Novella Weekend: Ready, Steady…

No Miscellany today, as this is the first post of my Novella Weekend. It’s the third one I’ve done, and it’s an idea I’m enjoying. I still haven’t written about two of the three books I read last time. Three was a disappointing number, but the weekend was mostly occupied by my anxiety that I’d got appendicitis (which I didn’t) – here’s hoping this weekend is rather better!

I’ve got a pile of 15 books ready. Obviously I shan’t get through that many, but it’s nice to have a bit of choice. I’ll let you know what I’ve read as and when I’ve read it… and if you’re joining in with me, whether with one novella or ten, then let me know!

Happy weekend, y’all.

Somerset Maugham on Jane Austen’s Letters

Aw, shame that Irene didn’t seem to tempt any of you. But I suspect more people will be intrigued by today’s post – about Jane Austen. Susan in TX very kindly and sweetly sent me A Truth Universally Acknowledged: 33 Great Writers on Why We Read Jane Austen last year, and I’m reading it slowly, savouring it. I’ll write a proper review of it when I’m all done, which could be a while, but it’s the sort of book I’ll want to share bits from now and then. And today I’m quoting from W. Somerset Maugham about Jane Austen’s letters, because I entirely agree with him. I don’t understand the critics who are disappointed by her letters – they’re wonderful. Also, all of the famous bits you’ll have heard quoted (two inches of ivory; three or four families, etc.) are written so very tongue-in-cheek that they should never be taken as Austen’s genuine opinion of herself. Just sayin’. Anyway, over to Maugham:

Many of Jane Austen’s warmest admirers have found her letters disappointing, and have thought they showed that she was cold and unfeeling and that her interests were trivial. I am surprised. They are very natural. Jane Austen never imagined that anyone but Cassandra would read them, and she told her exactly the sort of things she knew would interest her. She told her what people were wearing and how much she had paid for the flowered muslin she had bought, what acquaintances she had made, what old friends she had met and the gossip she had heard

Of late years several collections of letters by eminent authors have been published, and for my part, when I read them, I am now ans then disposed to suspect that the writers had at the back of their minds the notion that one day they might find their way into print. They give me not seldom the impression that they might have been used just as they were in the columns of a literary journal. In order not to annoy the devotees of the recently deceased I will not mention their names, but Dickens has been dead a long time and it is possible to say what one likes of him without offense. Whenever he went on a journey he wrote long letters to his friends in which he described eloquently the sights he had seen and which, as his biographer justly observes, might well have been printed without the alteration of a single word. People were more patient in those days; still one would have thought it a disappointment to receive a letter from a friend who gave you word pictures of mountains and monuments when you wanted to know whether he had come across anyone interesting, what parties he had been to and whether he had been able to get you the books or ties or handkerchiefs you had asked him to bring back.

Quaint Irene

The post title is one for all you Mapp and Lucia lovers, but the book in question is nothing to do with Benson – rather it is To Tell My Story (1948), the autobiography of Dame Irene Vanbrugh. (I’m assuming that her name should be pronounced Eye-reen-ee? Much prettier than Eye-reen, to my mind.) You might not think you’ve heard of her – except from the mentions made of her on my blog, when I’ve noted what I’m currently reading – but she has a certain amount of significance. Once one of the nation’s favourite stage actresses, and one of the first to enter the profession from an upper(ish)-middle-class background, she was Gwendoline in the first The Importance of Being Earnest; co-founded R.A.D.A.; married Dion Boucicault Jr. (son of the playwright); and appeared in the first British colour film. That’s quite a curriculum vitae, isn’t it? And yet what made me seek out Irene’s autobiography was seeing her name in the dramatis personae (gosh, two Latin expressions in one paragraph) in many of AA Milne’s collections of plays. Indeed, this is what she has to say about Milne:
He was a fair-haired, gentle, rather shy personality with a certain detachment of outlook. In his plays and verses he creates a world of his own, peopled with real flesh and blood seen behind a gauze of true fantasy, without being whimsical. The nurseries are warm and cosy, the living rooms comfortable and welcoming, the gardens gay with flowers. You can’t think of them otherwise yet you know if the gauze was rudely pulled asunder and the people were caught up in cold realities they would be true to nature and rise to what might be asked of them.

