The 1968 club is coming this month!

It’s come around quickly, but the 1968 club isn’t far away! For those keeping tabs, Karen and I have shifted the week back a bit – but it’s happening 30 October to 5 November, and we have a badge all good to go. These are great fun to make, finding appropriate pictures, and I keep meaning to put all the past badges in the sidebar…

1968 club (1)

For those who haven’t seen previous clubs – the idea is that we all read and review books published in the same year, and – together, collaboratively – we can build up a really detailed picture of a year in books. I’ll host links to all new reviews (and feel free to do some reading in advance!) – novels, poetry, short stories, non-fiction, drama, everything is welcome. Books in translation also strongly encouraged, particularly if they were published in the original language in 1968 – but feel free to make up your own rules!

We’ve done 1924, 1938, 1947, and 1951, and I thought my enthusiasm might wane as we get nearer present day – but the line-up for 1968 is looking really great! If you’re feeling stuck, check out 1968 in literature on Wikipedia, or take a look at the (gasp!) 23 options that I’ve got waiting in my library. We love a wide range, so do have a hunt on your own shelves – and Karen and I will be back in late October to set everybody off!

#1947Club – thanks everyone!

And another ‘club’ week is over!

Thank you so much to everybody who participated – we got a really wonderful range of books from all over the world. You can see all the reviews I’ve found here – do let me know if I’ve missed your link. These clubs always show how wonderfully the blogosphere can come together and collaborate, giving an overview of a year that would take many months for any individual reader to achieve.

the-1947-club

So, what can we conclude? As usual, there is enormous variety – but what struck me the most was how much the war loomed over everything. That sounds obvious, but I had wondered before if people would prefer to ignore WW2 when it was over – but, while some authors chose comedy or complex plots away from battle, many could not escape it. I’d love to know any conclusions that anybody else drew?

Which is one of the reasons for the next club year that Karen and I have chosen: it will be the 1951 Club. You’ve got til next April to prepare, and don’t worry – we’ll remind you before then!

Why 1951? We wanted to read the 1950s next, and 1951 seems an interesting year in literature AND it will be really intriguing to see if the war is still at the forefront of people’s minds – or had those four extra years made the difference?

Thanks again for joining in, and we hope you can next time too. And a million thanks to Karen for co-hosting so wonderfully (and making me feel very provincial, with the extremely international range she brought to the week!). It’s projects like this that make me love the blogosphere the most – when we all join in together, we can achieve lovely things :)

Simon and Andrea’s Film Club

My friend Andrea and I have a two-person film club. Once a fortnight we hold it at either of our houses; the host surprises the guest with the choice of film. We then put our mini-reviews and marks out of ten in a book.

Now that we’ve finished our first notebook, I thought I’d share the films we’ve seen – along with our marks out of twenty.

11 – Shakespeare Wallah (1965)
13 – The Edge of Love (2008)
14 – I Live in Grosvenor Square (1945)
14.5 – Portrait of Jennie (1948)
14.5 – A Bunch of Amateurs (2008)
15 – On Approval (1944)
15 – The Way We Were (1973)
15.5 – Carrie (1951)
15.5 – Peter’s Friends (1992)
15.5 – Passport to Pimlico (1949)
16 – Thoroughly Modern Millie (1967)
16 – Stand By Me (1986)
16 – Thank You For Smoking (2005)
16.5 – Mildred Pierce (1945)
16.5 – Evening (2007)
16.5 – Star! (1968)
17 – Separate Tables (1958)
17 – Manhattan Murder Mystery (1993)
17 – Suddenly, Last Summer (1992)
17.5 – And A Nightingale Sang (1989)
17.5 – The Enchanted April (1991)
17.5 – The Innocents (1961)
17.5 – Private Lives (2013)
17.5 – The Queen (2006)
17.5 – Mr Skeffington (1944)
18 – Like Crazy (2011)
18 – Funny Face (1956)
18.5 – Casablanca (1943)
19 – Secrets and Lies (1996)
19 – Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)
19.5 – Life in a Day (2011)

N is for Nichols

This is part of an ongoing series where I write about a different author for each letter of the alphabet. You can see them all here.

