What are we reading? 23/10/2023

[Gpfr]

Hello, everyone.

Welcome to an autumnal thread, a good time for reading ... whether to take our minds off the terrible things happening or to try to understand them.

Near the end of the last thread, scarletnoir shared his views on Colson Whitehead's Harlem Shuffle. He was underwhelmed — has anyone else read it? The only one of his books I've read is The Underground Railroad which I thought good.

As ever, good reading to all.

[[deleted user]]

Thanks for the new thread, GP. I too wanted to pick up and say thanks to scarletnoir for that full note on Harlem Shuffle. I see Colson Whitehead’s name everywhere, and now I know a bit about him – enough to know not to read that one at least. (Chester Himes is brilliant.)

[giveusaclue]

Thanks once more for another thread G.

Have had a good day lunching with friends, unfortunately husband has vascular dementia, but we had a few laughs guessing what he was trying to tell me but had forgotten. Only in his early 70s too.
At least they can do something about my arthritic hip for which I am more than grateful.

Travel is still a problem for some in the area due to the floods and the clear up of debris in the aftermath. I hope everyone here and their property is safe and sound.

I might even get some reading done now I am back home.

[AB76]

Spent the morning helping my father with fencing, two cows and two calves introduced to the field and these beasts can destroy fences by simply leaning on them!

Covid recovery in last 72 hrs has gone pretty well and appetite is now almost back to normal, as well as energy.

As for reading, Walter De La Mare is keeping my on the edge of reality with Out of the Deep: And Other Supernatural Tales, while JB Priestley observes england in autumn 1933, exactly 90 years ago in English Journey. Plus Vasily Grossman's An Armenian Sketchbook

It is interesting to me that the five British authors who i find have a real knack of unsettling realism, sometimes quite different to some of their other work, were all roughly of the same age. MR James (b1862) Machen(b1863), Kipling(b1865),EF Benson(b1867) and De La Mare(b1873). They would all have been young men at the death of Victoria and none older than 52 when WW1 broke out. HG Wells could also be added to the list (b1866)

[giveusaclue]

Glad you are feeling better AB

[AB76]

giveusaclue wrote: "Glad you are feeling better AB"

thanks, fingers crossed there are no lapses...

[[deleted user]]

AB – You might be interested - there was a long appreciation of Walter de la Mare by Michael Dirda in the NYRB a few months back (March 9). I read it last night when I happened to be going through some old issues. I don’t remember if it was discussed at the time. His prose, Graham Greene said, was “unequalled in its richness” since the death of Henry James. Dirda’s verdict of the Greg Buzwell collection you are reading, and also a previous one in two volumes by Mark Valentine, was “highly recommended.” He also liked “Reading Walter de la Mare" edited by William Wootten – “admirable.”

Other pieces I really enjoyed: Frances Wilson on Katherine Mansfield (Feb 23), Tim Flannery on platypuses and koalas (also Feb 23) , and Gary Saul Morson on the year when Chekhov emerged as a writer of genius (April 6).

[AB76]

Russell wrote: "AB – You might be interested - there was a long appreciation of Walter de la Mare by Michael Dirda in the NYRB a few months back (March 9). I read it last night when I happened to be going through ..."

thanks Russ, i had saved that March essay(from print edition) to read after i finished the book, in the spring but have lost it, or cant find it. Luckily as i am NYRB subscriber, i have found it online and bookmarked it for reading when i finish the stories.

[[deleted user]]

@giveusaclue

I was wondering if you know why the sudden surge of Shakespeare history plays on the BBC? Have I missed an important anniversary? I'm busy recording them all, even those that I've seen before.

[giveusaclue]

Anne wrote: "@giveusaclue

I was wondering if you know why the sudden surge of Shakespeare history plays on the BBC? Have I missed an important anniversary? I'm busy recording them all, even those that I've see..."

Absolutely no idea Anne, his anniversaries are in April.

[[deleted user]]

giveusaclue wrote: " Absolutely no idea Anne, his anniversaries are in April. ..."

Not so much Shakespeare; I had this crazy idea that there might be some sort of Plantagenet anniversary, what specifically, I don't know!

