For UK members Faulks on Fiction

[Seasider]

Just in case you've been out all day and the TV Times or whatever you use has been accidentally recycled or purloined by Junior, Sebastian Faulkes is on BBC2 tonight in the first of 4 programmes about the British Novel. Tonight is character with a tour of memorable heroes.
Guardian TV critic says...The Authors are Dead White Males,apart from Amis junior and the analysis, though delivered with a groupie's ardour, is like a Faulks novel-all neat and nicely done but rather safe and humdrum.

Still good fare for a Saturday night in, which at my advanced age, most of them are:sad:

[Emil Miller]

I don't know what's wrong with 'dead white males', especially since they make up the bulk of what is generally considered English Literature but, then again, the Guardian TV critic would say that wouldn't he?
As for Sebastian Faulkes, I heard him discussing Hedge Funds on BBC4 radio some time ago and he said they were like a casino where a man (the fund manager) stands outside and tells people that if they give him some money he will increase it because he knows best how to play the games inside.
This was such a perfect description that I bought Faulkes's novel A Week in December, which was readable but nothing to write home about. It was a signed copy but it went to the charity shop anyway.

[kiki1982]

I definitely will be watching it.

@Brian:

Maybe he is a better reader than he is a writer ;). Can't comment on him though.

[Emil Miller]

I definitely will be watching it.

@Brian:

Maybe he is a better reader than he is a writer ;). Can't comment on him though.


kiki

I've have just checked it out on the computer, which allows me to get BBC television for those few occasions when the TV has something to offer.
It does look quite interesting and Faulkes is a good speaker.

[Seasider]

Verdict later on? Yes?

[mal4mac]

I've read Engleby and Human Traces by Sebastian Faulks, which I'd also classify as "readable but nothing to write home about".

I just watched the first half hour, and it's quite good. Not very deep, but he makes some good points and has some interesting "talking heads" to help him.

[kiki1982]

I couldn't watch the first half hour, or only with subtitles, because my hubby decided to skype from Prague... He called it a day after half an hour, but nonetheless I could follow the last half hour...

It's a bit... let's say indeed it makes good points but indeed not very deep. It's a good start, but I would sometimes like to see a bit less of the obvious stuff and a bit more on the thinking part...

oh, I guess I'm too demanding, though, and lit is too vast to really do a consistent few programms on it of one hour.

[Seasider]

I couldn't watch the first half hour, or only with subtitles, because my hubby decided to skype from Prague... He called it a day after half an hour, but nonetheless I could follow the last half hour...

It's a bit... let's say indeed it makes good points but indeed not very deep. It's a good start, but I would sometimes like to see a bit less of the obvious stuff and a bit more on the thinking part...

oh, I guess I'm too demanding, though, and lit is too vast to really do a consistent few programms on it of one hour.

BBC i player?

I agree that a lot of people who might be drawn to the programme will think it a bit elementary but there will, hopefully, be people who are not so familiar with English novels who will learn something about the genre and enjoy the examples. I enjoyed some of the talking heads' views and I liked his take on the fluctuations between individualism and the crushing of individual identity by catastrophes like WW1.
I thought he did not give enough space to the emergence of Working Class heroes other than Jim Dixon...Jimmy Porter, Arthur Seaton, Colin Smith and others, And I was sure at some point he was going to mention the heir to Sherlock Holmes who also had an effect on the wider world...drumroll... James Bond.
Still I enjoyed it and will watch the rest. Ashamed to admit not having read either Tom Jones (though I saw the film!) or Vanity Fair.

[kiki1982]

No BBC I playeer for me, I'm afraid. Not allowed in the country I am in and am not a good enough computer geek in order to trample with the server I am accessing from :(.

I am certainly going to watch it again, though.

[mal4mac]

In searching for Faulks on iplayer, I notice that Engleby is available as a shortened radio adaption. As I thought the novel went on far too long that might be a good way to experience it! I thought the basic idea was good, as in all Faulks books, which is why I keep on being tempted to read him...

Frostrup's interview with him is also represented, which is well worth a listen.

[Seasider]

I was very gripped by Engleby. Found it in the hotel library when I had run out of the books I brought. Kindle promo alert! I was very taken with the non linear narrative and the process of character analysis by non traditional means. I was also amused by Engleby's motives for giving up Lit studies in favour of the more objective truths of Science...well that was his explanation. I was quite certain of Jennifer's fate from the beginning but even so I found the denouement cathartic.
I thought Mariella Frostrup's reminding Faulks in the interview of the revolutionary changes in the position of women in the Western World was necessary...it's so easy for men as the dominant group to take the male-centred view of the world as as much of a given in the 21st Century as it was in the previous 19. And not with malice as much as thoughtlessness. I don't think she had any reason to apologise for as she said Banging on about Women and he should have acknowledged it as a necessary corrective.

The word Hero was interesting I thought. It's so layered with millennia of male deeds and achievements it is difficult to admit women to the ranks. He said he had to call Becky Sharp the Hero of Vanity Fair because she was the driving force of the narrative. But because she did not share the higher morality of a traditional hero it was still a questionable appellation. And she had none of the qualities associated with heroines either. It's made me want to read the book!!
The word protagonist has no association with sex or virtue, but it doesn't have the same inspirational ring as hero,heroine or villain either.

[TheFifthElement]

I've not watched this yet, but just as a follow up there's another series starting tomorrow called The Beauty of Books on BBC4 at 20:30, and then there's another called The Birth of the British Novel at 21:00 on BBC4 and has me quite excited because one of my favourite contemporary novellists, Tom McCarthy, will be talking about Tristam Shandy. Excited much?

