Banned books, Bonnie Garmus and A.J. Pearce – welcome to episode 126!
In the first half of the episode, we discuss banned books – should books ever be banned? Does a book being banned make us want to read it more? In the second half, we pit two recent novels set in the mid-century: Dear Mrs Bird by A.J. Pearce and Lessons in Chemistry by Bonnie Garmus.
You can get in touch with suggestions, comments, questions etc (please do!) at teaorbooks[at]gmail.com – we’d love to hear from you. Find us at Spotify, Apple podcasts, wherever you get your podcasts. And you can support the podcast at Patreon. If you’re able to, we’d really appreciate any reviews and ratings you can leave us.
The books and authors we mention in this episode are:
Strangers May Kiss by Ursula Parrott
Ex-Wife by Ursula Parrott
Spinsters in Jeopardy by Ngaio Marsh
Dear Octopus by Dodie Smith
How To Be Multiple by Helena de Bres
The Zone of Interest by Martin Amis
Lady Chatterley’s Lover by D.H. Lawrence
Dr Zhivago by Boris Pasternak
Diary of a Provincial Lady by E.M. Delafield
The Well of Loneliness by Radclyffe Hall
To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Monsters: A Fan’s Dilemma by Claire Dederer
Barbara Pym
Day by Michael Cunningham
A Clergyman’s Daughter by George Orwell
The Vicar’s Daughter by E.H. Young
The Rector’s Daughter by F.M. Mayor
I was eager to hear what you two thought about Lessons in Chemistry as it’s a big hit in the US and a friend recommended it to me, much as Rachel’s sister wanted her to read it. My thoughts about the book align with yours. It would have been a better story if it was set in the 1990s or 2000s, and there were just too many twee (the dog) or overly convenient (the neighbor) elements to the novel. I also agree with Rachel that too many books have been written in recent years set in WWII. I’d rather to read books that were written at that time. I’m reading A Clergyman’s Daughter after hearing that you’re discussing it next time.
Yes, good point, there wasn’t really a need to set it that far in the past – as Rachel said in the ep, women still face these issues in science.
I definitely think some books should be banned. Trans rights and activism truly is deterioration of human progression at large. People need to accept that you are born a certain gender and need to stay that way until adulthood. Support of gender transitionary mentality or the idealistic provocation of a social change that embraces this concept is adverse to human evolution itself. Right now social Darwinism is playing a role at dividing the simple genetic progression of humanity between the fantasized reality of freedom of choice. Complete freedom is equal to absolute power and it corrupts absolutely. There is nothing authoritarian about being born a gender and having psychological support of an adolescent to be comfortable with their birth gender. Anything adverse to this is adverse to nature and the universe itself. We exist because we simply do, and allowing children to be taught things by adults with sexual fetishes that go unchecked and bring forth the desire to change gender, is the molestation of our youth and human kind as a whole. Some books, about Trans-Rights, Trans-activism and Anti-Semitism need to be unavailable for people under 25 years old. Disagree if you want but that’s your life and a choice you’ll have to accept effects humanity as a whole.
By the way, Anti-Semitism is just as bad as Trans-Activism. I don’t see a huge difference philosophically. Either way neither is really natural. People are people and what makes you special are the choices you make in life and the intricate little decisions coupled with real human emotions and reactions to self reflection that develop your personality. Hating someone for being Jewish, Arab or at times Christian is just as evil as telling an insecure child they should change gender. Children need support from people who know what they want to do with their lives not from people who don’t even know what to do with their own life and want to tell others what they shoukd do with theirs
This is quite a curious comment to put on a post that isn’t in any way about this issue…
I’ve read the Mrs Bird book and agree with Rachel’s view – it seemed pretty lightweight to me. I did originally want to read the Chemistry book when it first came out, but then I started to come across mixed reviews for it and suspected that it might have been overhyped.
I wonder what your views are on ‘hyping’ of books – is it best to ignore the hype, or do you find it’s usually justified? I tend now to ignore the initial hype around new books (as it’s generally marketing-led), but wait and see how they are viewed a year or two down the line.
With the book banning question – I suspect that what appears in print is going to be pretty tame compared to the kind of material that can be put up unfettered online. At least a book generally has the space to provide context (unlike the clickbait of the online world); sometimes you can start a book agreeing with the author but by the end of it you realise they are an idiot and their arguments are full of holes. And most published books are going to have been read/checked by at least one other person, unlike online articles.
I guess I found it lightweight in a fun way, but I can see people finding it lightweight in a negative way.
Great point about the book being able to give more context, and have more space for a full argument (even if that ends up with you disagreeing with them.)
There’s an American comedy YouTube channel that is very liberal and they like to talk to MAGA supporters and basically make fun of them. Once they asked a bunch of people at a rally about banned books and the people interviewed were all for banning books. The interviewer then describes a story of two daughters who get their father drunk in order to have sex with him. The interviewees are horrified and say that this book should be banned, only to be told it is the Biblical story of Lot’s daughters! Blew their minds! Obviously, the Bible has lots of stuff like that and even more violence. So, one democrat is trying to ban the Bible because of it – I don’t think they succeeded, but hey, a touch of your own medicine, right?
