Category: Uncategorized

The novel NIGHTMARE ABBEY does not have much of what you might call a plot, though it does have a great name. When I am stupidly rich and live in a big house, this will definitely be on the name shortlist.

Essentially, it is a sort of gothic sartire on the romantic movement, and in particular on the love of the morbid. As I don’t know much about this movement, if was hard to find it funny. I suppose it is how Kardashian jokes will be in a hundred years. Okay, five years. Okay, next year.

However, there are glimmers of how funny it could have been, had only I been alive two hundred years ago. Speaking of young men:

” . . . when they should be brought out of the house of mental bondage–i.e. the university–to the land flowing with milk and honey–i.e. the west end of London.”

Or here’s a poet on writing:

Modern literature is a north-east wind – a blight of the human soul. I take credit to myself for having helped to make it so. The way to produce fine fruit is to blight the flower. You call this a paradox. Marry, so be it. Ponder thereon.

Love Peacock also has a great name himself. Maybe that can be my pop star name. I know this is becoming a bit of a theme in this blog, but I am once again weirdly touched by Wikipedia’s description of the life of eighteenth century writers’ lives:

In his retirement he seldom left Halliford and spent his life among his books, and in the garden, in which he took great pleasure, and on the River Thames.

This novel was written in 1766, just at the dawn of the novel form, and it certainly shows. The charming, completely unbelievable central story, of a vicar and his family, is constantly interrupted by an array of other forms: the ballad; the sermon; the religious argument; and, what the hell, let’s have another ballad again.

The story – when you can see it for the ballads – is focused on the vicar’s evil landlord, and his cunning and successful plan to seduce and then abandon one of the vicar’s daughters. This prostrates the vicar, which I didn’t quite understand, as he seems to not put much stock in his daughters. In the early stages of the book, when one of the girls claims she had read enough to join in one of the (eternal) religious arguments. The vicar finds this hilarious, and responds:

“Very well . . . . that’s a good girl, I find you are perfectly qualified for making converts, and so go help your mother to make the gooseberry pie!”

I’d like to shove the gooseberry pie down his stupid throat: screaming ‘Dorothy Parker! Virginia Woolf! Joyce Banda!’. When the unfortunate girl is gone, he mourns her in the most touching manner:

“The honour of our family is contaminated . . . had she but died!”

However much of the book has a certain moral charm, and is full of wise advice:

Man little knows what calamities are beyond his patience to bear till he tries them

and, the last line of the book:

It now only remained that my gratitude in good fortune should exceed my former submission in adversity

This high moral tone is interesting, because apparently Goldsmith himself was a notable gambling addict, and only barely graduated from his theology degree: “his education seemed to have given him mainly a taste for fine clothes, playing cards, singing Irish airs and playing the flute.” This makes him sound like rather a fun guy and makes me regret my misspent university days, which I mostly used for studying.

Let’s end with this lovely description of the vicar’s wife, in an argument:

The dispute grew high while poor Deborah, instead of reasoning stronger, talked louder, and at last was obliged to take shelter from defeat in clamour.

I love that. It’s practically been worth all the ballads, just to get to that one line.

This is the story of a British journalist, sent to Vietnam in the 1950s to cover the violence there, who slowly comes to regard Vietnam as his home.

There are sections which are truly lovely, and make it obvious why this is regarded by many as a classic of the twentieth century. Here is the journalist on his time in Vietnam:

When I first came I counted the days of my assignment, like a schoolboy marking off the days of term; I thought I was tied to what was left of a Bloomsbury square and the 73 bus passing the portico of Euston and springtime in the local in Torrington Place. Now the bulbs would be out in the square garden, and I didn’t care a damn.

As someone who lived in London for many years, and indeed on the route of the 73, I’m oddly touched by his mourning for that city.

Here also is a lovely vision of the life he left back in London (his marriage collapsed just before he moved) through the lens of his night editor:

The editor would joke to the night-editor, who would take the envious thought back to his semi-detached villa in Streatham and climb into bed with it beside the faithful wife he had carried with him years back from Glasgow. I could see so well the kind of house that has no mercy – a broken tricycle stood in the hall and somebody had broken his favourite pipe; and there was a child’s shirt in the living-room waiting for a button to be sewn on.

The kind of house that has no mercy!

The plot of the novel revolves around this journalist having his Vietnamese girlfriend stolen by an idealistic American, who is involved in some decidedly idealistic espionage. It is around questions of plot that this novel gets a little dodgy. First, the Vietnamese girlfriend is a really horrible stereotype, so it makes it hard to care who gets her. I know I am terribly sophisticated and supposed to be able to look past the general misogyny to the author underneath, but this ‘childlike’ ‘silent’ ‘unfeeling’ girlfriend just defeated me.