Full details of the book season schedule can be found here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/seasons/books/

[kasie]

I meant to alert you all to the forthcoming goodies when I browsed through my RT earlier in the week - but thank you, Seasider and Fifth, for the timely alerts.

I watched last night's programme and, like kiki, was a bit disappointed by the lack of depth - and by the notable absence of a) women writers and b) any writer who was not English. Maybe Faulkes wants to stick with writers who wrote/write in English for ease of accessibility for future readers but what about American, African or Commonwealth Literature? However, the programme is designed to go out at prime time on one of the popular channels: I suppose BBC4 has the corner for deeper programmes nowadays. (I have no satellite connection so can't speak for Sky Arts or the like.)

I have however bought Faulkes' book - I bought it in sections with an offer of two or three full length novels free of charge with each section in e-book form - don't know if that format will work on kindles. The tv programme largely reproduced the Introduction - he goes on to elaborate on each of his chosen novels in a chapter for each title with some of these later chapters interpolated into the commentary at appropriate points. There is a little more critical meat in the written version but it is still more in the nature of a general introduction. I suppose the people who commision programmes of this kind might have thought it would attract more viewers with a recognised published author fronting it rather than a relatively unknown academic critic. They have managed to find some very personable and worthy presenters for science and history programmes (Brian Cox? Dan Snow? Be still, my beating heart....) so I can't believe there isn't some gorgeous - no, no, you don't mean that, kasie, you mean some erudite - English Lit don hiding away somewhere just waiting to grace our screens.

[Seasider]

Lisa Jardine? Germaine Greer? (always good value even if eccentric), Hermione Lee? Victoria Glendinning? Elaine Showalter? And novelists like Salley Vickers, Kate Atkinson, Jeanette Winterson, Sarah Waters, Hilary Mantel, Margaret Drabble, AS Byatt, Doris Lessing, Edna O' Brien...I could go on. I will check out this list with subsequent programmes.

[wessexgirl]

I thought it was interesting, but I would question some of his choices under "heroes". For instance, Becky Sharp, and it's not because she's a woman. I love the book, and I agree she is the main protagonist, but he said something about us rooting for her. I enjoyed her machinations, and her do-anything-to-get-what-she-wants storyline, but that doesn't make her a hero. Thackeray did subtitle it a "novel without a hero", but what about Dobbin? Yes, he's a bit wet, (hence the name), but he is good and kind, and a rock for Amelia, who is possibly also a bit wet, but Becky behaves appallingly to a friend who is good to her.

I heard the interview with Mariella Frostrup, and thought Faulks did sound a little bit sharp, that she should dare to question him. Anyway, it was watchable, but I would have loved someone like John Carey to present it, as he is so erudite and interesting, (how about him Kasie? :)), or to do a series on literature.

[kiki1982]

I meant to alert you all to the forthcoming goodies when I browsed through my RT earlier in the week - but thank you, Seasider and Fifth, for the timely alerts.

I watched last night's programme and, like kiki, was a bit disappointed by the lack of depth - and by the notable absence of a) women writers and b) any writer who was not English. Maybe Faulkes wants to stick with writers who wrote/write in English for ease of accessibility for future readers but what about American, African or Commonwealth Literature? However, the programme is designed to go out at prime time on one of the popular channels: I suppose BBC4 has the corner for deeper programmes nowadays. (I have no satellite connection so can't speak for Sky Arts or the like.)

I have however bought Faulkes' book - I bought it in sections with an offer of two or three full length novels free of charge with each section in e-book form - don't know if that format will work on kindles. The tv programme largely reproduced the Introduction - he goes on to elaborate on each of his chosen novels in a chapter for each title with some of these later chapters interpolated into the commentary at appropriate points. There is a little more critical meat in the written version but it is still more in the nature of a general introduction. I suppose the people who commision programmes of this kind might have thought it would attract more viewers with a recognised published author fronting it rather than a relatively unknown academic critic. They have managed to find some very personable and worthy presenters for science and history programmes (Brian Cox? Dan Snow? Be still, my beating heart....) so I can't believe there isn't some gorgeous - no, no, you don't mean that, kasie, you mean some erudite - English Lit don hiding away somewhere just waiting to grace our screens.

Oh, don't worry, it was at least better (the part I did see) than the documentary about Tess of the d'Urbervilles and by extension the whole of Hardy's work in 2008. I mean, that was presented by I think Griff Rhys Jones. It mainly focused on Hardy's life (the autobiographical approach) and concluded with Jude the Obscure being an effect of his total unhappiness in his marriage and his loneliness. The term Naturalism was never metioned, let alone the story of Tess (as it was actually for the purpose of that adaptation that they broadcasted the documentary) being considered as anyting beyond a bit of a sad story about that character. Backed up by a group of teenagers who were clearly as clueless (sorry) as the presenter himself. Feminist critcism on Tess as a weak woman was very briefly mentioned, and I mean briefly like 30 seconds...

What is the point of that?

I wrote a letter on that and the adaptation, but never got any answer back...

I found it all went a bit quickly and actually was also puzzled about the lack of female authors/heroines really, but that's maybe a conincidence. I guess the next episode, The Lover will have more women in it ;). But maybe that's a bit of a give away...

[mal4mac]

Oh, don't worry, it was at least better (the part I did see) than the documentary about Tess of the d'Urbervilles and by extension the whole of Hardy's work in 2008. I mean, that was presented by I think Griff Rhys Jones...

Did you see the latest instalment of "Three Men Bore in a Boat"? I had to switch off after half an hour, which consisted mostly of the fat bearded one shopping for whiskey... Griff used to be good when he was young... The Wordsworth effect?

