Off for a bit

I’m off to London for the weekend, so will just leave you with info about the play wot I’m seeing (to misquote Ernie Wise):

On The Rocks a new comedy by Amy Rosenthal A passionate new comedy about D H Lawrence, his wife Frieda, and their close friends John Middleton Murry and Katherine Mansfield, which runs at Hampstead from 26 June until
26 July. Set against the backdrop of the Cornish coast in the midst of World War I, this is the uplifting story of four friends trying to live together, two marriages struggling for survival and two writers striving desperately for creativity.
A comedy about Katherine Mansfield and DH Lawrence? The mind boggles – but I can’t wait.

EnhpaD

My ‘Backwards With Daphne’ project hasn’t been roaring along, has it? I told you all about my great intentions back in this post, in early April, and only now have I finished the first one – The Flight of the Falcon. It’s not Daphne du Maurier’s last novel, but it’s the last one which came in my boxset – and the plan was to start at the end and work backwards, as it were.

The Flight of the Falcon is set in Italy, a long way from Cornwall and the only du Mauriers I’d previously encountered – our hero is Armino Fabbio, a tour guide who accidentally becomes involved in the murder of an old peasant woman in Rome. He leaves his tour group, and travels back to his home town Ruffiano, which he hasn’t visited in two decades. In the same city, five hundred years previously, cruel Duke Claudio – known as The Falcon – had terrorised the people of Ruffiano with his meglomania and brutality. Has anything really changed in Ruffiano, or are events mysteriously repeating themselves?

That – like the synopsis of Rebecca, I suppose – sounds rather more melodramatic than Daphne du Maurier’s writing allows it to be. Having said that, Backwards With Daphne almost drew to a halt, as The Flight of the Falcon didn’t work for me at all. I could appreciate why she was writing it – an interesting idea, with a host of familial issues to untangle at the centre – but I didn’t much care what went on. Do students of different departments really hate each other that much? I’d be bored stiff studying a Science subject, not to mention completely incapable, but I didn’t want to burn any of the students at stake…

My other main problem, I’m afraid, was names. I can’t remember names at the best of times, and when they all end in ‘-io’, I had no chance. Daphne du Maurier couldn’t do much else, in Italy, but I spent much of my time hopelessly baffled.

I think I’m painting a worse picture than it was – The Flight of the Falcon isn’t a bad book, at all, but when you know the same pen had already produced Rebecca (oops, supposed to be reading backwards, this should be a blank canvas for me… sorry) – just goes to show the flaws in this intriguing reading project. If this were my first Daphne du Maurier novel, I probably wouldn’t bother with any others… BUT, I had the fun experience of reading the same book as a library colleague sat opposite me at teabreak, and we could chat about it.

Anyone else read it? Any thoughts? Our Vicar’s Wife? Karen, my co-Daphne reader, have you got this far yet?

Barthes sneezing?

One of the fun things which a blog-hits counter like www.statcounter.com (the one I use) can do is track keyword searches. That way, along with seeing the routes people take from other blogs, I can see the Google searches which landed the web surfer on the Stuck-in-a-Book doorstop. And, for the past year or so, I’ve been making a note of the ones which amuse me the most…

Quite a few people, naturally, get here on a literary quest. Mentioning Crow Lake by Mary Lawson, The Stone Angel by Margaret Laurence and The Summer Book by Tove Jansson have all proved advantageous – I suspect at least the first two appear on high school syllabi, since the searches are often prefixed by “summary of chapter 6 of” or ‘central characters in’. All well and good. Less understandable are bookish hunts such as ‘Why does Scrooge go to the lighthouse?’ (see sketch), or ‘value of book signed by Maria von Trapp’. I don’t think Stuck-in-a-Book has ever provided answers to these most valuable questions. Nor ‘Books with Wednesday in the title’. ‘Blogs with books on nuclear instrumentation’ baffled, and rather worried, me.

Some rather more hit the mark, though. ‘must read book overindulgence’ is perhaps my favourite, ‘bricks for bookcases’ is also quite fun, though how ‘why is work so dull’ got here, I can’t imagine. ‘I shan’t worry about that today, I’ll worry about that tomorrow’ might find themselves right at home.