We are also on less sure ground when it comes to his attempts to describe the war in Vietnam. At one point he comes across two dead civilians – mother and son. Now, I’d defy any narrator to comment on this in a way that could make one laugh, but how dire is this:

He was wearing a holy medal round his neck, and I said to myself, “The juju doesn’t work.” There was a gnawed piece of loaf under his body. I thought, “I hate war.”

Oh dear! We were definitely on safer ground with London.

This book is less interesting than it sounds. There are a lot of dates, and a lot of sweeping overstatements. However, there were some interesting elements. I learnt, for example, that Provence in France is called that because Julius Caeser referred to as ‘the Province,’ and that the name ‘plumber’ is based on the Latin for lead, because that’s what early Roman plumbing pipes were lined with. Caligula’s name means ‘bootikins’ apparently, as he was a child mascot for Roman armies, and you use to wear mini legionnaires’ shoes. Everyone knows that Caligula was bonkers, and this snapshot of his childhood maybe helps us understood why (battlefield + child = adult issues)

I also learnt that one major impetus for the conversion of Rome to Christianity was the conversion of the wives of important men to Christianity. I think it’s quite interesting that women were the first converts in ancient Rome, because I recently read THE RIVER AND THE SOURCE, which talked about the speed with which women converted in contemporary Kenya. (Indeed, the author’s great grandmother first heard of Christianity as ‘a god who cares for widows.’) Little religions are popping up all the time, and I think it’s quite interesting to think about what it is that gives a religion major staying power – what about the story is so compelling that it changes peoples’ lives. So I’m wondering: does Christianity speak to the oppressed first, and thus its power? Same with Marxism?

Speaking of oppression, Hughes is clearly not female. He discusses a statue showing a woman being raped by a Roman god, which famously shows the tear drop on the poor lady’s cheek. This he calls ‘very sexy.’ I feel oppressed right now.

I try every month to bring you a new snippet from the patron saint of this blog, the hypochondriac, painfully closeted, fabulously talented, Marcel Proust . . .

“There is no man however wise, who has not at some period of his youth said things, or lived a life, the memory of which is so unpleasant to him that he would gladly expunge it.

And yet he ought not entirely to regret it, because he cannot be certain that he has indeed become a wise man . . . unless he has passed through all the fatuous or unwholesome incarnations by which that ultimate stage must be preceded.

The lives that you admire, the attitudes that seem noble to you, have not been shaped by a paterfamilias or a schoolmaster, they have sprung from very different beginnings, having been influenced by everything evil or commonplace that prevailed about them. They represent a struggle and a victory.”

I had to read this for work. I see it has not yet been released, so I’ll say no more.

Just making sure to put it in the blog in the interests of keepin’ it real.

For some reason, I have to post this on my blog to establish its existence with Technorati. Search me as to why, but here it is:

3FEBNN3CXVCU

Now as I’ve told you before, I almost never buy books. Partly because I’m too cheap, and partly because I only really like owning books I really like. But I’m off to Zimbabwe for three months, where good books are hard to come by, so I gave in and spent some serious money on Amazon. Oh yes. So this is one of the first from that batch. I blogged about WHEN YOU ARE ENGULFED IN FLAMES by David Sedaris as I read it earlier this year, and really enjoyed it. ME TALK PRETTY was a bit of a let down, really. In the previous book, I enjoyed the way Sedaris was so open about his somewhat messed up life, but in this way rather than being pleasingly open and honest, it started to seem like a gimmick. And I didn’t really find it that funny. Hmmm. Is it because that it’s not as good a book, or is it because it’s the second of his books I’ve read, so I’m wise to his shtick? A pressing question for the ages.

Since I last wrote I’ve flown to Africa – 20 hours, FOUR stop overs – let’s not talk about it – so I’ve read a lot of books, but not been in a bloggable state. Much more to follow. After I get back from a four day holiday, far from internet. Laterz!

Well, I’ve finished it. And I’m quite thoroughly confused.

This husband, who was apparently so horrible to her, she divorced him and then when he asked her to, and not very nicely either, she remarried him. What? Then they got divorced again. Also, none of her three children seem to speak to her. What? How did we get there? I really can’t figure this lady’s personal life out. Suffice to say, it is wild. Almost as wild as the wildlife.

But the parts about the African landscape are very interesting, as are her attempts to set up a game reserve. She reads like an old colonial, but her reserve was apparently incredibly forward thinking – not just for its time, but for our time too, as it involved the local community; see here

After the acrimoious divorce, she keeps bleating about wanting to go back home to England. Bizarre, as this was a place that by my calculations she’d maybe spent 6 months in her whole life in. I guess as all the cultural life came from there, she felt that – despite it having nothing to do with her actual real life – that was home. Interesting that culture is actually a stronger predictor of ‘home’ than mere circumstance. ANYWAY. I just want to say, she moved to Norwich. This is a woman who used to chew up and spit up ground up doves for her orphan civet cat. Whole doves. With their feathers on. Yup. Her pet lion once mauled her son and she cheerily pumped him with the vet’s antibiotics. NORWICH.