Something to Tell You by Hanif Kureishi

December 2011

Six of us present to discuss Hanif Kureishi's 'Something to Tell You' (eventually, after Mark negotiated his pass-out from a family event and Chris B cycled over the hills to Wellow). Absent were Richard, Mark Th., and Neil.

With the exception of Mark T. who rather enjoyed the book, 'Something to Tell You' didn't really work for anyone - though a number of people (Steve, Chris B., Rob and Richard via email from India) acknowledged that they quite enjoyed reading it but, as Richard noted, the whole was less than the sum of the parts. It was a good evening for eloquent summaries of how we felt. Steve probably won the prize for the two best ones by describing the book as being like an evening in the pub with an irritating friend - interesting and rewarding in patches but ultimately not what it could be. (His second will-turned phrase concludes this write-up so you'll have to wait for that). 

There was general agreement (in the pub, as Neil's email somewhat begged to differ) that Kureshi was a clever and good writer. The words flowed well (though opinion varied as to whether that was in a cogent or somewhat anarchic manner), and most agreed that the book was well-laced with nice sentences or vignettes that really captured both the period it was written in and the lifestyle that most (but not all) of us recalled from that time - if not quite with the sexual and drug fuelled excesses of the characters in this novel. There were also some passages that drew particular praise - from Mark T. about the feelings of first love and from Ras about the description of discovering cancer. For balance, this note should also record Neil's horror at what he saw as dreadful writing about sex "When I did eventually come - it was hard work: I felt as if I'd shoved a heavy train through a long tunnel" (I think that was Neil quoting from the book rather than describing what he was doing whilst reading it).

Where there was a consensus was that the characters themselves failed to hold together or well described. Chris' description of them as self-satisfied smug people struck a chord, Wolf and Valentin were felt to be just unbelievable and the central character was somewhat irritating in his failure to ever get a grip on either himself or life in ways that could have helped the plot hang together (what plot?) and he certainly wasn't believable in his role as a psychoanalyst, (note to Mark Th., one reason he wasn't a believable psychiatrist is because he wasn't one. There's no greater way to offend a psychologist or psychoanalyst than by calling them a psychiatrist!).

Ah, the plot - well you see there really wasn't one - which was a major reason for Ras disliking the book so much. His enjoyment of the book increased marginally when Wolf re-appeared because the blackmail line gave him a plot-line to follow - but Chris B explained that the absence of a plot didn't matter because Something to Tell You was really just like a Jane Austen novel. General bafflement at this was dispelled when he said Austen novels are really all about how people behave and interact with one another - which is what this book was also about. Good spot.

So, the final word is given to Steve's second well-turned phrase. He said 'Something to Tell You' was like a writing version of abstract painting - "it gives a pleasing overall impression but when you look closely at the detail, it's a mess".

Scores were pretty low, averaging 4.78. Considering that five people actually said words to the effect of 'I quite liked it', it is somewhat surprising to see it languishing below such turkeys as Queen Loana and Wanted Man. Neil's dislike of sex writing has result in him losing the 2011 Mr. Easy to Please T Shirt at the last minute, which Richard narrowly beating Mark to the title (Chris B. would have won it only he was only there for the last four books thus missing out on the chance to have his score plummet by having read 'Flying Pigs'). Scores and schedule attached. There was, of course, little competition to Ras at the other end.  

We then had a brief discussion about the optional second book - What I Loved' by Siri Hustvedt, whilst avoiding a detailed discussion as only Mark and Rob had finished it. Both of them rated it very highly, whilst the three who had made a start (Chris B., Steve and Ras) were holding back judgment - with a general view of it being 'better than the Kureshi'. Chris W had yet to make a start. The only substantive discussion was about the descriptions of the art installations - which generated a Ras tirade (with support from Steve). HIs point was that they were impossible to achieve as described, whilst the others argued that this was irrelevant, as the descriptions were written as part of the creation of the character of Bill with the detail not being that important.  

The general view as that it would be good to discuss the book so, provided absent others agree, it will form a second discussion at the January meeting. (I suspect that people will either find Innocent Traitor a quick read or else give up on it if history is not their forte).

Richard's more detailed notes from India:

This was a book which was less than the sum of its parts.