For some reason it took me a while to think who I could write about for N. I love E Nesbit but don’t have that many books by her; I have a few by Irene Nemirovsky, but don’t feel enormously enthused by her. And then it struck me – of course! Beverley Nichols! Sorry Bev that you didn’t come to mind immediately – but, fear not, I will do you justice because I have lots of books by you. It’s not all the books in this photo, but it is quite a lot of them – as well as one on my paperback shelf, one on biographies, and one with the Folio editions.

How many books do I have by Beverley Nichols?

Great question, I’m so glad you asked. And the answer is – a lot. He is one of those authors who was very prolific and also widely printed, so it’s not difficult to stumble across his books. I have 26 books by Nichols, and there are still plenty I haven’t read. That covers everything from his famed memoirs about houses, gardens, and village life (I say ‘memoirs’, but they are heavily fictionalised) to books about faith, America, cooking, war, cats, and more. And, of course, some of his novels.

How many of these have I read?

I didn’t realise until I did my count just now, but I’ve read 13 of these books – exactly half way! I’ve only read one of Nichols’ novels, and none of his detective stories, so plenty more to entice me.

How did I start reading Beverley Nichols?

If you’ve been reading Stuck in a Book for a while, then you might remember that Nichols often appeared in blog posts about recent book hauls, and every time I’d say “I haven’t read any Nichols yet, but I’m sure I’ll like him…” I just kept amassing them, filled with faith that he would be to my taste. The first one I ever bought was A Thatched Roof, from a market secondhand book stall in Pershore in 2004. And I finally read something by him in 2017 – Merry Hall, for the 1951 Club. It was my favourite read of 2017. After that, I couldn’t stop myself.

General impressions…

Well, I was right that I’d love him! The Merry Hall trilogy are still my favourite books by Nichols (and much better than the Down The Garden Path trilogy IMO, though I did enjoy those too) – I also really, really loved The Sweet and Twenties, about the 1920s. The only novel I’ve read by him is Crazy Pavements, which was also really fun. Basically, when Nichols is using his witty, insouciant, slightly gossipy tone, I can’t get enough.

My only real disappointment was The Powers That Be, about spiritualism, because he becomes much more earnest and less amusing. Some of his other essays have been good but not brilliant. On balance, though, I trust that I’m going to have a great time when I start reading a book by Nichols, and I’m almost always correct.

My favourite books of the decade

I messaged my book group about us doing ‘the last meeting of the decade’, and everyone had a panicked meltdown. It feels quite a big deal that NONE of us are ready for, right?? Not least because the current state of politics in the West doesn’t exactly make one feel optimistic about the next decade… but we can only hope and pray.

Anyway, I thought it would be a good opportunity to share my books of the decade – or, rather, the nine books that I chose as my Book of the Year from 2010-2018. 2019’s to be added when I’ve decided it!

Some of those years were better reading years than others, so my ultimate books of the decade might not exactly these. But it’s intriguing to see what rose to the top each year – follow the links for the full lists each time :)

2010: Nella Last’s War

What I wrote: “An early read in 2010, but my lasting favourite – a very talented writer who, but for Mass Observation, would never have had courage to put pen to paper. I’m looking forward to reading her later diaries in 2011.”

2011: The Slaves of Solitude by Patrick Hamilton

What I wrote: “From the first page onwards, Hamilton’s writing was so good that it left me actually astonished. How could an author be this talented? He is the 1940s missing link between writers as disparate as Jane Austen and Charles Dickens. A shy woman bullied in a boarding house is an unlikely topic for great literature, but this is one of the best novels I’ve ever read – and Hamilton one of the most exceptional writers.”