[mal4mac]

I thought it was interesting, but I would question some of his choices under "heroes". For instance, Becky Sharp, and it's not because she's a woman. I love the book, and I agree she is the main protagonist, but he said something about us rooting for her. I enjoyed her machinations, and her do-anything-to-get-what-she-wants storyline, but that doesn't make her a hero. Thackeray did subtitle it a "novel without a hero", but what about Dobbin? Yes, he's a bit wet, (hence the name), but he is good and kind, and a rock for Amelia, who is possibly also a bit wet, but Becky behaves appallingly to a friend who is good to her.

I heard the interview with Mariella Frostrup, and thought Faulks did sound a little bit sharp, that she should dare to question him. Anyway, it was watchable, but I would have loved someone like John Carey to present it, as he is so erudite and interesting, (how about him Kasie? :)), or to do a series on literature.

I totally agree with you wessexgirl! I was rooting for Dobbin, who I thought was a hero - a bit "angular" and wet, but still a hero. I kind of enjoyed Becky's machinations when she chewed up some of the bad characters, but felt bad about enjoying it :) And certainly her treatment of her son and Amelia is totally reprehensible, undermines any rooting for her...

Moll Flanders is a better female hero - involved in just as as many machinations as Becky, but you root for her...

P.S. the term "angular" is used by Dickens to describe the Dobbin of "Edwin Drood" - Hiram Grewgious.

[Emil Miller]

I have just watched Faulks on Fiction via the BBC iPlayer and thought it was good up to the point where post WW11 was shown. Whilst Orwell's 1984 was obviously a must for the programme, I really don't think that those by Amis père et fils were as significant as those that went before. It's true that there wasn't a great deal of depth to the programme but it's obviously aimed at a wider audience than students and teachers of literature or committed bibliophiles. I thought the camera work was very good and also the music (Philip Glass?) but the most interesting thing for me was the clip of film showing Conan Doyle talking about Sherlock Holmes. I shall probably watch successive episodes as it's so unusual to have worthwhile programmes made for TV these days.

[prendrelemick]

I've not much more to add. I agree with the lack of depth comments, but he only had an hour to get through a couple of hundred years.

I have no problem with Becky Sharpe as a hero, I think his point was to mark where there was a departure from the norm for that time. Or should I say, mark changing times with a new kind of hero.


"Lovers" next week.

[kiki1982]

Just for everyone's information:

I watched The Birth of the British Novel tonight on BBC4 (just finished) and I found it much more acceptable than Faulks on Fiction. Probably because this series took more time in doing things. Very much typically BBC with a good mix of narration and contemporary images ;). Other than that, this episode covered the 18th century and gave me some ideas to widen my scope ;). And, of all things, it offered some simple interpretation that people could think of themselves (the end for example). And touched upon the purpose of novels as social critique and founded upon philosophy. Also offered some thought on Gulliver's Travels.

I think it was satisfactory and more up to standard. A bit Andrew Marr-ish.

:)

[dfloyd]

television, especially without commercials. You're lucky to receive such programming. We get BBC America, but I believe it is adultered to fit Americans' tastes.

[kiki1982]

Believe me, living in Germany and coming from Belgium, I am soooooooo happy to have satellite BBC, or English channels really. Even commercial ITV/Channel 4 is better than German and Belgian TV together. And that says something. We had a subscription for the Flemish TV on my insistence, but we watched it only half of the year once a week. If the BBC started to ask license fee for satellite users I would gladly pay for them. There is a license fee for anyone who has a TV here in Germany (no, it does not have to be plugged in actually, you still have to pay), but about half of the people do not pay it because of the HORRENDOUS quality of German TV. We literally only watch it once a year right after Eurovision for an hour. Sad isn't it?

Is there really no possibility for Americans to receive BBC over European satellite? Or is that too far? It's on Astra 2, the full works (BBC1/2/3/4 + ITV1/2/3/4 and Channel 4 and sister channels. Even the digital channels of the BBC you can get, which offer 'red button' programms on stream channels; great for the Olympics).

[LitNetIsGreat]

Thanks for the heads up on that one kiki. I'll try and catch both programmes on i-player as it seems worth while generally from what people are saying. I'm very busy this week though so I'll have to try and remember and watch them at the weekend.

[Seasider]

2 Really good programmes back to back. Doesn't happen often,even on BBC.
I was really ashamed at how little of the 18th century novels I had read considering I am a great fan of its music esp Bach & Handel, the poetry of Pope,Addison,Johnson (via Boswell) Goldsmith and baroque architecture ,esp Wren. I enjoyed the drubbing that Drabbble gave to Richardson and I think I will be in no hurry to add 8 volumes of Clarissa to my to do list! I think I will try and make some time for Fanny Burney though.
I did enjoy The Beauty of Books. Anglo Saxon Art& Antiquities was part of my degree course and I made a special trip to Dublin to see The Book of Kells. Our wonderful new British Library, a visit to which I cant recommend highly enough, also has the Lindisfarne Gospels on display. Altogether a feast night for bibliophiles. Eat your hearts out JBI and SLG.

[kasie]

I found more meat in Birth of the English Novel too - must read a full edition of Gulliver's Travels, seem to remember I've only read an abridged version for children. I shared digs with a girl who was ploughing through Clarissa and made a mental note at the time to avoid that particular module of the course so I have a huge gap where the eighteenth century ought to be, filled in patchily since but far from complete. I'm surprised no-one has mentioned Pilgrim's Progress - I've always thought of it as a proto-novel.

I was surprised to see the Codex Sinaticus (?sp) being handled without gloves - I thought all ancient manuscripts had to be touched by gloved hands only, to avoid skin acids, etc getting on the pages.