There were in fact lots of positive things about it – throughout the book, there were a host of extremely interesting lines and thoughts and observations. And some of them were quite funny. I must have turned down between 30 and 50 pages where there were interesting or funny lines.   Just a few of them were:

·      “I have lived on the same page of the A-to-Z all of my adult life.”

·      (re a part of West London) “That wasn’t the ghetto; the ghetto was Belgravia, Knightsbridge and parts of Notting Hill” (and I was born and brought up near that part of west London).

·      “Isn’t it true that a person incapable of love and sex is incapable of life?”

·      “I don’t think I have ever stopped seeing London like a small boy”.

·      “Being at University in those days was a mixture of extended holiday and finishing school … I read more than I’d ever read before, and with passion that was new and surprising to me”.

·      “I was amazed by the bitterness, viciousness and cruelty of small-time politics”.

·      “These were the days before the working class were considered to be consumerist trash in cheap clothes with writing on them, when they still retained the dignity of doing essential but unpleasant work”.

·      “I like London being one of the great Muslim cities”.

And I liked a lot of his observations about psychoanalysis and psychotherapy:

·      “Like a car mechanic on his back, I work with the underneath or the understory.”

·      “People speak because there are things they don’t want to hear; they listen because there are things that they don’t want to say”.

His observations on ‘normality’ (p 82) were really interesting, as was Jamal’s interpretation of how Ajita was replicating her own mother in her behaviour to her husband and children (p 453).

But on the other hand, there were also a load of negatives.  Some of these were:

·      I did not get to know any of the characters. All of them were quite surface, and at the end of the book I did not really know them any better that when they were introduced.

·      Jamal’s reaction and then lack of development once Ajita returned to the scene seemed false to me.

·      Lots of the characters talked about thinking about deep things, but I saw no evidence of it.

·      I found all the casual-ness of the sex and the drugs and the drinking quite a turn-off – is London so decadent?  I do not think so, even in the exalted circles that these people moved in.

·      Also, I didn’t understand the 4-part structure at all!

  

So, lots of good bits but overall, not as good as it should have been.

The Carhullan Army - Sarah Hall

The Devonshire Arms, Bath, November 24th 2011

There was, unusually, a full house for the discussion on this book. The book was selected by Mark T partly in response to a suggestion that we as a group had read far more male authors than female, and was it time to redress the balance? 

To remind us, the book is set in the near future: Britain has run out of oil, is a satellite state of the US and has its armies stretched overseas, fighting pointless wars. The country is run by The Authority. The story is based in 'Rith' and the surrounding Lake District. A woman known as Sister narrates, from her prison cell. She describes her escape from the bad conditions in Rith, to Carhullan, a female commune. The place is run by Jackie.

There was lively discussion around the book. Most of us enjoyed some aspects of the book, although Mark Th did not enjoy it at all, apart from the ending, but that was only because the ending was the end. The majority did not like the ending as they found it too abrupt and unbelievable, although Rob and Neil thought it was OK. Some liked the gist of the story and found it a good yarn (Richard, Neil), but others (Richard, Steve) felt that the writing style let it down. Richard felt the bleakness was overwhelming and it reminded him of one of our earlier excellent but bleak books –the prison experience in Northern Africa (The Absence of Light) [Ed: writer's opinion, most of the club thought that book was rubbish!]. Chris B and Mark T found the cage description particularly good.

Rob and others enjoyed the description of the communal living, and thought the book raised interesting questions, such as how easily could this country get to a situation described. Ras liked the direct style and thought that the author pulled it off rather well. Neil found it amusing that the men in the story could not seem to fend for themselves.

Chris W felt the book was like an exam question, and did not like the writing style, but thought the plot was quite clever. Mark T liked the description of the life in Rith, and particular liked the decline of her relationship to Andrew. He found the description of the insertion of the coil particular moving and painful. Most people found Jackie intriguing, and lots of discussion about how male she was and whether she was psychotic or not.

There was a lot of debate about where the story was based. Some thought Rith was Penrith, but others including Steve thought it could not be because of the River geography. It was unclear why the US was ok and why the UK was not. There was some questioning over why it had to be a women-only camp, and whether this had been satisfactorily explained in the book, whilst others saw the clear logic of the gender issues that underpinned the book.