At first I found him difficult to talk to as he resented my wholehearted devotion to the technique of the older playwrights, which he was inclined to belittle. But it was a joy to me to learn to appreciate his method, and during the years he worked with us we became firm friends.
My curiosity, although piqued by Vanbrugh’s friendship with Milne, certainly went beyond that. As I’ve mentioned recently, I find theatrical history fascinating, especially from the perspective of someone with long and distinguished a stage career as Dame Irene. It was interesting to compare Vanbrugh’s autobiography with that other Dame and doyenne of the stage – Judi Dench. A lot has changed (Vanbrugh addresses, for instance, whether or not it is proper for a girl to become an actress, and there seems to be a far more rigidly observed hierarchy from leading lady down) but a lot is the same. There is a continuing love of fellow actors, and of acting, that shines from the page.

Unlike Dench’s book And Furthermore, this isn’t simply a string of interesting anecdotes. Although Vanbrugh rarely delves into her private life too deeply, she does talk about becoming a widow. Much of To Tell My Story moves away from tales of specific performances to more general, and very fascinating, ruminations upon all manner of aspects of acting – from etiquette to creating a part to being in a revival, etc. etc.

It must be confessed that Vanbrugh was probably a more natural actress than she was a writer. Most of the time her prose is serviceable, with occasional shimmer or glisten. It certainly isn’t clunky, and when she turns to describing characters or plays she is very insightful and doesn’t waste a word. But I’m not sure she could turn her hand to fiction (although at least she wouldn’t colour her prose purple). It came as something of a surprise, then, when her writing developed in leaps and bounds for chapter 2. It told of her first meeting with J.M. Barrie. Suddenly there was wit in her phrasing, piquancy in her portraits, and more than a pinch or two of irony….

…all of which was explained when I got to the end of that chapter, and she confessed that it was, in fact, Barrie himself who had penned it. It is a neat trick, and you realise why the portrait of him had been somewhat more amusing and less charitable than most of her other character descriptions. It does, however, throw doubt upon the following paragraph, at the beginning of that chapter:
Up to now I had never “created” a part. I had been various young ladies but the characters had all passed through other hands before I had the fingering of them. What was expected of me was to reproduce the style of my predecessors, to be so like them in my voice, manner, elegancies, deficiencies, dimples and the way I clicked my teeth, that if their parents were in front they could still think they were gazing on their child. It is a commonplace that nothing of the actor survives his passing from the scene but I wish to stab this statement with a hairpin. If he created a part we go on reproducing him in it so carefully that it is still him you see in it rather than us. We are dressed up in him as in old garments. I wanted not to copy a picture but to paint one, to put something of myself into a part to present my own deficiencies if I had nothing else. I longed to click my own teeth in my own way.
Did Barrie write this, or Vanbrugh? Is it something Vanbrugh believed? I knew it was a convention of 16th and 17th century drama, but had assumed it had died out by the 20th… any theatre historians able to tell me?

I must confess one of the reasons I loved reading To Tell My Story – and I definitely loved reading it – is that it is unusual. You know me – I do enjoy reading things a bit out of the ordinary, which you wouldn’t find on the 3 for 2 table at Waterstones. Most of you are the same, I think. It’s a lovely feeling, to rescue a book like this from forgotten corners of dusty bookshops and neglected shelves – and to find much to love.

I want to leave you with two excerpts from To Tell My Story, showing that Vanbrugh’s writing – although not always perfect – definitely has its moments. The first, from a toast she gave at an event to celebrate Shakespeare’s birth, is funny; the second is moving and sad. I do recommend that you hunt this book out, if you have any interest in the theatre of days gone by. It’s a wonderful resource, as well as a captivating life.
During the twenty-six years of happy married life with Dion Boucicault I always stated my occupation as ‘married’, but now I shall boldly describe my occupation as ‘actress’ and if it is questioned I shall say that it was openly acknowledged in public on Shakespeare’s birthday at Stratford-on-Avon, if necessary mentioning it was some years after his death to prevent any further confusion occurring as to my possible age.