And on the subject of Shakespeare history plays, I watched the Laurence Olivier Richard III when it was on the other day. I've seen a couple of versions of this play now, but I still don't warm to it, even tho' it's so well regarded. Can anyone here make me see why I'm wrong?

[[deleted user]]

Anne wrote: "I watched the Laurence Olivier Richard III when it was on the other day. I've seen a couple of versions of this play now, but I still don't warm to it, even tho' it's so well regarded. Can anyone here make me see why I'm wrong? ..."

Though I thought Ralph Richardson was fabulous.

[scarletnoir]

Anne wrote: "I watched the Laurence Olivier Richard III when it was on the other day. I've seen a couple of versions of this play now, but I still don't warm to it."

Do you mean the play, or Olivier's performance? Haven't seen the play for ages, but thought it was good iirc. As for Olivier - he made his name as a stage actor and fwiw I find many of his screen performances rather too 'theatrical' and hammy - you need to do far less on film - you don't need to 'project' to the back row! He can be good in melodramas, though - 'Rebecca' is brilliant.

[CCCubbon]

I finished At the edge of the Woodsby Kathryn Bromwich, recommended by Andy the other night. It is an unusual book for me but I loved most of it especially the first third. It’s anout the lady who goes to lives in a dilapidated cabin in woods and how she gets to know the trees, animals plants and birds. In a way becoming part of the wood. The later book, while still in the forest, deals with more human interaction.
I believe that I loved it because it reminded me so much of roaming the Exmoor hills and woods with my dogs, discovering so much which I found reflected in Bromwich’s lyrical prose.

[AB76]

giveusaclue wrote: "Anne wrote: "@giveusaclue

I was wondering if you know why the sudden surge of Shakespeare history plays on the BBC? Have I missed an important anniversary? I'm busy recording them all, even those ..."

me neither..

[giveusaclue]

Anne wrote: "giveusaclue wrote: " Absolutely no idea Anne, his anniversaries are in April. ..."

Not so much Shakespeare; I had this crazy idea that there might be some sort of Plantagenet anniversary, what spe..."

Agree with you 100% Anne. When I saw Branagh's Henry V in 1989 I was blown away by it. Out of curiosity I then watched the Olivier wartime version, and hated it. I did like the 2012 BBC production of the Hollow Crown Richard II and Henrys IV and V. Then later the Henry VI and Richard III. Although Cumberbatch is really rather tall to be playing RIII I did enjoy his performance. I remember him sitting at a chess board and flicking over a piece each time he eliminated another person.

I have probably mentioned this, but last year I went to the cinema with a friend to see Henry V video streamed from, I think, the Donmar with Kit Harrington of Game of Thrones in the title role. They had women soldiers, a woman head of the French forces, a black King of France with white children.

I think they ticked every woke box available. I may have caused offence.

https://www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/wh...

[[deleted user]]

Anne wrote: "giveusaclue wrote: " Absolutely no idea Anne, his anniversaries are in April. ..."...And on the subject of Shakespeare history plays, I watched the Laurence Olivier Richard III when it was on the other day. I've seen a couple of versions of this play now, but I still don't warm to it, even tho' it's so well regarded...."

On Olivier’s Henry V I think it belongs to its time, and was venerated for its morale-boosting quality. But it looked stagey even to my 14-year old eye when I first saw it, on TV in the 1960s. Branagh’s Henry V is brilliant for our time.

I had the good fortune to see Olivier just once on stage, in a NT touring production in Nottingham, again in the 1960s. The play was a drawing-room drama, and was limping along until about 40 minutes in when Olivier came on in a minor role as a conniving lawyer. He was electrifying. Can’t remember the play, just the mesmerising effect of Olivier’s stage presence.

I do like his Richard III, though I haven’t seen it for a while. Again, conniving at its very best, e.g. winning over the Lady Anne in a single concentrated interview – Richard/Olivier almost winking at the audience in his devilry. On Buckingham, it’s actually Olivier’s cutting dismissal that I remember though of course it takes Richardson’s faltering reaction to make the scene.

Back on Henry V, I read a comment recently (NYRB?) about Henry’s political astuteness in setting up Cambridge, Grey and Scroop to condemn a man before turning it on them. Studying it in school, I didn’t get the point that it was all pre-arranged in Henry’s mind.