There was much talk, obviously, on the sexual position of the women and some thought it plausible that the women would go and seek the downcast men living nearby for sex, but others, (Mark T) were not so sure. Similarly there was some disagreement about whether Sister could turn so easily from men to women.

Rob thought that the radio signals that Jackie picked up about the King dying and possible attacks were all made up by her in order to legitimise her demands for the army to go on the offensive. Others were not so sure. There was a lengthy discussion about how much more had to go wrong in our present situation to make the story come true. Some though the gap was not that great. So in the end most thought the scenario was believable and most people got something out of the book and the discussion.

Never Let Me Go - Kazuo Ishiguro

Hare and Hounds, Lansdown, Bath - October 12th 2011

Overall, the book seemed to get an enthusiastic reception, although as Mark Th pointed out early on, it is easy to see how it could divide opinion and we all had a sympathy therefore for Ras' disparaging remarks. In fact Ras' notes revealed some telling comments when he wrote "Alternatively....it is not about clones at all, but about society as a whole" and drew a possible comparison with the clones in the book and soldiers in the trenches of WW1 fighting without necessarily understanding why, but went on to conclude that he didn't think that was the aim of the book and therefore it failed for him (the rest of us thought he might be on to something until then...). In many ways this summed up what many others liked about the book in that it continually raised questions in the reader about what the book was really about, what was really going on, what significance did certain events really have etc.

Positives about the book included: The way it gave glimpses without revealing all; successful portrayal of a female protagonist by a male author; insight into the dynamics of power and what suppresses people and prevents them from fighting back; analysis of relationships in constrained situations; poetic and straightforward language that belied the complex undercurrents; ability of the book to chill and frighten with sinister insinuations; building a certain sense of suspense, which while some felt was false due to revelations made one third and halfway through the book, Chris B suggested must have existed as he had felt this strongly on his first read but the feeling wasn't there on the second read when he knew the outcome.

Negatives depended very much on your standpoint. Some really didn't care for the whole episode with Madame and Miss Emily (Mark T and Mark Th) while others liked this phase of the book (Rob). Some were frustrated by the refusal of the author to explain better what was going on (Ras and Mark T) while others liked the sense that Ishiguro was very deliberate about not giving much away and therefore provoked much parallel thinking by the reader (Neil). On a personal note I shall continue to wonder what was so enthralling about finding and seeing a grounded boat for some weeks to come and I think this is very clever.

Other questions people will be left searching fruitlessly for answers to include: why didn't these randy clones have sex with "normal" people - or why didn't "normal" people exploit the opportunity to have "risk-free" sex with clones (Chris W), why were all the roads so featureless (Steve), what makes someone a human being rather than a scientific creation (Rob), why was Kathy always a carer (Mark T) and why is Ishiguro still allowed to write books (Ras).

What is curious about the book is that while there was some consensus on the evening about people having enjoyed the book and found it to be a good book (Richard revealed that he had put off reading the last 50 pages to try and savour the ending), there was a quite a diverse range of feelings about what in particular people had enjoyed about it or been impressed with. While for some it was more about the writing style, for others it was the analysis of power and its ability to marginalise people and for others it was as much about what the book didn't say as about what it did.

Consistently high marking with one exception, averaging 7.23

The Yacoubian Building - Alaa Al Aswany

September 14th 2011; The Packhorse, South Stoke, Bath.

Generally this book was enjoyed by most of the group and in fact achieved some rave reviews from several members although at the end of the evening the scores did not quite tally with this.

The book centred on the lives of the residents of the Yacoubian Building in central Cairo at the time of the first Gulf War, from the most affluent living in their spacious apartments and working in its comfortable offices to the squalor of its rooftop residents living in cramped metal cages. The building has seen better times, being a sad reflection of its former splendour, and through the portrayal of the building and the intertwined lives of its residents Aswany depicts the decay of modern Egyptian life under the Mubarak regime. Given that this book was published in a predominantly Muslim country the story depicts in graphic but not distasteful detail issues such as homosexuality, sex, promiscuity, corruption, religion and fundamentalism - and does this in a humorous way but also with elements of sadness and poignancy. Nothing in the Egyptian way of life seems to occur without backhanders, baksheesh or an alternative motive and the author leaves you with a feeling that society in Egypt has become thoroughly degraded.