* * *

During the fourteen months of the run in town (an immense run in those days) [of His House in Order by Pinero] a poignant incident stands out to me. Bella Pateman, who played the part of Lady Ridgeley, came to my dressing-room one evening and said, “I went to see my doctor today; he tells me I must have an operation for cancer. Isn’t it bad luck?” The remembrance of the way she she those last four words have always remained with me. It showed how in real life the deepest tragedies are often taken so simply and with such few words so unlike the way one might imagine anybody would receive their death sentence, which indeed it was.

Many and Various (including two readalongs!)

One of those scramble-around-putting-various-things-I-probably-ought-to-have-mentioned-before type of posts, so get your mind set to miscellaneous…


1.) Another readalong idea that sprung out of the incredibly productive Virago Reading Week, and one that actually involves a book that’s in print (I know! Imagine!) – Rachel (Book Snob), Claire (Paperback Reader) and I were discussing how we wanted to read more Elizabeth von Arnim, and have settled upon The Caravaners. We’d love you to join in – we plan to post thoughts in the week beginning 28th March, so a bit of time to get your hands on a copy and read along with us. Hope you can!

2.) More of an informal readalong – this weekend I’m planning another novella reading weekend. Well, short books of any variety – I’m thinking of branching out and grabbing a couple of poetry books off my shelf. Why not join in with me? Whether you’re reading one novella or twelve, I’ve love some short-book company.


3.) I remembered that I hadn’t done the draw for William – I really must stop having these prize draws and forgetting to draw the name. Patch has gone to bed now, so a random number generator is yet again coming to my aid – congratulations to A Bookish Space! Let me know your address, and I’ll get William in the post to you…

4.) And finally – Wikio have let me know the latest of their rankings, and it does seem to be rather more book-focused than before – hurrah!
1 Charlie’s Diary 2 Making it up 3 Book Chick City 4 Stuck In A Book 5 An Awfully Big Blog Adventure 6 Savidge Reads 7 Other Stories 8 Cornflower Books 9 booktwo.org 10 My Favourite Books 11BubbleCow 12 Asylum 13 Reading Matters 14 Vulpes Libris 15 Pepys’ Diary 16 The Book Smugglers 17 State of Independents 18Baroque in Hackney 19 Elizabeth Baines 20 Joan Lennon Ranking made by Wikio

TV Book Club Outing!

A little while ago I was asked, along with four other bloggers, to see the TV Book Club being recorded in London – and to meet the presenters. Naturally I was beside myself with excitement, and sent off a ‘yes’ to charming Richard who invited me. Before long I was meeting Claire (aka Paperback Reader) at Paddington for sushi, and then heading out to Cactus Studios. We didn’t even get lost, so that’s something to celebrate.The other bloggers there were David of Follow the Thread (whom I had met a couple of times before), Keith from Books and Writers , and Cherry of Cherry Mischevious. Clicking on those three links will take you to their thoughts about the day – because they’ve been a bit more organised than me. I’ll pop in a link to Claire’s post later today. EDIT: here it is!


I have seen a few programmes being recorded before, including My Life in Books earlier in February, but this one doesn’t actually have a studio audience. We felt very privileged – sitting on chairs, leaning against the counter of Saturday Kitchen (which, in turns out, is filmed in the same studio), and watching the presenters discussing Bleed For Me by Michael Robotham. It’s a gory thriller set in a small Somerset village. A bit close to home. I’ve got to say, despite the presenters and VT book group raving about it, nothing about the novel appeals to this squeamish reader. Although, having said that, Jo Brand assured me afterwards that she loved it despite being squeamish.

