StuckinaBook’s Weekend Miscellany

Happy weekend! Hope you’ve got lots of lovely things planned. Mine will hopefully include editing a podcast at some point, so that will be out early next week, but for today… let’s have a book, a blog post, and a link.

1.) The blog post – is the always-funny Jenny from Reading the End being extra specially funny about the Brontes. What’s the Bronte-est thing that happens in Claire Harman’s new biography of Charlotte? Find out…

2.) The link – who doesn’t love interspecies friendship? And etymology? I don’t think I’ve shared this, that I wrote a couple of weeks ago for OxfordWords about words you didn’t know shared an etymological origin.

00Blog Pics6

3.) The book – coming out in a few days (if you’re in the US) and in late April (in the UK) is Helen Oyeyemi’s first collection of short stories, called What is Not Yours is Not Yours. Coming full circle in these three points (triangle?) is that I heard about it on Jenny’s podcast. A proof copy is now in my hot little hands, and I’m looking forward to starting it soon. I think it’s two different publishers on either side of the Pond, and the US and UK covers are very different. Which do you prefer?

I, Messiah by Donald Southey

I, MessiahI wonder how many of my readers expect me to write a review – and a positive review, no less – of a sci-fi novel-cum-parable? Full disclosure: the author is a friend of the family, but I had resolved not to write about it at all if I didn’t like I, Messiah (2011). Luckily, and rather to my surprise given my allergy to sci-fi, I thought it a really good book.

Even before we get to the title page, we know this is about robots. Indeed, from the title alone you might have spotted the reference to I, Robot and on the first page (and essential to know before going any further) is a paraphrase of Isaac Asimov’s famous laws of robotics, as follows:

First Law: a robot shall never cause any harm to a human being; nor, by his inaction, endanger or allow harm to come to a human being.

Second Law: subject to the First Law, a robot shall obey every direct command of a human being; firstly of his master, then of any other human.

Third Law: subject to the First and Second Laws, a robot shall always endeavour to preserve his own safety and that of other robots.

I, Messiah is set in a world where robots are fairly common as aids, but their development is still very much a matter of scientific research and subject to change. The narrator, John Smith, has recently gone through a divorce and decides to get a Self Instructing Decision Making Intelligent Cyber Servant, version 3 (SIDMICS-3), known as Sid. A scientist, ‘Davy’ Jones, is in charge of customising robots for buyers, and he is the main contact for John throughout.

From the outset, Sid is immaculately helpful and companionable. He not only follows all Three Laws of Robots, but is something of a friend too. John quickly has him charge himself in comfort in the house, rather than isolated outside, and they have conversations rather than simple command/obey exchanges. Lest you’re thinking this is like the film Her, they don’t fall in love – but things do start to develop bizarrely.

Sid starts to see things in his sleep; they realise he can dream. But it is not this which brings him to John’s side several times in the night…

That night, there was another soft knocking at my door.

“Sid, is that you?”

“Yes, John, you called me.”

“Look, Sid, I did not call you. Go back to your room and don’t disturb me again. OK?”

If you know your Bible, you’ll probably recognise an intentional parallel to the account of Samuel and Eli in 1 Samuel, where the boy Samuel thinks that he is being repeatedly called by Eli. Each time Eli denies having called him, and eventually realises that it is God calling Samuel. The same thing is happening here; it is God (or ‘the voice’) who is calling Sid.

Sid takes this in his stride; he is well aware of his human creators, and it isn’t much of a leap for him to accept God as creator. John Smith finds it much more of a struggle, as an avowed atheist. From here (because I don’t want to give away all the plot) things develop in the direction of tragedy, but with a few twists and turns. It’s not precisely a parable of the account of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection – because it is a world where Jesus exists and where Sid could be considered a representation of Jesus – but it works well without falling neatly in either direction. And it’s quite a poignant and moving story, even without a comparison to the Gospel.

So, I’m as surprised as anybody that I enjoyed this – if you can get me on board with a novel about robots, then you’ve done extremely well. You may not think this sounds like your cup of tea (let’s face it; we’re most of us more at home with novels about 1930s housewives gossiping over tea) (I instantly want to read that hypothetical novel) but, if you fancy dipping a toe into new territory, I very much encourage you to give I, Messiah a go. You can find out more about the book here, and buy it there too, if you’d like.

