Not wearing flowers in your hair

They've stopped the flower-wearing in San Francisco, or at least I didn't see any. Which is probably just as well.   Instead we did see what I would call the first real city of the holiday, and most welcome it was too. I still feel that like LA, it must be more fun to live in than to visit, but we had a great day pounding the pavements of San Francisco. And, while we missed out on a few things, I would liked to have got further round the Asian Art Museum than the cafe, though that was excellent, I think we did well. We were helped by having kind hosts to stay with - many thanks to A & K - and therefore did well on food and drinks also. As a city, it's clearly hard to go wrong with such spectacular natural geography as the bay area, and taking the trip to Alcatraz really highlights the glorious setting (and it's a great tour). It also means they appear to have built part of it before the roads came, and that makes a real difference.

However, the highlight for us came yesterday. I'm currently on our last US morning. Up first and sitting within sight of a winery and touching distance of vines, having spent yesterday cycling - increasingly shakily - round the local tasting rooms. We're by Healdsburg, staying in one of the wineries' own cottages, and it's been pretty close to perfect. The weather has been sunny, but not too hot (it's actually hotter in London today), the wine great, and with generous tasting options and we had a very jolly day indeed.

I'm not too surprised (though it was better than even I expected); I like the way Americans do their wine. Everywhere we have been here since LA, serving staff have been knowledgeable and crucially enthusiastic about the wine they carry. And in the vineyards, both here and New York State where I went some years ago, it's been relaxed, informal and very enjoyable to meander through the country sampling their wines. Of course, it also turns out very expensive - not of necessity, in fact most tastings are free - but we've just ended up buying quite a lot of very good wine, and we'll probably get some more today (A should have a present from this trip after all).

So, an unqualified success, and a great end to this Californian run. I'm left with the unexpected feeling that I'd really quite like to do much of this again. Next time I'll do the Vancouver - SF run south, though that's 1,500 miles, nearly 2,000 if I went to the Grand Coulee Dam (which I'd have to). That may take another fortnight, and I'd have to get A to learn to drive. I'd hate to come to these vineyards again without her. Though whether she would have approved of the right wingery on show out here is another matter. I wore my new Reagan centre T-shirt, which drew at least one approving comment and the winery we're staying by has a picture of the Governator on their bar. It's a long way from flower power, but certainly a more productive outcome.

On the road again

We’ve hit San Francisco now, having spent much of the last three days on the road. Since leaving LA, M & I have gone up Highway 1 up to Monterey, crossed the state to Yosemite and rolled into SF. We dropped the car off today with 1280 miles on the clock for six days, and I didn’t even crash once.

The places we managed to get to on the road have been the highlight of the trip so far: Highway 1 itself, especially around Big Sur, was beautiful; Hearst castle barking, yet brilliant; and getting to Yosemite, though a brutal drive on the way, was worth every minute (hour). We've also eaten well on the way. The food and wine in Cambria and Groveland (outside Yosemite) was exceptional, especially Cambria. 

For me, it's the first time I've really done a driving holiday; rare are the occasions that we venture out of the confines of cities and public transport normally (this is why I haven't read much this time, in contrast to my normal demolition of a book every few days, this time, I'm only on book two). But it makes sense in America, and it has helped me makes sense of the country as well. Firstly, it's so big. I feel like we drove for ages, but we never really got very far from a small number of centres. Secondly, transport is a major deal. We went to the Wells Fargo museum in LA, where the centrality of the railroad in the development of their fortune and American prosperity is rammed home to you. These have both contributed to a decentralised and local approach that is is marked contrast to the European. There are lots of reasons for this, but I think I needed to go see the other bits of America to get a sense of this, and it helped by listening to all their election broadcasts on the radio.

They were odd, but I loved the country and want to spend more time around it; for the first time, I can look back and say I wish we'd spent more time driving, more time in the country, and cut the cities a bit.