[Seasider]

Sinaiticus as it was discovered in St Catherine's Monastery in Sinai. I thought they were a bit heavy handed with it too. I swear I saw A Disney version of Gullivers Travels when little more than an infant. I have downloaded the Faulks package for £5+ and it is worth it.

[kiki1982]

I found more meat in Birth of the English Novel too - must read a full edition of Gulliver's Travels, seem to remember I've only read an abridged version for children. I shared digs with a girl who was ploughing through Clarissa and made a mental note at the time to avoid that particular module of the course so I have a huge gap where the eighteenth century ought to be, filled in patchily since but far from complete. I'm surprised no-one has mentioned Pilgrim's Progress - I've always thought of it as a proto-novel.

I was surprised to see the Codex Sinaticus (?sp) being handled without gloves - I thought all ancient manuscripts had to be touched by gloved hands only, to avoid skin acids, etc getting on the pages.

Yep, was also making mental notes. :) I have huge gaps in my English lit as well, due to it being a foreign language when I was in school and before this forum, I rarely read anything non-Dutch or translated... I guess they did not mention The Pilgrim's Progress because it is 17th century and they started in the 18th and because it is Christian allegory which means a lot of explanation... Maybe it also does not really fit into the BBC agenda of political correctness (we would not like to offend the non-Christians kind of thing). As it is, it was probably the 17th century thing...

About the Codex Sinaiticus: is the acid-issue not only the case with paper and not parchment? I seem to remember that paper fades away under its own acid and hand acid of course does not help. This was on parchment though.

[Emil Miller]

Maybe it also does not really fit into the BBC agenda of political correctness (we would not like to offend the non-Christians kind of thing).

Glad to see you've noticed it. You might be surprised at how many people in the UK haven't, or pretend that it doesn't exist.

[kiki1982]

Oo, but I am not in the UK! :D I'm an outsider :D

Anyway, despite that agenda, or is it politically correct consciousness in the extreme, they still offer quality, which cannot be said about a lot of TV channels in this world.

[Emil Miller]

Oo, but I am not in the UK! :D I'm an outsider :D

Anyway, despite that agenda, or is it politically correct consciousness in the extreme, they still offer quality, which cannot be said about a lot of TV channels in this world.

I know that you aren't from the UK, but perhaps it takes an outsider to readily notice these things. I certainly know from my own experience of living abroad that I was able to define the fault lines in British society more easily than by simply living here. A bit like watching a germ culture through a microscope rather than being one of the germs.

[TheFifthElement]

Well I enjoyed the Faulks programme, but lost a lot of respect for him when he suggested that Martin Amis of all people had given us the last literary 'hero'. There's a word to describe that statement and it starts with b and ends in ollocks. Methinks Faulks needs to read around a bit. Martin Amis isn't even that good, and if it hadn't been on TV I wouldn't have the faintest idea who the 'hero' of Money is. Ugh.

Hoping to watch the other two tonight, gruelling work schedule permitting.

[mal4mac]

I don't see any "don't upset the non-Christians" bias, the opposite if anything. The director general Mark Thompson is a devout catholic, which might indicate why the Pope got so much air-time on his recent visit, and why Anne Widdecombe is popping up everywhere, from "Strictly" to documentaries on Newman.... Also might explain why there is always a catholic doyen on the "Big Questions" Sunday morning programme, with little atheist input.

I'd recommend:

http://www.enotes.com/pilgrims-progress/q-and-a/why-john-bunyans-pilgrims-progress-not-novel-what-189405

It gives cogent reasons as to why Pilgrims Progress should not be regarded as a novel, certainly enough reasons for the BBC to skip it without any accusations of bias.

[Emil Miller]

I don't see any "don't upset the non-Christians" bias, the opposite if anything. The director general Mark Thompson is a devout catholic, which might indicate why the Pope got so much air-time on his recent visit, and why Anne Widdecombe is popping up everywhere, from "Strictly" to documentaries on Newman.... Also might explain why there is always a catholic doyen on the "Big Questions" Sunday morning programme, with little atheist input.

I'd recommend:

http://www.enotes.com/pilgrims-progress/q-and-a/why-john-bunyans-pilgrims-progress-not-novel-what-189405

It gives cogent reasons as to why Pilgrims Progress should not be regarded as a novel, certainly enough reasons for the BBC to skip it without any accusations of bias.

It's worth remembering that Mark Thompson's possible religious influence is of relatively recent provenance (2004), whereas that of his predecessor, Greg Dyke was obviously politically motivated, as was that of Gavyn Davies BBC Chairman who both resigned under a cloud and it will probably take some time to eradicate their unfortunate legacy.

[Seasider]

Well I wouldn't want John Birt back under any circumstances. He should be sent to The Tower for crimes against the English Language among other things.

[kiki1982]

I don't see any "don't upset the non-Christians" bias, the opposite if anything. The director general Mark Thompson is a devout catholic, which might indicate why the Pope got so much air-time on his recent visit, and why Anne Widdecombe is popping up everywhere, from "Strictly" to documentaries on Newman.... Also might explain why there is always a catholic doyen on the "Big Questions" Sunday morning programme, with little atheist input.

I'd recommend:

http://www.enotes.com/pilgrims-progress/q-and-a/why-john-bunyans-pilgrims-progress-not-novel-what-189405

It gives cogent reasons as to why Pilgrims Progress should not be regarded as a novel, certainly enough reasons for the BBC to skip it without any accusations of bias.