 

To The Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf (#Woolfalong)

Thank goodness it’s a leap year, as this helpful 29 February means I’ve just snuck into the January/February bracket for posting my first contribution to Ali’s Woolfalong – more on that here. Basically, in these first two months, the aim was to read (or reread) either Mrs Dalloway or To The Lighthouse – the two most famous Woolf novels. Being a massive Woolf fan, I was delighted with the opportunity to reread.

To The Lighthouse

This is, I think, the fourth time I’ve read To The Lighthouse (1927), but the first time I’ve done so since about 2009. Would I still love it as much? Short answer: yes. Slightly longer answer: I seem to need more of a focused opportunity to read Woolf than I used to. Perhaps my brain has become more scrambled, but I found I needed a bit more concentration than usual to properly appreciate her prose – but it more than pays off.

It is often said that Woolf novels have little plot. Certainly, despite multiple reads, I couldn’t remember a great deal about what happened in To The Lighthouse. (And yet, in a moment I won’t spoil in this review, it is the only novel at which I have ever gasped aloud in shock at something that happens, and the ingenious way that it is told.) Essentially, the Ramsay family and some hangers-on are staying by the coast, waiting to see whether or not they can travel to the lighthouse the next day – and that is the starting point for conversations, musings, changes, hatreds, heartaches, observations. And what a starting point:

“Yes, of course, if it’s fine tomorrow,” said Mrs. Ramsay. “But you’ll have to be up with the lark,” she added.

To her son these words conveyed an extraordinary joy, as if it were settled, the expedition were bound to take place, and the wonder to which he had looked forward, for years and years it seemed, was, after a night’s darkness and a day’s sail, within touch. Since he belonged, even at the age of six, to that great clan which cannot keep this feeling separate from that, but must let future prospects, with their joys and sorrows, cloud what is actually at hand, since to such people even in earliest childhood any turn in the wheel of sensation has the power to crystallise and transfix the moment upon which its gloom or radiance rests, James Ramsay, sitting on the floor cutting out pictures from the illustrated catalogue of the Army and Navy stores, endowed the picture of a refrigerator, as his mother spoke, with heavenly bliss.

I only meant to quote up to ‘…within touch’, but I couldn’t stop. It’s such beautiful, such rich writing. Woolf uses words and sentences with an extraordinary sense of their patterns and waves, forming sentences that flow in and out – darting here and there; observing and reflecting – until the simplest moments become daring composite images of the person concerned. The worst writers are those that imitate Woolf and get it wrong; the best writer of the 20th century (to my mind) is Woolf. Her strength is seeing past the surface of a simple word or action, and delving into every nuance.

This is also why readers will tend to love or loathe Woolf. If you read for plot, there is little for you. If you like prose always to be sparse and effective (a style I also love), then Woolf will probably rankle. If you like to read quickly, then you’ll have to learn to slow yourself down to appreciate Woolf – I certainly had to this time around (perhaps I read faster than I used to?) – but I was encouraged by this passage about reading towards the end of To The Lighthouse:

But he was absorbed in it, so that when he looked up, as he did now for an instant, it was not to see anything; it was to pin down some thought more exactly. That done, his mind flew back again and he plunged into his reading. He read, she thought, as if he were guiding something, or wheedling a large flock of sheep, or pushing his way up and up a single narrow path; and sometimes he went fast and straight, and broke his way through the bramble, and sometimes it seemed a branch struck at him, a bramble blinded him, but he was not going to let himself be beaten by that; on he went, tossing over page after page.

Isn’t that glorious? Time and again, for almost any experience she documents, Woolf is able to explore and unravel more than the moment suggests. Her descriptions aren’t always intuitive, but they reveal more than any other author I’ve read; there is infinite richness here.

Of particular note are the ways Woolf documents the evolving relationships between Mr Ramsay and his son James, the latter of whom harbours passionate but silent hatred. (‘Hating his father, James brushed away the tickling spray with which in a manner peculiar to him, compound of severity and humour, he teased his youngest son’s bare leg.’) Equally wonderful are the scenes of Lily the artist, looking at her canvas and battling against feelings of failure and creative obstacles.