Ditto the revelation I had when watching the Adrian Lester modern-dress production at the RSC about 20 years ago (armoured personnel carrier on stage!). There’s a long scene at the start when the Bishop of Ely and the Archbishop of Canterbury discuss the Salic Law, and very boring it was to a schoolboy. What an insight then to see it done with two men in suits drawling away as they puff on their cigarettes – a pair of cynical old priests, amused by their own cleverness, working out in real time how to twist the Law to produce the war-justification their master wanted, just as if they were members of Bush’s cabinet.

[Bill]

Anne wrote: "And on the subject of Shakespeare history plays, I watched the Laurence Olivier Richard III when it was on the other day. I've seen a couple of versions of this play now, but I still don't warm to it, even tho' it's so well regarded. Can anyone here make me see why I'm wrong?"

Richard III is certainly less substantial than the later history plays, but I find it rewarding nevertheless. I think it's more on the Marlovian model where the action is carried and interest sustained by a central villainous protagonist and extravagantly rhetorical speeches.

I also find that the fates and actions of characters like Lord Stanley and Buckingham seems an accurate reflection of life in the inner circle of a tyrant with powers of life and death over his subjects, like Vladimir Putin.

Here are my thoughts from a few years ago, during my reading of the complete Shakespeare:


Richard III - From past encounters I remember Richard as an absolute villain, self-consciously and flamboyantly evil as he lets flow rivers of blood in his ascent to the throne. Yes, well, he is that, as confirmed by my latest reading. As with prior encounters, I also found the play insightfully delineating the nature of a “strong man” dictatorship in ways that echoed non-fiction accounts of Stalin and Saddam Hussein, to take only two examples that came to mind. Was there more to Richard? This time around I noticed at least one incident where he stepped out of the pure villain role; this occurs in the famous lines after the newly widowed Anne has started to succumb to his courtship:

Was ever woman in this humor wooed?
Was ever woman in this humor won?
I’ll have her, but I will not keep her long.
What, I that killed her husband and his father,
To take her in her heart’s extremest hate,
With curses in her mouth, tears in her eyes,
The bleeding witness of my hatred by,
Having God, her conscience, and these bars against me,
And I no friends to back my suit at all
But the plain devil and dissembling looks?
And yet to win her, all the world to nothing!
Ha!

Wow, that out-of-meter Ha! is great. He expresses astonishment that he got away with that, he really didn’t expect to. This kind of doubt in his own efficacy is never expressed by Marlowe’s Barabas. Later, after he has persuaded Edward IV’s widow Elizabeth to entertain the idea of his marriage to her daughter, he has nothing but contempt for his victim, "Relenting fool and shallow, changing woman!" This is at least a small hint, not present in the extensive excerpts from Holinshed included in my edition, that Richard grows into his role of villain, and reinforces the idea that it is a role he has consciously chosen rather than being born into it by the nature of his physical deformities. Holinshed quotes “this rule of physiognomy”: "Distortum vultum sequitur distortio morum." (a person’s distorted character follows his distorted countenance) as an explanation for Richard. Shakespeare echoes this idea in speeches he gives both to Richard and others, but I sense a stirring here, however slight and hesitant at this point, of the idea that biology is not destiny, and responsibility for one’s own character and actions lies in the choices one makes for oneself.
It’s very interesting to see some of the things in Holinshed that Shakespeare chooses to adapt. Holinshed talks about the written indictment of Hastings posted immediately after his execution being so elaborately expressed and written so cleanly that its spoken composition would have taken up the time allotted between accusation and execution, let alone the writing out in a fair copy. Shakespeare was apparently so impressed with this that to make the point he added a character, a Scrivener, and scene (Act 3, Scene 6) that I imagine is always cut in stage productions.

[giveusaclue]

We have to remember, of course, that history is written by the winners, and that Shakespeare lived in the time of very touchy monarchs.
A devil's advocate's view:

From a RIII perspective, we may understand that a lot of the problems he was faced with started with his brother's character. EIV may have been a brave soldier in wartime but he wasn't the best politician. This is evident in his treatment of the equally ambitious Warwick. His promotion of the Woodville family to the detriment of others was probably guided rather by another part of his anatomy than his brain! During his fight for the throne, and yes he had a good claim given the Henry IV was a usurper, he garnered a brilliant reputation for bravery, aided and abetted by his very loyal brother RIII. Richard's reputation up to the time of his brother's death was exemplary. The thought that he personally plotted and carried out the killing of HVI without his brother's involvement is very unlikely. As for Clarence, he deserved what he got in relation to the times in which he live. Richard must have been aware that his life and that of his family could be at risk from the Woodville clan once EVI was crowned king.

Strange, that if RIII had died when his brother did, we would probably hail him as a great, loyal hero and the Woodville clan as the "baddies."

But then again, I am not as big a fan of King Henry V as others, either!

It is so easy to judge medieval aristrocracy from the view of the 21st century. But is the difference only that now they don't tend to wear crowns?

[giveusaclue]

By the way, have I ever mentioned that I am a bit of a nerd when it comes to medieval history?

[MK]

giveusaclue wrote: "Thanks once more for another thread G.

Have had a good day lunching with friends, unfortunately husband has vascular dementia, but we had a few laughs guessing what he was trying to tell me but h..."

Clue - I don't know where you (or other mystery readers here) stand when it comes to Richard Osman's Thursday Murder Club series, but I recently listened to his latest The Last Devil to Die (library download, as usual) which got into dementia a little more than I, as an official old person, was really comfortable about. It was a difficult listen in parts.

I then went back to the first book and found I had forgotten about Penny, whose career in the police gave the Club its origin.

So far, though, it's only my body that's falling apart.

[giveusaclue]

MK wrote: "Clue - I don't know where you (or other mystery readers here) stand when it comes to Richard Osman's Thursday Murder Club series, but I recently listened to his latest The Last Devil to Die (library download, as usual) which got into dementia a little more than I, as an official old person, was really comfortable about. It was a difficult listen in parts.."

I am afraid I didn't get on with the first of the series and gave up fairly early on.

And like you, it is only "my body that is falling apart". But at least the main problem is going to be sorted soon, hopefully.

[Bill]

Russell wrote: "On Olivier’s Henry V I think it belongs to its time, and was venerated for its morale-boosting quality. But it looked stagey even to my 14-year old eye when I first saw it, on TV in the 1960s. Branagh’s Henry V is brilliant for our time."

Like others, I too admired Branaugh’s Henry V. Its success made him, for a time, filmdom’s “Mr Shakespeare”, not, I think, entirely to the Bard’s advantage.

Did anyone like Branaugh’s War and Peace Hamlet? With all the big names in cameo roles, I thought it might have been titled It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad Prince.

[Bill]

giveusaclue wrote: "We have to remember, of course, that history is written by the winners, and that Shakespeare lived in the time of very touchy monarchs."

I have to admit that - Henry VIII aside - I know very little of the actual history of Shakespeare's monarchs, and therefore don't judge the plays by anything but dramatic / literary standards.

I remember that there was recently a Jeopardy! question to the effect that Hotspur, who is made to seem Prince Hal's contemporary in King Henry IV, Part 1, was, in real life, older than Henry IV.

[Robert]

He has reached that point
Where the mind
No longer controls the body.
--George Bonner 1918

I have finished (and am already re-reading sections) of Charles Glass' "Soldiers Don't Go Mad," the story of pioneering treatment of post-traumatic stress by doctors Rivers and Brock during the First World War.
Some of their officer patients were highly articulate and became poets or sharpened their prowess. Excerpts from their poems and letters thread through the book. Excellent read.

[Berkley]

Bill wrote: "Like others, I too admired Branaugh’s Henry V. Its success made him, for a time, filmdom’s “Mr Shakespeare”, not, I think, entirely to the Bard’s advantage.

Did anyone like Branaugh’s War and Peace Hamlet? With all the big names in cameo roles, I thought it might have been titled It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad Prince"

I saw Branagh's Hamlet when it came out but not since then so my impressions may be less than reliable, but I remember at the time feeling that in his desire to make the point that Hamlet had the potential to be a man of action, he over-emphasised that aspect of his psychology to the point where it seemed he was just that and little else besides: Hamlet as Hollywood action-hero - perhaps Branagh should have cast Arnold Schwarzeneggar or Bruce Willis in the lead.

