Well, I couldn’t pick anything else this week, could I? Adele is back with a Bond theme! It’s in classic Bond theme territory, but still definitely got the feel of an Adele track. Over to Adele and ‘Skyfall’:
All
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.”. . .
Three-Quarters of a Century of Books
Time for the third and final update on how A Century of Books is going! Final update, that is, because in three months’ time it’ll all be over…
It is impressive – and unintentional – that at each juncture I have been exactly on target. After three months I was on 25 books, after six months I was on 50 books, and now – at the nine month mark – I have read 75 titles for A Century of Books (including five which have yet to be reviewed.) I’ve actually read 107 books so far this year, which leaves rather more duplicates and non-20th-century books than I was anticipating.
As before, here is how I’m doing, decade-by-decade…
1900s: 6
1910s: 6
1920s: 9
1930s: 9
1940s: 8
1950s: 8
1960s: 6
1970s: 8
1980s: 8
1990s: 7
No decade completely finished yet, but none suffering too much neglect either…
For a list of all the links up so far, click here. More importantly – if you’re doing A Century of Books, are some variant thereof, how’s it going for you?
See you at the end of the year for the final count! I’m feeling optimistic that I can do this…
Song for a Sunday
Turn by Travis. I’m not discovering anything new for you today, folks, but this is just a great song.
Stuck-in-a-Book’s Weekend Miscellany
I’m at work this Saturday (boo!) but a friend is coming over to watch I Capture the Castle in the evening (hurray!) so it’s not all bad. Plus word got round at church that I like baking, so I got an 11pm text asking me if I’d make something for the Sunday service – will do, check. Better than being asked to lift things or (the horrors) kids’ work (kids work?), which I have managed always to avoid. Anyway… here’s your weekly miscellany, tuck in!
1.) The link – Adam and Chloe got in touch, and told me about The Willoughby Book Club. It looks like a great idea – here’s what they had to say:
A little about us… we offer our customers a personalised book club gift service for a range of ages and interests. In short, they choose from our range of book club packages (Babies, kids, adult fiction, non-fiction, cookery etc), tell us a little about the person they’re buying for, and we’ll then send out a brand new book once a month with a personalised message with their first delivery.
Maybe drop hints with your nearest and dearest…
2.) The blog post – is Lisa May / TBR 313’s take on Jerome K. Jerome’s Three Men on the Bummel – partly because it’s a book I’ve been intending to read for ages, and partly because I’ve neglected her wonderful blog up til now, and I’m discovering all the delights that are there!
3.) The books – came from lovely Slightly Foxed, as a delightful surprise in the post. Their beautiful Slightly Foxed Editions are gorgeous hardback reprints of memoirs. Some of the most popular ones, now sold out (as they only print 2000 of each title) are available now as paperbacks – and they have sent me Blue Remembered Hills by Rosemary Sutcliff and Adrian Bell’s Corduroy, which Karyn was recommending only the other day. Can’t wait to get onto these, as the other SF editions I’ve read have all been utterly wonderful! (And now the collector in me wants them aaallllll…)
A Man in the Zoo – David Garnett
I spent a day this week in the Reading University Special Collections reading room, going through Chatto & Windus review clippings books, looking at dozens of early reviews of David Garnett’s Lady into Fox and A Man in the Zoo. This was incredibly interesting – looking at the initial response to these books, which was pretty positive, and seeing how their consensus over Lady Into Fox as a future classic have rather died a death. David Garnett has become rather a footnote in the history of the Bloomsbury Group (most famous, perhaps, for marrying Virginia Woolf’s niece Angelica – having previously been the lover of Angelica’s father Duncan Grant. Messy.) But if anyone has heard of his literary output, it is for the 90-page novella Lady into Fox, where a lady turns into a fox (surprise surprise), which I wrote about briefly here. It was a big bestseller in 1922, and lots of newspapers were eager to see what his follow up would be…
Hop forwards to 1924 and A Man in the Zoo, often found in tandem with Lady into Fox, since they only make up 190 pages between them. Garnett has dropped the Defoe-esque (apparently) style of Lady into Fox, but he’s still in person-as-animal territory – although this time there is nothing fantastic at play.
John Cromartie and Josephine Lackett are visiting the zoo, and are in the middle of an argument. John has proposed, but Josephine doesn’t want to leave her ailing father – and John believes that she simply doesn’t love him enough. They’re having quite the contretemps, when Josephine says:
“I might as well have a baboon or a bear. You are Tarzan of the Apes; you ought to be shut up in the Zoo. The collection here is incomplete without you. You are a survival – atavism at its worst. Don’t ask me why I fell in love with you – I did, but I cannot marry Tarzan of the Apes, I’m not romantic enough. I see, too, that you do believe what you have been saying. You do think mankind is your enemy. I can assure you that if mankind thinks of you, it thinks you are the missing link. You ought to be shut up and exhibited here in the Zoo – I’ve told you once and now I tell you again – with the gorilla on one side and the chimpanzee on the other. Science would gain a lot.”