The edition I read was the Oxford World’s Classics pictured above, which is lovely to look at and to read, but David Bradshaw’s notes are eccentric to say the least. I can write now (since my DPhil is over) that he took my first year viva, and was so aggressive and discouraging – not to mention unscholarly, in a rude criticism based on his confusing of two different books – that I almost quit my research afterwards. I  was not predisposed to enjoy his editing, therefore, but I hope this isn’t colouring my view of his footnotes, which feel rather phoned in and are often facile (who needs to know, for instance, Bradshaw’s hypothetical musings on why the rent is to low?), though there are some useful points among them. But there are so many editions of To The Lighthouse out there that you can more or less have your choice of them.

The important thing is, I think, that you try her. Try her fiction, and try her non-fiction (which we’ll get to later in the Woolfalong). Perhaps you’ll love her, perhaps you’ll hate her, but if you’re in the former camp, it will change your reading life forever and add a depth and dimension to your experience of fiction that no other author I’ve read has been able to match.

84, Charing Cross Road by Helene Hanff

84 Charing Cross RoadI’ve written about a couple of Helene Hanff books over the years – you can see them from that ‘browse’ menu over on the right hand side – but I don’t think I ever wrote about her most famous book, 84, Charing Cross Road. Well, a beautiful new edition from Slightly Foxed Editions brought about an excellent opportunity. I suspect most of you know this book already (and I can also recommend the lovely film) but, for those who don’t, I have written about it over at Shiny New Books. Below is the beginning of my review; if your appetite is whetted, you can go and check out the rest.

Slightly Foxed Editions – and I never tire of saying how beautiful they are – offer two different, wonderful things to the world. Either they are an introduction to brilliant memoirs that were undiscoverable and unknown, or they give the opportunity to have much-loved classics in that inimitably lovely series. And, of course, 84 Charing Cross Road appears in the latter category.

Disappointing myself (with The Age of Innocence)

Age of InnocenceYou know when there’s a book that you really assume you’re going to love, and you end up not loving it? Everybody you know who usually shares your taste are big fans; the author seems right up your street, but… it doesn’t work. And it’s not just the disappointment of reading a book that doesn’t hit home – it’s the added disappointment in yourself, for somehow not measuring up to your own expectations.

I’ve given the game away in the post title. It’s The Age of Innocence by Edith Wharton.

For those who don’t know, The Age of Innocence is about 1870s upper-class New York (published in 1920, in four serialised parts, and then as a novel) and particularly about Newland Archer, his fiancée May, and the mysterious woman (Ellen Olenska) who catches his eye. It’s basically your classic love triangle, surrounded by the details and mores of society.

The positives: there are occasional lines that I loved, where Wharton lets her slightly barbed wit or satire come through. This one was a joy, about an opera:

She sang, of course, “M’ama!” and not “he loves me,” since an unalterable and unquestioned law of the musical world required that the German text of French operas sung by Swedish artists should be translated into Italian for the clearer understanding of English-speaking audiences.

Love it. That’s in the first few pages of the novel, and gave me hope – but I found that we lost that, and instead were treated to the minutiae of 1870s etiquette and the minutiae of Newland Archer’s ummings and ahhings. Now, the etiquette thing I could cope with. If Wharton had been writing about the 1920s, I’d probably have loved it. But so much of The Age of Innocence seems to be implicitly drawing a distinction between the 1870s and the 1920s of Wharton’s original audience that the 2010s are out of kilter with whatever framework she is building and conclusions she is coming to.

As for Newland Archer, well…

This was a book group choice, and a few people commented on the fact that he’s not a very nice person. He’s certainly unkind, selfish, and hypocritical – not the ‘charming, tactful, enlightened’ that my edition’s blurb claims; is it being sarcastic? – but none of that matters. A great book can be written about an unpleasant person. I could read about Lady Catherine de Burgh for days. The characters in The Age of Innocence committed a far worse crime in my eyes. I found them all boring.

If the crux (or a crux – can you have more than one crux?) of a novel is whether a man chooses the woman he loves with the messy past or the woman he likes and has Society’s approval, then it’s essential that the reader cares. And millions of readers obviously have cared. This book is a classic, after all, and I know plenty of people who love it. But… I just wasn’t bothered. I didn’t want to spend any time reading about these people. I couldn’t even tell the difference between most of the supporting cast, who lived in one identical rarefied building after another.

