Bibliography, January 2010

Acquired (5)

V. Nabokov, Pale Fire
Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History (4 vols)



Read (13)

BOTM - E. Burke, Reflections on the revolution in France


D. Botting, The island of Dragon's Blood
M. Bradbury (ed.), Penguin book of short stories
V. Brittain, Testament of Youth
A. Christie, They do it with mirrors
A. Christie, Mrs McGinty's dead
H. James, The Aspern Papers
H. James, The Turn of the Screw
S. Little, Isms
S. Mitchell, Rocky Horror: from concept to cult
Themistus, Politics, Philosophy and Empire in the Fourth Century
(tr. P. Heather & D. Moncur)
G. Tyrell, Medievalism
K. Ward, Priests and People


Unread remainder - 181


To focus the mind, I'm now counting down. I had thought I'd got this below 100, but examination of the history shelves revealed a lot of books I'd claimed were 'academic collection' or 'Reference' but were clearly nothing of the sort. So, a purified list now reveals 181 books to get through by the end of the year, assuming I don't buy any more (unlikely). For the record that's about 10% of the eligible collection (c.11% are reference works). Anna's books are excluded from all considerations. Astute calculators will realise this implies a bit of throwing out if I'm to be done by December, but I think that's healthy.


Anyway. this month threw up some good stuff, but Burke was the best. I'm not entirely sure why I haven't read Burke before, given his place in Conservative thought. Part of me was expecting it to be a bit shit, but it was a wonderful, savage, attack on the ideals of the revolution and all they stood for. I loved it. I did carefully note the passages that I loved most, but my bookmarks have been dislodged in the journey back from France (I read it 'on location' as it were) so cannot reproduce them. However, a quick search online has located my favourite one:

Thanks to our sullen resistance to innovation, thanks to the cold sluggishness of our national character, we still bear the stamp of our forefathers. We have not (as I conceive) lost the generosity and dignity of thinking of the fourteenth century; nor as yet have we subtilized ourselves into savages. We are not the converts of Rousseau; we are not the disciples of Voltaire; Helvetius has made no progress amongst us. Atheists are not our preachers; madmen are not our lawgivers. We know that we have made no discoveries, and we think that no discoveries are to be made, in morality; nor many in the great principles of government, nor in the ideas of liberty, which were understood long before we were born, altogether as well as they will be after the grave has heaped its mould upon our presumption, and the silent tomb shall have imposed its law on our pert loquacity. In England we have not yet been completely embowelled of our natural entrails; we still feel within us, and we cherish and cultivate, those inbred sentiments which are the faithful guardians, the active monitors of our duty, the true supporters of all liberal and manly morals.

Ace.

Bring back Maggie

TUC on the radio this morning seem to be doing their best to remind everyone why we must never let the Unions near power again. Ever.

Here it is. In summary, a perfectly sensible woman from KCL has written a report on whether national pay bargaining is a good idea. I've no idea if it is or not; may be rubbish, but the whole thing was met by a ranting delusioinal ad hominem attack from the TUC's rep Sarah Veale, which was inappropriate, and in most cases, drivel. I can't be bothered to argue with all her points but here are a couple of the worst ones :

• Trade Unions create jobs; and keep wages high. I suggest they cannot do both, certainly not in a contracting public sector which needs to cut close to £200bn from the annual payroll. I think all you need to work that out is multiplication; maybe she can't do that.
• There's more, but I'm busy
• Most importantly, we already have this, through London weighting, Sarah Veale appears not to know about this, as she thinks nurses get paid the same in Newcastle and London (see 2.56. The scale for London weighting is here. As Ms Veale advises the TUC on employment, she probably ought to have read it)

Idiot woman. Anathema indeed

Also, there is an amusing slip of the tongue at the start when John Humphries tells us the South is cheaper than the North at the start

Out for 199

To everyone's great relief, we miraculously aren't 2-1 down in the cricket in South Africa, though we probably should be, to be twice saved by the heroics of our No 11 is astonishingly fortunate(interestingly, Mr Onions has yet to be dismissed in South Africa). In our recent escape, much of the credit has been heaped on Ian Bell, for 'saving the test' and ensuring we're still in the series. Allied to his commanding century a week before, he begins to look instrumental in the series.

By most accounts, his faults are now forgiven and he is now considered to have cemented his place in the team. Yet, though a positive development, I see no reason to revise my longstanding view of his enduring frailties. Former fellow travellers are hailing his new dawn and the turning point of his career, but the evidence is mixed.



Let's look at his performance by innings:

1. 48. A classic Bell score - just threatening to do something, and falling short (See also his famous 199, also against South Africa)


2. 78. The score here is irrelevant (213 balls faced is more important), but clearly the best performance by any England batsman in this innings -

And it is the significance of this last point that is crucial. I am glad that he seems to improving; I am glad that he did well in this situation, but I don't think it's decisive evidence that he has sorted out the mental issues.

• Firstly, These are not world beating scores. He scored more in one innings (and faced more balls than his defining second innings here) in the previous test - let's not too excited. And, as far as feats of defiance go, it clearly doesn't rank close to Atherton's glorious 185*, also in South Africa. In fact, Jack Russell in that match faced more balls, and he's not a great batsman.
• Nor was the attack impregnable. SA were one bowler down on a slow pitch and with an ineffective spinner.
• As a whole, the series gives me no reason to point to a renaissance. Shit in the first test, one great innings in the second test, when Cook had done the work, and some goodish, but not stunning, scores in the third. If he'd really sorted it out, his first innings not his second would been decisive.
• Overall, averages do matter, and he's currently got a worse test average than Prior, which is astonishing. Nor should we be deceived by the occasional string of anomalous scores: for example, Mark Ramprakash has an average of 42 against Australia (Bell's, for the record, is just shy of 26), yet we know he suffers from similar problems.

I think the decisive piece of evidence is his conduct at the end. Damningly, having got England within touching distance of the draw, he bottled it. Suddenly we were 8 down; and he panicked. A genuinely tough performer would have got them through.

Now, this shouldn't be read as suggesting Ian Bell isn't a good cricketer. Clearly, he's very good; equally clearly, he's always has been technically excellent. He has done well this time and he may go on to great things. But he hasn't done enough to dispel my doubts. I hope I am wrong, I fear I am not.

Bibliography, 2009

Here are my books of the year by month

January - R.Musil, the Man without Qualities
February - J. Heller, Catch 22
March - B. Bryson, Life and times of the Thunderbolt Kid
April - J. Lees-Milne, Another Self
May - A. Trollope, Phineas Redux
June - P.M. Kendall, The Universal Spider
July - J. Barnes, Cross Channel
August - A. Burroughs, Dry
September - G. Tremlett, Ghosts of Spain
October - B. Bryson, A Walk in the woods
November - G. Greene, A sort of life
December - G. Greene, The ministry of Fear

I'd stand by these, though Barnes feels lightweight set against the others. In fact, the list as a whole is a little lightweight. This is driven in part by lack of time and volume (in 2009, I read a mere 111 books, compared to 2008's record 148), but also by the moratorium on new books, which has meant that quality has tailed off a little

Anyway, last year I split this into a fiction and non - fiction category, and I'll do the same here, but I'm struck by the imbalance of genre - six are what I term Cultural (mostly memoir plus a couple of travel), while five are fiction and only a single historical work.

Of the fiction, it's a straight fight between Musil and Heller's masterworks. Both astonishing, both overlong and both entirely unwritable by anyone else. Catch 22 has an enduring resonance in popular culture, which makes it compelling, but - despite its length, the Man without Qualities is simply astonishing and resurfaces in my mind on a frequent basis. I have a feeling it will repay rereading again and again.

In non-fiction terms, the prize is harder, though I think that's a reflection of the lack of stellar performer, rather than jostling for position. With regret, I leave at the last, Kendall's masterly account of Louis XI, excellent though it it, I'd be voting for the subject not the book. Instead, I'd look to reread Tremlett's Ghosts of Spain, which made real for me the complexity and tensions inherent in modern Spain in a way only a few pieces of work have done for any country.

Bibliography, December 2009

Acquired (2)
B.Frindell, the collected 'Ask Bearders'

Read (12)
BOTM: G. Greene, The ministry of Fear

C. Bielenberg, The Past is myself
E. Durkheim, The Elementary forms of religious life
B.Frindell, the collected 'Ask Bearders'
B. Howkins, Rich, Rare and Red
D. Morgan, Lambeth Speaks
L. Sage, Bad Blood
M.A. Smith, The Church under Siege
J. Updike, Rabbit, Run
J. Updike, Rabbit Redux
J. Updike, Rabbit Is Rich
A. Walker, The Colour Purple

Quite a few contenders this month - the Colour Purple was nowhere near as bad as I had feared; Updike good, if not as good as many have said it is; and Lorna Sage's memoir engaging, but simply not as heart rending as it promised. The war produced the best stuff though: Bielenberg almost did it, but Greene's was inevitably better: a real romp through the world of suspicion and terror that attended the war here and totalitarian regimes elsewhere. Greene the BOTM twice in a row.

Note though the regime of not buying did filter through at Christmas. Only one non-reference book received. (I did also get Wisden and a cookbook on cakes)

I'll do Book of the year in a separate post.

Bibliography, November 2009

No acquisitions

Books read (8)
BOTM: G. Greene, A Sort of Life

B. Bryson, Neither here nor there
G. Greene, A Gun for Sale
G. Greene, The confidential agent
P.S. Fichtner, Maximillian II
C. James, The Remake
J. Steinbeck, Tortilla Flat
Waterfield, Xenophon's retreat

I liked the reading this month, but I don't think anything has been world shattering. Lots of Greene, and the best was his volume of autobiography, which - apart from a overpresent humility - was engaging, interesting and warm. Though, flicking through my previous entries,
I overpraise these kinds of books - I feel I was born a few decades too late. Nonetheless, it pushed into a string of novels by the same author, which are reliably excellent, albeit lacking compared to his various masterpieces.

Bibliography, October 2009

Books bought (0)

Books read (10)
BOTM: B. Bryson, A Walk in the woods

I. Asimov, The Caves of Steel
I. Asimov, The Naked Sun
I. Asimov, Robots of Dawn
B. Chatwin, What am I doing here?
T. Heald, Village Cricket
S. Leys, The wreck of the Batavia
L. MacNiece, The Strings are false
Malammed, Heretics or Daughters of Israel
Virgil, The Aeneid

Some real rubbish this month - Malammed's study tedious, Heald's cricket memoir facile and devoid of charm. And I spent a long day rereading whole string of SF that while nostalgic and imaginative, cannot claim literary merit.

However, MacNiece's unfinished autobiography was a flawed masterpiece. Reading it, one is constantly drawn back to that world which has gone. It's beautifully written, but suffers from its lack of editing and finishing, as well some mid century absurd intellectual pretension. The contrast with Bryson, who takes BOTM this time, is striking. Here, we have a writer who really has polished every seemingly throwaway sentence. And it's a better book for it.