Haven't seen his Henry V but I liked the Olivier one, which I saw for the first time only a year or less back. But it was a bit strange seeing it at that time (still this time with respect to a certain ongoing situation in eastern Europe), as Henry's invasion of France upon what I think most would now consider dubious motives kept reminding me of Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

My main complaint about Olivier's Hamlet is that he made so many cuts - which I imagine he was forced to do by the studio or the producers or whoever it was holding the purse-strings.

Anyone have a favourite Macbeth? I recently saw the Orson Wells version and thought it was very good, for the most part much better than the recent Coen film with Denzel Washington (which however was visually striking at times) .

[giveusaclue]

In answer to Berkeley - the problem I have always had with Hamlet is its length. I get frustrated with his prevarication (part of the premises of the play I suppose) and think "oh for goodness sake get on with it!" And it takes them about 4 pages to die at the end!

I do like Macbeth and have seen it several times. I saw a National Theatre Live broadcast of Branagh done in a church hall for a Manchester Festival and enjoyed it. I loathed the Michael Fassbender film, partly because the sound needed adjusting and also because you wouldn't stab someone in a tent so well lit by candles that the shadows would be clearly seen from outside.

I did enjoy the broadcast of this one:

https://www.rsc.org.uk/macbeth/past-p....

The scene with the drunken porters was hilarious.

[giveusaclue]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpWvb...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7skha...

[MK]

Any Dwight Garner fans here? (NYT gift article) - https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/24/bo...

I do like an upbeat book, and this sounds like one.

[scarletnoir]

Bill wrote: "This is at least a small hint... that Richard grows into his role of villain, and reinforces the idea that it is a role he has consciously chosen rather than being born into it by the nature of his physical deformities."

I don't have your familiarity with Shakespeare - certainly not with Richard III - but this, to me, is a characteristic of great writers. Their characters change over time, and aren't ciphers, caricatures or 'types'. In Macbeth, to begin with he certainly has to be persuaded to act by his wife; by the end, she has been driven mad by guilt (maybe?) whereas he has accepted his role as the main protagonist. (At least, that is how I remember it.)
You get this in Dostoyevsky, in spades... even the minor characters are wholly convincing, and not there as page fillers.

[Bill]

Berkley wrote: "Anyone have a favourite Macbeth?"

Roman Polanski's, with Jon Finch in the title role.

[scarletnoir]

giveusaclue wrote: "We have to remember, of course, that history is written by the winners..."

Indeed.

WRT Richard III - I know that Bill hated Josephine Tay's The Daughter of Time, which gave another side to the Richard story... whether on literary or historical grounds, I don't recall.

As a book/story - I liked it a lot when I read it some 50 years ago. (As usual, I'm not prepared to say whether I'd like it as much now - but I certainly wouldn't hate it, that's for sure.)

[AB76]

Bill wrote: "giveusaclue wrote: "We have to remember, of course, that history is written by the winners, and that Shakespeare lived in the time of very touchy monarchs."

I have to admit that - Henry VIII aside..."

i'm a big fan of Shakespeare and his language, alongside the KJB and Chaucer it is a jewel of our language. I must confess though that i havent read more than 30% of the plays and know most about Hamlet, Macbeth and A Midsummer Nights Dream.

I played Theseus in AMND at school, with Macbeth i always remember my mother as a child explaining the meaning of "when birnam wood come to dunsinane" and Hamlet, with Othello, i always see as great tragedies..

[giveusaclue]

I started reading a new author yesterday and have already given up.
Murder on Oxford Lane

It was amateurishly written, we don't need to know the colour of absolutely everything. And would a CID room really have a beige carpet? Petty I know, but it all irritated me! Very shallow of me I know.

[Bill]

AB76 wrote: "I must confess though that i havent read more than 30% of the plays and know most about Hamlet, Macbeth and A Midsummer Nights Dream.."

If you haven't read the series of four history plays: Richard II, King Henry IV, Part 1, Henry IV, Part 2 and Henry V, you should make an effort to do so.

[giveusaclue]

Bill wrote: "AB76 wrote: "I must confess though that i havent read more than 30% of the plays and know most about Hamlet, Macbeth and A Midsummer Nights Dream.."