That’s right – Jo Brand spoke to me! We were invited to the Green Room for tea and cake aftewards (it was Charlotte’s birthday and she kindly shared her delicious birthday cake – I was pleased to see that the stick-thin, uber-glamorous TV types still ate cake. I was worried it would just be me cramming it into my mouth in the corner.) Jo Brand, Meera Syal, and Dave Spikey came and had a nice, friendly chat with us. Jo Brand is my favourite comedienne, and I was *so* excited to meet her – I tried to keep my cool and be nonchalant, but I don’t think I’ve ever really successfully grasped nonchalance… at least I didn’t break down in tears, sobbing about how much I love her.

As for the show – I love that the presenters (who also include Ade Edmondson and Laila Rouass) are passionate about books, and that this programme is shown. TV Channels seem to be waking up to the fact that a lot of people love books. I just wish the TV Book Club, in many ways admirable, would have the courage to avoid dumbing down at all. Not in their choice of books – they seem great in general – but in the format of the programme. Nigel Havers was great on the episode I saw, and the pre-recordered VTs etc. are usually fun and interesting, but please let’s cut some of the celebrities coming on to shift their biographies. Case in point – Ken Barlow from Coronation Street flogging his book; the first thing he said was “I’ve never been much of a reader.” BUT this is a small niggle with the show, which overall I think is great.

Oh, and then we were given a bunch of books to take home, and a goody bag from Specsavers (who sponsor the show, and were responsible for us being there – so I’m going to shamefully advertise them. I wear Specsavers’ glasses myself, and they’re pretty fab.) Thanks Richard and Candace who arranged it; Amanda Ross (most powerful person in the book industry!) for showing us around the technical bits; Charlotte for giving us cake, and Jo Brand for making a little dream of mine come true.

3 Quarks Daily – Vote!

I meant to tell you about nominations for the Best Arts and Literature Blog Post thingummy over at 3 Quarks Daily, but kept forgetting… and now the deadline has passed for nominations. Sorry! But do head over and vote, please!

Click here to vote. I nominated Rachel (Book Snob) for her post on Gilead, and then threw my own review of Gilead into the hat – so a vote for either of those would be very welcome!

There is a monetary prize of no little significance… once someone official gets to see the shortlist. So it would be wonderful if me and Rachel could make the shortlist :D

Song for a Sunday

I couldn’t find a non-live version of this song on YouTube, so I went and made my first ever Movie Maker video. And when I say ‘made’, I mean I typed a few words onto a picture I took on holiday in 2009, and then put the song on it. I had no idea it was that easy. They might have just unleased a monster…

The song is ‘Seafarer’ by Kate Walsh (not the American actress, btw), from the beautiful album Light & Dark. Enjoy!

Referrals and Deferrals

I was going to write a long, musing post about classics and non-classics, and how reading obscure novels does and does not help one become ‘well-read’ – but I’m sleepy and haven’t watched Emmerdale yet, so I’m putting that post on hold… and will instead quickly mention a book I now want. Sister Wendy Beckett – the nun and art historian – was on My Life in Books this week, and was absolutely wonderful. Such a lovely, engaging, inspirational woman – and she left me very much wanting The Duty of Delight: the Diaries of Dorothy Day – even though I still have very little idea who Dorothy Day was. All I know is that she was a co-founder of the Catholic Worker movement (about which I know almost nothing) – but Sister Wendy was persuasive enough to convince me I’d find this book hugley insightful and, again, inspirational.

Drawback being, of course, that it’s over £30. I’ll have to wait until the paperback comes out in October, for under £10 – rather more affordable. But I thought I’d mention it first, in case any of you have read it – and maybe to inspire you to find it in your library. Or perhaps you have £30 you’re keen to spend on books?

Which reminds me – on Monday I finally finished unpacking (we moved last July) and found £10 of book tokens! Actually book-token-cards… which might have expired. Hmm… Usually book tokens last approximately ten seconds in my hands, but Project 24 meant they lingered a bit. I’ll have to pop into Waterstone’s and see if they’re still valid. And then – guilt-free book buying! (Another reminder – I *still* haven’t revealed my haul from a trip to London a few weeks ago. So many things to write about…)

To See Ourselves

Burns’ (anglicised) line ‘Oh would some Power the gift to give us / To see ourselves as others see us’ was one which Delafield played with on a couple occasions (the brilliant collection of sketches As Others Hear Us, and the play To See Ourselves which later proved inspiration for VMC The Way Things Are). More broadly, I think it can be seen as the cornerstone of her writing – whether witty or sad or biting (and Delafield excels at all of these, in different works) her primary technique is demonstrating people’s lack of self-awareness.