From my point of view I really enjoyed this book as it opened up an insight into a way of life which I knew nothing about and which had become particularly relevant given the recent " Arab Spring " and the subsequent revolutions taking place throughout the Arab speaking world. The frustrations of the Egyptian way of life which were depicted explained clearly why the younger generation particularly were being drawn to fundamentalism having no opportunity to progress their lives through hard work and where the amount of the bribe and your father's job were the only currency to achieve success. I felt the writing style was very readable and you were really able to get behind the characters in the book, and understand the dilemmas in their lives.

Going around the table at the famous Packhorse Inn in South Stoke (where the deep-fried chips were most appreciated) .......
Ras felt that the book explained how corruption will always prevail and that it was systemic within Egyptian society. He didn't like the writing style and consequently didn't find it an enjoyable read. It also contained too much sex!.
Neil thought it was an excellent book portraying Egyptian society and its scandals in a very authentic way and the fact that although this was a Muslim society the majority of its inhabitants were either aspiring to grasp Western culture or alternatively destroy it. (by means of appropriately positioned truncheons!) If there was any criticism it was the fact that the ending came up very quickly and seemed to be rushed towards the last couple of chapters.
Richard felt that it was an excellent book and that it captured perfectly the characters and beliefs of the people in the story with some good comic elements.
There was then a discussion about the female characters in the book and the fact that only the men apparently erred from their proper behaviour but this was disputed by Richard who felt that the women's behaviour was simply more subtle. Rob was interested to see how different the attitudes were between men and women in respect of unfaithfulness. The discussion then moved onto religion and how 80% of the Egyptian population might be completely uneducated and how easy it would be to divert somebody's beliefs from the usually peaceful tenets of the Muslim faith to a fundamentalist outlook - particularly in the absence of any prospects in life.
Steve considered the book a great read, skilfully written, although "a bit thinly spread" - more of an education than a literary experience.
Chris B. enjoyed the book and thought that it brought the characters and storyline alive and portrayed well the moral dilemmas of Cairo life. He felt the structure was somewhat formulaic and that there were recurrent episodes of optimism and happiness which were subsequently dashed over and over again.
Finally Rob's opinion was that he didn't think much of the book. He felt that it was written from only one perspective-more of an outsiders view of Cairo life than a genuine insight into what really goes on. He felt the author was rather "grinding his own axe" bringing up the same point over and over again and that ultimately the story ended inadequately and too swiftly.
CW
Average score 6.96
See August 2011 for list of all books and scores

The Aerodynamics of Pork – Patrick Gale

July 28th 2011, Pulteney Arms, Bath

Gale’s book was described on the cover thus: ‘WPC Mo Faithe is overcome with lust while investigating a series of violent attacks on newspaper astrologers in London.’ So I approached it with an open mind and a song in my heart. However, the trajectory from thereon was distinctly downwards. I confess also to being drawn by the statement ‘Patrick Gale’s first novel is suffused with heady wish-fulfilment…’, always keen to support the work of young struggling artists. What I hadn’t realised was that this was an early 1980s first novel, repackaged to suit the modern book-buying public, who are clearly crying out for blood, sex and horoscopes. Oh and I'm a fool for a clever title and that's really why I chose it.

It really felt like a first novel. We all agreed that there were too many clunking descriptions, oddly one-sided cipher-like characters (Seth’s Dad, Mo’s straight Lewis-type sidekick who started out being written up but came to nothing much) and a triumph of agenda over artistic merit or literary style. Not that he isn’t a bad writer — there were parts that resonated, particularly (and this discussion took place before the civil unrest of mid-August) relating to London in the early 80’s (for those of us who were there at the time), the still-clandestine gay club world, and with hindsight it’s significant and interesting that AIDs doesn’t merit a mention. However, these parts were all too clearly written to the ‘My first serious novel’ template and the dialogue in particular was stilted and unconvincing. I was also struck by the way that while the chapters started out balancing the action pretty evenly between London and Cornwall, about halfway through Cornish events took the upper hand and it was as though it was a bit of a nuisance for Gale to have to go back and work things around in London so it could all lead to a gentle denoument with the London copper in a Cornish garden.