2012: Guard Your Daughters by Diana Tutton

What I wrote: “I was only a couple of pages into this heavenly book when I knew it would be my book of the year. Morgan narrates the bizarre life of her isolated family of sisters. It certainly owes a debt to I Capture the Castle, but is perhaps even better – the most charming, lively, lovable, and eccentric family imaginable, I couldn’t believe how good it was, while I was reading. Others have been quite lukewarm, but causing a mini-revival for this glorious novel has been one of my proudest blogging moments.”

2013: London War Notes 1939-1945 by Mollie Panter-Downes

What I wrote: I was so lucky to track down an affordable copy, after borrowing from the library, and I know that it isn’t available easily – but I can think of no more accomplished, humane, and plain useful record of the wartime home front from a contemporary’s viewpoint. It changed the way I think about the day-by-day events of the second world war, and (like Guard Your Daughters at the top of 2012’s list) I think it is scandalous that it’s out of print. [2019 Simon adds: and now they’re both Persephones!!]

2014: The Sundial by Shirley Jackson

What I wrote: “An extremely funny and surreal novel about an extended family who will survive the apocalypse by staying in the family home together. Brilliantly, they are all rather unconcerned about the impending fire-and-brimstone, and Jackson gives us their squabbles and passive aggression instead. A superlatively inventive, amusing, and bizarre book.”

2015: The Shelf by Phyllis Rose

What I wrote: “And, in at number one – this wonderful book about a reading challenge! Rose chooses to read all the books on a (more or less) random shelf from a New York library, and the various ventures it leads her on. A joy for any bibliophile.”

2016: The Lark by E. Nesbit

What I wrote: “Once I’d remembered that this was one of my first reads in 2016, how could anything else come top of my list? It’s rare to read a novel this funny, joyful, and charming – about two young women setting up a flower shop, and their witty adventures. Even better – it’s coming back into print from Scott and the Furrowed Middlebrow imprint at Dean Street Press!” [2019 Simon adds: and Penguin too! What riches.]

2017: Merry Hall by Beverley Nichols

What I wrote: “It truly has been the Year of Beverley. I’ve read quite a lot of books by him this year, but I had to pick the one which kicked off my Beverley love affair – I read Merry Hall for the 1951 Club, and never looked back. This (presumably heightened) account of buying a house and doing up the garden is hilarious, charming, and (praise be!) the beginning of a trilogy. Don’t wait as long as I did to read Beverley – if you haven’t yet, make 2018 the year you read him!”

2018: The Sweet and Twenties by Beverley Nichols

What I wrote: “For the second year in a row, my favourite book of the year was by Beverley Nichols! This time, it’s his retrospective of the 1920s that Karen and I discussed when she was a guest on ‘Tea or Books?’. From the Thompson/Bywaters case to the fashions of the period, it’s historically rich and fascinating, as well as being soaked in Nichols’ inimitable style. A total delight!”

My Best Books of 2017

I always love sitting down at the end of the year and compiling my favourite reads of the past 12 months. Often I haven’t really noticed whether it’s been a good or bad year (reading-wise) until I do this – and I’d say 2017 has been steadily very good. Only one of the books I read is likely to find its way onto my all-time faves, but there were dozens that I’d have been very happy to see on an end of year list. And it’s been a very good year for mid-century books!

 

My usual rules for myself apply – only one book by each author can feature, and no re-reads. Each title links back to my review. Here they are, from #10 to #1…

 

Rachel and I read this for ‘Tea or Books?‘ back in February, comparing it another novel about the Thompson/Bywaters murder case (E.M. Delafield’s Messalina of the Suburbs). It’s probably the podcast ep I’m proudest of, as I think this comparison is fascinating – and FTJ’s exquisite novel won that podcast decision and tenth place on my list.

 

When I read Howards End is on the Landing, there was never any doubt that it would be my favourite book that year. I’ve eagerly awaited the sort-of-sequel ever since, and I did absolutely love it. The only reasons it isn’t higher are that I wanted more about books, and perhaps slightly fewer bizarre pronouncements from Hill. Still, nobody else could have written quite this book.