Perhaps all this would have been saved if I’d been able to get along with Wharton’s writing. This isn’t my first Wharton – I read Ethan Frome years ago – but I don’t remember what I thought of that. There’s something in her style that I find curiously obfuscatory. It was a bit like looking at something through translucent plastic, or trying to follow an autocue that was moving too fast. I couldn’t connect.

Frustratingly, I couldn’t work out why the style didn’t work for me. Clearly Wharton is a good writer. She isn’t even the Henry James-esque ‘good’ writer whose sentences are so laboured down with clauses that they’re unreadable. And it’s certainly not anything like being the wrong age or the wrong nationality, or any of those slightly silly reasons that people sometimes come up with. I didn’t hate it, but I certainly didn’t enjoy it. I confess to being disappointed with myself.

Oh well. Chalk this one up to experience, I suppose, and a recognition that sharing 90% of a person’s taste won’t account for the other 10%.

Which books have you found leave you cold when you were expecting to love them?

 

A Talent to Deceive: An Appreciation of Agatha Christie by Robert Barnard

An Appreciation of Agatha ChristieA friend from book group, knowing that I love Agatha Christie, very kindly lent me Robert Barnard’s A Talent to Deceive (1980 – this edition from 1990), a so-called appreciation of the Queen of Crime. It was an interesting and absorbing read, but… it was not an appreciation.

From the outset, Barnard starts by quoting all manner of people who disparage either detective fiction as a whole or Christie as an individual writer. I rather hoped he’d battle against these much-repeated nonsenses, such as…

The first and commonest charge against the Christie books is that the characterization is rudimentary in the extreme – much more so than most of her rivals.

But, lo, instead he sighs a sigh, acknowledges the fault, and then piles some more criticisms of his own, to make the matter worse:

It is almost as if she had a pack of cards with a series of types baldly characterized, and before beginning a new book she shuffled and dealt himself ten or twelve to make up a cast-list of suspects.

It’s rather tedious to have to read the usual critiques that her writing style isn’t up to much, her characters are poor, and her vocabulary restricted – none of which is quite fair, I would say – but it is particularly bad in a book that claims to be an appreciation.

HOWEVER, where Barnard saves himself is in recognising what a great plotter and pacer she was. Second to none, really. (I warmed to him when he dismissed ‘the longueurs’ of Dorothy L Sayers’ Gaudy Night, though that won’t help his case in all quarters.) I thoroughly enjoyed his closer examination of various plotting techniques, and a comparison of the ways in which Christie is able to use Poirot’s and Marple’s personalities to aid the detection plot – even if he dropped back a few points in my book by having little time for all-time-great-gent Captain Hastings (j’adore!) and even Christie-alike Ariadne Oliver.

We have a brief break where, tedium upon tedium, he feels the need to write about Christie’s infamous eleven-day disappearance. I find this event phenomenally dull (though Martin Edwards managed to make it more interesting than most) and it seems wrong to take up a whole chapter in a very short book. More analysis of Christie’s books, please! I’ll even put up with the inevitable spoilers – and there are plenty; this is a book to read only when you’ve got most of Christie under your belt, I think, and certainly most of the best-known Christie novels.

Barnard balances general thoughts and in-depth analysis well – the balance, that is, not necessarily his views on the books – by looking closely at three of them in a chapter on his faves. I didn’t read what he wrote about Hercule Poirot’s Christmas because I’ve not read that novel, but the other two he picked were Five Little Pigs and A Murder is Announced. My favourite section of A Talent to Deceive was what he wrote about A Murder is Announced. It was the first Christie I read and I still love it; Barnard is great on what makes Christie great, essentially.

Having said that, he – bizarrely, to my mind – nominates Five Little Pigs as her best novel. I would put it somewhere towards the bottom of those I’ve read, in that it was genuinely boring. Without giving anything major away, the plot is clever and well thought out, but Christie structures the novel from five viewpoints – which means we get the same events told to us five blinking times.

And then, with a final and rather overly ambitious overview of the nature of detective fiction, Barnard is finished with the topic. Except for the entire final 100 pages, which is a bibliography compiled by Louise Barnard and a separate annotated bibliography, presumably by Robert Barnard. The annotations are chiefly vague opinions – he suddenly gets all coy about spoilers – but it was fun to read.

