the point that I kept forgetting that it wasn’t Spark in my hands whilst I was reading.  Oh, and this is no bad thing – quite apart from destabilising my grasp on authorship (Barthes would be proud), it’s a fantastic novel.

In my post on The Railway Children the other day, I mentioned Penelope Fitzgerald as an author I’d intended to include in A Century of Books, and it reminded me that I’ve been wanting to read At Freddie’s since I bought it last November.  I have quite a few unread Fitzgeralds, actually, having only read two (Human Voices and The Bookshop), but the theatrical setting of At Freddie’s meant it was an obvious candidate for the next one I’d pick up.

When I say ‘theatrical setting’, I actually mean ‘children’s theatre school’ – Freddie (doyenne of The Temple School, or ‘Freddie’s’) trains children in a haphazard manner, ignoring the brave new world of television (for it is the 1960s) and doing whatever would best please Shakespeare.  The children are taught egotism and self-importance, and shipped off to play emotive parts in Dombey and Son or King John.  Freddie herself seems to have minimal dealings with them, developing instead the cult of her own personality – for Freddie is a woman.  And a wonderful woman at that – one of the most characterful characters I’ve met for a while, if you know what I mean.

Everyone who knew the Temple School will remember the distinctive smell of Freddie’s office.  Not precisely disagreeable, it suggested a church vestry where old clothes hang and flowers moulder in the sink, but respect is called for just the same.  It was not a place for seeing clearly.  Light, in the morning, entered at an angle, through a quantity of dust.  When the desk lamp was switched on at length the circle of light, although it repelled outsiders, was weak.  Freddie herself, to anyone who was summoned into the room, appeared in the shadow of her armchair as a more solid piece of darkness.  Only a chance glint struck from her spectacles and the rim of great semi-precious brooches, pinned on at random.  Even her extent was uncertain, since the material of her skirts and the chair seemed much the same.
This is how we first approach her, but it doesn’t do her justice.  She is not the sort to fade into the background – more to lure people in, unawares, and charmingly get whatever she wants from them – often in the name of Shakespeare, or following a ‘Word’ she feels she has been given.  A Word of the non-theological variety, you understand – it could be something she overheard, or saw in an advertisement, or not traceable at all, and she shows some dexterity in the way she interprets these Words.

Here are a couple of quotations which do her better justice:

She knew that she was one of those few people, to be found in every walk of life, whom society has mysteriously decided to support at all costs.
and

Freddie herself had fulfilled the one sure condition of being loved by the English nation, that is, she had been going on a very long time.  She had done so much for Shakespeare, one institution, it seemed, befriending another.  Her ruffianly behaviour had become ‘known eccentricities’.  Like Buckingham Palace, Lyons teashops, the British Museum Reading Room, or the market at Covent Garden, she could never be allowed to disappear.
She is indomitable, a little vague, self-aware to an extent – an extent which relies on nobody else reaching quite her level of awareness.  Freddie is a joy – and it’s rather a shame that we don’t spend more time in her company.  She is the pivot of the school, but she shares centre stage with various other characters in At Freddie’s.  Chief amongst these are the two new teachers, Hannah Graves and Pierce Carroll.  Hannah is besotted with the theatre and the mystique of backstage life – although she does not wish to be an actress, she wants to live in proximity to that world.  I could empathise entirely with her!  Carroll is a different matter – and a preposterous, but inspired, character.  He, essentially, is incapable of self-delusion or self-aggrandisement.  He has no ambition or drive.  Carroll recognises – and openly admits to Freddie – that he is not a good teacher, has no gift with children, and would be unlikely to find a job anywhere else.  Freddie takes him on as a teacher simply out of curiosity – and he makes no attempt to educate the children at all, except once, in a glorious paragraph:

For the first time since his appointment he was correcting some exercise
books.  He had not asked for the exercises to be done, but the children
left behind, those who hadn’t got work in the theatre, had decided, for
a day or so at least, to do an imitation of good pupils.  How they
could tell what to do was a mystery, and as to the books, he hadn’t even
known that they’d got any.
And then there are the children.  Primarily Mattie and Jonathan.  Mattie is as self-absorbed as any of the other actors in the novel, given to pranks, lies, and overdramatics, but also with something of Freddie’s gift for being able to talk anybody around.  Jonathan is different.  He is a gifted mimic and a thoughtful actor, often quietly in Mattie’s shadow, but the final, curious words of the novel (you will find) are about him…