I never said that would have been the sole reason, and there is probably a better reason than this, but it is not because the boss is a devout Catholic that he will not be politically correct in trying in not to 'offend' other faiths. And yes, The Big Questions... I find it a dumb programm as it really pushes streotypes instead of emphasising the whole 'we are all in it together'-thing. Essentially, morality is not something that is largely based on faith but something that faith has used. Religion should not determine your look on things, or at least your look on life as a Muslim, say, should not be deemed fundamentally different from the one of a Christian or even an atheïst. And that is essentially what that programm does: 'the other'. But enough of that. As I said, the BBC is sometimes too politically correct. Getting black people into the story of Robin Hood, for example. Or the very obvious moral background in Jane Eyre (there it is again! :D) which was totally ignored in favour of something too simple; 'poor me' was the only conclusion. Or the fact that there were, well counted, two servants in Emma. Strange that. The American approach. And Mr Woodhouse who had turned into a genuinely sick and worried old man instead of the laughing stock he should be. Would it have had to do with the fact that under no circumstances they wanted to offend the elderly?


I know that you aren't from the UK, but perhaps it takes an outsider to readily notice these things. I certainly know from my own experience of living abroad that I was able to define the fault lines in British society more easily than by simply living here. A bit like watching a germ culture through a microscope rather than being one of the germs.

I know. Living in Germany, I realise more and more, up to the point of tearing my hair out, how far into the pit Belgium has gone. I think we are waiting for a crash, unless Cameron and Clegg teach those people a lesson about making a government with your enemy (although I realise that they are not perfect).

[Emil Miller]

I never said that would have been the sole reason, and there is probably a better reason than this, but it is not because the boss is a devout Catholic that he will not be politically correct in trying in not to 'offend' other faiths. And yes, The Big Questions... I find it a dumb programm as it really pushes streotypes instead of emphasising the whole 'we are all in it together'-thing. Essentially, morality is not something that is largely based on faith but something that faith has used. Religion should not determine your look on things, or at least your look on life as a Muslim, say, should not be deemed fundamentally different from the one of a Christian or even an atheïst. And that is essentially what that programm does: 'the other'. But enough of that. As I said, the BBC is sometimes too politically correct. Getting black people into the story of Robin Hood, for example. Or the very obvious moral background in Jane Eyre (there it is again! :D) which was totally ignored in favour of something too simple; 'poor me' was the only conclusion. Or the fact that there were, well counted, two servants in Emma. Strange that. The American approach. And Mr Woodhouse who had turned into a genuinely sick and worried old man instead of the laughing stock he should be. Would it have had to do with the fact that under no circumstances they wanted to offend the elderly?



I know. Living in Germany, I realise more and more, up to the point of tearing my hair out, how far into the pit Belgium has gone. I think we are waiting for a crash, unless Cameron and Clegg teach those people a lesson about making a government with your enemy (although I realise that they are not perfect).

You are very percipient in your view of BBC programmes, I'm just waiting for the inevitable 'statistics' to be produced in this thread, there are bound to be some somewhere (see my signature) , unfortunately too many viewers seem to be deficient of a critical faculty or, as already stated, simply refuse to believe what they see and hear. I don't watch TV these days, so I didn't know about black people in Robin Hood, but it's commensurate with one BBC broadcaster's statement that she would like to see a black James Bond. Until these people are rooted out , the BBC will continue to run their, not so secret agenda, to the detriment of the programmes.
As for the current situation in Belgium, it is being covered much better in the French press than the UK's, which is understandable and, without going into the politics at play, the only thing that appears to be holding it together is the fact that the EU bureaucracy is based in Brussels. The current UK coalition isn't really comparable to the set up in Belgium and is built on very shaky ground. It is fascinating nevertheless.

[mal4mac]

A SKELETON uncovered in the ruins of a friary is the earliest physical evidence of a black person living in Britain in medieval times.

The remains of a man, found in the friary in Ipswich, Suffolk, which was destroyed by Henry VIII, have been dated to the 13th century.

It is the first solid indication that there were black people in Britain in the 1,000-year period between the departure of the Romans, who had African slaves, and the beginnings of the age of discovery in the 15th century.

The skull had African characteristics, and an isotopic analysis of the man’s teeth and thigh bone traced his roots to north Africa.

The man is thought to have been captured by a nobleman who brought him back from one of the last crusades in the 1270s....[and then he joined the merry men :)]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7113909.ece

What's wrong with having a black James Bond? Mickey Bricks (Adrian Lester) is, surely, a great candidate for the job:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007gf9k

James Bond isn't great literature, it's just a bit of fun escapism, and you can and should take lots of liberties with it - or it quickly becomes staid and boring. Why not have a female (or sex change) James Bond?

On this note - I quite like what the BBC have done in bringing Sherlock into modern times...

[prendrelemick]

Well I enjoyed the Faulks programme, but lost a lot of respect for him when he suggested that Martin Amis of all people had given us the last literary 'hero'. There's a word to describe that statement and it starts with b and ends in ollocks. Methinks Faulks needs to read around a bit. Martin Amis isn't even that good, and if it hadn't been on TV I wouldn't have the faintest idea who the 'hero' of Money is. Ugh.

Hoping to watch the other two tonight, gruelling work schedule permitting.


I think it is the definition of Hero that is the problem. John Self is Faulks' representative of the morals and mores of that era, (the 80's) Remember the "Loads of Money" decade where greed and ostentation was good and consumerism was King. There may well be heros of the nineties and the naughties, (a liberal enviromentalist, who holidays 3 times a year on a maxed out credit card.) But (s)he hasn't been agreed on yet.

[Seasider]

I have been hoping for an opportunity for a rant on this topic and this programme and comments is perfect.

Is it just me or does anyone else find the modern pronunciation of the word book jarring?
Mariella used it and she wasn't the only one ...It sounds a bit like berk and a bit like buck and it makes me squirm.

[Emil Miller]

A SKELETON uncovered in the ruins of a friary is the earliest physical evidence of a black person living in Britain in medieval times.