 

I’ve read any number of Taylor novels, and read this one for a conference on Undervalued British Women Writers 1930-1960. It’s more dramatic and dark than many of Taylor’s novels, but absorbingly brilliantly brilliant.

 

Look, I’m never going to get over how much I love the title of this book – which looks at the history of the ‘Shakespeare authorship question’ over the years. Shapiro saves his unanswerable reasons for being pro-Shakespeare until the final chapter; before this he is wise, amusing, and thorough.

 

This quirky, brilliant novel is a masterpiece of unusual structuring, and entirely beguiling. It was also given to me by a friend who died this year, which makes it (and her recommendation) all the more special.

 

I’ve yet to write a review of this one, but I’ve linked to the podcast episode where we compared it to Eden’s other novel, The Semi-Attached Couple. This is a very funny, very arch novel in the mould of Austen, elevating itself past imitation into something rather wonderful.

 

Also published as A Stranger With a Bag, I only reviewed this collection of short stories a week or so ago – I’m glad I waited to make my Best Books list, because these observant, calm, insightful stories are a thought-provoking delight.

 

I reviewed this over at Shiny New Books, and it’s a hilarious account of a year in the life of a Scottish bookseller. Bythell is quite cynical and snarky, but if your sense of humour overlaps with his then you’ll laugh and laugh – as well as getting a glimpse into the Promised Land.

 

This was a slow burn, and had to be read gradually, but it was one of the most rewarding reads I’ve had in a while. Timothy Casson is a writer who moves to a small village in wartime and wants boating rights on the river – of such small things are masterpieces made. Rachel and I will be discussing this one in the new year…

 

It truly has been the Year of Beverley. I’ve read quite a lot of books by him this year, but I had to pick the one which kicked off my Beverley love affair – I read Merry Hall for the 1951 Club, and never looked back. This (presumably heightened) account of buying a house and doing up the garden is hilarious, charming, and (praise be!) the beginning of a trilogy. Don’t wait as long as I did to read Beverley – if you haven’t yet, make 2018 the year you read him!

The Past is Myself by Christabel Bielenberg

 

When we did the 1947 Club and the 1951 Club, I noticed in my own reading – and I think in the reading across the blogosphere – that the war was surprisingly absent. I say ‘surprisingly’. Perhaps there is nothing unsurprising about people wanting to put hell behind them for a few years, either unwilling or unable to face what had passed. It’s interesting, in my 1968 reading, that two strands have emerged – the bright, bold, intoxicating world of the ’60s emerging, and a more concentrated look back over the shoulder at the past. Few books could be more eye-opening than Christabel Bielenberg’s 1968 memoir The Past is Myself, reprinted a few years ago in a beautiful Slightly Foxed Edition.

Bielenberg’s surname sounds German – and, indeed, is – but she was raised English. (Or Irish… it seems to be conflated. After Greensleeves, is this becoming a 1968 pattern?) She married Peter Bielenberg during the interwar period, and adopted German citizenship in 1934 – Germany was her home and she seems to have been broadly accepted. Oddly, her Englishness doesn’t seem to have been much of an issue throughout the Second World War – at least it isn’t mentioned as being so in The Past is Myself – but her staunch resistance to Nazism was a constant threat to her life. It starts in 1932, sort of, but much of the book (unsurprisingly) focuses on the bulk of the war. But I did think this was great:

The history of the years between 1935 and 1938 in Germany could be summarised by a conversation overheard between two Hamburg dock-workers, sitting over their beer in a riverside pub (Hamburg dock-workers are not renowned for their garrulity). “Ja, ja, ja,” sighed the one, and again after a long pause, “ja, ja, ja”.” “Listen,” said his friend, gazing mournfully into his beer-mug, “can’t you, for one moment, stop discussing politics?”