Overall, this is an enjoyable, if often infuriating, book to read for Christie die-hards. I can’t imagine it’s the best ‘appreciation’ out there, and I certainly wouldn’t recommend it to anybody who had only read one or two Agatha Christie novels, but it was good for looking more closely at some of her techniques, and reminding me (whether through agreeing with certain moments in Barnard’s book, or disagreeing with others) what a fantastic writer Christie was.

Book Blogger Appreciation Week: Day 5

What a fun week this has been! I’m super keen for more people to go and answer the questions I set on Day 2 – I’d love to know more about how you discovered this corner of the blogging world, and your favourite books – but today’s question is…

One of the unfortunate side effects of reading and blogging like rockstars seems to be a tendency toward burnout. How do you keep things fresh on your blog and in your reading?

It is one of the sad things in blogging, when bloggers disappear. Particularly when they do it without any warning or any other means of contact: one can’t help worrying about them. Others keep to various social media channels, but decide their time of blogging has come to an end – which is, of course, up to them entirely.

I see this less nowadays, perhaps because most of the blogs I read are those I’ve been reading for years, and people who’ve last five years (say) are likely to keep going.

What I noticed a lot was that the 18 month mark was telling. People either left the blogosphere, or changed how they went about blogging. I certainly changed. It was at that point that I decided only to read and review books that I wanted to read. Before that, getting review copies had been such an unexpected delight that I read all of them, and StuckinaBook started to not reflect my taste.

So, how do I avoid burnout? I stick to reading and writing what I want to write. When I have bigger ideas, I jump at them – before I might have been a bit anxious that nobody would join in, or nobody would be interested. Now, I say “Let’s do the 1924 club!” or “Why not start a podcast?” and I see what happens. I also have no targets on how often I’ll blog.

As for keeping things fresh… well, I suppose that’s not for me to say. I take a month or so away every few years, to have a bit of time to myself, and I certainly don’t do everything I can to become the biggest book blogger out there. Regular readers of StuckinaBook have become such a loved group, I treasure you all, and it is wonderful to bring together like-minded people – here, and in the comments sections of all the blogs I read of a similar mindset. Who’d think, as we go about our everyday lives, that there was a place we could retreat to where people have heard of Rose Macaulay, E.M. Delafield, Denis Mackail, etc. – and who know precisely which Elizabeth Taylor we’re talking about.

So actually, thinking about it, my answer to ‘how do you avoid burnout’ is pretty simple. It’s you guys.

Book Blogger Appreciation Week: Day 4

My favourite sort of question, today – it’s all about community!

How do you stay connected to community?

This is book blogging is all about for me. I didn’t see it coming when I joined the blogosphere back in 2007, but it was the most welcome sort of side effect. I’ve met literally dozens of people IRL through blogging, and have even stayed in the houses of three different book bloggers… which sounds bad, put like that, but obviously isn’t(!).

How do I stay connected? I try to read and comment on lots of blogs, though I know I’m not doing as well as I’d like in recent, busy months; I try to offset that by running or participating in as many community-minded blog activities as possible. So, over the years I’ve joined in reading weeks for Margery Sharp, Graham Greene, Henry Green, Margaret Kennedy, Anita Brookner, Muriel Spark, Shirley Jackson, Virago Modern Classics, Persephone Books, and Australian literature, and I’m looking forward to Ali’s about Mary Hocking in April. And probably more I’ve forgotten about.

Then there’s the 1924 Club and the 1938 Club, and hopefully lots more events of a similar nature. Not to mention my favourite series here: My Life in Books. It’s where I pair up bloggers and get them to talk about books they’ve loved through their lives – and then try to assess the other, based on those choices! There have been 5 series now, with 70 or so bloggers and blog readers, though I’ve only got around to adding the first four series to that link page.

And, of course, I’ve been lucky enough to feature across the blogosphere in various other interviews and whatnot…

And possibly more that I’ve forgotten about… (and always delighted to appear, hint hint!)

Blogging has also led to Tea or Books?, Shiny New Books, Vulpes Libris… and working at OUP. So, all in all, community and blogging are more or less synonymous for me. Come say hello on Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram :)