Bibliography, July 2013

BOTM: G. Orwell, Coming up for air

M. Atwood, In other worlds: SF and the human imagination
A. Christie, A pocket full of Rye
J. Crace, Quarantine
R. Gunesekera, Reef
Y. Martel, Life of Pi*

W.S. Maugham, Of Human Bondage
G. Orwell, Homage to Catalonia

G. Orwell, Animal Farm*
A. Trollope, Lady Anna

I was briefly worried that I'd struggle to get through Lady Anna and thus put my 'two new Trollopes a year' plan under threat. But no - 17 Trollope novels read; estimated completion of corpus still due for 2028. Similarly, I was starting to be concerned I might not make it through Orwell this year. But no - three Orwell books read this month alone; one more novel and some essays to go. Unlike Trollope, Orwell also provided BOTM. On reputation it should be Animal Farm, but it doesn't really repay rereading (unlike Life of Pi which really did). Coming up for Air I suspect will. It's quite unlike any of his previous novels (which are essentially social commentary masquerading as fiction; whereas this is history masquerading as fiction), and it's a masterly evocation of the Edwardian, pre-war, age. It's particularly haunting given its prescience about the second war, and the end is brave, and very un-Trollopian in its approach to tying up loose ends. A great, and neglected, book.

Bibliography, June 2013

BOTM: R. Young, Electric Eden

J.G. Ballard, The Drowned World*
A. Christie, Third Girl
J. Harding, Alpha Dogs
C. Louvin, Satan is Real: The Ballad of the Louvin brothers
N. Mailer, The Naked and the Dead
S. Owen, The Rice Book
S. Rushdie, The Enchantress of Florence
N. Silver, The Signal and the Noise

Tricky month this for BOTM. Literary credibility would make me put down Mailer (though neither Anna nor my parents had ever heard of it); career enhancement (because I am sure my incoming Director reads this), would require me to name Alpha Dogs; and a general sense of being a la mode would say Silver. They were all good, especially Silver, but it didn't quite have enough politics in it for my liking. So BOTM is for Young's hefty tome on English Folk-rock.  It wasn't without flaws - too long (they always are), a slightly confused chronological approach in the middle sections and a lack of reference tables (I could have done with one just to keep track of the member of Fairport Convention) - but it was a great read, with a lovely turn of phrase (of which I've highlighted elsewhere my favourite). I'm off to buy the works of Mr Fox [actually this is surprisingly hard].

Bibliography, May 2013

BOTM: M. Gellhorn, The Weather in Africa

L. Beukes, Zoo City
A. Christie, Taken at the flood
J.P. Donleavy, The Ginger Man
F.S. Fitzgerald, The Basil and Josephine stories
G. Garcia Marquez, Chronicle of a death foretold
D. Lodge, Paradise News
G. Orwell, The road to Wigan Pier*
P. Theroux, Sailing through China
P.G. Wodehouse, A Pelican at Blandings

Some reputations suffered this month. The Ginger Man is a classic, but by God it's dated; I love Fitzgerald, but these stories were ropey. And though Orwell's reportage is excellent, his prescription lamentable, and though not the only criterion on which it should be judged, manages to be wrong on just about every prediction of what would happen to Britain.

That still left me a decent selection, of which Garcia Marquez was was outstanding and well worth the (very short) read, but Gellhorn's triptych the best. I generally find Africa boring, but this was a compelling sequence of stories, only notionally linked, which vividly brought it into focus. There's a nice little introduction where her writing style was discussed, and in particular her approach to fiction, which largely seems to have been writing, cutting and cutting some more. And I think that shone through - there's no spare fat on them; it makes them extraordinarily compelling reading.

Maggie, Maggie, Maggie! Dead, Dead, Dead! (II) Historiography

I meant to do this a fortnight ago, just after my reflection on the Thatcher legacy. But even more interesting  is the context in which that debate happened. To me, the unnoticed story of the coverage was that this was really a debate about the 1970s. Because what you think of Thatcher is really about what you think about the decade before her. If you think that we were on our knees in 1979, Go Maggie; if you think we would have sorted it out given time, Go Foot (or something like that). It’s no surprise that this debate would have been made better by context. Sadly, it was done stunningly badly.