LA

We've not had the best runs into LA. Firstly, I was ill; secondly, on arrival, M became ill; thirdly we appeared to be staying in what I hope isn't representative of motels in the country, but I suspect is.

We fixed most of these things pretty quickly. After a good sleep (and some excellent Japanese art), I was fine. M recovered though towards the end of the stay, both helped by a switch after one night (and a dreadful morning with no hot water) to a new hotel. We did some good things too. The LACMA was excellent, and the source of the Japanese art in question above; downtown interesting; Dodger Stadium and the baseball exciting and the Getty a fantastic site as well as a decent repository of art. The last hampered by the fact that the its exhibitions put the whole thing into unfortunate perspective. The best thing there at the moment is Donatello’s Bearded Prophet on loan.

I still don't really get it as a city though. It’s sprawl is notorious but really is debilitating to any conception of the city as a whole, and having been to a number of its various neighbourhoods, I cannot think of any of them that I would wish to live in, in fact few I would want to visit again. It’s as if the city has just sprung out of the boulevards, rather the other way round, and it still takes ages to get anywhere.

In fact the most exciting thing of our time in LA was on the exit when we called in on the Reagan Presidential Centre, which is amazing. Unfortunately, we didn’t have time to stay and do the tour but we did look at the grounds and the giftshop. I’ve got a great T shirt now.

Beyond the back of beyond

No-one goes to Nipton. That's not quite true, but even the car hire people hadn't heard of it. You should though (go, that is).

We went there straight out of Vegas (based on the visitors' book, so had several others) and wanted to find a tranquil place to sleep and attack the Mojave the next morning (you should go there too). It was bliss, as far from Vegas as can be imagined, though physically near enough for our hotelier to go there frequently for shopping. It felt like a relic from the American past with a working railway line through it, freight only and no stopping, a small store that did everything and a community so straightforward that our hotel just left the hotel open and a envelope with the key in a postbox outside. Then we found them in the bar next door (they run that too). The countryside is also beautiful, as you'd expect near the desert parks.

There's very little to do, but it does it well. Skip Vegas and go. From the look of the visitors' book, Matt tells me that's most people wished they'd done.

Viva Las Vegas?

So, Vegas. I thought I would hate it; and I wasn't keen, though not for the reasons I had imagined. 

Everybody who'd been (and those who hadn't) told me it was clearly not my thing: modern, brash, not enough classical ruins and so forth. But actually those things were fine. Clearly there aren't enough classical ruins, but its tackiness is somehow glorious. I spent a day going up the Strip looking at the horrifying badness of the various hotels. While many were absurd, Caesar's palace remains my favourite on account of both the pool and the - wait for it - animatronic statues in the mall. Similarly, gambling isn't unfun, especially if you win, which we seemed to. I pocketed $230 in the two days. And none of it was a surprise: you know what you are getting with Vegas - they'll be gambling, and drinking, and overblown nonsense, I'm happy to roll with it.
But, although there is a lot of the flash and the plastic and the rest, it's still all a little bit desperate and worse a bit, well, dirty. I don't mean literally, though that's also true, especially in Paris, despite it's half scale Eiffel Tower, where I was poisoned by a poor lunch, incapacitating me for days. Take the sleaze for example. I know that there will be dancing girls in shows; I know there will be prostitution and strip clubs somewhere, but I don't want my taxi driver home to suggest he take me to one, and get me free drinks. It's ugly. Likewise, gambling, I know people will come and some will win and more will lose, but nothing had prepared me for the cud chewing ranks of the middle aged cranking out slots. Where's the fun in that. They certainly didn't seem to having any. Not that the young were any better. Nowhere else have a seen a hotel which had an off-licence on the premises and watch various groups of people retreat to their rooms with a six pack of beer. If you don't want to drink here, why have you come?

I had fun (until the food poisoning kicked in), but as a backdrop, it left a lot to be desired.