And then there are the ones which are simply fun:
‘The Happy Birthday song in Middle English’ (see sketch)
‘The Bentall Centre toilets’
‘Boxes of 100 fireworks’
‘How much is shortbread?’
‘Wot is siblings’
‘Don’t Break My Heart My Itsy Bitsy Heart’
‘Abominate’
‘My desk is stuck’
‘doo doo doo do do you are so wonderful’
‘dooby doo’
‘It is time again’
‘Barthes sneezing’
‘Congratulatory cats’
‘Sample family letters requesting pardon’
‘Most sympathetic animals’

What to say about them! I can only imagine they were disappointed…

Bits n’ Bobs

One of those posts without any structure, just like we were told not to write essays. Lucky, this isn’t an essay, then, isn’t it?!

First off, I saw my house for next year – I’d already agreed to live there, since my friends had seen it, but nice to look round. Seems perfectly pleasant – a bit like my house at the moment, but smaller. And rather cheaper. The other side of Oxford, near the river (apparently the house itself doesn’t flood, but we might need a dinghy) – Marlborough Road, if anyone knows Oxford well. And even if they don’t…


Compare to my photo of my current house, posted nearly a year ago. Not overwhelmingly different!

Patrick Vickery sent me an email this week about rural ramblings etc. on a Scottish Rural Community Gateway website. Well, here at Stuck-in-a-Book we like rural and we like rambling, and we have a certain affection for Scotland (though would secretly like to live in Dorset, possibly in Thomas Hardy’s beautiful cottage) – so go along and see what Patrick has to say.

Finally, Two Ravens Press. You may remember I wrote about them here, and some of their books here and here. WELL, now they’ve gone and started a literary webmag – good for them! It’s called Corvaceous, and has contributions from people like Alasdair Gray and Alice Thompson. Lots of interesting stuff there, and they can be found here. (Not to mention their literary blog). Phew! What a lot of interesting stuff. I personally can’t wait for Vanessa and Virginia by Susan Sellers, which I’ll be reading soon – if you can’t guess who it’s about, I obviously haven’t been harping on enough…

Going Postal

I’ve made cursory mention a few times about the postal book group I’m in – I send a book to someone, and receive a book from someone. Repeat every two months (always the same people), and at the end of 18 months or so, my book has been round a circle, and come back with comments from lots of people. Plus, I’ve had the chance to read and comment on a bunch of books, too.

A week or so ago I got my book back from the end of 2006, and was able to see what people thought – and so I thought I’d share the outcome with you all. I chose Ivy Compton-Burnett’s A House and Its Head. I chose it for a couple of reasons – first, I wanted an excuse to read another ICB after having really liked Mother and Son, and secondly, Ivy Compton-Burnett was sure to raise some reactions! She is very much a love-or-hate author (Our Vicar’s Wife hates her; I love her). I think the reason she causes such a divide is the play-like style of her novels i.e. they are almost completely dialogue. For me, this brings characters alive – and often dialogue is the site where authors can be the most amusing or their most poignant.


A House and Its Head follows the Edgeworth family, none of whom (except perhaps Nance) are particularly likeable – and some rather dramatic storylines, expressly the father’s unpopular remarriage. But it’s more about Ivy C-B’s writing style than the plot… so… what did the recipients of the book have to say?

“I C-B certainly has an individual style of writing. As I started reading I noticed that she would describe each character when they first appeared, in fair detail, incl. their age, and then just dialogues would follow. Actually this style didn’t bother me at all (at first I thought it might!) I found the novel quite austere and gloomy, nevertheless I enjoyed the experience of reading my first I C-B. I’m certain I would enjoy a second reading sometime & I’ll certainly sample some other I C-Bs.” – Angela

“I tried with it, I really did, Simon, but I must place myself in the ‘hate it’ category, which puts me in the same camp as your Mum. The style really grated on me – I found it difficult to follow the play-like dialogue, and the characters irritated me more than I can say. Yes, they are of their time, but so are the Provincial Lady’s, and I though hers – even the unpleasant people – were delightfully drawn.
Maybe it was the scene at the begiining when Duncan is cheerfully throwing a book he disapproves of INTO THE FIRE – and that is in a book published in 1935! I just could not forgive Ivy C-B for that.” – Rhona

“The jury was out for a long time, as they say, but in the end, I’ll be adding my name to the ‘love’ camp. At first I was struck by the claustrophobia-inducing atmosphere – a house full of not particularly likeable people who have nowehre to go and nothing useful to do and so submit to the tyranny of its head. Ass to this the ever watchful and oh-so well-meaning neighbours, prepared to gossip about the slightest irregularity. But despite – or because of – it all, the book is hilarious. I kept waiting for each and every one of Dulcia’s appearances – inwardly cringing, of course, but unable to suppress a giggle.” – Susan

“For quite the first 100 pages this book irritated me beyond belief, but I decided that I had to stick with it and get it finished. Then it just ‘grew’ on me – I can’t say I loved it. I found it very hard going, but I was intrigued by the characters. [The rest of this comment has too many spoilers!] – Barbara

And a few people either didn’t have time or gave up!
Make of those responses what you will… I was quite pleased with them. And hopefully it’s convinced some of you to dip a toe into Ivy Compton-Burnett territory… if only because you have the back-out of solidarity if you hate it.

Oxford Revisited


‘Oxford’, the word, is a powerful thing. It means so much to people; it means different things to different people. There are oceans of myth and speculation, assumption and history – almost anywhere in the world you’ll find someone enthralled by the idea of Oxford. Oxford University, I should say, but the two are so closely linked (especially in reputation) that extricating them is difficult and almost pointless.

I spent all my first year here pinching myself (metaphorically…) thinking “I’m at Oxford! Me!” – mostly, perhaps, because the myths are not reality. I had to keep reminding myself that this was Oxford, perhaps also because I’d never before lived somewhere significant in the eyes of the world. Is there anywhere else in England, excepting London, which holds such a place in people’s imagination? Sadly, this goes both ways. The long-dead ideas of privilege and idle rich boys are persistent, as are all sorts of unfairly derogatory things. One of things which saddens me most is that some of my closest friends detest my student life in Oxford – and thus, unwittingly, detest the way I choose to live. The city and the university are swirls of academic ativism, tradition and learning, fun and fantasies.

So I couldn’t resist when I was offered a review copy of Justin Cartwright’s This Secret Garden: Oxford Revisited. It’s a non-fiction account of novelist Cartwright returning to his alma mater decades after studenthood, wandering through the streets and colleges, reminiscing and presenting a history of this fabled city. But, oh, that someone else had written it. There is certainly enough of Oxford in this little book to engage me – interesting history, and occasionally a rather winning sympathy with natural and academic Oxford… but there is so much else. Cartwright can’t stay on topic for more than a few moments, and wanders off into his own, fairly irrelevant, thoughts and opinions. Like many of those who most fervently proclaim open-mindedness, Cartwright is as close-minded as they come – his rhetoric frequently strides between psychobabble and bland – but strident – atheism. (One of the things I love about Oxford University is that it was built to the glory of God – just look at the college names! Jesus, Trinity, Corpus Christi…) Cartwright labels a rather witty joke about evolution as indicative that someone may be a ‘religious bigot and sneering oaf’, and… oh, if I have to read Isaiah Berlin’s name again! Cartwright states, unnecessarily, at one point: ‘I have often thought of Berlin and Oxford as one’ – unnecessarily, because Berlin is mentioned on almost every page. I’m sure he’s an admirable chap, but he’s not the reason I was reading this book.

These irksome traits aside, This Secret Garden has its high points. The tutorial Cartwright takes with an English tutor (despite never, as far as I could tell, studying English as a student) is diverting, and the meandering through Oxford’s spots of beauty is touchingly told. I had a couple of serendipitous moments whilst reading the book – I’d got to a bit about the statue of Cecil Rhodes on the exterior wall of Oriel College, only to realise I was standing immediately beneath it (yes, I was reading whilst walking, again). And there are interviews with Clive Hurst, one of my colleagues in the New Bodleian, in the room where Justin Cartwright looked at a copy of Shakespeare’s First Folio.

