State of wonder, by Ann Patchett  

Discussed Thursday, 26^th June 2014, Forester & Flower, Combe Down

Beer was not good, so less was drank - £33.10 left in the kitty for next time!

Seven out of the nine of us were there: Chris B, Steve, Ras, Rob, Chris W, Mark T, and Richard; (apols from Mark Th [who sent his notes later, now at the end] and Neil [who sent his views by e-mail, below]).

Richard liked the book a lot.  For him it raised interesting issues around morality and principle, western civilization and non-western primitivism and the interactions between the two, culture, love, and science.

He felt that the book started off as a slight and rather domestic story – a Dr with a history and having an affair with the boss, a missing dead man (mystery – was he murdered as he’d discovered a fraud, etc). But it turned into a character study of Swenson and Singh; and also a study of the N. Amazon basin as a character (probably not the Brazilian tourist board’s favourite book!).  Richard found it both engaging, and more so as it progressed; and felt the tragedy of losing Easter quite strongly. 

In terms of characters and characterisation, the book stayed close to Marina's consciousness.  Richard liked that way that Marina and Swenson’s relationship grew and developed over the novel, and how the person beneath the grouchy difficult genius woman gradually appeared.  Richard also enjoyed the writing style and found it both easy to read, and full of interesting descriptions:

“She only knew Karen as well as … any single woman who works with the husband ever knows the wife who stays at home.”

“She might develop a drug for the purposes of her own curiosity or the interest of science, but it would never occur to her that her work was the property of the people who signed the checks.” !

“Being the child of a white mother and foreign graduatestudent father who took his degree but not his family back to his country of origin after he was finished had become the stuff of presidential history, but when Marina was growing up there was no example that could easily explain her situation.”

“While every insect in the Amazon lifted its head from the leaf it was masticating and turned a slender antenna in her direction …. The air outside was heavy enough to be bitten and chewed. Never had marina’s lungs taken ion so much oxygen, so much moisture. … at dusk the insects came down in a storm, the hard-shelled and soft-sided, the biting and stinging, the chirping and buzzing and droning, every last one unfolded its paper wings and flew with unimaginable velocity into the eyes and mouths and noses of the only three humans they could find. … in the instant the veil of insects lifted and Marina saw nothing as she had never seen nothing before … “

“It was impossible to know how many apricots a person would eat once they had been removed from civilisation.”

On the other hand, there were many ‘problems’ with realism: it is unrealistic

·        to think that Swenson would not recall a very tall Indian-American woman named Singh;

·        to imagine that she’d think that Vogel would not be interested in an anti-malarial drug!

·        to think that Vogel would allow someone to refuse to communicate with her employer about the years she has spent putatively investigating the Lakashi! 

But Richard considered that these were only small problems really; and on the other hand, there were many interesting ethical dilemmas: Should women of any age be able to have children? What are the benefits and the downsides?  Why does this ability seem to work in the Lakashi culture?  How far should modern science go to “improve” on nature? Whether you are a man or woman, would you want to have a child in your fifties or sixties? In talking about her experiences with the indigenous people, Swenson says, “the question is whether or not you choose to disturb the world around you; or if you choose to go on as if you had never arrived.”  But these are not ‘choices’ – just being there DOES disturb the world around, as we all do, all of the time.

For him, the biggest negative was how the story just trailed off.

Neil sent by e-mail his customary interesting comments: “Overall I quite enjoyed this book and found myself drawn into the story enough to be sufficiently engrossed to want to read on and the style was easy enough to allow a fairly quick consumption.  For me these proved to be points that helped me over the issues I had right from the start.  The basic premise that one doctor with scant qualification for being sent into the jungle has died and so the pharmaceutical company CEO decides in his wisdom that a second should follow seems fairly ridiculous and once you find out what they are working on, so does the drug development and the phenomenon that brings it about.  The idea that a big drug company wouldn't at the very least send some sort of Bear Grylls mercenary along with Dr Marina to ensure her safety or have a grid reference locked away that showed where the research was going on seemed ridiculous.  And the list of incredible things went on, like the fact that we are meant to believe that Dr Swenson, in years gone by, used to nip down to this remote part of the Amazon to do field work over 3 day weekends, when it seems quite clear that it's at least a two day journey either way to reach this bit of jungle.  These various fictional constructs, trumped by the denouement (which I shan't spoil for you, but is again right up there in the realms of the unreal) along with a writing style that would occasionally make wild jumps in the middle of a train of consciousness were distractions and i can only concede that the storytelling ability and the writer's knack for creating one or two quite likeable characters held it together to make it an entertaining read, if also at the same time fairly forgettable.  And of course the fact that it centered around Manaus just at the time that the England football team were about to play there lent a certain added interest which it would otherwise have lacked. So, enjoyable, but not superb, 6.5 for me.”