If you haven't read the series of four history ..."

Or:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Hollow-Crown...

[[deleted user]]

giveusaclue wrote: "By the way, have I ever mentioned that I am a bit of a nerd when it comes to medieval history?"

Maybe, but I like the way you write about it.

[Bill]

giveusaclue wrote: "Or:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Hollow-Crown.."

The box cover indicates Henry VI Parts 1 and 2. Is this a misprint or did they really omit Part 3, which provides the direct lead-in to Richard III?

[giveusaclue]

Russell wrote: "giveusaclue wrote: "By the way, have I ever mentioned that I am a bit of a nerd when it comes to medieval history?"

Maybe, but I like the way you write about it."


Thank you Russell.

[giveusaclue]

Bill wrote: "giveusaclue wrote: "Or:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Hollow-Crown.."

The box cover indicates Henry VI Parts 1 and 2. Is this a misprint or did they really omit Part 3, which provides the direct lead-i..."

How odd!

[AB76]

Bill wrote: "AB76 wrote: "I must confess though that i havent read more than 30% of the plays and know most about Hamlet, Macbeth and A Midsummer Nights Dream.."

If you haven't read the series of four history ..."

thanks bill....this will be a target for 2024...read those four!

[Bill]

Alex Ross touts a "massive anthology" to which he contributed: Bob Dylan: Mixing up the Medicine, which may be of interest to some here.

https://www.therestisnoise.com/2023/1...

I could not resist clicking on the link to Ross' earlier piece, "Bob Dylan as Richard Wagner", which he evidently wrote when Dylan won the Nobel prize, though I don't think anything could persuade me to begin an exploration of Dylan's music.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cul...

[[deleted user]]

Bill wrote: "..."Bob Dylan as Richard Wagner"..."

Even for a Dylan fan, that is impossible to swallow.

But at a more modest level I was recently at a funeral where the eulogies were very fine and the music (Beethoven, Bach, Pachelbel) wonderful. The surprising choice for the end, when we began filing out, was Dylan's Restless Farewell, gloriously sung by Joan Baez. It was perfect for an attendance that was heavily of the 1960s student generation, and it had all of us wiping our eyes.

[CCCubbon]

For mystery fans

I’m reading Stay Buried by Kate Webb and very good it is, too. Did someone here recommend it for it has been on my list for a while? Her second book in the series is out today.

[Gpfr]

CCCubbon wrote: "Stay Buried by Kate Webb ... Did someone here recommend it."

It was me.
I hadn't seen there was a second one.

[CCCubbon]

Remembering the recent posts about lunch with someone suffering memory loss, this was my effort this week over on PotW. I find it quite heartbreaking when old friends no longer remember one.

Betty

The phone rings and rings for ages,
maybe I should try again later,
when a quiet voice says Hello.
Hello, Betty, how good to hear your voice.
I’m ringing to see how you are.

My closest friend, dear to me as
cups of tea or the scent of roses
after rain. Silence, no reply.
I try again. Chatter inanely
about this and that.

It was the same last week.
Each time only the whispered
‘Who are you?’
The years of friendship riven.
She no longer remembers,
tears streak my face for us both.

[Gpfr]

CCCubbon wrote: "Remembering the recent posts about lunch with someone suffering memory loss, this was my effort this week over on PotW. I find it quite heartbreaking when old friends no longer remember one...."

A very moving poem.
This is not something I've had to face (yet?) ...

[giveusaclue]

https://www.fantasticfiction.com/h/li...

Specially for Scarlet, this is a crime series set in a real city in Wales!
I have just read the first book, A DCI with PTSD, an overpromoted arrogant DI, a vicious crime lord and an equally vicious murderer hellbent on revenge. Definitely not of the cozy mystery genre!

Looking forward to reading the next one.

[giveusaclue]

CCCubbon wrote: "For mystery fans

I’m reading Stay Buried by Kate Webb and very good it is, too. Did someone here recommend it for it has been on my list for a while? Her second book in the series is out today."

Looks interesting, thanks.

[Greenfairy]

A heartbreaking encounter that has stayed with me was seeing an elderly lady weeping whilst looking at some photos that she had taken out of her handbag; she said "These must be pictures of my family, but I can't remember any of them" .