Stuck-in-a-Book’s Weekend Miscellany

Happy weekend, folks!  As I warned, things have been a bit quieter than usual on SiaB this week.  I’ll tell you more about my job next week (thanks for all your lovely congrats) – for now, sit back and enjoy a book, a link, and a blog post.

1.) The blog post – You know how great it is when someone loves an author you love?  Even better is when initially they don’t, and then discover later that they do.  Harriet rather hated her first experience with Ivy Compton-Burnett (whom, as you might know, I adore).  Bravely, after some encouragement from me and some reading around the blogs, Harriet decided to give Dame Ivy another try.  And let there be rejoicing in the street, it worked!  Let Harriet explain it all, here.

2.) The book – just look what will be coming out in April…

3.) The link – I’m afraid I can’t remember where I first saw this (it was on Facebook, let’s face [ahem] it) but thanks if you brought it to my attention!  It’s 30 of the Most Beautiful Abandoned Places – some really stunning, quite eerie, photos.

Making My Mark

Once or twice on Stuck-in-a-Book I’ve talked about my little foibles when it comes to bookmarks.  Click back on those links to find out more (especially the first one, which gives a few examples) – basically, I like my bookmarks and books to fit together, by theme or colour.

And I was especially pleased by the bookmark/book combination that’s currently on my bedside table… so I had to share it with you.

Not only are Jane Bowles’ short stories shaping up to be pretty stunning (thanks Sort Of Books for sending it to me!) but just look how well the postcard from Blackwell co-ordinates with the image of the woman on the front.

It’s the little things in life that please me…

Exciting news!

If starting a new job weren’t enough exciting news, I have more!  Some of you may have seen it on Twitter and Facebook, but I haven’t mentioned it here yet.

I shall be appearing, with Elaine from Random Jottings, at the Felixstowe Book Festival 15-16 June 2013!

We’ll be nattering about book blogging – how we got involved, what it entails, anecdotes etc.  Not entirely sure what we’re saying, but I imagine it’ll be fairly organic.  Let’s face it, when Elaine and I get talking, we’re not worried that there will be long periods of silence.  Hopefully the audience will be able to get a word in, for a Q&A!

If you live remotely near Suffolk, it would be lovely if you could come!  Obviously we’re not the only event – the website is here, so have a browse through.  I’d love to meet SiaB readers, so do come along and introduce yourselves.  For more info, either see that website, or read what Elaine had to say about it all.

A Spy in the Bookshop

I’ve been a bit worried about what will happen when I get to my first Reading Presently book which I haven’t hugely liked.  And the time has come.  Since it was given by a very dear friend (my ex-colleague Lucy) I don’t want to seem unappreciative – but I also, of course, don’t want to lie.  So I’m just going to give my honest review, with the caveat that I’m VERY grateful to Luce for giving it to me (and another addendum, that I’ve just read a really fun, great book which Lucy also gave me.)

As it happens, I didn’t especially dislike A Spy in the Bookshop (letters between Heywood Hill and John Saumarez Smith 1966-74), it just disappointed me a bit.  JSS (as I shall know him for the rest of this review) had previously edited the letters of Heywood Hill and Nancy Mitford, which I very much enjoyed – and was actually the first thing I read in the Mitford canon.  Obviously buoyed by success, JSS decided to publish his own correspondence with Heywood Hill…

Hill had just retired from the bookshop at 10, Curzon Street, and running the shop was a man with the extraordinary name Handasyde Buchanan (known as ‘Handy’).  His wife Mollie worked there too, as well as assistant Liz.  The letters JSS sends to Hill are, basically, 165 pages of them bitching about the Buchanans.  Forgive the terminology, but nothing else will quite fit.

You know when you’re on a bus, or in a shop, and overhear angry conversation between two people about an absent third – and you think “I bet it’s six of one and half a dozen of the other”?  Yes?  That is to say, the absent third person would probably have equally as compelling a case against the gossiping couple present?  That’s the feeling that I got from A Spy in the Bookshop (2006).  JSS writes off a letter saying “THIS is something awful Handy did today”; Hill replies “Gosh, that’s awful”; JSS writes “You think THAT’S awful?  What about THIS!”

I don’t blame JSS for writing these letters.  I imagine it was rather cathartic – and sometimes, as with the following example, rather amusing:

Instead, he took the chance when Mollie was away, “to smarten me up”: a process that I need hardly describe, consisting as it always does of a catalogue of his own virtues.
but it does rather pall.  Which makes it particularly galling when JSS does edit out excerpts which seem rather more interesting.  This editorial comment made me gnash my teeth, and pencil two exclamation marks in the margin:

[Some details followed about Rome and some of the people, including Muriel Spark, whom I’d met through my ex-uncle Ronald Bottrall.]
Oh, John!  Tell us about that, please!

There is enough about the everyday running of a bookshop to keep me reading, and anybody who can slip in anecdotes about Nancy Mitford is onto a winning thing with me, but I would have loved more.  Heywood Hill could also be witty when he wanted to be:

P.S. One of those real hopeless customer questions from a neighbour here.  A book about a man in California who kept wolves as Alsatians.  She had it in paperback but lost it, she found it such a help with her jackal.
But here again, I’m afraid I have a problem with their outlook.  I hate the idea of books being worth a lot of money if they’re first editions, and all that talk of ‘unclipped’, ‘neat copy’ etc.  The idea of books as collectible objects based on their appearance or scarcity rather sickens me, as an avid reader.  And commercial value, naturally for booksellers, is paramount in their mind.

Heywood Hill has proven to be a worthy correspondent, in the letters with Nancy Mitford, and I did get the sense that he was lowering himself rather for JSS’s petty missives.  I don’t doubt a genuine affection between them, but I do believe that Hill wasn’t bringing out his best letters for JSS.

It’s a fun enough collection, and the bookshop setting certainly helps, but it does scream afterthought, once the Nancy Mitford letters were successful.  Without either correspondent having her talent for letter-writing, and with such a repetitive, almost bitter, note sounding throughout, A Spy in the Bookshop is only fairly enjoyable – and there are certainly better places to look for this sort of collection.  But, once again, thank you to Lucy for being sweet enough to give me a copy!

Stuck-in-a-Book’s Weekend Miscellany

I’m starting a new job on Monday (maternity cover) at Oxford University Press.  It’s all happened very quickly – I applied for it two weeks ago – and I’m both excited and nervous.  I might well tell you more about it in the future, once I’ve worked out how much distance I ought to keep between my job and this blog, but for now I just want to explain why posts will be a bit sporadic for the next week or two, as I get used to a new environment.  But I’ve quite enjoyed posting every other day, for a bit, rather than everyday – because more people seem to interact with each post that way.

But don’t worry, I’m definitely not going anywhere!  Stuck-in-a-Book is still very important to me.

Some quick weekend links…

1.) The book – is Jenn Ashworth’s The Friday Gospels, which I’m 50 pages into.  I loved her A Kind of Intimacy, and have somehow still not read her second novel (bad Simon), but have gone straight onto the third, which Sceptre kindly sent me when I sent them a begging email.  It’s about Mormons, and is from various different perspectives, all of which are wonderfully realised so far.  More soon…

2.) The link – Radio 4 do a programme all about Nancy Mitford!

3.) The blog post – I’m trying to resist writing about The Lizzie Bennet Diaries again (IT’S JUST GOT SO EXCITING), but I’ve found my way around that by linking, instead, to Iris’s blog post about it, and about Pride and Prejudice‘s anniversary – have a gander here.

Hallucinations – Oliver Sacks

Anne Fadiman wrote in Ex Libris that every bibliophile has a shelf (or shelves) of books that is somewhat off-kilter from the rest of their taste.  Mine might be my theology shelf, or my theatrical history shelf, but I think the books (few as they are) most likely to surprise the casual observer would be those on neurology.

When I told my Dad I’d bought and read Hallucinations by Oliver Sacks (after he’d spotted a review and told me about it), he asked “But will you be writing about it on your blog?”  “Of course,” thought I – it hadn’t crossed my mind that I wouldn’t.  But I pondered on it, and thought – would blog-readers used to my love for 1930s novels about spinsters drinking tea also want to read about phantom limbs and Delirium Tremens?

Believe me, you will.  I have almost zero interest in science in all its many and varied forms.  I stopped studying it when I was 16 (except for maths) and found it all very dull before that point.  (Apologies, science-lovers.)  Biology was far and away my least favourite subject.  And yet Hallucinations is absolutely brilliant, as fascinating and readable as his popular work The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat.  A predilection for scientific books is definitely not a prerequisite.  Sacks is just as much a storyteller as a scientist.

Before starting Hallucinations, I thought they were mostly terrifying, felt real, and came chiefly with a fever or drug abuse.  While hallucinations can be all these things, I was surprised to learn how often they are benign (even amusing or comforting) and easily recognised as fake.  Strangest still, I hadn’t realised that (under Sacks’ definitions) I had experienced hallucinations myself.

That’s not quite true – I knew I’d had them when I had an extremely high temperature during flu, but I hadn’t known that what I’d had repeatedly as a child were hypnagogic hallucinations – those that people get just before going to sleep.  Aged about 5, I often used to see chains of bright lights and shapes (and, Mum remembered but I did not, faces) in front of me – whether my eyes were open or closed – at bedtime.  It turns out hypnagogic hallucinations are very common, and (Sacks writes) rarely unnerving for the hallucinator.  Well, Dr. Sacks, aged five I found them incredibly frightening, and usually ran to mother!

There are so many types of hallucinations that Sacks has witnessed in decades of being a neurologist, encountering hundreds of people and hearing about thousands from his colleagues.  This book just includes the ones who gave him permission.  It would necessitate typing out the whole book to tell you all the illustrations he gives, but they range from fascinating accounts of Charles Bonnet Syndrome (basically seeing hallucinations, often highly detailed, for long or short periods) to hallucinated smells, sounds, and even a chapter on hallucinating doppelgangers.

Almost all of these hallucinations act alongside lives which are lived otherwise normally, and do not suggest any terrible neurological condition.  It is somewhat chilling that Sacks recounts a study which revealed that 12 volunteers, with otherwise ‘normal’ mental health histories, were asked to tell doctors they were hearing voices – and 11 were diagnosed with schizophrenia.  Sacks is keen to point out how many patients with hallucinations, even when voices, are not suffering from schizophrenia or any other sort of mental illness.  He is deeply interested in how people manage their lives when seeing hallucinations at any hour of the day, and offers up humble praise to those who take it in their stride.

This is what makes Sacks so special.  A few of the blurb reviews describe him as ‘humane’, which I suppose he is – but the word feels a little dispassionate.  Sacks, on the other hand, is fundamentally compassionate.  He never treats or describes people as case studies.  The accounts he gives are not scientific outlines, interested only in neurological details, but mini-biographies filled with human detail, humour, and respect.  Here’s an example of all three factors combining:

Gertie C. had a half-controlled hallucinosis for decades before she started on L-dopa – bucolic hallucinations of lying in a sunlit meadow or floating in a creek near her childhood home.  This changed when she was given L-dopa and her hallucinations assumed a social and sometimes sexual character.  When she told me about this, she added, anxiously, “You surely wouldn’t forbid a friendly hallucination to a frustrated old lady like me!”  I replied that if her hallucinations had a pleasant and controllable character, they seemed rather a good idea under the circumstances.  After this, the paranoid quality dropped away, and her hallucinatory encounters became purely amicable and amorous.  She developed a humour and tact and control, never allowing herself a hallucination before eight in the evening and keeping its duration to thirty or forty minutes at most.  If her relatives stayed too late, she would explain firmly but pleasantly that she was expecting “a gentleman visitor from out of town” in a few minutes’ time, and she felt he might take it amiss if he was kept waiting outside.  She now receives love, attention, and invisible presents from a hallucinatory gentleman who visits faithfully each evening.

And with this respect and kindness definitely comes a sense of humour – the sort of humour exemplified by many of the people he met.  This detail, in a footnote, was wonderful:

Robert Teunisse told me how one of his patients, seeing a man hovering outside his nineteenth-floor apartment, assumed this was another one of his hallucinations.  When the man waved at him, he did not wave back.  The “hallucination” turned out to be his window washer, considerably miffed at not having his friendly wave returned.

Although Sacks does not compromise his scientific standing, Hallucinations is definitely (as demonstrated by me) a book which is accessible to the layman.  In the whole book, there was only one sentence which completely baffled me…

When his patient died, a year later, an autopsy revealed a large midbrain infarction involving (among other structures) the cerebral peduncles (hence his coinage of the term “penduncular hallucinations”).

I’ll take your word for it, Oliver.

But, that excerpt aside, Hallucinations was more of a page-turner than most detective novels, paid closer attention to the human details of everyday life than much domestic fiction, and certainly left me with more to think about than many books I read.  I hope I’ve done enough to convince you that, even if you think you won’t be interested, you probably would be.

I have wondered whether my interest in neurology might, in fact, just be an appreciation of Oliver Sacks.  I’ve started other books in the field and not finished them, though I will go back to one on synaesthesia that I recently began.  Perhaps no other author combines Sacks’ talents as scientist and storyteller… but I’m happy to be proven wrong, if anyone has any suggestions?

