Book review

Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austen, 1811

Six years after Trafalgar, while the Peninsular War rages on the continent and social discontent stirs at home, Jane Austen turned her attention to the challenges facing a very specific class of young women in Georgian England.

A complex will, and the early death of the family’s father, see the widowed Mrs Dashwood, and daughters, Elinor, Marianne and Margaret, left with a small income and no residence. John, half brother to the sisters and heir to the family home, undertakes to care for his half-siblings, but quickly reneges on the promise in one of those acts of self-persuasion in which Austen’s characters specialise. Treated as unwelcome guests in what has been until recently their family home, the Dashwoods relocate to to Barton Cottage in Devon , near the home of their relative, Sir John Middleton, although not before oldest daughter Elinor has ‘formed an attachment’ with Edward Ferrars, brother of their half-brother’s wife. I hope you are following this because there will be a quiz. (In following the narrative it helps to understand the convention that if there are two or more unmarried sisters, the eldest will be Miss Dashwood, and the younger Miss Marianne Dashwood, etc. A pen and paper help as well).

Settling into their modest new home in Devon, the Dashwood ladies also settle into what constitutes Devon society, assisted by Sir John, his wife, Lady Middleton, his mother-in-law, the rather common Mrs Jennings, and family friend, Colonel Brandon. The Colonel is attracted to Marianne, although she finds the almost twenty-year age gap off-putting. To be fair she is only sixteen, so you can understand her concerns.

While out walking one day, Marianne sprains her ankle, and is carried home by a charming young rescuer, John Willoughby. Willoughby and Marianne quickly become very close, and their intimate behaviour soon suggests to Mrs Dashwood and Elinor that they are engaged. Willoughby takes Marianne to see the home he expects to inherit one day, and cuts off a lock of her hair. Taking a lock of hair is a traditionally symbolic and intimate act. But the long awaited engagement fails to materialise. Then out of the blue Willoughby informs the family that has to go to London on business,and is unlikely to return within the year.  Marianne is devastated.

One beau is replaced by another. Edward Ferrars comes to visit. Remember him? Mysteriously, his earlier intimacy with Elinor is missing. He is restrained and diffident. Shortly after his puzzling visit, the Misses Steele, Anne and Lucy, cousins of Mrs. Jennings, come visiting, and in the first of many plot twists Lucy secretly tells Elinor she is engaged to Edward. Unable to see any wrong in a man who had apparently wooed her just a few months earlier, Elinor speculates that this is a loveless engagement which Edward’s sense of honour will not allow him to end.

At this point the speed of events accelerates. The Dashwood sisters (apart from the near invisible Margaret) travel with Mrs Jennings to London, to join the parties and dances that are a way of passing the time for the idle rich. Knowing him to be in town, Marianne writes to Willoughby, trying to arrange an assignation, but her letters go unanswered. Several days later, as Marianne’s distress at his silence escalates, they meet by chance at a dance, and Willoughby, with another woman, brushes Marianne off coldly. A blunt letter follows which claims that there was never any substance to their relationship, and telling her than he is now engaged to another woman. Young heiresses are a stock figure in these novels, along with cads, bluff uncles, giddy younger sisters and indulgent fathers. Marianne is once again devastated, and falls into a decline in which her health suffers. In a self-interested attempt to help, Colonel Brandon reveals to Elinor that Willoughby is a scoundrel who has previously seduced, impregnated, then abandoned Brandon’s young ward, Miss Eliza Williams.

Meanwhile, the Steele sisters have come to London as guests of Mrs Jennings. Unable to keep a secret, talkative Anne Steele betrays Lucy’s engagement to Edward. Chaos ensues. The Misses Steele are turned out of the house, and Edward is ordered by his wealthy mother to break off the engagement. He refuses and is promptly disinherited in favour of his brother, Robert.

So where does that leave the Dashwood ladies. Elinor’s love Edward is marrying someone beneath him, and who she suspects he does not love. Marianne’s love Willoughby is by now married to his heiress, and forever out of reach. And the novel is in its concluding chapters, so the author needs to hurry up and sort this out!