What was the phantom pregnancy all about? Clearly juxtaposing Evelyn’s conviction that her daughter was (legally) pregnant while her son was about to launch himself underage on the libidinous Roly, had something to say about the legal battle bubbling away in the background, but the over-obvious coda (quoting the news of the age of consent debate in the Lords) was a sledgehammer on a cashew, even if it wasn’t clear from the text that the bill wasn’t to become law for some time to come (2000).

I shouldn’t give the impression we hated the book. It was on several levels an enjoyable read: not inaccessible, quite vivid in places (particularly Cornwall), thought-provoking here and there. But I don’t think it will linger long — rather like the duff bottle of Hirondelle… And as is customary with most of the books that I've chosen, it will languish somewhere around the relegation zone.

Average score 3.34. Pants. SC

It's alive, Jim, alive...

For reasons too complex to itemise in detail, and which frankly don't reflect well on yours truly, the means of logging into and editing this blog have only just been unearthed. That means there are about 60 books to write up and post here... It'll happen, but in the meantime, how about the all-important bottom line: what have we read and how many POINTS did we give it?

Presenting the Bath Blokes’ Bookclub Senescent Seventy-Five
(the average of scores out of 10 from each BBBC reader)

1 Queen's Gambit Walter Tevis 7.86

2 Kafka on the Shore Murakami 7.66

3 As I Walked Out Laurie Lee 7.65

4 Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Steig Larsson 7.63

5 One Day David Nichols 7.62

6 Engleby Sebastien Faulks 7.61

7 Kite Runner Khaled Hosseini 7.57

8 Siege of Krishnapur JG Farrell 7.51

9 Equal Music Vikram Seth 7.47

10 Quiet Yank Graham Greene 7.46

11 For Whom the Bell Tolls Ernest Hemmingway 7.46

12 Small Island Andrea Levy 7.43

13 Sacred Games Vikram Chandra 7.34

14 In Cold Blood Truman Capote 7.30

15 Pretty Horses Cormac McCarthy 7.29

16 Chesil Beach Ian McEwan 7.28

17 Never Let Me Go Kazuo Ishiguro 7.23

18 Secret River Kate Grenville 7.18

19 Endurance Albert Lansing 7.15

20 Cloud Atlas David Mitchell 7.12

21 Waxwings Jonathan Raban 7.11

22 The Reader Bernhard Schluk 7.04

23 Saturday Ian McEwan 7.03

24 When the Rain Jonathan Coe 7.01

25 Coming Up for Air George Orwell 6.96

26 Yacoubian Building Alaa Al Aswany 6.96

27 City of Thieves David Beniof 6.88

28 Human Traces Sebastien Faulks 6.86

29 Inheritance of Loss Kiran Dasai 6.74

30 Glasshopper Isabel Ashdown 6.68

31 1000 Splendid Suns Khaled Hosseini 6.66

32 Snowman Jo Nesbo 6.53

33 Case Histories Kate Atkinson 6.50

34 Suite Francais Irene Nemirovsky 6.46

35 Illuminated Jonathan Safran Foer 6.39

36 Year of Wonders Geraldine Brookes 6.33

37 Salmon Fishing Paul Torday 6.33

38 Plot vs USA Philip Roth 6.27

39 Jesus Christ Jose Saramago 6.23

40 Last City Colin Thubron 6.20

41 The Road Cormac McCarthy 6.19

42 Wolf Hall Hilary Mantel 6.15

43 Fascination William Boyd 6.14

44 Line of Beauty Alan Hollingsworth 6.07

45 Parrot and Olivier Peter Carey 6.06

46 First Casualty Ben Elton 6.03

47 Cellist of Sarajevo Steven Galloway 6.03

48 Elephant Keeper Christopher Nicholson 6.01

49 Shadow of The Wind Carlos Ruiz Zafon 6.01

50 Sisters Rosamund Lupton 6.00

51 Closed Circle Jonathan Coe 5.93

52 Devil May Care Sebastien Faulks 5.87

53 Ebony Tower John Fowles 5.85

54 Tale of Two Cities Charles Dickens 5.79

55 Tractors Marina Lewycka 5.71

56 Silk Road Colin Thubron 5.67

57 Huck Finn Mark Twain 5.64

58 Don't Move Margaret Mazzantini 5.64

59 Master and Commander Patrick O'Brien 5.60

60 The Ask Sam Lipsyte 5.58

61 Nocturnes Kazuo Ishiguro 5.53

62 Mother's Milk Edward St Aubyn 5.36

63 Margrave of the Marshes John Peel 5.29

64 Wanted Man John Le Carre 5.26

65 Queen Loana Umberto Eco 4.89

66 Apothecary Patricia Schonstein 4.76

67 Contortionist Craig Clevenger 4.67

68 Absence of Hope Ben Jelloun 4.59

69 Damned Utd David Peace 4.41

70 Third Policeman Flann O'Brien 4.29

71 Ten Days in the Hills Jane Smiley 4.21

72 Queeney Beryl Bainbridge 3.94