Penelope Fitzgerald’s writing style seems to be rather different in each novel I read.  I found her rather stilted in Human Voices, although perhaps I’d changed my mind on reacquaintance; The Bookshop was poignant and quietly devastating. At Freddie’s has that Sparkian sparseness, coupled with a sly wit best shown in the ironic twist to her characterisations.  It’s devastating in a whole different way – an assassination of a character’s foibles in very few words, for example:

He then said he was obliged to be going, for, as a busy man, a necessary condition of his being anywhere was to be on the way somewhere else.  He picked up his coat and brief-case, and then, although he knew that he had brought nothing else with him, looked round, as though he were not quite sure.
Curiously, self-delusion and self-importance are censured from this man (Freddie’s businessman brother) but accepted from those connected with the theatre.  It is, of course, a separate world.  What Fitzgerald does so wonderfully – and it does seem to me quite a remarkable achievement – is to combine two opposing views of the theatre.  She is simultaneously cynical and awed – recognising both the glory and the absurdity of the second oldest profession.

Ed was listening for the immediate and irrepressible gap and murmur from the house which is like the darkness talking to itself.  He caught, alas, only the faintest snatch of it.  Most of the audience, faced with an unfamiliar play, were bent over their programmes.  They could have read them more easily earlier on, but chose to do so now.  They accepted the presence on the stage of the Lords Salisbury and Pembroke, because the play was by Shakespeare and that was what Shakespeare was like.  But they did not expect to be asked to distinguish between one lord and another, unless there was a war or a quarrel, and it was this that was causing them anxiety.
I adore the theatre – watching plays, yes, but above that the idea of the theatre.  It is for that reason that I love reading theatrical actors’ biographies, or novels set in that environment.  Wouldn’t it be wonderful, in an unworldly way, to be in one of those acting dynasties?  Or – like the boys – to grow up in that sphere of extreme emotions and spectacles?  Fitzgerald concedes that – she gives us Hannah, who feels that way without having any aspiration actually to be an actress – but she permits no rosy-eyed or glassy-eyed view of the theatre and its people.  She gives us wonderful characters, she gives us the adorable, inimitable, formidable Freddie, but she knocks over their pedestals and shows how foolish Freddie’s school is – and, yet, how timelessly glorious too.

A quick Lady Into Fox plea…

I know a few readers will have this – does anybody have a mid-sixties Norton edition, which comes with an author’s note by David Garnett?  If yes, and you’d be happy to photocopy or type it out for me, please comment or email simondavidthomas[at]yahoo.co.uk – thanks a million!  (Usual library sources have failed me, so I’m crowd-sourcing…)

EDIT: thanks to lovely Sheila, who found it and typed it out for me!

Stuck-in-a-Book’s Weekend Miscellany

Another rainy weekend here, I think – but I’ll be at work on Saturday anyway, so I feel a bit better about it… hope you have something planned!

1.) The link – is shameless.  I discovered @EmergencyPuppy – basically lots of very cute photos of animals (not just puppies).  If you want a taster, here is the one captioned ‘Here is my ball, perhaps you would like it?’

2.) The blog post – I’ve never entirely worked out how Slaves of Golconda works, or where they got their curious name from, but lovely blogger Danielle has chosen lovely book Crewe Train by lovely author Rose Macaulay for their next group read – ergo, a whole heap of lovely.  Some info here. Discussion starts November 17th, and if you need further persuasion, my review of the novel is here.

3.) The book – came the other day, was left in the living room, picked up by my housemate – and then I heard lots of helpless laughter the other side of the wall!  Just My Typo, kindly sent my Hodder and Stoughton, is a collection of amusing typos from literature, signs, text messages, newspapers, etc… on the first page is a taster of what’s to come: “Barney” by Rudge – $1.50.  It’s an 19th century American advert… think about it…

Great British Bake Off: Episode 8

Last week I decided to recap Episode 7 of The Great British Bake Off, and it proved quite popular – so, a day late, I’ve decided to do the same for Episode 8.  And again, it took forever… but it was fun!  If you need an overview of how the programme works, or want to catch up on last week’s episode, click here.  In brief, my favourite contestant (Sarah-Jane) went home, and so did someone who reminded me too much of a colleague (Ryan), Paul Hollywood mangled the English language to hitherto unsuspected contortions, Mary Berry borrowed a coat from Joseph (which apparently was a huge hit), and Scottish James wore a disappointingly low-key jumper.  This week – biscuits!  Given how GBBO has shown me that I had mis-defined puddings, desserts, and tortes, I’m fully expecting the first biscuit challenge to involve ostrich eggs and jelly.  We’ll see.