Marianne, moping over Willoughby, catches a cold and becomes dangerously ill. Colonel Brandon goes to fetch Marianne’s mother to her bedside. Unexpectedly, in a moment of what I suspect is intended to be high drama, Willoughby arrives. He confesses all to Elinor – his love for Marianne was genuine and having married for money he is now miserable. This is all well and fine but doesn’t really explain away his seduction of Colonel Brandon’s niece does it? Elinor softens somewhat but there’s not much she can say to him by way of comfort – he has made his choices.

Happily, Marianne recovers from her illness, and is told of Willoughby’s visit. Marianne, showing a maturity sadly missing only weeks earlier, tells her family that she could never have been happy with Willoughby, and dedicates herself to a monastic life of study and good work. Here the sound of ends being tied up becomes deafening. Edward arrives and reveals that Lucy has implausibly married his now wealthy younger brother, Robert. Edward and Elinor marry, and finally Marianne comes to terms with his advanced old age and marries Colonel Brandon.

Nobody reads Austen for the car chases and the suspense. We know what is going to happen, and little gets in the way of the long-awaited happy ever after. So the entertainment value of the novel, and in many ways in all of Austen’s work, resides not in incident but in the portraits of human nature she sketches. She is particularly good at catching the stifling nature of the lives of middle class women, unable to join the men in hunting, so condemned to sketching, music, reading (Marianne claims to have read everything in her family library, and anticipates reading six hours a day) and so bored. All they have to do is gossip, size up the value of people’s estates and income, and plan romances between the younger people.

Austen’s portraits of her minor characters is a particular strength of this novel. For example, Mrs Palmer, second daughter of Mrs Jennings, (Chapter 19)

was several years younger than Lady Middleton, and totally unlike her in every respect. She was short and plump, had a very pretty face, and the finest expression of good humour in it that could possibly be. Her manners were by no means so elegant as her sister’s, but they were much more prepossessing. She came in with a smile, smiled all the time of her visit, except when she laughed, and smiled when she went away.”

Her wonderfully grumpy husband clearly has little or no respect for his kind wife; he:

was a grave looking young man of five or six and twenty, with an air of more fashion and sense than his wife, but of less willingness to please or be pleased. He entered the room with a look of self-consequence, slightly bowed to the ladies, without speaking a word, and, after briefly surveying them and their apartments, took up a newspaper from the table, and continued to read it as long as he staid.

The interaction between Mr Palmer and his wife is comedy gold:

“Well! what a delightful room this is! I never saw anything so charming! Only think, Mama, how it is improved since I was here last! I always thought it such a sweet place, ma’am! (turning to Mrs. Dashwood) but you have made it so charming! Only look, sister, how delightful every thing is! How I should like such a house for myself! Should not you, Mr. Palmer?”

Mr. Palmer made her no answer, and did not even raise his eyes from the newspaper.

“Mr. Palmer does not hear me,” said she, laughing; “he never does sometimes. It is so ridiculous!”

When it is revealed that Mrs Palmer is pregnant (“in her situation“), Lady Middleton is shocked that such matters are openly discussed, and

could no longer endure such a conversation, and therefore exerted herself to ask Mr. Palmer if there was any news in the paper.

“No, none at all,” he replied, and read on.”

Austen can at times be harsh with her characters. She creates some wonderful monsters that are never just caricatures. Lady Middleton is described as having “a kind of cold hearted selfishness” and Mrs. Ferrars was “a little, thin woman, upright, even to formality, in her figure, and serious, even to sourness, in her aspect. Her complexion was sallow; and her features small, without beauty, and naturally without expression; …She was not a woman of many words; for, unlike people in general, she proportioned them to the number of her ideas”.

The other obsession everyone seems to have is with money. One’s worth is weighed in savings and income to the nearest penny, and futures are decided on the basis of who has how much. Willoughby does not seriously consider marrying Marianne because of her relative poverty, but his wife has:

“Fifty thousand pounds, my dear. Did you ever see her? a smart, stylish girl they say, but not handsome. I remember her aunt very well, Biddy Henshawe; she married a very wealthy man. But the family are all rich together. Fifty thousand pounds! and by all accounts, it won’t come before it’s wanted; for they say he is all to pieces. No wonder! dashing about with his curricle and hunters! Well, it don’t signify talking; but when a young man, be who he will, comes and makes love to a pretty girl, and promises marriage, he has no business to fly off from his word only because he grows poor, and a richer girl is ready to have him.” (Chapter 30)

Writing about boredom without being boring is difficult. Austen uses her observations of how ridiculously people behave in these situations, drawing humour from the absurdity. Here for example the women are discussing the heights of their children,

Harry Dashwood, and Lady Middleton’s second son William, who were nearly of the same age. Had both the children been there, the affair might have been determined too easily by measuring them at once; but as Harry only was present, it was all conjectural assertion on both sides; and every body had a right to be equally positive in their opinion, and to repeat it over and over again ……The two mothers, though each really convinced that her own son was the tallest, politely decided in favour of the other.