This memoir tells of life in Germany for somebody who despised Hitler and his policies – for somebody who was ‘Aryan’, but violently opposed every step of the Nazis’ campaign. Like Mathilde Wolff-Monckeberg’s excellent On the Other Side, this gives an important perspective that helps us remember that an individual is not their country.

Bielenberg takes the reader painstakingly through the events of each month, each week, and for the first half the memoir it is a case of slowly escalating horror. We probably all know what happened – the Nuremberg laws and the gradual removal of the rights of Jewish people; the increase in political prisoners and Hitler-worship; the erosion of every public voice of dissent. Bielenberg expertly puts us into the world of somebody who hated Nazism but, after initial protest, realises that dissent means death – and then anybody could be an informant.

Just the same we knew that when meeting new people, they would probably play the game as we did. The conversation at first would be guarded and noncommittal. We knew that we were none of us Nazis, but were we all of us, drunk or sober, also discreet? Had we other mutual friends? Were they real friends or just names dropped to impress? I would find it hard to describe the wary approach, the half-finished sentence, the guarded reference which led at the time to mutual confidence, and to the realisation that the air had at last been cleared and all present could sit back and indulge in plain high treason. The procedure was a delicate one, one that had to be carefully learned if we valued our lives, and would trust our fellows sufficiently to put our lives in their hands.

Though published in 1968, Bielenberg delivers the narrative as she experienced it, day by day and moment by moment. She seldom, if ever, gives hints of what was to come for her own family and friends, nor does she include particularly detailed accounts of what later became widely known, in terms of concentration camps. So we don’t see the full scale of the horror that the Nazis implemented – though there are glimpses: a man she meets on a train who has been part of the SS extermination team, for instance, or the rumours of cattle trucks which come back to those in Berlin. Hers was not the worst experience of the war, of course. She was never sent to a concentration camp – though her husband spent time in dire conditions in a prison (through connections to those who organised the foiled plot to assassinate Hitler) and there is a significant section dealing with Christabel’s interrogation when trying to have him released.

It is revealing to read about somebody anti-Nazi, pro-Britain who also suffered at the hands of British and Allied bombers – caught between two enemies, in a way. She writes about the indiscriminate cruelty of bombing campaigns brilliantly:

There was no moon, and there were three air raids in the three nights that I was in Berlin. The bombs fell indiscriminately on Nazis and anti-Nazis, on women and children and works of art, on dogs and pet canaries. New and more ravaging bombs – blockbusters and incendiaries, and phosphorus bombs that burst and glowed green and emptied themselves down the walls and along the streets in flaming rivers of unquenchable flame, seeping down cellar stairs, and sealing the exits to the air-raid shelters.

Indeed, even without seeing the full evil of the concentration camps, I was still left afresh with the shock at how evil people can be. For how many thousands of Germans must have been coopted into targeting Jewish people, running death camps, being part of the cruel regime? The millions who felt helpless to prevent or oppose it – well, that I can understand. Particularly in the nationalistic, often xenophobic world we are seeing more and more of. People often talk about Trump and Hitler together, and say that Trump is no Hitler. I absolutely agree that he is not Hitler as Hitler was in, say, 1942. But the similarities between Hitler in 1933 and Trump in 2017 are many – targeting a faith group, playing on brash nationalism to do so, trying to quieten dissent from others and calling the unpatriotic if they do it. Reading this book brought home those similarities and dangers.

The Past is Myself (stupidly vague title aside) is in many ways a brilliant book, with an unstinting portrayal of what her life was like and, to the extent that she was able, what Germany was like. I’ve been very enthusiastic in this review. I can’t quite put my finger on why I don’t think it’s a brilliant book. Something in the writing style, or the structure? I don’t know. Usually I find it quite easy to pinpoint why I haven’t found a book worked perfectly, but there’s something elusive here. It’s still exceptionally valuable as a resource, and very good in doing what it does, but I probably wouldn’t rush to read anything Bielenberg wrote on any other topic.

Still, a sombre and poignant end to the 1968 Club for me.