Danielle and I have both been reading Gay Life (1933) and both our reviews will appear today – if I’ve understood time differences properly, then Danielle’s will come along later. It is another example of characters who have built up false images of themselves – but rather than having a single focus, Gay Life is filled with a cast of many. We see through nearly all of their eyes at different points, and thus Delafield builds up many perspectives on the same few days and group of people. They’re all on a long holiday in the South of France, staying at a hotel, mostly having stayed to the point where they know each other reasonably well and have separated wheat from chaff – usually getting stuck with the chaff. Delafield’s title, of course, uses ‘gay’ in its original sense – but also ironically. Despite the supposedly delights of the resort, few of the characters are enjoying themselves; even fewer have happy or uncomplicated relationships with those around them.

There are so many people – I ought to start introducing them. Hilary and Angie Moon are recently, and dejectedly, married (‘The little that they had ever had to say to one another had been said in the course of an electrically-charged fortnight, two years earlier, when they had fallen desperately in love.’) She’s already on the look-out for a new beau, but isn’t likely to find it in grumpy Mr. Bolham, still less his hapless secretary Denis. Angie’s not the only woman willing to welcome love – Coral Romayne is besotted with Buckland, the beefy holiday tutor hired ostensibly to teach her neglected son Patrick. There are a few more, but I don’t want to dizzy you.

EMD is mistress of the brief description which utterly reveals a character and their flaws. This, for instance, is Denis: ‘Morally – in the common acceptance of the term – he had remained impeccable, for he was both undersexed and inclined to a physical fastidiousness that he mistook for spirituality.’ And Dulcie, one of the most amusing characters in the novel, who is the daughter of a hotel entertainer, and thus treading an awkward line between guest and servant: ‘Dulcie continued to prattle. It was evidently her idea of good manners, to permit no interval of silence.’

One character I haven’t mentioned, who is awfully significant, is the novelist Chrissie Challoner. She is staying in a house near the cottage, and one of the central threads of this multi-faceted novel is her encounter with Denis. He’s had a rather pathetic life, but she immediately sees through his facade of worldliness – and rather falls in love with his true self. Which leads to all manner of moonlight proclamations and furtive assignations. Being honest, I was a bit worried at this point. A lot of interwar novelists try their hand at romance and flail a bit madly. It’s all much more comfortable for the reader when they’re being arch and detached – and there is nothing detached about Chrissie’s pondering on his inner being, declaring she has never felt this before, etc. etc. I daresay such things are enjoyable to the people experiencing them, but not really to the reader…

But, of course, I ought to have trusted Delafield not to err. After a few pages where it seems Denis may have finally met a woman who will understand and appreciate him… but no, I shan’t spoil the plot for you.

Besides, Delafield is never too earnest. The humour of The Provincial Lady is toned down, but makes it appearances, especially when Dulcie is on the scene.
“Mr. Bolham, is your bedroom door locked?”

“Why should my bedroom door be locked?” said Mr. Bolham. “I’ve nothing to hide.”

Dulcie gave a thin shriek of nervous laughter.

“You are funny, Mr. Bolham. I shall die. I suppose it did sound funny, me putting it like that. What I meant was, really, could I possibly pop in there, just for one second, to get something – well, it’s a bathing-cloak really – that’s fallen on to your balcony.”

“Again?”

Dulcie giggled uncertainly.

“It’s not my fault, Mr. Bolham,” she said at last, putting her head on one side.

“I know. It’s the Duvals.”

“It just dropped off their window-ledge, you know.”

“Did madame Duval send you to get it?”

Dulcie nodded.