As for Dear Mrs. Byrd, I enjoyed it – it was fun, nicely written, but not serious literature. But I did read the sequels – Yours Cheerfully, and Mrs. Porter Calling. Again, nicely written, fun, but nothing serious. However, there are times when light reading is what we need, and these books were perfect for me at the times.
I never read Lessons in Chemistry, because I too was sure it was going to be too romancy for me. When I saw the TV series I realized it was more than that, and I particularly liked the civil rights parts. I lived through that era myself in the US, and they rang very true for me. Just saying…
Oh, I HATE non-human characters in books, especially if they’re recognizable animals. If I want to read non-human characters, I’ll read straight fantasy or Sci-Fi books with creatures that don’t exist.
Ha! Yes, there is plenty in the Bible that needs a maturer eye – some delicate skirting of some scenes in Sunday school!
Yes, I think you describe Dear Mrs Bird perfectly – absolutely the right sort of book for a certain need.
That reminds me of Marilynne Robinson’s new book about Genesis that just came out. I haven’t read it yet but I so much enjoyed her interview recently on Ezra Klein’s podcast. Wonder if you or Rachel will give it a go or stick with her fiction?
A tricky topic, Simon. In theory I would have said that no books should be banned. However, if you faced me with Mein Kampf I might just change my mind… :(
Yes, it’s hard when you come up against something like that, isn’t it!
A thorny subject indeed – very interesting to hear your two thoughts on the subject and to read the comments of others. It seems particularly relevant to debate the issues when so many books do seem to be more about peddling a particular message than about plot, characters and ideas without a predetermined agenda.
I am still not persuaded to read either Dear Mrs Bird or Lessons in Chemistry. I agree with Rachel that there are so many lovely books actually written during the 1940s and 1960s that I would much prefer to read those – hurrah for library stacks with old copies and for indie publishers who reissue such books.
I have read The Rector’s Daughter but not The Vicar’s Daughter but I hope to reread these ready for next time. Thank you both.
P>S Simon – I’m delighted that you love golden retrievers and labradors!!
Thanks Sarah! Yes, I think plenty of books from the period that should take priority.
Just FYI we aren’t covering The Rector’s Daughter next time, I just mentioned it in passing – we’re doing The Vicar’s Daughter and The Clergyman’s Daughter. Confusing!
ANd yes, who wouldn’t love a golden retriever! I wouldn’t want to have one as a pet, but I love them.
Thanks for that correction re the Rector’s Daughter vs The Clergyman’s Daughter ; I would have been confused next episode otherwise! A Clergyman’s Daughter is now on order from the library – I haven’t read that one before.
It’s interesting to hear how the same book can produce such different reactions! I have read both of these, and I what I thought they had in common was that both authors were good storytellers. I enjoyed and zipped through both books, even when I had misgivings about some issues.
I found Mrs Bird a pleasant light book, but what annoyed me with that, and with a lot of historical novels, is that 21st century characters are dropped into an historical setting. The heroine and her friend both do full time work, and fire watching as well, yet manage to live together in a flat, which means that at that time they must have also found time to shop daily for food, wash clothes by hand, scrub floors, cook meals from scratch, light fires for warmth, darn socks, etc. Housework was a full time job in those days, which is why single people without servants either lived with their parents, or in boarding houses, hostels etc.
My gripe with Lessons in Chemistry (apart from the chemical formula for vinegar!) was the unrelenting misogyny. I’ve worked in a mainly masculine industry, and found most men pleasant and helpful. I am currently reading a biography of Marie Stopes, a scientist at the start of the 20th century, who got a great deal of help from her male colleagues, had a successful career, and whose main barrier seems to have been that she wasn’t allowed to join the Royal Society at that time. Yes, there have been dinosaur men, and restrictions based on sex, but having virtually every man against a brilliant scientist just because of her sex did seem to me to be unrealistic.
I agree with Simon about Lessons in Chemistry. The dog really annoyed me, and I came away thinking that the novel’s premise was oversimplified and worn out. Dear Mrs Bird was a light enjoyable read in an interesting setting but, as you and others point out, writing from the historical period itself is more convincing and satisfying (applies to both novels).
Great episode, very interesting! Another annoying cliche in Lessons was the stereotypical unrealistically precocious child. It also disgusted me how many, many times she mentioned how beautiful the main character was. I thought the book was more sexist than anti-sexist overall, and when she used the word “wide-bottomed” to describe the unappealing secretary character whose name I forget, I realized that I wasn’t going to finish the book. I skimmed the second half bc it was for book group. Really loved hearing your and Rachel’s thoughts about both books though, and about banning! I know you did the WW2 vs WWI episode long ago, but it would be neat to revisit the question of what the very best WW2 books written at the time might be. Maybe for a question for the middle segment ?
Chuckled at (and agreed with!) Rachel‘s comment, “giving us the exact fabric type or the name of the shop just to show that they Googled it.”