In the end, like the temporary footprints each generation of undergraduates makes on the sturdy permanence of Oxford, the city and the university are able to outweigh their narrator. Cartwright’s opinions are overshadowed by the mystique of Oxford – and you could do worse than find it in these pages. If nothing else, it has offered the finest epithet for Oxford that I’ve found: ‘In Oxford you can read a book anywhere you like, without attracting attention.’

Eyes, Exams and Excellence

I’ve managed to misplace my glasses this evening, so am currently looking blearily at the computer screen and hoping that I don’t get a headache… throughout my life I’ve had quite a talent for losing things in small spaces, and though I know the glasses must be in quite a limited area, they are proving good hiders.

In more exciting news – Colin aka The Carbon Copy has passed the first lot of actuarial exams! Told him he would. They’re quite tricky to pass (and ‘pass’ is the best you can do), so well done to him. I *almost* understand what he does now…

Oo, since writing the above, my glasses have turned up under a pile of things on my desk; a pile I’m sure I looked through at least twice.

It’s Thursday, so I’m going to do Booking Through Thursday, but haven’t much to say to a very difficult question:

Think about your favorite authors, your favorite books . . . what is it about them that makes you love them above all the other authors you’ve read? The stories? The characters? The way they appear to relish the taste of words on the tongue? The way they’re unafraid to show the nitty-gritty of life? How they sweep you off to a new, distant place? What is it about those books and authors that makes them resonate with you in ways that other, perfectly good books and authors do not?

Well! For a start, my favourite authors and books… what can tie together Miss Hargreaves and The Diary of a Provincial Lady and Mrs. Dalloway and Sense and Sensibility? Even having a look through the 50 Books (or how many I’ve got to so far) in the left-hand column… no, not a lot they have in common. They share a few absences – none of my favourites are Issue-led books, or gritty. They’re about characters, and a good/witty/evocative/beautiful use of language. Characters and language. That’s all I can come up with. Hmm. Maybe you’ll have better luck?

First Things First

Something on Susan Hill’s blog the other day led me to think about the ‘right’ order to read an author’s novels… obviously there is no single correct way to read an author (note my continuing, slowly, project Backwards With Daphne), but there might be methods more conducive to enjoyment and appreciation…

More specifically: should you read the best book first?

This makes an assumption, of course, that an author has a ‘best’ book. Perhaps it would just as well be replaced with the word ‘favourite’, because the dilemma is just the same. My initial response, on Susan’s blog, was that reading the best/favourite novel first would lead to all subsequent reads being a disappointment – Lynne pointed out, in the same comments, that one might just give up after an average read. If you read an excellent novel, you’ll continue with that author, even if there are a few duds or mediocre reads along the way.

Let me think. I’ve done this both ways. Barbara Comyns, for example – Our Spoons Came From Woolworths was enjoyable, but I much preferred Who Was Changed and Who Was Dead, which was on my shelf for years before I read it. Luckily Our Spoons was good enough for me to keep looking for more Comyns, though without any urgency – had it been a shade less enjoyable, I might not have bothered. On the other hand, as always, is Miss Hargreaves by Frank Baker. I’ve only read one other novel by him – Before I Go Hence – which was likeable enough, but nothing compared to Miss Hargreaves. If I’d read Before I Go Hence first, I probably wouldn’t have bothered seeking out Miss Hargreaves – which might well be my favourite novel; certainly top five.

What to do! More importantly, what to recommend? If someone asks me about an author, should I send them towards the Pride and Prejudices or the Mansfield Parks? (Now, there’s a cat among the pigeons!)

Star Gazing

I get sent quite a few ‘first novels’, so it’s a pleasant change to receive a novel which is the third from an author’s pen. Of course, I love seeing the first-offs too – but when Star Gazing by Linda Gillard arrived, I had the experiences of Emotional Geology and A Lifetime Burning to which to compare it. Plus, Linda has been an e-friend for a few years now, and it’s always lovely to hear from her.