The two grandmothers, with not less partiality, but more sincerity, were equally earnest in support of their own descendant.

Lucy, who was hardly less anxious to please one parent than the other, thought the boys were both remarkably tall for their age, and could not conceive that there could be the smallest difference in the world between them; and Miss Steele, with yet greater address gave it, as fast as she could, in favour of each.

Elinor, having once delivered her opinion on William’s side, by which she offended Mrs. Ferrars and Fanny still more, did not see the necessity of enforcing it by any farther assertion; and Marianne, when called on for hers, offended them all, by declaring that she had no opinion to give, as she had never thought about it.”

Austen is also one of the greatest users of narrative point of view. Most of the novel’s events are shown through Elinor’s eyes – we know what she is thinking and feeling, but events elsewhere are effectively “off-screen”. When this perspective shifts, as it does occasionally, the reader knows to sit up and pay attention, such as in this scene where the point of view switches to that of Mrs Jennings, observing Elinor and the Colonel having a private conversation (Marianne is playing the piano making it hard to  overhear:

on Elinor’s moving to the window …he followed her to it with a look of particular meaning, and conversed with her there for several minutes. The effect of his discourse on the lady too, could not escape her observation, for though she was too honourable to listen, and had even changed her seat, on purpose that she might NOT hear, to one close by the piano forte on which Marianne was playing, she could not keep herself from seeing that Elinor changed colour, attended with agitation, and was too intent on what he said to pursue her employment.”

She assumes there has been a proposal. Austen gives us a “what really happened” explanation very shortly thereafter. There is a similar and even more dramatic shift of perspective in the novel’s concluding chapters when Edward comes to tell Elinor he is a free man, and to propose to her.

His errand at Barton, in fact, was a simple one. It was only to ask Elinor to marry him;—and considering that he was not altogether inexperienced in such a question, it might be strange that he should feel so uncomfortable in the present case as he really did, so much in need of encouragement and fresh air. How soon he had walked himself into the proper resolution, however, how soon an opportunity of exercising it occurred, in what manner he expressed himself, and how he was received, need not be particularly told. This only need be said;—that when they all sat down to table at four o’clock, about three hours after his arrival, he had secured his lady” (Chapter 49).

“need not be particularly told”! I beg to differ. There is another example of this turning aside at the last minute and leaving the fictional lovers a moment of intimate privacy at the point of engagement in Northanger Abbey. Perhaps this was a literary convention of the time, although if it was Austen ignores it in Pride and Prejudice for example.

The novel concludes with a wrapping up of events that the reader has expected from the start, albeit with a touch of regret for the loss of innocence in Marianne

Instead of falling a sacrifice to an irresistible passion, as once she had fondly flattered herself with expecting,—instead of remaining even for ever with her mother, and finding her only pleasures in retirement and study, as afterwards in her more calm and sober judgment she had determined on,—she found herself at nineteen, submitting to new attachments, entering on new duties, placed in a new home, a wife, the mistress of a family, and the patroness of a village.”

Notice how almost all the verbs used to describe Marianne’s future are passive – she falls. remains, submits, and is placed in a new home. You have to wonder what element of choice she genuinely exercises, even though the answer is of course none, because she is fictional!

Two final thoughts on what is already an overly long review:

  1. I can’t help but wonder what happens to poor forgotten younger sister Margaret?
  2. You may have noticed that I have not illustrated this review with a copy of the novel’s book cover – this is because they were all universally awful!
Standard
Book review

The Restaurant at the End of the Universe by Douglas Adams, 1980

The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, the sequel to The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, picks up immediately where Hitchhiker ends, with our hapless adventurers under attack from the Vogons, despite there being no tea. Having faced imminent death 220pxRestaurantAtTheEndOfTheUniverse.jpgseveral times before, this causes them less concern that you would expect, and another last minute rescue leads to the party (Arthur Dent, earthling, Trillian, hitchhiker, Ford Prefect, researcher for the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the galaxy, Zaphod Beeblebrox, President of the Galaxy, and Marvin, the paranoid android) being separated once again.