A week is a long time in politics (V): reflections on the revolution

In the end, it wasn't the revolution we expected. No Liberal breakthrough; tragically for them, though amusingly for me, the Liberals managed the same number of votes and fewer seats than last time. That was funny. FPTP was revealed in all its glory: hounding out Lembit; expelling Peter Robinson, making an unlikely hero of Margaret Hodge, and - yes - sadly keeping Ed Balls. The swing was all over the place, making the polling look sensible, but luckily so. And we've produced the most exquisite torture for the Liberals we could have devised. A great election; but a terrible result.

I'm hopeful that we (the country) can get something out of this. Secret negotiations with Labour notwithstanding, I think we will have a Lib-Tory coalition by the end of the week; possibly the end of the day. I think that's probably the right answer. Being on the Tory left, I'm pretty happy with that as an outcome, especially if we can swap Osborne for Cable (not that I am particularly pro-Cable, but Osborne is overpromoted and it will mean the sainted one can take some blood and mud). Anything else would be a disaster. I'll reflect on what we get when it happens, but in the meantime, here some more general thoughts on the result. People should remember these next time:

1. If you wanted to keep the Tories out of power, you should have voted Labour. The web and the vox pops are alive with people horrified that they 'voted for change' but that the Liberals seem likely to bring the Tories back. These people should clearly never vote again: the Tories were on course to be the largest party, Clegg had said priority would go to the largest party, then he - er - started talks with the largest party. That's what coalition building is about. If you wanted to push the Labour led coalition, vote Labour.
2. Ironically, but predictably, Liberals aren't very good at decisions. If we get PR, we're in trouble, as the already difficult task of coalition building is going to become nightmarish. For decades the Liberals have been telling us how much better life would be if there was PR and they could hold the balance of power in every election (they tend not to mention the last bit). Now they've got it, and they're complaining about how difficult it is. If, and Menzies Campbell I mean you, it's unacceptable for the Tories to get in then either say so up front, or join the Labour party. This is grown up politics. Decide.
3. There is still a growing unsavoury element. We're rightly pleased that the BNP was sent packing in Barking, but the party as whole is now more popular than the SNP and more than doubled its share of the vote - 12 MPs under PR. Between them, UKIP and the BNP (and they are not the same, but I'm not very fond of them either) would have 5% of the vote, and 32 MPs under PR. This is worrying. And as a aside, I'm fed up with the smug, 'oh but that's democracy' argument in favour of this. It usually comes from people who don't want democracy (and rightly) for the bringing back of hanging, public funding for arts (don't imagine that's well supported), pull back from the EU etc. But suddenly are happy to defend the votes for the racists because voting reform is 'so important.' Rubbish.
4. The voters should remember we're electing a parliament, not a president. I am fed up with Tories bleating on about having not elected the PM; and Blunkett did it this morning. If some tedious modernising 'progressive' wants to make that a prerequisite of the government, then they should. But we elect a parliament, on a constituency basis, and they select their leader who commands confidence. Deal with it; it's a good and proper system.
5. Finally, someone needs to remind Scotland they are a small, poor, country that doesn't have a moral remit for the rest of us. Salmond was on the Radio this morning banging on about how they didn't approve of a coalition of the third and fourth parties (i.e. their ranking in Scotland, they're his words) being in government. Taking his logic, as the SNP are sixth in the UK, they shouldn't form any government, even in Scotland. Absurd. Speaking very slowly, someone should remind them that 90% of people don't live in Scotland, this is a UK parliament, and their aversion for the Tories just isn't very relevant for that because England is different and there are more of us.