I was in a position of knowledge when it came to Linda’s second novel, A Lifetime Burning. I wrote about it last year, and though there were obvious aspects of the book which I hadn’t experienced (shan’t spoil it for you, but let’s just say I might have a criminal record if I had experienced them) I am a twin and in a vicar’s family, and so could understand those. I’ve never been so impressed by any literary portrayal of being a twin – Linda understood it so well. I can only assume she has found a similar level of empathy and recognition with blindness. Marianne, the central character of Star Gazing, is blind.

Blind, but not a victim. Bolshy, is our Marianne – “crabbit”, to quote Keir. Keir is the man in the novel – an oil rigger who spends his time away from work living on Skye, he’s a heady mixture of shy and sensitive and rugged and… does he exist? Linda has said that she was intrigued by the idea of writing a hero who might not exist – since Marianne has to rely on her other senses, she can’t be sure that Keir isn’t a projection of her imagination, and the reader spends quite a few chapters equally unsure.

But I haven’t said much about Marianne, yet. She’s middle-aged, and has been blind since birth. A widower, she lives with her vampire-romantic-novel writing sister Louisa (sisters Marianne and Louisa… the influence of Jane Austen hovering somewhere, perhaps?) and is a very determined woman. I always have a little trouble with people who are desperate to be independent – the sort of person who complains that people are being ‘patronising’ to them – but perhaps that’s because I function best in a unit (back to the twin thing, mayhap). With Marianne, she has enough endearing features that I rarely wanted to throttle her. I can’t be cross with a woman who says “Pure Enid Blyton – a much maligned author, in my opinion.” My only criticism is that she so often mentions that she is blind. Her prerogative, I suppose, but I’m sure most visually impaired people can let the expression “You see what I mean” pass, without pointing out that they can’t…

Star Gazing uses three narrative focalisations – Marianne, Louisa, and a third person narrative. Linda uses this skilfully, as she has done before, and the transition from Marianne’s internal view to an external perspective highlights the smallness of Marianne’s world – as she says, her experience of it stretches only as far as she can hear, smell or touch. The success of Star Gazing must ultimately hinge on the story, and the portrayal of blindness. As I said, I can’t judge from my own experience – I’d love to hear from someone who can – but I was fairly convinced. It must be such a difficult task: how to describe the absence of sight from the perspective of one who doesn’t know what she hasn’t got? There is a strong theme of music throughout – I hardly knew any of the references, but visual things, especially scenery and natural phenomena, are often described to Marianne by their musical equivalent. The beautiful intricacy of a cobweb, for instance – which Marianne has only experienced as sticky and unpleasant – is compared to The Well-Tempered Clavier.

Star Gazing is not as ambitious or controversial as A Lifetime Burning – and consequently, where A Lifetime Burning was a great novel, Star Gazing is a good one. A very good one. It would be surprising if an author had two novels of A Lifetime Burning’s power in them, let alone consecutively. Star Gazing, though, demonstrates Linda Gillard’s continuing power as a storyteller, a creator of vivid and unusual characters, and a novelist who will hopefully soon get the recognition she deserves. I’m delighted that a fourth novel has already been written – can’t wait.

Happy Fathers Day!

For the apostrophe-minded, Fathers Day is a minefield. As you see, I have decided for an apostropheless celebration – I think it’s a day of fathers, rather than belonging to one (Father’s) or many (Fathers’)…

Anyway – for Our Vicar, and all the other fathers reading, have a great day!

To celebrate the occasion – whom do you think is the best father in literature? I don’t really mean the one I enjoy reading about the most, but rather the character who is the best father to his child/ren. If it were the former, I’d plump for Mr. Woodhouse from Emma, but he couldn’t be described as a good parent… nor, indeed, could many of Austen’s literary parents.

So, have a think. I’m going to ponder on it, and see what I think…

Or just comment on fathers in literature as you wish!