Zaphod and Marvin are transported to the offices of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy on Ursa Minor Beta. Zaphod is determined to trace down whoever left a message in his brain, even if it turns out to be himself. The Guide’s offices are taken prisoner and carried to Frogstar World B. FWB is a benighted planet whose economy has been ruined by a critical mass of shoe shops. The intention is to destroy Zaphod’s mind by sending him into the Total Perspective Vortex, a torture device designed to show people how small they are compared to the size of the Universe. Zaphod emerges unscathed because after all, he is Zaphod Beeblebrox.

Through some trickery with artificial universes, the party is reunited long enough for breakfast at Milliways, the Restaurant at the End of the Universe. Marvin has to take the slow route, parking spaceships while waiting for the humans to arrive (or is it return?). The Restaurant at the End of the Universe is one of Adams’s most magnificent creations. I always loved the selectively bred cow that actually wants to be eaten:

“Four rare steaks please, and hurry, we haven’t eaten in five hundred and seventy-six thousand million years.”

The animal staggered to its feet. It gave a mellow gurgle.

‘A very wise choice, sir, if I may say so. very good…I’ll just nip off and shoot myself.” He turned and gave a friendly wink to Arthur. “Don’t worry, sir” he said, “I’ll be very humane”. 

There’s a very special, poetic aspect to the way the end of the universe is described by the show’s host, undercut by the Second Coming of the Prophet Zarquon. We also get to meet Hotblack Desiato at the restaurant, a rock star spending a year dead for tax purposes. After a further narrow escape from imminent death, this time by diving into a star to provide backing effects for a rock concert, which is to be honest a pretty rock and roll way to go, Zaphod and Trillian get to meet the man who runs the universe, while Arthur and Ford discover the origins of life on earth, and why everyone is so bloody useless (which is probably something to do with the fact that we are all descended from hairdressers and telephone sanitisers).

Adams’ commentary on modern life is razor sharp. I especially enjoyed the way the Golgafrinchams (Ark B) make leaves their currency to disprove the argument that money doesn’t grow on trees, and then tackle their galloping hyperinflation by burning down all the forests. Isn’t that austerity economics for you? I was slightly concerned that Restaurant wouldn’t sustain the brilliance of Hitchhiker, but I shouldn’t have worried. Yes there are some uneven patches – I never quite understand the point of Zarniwoop –  but the concepts are extraordinary and the jokes never miss. Marvin continues to be a paradoxical source of joy (“The first ten million years were the worst,” said Marvin, “and the second ten million years, they were the worst too. The third ten million years I didn’t enjoy at all. After that I went into a bit of a decline”). I think it is best not to see ‘Restaurant’ as a sequel but more as the second half of ‘Hitchhiker’, best read one after the other with as short a break as possible. I am minded not to push on with the third, fourth and fifth books of the trilogy – I absolutely understand why they were written, but there is a certain polished perfection to these two novels that might be tarnished by anything that doesn’t meet their sustained genius. What do people think?

Standard
Book review

Crome Yellow, by Aldous Huxley, 1921

I honestly don’t enjoy writing critical reviews, I really don’t. Why would I go out of my way to read disappointing, dated, shallow novels that have very little to recommend them? But there’s little point me reviewing a novel dishonestly is there, emphasising the positive and glossing over the weaker points simply to present a sunnier face to the world? So when I say ‘Crome Yellow’ was dull and largely pointless I take no pleasure in doing so.

So what happens? Very little. Perhaps that’s the point? Aspiring writer Denis Stone goes to stay for the summer with a group of guests at Crome, a country house that gives the novel its name. His hosts are Henry Wimbush and his wife Priscilla. Wimbush is an amateur historian; Priscilla has a gambling problem and is a believer in astrology and the paranormal. A cast of eccentrics and thinly disguised portraits of Huxley’s acquaintances people the rest of the house, including younger guests who provide romantic interest for one another if not the reader. No-one has a real job, saving perhaps the local priest who pines for the Second Coming. Chapters are filled with readings from Sir Henry’s history of Crome, the priest’s sermons, and long walks on the terrace. The hours crawl by. A Bank Holiday fair finally provides a climax of sorts to the novel, which then ends abruptly and disappointingly.