So that's my immediate thoughts. A brief coda on where next:

• As I say above, I think we're close. We have to bring the Liberals in, otherwise disaster lies. They must share the pain, and therefore the power. A referendum on voting reform - which I think we'd win - is a price worth paying, but it must be a referendum on a system. The rest is fine.
• Elsewhere, it's time for a radical Tory Scottish policy. I'll sketch this out in more detail later, but we need to offer the Scots a referendum on independence. And we need to do it soon. Done right, it's a win-win: win and there's a Tory majority and either a lower cost (or at least breakeven). But lose, and this is the best bit, we spike the SNP guns and offer a chance for the Tories to be taken seriously north of the border. It's the way forward.
• Anyway, we'll be back to the polls soon, likely in 6 months, almost certainly in 2 years.

It's been fab.

A week is a long time in politics (IV): Go back to your constituencies and prepare for government

It begins.

After long tussles, I yielded to loyalty and voted Tory down the line. I almost voted for my local Labour MP, as Kate Hoey is excellent on a number of issues and really pisses off the animal rights lobby. But, with the shadow of PR hanging over me, I didn't want to face tomorrow having not voted the right way. There's going to be a lot of this today and we're in for a very exciting night.

So, only two observations from me on this today:

1) News on election day is really boring. Honestly, Today had nothing to say. The only interesting thing to have happened is the Farage's plane crashing. I know this is slightly unpleasant, but it is funny, especially as it was a misguided publicity stunt to fly a banner outside. Idiot (though glad he's not dead).

2) Everyone else gets a bit overexcited. Facebook, admittedly, not an indicator of people's sober views, is full of a lot of hyperbole from both sides, banging on about liberty or wrecking the recovery, often ill-informed anti-Tory / Anyone but Gordon rhetoric. This is overstated. There are ideological dividing lines; and that's good. But no-one is threatening to dismantle the post-Thatcher free-market consensus; not is anyone seriously expecting to drop the raised bar on public services that Blair spent the recovery money on. Everyone will have to raise taxes and cut spending. There will be differences of detail, and we should debate them, but everyone who tells you either side will lead to Armageddon is a) wrong, and b) probably best avoided.

Finally, a prediction: It's going to be close, and I don't think we're going to get there, but we'll be close, closer than uniform polls say. So:

• Con: 315
• Lab: 220
• Lib: 85
• Other: 30

Tory minority government; new election within two years.

A week is a long time in politics (III): The yellow peril

I appear to have missed a day, imagine this as overnight campaign much in the style of Cameron, only without having to actually go anywhere. I blame having rather too many drinks with an old school friend last night.

So, I am delighted that we are using the metaphor for xenophobia to East Asians to describe the rise of the Liberals (I know we're supposed to call them Liberal Democrats, but I'm with Gordon on this - it just sounds wrong). I'm not quite sure why this is acceptable when so much else isn't. One presumes it is because people don't know their history, and this is butressed by the continual belief that they are some kind of new party, when they're older than a decent number of countries.

Anyway, regardless of their antecedents, they need to be stopped. This 'anti-establishment' surge has gone far enough. Looking back, one of the nicer things about older elections, apart from the tendency of the Tories to win, is the decent numbers of votes who actually voted for sensible parties, even when they were wrong. The BBC - who else - has a decent list of post-war elections here. Scroll back to 1951 for my favourite, where 96.5 % voted Conservative or Labour. Last time that percentage was roughly 67.5%. You can interpret this trend anyway you like, and people point to an anti-politics feeling, a fragmentation of society or similar. But it's also essentially a tedious narcissism that pushes people away from the proper debate. To my mind, where there are political battles to be fought at a national level, you essentially only have two options. Either join in and support one side or give up, say smugly that you didn't vote for them, you believe in Fabian socialism or Transcendental meditation or the like. With the possible exception of the Nats, (but they have local and now national elections for these issues), it's pathetic. In the UK election, you have to pick a side, because your vote will do it for you anyway. A vote for UKIP doesn't help you get out of the EU, it helps the Tories lose. A vote for Plaid usually doesn't advance an independent socialist Wales, but undermines Labour (thanks for that). These small parties, and their voters, are incoherent and muddled and, well, pointless.