In particular, no-one knows any figures. I've lost count of the times someone appeared and lamented that she destroyed manufacturing. Helpfully, the Guardian did some nice data which tells us that industry was 34% of output in 1990. Incidentally, we also still had 4.5m council houses (20% down on 1979, but hardly a wholesale sell-off). There are plenty of figures to show Thatcherite failure (both those may be seen to be failures depending on your position), but saying untrue things makes you look stupid.

On reflection, it's not true that no-one knows any figures. A number of people know one figure. If you're smart, like Ken Livingstone has been, you bang on about it - conveniently forgetting everything else. Every time the erstwhile mayor has been on anywhere, he's talked about the fall in levels of investment. He's right, it's fallen too low, but there was other stuff going on you know. I'm reminded of when I went to Baltimore and the Americans discussed how they 'won' the War of 1812 or at least got away with a good draw, neglecting to mention that a) we burnt the White House to the ground and b) we were a bit busy with this French chap (just in case) nearer to home. Focusing on one thing to the exclusion of the rest is irrelevant really. It's like a referendum - i.e., bad, and stupid.

But although this lack of figures isn't helpful, it's not the biggest problem. That was both sides going overboard on the polemic, because they can't do counterfactuals properly. On the right, we started talking about her saving the country. The left simply ignored the state of the political and economic landscape in 1979. Neither will do. She didn't save the country. This is a nonsense which does no-one any favours. North Sea oil would still have come in; the ability of, for example, France to come through 1980s, without major market reform suggests that, even in decline, we’d have been alright. I’m pretty convinced we would have been worse off, but Callaghan wasn't a Bennite. On the other hand, it's no good saying that Britain in 1979 wasn't in real trouble; or that Labour would have fixed the unions in a nice way, or indeed at all. Industrial strife had been a characteristic of the entire preceding decade. It's preposterous to suggest that it could have been addressed easily. Similarly, privatisation: no-one really thinks the state should own BA, BT and BP, yet Labour's 1987 manifesto still advocated bringing them back into state hands. And I think would have done regardless of 1979.

I find this lack of contextual sensitivity a bit depressing. It's ahistorical. It polarises opinion around abstract positions that aren't rooted in reality. It judges people against ideal standards which no-one will ever fulfil. And it doesn't help assess the record. In this case, it means Thatcher isn't judged by the reality of the situation in 1979, but rather some kind of theoretical face-off between left and right. And that's pointless. History judges records, and since the late nineteenth century, we've tried not to judge things outside the context of their time. With Thatcher, despite it being a few decades ago, we've failed that basic test.

Bibliography, April 2013

BOTM: J. Crace, The Devil's larder

B. Chatwin, Utz
A. Christie, Elephants can remember
A. Christie, After the Funeral
P. Druckerman, French children don't throw food
W. Faulkner, The Unvanquished
G. Orwell, A clergyman's daughter
G. Orwell, Keep the Aspidistra flying
F. Scott Fitzgerald, The crack-up, with other pieces and stories
A. Tyler, The tin can tree

I almost gave this to a number of 

these, particularly The Unvanquished, not least because the blurb on the back rather coyly refers to it as 'Faulkner's least difficult novel', which would come as a surprise to anyone who started with it. I'm not even sure that Crace was the best of the lot. However, it was different: lyrical,  sinuous, with a waspish sense of fun. It wasn't difficult either. It makes for an very enjoyable evening. I've had him on my list for a while; this chance purchase in a discount bookshop confirmed I was right to. I'm off to buy some more of his.

Maggie, Maggie, Maggie! Dead, Dead, Dead! (I) History

Now the dust has settled, I thought I'd do a reckoning. This is in two parts, with one on the historiographical issues to follow. The title, by the way, is what they chanted in Brixton on the night. I thought it was funny, though I don't doubt the people were being objectionable. Even A thinks it's all rather distasteful, but I think we can rise above that.

Personally, I have mixed feelings about Thatcher. She's a Tory icon; I'm a Tory etc. But I'm a big wet, old fashioned Tory, firmly on the Heseltine - Clarke axis in the party, the one that doesn't really exist any more (see this mediocre article on the subject). I'm pro-European, pro-state, I even think we should have an industrial policy. She would have purged me from any cabinet she had. Some of her policies leave me cold, some of her legacy even more so. Nonetheless, she was, in her words, one of us. And she did many more of the right things than the wrong things. Better modern historians and politics students will argue the detail better than I can, but below is my personal ledger, why I would happily have voted for her every time, and why I think she was good for us.