She is venting, but… he takes her at her word. John offers himself as an exhibit for the zoo – and, mostly to annoy a troublesome member of the committee (‘it was not, however,until Mr. Wollop threatened to resign that the thing was done’) they agree.
So he moves in. He is housed between an orangutan and a chimpanzee, and draws quite the crowd – to the envy of his animal neighbours, and to Josephine’s horror. He is given a private bedroom and a library, and simply sits reading, ignoring the visiting public. (It’s starting to sound a little blissful, isn’t it? All that time just to read!)
For the rest of this short novel, Garnett shows Josephine and John’s reactions to the situation, and (most adorably) gives John a pet caracal. I hadn’t looked one up before – but they’re rather beautiful, aren’t they?
![]() |
| (photo source) |
As some of the early noted, Garnett doesn’t entirely take full advantage of his scenario. It could be used in all manner of different directions, but he doesn’t explore very much – and the addition of another man (a black man, rather crudely drawn) feels a bit like Garnett is clutching at straws in an already extremely brief novel. Lady into Fox was so brilliantly done, so logically worked out from the metamorphosis onwards, that A Man in the Zoo feels rather scattergun in comparison. And the comparison certainly comes up time and again in those early reviews – as might be expected.
Taken on its own, without any reference to Lady into Fox, it’s an enjoyable little book. Garnett’s style is pretty plain on first sight, but writing about passionate people without sounding ridiculous or hackneyed is difficult, so he deserves credit for that. I suppose, with an extraordinary conceit at the centre of a narrative, the style shouldn’t be over the top – so his gentle, straight-forward writing makes the tale seem almost rational.
I’d definitely recommend seeking out a copy which has both of these short novels together – not least because they are likely to have all the woodcuts by Garnett’s then-wife Rachel Garnett, which have wonderful character to them. Those for Lady into Fox are remarkable in the way she captures the fox’s movements, as well as the human soul disguised in the metamorphosis. The woodcuts help the fable-like quality of these two novels. I don’t know what message he might have been trying to give – they aren’t simply Aesopian tales with morals – but an intriguing 1920s take on the strange and unusual, given a matter-of-fact treatment.
Side by Side
Thanks for your comments yesterday – we’ll see, it might become a weekly feature til the end of the series, if I have the time and energy…
But, today – back to books!
I’m always intrigued by those arbitrary connections which books make while sat next to each other on shelves. (There’s a great quotation in Carlos Maria Dominquez’s The Paper House about this, which I included in my review here.) For those of us who shelve alphabetically, I mean (and I am always fascinated by the shelving decisions of bibliophiles). Actually, any shelving system will throw up intriguing, unexpected combinations, unless you actively shelve by genre etc. This sort of thing wouldn’t interest many people, but I think I can guarantee that some of you will be among that minority…(!) I love the idea that a simple alphabetical system can create clashes or harmonies between authors who might have nothing in common, beyond the first three letters of their surname. But as the eye wanders along from book to book, one can’t help but compare…
I thought I’d share some of the photos I took in Somerset quite a while ago, to show how authors have ended up being curiously appropriate or inappropriate bedfellows…
![]() |
| I love that two of my favourite authors – Ivy Compton-Burnett and Barbara Comyns – are next to each other. (Any authors who might divide them?) |
![]() |
| It feels appropriate, too, that Elizabeth Cambridge and Dorothy Canfield should sit alongside each other – since I discovered both through Persephone. |
![]() |
| But – oh dear – Muriel Spark and Nicholas Sparks? I don’t think MS would be very amused… |
![]() |
| And can you imagine what Ivy C-B would say to Jackie Clune and her book about triplets? (She might get on better with Noel Coward…) |
![]() |
| Winifred Watson, Evelyn Waugh, H.G. Wells, Dorothy Whipple, Antonia White – which of us wouldn’t relish that dinner party? |
![]() |
| This one just struck me as a maelstrom of bizarre connections. Thackeray, Trapido, Trefusis, Trillin, Trollope, Twain, Tyler, Undset – it shows the range of my reading, but it’s a little dizzying… |
That was fun!
Less relevantly, but because I know some of you will want to see it, here is about half my Virago Modern Classic collection – the ones in Somerset.
I would love to see some snapshots of your bookshelves… if you have any unusual next-door-neighbours, or oddly-fitting ones, do pop a photo up on your blog (if you have one) and put a link in the comments!








