And at the broadest level, the Liberals are the examplars of this approach. The current lot are better than previous incarnations, better calibre than any since the mid 80s; better and more consistent policy. But, deep down, I'm not entirely sure what anyone thinks they achieve by joining and voting that they couldn't do better in the main vehicles. If you are dissatisfied with the Tory or Labour direction, better to stay in the major parties and fight. I've got time for some of Clegg's liberalism and compassion, but that's what the One Nation Tories argued for. Where are they now: in the Liberals. Vince Cable may want to regulate and impose strict controls on the banks, that's right wing Labour, and in the Liberals. Unpack the Liberal coalition and there are a range defectors and the dissatisfied. They encompass a wide variety of contradictory policy and principle. Some of them are talented and principled, they're also wasted and have no stomach for the fight - remember the SDP were those who left the Labour party rather than fight Militant. Where they do turn the screw, we know they are opportunists: witness Nick Clegg failing to point to a single issue of principle that would determine who he would form a coalition with; remember the campaigns in Cheltenham in 1992 and Southwark in 1983. There's no shame in taking what you can get, and no shame in not wanting to fight for the highest prize. But it's not a reason to vote for them.

Luckily, the squeeze is kicking in as polling day approaches. Today's polls have the Liberals down with votes distributed to others. People are unprepared to vote Yellow (or Orange - see, they cannot even decide on a colour) when it matters. Now, I'd like to think this is because they see the importance of making a real decision, but I suspect it's because of the electoral system. That may not be fair, but I'll take it. If only we could get rid of most of the others as well.

A week is a long time in politics (II): The Government of England is destroyed

For those who believe political hyperbole is new, that quotation is Wellington, after the Reform act of 1832, which grew the franchise from 11% to about 14% of the country. Which, in my more reactionary moments, I also tend to view as the mortal wound to the constitution, after the grievous harm of the unlawful removal of the King in 1689 (after all, that's what real Tories think). We'll pass over where Lords reform sits in this schema as more important matters are at hand.

However, the historical perspective is important here. We have (and should continue to) evolve our constitutional arrangements. But we're becoming bad at constitutional reform in the UK (and the 'UK' part is an example of one of the things we get wrong a lot). While we have traditionally avoided the excesses of the French (best joke here) by making small changes infrequently, we now seem to fudge and fiddle on a frequent basis, leaving it in a compex mess. There is now a real prospect of the venerable and successful system we have for parliament being replaced by fantastical variants of PR. My father-in-law and I have been having a long debate on this over the last few weeks, which has tempered my objections in many cases, but fundamentally I reject this and I reject the premise on which the debate is bring conducted. Here's why (in short):

Firstly, we should be clear about what we're trying to achieve by an election. Ultimately we're seeking to ensure an effective government in the interests of the people. I would argue that's enough, but others will insist we're also trying to have one that reflects the wishes of the people. These are not the same thing, but let's allow both to stand. Banging on about 'democracy' is a sham. No democracy works perfectly, we are engaged in assessing which imperfect system is best for the country.

Secondly, the discussion needs focussing. Everyone wants some kind of reform, even if it just to regularise the population-bias against the Tory held seats or to solve some of the mess that the botched devolution settlement has created. But, as the only game in town is the Liberal party (I am ignoring Gordon's insultingly obvious last minute conversion to AV, which the liberals don't want), we should discuss that. It's not that easy to find the specifics on the LD website, their manifesto says they will introduce 'fair votes', which later you find means multi-member constituency STV. I'm familiar with this. It's not a bad system, though highly complex, and assuming you have large enough consitituencies, you get a roughly proportional legislature. It's still a bad outcome.