For now, though, I’m going to have to hunt out my copy of Sacks’ Awakenings

Readalong Reviews

Do keep discussing in the previous post – a fascinatingly wide range of opinions there, all supported with excellent points – and here are a bunch of Cheerful Weather for the Wedding reviews appearing around the blogosphere.  If you link to your review in the comments on the previous post, I’ll add them here…

Alex in Leeds
Bibliolathas
The Captive Reader
Chasing Bawa
Claire Thinking
Desperate Reader
Kaggsy’s Bookish Ramblings 
Leaves and Pages
Pen and Pencil Girls
Reading 1900-1950
Tale of Three Cities
We Be Reading
A Work in Progress

Cheerful Weather for the Wedding: Readalong

Right, books at the ready!  I’ve re-read Cheerful Weather for the Wedding ahead of seeing the new film (which I’ll be doing in one week’s time, at The Phoenix in Oxford, which has a one-night-only screening) and I’m opening up this post for discussion.  It won’t be one of my usual reviews, because I’ve actually already reviewed the novel (novella?) here, but more of a hub for conversation about it.

But I’ll give you a quick overview of my thoughts on re-reading Cheerful Weather for the Wedding.  It might be worth popping over and reading my thoughts in 2009, if you’d be so kind… basically I loved every moment, particularly the hilarious secondary characters.  Most memorable were mad Nellie (who spouts irrelevant conversations she has had with the plumber, while addressing the tea-tray) and brothers Tom and Robert, who come to a contretemps over the latter’s unorthodox emerald socks.  (I’m assuming that everyone knows the basic plot by this point – Dolly is uncertainly preparing for her wedding to Owen, with a houseful of eccentrics helping and hindering her – and a bottle of rum within reach.)

This time around, I found the novella a little less amusing, but mostly because I already knew where all my favourite bits were coming.  It is testament to Strachey’s humour that Nellie, Tom, and Robert have remained firmly fixed in my mind, down to their individual lines (“Put your head in a bag” still makes me grin) but inevitably surreal moments of humour heavily rely upon novelty.  Her cast of near-grotesques were still a delight, but not quite as much the second time around.

This, however, left me more able to appreciate other aspects to Cheerful Weather for the Wedding (and not just that sublime cover – I kept closing the book just to stare at it for a bit longer.)  I’d appreciated Strachey as a comic writer, but hadn’t really noticed how gorgeous some of her other writing is.  Her propensity to describe every character’s eyes when they arrive on the scene was slightly unnerving, but depictions of buildings and countryside were really lovely, and contrasted well with the surreal descriptions of people.  I couldn’t resist this excerpt…

Dolly’s white-enamelled Edwardian bedroom jutted out over the kitchen garden, in a sort of little turret.  It was at the top of the house, and reached by a steep and narrow stairway.  Coming in at the bedroom door, one might easily imagine one’s self to be up in the air in a balloon, or else inside a lighthouse.  One saw only dazzling white light coming in at the big windows on all sides, and through the bow window directly opposite the door shone the pale blue sea-bay of Malton.

This morning the countryside, through each and all of the big windows, was bright golden in the sunlight.  On the sides of a little hill quite close, beyond the railway cutting, grew a thick hazel copse.  To-day, with the sun shining through its bare branches, this seemed to be not trees at all, but merely folds of something diaphanous floating along the surface of the hillside – a flock of brown vapours, here dark, there light – lit up in the sunshine.

And all over the countryside this morning the bare copses looked like these brown gossamer scarves; they billowed over the hillsides, here opalescent, there obscure – according to the sunlight and shadow among their bronze and gauzy foldings.
It can’t just be me who wants to move in immediately?  But I couldn’t leave you without a moment of Strachey’s wonderfully wicked humour…

“How are your lectures going?” asked Kitty of Joseph, a kind of desperate intenseness in her voice and face.  This was her style of the moment with the male sex.
And now over to you!  If you post a review of Cheerful Weather for the Wedding during the week, please pop a link in the comments (I’ll probably do a round-up later in the week) but I’d also like this to be a place for discussion – do reply to each other’s comments, and I’ll join in, and it’ll be FUN.  I won’t post for another two or three days, to give everyone a chance to see this.

Here are some questions to start things going:

Did you enjoy the novel, for starters!?

What do you think Julia Strachey was trying to achieve – what sort of book was she trying to write?

Why do you think Strachey made it so short?  Would it have worked as a longer novel?

Who were your favourite characters?

If you’re re-reading, how did you opinion change this time?

How do you think it will translate to cinema?