“I expect she thought you might be a tiny bit cross, as it’s happened so often,” she suggested.

Mr. Bolham felt her eyeing him anxiously, to see if this would get a laugh. He maintained, without any difficulty, a brassy irresponsiveness, and Dulcie immediately changed her methods.

“I like to do anything I’m asked, always – my Pops says that’s one of the ways a little girl makes nice friends,” she observed in a sudden falsetto. “And Marcelle – she lets me call her Marcelle, you know – she’s always terribly sweet to me. So naturally, I like to run about and do errands for her, Mr. Bolham.”

“Well, I hope you’ve enjoyed doing this one,” said Mr. Bolham sceptically. “I’ll send the towel, or whatever it is, up by the chambermaid.”
Although there are some central players in Gay Life, the cast is so wide that things don’t get dull or stilted. Delafield takes it in turns to focalise goings-on through the eyes of each character, so that we are still learning back-story well on into the last quarter of the novel – so it feels more like meeting every guest at a hotel than it does like a linear novel. Presumably that is the effect EMD wanted – and it certainly works. Plot isn’t entirely unimportant, though – and a Big Event rears its head towards the end.

Danielle asked me, in an email, what else I’d read by Delafield. I did a quick count on the back of a piece of scrap paper, and realised that I’ve read 19 books by EMD – mostly in pre-blog days, and a fair few in pre-uni days, when I could afford to indulge in one author for a month or two. (Favourites include: As Others Hear Us, Mrs. Harter, The War Workers, Faster! Faster!, Consequences…) Of that 19, I have read no duds. Gay Life isn’t the best of those reads – in fact, it probably lags somewhere towards the end – and yet it is really very good indeed. EMD deservedly has most of her fame from the Provincial Lady books, which are sublime and which I can well imagine reading every year for the rest of my life – but her other works shouldn’t be neglected. She seems incapable of writing a bad novel, and if most play towards sombreness and melancholy, she can never quite avoid the comic touch.

Gay Life is incredibly scarce, but you might be able to find it in a library. But you can’t go wrong with a Delafield – and I encourage you to look beyond the Provincial Lady books (and, of course, to read those IMMEDIATELY if you have yet to do so). It is wonderful that she is remembered at all, but she leaves a legacy of works which have been sadly neglected – have a hunt in your library archives and see what you can find! Go on, have a search now – and let me know what’s available in your area.

I’m looking forward to hearing Danielle’s response to this novel, and will put in a link here once her review appears. EDIT: here it is!

A Book By Any Other Name…

Having recently chatted about William by E.H. Young, and Howards End by E.M. Forster, I’ve been thinking a bit about the naming of books. In both cases the focus laid at the feet of the man and the house (respectively) comes about mostly through the authors’ decisions about titles. How easily could Young’s novel have been called Lydia or The Nesbitts? Or something hazy like Decisions Once Made or Marry in Haste. You know the sort of thing. (Incidentally, the Oxford University library catalogue has eight books called Marry in Haste, dating from 1935 to 2000. What fun it would be to read them all, one after the other… Although four of them are Mills & Boon.)

As for Howards End – so many other titles would spring to mind first, if one were somehow to read an untitled edition. Helen and Margaret. The Lure of the Wilcoxes. Even, one might say, Sense and Sensibility. If any of these had been chosen, the significance of Howards End itself would have faded into the background.

This might seem a really facile point, but I find it fascinating how much these titles influence the way in which we read these novels – and how differently we would read them, had they more obvious titles. Why does Emma get her own title, where Mansfield Park claims the coveted spot there, and Persuasion’s title is handed over to a noun? Would we read these differently as Delusion, Fanny Price, and, erm, whatever Anne Elliot’s house is called. (Although apparently there is no evidence that Jane Austen chose the title Persuasion.)

Just something to think about when reading a novel – it isn’t something that usually crosses my mind, until titles are as directed as those which inspired today’s post. I know it’s a horrible cliche to end a blog entry with ‘question time’, but… Can you think of any book with a title which pointed your view in one direction, or which would read very differently under another title?