The remains of a man, found in the friary in Ipswich, Suffolk, which was destroyed by Henry VIII, have been dated to the 13th century.

It is the first solid indication that there were black people in Britain in the 1,000-year period between the departure of the Romans, who had African slaves, and the beginnings of the age of discovery in the 15th century.

The skull had African characteristics, and an isotopic analysis of the man’s teeth and thigh bone traced his roots to north Africa.

The man is thought to have been captured by a nobleman who brought him back from one of the last crusades in the 1270s....[and then he joined the merry men :)]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7113909.ece

What's wrong with having a black James Bond? Mickey Bricks (Adrian Lester) is, surely, a great candidate for the job:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007gf9k

James Bond isn't great literature, it's just a bit of fun escapism, and you can and should take lots of liberties with it - or it quickly becomes staid and boring. Why not have a female (or sex change) James Bond?

On this note - I quite like what the BBC have done in bringing Sherlock into modern times...

I couldn't agree more about James Bond, especially as Sebastian Faulks has written a James Bond book 'Devil May Care', but what earthly point is there in putting black people in traditionally white roles unless it's just another case of the BBC's racial engineering?

[kiki1982]

@Mal4mac:

That's obviously why Friar Tuck was a black person. The only black person in Britain happened to wonder around in Sherwood Forest...
It is very well possible that there were black people about in Britain, as there must have been Turks, Moors and everything, but I just don't see the need to introduce them in a particular role in such a series. If you want to introduce them, then by all means do, but create a part for them. They did that with the Turkish girl, why not with a black man? But no, it had to be friar Tuck. It would have been as ridiulous had they made the Sheriff or Guy black, but that's what they would not have done as they were the bad guys. Never make a bad guy black. If you do want a prominent character, who does not need to be white or a man as James Bond should be (a black British English speaking agent in Russia or America will not at all arouse suspicion), then let it be Doctor Who or his side kick. That is much more appropriate. Or why not a female Doctor Who? Surely those people are not suggesting that James Bond should be a woman?

@Brian:

Enough of the politics now... I have noticed a kind of dumbing down in the way they do programmes. When I started watching about ten years ago, certain programmes were largely for clever people. But then it went to a phase where I always felt like I was a moron as the presenter was talking to me like I did not know anything. Now it has gone back the other way, or partly, but there is still an issue with programmes that presume that people know absolutely nothing and are in need of an easy conclusion.
The most ridiculous one I heard was David Dimbleby on one of his programmes, I think The Normans or something, claiming that this big round table on the wall was the genuine one of King Arthur :rolleyes:. He was actually claiming that the middle age aritocracy was trying to get to the ideal of King Arthur :rolleyes: rather than explaining that actually King Arthur was a product of that same society, let alone the table being really genuine... Please, nobody is served by ignorance...
I think it is kind of about 'equal opportunities'. We would not like to tell a part of society that they are not really clever, would we? Only, then we do have to dumb down the largest bit, as the largest part of society is not really really clever and so we do not serve anyone because there nothing better to aspire to. It's the same as the 'caution, wet floor'-sign. It makes sure people do not look anymore and then fall over in other countries, because there is no 'caution, wet floor'-sign. And then they are angry (encountered a person once who was really cheesed off about that...).

[Emil Miller]

Wow! A black friar Tuck. I didn't think even the BBC would try that one, but on reflection I suppose it's step on the way to a black Robin Hood; perhaps they will call him Robin Hoodie.
As for David Dimbleby, you can take anything he says with a large pinch of salt, if that's not a contradiction in terms.
Either way, you have certainly got the BBC worked out.

[TheFifthElement]

I think it is the definition of Hero that is the problem. John Self is Faulks' representative of the morals and mores of that era, (the 80's) Remember the "Loads of Money" decade where greed and ostentation was good and consumerism was King. There may well be heros of the nineties and the naughties, (a liberal enviromentalist, who holidays 3 times a year on a maxed out credit card.) But (s)he hasn't been agreed on yet.

I still think it was a lazy choice - from Amis to Amis although they were some sort of British literary aristocracy which I'm sure Amis the younger would love and Amis the older would deplore.

Besides, Ballard was earlier and better and you could argue that McEwan (who I'm not a fan of either) captures the 'hero' of the noughties. Or Tom McCarthy, I think he's probably got it about bang on with C and Men in Space. Remainder less so, but the nugget of it is there.

It was a statement that lacked vision and showed Faulks's limits more than the ability of a contemporary British writer to capture the 'spirit' of the age.

[wessexgirl]

I don't see any "don't upset the non-Christians" bias, the opposite if anything. The director general Mark Thompson is a devout catholic, which might indicate why the Pope got so much air-time on his recent visit, and why Anne Widdecombe is popping up everywhere, from "Strictly" to documentaries on Newman.... Also might explain why there is always a catholic doyen on the "Big Questions" Sunday morning programme, with little atheist input.

I'd recommend:

http://www.enotes.com/pilgrims-progress/q-and-a/why-john-bunyans-pilgrims-progress-not-novel-what-189405

It gives cogent reasons as to why Pilgrims Progress should not be regarded as a novel, certainly enough reasons for the BBC to skip it without any accusations of bias.

I agree Mal. All of the histories of the novel I have read/seen always start in the 18th century with Defoe, Fielding, Swift etc. Channel 4 did a really good series on the Story of the Novel a few years ago, and I seem to remember that they went into great detail about the same authors. I can't remember Pilgrim's Progress being mentioned. It looks very much like another stick to beat the BBC with.