This was Huxley’s first novel, and it was well received. It set him on the career path which led to ‘Brave New World’. So I am clearly missing something. The question is, what?

First there is the eternal fascination of the Country House novel. Crome Yellow is set in a time – the early 1920’s – when the world had just been turned upside down by the Great War. While the war is mentioned, no-one seems to have participated, nor been affected, when in reality houses like Crome would have lost their heirs, the staff would have been depleted, and the local village would have undoubtedly lost many men. The war hasn’t led to anyone questioning their place in society or the future of the country.  There’s a useful definition of the country house novel in the Wikipedia entry for ‘Crome Yellow’. 

“a diverse group of characters descend upon an estate to leech off the host. They spend most of their time eating, drinking, and holding forth on their personal intellectual conceits. There is little plot development.”

Obviously that’s not a particularly flattering description of this remarkably robust genre, but I think it is accurate. Which begs the question – if not much happens in country house novels, why have they proven so popular, particularly now that the world they describe has long since passed away? That’s probably a question for another post.

If his characters are impervious to the threats to their status, Huxley himself anticipates the passing of the world he describes:

“Ten years more of the hard times and Gobley (another country house like Crome) with all its peers, will be deserted and decaying. Fifty years, and the countryside will know the old landmarks no more”. 

The country house setting therefore can act as a metaphor for the country as a whole. A typical feature of this world is that it is supported by an army of almost invisible servants. At the opening of Chapter 30 the narrator tells us that “Denis had been called“. Note the use of the passive voice – there is no indication of who had done the calling (that is to say, had told him it was time to get up for the breakfast that mysteriously appears prepared each morning). He is barely aware that his whole existence depends on people whose identity he hardly acknowledges. No wonder therefore that this world will not outlast the next twenty years or so, even if writers will remain fascinated with country houses long into the following century.

Most readers will be unlikely to miss the foreshadowing of ‘Brave New World’ in a couple of brief references in this novel. One character pontificates about a generation of the future that will “take the place of Nature’s hideous system. In vast state incubators, rows upon rows of gravid bottles will supply the world with the population it requires. The family system will disappear; society, sapped at its very base, will have to find new foundations; and Eros, beautifully and irresponsibly free, will flit like a gay butterfly from flower to flower through a sunlit world.” (28)

and later about the stratification of society:

“in the Rational State ….human beings will be separated out into distinct species, not according to the colour of their eyes or the shape of their skulls, but according to the qualities of their mind and temperament. “(129)

Huxley was to return to these ideas a decade later in Brave New World which suggests it was this rather than the petty interests of his younger characters that really caught his interest when developing this novel.

 

Standard
Book review

In the Kitchen by Monica Ali, 2009

Some novels are just difficult to get into. I am not thinking of the wilfully obscure novels, where you are never sure what is going on and where picking up a narrative thread is a challenge in itself. Instead I have in mind novels where not much happens, where the characters are not that engaging and where the issues being raised are ‘worthy’ rather than genuinely interesting. Books in other words that could benefit from the attentions of an editor with a radical approach to content.In the kitchen

Unfortunately, ‘In the Kitchen‘, Monica Ali’s third novel, falls into this category. The scenario is promising – set in the kitchen of a prestigious central London hotel, the Imperial, staffed by a United Nations polyglot of nationalities and headed by the woefully indecisive head chef, Gabriel Lightfoot. Lightfoot – Gabe – is secretly planning to set up his own restaurant in Pimlico, aiming for a Michelin star. The problem is he has had similar plans for years and he is beginning to realise it is soon going to be now or never. His relationship with his long-term girlfriend, Charlie, is on the same basis, forever just on the point of getting engaged, but never quite getting there.

Gabe is a dull character. An omniscient narrator tells the novel’s events from his perspective, guiding us into his thoughts and dreams, but we never really get to know him – or perhaps there just isn’t that much to know. We are told in detail about his childhood in a Northern mill town, in passages that scream out “research”, his troubled relationship with his parents (his father is slowly dying of cancer in that “sorry to be a bother” way of stereotypical Northerners) his years of training in kitchens around Europe, etc – but at no point does he ever transform into someone we care about or are interested in (and when I say we I of course mean I).