Now that Sarah-Jane has gone, I’m completely Team Cathryn.  And I’m sorry for calling you Kathryn last week, my dear, I’m on the right page now.  In the here’s-what-will-happen-this-week clips, she’s making this face:

A big part of me hopes that this is never explained, so that I can continue to believe that she has an invisible exploding camera.

The remaining bakers (shall we settle on that, rather than ‘contestants’?  It’s much friendlier) process into the tent.  Scottish James is wearing shorts, which helps explain (if not atone for) the second week in a row where he has no natty knitwear.

Let’s get straight on with the show!  The ‘Signature Challenge’ is to make 48 crackers or crispbreads (crisp which now?) – ‘They should be thin, and crack when snapped in two – a little bit like Nicole Kidman’, as presenter Mel helpfully adds.  Paul threatens to ‘test for the snap on every single one of them’, which isn’t so much playing with words as talking complete nonsense.  Unless he intends to use the crackers to play cards?

Bless Brendan – or The Brend, as I now know him.  He’s probably the best baker left, but oh he does irritate me – yet I find it endearing that he continually tries to play down the fact that he’s four hundred years old.  In an early episode he claimed not to remember the ’70s.  Even if he meant 1870s, I’m certain he’s lying.  In spot-The-Brend’s-age-giveaways no.1, he’s interviewing about usually only making crackers to serve at buffets.  Presumably to go with little olives, for Beverley et al from Abigail’s Party.

I can’t get very excited about crackers, I’m afraid.  John is very anxious about whether or not he should use yeast, and Scottish James joins the nation’s housewives in flirting a bit with Paul.  Cathryn promises that hers will be crackers rather than cookies (a shame, I think a cookie would be much nicer) and the cameramen join the rest of the world in forgetting that Danny exists.

That shot is just to show you how they introduce everyone’s recipes, which I missed out last time.  It’s obviously supposed to be a cookbook, with the recipe title on one side and an illustration on the other, but sometimes it’s rather a thankless effort on the part of some work experience kid in post-production.  Usually the illustration resembles the finished product only in the vaguest imaginable way, not least because BBC seem only to have access to MS Paint when it comes to colour choices.  Would you put anything that looked like those ‘Asian Spice Crackers’ anywhere near your mouth?

“These are the sort of crackers you’d have with your mates around,” John explains, “a really good nibbly cracker.”  Uh-oh.  Paul’s nonsense-speak is catching…  His definitions haven’t really elucidated the matter, have they?  Unless there are some crackers that you can only have when all your mates have abandoned you, and you’re lying in bed, crying into a glass of red.

Oh, Danny is still here!  Bless her heart, she’s trying to act all dangerous and maverick.  She has a ‘controversial’ ingredient – what is it?  Hash?  Arsenic?  A potent aphrodisiac?  Er… no.  It’s desiccated cheese.  But she gets a bonus point for describing picking a 1970s ingredient as, essentially, ‘doing a Brend’. Not her exact words, but the gist.

John has a mini breakdown over a fork and a Woody Woodpecker impersonation.

The Brend confides in us about his love of precision – ‘If it’s worth doing, it’s worth doing well’ – and he’s got out a ruler, tape measure, and cutter.

I worry a little for The Brend.

Lots of shots, now, of them trying again to make the whole process sound like Mission Impossible – Mel throws around words like ‘crucial’, and puts on the sort of voiceover tone usually reserved for newsreaders detailing the deaths of innocents.  Cathryn says something about the importance of not burning crackers, but it’s hard to make out over the sound of a production guy bellowing in the background – which, I suppose, adds something to the heightened tension, even if it briefly demolishes the fourth wall.

John taps his cracker, possibly to see how well it is baked, possibly to start his own miniature baked good orchestra.  Who can say?  Everyone is baking in stages, so that they can use the same shelf for each tray of crackers and thus prevent varying levels of bakedness (Paul’s influence, sorry.)   Everyone except Scottish James, that is, who shoved them all in at once – which is treated, once again by Mel’s voiceover (where has Sue gone?) as the activities of a half-crazed fifth-columnist.  He may be whole-crazed, as he declares that his cracker looks like a little mouse.

As you see, it doesn’t.

I love Cathryn all the more for saying ‘Heavens-to-Betsy’, which is something I often say myself.  It started ironically, but now I just say it.  John, meanwhile, is singing a song about crackers, and Danny is reciting numbers to herself like a madwoman.  The obvious crackers/crackers pun has, bizarrely, yet to be made by Sue.  And if Sue ain’t going there, neither am I.