73 Never Never David Gaffney 3.73

74 Flying Pigs Patrick Gale 3.34

75 Lights Out DBC Pierre 3.17

76 Cry of the Halidon Robert Ludlum 2.56

The Cellist of Sarajevo – Steven Galloway

The BBBC lives! Further posts will follow...

Venue: The Hop Pole, Upper Bristol Road

Date: June 30th 2011

Book: The Cellist of Sarajevo, by Steven Galloway.

Ras’s choice of book promised (on the cover) that ‘…when the everyday act of crossing the street can risk lives, the human spirit is revealed in all its fortitude – and frailty.’ The book created fictional accounts from four of the besieged of Sarajevo, using as a uniting hook the true story of Vedran Smailović, the cellist who in summer 1992 played Albinoni’s Adagio in the street in full view of snipers, every day for 22 days – one day for every fatality in a mortar attack on the market outside the ruins of which he set up his stool.

The cellist isn’t mentioned by name in the book and accounts for a small part of the narrative. When the book came out, a story went around that Smailović was upset that his actions had been appropriated and the truth changed to fit the storyteller’s needs. He’s quoted as saying at the time:

“I didn’t play for 22 days, I played all my life in Sarajevo and for the two years of the siege each and every day. They keep saying I played at four in the afternoon, but the explosion was at ten in the morning and I am not stupid, I wasn’t looking to get shot by snipers so I varied my routine. I never stopped playing music throughout the siege. My weapon was my cello.”

Fair to say we had mixed responses to the book. On one hand was the view that, as Ras said, it was a vivid portrayal of ‘total war’ as it affects those who have little control over their destinies. The characters were strong and believable, one was drawn into and interested in/appalled by their stories and experiences. And while the general feel was similar to the ‘City of Thieves’, about the siege of St Petersburg, there was a strong feeling that this was a vivid insight into European events of the relatively recent past about which many of us felt sadly uninformed. On that level I think there was general agreement that the book met with some success as a narrative, with the simplest sections – such as Kenan's journey to collect water from the brewery – providing the greatest impact.

There was less agreement about the way the book dealt with the wider context of events. The focus was entirely on the besieged. Who were the ‘men in the hills’ who wreaked havoc so indiscriminately on soldiers and innocent civilians alike? What was their motivation, why were they so bent on the total destruction of the city and its people? What were the seeds of the conflict; how far did religious and cultural divides contribute? Mark Th was unhappy about the book in general – the main characters were thinly drawn and went about their actions in a dreamlike state which told us nothing about the causes and factions, while focusing only on the ‘right here, right now’ action on the streets. This lack of balance didn’t work for him. Richard also described it as ‘a good little book’ with the emphasis on the word ‘little’ (as in both ‘short’ and ‘not great’). Ultimately disappointing, as with that palette of material surely something much more enlightening could have been created. We did acknowledge that it would have been a lot more than 220 pages long, however. And Rob makes the point that if the author didn’t set out to write a detailed historical account, which he obviously didn’t, there’s little point in criticising him as if he had. I think.

But for others, notably Rob, Chris, Neil and Mark T, it was an engaging, easily read and thought-provoking book that did exactly what it set out to do. The cunning inclusion of a female counter-sniper character worked very well for some…

There were some comments around the style of the writing: I personally found the introductory chapter about the cellist over-written and overly-dramatic, and subsequent long sections written in the present tense (especially Arrow’s chapters) failed to keep the suspense taut, as the writer apparently intended.