So many modern novels need a sudden death to start or end them and here the accidental death of a porter stumbling down some steps in the kitchen basement is the catalyst for the chain of events that the novel portrays. Yuri, the deceased porter, had been protecting a girl, Lena, whom Gabe, in a half-hearted investigation into the death (this is not, of all things, a detective novel, despite hints at some stage that it might develop into one) takes into his care. A strange relationship develops between the two, in that Lena succumbs to Gabe’s sexual attentions in a disinterested way and Gabe, knowing what he is doing is wrong, doesn’t seem able to stop himself. This is an abusive relationship without doubt, but the least of several evils as far as Lena is concerned. We soon learn she has been trafficked into the UK on the promise of a good job, and has escaped from her pimp from whom she is hiding.

This relationship obviously has an impact on Gabe’s near-engagement with Charlie. Gabe’s enquiries into Yuri’s death uncovers the fact that the trafficking is closer to home that he would have thought. Meanwhile we learn more about the characters in the Imperial’s kitchen. But all this takes an unconscionable amount of time, and for long passages we seem to be on repeat, with Gabe stumbling through a series of aimless conversations with his business partners, his bosses, and his kitchen staff, all the while returning each night to the reluctant but submissive Lena.

Eventually the long nights and little sleep takes its toll, and Gabe suffers a mental health crisis. This seems to blow over quite quickly without any intervention or assistance and he recovers sufficiently to challenge the bad guys, repair his relationship with his family, and even take the first steps to getting back together with Charlie. Which leaves the reader knowing a little about modern human trafficking in the UK, but otherwise regretting the loss of a few hours working their way through the 400+ pages of disappointment. And by the reader I mean me, of course.

Standard
Book review

Sourcery, (Discworld 5) by Terry Pratchett, 1988

‘Sourcery’ is book five in Terry Pratchett’s magisterial Discworld series. It features the return of Rincewind, the world’s worst wizard of whom it was said that when he “dies the average occult ability of the human race will actually go up by a fraction”.Sourcery

In the Discworld we have seen thus far, (i.e. in books 1-4) the wizarding community is generally held in low regard. Wizards have their uses but are not particularly respected or valued. The fact that Rincewind is their most travelled representative does not help that situation of course. But all this changes in ‘Sourcery’, when the eighth son of an eighth son goes on to have an eighth son, the result being that rarest of magical phenomenon, a wizard squared, a Sourcerer, the most powerful wizard on the disc. Continue reading

Standard
Book review

An Awfully Big Adventure, by Beryl Bainbridge, 1989 (spoiler free, for a change)

Bainb

An Awfully Big Adventure represents three firsts for me – it is the first Beryl Bainbridge novel I have read; this is the first deliberately spoiler-free review I have written; and never before have I finished a novel and immediately gone back to the beginning and started again. I suspect from the way the novel is so cleverly constructed Bainbridge may have intended this to happen. What I do know is that it is wonderful, even with the one big issue which I have with the novel, which I will come to in a minute.

Standard
Book review

The Third Man, by Graham Greene, 1949

third man

The Third Man, by Graham Greene, 1949

I’ve read plenty of novels that have been turned into films and I have even read one or two novelisations, but this is a one-off: Greene was commissioned to write a screenplay and given a location in which it should be set, but before writing the script he wrote the novel on which the screenplay was going to be based. It is almost as if he couldn’t cut out this initial part of the process. In the preface to the novel he explains:

“‘The Third Man’ was never written to be read….To me it is almost impossible to write a film play without first writing a story.”

That didn’t prevent him agreeing to the publication of the novel of course!

Continue reading
Standard
Book review

1606 William Shakespeare and the Year of Lear by James Shapiro

I am coming late to the Shapiro party, and that is only in part because I got stuck halfway through this actually very readable account of  England in 1606 and the plays Shakespeare wrote in this year. (Quite rightly Shapiro cheats a little and also spends some time in 1605, looking in detail in particular at the events of the Gunpowder Plot.)1606

Dating Shakespeare’s plays is never easy. The exercise assumes that the plays were written at a specific time, whereas there is plenty of evidence that once written and performed the plays continued to be revised for different performances (for example a shorter version of the play might be required for a court performance). But the overwhelming consensus is that King Lear, Macbeth, and Antony and Cleopatra were written in 1606, and were first performed in that year. So Year of Lear is slightly misleading, but more concise than Year of Lear, Macbeth and so on.