Paul and Mary are wheeled on for judging…

Brendan’s are “really scrummy” (darling Mary, talking with her mouth full) and “have a good bake on it” (Paul “gibberish” Hollywood)
Danny’s have a good crack, good consistency, and a lovely colour.  Snore.
James’ (and that is how BBC2 do their apostrophe – God bless BBC2!  You wouldn’t get that on BBC1) are beautifully crisp, and Mary seems to be wolfing them down, one in each hand.

Cathryn apologises for hers before they’re even handed over, because they’re varying shades and thicknesses.  I forgive her everything when she says “Oh lor'” – the sooner she stars in her own sitcom as a put-upon Yorkshire landlady, the better.
John’s ‘break well’, and have a ‘hint of curry’.  Which sounds horrifying, to be honest.  Paul wanted them to be bigger – to which Mary rightly points out that he could just eat twice as many.

Oh dear, we’re going to Learn Something About Biscuits.  Mel takes the opportunity to audition for Countryfile.

We’re off to Anglesey – which Mel falsely claims is ‘the mother of Wales’, whatever that means – to learn about the ‘James cake’, otherwise known as… something I couldn’t quite catch.  It sounded like Abattoir Biscuit, but I suspect it isn’t.  Yet again a mix of Food Historians and Local Bakers awkwardly tell us anecdotes to the backdrop of bizarre montages… let’s get back to the tent, shall we?

“The quarter-finalists have no idea what sort of biscuit they’ll be asked to bake next.”  Ah, you’re back, Sue. And say what you like about these contestants, compared to other reality shows – the ones on GBBO certainly know how to wield a good facial expression.

I think we have a winner.

And the Blind Challenge is… chocolate teacakes!  Biscuit, topped with marshmallow, covered in chocolate. Apparently it was 30 degrees heat (which seems a far-off dream, watching it in this miserable weather) so doing things with chocolate will be tricky.  Mary Berry warns that Paul Hollywood will have to be kind.  He makes the sort of face Jeremy Paxman might make if he were asked to be polite, or Piers Morgan if he were asked to be non-repellent.  (I.e. Paul won’t be kind.  That’s what I was going for there.  I just thought I’d phrase it to include two of the more obnoxious people on television because, let’s face it, Paul Hollywood is a sweetie really.)

None of the bakers really seem to know what they’re doing.  First things first are the digestive biscuits which will form the base – nothing that they’ve produced looks much like a biscuit to me, but who am I to judge?  The extreme heat is ruining their attempts at chocolate, and seeing John’s sweaty brow, I’m suddenly grateful for the clouds and rain we’ve had in Oxford today.

The Brend (described by John as ‘a machine’ – well, he has developed a semi-robotic monotone, with hints of Maggie Smith) seems to be having the most success, whereas lovely Cathryn is running into trouble… This week she has mostly been looking grumpy, but in an adorable way, like an overtired toddler.

Perhaps she misses lovely Sarah-Jane?  The happiest moment of my past week (which has been a steady run of headaches, so it’s not saying much) was discovering that Cathryn and Sarah-Jane co-author a blog, which you can read here.  What do you think the chances are that they’ll become my best friends?

I’ve realised I haven’t included any pictures of actual baked goods yet, so here’s a rather artsy (if not entirely appetising) picture of Scottish James’ teacakes in action:

Oh dear.  John’s come out rather well, but Cathryn starts shrieking “Oh my giddy AUNT” at hers – with a grin plastered over her face – and Sue doubles up her role of Presenter with that of Redoubtable Head Girl, and gets her to calm down and turn out her teacakes.  For once, Cathryn hasn’t overstated her disaster… after some poor crackers, I’m rather terrified that my favourite will be going home…

Just call them ‘deconstructed’, and you’ll be fine, love.

Aww, Scottish James gives her a hug.

Berry and Hollywood come on to do their blind judging.  Cathryn gets good comments for her biscuit and marshmallow, so maybe there’s hope for her yet.  Everyone else gets mixed comments, even The Brend (who, again, looks incredulous) but Paul gives everyone a ‘pretty good’ overall – high praise, indeed.

Oh dear, Cathryn is in fifth place.  Then last week’s star baker Danny, then John, then The Brend, and first prize is taken by Scottish James.

Onto the final challenge! First Mary and Paul give their thoughts on who is doing well, and who is in danger.  While they are praising Brendan and Scottish James, an editor cruelly puts up a protracted shot of James trying, and failing, to put on an apron.

Even crueller, since it turns out it’s his 21st birthday!  As Sue says, he can become an M.P. or… go to adult prison.

The showstopper challenge is – gingerbread houses!  What fun!

Oh, wait, Paul says he’s after ‘gingerbread structures’, not houses – those he will ‘smash’, only to be satisfied with ‘architectural genius’.  Gosh!  I’m even more excited… or is this some sort of budget cut, where Kevin McCloud will come on and present Grand Designs at the same time?  Will they quietly run the National Lottery in the background next week?

Cathryn wins even more I-Love-Her Points from me by making a Buckingham Palace gingerbread house, while Danny is making a two-feet tall Big Ben (or, in fact, Elizabeth Tower.  Big Ben is just the bell, fact fans.  I thought the tower was called St. Stephen’s Tower, but Wikipedia proves me wrong.)  John is going for a Coliseum [spelling courtesy of BBC; not how I’d have spelt it] with over a hundred pieces (designed by his graphic designer boyfriend), and James is going to make… a barn.  Hmm.  Not really quite as glamorous, is it?  But possibly easier to pass off as successful.  Everyone knows what Buck Pal looks like, whereas barns come in all shapes and sizes, don’t they?

I love that his baking comes with architectural plans.

I don’t think we talked to The Brend at all.  Presumably he’s building a Gingerbread Retirement Home?  Oh, my mistake, he turns up on the other side of some Gingerbread Of Times Past segment which I entirely ignored – he’s making a birdhouse, fondant bluebirds and all.

I’ve got to say, the final results are rather breathtaking.  They’ve had more interesting visual challenges in Series 3 than in previous years, and this one was a stroke of brilliance by some ideas-person backstage.

Here, for contrast, is a gingerbread house that my dear friend Lorna and I once made.  From a kit.

John’s is spectacular, evenly baked (I’m editing ‘an even bake’ here, folks, and into fewer words), although not quite gingery enough for Mary.  They only seem to eat a tiny fragment of it, though.

Brendan’s is described by Paul as ‘a bit much’.  The man has made grass, and decorated his Shredded Wheat roof with climbing roses.  The phrase ‘less is more’ probably makes The Brend retch.  And it’s too spicy for our Mary… oh dear!  I tease The Brend, but I was confidently expecting him to walk this (with a zimmer, obvs.)

Danny’s ‘could have been taller’ (!) and is quite cookie-gingerbread, which sounds lovely to me, but may or may not have been a compliment.

Cathryn claims that the Queen might be ‘naffed off’ with her design – and it does like a bit like Buckingham Palace post-earthquake – but Mary reassures her that you can tell what it was supposed to be.  Paul thinks the fact that it’s ginger, chocolate, and orange offers too many flavours, but Mary wants to eat all of it, to the last crumb.

James’ structure is appreciated, but the judges don’t seem actually to eat any of it.

So, who’s going home?  I worry that it’s still going to be Cathryn… she says it’s been a ‘crumby week’, and I don’t think she’s even making a pun.  Sue will be annoyed that she missed that one.

The star baker is…

Birthday Boy James!

And, going home, is…

Oh no!  It is Lovely Cathryn.  Everyone – the other bakers, Mel & Sue, Paul & Mary – seem equally distraught.  She probably was the worst this week, but it won’t be the same programme without her.  Still, that sitcom (working title: “Fine Words Don’t Butter No Parsnips”) can go into production asap.

Becoming my favourite seems a surefire way to get booted out…  I’ve had to transfer my affections to James, so… will he be on his way back to sunny Scotland next week?  Join me (probably) for the semi-finals!  They seem to be making dozens of complicated things.  It should be fun…

David and Sylvia

I have a few half-written posts lying about in the draft section of Blogger, and tonight – coming in late, halfway through a book review and with the prospect of another Great British Bake Off recap on the horizon, I am turning to one of them.  I no longer remember the wider framework which I intended to use for a review of Sylvia & David: The Townsend Warner/Garnett letters.  So, instead, here are three wonderful quotations Sylvia Townsend Warner wrote to David Garnett…

Warner to Garnett, 1967: I go home on Saturday, and on Monday the decorator comes, and all the books will have to be moved from Valentine’s sitting-room and dispersed through a house where there are far too many books already.  It will be a fine opportunity to read books I have forgotten we have, and even to find some I thought we had lost.  Of course we should also see it as an opportunity to weed out books we don’t want.  Can you weed books?  I can’t.  I discarded some Ruskin about thirty years ago and have often regretted it since.  I don’t know why exactly – but I know it was a mistake.  I might have read it and liked it very much.

Warner to Garnett, 1972: ‘What a lot of books we have written!  This is borne in on me because I have carried basketsful of them out of this room into the next’

Warner to Garnett, 1974: ‘I have been having visitors too.  One of them was Peggy Ashcroft who summarised the plight of ageing actresses by saying in a smouldering voice “Now I have only Volumnia left me.”. . .