Let's do some big wins:

• Unions, clipping the wings thereof. It's now fashionable (in certain circles) to say that this would have happened anyway. I find this annoying and disingenuous. Unions had been the undoing of the previous two governments, possibly three if you count 1969/70. To dismiss it as inevitable is bad history and wishful thinking. The Unions we had through the 1970s were destructive and disastrous. I'm glad we don't have overpowerful trade unions, closed shops and strikes without elections. Well done Maggie.
• Privatisation. When I'm feeling cruel, I like to bait the ignorant left. It's an amusing game. In particular I like to list companies and ask them how many should be renationalised. I could go on for hours, but they usually cave after BA, BP, Jaguar and BT, and this was before I discovered Pickfords was also on that list. There is no doubt that rail hasn't worked (not Thatcher), but overall, it's a rebalancing that was overdue. And no-one here, or in most of the west, would go back.
• Deregulation. Now, I won't have this simplistic, 'sowed the seeds of the crash' nonsense. Regulation is a balancing act. Take finance, over-regulated in 1979, under-regulated in 2008. Thatcher moved in the right direction.
• The Falklands. This was obviously right, and no other candidate for power would have done it.
• The Cold War. We wouldn't be having this debate with the Czechs and the Poles.

What's characterised this debate since her death is the total absence of recognition of the bad ones on our side. Let's do those too:

• Grammar schools. If nothing else, this stands against her. Appalling educational vandalism. A caving in to the teaching profession that damaged educational standards and social mobility and led to greater middle-class segregation at the same time, which is an impressive feat. Not all Thatcher, but she was supine when she should have been steadfast.
• Monetarism. It didn't really work, and even Thatcher et al resiled from it pretty quickly.
• Industrial policy. We should have had one, and we should have used it to help the provinces. Actually there was an industrial policy, in Liverpool thanks to Hezza, and, er, Canary Wharf, but there should have been more. 
• The Gays. I know, I know.

I would have liked her to be different, but I would rather have had her than any other option around (and to govern is to choose). I'm not interested in whether she was a nice person (Lloyd George wasn't). I'm not interested how you think the 1990s should have played out (she wasn't there). I'm not interested what you think she would have done if she had stayed in power longer (she didn't). I'm interested in the record, and, overall, it's a win. 

By the way, I hope this stays up.

Choosing a church (2): The word of God

I listened to parodies of preaching before I actually went to church enough to remember the preaching - to this day, I can't hear about Jacob and Esau without, unbidden, Alan Bennett's pastiche rising to mind (text here, even better if you can find the delivery). This is particularly true because some of the sermons in my parents' church were reminiscent of this approach (still are). Thankfully, where I go now, they're not. 

In fact, I've been fortunate to have a succession of good, and different, preachers at St Michael's. The depth is important because it's exposed me to a variety of tone, which not only reduces the burden on the rector, but also relieves the audience. Elsewhere, things have been mixed. One of my recent local experiments was excellent - he did a short exegesis of the gospel text as his sermon. Others have been considerable less memorable. Some have been terrible, though none have plumbed the depths of St Giles, Camberwell, where some years ago, the priest floated the possibility that the four beasts of the apocalypse of Daniel might be interpreted as modern day figures of evil - "Hitler, Stalin, Mao ... and Thatcher," without a hint of irony. I never went again.

It's obvious why this is important, but here my five point guide to what I want from a sermon, aside from standard public speaking drill - be intelligible, speak, don't read etc:

• Substance. Say something. This is not Thought for the Day. Everyone wants to be here. They know being nice is a good thing. Ditto Jesus loves us. Something more pointed and more material is called for. 
• Scripture. However, this is not an opportunity to regurgitate some thoughts you've been having about contemporary issues based on yesterday's Guardian. Root it in the scripture you've just read. And that's all the scripture, not just the gospel. The other two readings aren't just there for decoration. 
• Focus. Wide ranging sermons lose the congregation, and usually the preacher. Given you get to do this every week, best to stick to one message. It also means you can do it justice.
• Personality. Be careful here, as overpersonal interpretations can simply be a mess, but everything goes better if preachers preach about the things they want to say, rather than things they think they ought to be talking about. Also: if you can't do Greek, don't talk about it. Don't do it badly.
• Brevity. Most importantly, don't go on. I don't have a strict time limit in mind here, but anything longer than ten minutes should be looked at hard. It's probably not worth it.

It's actually not that hard. It's astonishing how many vicars fail.