I make no claims to expertise on these issues, so the extent to which Shapiro’s analysis is reliable or otherwise is beyond me. Certainly it sounds authoritative; there is also a wealth of footnotes and bibliography supporting the text. In dating Lear, Macbeth and Antony and Cleopatra to 1606, Shapiro inevitably upset the Oxfordian lobby, that remarkable group of people who are convinced that Shakespeare’s plays were written by the Earl of Oxford. In order for this group’s theories to “work” they need Lear and the others to have been written much earlier, before James 1 came to the throne in 1603. So they felt/feel compelled to attack Shapiro’s central concept – that the events of the time can be seen reflected in the plays of the time – even though Macbeth in particular seems profoundly influenced by James’s interest/obsession with witches, and the pursuit of Jesuits in England following the Gunpowder Plot.

Anyone writing about Shakespeare in the context of the times in which he lived has to exercise a lot of care. These are without question not autobiographical plays, and any attempt to link events in Shakespeare’s personal life to his plays is bound to fail. At the same time we know a lot more about the major political events that happened in England at the time Shakespeare lived, so it is only reasonable to ask to what extent these events informed his plays, both in their original conception and their subsequent evolution. It is hard to imagine that it is a coincidence that Shakespeare wrote a play – Lear – showing the dangers of a disunited kingdom while at the same time James was arguing with Parliament for union between his two thrones, England and Scotland, or that a play showing the consequences of regicide – Macbeth – should just accidentally have turned up on stage as the consequences of the attempted regicide of the Gunpowder Plotters still reverberated around the country.

While undoubtedly very scholarly, Shapiro’s book is not an academic tome. It is accessible and relatively easy to read. The chapters on the Gunpowder Plot and its aftershock are quite thrilling, if not also rather gruesome. One gets a vivid picture of Jacobean London and England, the world in which Shakespeare was living and working. Some of the content was not new to me – it must be extraordinarily hard to find new things to say about Shakespeare, rather than just presenting content in new ways. But there were certainly snippets of new insight – new to me, anyway – such as the fact that Shakespeare’s daughter was a recusant (i.e she refused Anglican communion) or that his landlady in St Olave’s parish in London almost certainly died of the plague. I had never noticed before Shapiro pointed it out that the plague, such a dominant feature of life in England at the time, never really plays anything other than a peripheral part in Shakespeare’s works.

If this is a topic that interests you, and it really should, Shapiro’s 1606 is highly recommended. He wrote a similar book on 1599, and also what looks like a pretty definitive guide to the ‘authorship’ debate, which I have to admit I have added to my Amazon wish list!

Standard
Book review

The Valley of Fear, by Arthur Conan Doyle, 1914

vall-00

The Valley of Fear‘ is last and the least well-known of Conan Doyle’s four Holmes novels (the others being ‘The Study in Scarlet’, ‘The Sign of the Four’, and The Hound of the Baskervilles’). It features a brief appearance by that Napoleon of crime, Professor Moriarty. We last saw Moriarty some 20 years earlier in the 1893 tale ‘The Final Problem‘, Conan Doyle’s unsuccessful attempt to kill Holmes off.

The novel opens with Holmes receiving an encrypted message from an informer within Moriarty’s criminal network. A follow-up message intending to provide the encryption key instead informs Holmes he has changed his mind, for fear of discovery. Nevertheless Holmes is able to decrypt the message. It is a warning that a murder plan is underway, naming the intended victim, a Mr Douglas of Birlstone Manor. Minutes later, Inspector Macdonald arrives with news that the victim identified in the note has been killed. Holmes deduces this is all Moriarty’s work, but his suspicions are dismissed by the officer.

Continue reading
Standard
Book review

Animal Farm by George Orwell, 1945

Why reread ‘Animal Farm‘? I could spin you a line that the novel has a new importance in our post-Brexit world, but the honest answer is that my list of reviews looks a bit sparse without this novel. I can’t really claim to have read extensively across the great novels written in English without including ‘Animal Farm’ can I?AF

At the same time I was interested to see how it had changed. To be clear, I don’t mean the words on the page will have changed, of course. But all literature exists in a specific cultural context, and as that context has changed dramatically since ‘Animal Farm’ was first published, and even since I first read it (in the 70’s, I guess) the novel is bound to be different. Continue reading

Standard