In summary, we acknowledged the book’s brevity, drama and ability to bring to our attention a segment of recent European history that some of us hadn’t been fully aware of. But some criticised the end result, in which only one side of the canvas had been painted in.

We gave it 6.025 out of 10.

The Ask – Sam Lipsyte

26^th May 2011

Rob’s description of this as a ‘marmite book’ was an appropriate one. This was one of those books that provoked strong but very different reactions from within the group. On the one side were the ‘ayes’ (Mark Th and Steve in particular, plus Neil and Mark T) who all reported that they enjoyed the read. In contrast, the ‘nays’ (Rob and Ras) felt that it was badly written drivel with few, if any virtues. Chris seemed to sit between these two views.

There was clear consensus among the ayes on a couple of points. Firstly, the blurb on the back of the book is (typically) misleading as this is not a comic novel and certainly not a ‘side-splitter’. The book was seen as a satire on modern corporate America (Steve was very eloquent on this point) that wove in many aspects of modern life. At the same time, it was agreed that Milo’s journey is a sad one. He is a man with many privileges and zero skills, who falls from a very low height, losing his wife and job and being outdone by almost everyone he knows. There was also agreement that while it had been a very entertaining read, the low emphasis on plot meant that, once finished, it quickly began to fade from memory.

On the nay side there was early disagreement about what daily newspaper (not) to read but much closer agreement on what made the book so trying. It was very badly written to the point of being incomprehensible. Lipsyte is a bad writer with a poor command of the English language. The book has no plot at all and both the characters and their situations are impossible to believe in. The book does not resonate at all in England and is unfunny and frustrating. Ras observed at one point that only the Halidon was a worse read while Rob went so far as to compare Lipsyte’s writing to Jilly Cooper and find him wanting.

This marmite polarisation was perhaps the reason for a lively but slightly shorter than usual discussion with book matters concluded by 10.15 and more general conversation following on afterwards. The book discussion tended to remind the ayes of the things they had enjoyed about the book but had already started to forget (trendy Salamander childrearing, workplace politics, loft/cage living, hip 60s parents, business and marketing speak, surfing TV and the internet, cookery shows, student life etc) – and someone (Mark T, I think) commented on how many of the group were smiling at the recollection of these. It looked very much like this recollection also reminded the nays exactly why they disliked this stupid book in the first place.

5.58

Parrol and Olivier – Peter Carey

Can't find any notes of group deliberations. Neil supplied these thoughts:

Well, I have to say this was a very pleasant surprise. I have only read one Pater Carey book before, the Kelly Gang story that won the Booker Prize, and I can't say I was that taken with that particular novel. I found the story rather one-dimensional and the laboured interpretation of how Kelly might have told his own story rather monotonous. So I didn't come to this book with high expectations and my first impressions weren't helped much by the opening sections from either of the narrators. Both seemed very dark and foreboding and didn't hint to me at all of the rather comic tale that would unfold quite amusingly afterwards.

It is perhaps a bit of a stretch to liken this to a 19th century Jeeves and Wooster novel, but the underlying humour seems to be there in the re-telling of the master servant relationship, especially as this relationship is so unconventional. I liked the way we alternated between narrators to get their different takes on the situations and the relationship and I found their characters to be well drawn.

I also found the backdrop to the book interesting. It made me realise how little I know about the French Revolution and more particularly the July Revolution and it has made me go on to read up some more about both to try and better understand the background to Olivier's position. It also threw up some interesting questions for me, amongst which was the question of whether there had been any famous female painters pre the 20th century, something which again I have looked in to and find remarkable that there were so few female painters of any note around this time.

Another aspect I enjoyed was the way Carey used hindsight to draw parallels between modern America and this older version, with sideways nods to the potential for ignorant men to become President for example and their early obsession with wealth and property which Carey seemed very clearly to me to be comparing to the open avarice that poisons the country today.

But most of all I enjoyed Carey's poetic writing style and I loved the way he effortlessly constructed sentences which would take most of us hours if not days to come up with if we could ever at all. Take this sentence for example where Olivier describes a wine he is drinking: "In a year it would be a dowager with a faded corsage, but as it entered my mouth it was vigorous and manly, completely composed, its orchestra all present and correct" - take that Jilly Goolden!