Chris B had finished it 2 weeks previously, and had really enjoyed it whilst he was reading it. He enjoyed the characters and liked the way one got inside their heads, and how Marina was drawn in to the situation – as one gets closer to ‘the field’ and further away from the calmness and objectivity of back home, one gets less objective and more drawn in to the local situation.  But Chris felt that, unlike Germinal, which was a book that he felt would stay with him for a very long time, he questioned whether he would recall this book in the same way. He also felt that there was a lot of unrealism, although that was live-able with; and felt reassured that the book could have an attractive and intelligent 42 year old woman fall for a 60+ year old man!  Overall, he felt that it was a great little book, but not one which would have a huge impact on his life

Steve was also struck by the unrealism, but told us that he had decided to suspend his disbelief and hence he ‘just let myself go with it’. He enjoyed the first part – to ordinary people having to tell a mother and wife terrible news. He also enjoyed the Manaus section; but then felt that each new bit got ‘more bonkers’. He felt that it was obviously researched (“but she is clearly NOT a scientist” from Mark T! – “but the book is not about the science!” from Steve), but that the ending was a bit of a whimper. Steve drew our attention to the Heart of Darkness connection, the professional person going rogue in the heart of the darkest jungle.

Ras (who was feeling sufficiently well to have driven himself up and back, and was quite cheery) had finished the book, and felt that that was a success in itself.  He also felt that the early parts were quite good; and VERY unusually for him, he felt that the book should have been longer (!) – that the author should have spent about 2 further pages on the ending.  He was unsure if Swenson was being disloyal to the company: he felt that she was an honest scientist trying to do her best: and as a steward of our planet, she was trying to guard her findings. He felt that the Bovenders did not fit – that Swenson would not have been likely to retain their services. He liked the way that Marina was parachuted inform the cold of Minnesota to the Amazonian jungle. Ras’s overall summary was : “I enjoyed it, and I finished it!”

Rob was not quite so positive as the others. He felt that the first half was painfully slow: he felt that nothing happened.  It was only in the last third that the story developed.  Rob asked: “what was the book about?” If it was meant to provide a picture of the country and of the Amazon, then it needed to be real, and there were too many unrealistic things; but if it was not a picture of the country, what was it? He agreed that the ending was strange, and that he was left with so many unanswered questions, which made it a bit of an unsatisfactory book.  On the other hand, he did engage with Marina a bit, and with Easter, and found the Bovenders entertaining.

Chris W was more inclined to Rob’s view. He felt that it was top-heavy, it took 2/3 to start, building up to a story which then wasn’t sufficiently developed. The book spent a long time getting to the jungle! But he felt that the author had a very fertile mind – lots of ideas, but it was as if she didn’t know herself where she was going with the book, and so she herself was discovering her plot as she wrote.  But there were too many unanswered questions, too many loose ends, too much ratcheting up of uncertainty. “I got through it but it was not a compelling read.”

Mark T told us that initially it engaged him, but its half-life was very short, and the longer the time since finishing it, the more it has irritated him.  Very implausible, and got more so, Enjoyed it a bit, but very little lasting memory.

MarkTh e-mailed his notes a little later: "Thanks for the notes Richard - a really interesting summary which matched my own ambivalent reaction to the book.  On the down side, as people have noted, it was hard to get past the implausibility of the plot.  Secondly, the Science did not convince and thirdly, her picture of the amazon was full of cliché with snakes and spiders and cannibals throughout.  Finally, I found her focus on educated westerners who cant even be bothered to learn the local languages against a backdrop of childlike Amazonian tribes patronising at best. On the plus side, her prose really flowed in places, she developed the characters of Dr Swenson and Marina very fully, and the ending was terrific.  The twist for me was not that Anders was alive, as that had always been a possibility.  It was Swenson's reaction to the loss of Easter and what it suddenly revealed about her motives and the conflicts within her that made the book finally interesting and gave both female leads real depth.  This then opened up all the avenues of ethical analysis also noted in Richard's notes. So, having expected to give the book a very low score, will give 7." 