 

The Masters by C.P. Snow

The MastersSometimes you read books you think you’ll dislike, and they’re wonderful surprises. Sometimes… the opposite happens. This is one of those times.

I recently read The Masters (1951) by C.P. Snow – a 1951 novel that nobody read during the 1951 Club, incidentally. It was chosen for my book group, and I was eager to get to it. The 1951 Club taught me that it was a stellar year for literature, and Snow was one of those names that has been on my peripheries for years. I’ve read books by his wife (Pamela Hansford Johnson) and I’m sure I’ve heard him recommended somewhere.

The Masters is in the middle of the Strangers and Brothers series, published between 1940 and 1970 and covering several decades in the life of Lewis Eliot. We were assured by our book group recommender that it didn’t matter, starting in the middle – during which time he is a don at an unnamed Cambridge college. (I thought the whole series was about the college until I started this paragraph and read the Wikipedia entry for the series.) While most books in the series cover substantial periods of time, this one is only concerned with a couple of months. The college seems curiously devoid of students, or at least students who do anything noteworthy; the novel is only about the dons and their relationships.

He was the one man in the college whom I actively disliked, and he disliked me at least as strongly. There was no reason for it; we had not one value or thought in common, but that was true with others whom I was fond of; this was just an antipathy as specific as love. Anywhere but in the college we should have avoided each other. As it was, we met three or four nights a week at dinner, talked across the table, even spent, by the force of social custom, a little time together. It was one of the odd features of a college, I sometimes thought, that one lived in social intimacy with men our disliked: and, more than that, there were times when a fraction of one’s future lay in their hands. For these societies were always making elections from their own members, they filled all their jobs from among themselves, and in those elections one’s enemies took part.

And it is an election that takes centre stage in the novel. The Master has a terminal illness, and the dons (after a brief nod to the sensitivities surrounding the situation) start trying to decide who will be the next Master. This is done by a vote between the 13 dons, and two candidates quickly emerge: Jago and Crawford.

The rest of the novel is about who is voting for whom.

That’s it.

There are no real subplots, no deviation, and absolutely no reason why anybody might care who wins this election. Characterisation is laboured and yet still unfulfilling – Snow gives us a lot of words about everybody, but hardly any vitality. And every conversation is about who might vote for Jago (for Eliot is cheering him on) and who might be tempted away to Crawford. Is it all a metaphor for something? Would it have meant something else in 1951? I don’t know. I just found the whole thing went round and round in circles, and was unbearably monotonous.

I thought for a while that it was because the scene didn’t interest – having been at an Oxford college for nearly a decade, I was able to see how silly and childish many of the protocols were that older male members of college were clinging onto – but a different author could have made me care. I kept thinking how captivating it would be in the hands of Anthony Trollope. After all, the basis of The Warden is hardly scintillating, until Trollope makes it so.

So – definitely the biggest disappointment of the year so far. Not the worst book I’ve read this year, probably, but the most disappointing. All the same, I’m quite looking forward to a heated discussion at book group…

Lucy Carmichael by Margaret Kennedy

Margaret Kennedy DayI’m sneaking into the final moments of Margaret Kennedy Day – an annual event organised by Jane of Beyond Eden Rock – with a novel that I’d intended to read for the 1951 Club: Lucy Carmichael. The only thing that put me off then was its heft (it’s just under 400 pages) – but I managed to read it over a few days, and can throw my hat into the ring.

Lucy Carmichael is a slightly misleading title because, while she is certainly central to the novel, I’d argue that it’s almost as much Melissa’s book – and it is certainly she who opens up the first chapter, in this rather beguiling paragraph:

On a fine evening in September Melissa Hallam sat in Kensington Gardens with a young man to whom she had been engaged for three days. They had begun to think of the future and she was trying to explain her reasons for keeping the engagement a secret as long as possible.

