Mark Th kicked off by explaining why he had chosen the
book: he had expected to go for the
Sisters Brothers, with Sarah Waters as backup and the Woodhouse included only
as a makeweight on the list. But somehow
with Ras’ funeral he had felt that it would be refreshing to read something
quick, light and inconsequential - so Jeeves it was. He had then begun – needlessly as it turned
out – to worry that our discussion might be limited. This was partly because Wodehouse was writing
pure farce set in a bubble of unreality entirely separate from life in the
thirties – with the Wall Street Crash, mass unemployment, advent of Hitler and
so on. It was also in view of the way
that most fiction deals with significant themes and issues whether love
betrayal and revenge, or war, global warming, race etc. Wodehouse avoids engaging with much of real
life and the actions of his characters are part of a general whimsy where
nothing seems to have very serious consequences. Added to this, there was the misfortune of
coming up with a book that used ‘blacking up’ as a plot device, which is
unlikely to sit well with any of us and to which all of us would object
vehemently if written now.
That said, the group felt that the book had a lot going for
it. The consensus was that it was far from being a masterpiece, but nonetheless
was ‘refreshing, the use of words is fantastic’ (Chris W), ‘light and
enjoyable’ (Chris B), ‘a pleasant, quick read’ (Richard) with ‘a great turn of
phrase’ (Steve) and some very funny moments (Mark T and Steve). Early discussion particularly centred on the
development of the characters of Jeeves and Wooster (other characters being
stock theatrical caricatures). The relationship between them varied from
mother/son to husband/wife, master/servant (with this role sometimes reversed)
and friend/companion. The farcical plot
was seen both as theatrical (Mark T), televisual (Richard) and lending itself
to radio dramatisation (Mark Th). Despite the escapist bubble of the setting,
the group did manage to come up with some themes to chew over. There was interesting discussion of the idea
of ‘knowing one’s place’ following the role reversal implied by Wooster’s
remark to Jeeves to this effect. Chris B
highlighted the disrespect inherent in the treatment by Wodehouse of characters
of lower social origin in the book (Jeeves having to be super learned, Brindley
a raving Bolshevik, Voules a tubby comic turn etc.). It was noted that characters like Jeeves
could rise so far but no further, whatever their merits and abilities. This
lead on to further discussion of the notion of ‘the power behind the throne’,
and an interesting, if improbable comparison from Richard with T Cromwell as so
(brilliantly/uselessly*) depicted by Hilary Mantel. Steve also made a comparison to a Handful of
Dust in the portrait of the declining wealth of the aristocracy in the face of the
rising (US) capitalist moneyed classes.
(*delete as appropriate)
The most praised aspect of the book was Wodehouse’s
prose. Mark Th appreciated the way that exaggeration
and understatement were applied in almost reverse proportion to the normal
rules of cause and consequence. This
meant that Wooster could not bear to be tired, hungry or meet Americans and
would be ‘peeved…vexed… or a dashed sight worse....’ but a raging fire completely burning down two
houses was a relatively minor worry: ‘I’m afraid you’re a cottage down
Chuffy’. Likewise Jeeves suggests ‘I was
wondering if it would not be best to obviate unpleasantness by removing yourself
from the yacht, sir’. Chris W saw this skill in the use of language as having
influenced comedy in later years, such as the Monty Python’s Upper Class Twits.
Mark Th felt that the first person
narration by such a warm, positive and naïve character added to the charm of
the book.
On what turned out to be the one strongly dissenting note,
Rob was unable to attend, but got right to the front of the Mr G. queue,
expressing by email his clear dislike of a book which he felt was ‘a new low in
book club reading’. The book was too long, tedious and contained ‘offensive
racism’. He felt strongly that while
‘some may argue that this was a product of its time, and is excusable on that
basis, I don't agree’ - arguing there is a difference between incorporating racism as a contemporary description of behaviour and continuing to expect it to be a source of humour in the 21st century (as the publishers of this book clearly do). Here he correctly
anticipated the views of those at the meeting where the conclusion was that we
should be wary of anachronistic censure of past generations. While the racial
element was clearly uncomfortable, the book was not ruined by the blacking up.
It was born of an era before racism had been ‘discovered’ and countered with
the rise, for example, of the NAACP in the 1950s. There was discussion of the powerful
role of blacking up in American vaudeville, and its obvious prominence in early
Hollywood output. A number of the group
recalled golliwogs and the Black and White Minstrels. There was also mention of
Small Island and how racism in our parents’ generation had often simply not
been recognised.
There was far less overall consensus on the important topic
of what meal Jeeves would be if he were a food:
Mark T was all for mulligatawny soup starter. This was followed by Mark
Th who felt a light salad with sparkling water would follow; for Richard it was
popcorn. Steve was on for a cream tea (probably
taking in Chris B’s cucumber sandwiches); Chris W envisioned a Tutti Frutti
ice-cream.