Americanah by Chimamanda Ngozi Adiche

There was a common view that the book was slow to start and that it took time for the romantic comedy and the satirical elements to grab the reader. Ras found this to be so much to be the case that he had decided to bail out after 100 pages. Others felt that the book improved rapidly after tepid beginnings and dramatic tension grew as we came to know the 2 characters who were destined to be reunited at the end.  Many described the book as a good read and a thoroughly enjoyable novel.  Chris W saw it as one of the best books he has read for years

Adichie’s prose was widely admired as fresh and inventive and at the same time, easy to read. The satire on race, class and money was well-received and her linkage of these themes to 3 geographical settings (USA, UK, Nigeria) was generally seen as convincing.  This ranged from the bittersweet humour and irony (cash register, hair styles) to more outrageous examples of prejudice, discrimination, corruption and snobbery.

Mark T was most taken with the depiction of first love and the power it can exert.  He also emphasised the continuing impact of re-visiting early love and relationships. Chris W also saw the central love story as beautiful and very moving.

Mark Th enjoyed the way that the author used the blogs and set pieces to absorb the more polemical commentary so that the dialogue was in general about the everyday life  and instances of prejudice and snobbery as they are experienced. (Steve loved the Special White Friend blog). The dinner party was widely admired, though many of us found the American setting more convincing – perhaps because the author was writing more from experience.  However,  Richard also loved the depiction of Obinze trapped in the UK with no official papers.

Like the prose style, the characterisation was widely appreciated. There was general agreement that the female characters were stronger than the male – with Obinze as the one exception here. Many of the male characters were almost Dickensian caricatures (such as the uneducated father and his long words, or Emenike losing his Nigerian identity so completely).

On the negative side, there was a sense from some (e.g. Rob) that there was too much middle class intellectualising with the characters coming from a narrow and fairly elite group. Many also agreed with Neil that the book was too long and could have lost some scenes and blogs. There were also comments to the effect that the main characters – particularly Ifemelu – were selfish people who hurt others by summarily dropping them or cutting off from them. A further theme concerned there being a sense that she was perhaps too uncritical of Nigeria (Chris B).

Discussion was still in full flow well after 10pm and there was a sense of the book – despite its imperfections - having scenes, themes and qualities that we had not had time to discuss.  Scores were generally high.

Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn

For a book scoring above our monthly average, we were pretty critical. Steve summed it up: a readable tale with some very pertinent lines about modern life and relationships, but hampered by its length, its silly and increasingly unbelievable plot, and by being written by an American for Americans.

So we found it easy to read, creating tension well. We were hooked by the plot and looked forward to reading it. It quickly gripped as a roller coaster crime thriller with an excellent plot, a proper page-turning novel that had enough twists and turns for most people and probably too many for some. For some, despite the irritating Americanisms, destruction of English and silly punctuation, this was an enjoyable read.

We liked the portrayal of middle class America both in New York and in small town US, the effects of the financial crisis on them, the insights into the media industry and some insights into marriage: do we know the people we live with? That feeling of being stuck and powerless…The mechanics of the way it was done with the alternating points of view and the different means of communicating, her first via the diary and then later in the first person generally worked well.

But it was let down by implausible and shallow characterisation, (though some got involved with the characters, especially when they became nasty) and an increasingly unbelievable plot, a story telling mess, though Steve rather liked the gradual winding down of the tension and the ‘can’t live with ‘me, can’t live without ‘em’ sentiment, with an extra order of unease and ‘what next?' thrown in.

Incompetent police (for example, the anti-freeze poisoning would have been detectable in her hair samples, which she placed in various locations), unreal parents (Amy’s), unmemorable supporting cast were frustrating. Bring back Eagleby if you want a real sociopath, said Richard. And why all the swearing (some of us hadn’t noticed)?

Neil summed It up: for me this was a crime suspense thriller of sorts with a difference. Interestingly told and pretty well put together and I looked forward to picking it up far more than the current book I am reading (or possibly the one we will be reading next).

Richard: Such a good score because of the skilled plotting and page-turning writing; such a bad score (for me) because of the clichéd writing and the lack of any depth or substance to the characterisations.

Questions: were we just a bit jaded by all the thrillers we have been reading? Were we being set up at the end for the sequel?

Bring Up The Bodies by Hilary Mantel

Views were mixed. Some, with dark recollections of Wolf Hall still reverberating from a couple of years ago, had looked on the task of reading this book as a ordeal to be suffered rather than enjoyed, and I'm not sure any who felt like that found their preconceptions totally upended. One sceptic, not completing the book for the meeting, did resolve to persevere (and I, not a doubter, also hadn't finished despite having selected it – took me another week).