Fifth, Amis pops up in the BBC 4 programme too, (and I agree about Self), but he does have a pop at Richardson, along with Margaret Drabble, which was quite entertaining. However, like him or not, (Richardson I mean), his place in the story is important.

[prendrelemick]

I still think it was a lazy choice - from Amis to Amis although they were some sort of British literary aristocracy which I'm sure Amis the younger would love and Amis the older would deplore.

Besides, Ballard was earlier and better and you could argue that McEwan (who I'm not a fan of either) captures the 'hero' of the noughties. Or Tom McCarthy, I think he's probably got it about bang on with C and Men in Space. Remainder less so, but the nugget of it is there.

It was a statement that lacked vision and showed Faulks's limits more than the ability of a contemporary British writer to capture the 'spirit' of the age.


I admit it was a sweeping statement, (the ,"no more heros" thing) I thought, surely that can't be right, but then couldn't think of one myself. (I haven't read Tom McCarthy)

McEwan has yet to pen a character that can be a reresentative of his age. (A Nobel Prize winning scientist does not qualify.) Irving Walsh's Trainspotting, is of the same coin as Money.

Faulk's criteria was not who is the better writer, but which character best represents the attitudes of the age, even if they are written as a caricature rather than a real person.

I agree there was a narrowness about the whole programme though. It was exclusively English, but without a hint of multi-culturism.

[kasie]

.....I'd recommend:

http://www.enotes.com/pilgrims-progress/q-and-a/why-john-bunyans-pilgrims-progress-not-novel-what-189405

It gives cogent reasons as to why Pilgrims Progress should not be regarded as a novel, certainly enough reasons for the BBC to skip it without any accusations of bias.

I did say I thought of Pilgrim's Progress as a proto-novel, a pre-cursor of the form, similar to the early prose works Jack of Newbury and Thomas of Reading. Granted they are all picaresque in form, a series of 'incidents' that accumulate to form one narrative whole, but they help to form the tradition of prose stories with recognisible 'heroes' and a developing story-line. Christian, as a character, grows and changes not just in religious terms but as a thinking, feeling man, as a result of his experiences, one of the factors that make the Progress more than a religious tract. The novel proper develops in leaps and bounds in the eighteenth century with an expanded readership available with time, education and money to enjoy such a diversion but it didn't come out of nowhere: these works laid the foundation on which the later form grew.

It seems to me that they fit E M Forster's definition of the novel as ...'a prose fiction of a certain length...' (Aspects of the Novel) even if they do not have all the characteristics of the form as it later became.

[kiki1982]

It would indeed have been that little bit better if they had made a thing of 'prose before the novel' so as to stress that 'the novel' wasn't a chance discovery of Defoe in Robinson Crusoe. Now, it is as if this person thought, 'Oh, I'm going to write something and why not make it fiction with a purpose?' which is not realistic, is it?

[mal4mac]

It seems to me that they fit E M Forster's definition of the novel as ...'a prose fiction of a certain length...' (Aspects of the Novel) even if they do not have all the characteristics of the form as it later became.

Well that's E M Forster's definition, but do we have to accept it? It looks like a rather flip aside, does he expand on this definition at all? Is a prose translation of the Odyssey a novel? Is the Bible a novel? (It's fiction for atheists - with elements of the historical novel.)

Ian Watt in The Rise of the Novel seems to add much more clarity to the definition. He clearly defines a specific period - the eighteenth century - for its emergence, using specific examples like Daniel Defoe, Samuel Richardson and Henry Fielding. The common trace is realism. Robinson Crusoe, Moll Flanders, Tom Jones aimed at a completely earthly reward, not at a religious, celestial one, like 'the Pilgrim'. They were about earthly aims, like surviving on a desert island, or in a city full of threats or dangers; finding a proper husband.

Watt's definition seems much more useful to me, it provides a much clearer, and useful, categorisation, and the BBC seems to have followed it in their two series on this - both starting with Defoe - good for them!

Also - given such major concentrations by the BBC on 'the Pope' and 'the King James Bible' recently, they might have been forced to be very secular in their series on the novel just to keep a reasonable balance...

[mal4mac]

It's unlikely the Sheriff or Guy could be black because they were part of the ruling elite, but monks can come from any section of society. Then again - what about Othello?

I'm thinking more of a James Bond for today - a black actor throws up soime interesting plot options - a white man pretending to be a Somali pirate would be a joke. There are, or at least were, many Africans in Russia - learning to be communists, so even there you get some new plots going.

Female Doctor Who? Great idea! Lots of laughs, and maybe some serious plot lines about gender change...

Really, a black Friar Tuck! I didn't watch the series, only about fifteen minutes and decided it was too boring and damaging of my childhood memories... I can't take it without that 1960s theme song... But if I'd seen a black friar tuck I just might have stayed watching.

Why is black Friar Tuck any more unlikely than anything else? The black person had to become someone - Epictetus became a great stoic philosopher teaching the elite of Roman Society - a black person making it as a mediocre monk seems just about plausible - he had to do something - how is 'monk' any less likely than 'cook' or 'farmer'?

See - it's got us talking about black people in medieval society - that's BBC fulfilling its educational remit very well!

Good point about David Dimbleby. They should use real experts to front programmes, there seems to be too much of a tendency to let the luvvies rabbit on about things they aren't experts in, especially if they are experts in 'other things'... The worst example of this recently, I thought, was pretty-boy Brian Cox and comedian Darragh O'Briain doing 'stargazing live'. Neither are astronomers - both have physics degrees - so the arts graduates who run the BBC thought that that - plus their luvvie credentials - made them good enough to do this. Darragh looked incredibly uncomfortable - and Cox kept on using him as a fall guy, probably not realising he had an MSc in physics, so even when Darragh made a good physics point he had to try and pull him down a peg or two, which Darragh resisted, and ... oh God what an embarrassment ... and I haven't even got into their muddling of astronomy. I had to switch off...