She tells her fiance about her best friend Lucy, whose wedding is coming up soon – to an explorer who wants to be a botanist. Melissa describes her to a sceptical fiance – because the description doesn’t make her seem as pretty or wonderful as Melissa clearly thinks (and Melissa’s brother, Hump, has been similarly unimpressed in the letters she sends, thinking of her as Bossy Lucy). The reader sees this doubt, and finds themselves wanting to side with Lucy before she arrives on the scene.

One thing leads to another – I won’t say what – and the scene shifts: Lucy is now working at an institute that a kindly benefactor has built in a remote area for the benefit of the dramatic arts. The drama becomes about the Committee, and which play the young people should perform. This is perhaps the mainstay of the novel – this, and the will-they/won’t-they between Lucy and Charles, the son of Lady Frances – doyenne of arts and general social queen on this small stage. It means that we don’t see much more of Melissa, which is a shame, because she was that rare thing: a successfully-drawn witty character. Lucy herself is also winning – kind and wise and impulsive and thoughtful; an intriguing mix – but I still don’t think she deserved having the novel named after her.

I’m not sure this novel entirely knows what it wants to be. It feels rather as though Kennedy picked a setting and a plot – Lucy becoming part of a dramatic institute in a provincial community with much in-fighting – and decided to extend at both ends. We see how she ended up there; we see what happens afterwards. Lucy Carmichael, in short, is too long. It’s also too loose and baggy. There is the making of a truly exceptional 250 page novel within these covers, but I felt like the structure needed tightening. In fact, almost every scene needed tightening; it came across like a draft where Kennedy put down everything that came to her, and it should have had another winnowing.

river readingThe main case in point was, because the institute only turns up quite a significant way into the book, I couldn’t find myself much caring what happened there. The stakes weren’t high enough.

That sounds like I didn’t enjoy the novel, which isn’t true at all. In fact, I rather think that I might end up liking it more and more, the further away I get from it, when I forget the bits I found slow. And, indeed, when I forget everything except the impression it had on me – this is my third Kennedy novel, after Together and Apart and The Forgotten Smile, and I can’t remember even the tiniest detail about either of them.

This isn’t the glowing review that perhaps Margaret Kennedy Day should inspire. I don’t think I’m quite in the camp that adores her – but I also realise that it’s not the sort of novel that should be read so quickly. The writing is great, there is wit and thoughtfulness; Kennedy is clearly trying to inherit the mantle of Jane Austen (and there are many references to Austen throughout; Melissa and Lucy are both aficionados) and that’s an admirable intention, even if it highlights the disparity between their achievements are ‘structurers’. There is a lot to love here, and I did love the final chapter so much that I almost forgave everything else – but it’s always a shame when a novel doesn’t quite become (in my opinion, at least) quite the success it could have been.

Stuck in a Book’s Weekend Miscellany

I’m off to Mottisfont by the time you read this (or, indeed, I may well have come back and we’ve carried on with our lives) – there’s an exhibition of Rex Whistler art that I’m excited about seeing. But that doesn’t mean that I’ll leave you miscellaniless (yes, it’s a word).

1.) The blog post – do see Kaggsy’s round up of the 1951 Club. And we’ve picked our next club year! Actually – you’ve chosen it: in the comments on our round ups, 1968 got the most votes. So, 23-29 October 2017 will be the #1968club! I’m already excited about it, as it seems (somewhat to my surprise) that I have lots of books from 1968 that I want to read. Maybe I’m not quite such an interwar-reader as I thought?

2.) The book – is by Will Rycroft. Will – erstwhile blogger, Waterstones employee, actor, and generally lovely bloke – has written about his experiences performing in War Horse, with the excellent title All Quiet on the West-End Front. It’s with Unbound – in case you’re unfamiliar with the format, it’s a crowd-funding publishing house. To find out more about the book, and look into funding options if you’re interested, head over to Unbound.

3.) The link – treat yourself to a video of a grammar/punctuation vigilante. My brother Colin and my friend Mel both live in Bristol and love good grammar, but promise it wasn’t them.