There were at least a couple of points of general agreement I think: that this was, on the whole, an easier and more involving book to read than the Wolf Hall. Some felt that her editors/publishers must have taken her to task and insisted that she sort out the style difficulty, widely reported and commented on in Wolf Hall, that meant readers struggled to work out exactly who was speaking and who was being spoken about. In this book it became clear early on that when Mantel spoke of 'he', she almost invariably meant Cromwell. Somehow this never really clicked in the first book. Similarly, she peppered her narrative with phrases like " he, Cromwell, looked over at…' – just to make sure.

So it was easier to consume. It was variously very interesting, or not as interesting as it could have been. 'Not a very interesting part of history', 'been done to death already'… 'You know how it ends'… but for others the 'camera on the shoulder' approach to a historical narrative was spell-binding and lent the period a very fresh perspective.

The book undoubtedly presented a thoroughly absorbing characterisation of Thomas Cromwell who was clearly so hugely influential in the politics of the time – and no-one has done this before. The parallel was drawn, somewhat tongue in cheek, with Tony Soprano – a kind of tragic hero, highly intelligent, totally obsessed with his role, the expansion of his influence and the fortunes of his own (what remained of them) – but also revelling in the ability to make or break others.

I think we all felt that at times there was a bit too much context, detail and innuendo being trowelled on. The line between accurate history and historical novel was constantly blurred, and for some this was an issue – do you believe in it (or doubt it) as an account of what actually happened, or do you suspend your disbelief, let Mantel guide you through her quite fruity interpretation of events and enjoy the journey?

For some this is a tremendous book – painting a vivid and utterly absorbing picture of a part of history of which we have no digital evidence, no photographs, no YouTube footage. She give you the tools to run the movie in your head, in Technicolour. Equally I don't think anyone felt this was a really awful book - or not as bad as perhaps was feared. Some wished Mantel had perhaps taken her historical 'responsibilities' a little more seriously and told us more about the direct influence that Cromwell had on the way the country was governed. Others just wished she'd get on with it and tell the story.

I'm not sure if HM has confirmed that a third part is to be published, though noises of the kind have been heard. Perhaps that is where we'll learn more about the way Cromwell worked when not managing the King's rather sad and desperate obsession with producing a healthy male heir. If it comes, I will read it, but perhaps will stop short of inflicting it on the assembled multitude!

Archangel by Richard Harris

So, to the book: as you will have seen from emails in from Mark Th, Steve and Richard, Archangel has not set the club alight, but views ranged from it being a pretty good book with a rather less good ending, to it being a dreadful book with and ridiculously bad ending.  Of those present the views were roughly as follows:

Mark T had not expected to enjoy the boo at all and found it better than expected, with insights into Russia etc, but felt that a book such as this that is almost entirely plot-driven and lacked any subtleties about what the characters feelings were about events etc was lacking and he could not forgive it for this.

Rob felt similarly and thought that in a similar fashion to Ghost, one of Harris’ other novels that has been turned into a film starring Ewan McGregor, that the author had been so set on pursuing a lot line that he had drafted up in advance that he missed great opportunities to explore other avenues that Rob was sure would have provided more interesting material.  Having said the he enjoyed the history lesson about Stalin and was comforted to know that Harris was previously an investigative journalist of some repute and that his research could reasonably be relied on to be fairly accurate.

 

Chris was a bit more enthusiastic, certainly about the first half to two thirds of the novel but felt that the ending let it down very badly.  I was slightly disadvantaged in that I had read the book a number of years ago and actually had a hard cover version of it (sorry, forgot I shouldn’t mention the H word, far too controversial) and so had to rely on distant memories.  I am a fan of Robert Harris and have enjoyed reading his books ever since Fatherland, his first, which I thought was a brilliantly conceived storyline.  I also remembered enjoying the setting for this book as it was the Moscow I first got to know only a few years before Archangel was written and I revelled in his perspective of the place.  Nevertheless, I was also disenchanted with the ending and the plausibility of it which moderated my own scoring.

 

So, overall not a very well received book, with scores ranging so fa between 2 and 6.5.  I am hoping Rob kept a note of them though as I’m afraid I didn’t so I can only reliably confirm that my own score matched Richards at 6.5.