1) It's complex and disenfranchising at a local level

• Methodologically, it is really complicated. When you're reallocating third preferences against fourth preferences at values of 0.04 of the vote (and these matter; I got elected on them once), this is not going to make sense to people. And I think any argument for more democracy that involves a system people don't understand is morally flawed.
• It undermines local accountability. For example, I went to my local husting last week; interesting, but long: there were 7 candidates. In a 5 member constituency, there would be up to five times that. Each major party would put up five, though the small parties wouldn't. I'm not going to care about these people; I'm going to find it hard to have a personal stake in them unless they really fuck it up. I'll just vote on party lines in an essentially random preference list. So it's a fig leaf; the results will be the same as lists, except there is no real way to determine who is the senior party member.

2) It creates all the problems of PR at national level:

• Under PR, the appearance of democracy is pretty illusory. The government in a PR scenario commands no 'majority of votes cast' as it's supporters argue, but rather an invisible political fudge with no loyalty to bind the government together. Those in favour argue that a coalition will represent the blend of policies that appeal to most people, but there is no real evidence that this will be the case. Currently, despite most people voting for parties opposed to PR, the price of Liberal support will be PR - doesn't sound 'democratic' to me.
• Similarly, given the limited shifts in the vote, this more 'democratic' solution pushes us towards stagnation. PR leads to a more remote and possibly unchanging governing class. In Austria, voting simply didn't matter for fifty years as the same parties were always in power, just with slightly different allocations of portfolios. Eventually they got so fed up with this that they elected a Nazi. In the UK, every post-war election would mean that the Liberals held the balance of power between the Tories and Labour. No wonder they support it; it's no reason we all should.

3) It encourages further fragmentation and looniness

• On the other hand, the altrnative is worse. When PR doesn't lead to stable grand coalitions, it collapses into a miasma of competing and shifting alliances. This is a bad outcome. It's important that individuals and parties can be challenged on their record. It is right that we know that Labour's senior politicians in the 1990s were maddo unilateralists; it is an appropriate challenge to the the Tories that they do defend their attitude to homosexuality in the past. I've lost track of the French right wing parties since the Gaullists, and Italian parties change with each election.
• And when parties fragment, they go mad, and PR gives the mad ones power. Israel has spent a while in hock to Shas, who are mad and corrupt, because they held the balance of power. In the UK, in 2005, you'd have had 13 UKIP MPs, and 4 BNP. Actually you might have more, as the penalties in the system do stop people voting for them. I'm discomforted by the thought of the Liberals as kingmakers, I'm horrified by most of the others (and that includes Plaid, who are so moronic they think it is a legitimate policy to have a maximum wage, but not for Welsh entrepeneurs).

4) Finally, first past the post works

• It is right that the most popular person in your area represents you; it is right that collections of those people govern. If the 'progressive alliance' feels very strongly about it, they can not run in clashing marginals. This is real politics, not petty squabbling (the same goes for UKIP). If they cannot agree whether to run a candidate in Basildon, they aren't going to be able to agree an education policy.
• We need decisive, stable government. FPTP gives us that; most PR systems don't do this well. Italy is usually a basket case, Belgium takes four or five months to form a government each time, the Netherlands government has just fallen 18 months ahead of time. Some work, but because they aren't really PR: France has a directly elected President, Spain has tiny constituencies. Germany alone is good, and they operate a stable, two alliance system that looks very much two-party government to me.
• Finally, don't believe the hype. This election is an anomaly, not the harbinger of a new model for politics. It's a very exciting anomaly arising from the Liberals effectively triangulating to hold right-wingers in the south and pick up lefties in the North. It cannot stand and it won't in the long term - there simply isn't enough consistency within the party.

Ultimately, all constitutional reform will struggle to deliver what everyone wants. They start with people talking about legitimacy, and end with piecemeal political calculation. Change should be long considered, and rarely implemented. Constant tinkering distracts from the main business of politics. And that makes for bad government.