 

Despite our small numbers it was an enjoyable meeting, especially for me having missed so many over the last 9 months, and the conversation continued and touched on subjects both closely related to the book (why did Stalin get off so lightly in historical reckoning compared to Hitler, and did Blair and Bush commit real crimes against humanity that are only lessened by virtue of scale), the book club (the H-word and electronic readers it seems will always be a topic for conversation) and beyond (retirement for example and what  to do with it, especially for those fortunate enough to have index-related, state funded pensions). 

 

The Unlikely Pilgrimage of Harold Fry, by Rachel Joyce

Discussed Thursday, 22^nd August 2013, Forester & Flower, Combe Down

Six out of the nine of us were there: Chris B, Chris W, Mark T, Ras, Rob (who had not finished the book) and Richard; (apols from Mark Th, Neil [who sent his views by e-mail, below], and Steve [who sent a short review with more to come later – also below]).

As often, there were a range of views – some thought that it was a good and enjoyable book, others were irritated by the lack of realism.

Selected by Richard as his wife had recommended it, his summary suggested that as Rachel Joyce is a writer of successful radio plays, there was quite good dialogue and story development. Initially, he rather disliked it, feeling that it was unrealistic, light, and a little meaningless; but by the end, he felt that it was interesting, quite well written, and written from a ‘magical realism’ perspective which means that one needed to suspend judgement (shoes which don’t wear out, foraging off the land with no experience, etc etc).

From reading other reviews, Richard realised that the book was an updated version of an old form of writing, the allegory. Once it had been mentioned in a review, the links with “Pilgrim’s Progress: the journey of Christian through Vanity Fair and the Slough of Despond to the Celestial City” seemed quite clear: a humble, everyman hero struggling on his way, with his burden on his back. Obviously some of the religious symbolism in Pilgrim’s Progress isn’t here in this modern-day version, but Harold is an Everyman figure whose spiritual journey is prone to pitfalls and distraction and presented as both heroic and mundane. Some of the symbolism related to the fact that ostensibly Harold Fry is setting out on his long walk from Devon to Berwick-on-Tweed to save his friend, Queenie Hennessy, who is dying of cancer in a nursing home; but this was also a symbolic journey, with Harold trying to save himself from the "slough of despond" into which his own life has sunk. One person suggested that the whole book could almost have been Harold’s fantasy. 

Although a wide range of views was expressed, most fell into one of two categories: those who liked and enjoyed it, and those who found it unrealistic, shallow and frustrating.

Positives included:

·      the easy style,

·      good dialogue,

·      Harold and Maureen - good and quite well drawn characters (although ‘magical realism’ here again – not really believable, and many realised from the first introduction that David had died)’

·      a book celebrating the kindness of strangers,

·      Harold's non-judgmental responses to everyone he meets forms the crux of the narrative,
·      A novel inspired by loss, it contains a really good summation of grief – not expressed by Harold, but by his neighbour Rex (also a figure from Bunyan: named Plausible), who is gradually coming to terms with the death of his wife: "I miss her all the time. I know in my head that she has gone. The only difference is that I am getting used to the pain. It's like discovering a great hole in the ground. To begin with, you forget it's there and keep falling in. After a while, it's still there, but you learn to walk round it.”

Negatives:

·      prone to sentimentality,

·      the overpoweringly good intentions of its hero can seem a little pious

·      unrealistic

Overall:

·      Richard felt that it was a good read and enjoyed lots about it.

·      Mark T liked it, feeling that the it was rather Murakami-like and allowed one to suspend realism.

·      Chris B “loved it”, enjoyed the fact that it started in Kingsbridge (a place he knows well (and one slight irritation is that there is NO petrol station where the book describes one!), liked the fact that Harold was an ordinary man – and throughout the book, felt that this was a consistent picture being painted, felt the relationship between the spouses was a very true reflection, liked how both characters developed, liked the anti-climax at the end; and loved the idea of just putting one foot in front of the other. “I thoroughly enjoyed the book.”

·      Ras was frustrated by Harold and his refusal to (for example) wear boots when walking. He found he had not a lot of sympathy for Harold, although it was good to see that he did complete the walk and get there. On the other hand, he felt that Maureen came over quite well; the hangers-on were different and realistic and well done – overall, a reasonably enjoyable read but frustrated by Harold.

·      Chris W felt that it was shallow and missed the opportunity to create more believable characters. In some ways, similar to the 100-year-old-man, irritating, very light-hearted but without the humour of that book. The hangers-on wanting to link in with his celebrity was more believable.

·      Steve said (by e-mail) that: “I'll send a review shortly but in brief, I thought this was a very consumable but rather lightweight book. Designed to appeal to the concerns of middle England (dead marriages, talking to strangers, being blind to the reality of family relationships, the meaning of life…) it was filled with recognisable characters, in settings anyone up and down the country could identify with. However, for me it also had a constant air of implausibility. How likely would My Fry really be to keep walking without thinking the better of it - especially given the kind of man the author had so carefully described? Mrs Fry was a pantomime villainess for the first part and her reformation as the book went on  also stretched credibility. In the end, I couldn't give a toss whether he got there or not. Disappointed, because I'd wanted to read it for a while.”

·      Neil said (by email) that “I have to admit to being a little confused by my feelings towards this book. On the one hand the simplistic storytelling riddled with such unlikely scenarios felt even more ridiculous than those described in that rather similar book, 100 year old man who.. The idea that Harold would just set off on this walk and keep going, that he would walk for weeks in the same pair of completely inappropriate shoes and the same clothes, managing to live off the land at times, etc. etc. was hard to swallow as was the highly contrived bunch of misfits that joined him and then equally suddenly disappeared with no interest in his journey's end.  But while all this was driving me nuts, the underlying emotional story of his relationship with his wife and the tragic backstory of their son did hold my attention and I found myself emotionally quite involved by the end.  However, I am inclined to put that down to my state of mind at the time rather than the book and looking back, while this was an easy read, I am left with a feeling of it having been rather unsatisfying.  The redeeming feature of 100 year old man for me was the dry humour that ran throughout, while this book seemed to wallow in mawkish reflection on scenarios that seem to have been lifted entirely from 1970's TV plays. When I finished the book I might have been inclined to give it a 6.5, but with the benefit of hindsight this has slipped to a 5.”

The hundred-year man who jumped out of the window and disappeared - by Jonas Jonassen

The hundred-year man who jumped out of the window and disappeared - by Jonas Jonassen

Discussed April 2013


As usual there was quite a variety of opinion on this book bringing out both lighthearted amusement and enjoyment with some and irritation and  tedium with others.

So, what were the good bits?

* Interesting how the book interwove a variety of scenes in 20th century history
* Simplistic light-hearted Swedish humour
* Innocence and quirkiness of the story
* Marginal implausibility of the storyline throughout(just a bit)
* The concept of an OAP breaking loose from the shackles of his Home and finding freedom.
* The use of vodka throughout to lubricate the storyline.
* A reminder of the good old days growing up making pipe bombs !?
* The escapism of climbing through a window to live a hedonistic lifestyle
* The subtle interlinking of Presidents and world leaders into the story
* Lightly written and better than Dickens -Mildly amusing and occasionally enjoyable.

and the less good bits.....

* The Swedish humour does not translate well - too much slapstick and lack of sophistication
* Silly, farcical and repetitive
* Were all the historical flashbacks really correct? Misleading information about nuclear weapons.
* Tiresome and the rot really set in when the elephant turned up!
* Could have been a shorter novella.
* Leading character was too a-political.
* Story lacked any female involvement
* Rather like the Tom Sharpe Wilt farces - basic unsophisticated humour level.

- So really a book you've got to read to find out whether it amuses or irritates you.

Interestingly after the initial debate there was then discussion about whether in fact there were  more profound and hidden meanings in the book than had been discovered. Was it just  a lighthearted and ' frothy' read or was there was much more depth in the story that might have been missed by the erudite panel? Well nobody was quite sure but it was clear that with a lot of vodka the story moved along with a fair pace which kept everybody mildly amused some of the time.
.... Perhaps the final message ( as retirement beckons - for some anyway ) was that there may be hope for all of us .......so long as we can still get our leg over the window cill. ( no jokes)

Chris W.

Richard V: I have finally read this, having now managed to catch up on the books I could not get in India.  I really enjoyed this book, for lots of reasons.  I enjoyed the easy style and found the humour generally acceptable (unusually for me) and I very much enjoyed the overall quirkiness of it.  I really liked the speedy examination of most  of the important historical events over the 20th century, and the book reminded me a lot of the Woody Allen film, Zelig, where WA appears as part of all of these historic situations - and that was what our protagonist did here, too.

So, a clever book, rather erudite in its understanding of history (although, having read Chris's notes above, I agree that he may not have represented the creation of the Atomic Bomb with complete accuracy!), and with a very light touch.  I might recommend it to someone who dislikes history but would quite like to know what did happen in the world over the last 100 years! 

I see the notes above have no scores, but my score is: 7.5