A week is a long time in politics (I): full of sound and fury

I am in fact so excited about the upcoming election that even A is bored, so I've decided to hit the blog instead. As I reckon this could take more than Thursday to get the result sorted out I've decided Harold Wilson's adage best captures the period to a new government (please God*). If it takes longer than Saturday, I will have gotten bored and anyway will be in California so won't care.

However, the adage is wrong. A week really isn't a long time in politics anymore. Either things happen instantly, or nothing happens at all. Here are some polls (both YouGov):

Today: Tories - 35; Liberal - 28; Labour 27
17 April: Tories - 33; Liberal - 30; Labour - 28

Two weeks, bigotgate, two more debates - all that, and basically Cameron and Clegg have mopped up a few 'don't knows.' Now, those may prove critical (based on the BBC's rough seat calculator, this converts the outcome from Labour lead to a Tory lead in seats), but it's not very much. In 1992, where on he 16th March Labour led the Tories 43-38, when by 8 April (the eve of the election) they were tied on 38. Now that's proper movement. But when the relative shares haven't really moved, it's hard to see this entire election campaign as anything other than the playout of the first debate.

Now, this is partly because, bigotgate aside, no-one has done anything stupid, and that both Cameron and Brown have absorbed the lessons of the first debate. But it also points to the fact that campaigns only change when new information is given. Depressingly, about 10% the electorate appear not to have heard of the Liberal Democrats before the debate on the 15th, and Plaid and the SNP are quite right to point out the debates will hurt them (though it shouldn't get them on the podium) and people will simply forget them. More significantly, the intense scrutiny of politicians through expenses and economic crisis has meant and people have already pretty fixed views of their votes. While politicians actions can shift polls, it's their actions before the campaign that do so, not their actions on it, hence the collapse of the Tory lead from the beginning of the year. On this note, it's been striking to me how bad the themes of the main manifestos have been. Labour's soviet-like banner has given the electorate nothing to hold onto and the Tories' manifesto is just terrible electioneering. As a result they've done anything to the vote and they're unlikely to. Similarly, bigotgate was wonderful car-crash television, but it didn't change many people's mind. If you cared about Gordon's temper and paranoia, you already weren't voting Labour.

May 6th is going to be fascinating, not lease because of the bewildering complexity of our splendid electoral system (I'll be covering that later in the week), but we could almost have had it three weeks earlier and nothing much would have changed. The only thing we have really learnt is that for all the nonsense about new media, it's been peripheral - what's changed the game is a debate, on traditional, live, Television and Radio, based on a format that was created in 1960. Otherwise, it has been a campaign full of sound and fury, but for last twenty days it has largely signified nothing.

*about both the new government and the timing of getting one in

Bibliography, April 2010

Read (12)

BOTM: Homer, tr. Lattimore, The Illiad

P.F. Bradshaw, Ordination rites in of the ancient churches of east and west
Caesarius of Arles, tr. W. E. Klingshirn, Life, Testament, Letters

R. Cholij. Clerical celibacy in east and west
A. Christie, Crooked House

G. Flaubert, Salammbo

K. Fraser (ed.), The Worst Journeys in the world
Hilary of Poitiers, tr. L. J. Wickham, Conflicts of Conscience and Law in the Fourth-Century Church

Homer, tr. Lattimore, The Odyssey

Plutarch, Parallel Lives (Loeb vol 1)

R.A. Salvatore, Homeland

T. Shah, In Arabian Night

Unread remainder: 118

A better month, though with the depressing realisation that I really should have done Classics, and definitely should have gone to Turkey at eighteen. Not much stellar though I did enjoy Keith Fraser's collection of travel literature. But reading the grown-up version of the Illiad was any disappointments elsewhere (the Odyssey I could have left). It's magnificent, and revelatory. I grew up reading children's versions of classical myths endlessly and I don't really remember how I dropped the ball on the transition to adult versions, because they've been stunning. One of these days I'm going to get through bugger in Greek, but I may wait till the doctorate is done, as it's a lot of wasted Greek to work through when Sozomen beckons.