[kiki1982]

It's unlikely the Sheriff or Guy could be black because they were part of the ruling elite, but monks can come from any section of society. Then again - what about Othello?

Oh, and the only black monk they have found so far is going to be that one? Otherllo was a Moor, not black as such. Nubian is more the idea, not even certain, as the term 'Moor' could refer to anyone from North Africa, whether looking like Berber (slightly tanned) or whether really black like people from Mali or Mauretania. Moors were around in the South of Europe in the late Middle Ages. Not to mention that the thing is set in Venice which was a melting pot due to all the trade going on there. There was also a substantial Turkish community and a Jewish one. Does that mean that in the North of Europe there were as many muslims and Moors about? I think not. As such Othello can be a prince, but it does not make an argument for a lot of black people in general in medieval Britain.


I'm thinking more of a James Bond for today - a black actor throws up soime interesting plot options - a white man pretending to be a Somali pirate would be a joke. There are, or at least were, many Africans in Russia - learning to be communists, so even there you get some new plots going.

And the Russians have serious problems with them in terms xenophobia. I thought a secret agent had to win confidence, not try it. He would stand out like that so-called secret agent sent to Egypt in that Indiana Jones film, not speaking a word of Arab or Egyptian. As if that would do the MI6 some good.
At any rate, either James Bond is James Bond by Ian Fleming, it is bad enough that they have changed actors over the years, or he is not and can change colour like Michael Jackson. Isn't that a bit weird?


Why is black Friar Tuck any more unlikely than anything else? The black person had to become someone - Epictetus became a great stoic philosopher teaching the elite of Roman Society - a black person making it as a mediocre monk seems just about plausible - he had to do something - how is 'monk' any less likely than 'cook' or 'farmer'?

Because, as you stated, so far there was only found one person who was black in a monastery graveyard and he is considered special and exceptional. Why would friar Tuck be likely to be a black man? Epictetus might have been black, so? There were great numbers of different ethnicities in the Roman Empire. How is that an argument for medieval Britain? If the story had played in medieval Spain, I could still see a possibility, even for a black priest, but as it is, I don't really see the light. No-one ever claimed that blacks had no prominent place in drama or TV, but then one has to facilitate that idea by making something that does not require them to be farmers or servants. It is like wanting to make a Gone with the Wind-film without black servants, but with a black O'Hara clan. Does that make sense? Why not? Because historically, the O'Haras are Irish and white.


Good point about David Dimbleby. They should use real experts to front programmes, there seems to be too much of a tendency to let the luvvies rabbit on about things they aren't experts in, especially if they are experts in 'other things'...

I know Dimbleby is not an expert, but that's probably not the issue. I do not suppose that he has no team of writers and thinkers to help him with that programme, the same as Attenborough has one. The point is that no-one seems to have picked up on that mistake (and that is an understatement). Surely, someone in the history section must know about that? A presenter does not need to be an expert, a presenter must be able to consider the possibility of what he says not being right. There is a great difference. A presenter only has the task to present something in an interesting manner. In that Dimbleby is great.

[kasie]

Well that's E M Forster's definition, but do we have to accept it? It looks like a rather flip aside, does he expand on this definition at all? Is a prose translation of the Odyssey a novel? Is the Bible a novel? (It's fiction for atheists - with elements of the historical novel.)

Ian Watt in The Rise of the Novel seems to add much more clarity to the definition. He clearly defines a specific period - the eighteenth century - for its emergence, using specific examples like Daniel Defoe, Samuel Richardson and Henry Fielding. The common trace is realism. Robinson Crusoe, Moll Flanders, Tom Jones aimed at a completely earthly reward, not at a religious, celestial one, like 'the Pilgrim'. They were about earthly aims, like surviving on a desert island, or in a city full of threats or dangers; finding a proper husband.

Watt's definition seems much more useful to me, it provides a much clearer, and useful, categorisation, and the BBC seems to have followed it in their two series on this - both starting with Defoe - good for them!

Also - given such major concentrations by the BBC on 'the Pope' and 'the King James Bible' recently, they might have been forced to be very secular in their series on the novel just to keep a reasonable balance...

Yes - Forster expanded the statement at some length - he gave a series of lectures in Cambridge which were later printed as Aspects of the Novel. It's not a long book and has an easy, almost conversational style, much as it must have been delivered in lecture form. It's worth reading if you are at all interested in the Novel as a Form, as the thoughts of a practioner, rather than an Academic.

I would not presume to dispute Watts' definition of the origins of Novel. I only wished to suggest that the Form had precursors and did not spring into being ready-formed in the early eighteenth century: it is perpetuating this somewhat confusing simplification to ignore earlier prose fictions, whatever their subject.

And no, I do not think Forster would have regarded a prose translation of a verse epic as a novel in that it was not originally conceived as 'a prose fiction of a certain length' and to suggest in the 20s that the Bible was Fiction (or even Prose) would have been to invite howls of execration from almost all Academic quarters, let alone the Common Reader.

[prendrelemick]

I watched the Lovers episode this week, nothing much to report.


Is he saying that Literature is directing social trends, rather than reflecting them?

[kelby_lake]

I agree there was a narrowness about the whole programme though. It was exclusively English, but without a hint of multi-culturism.

That's because multi-culturalism is too broad to be able to give a fair representation of its literature. Besides, the programme is not particularly highbrow. On the topic of narrowness, did you notice that they were basically choosing novels which had all been serialised by the BBC?

[Emil Miller]

That's because multi-culturalism is too broad to be able to give a fair representation of its literature. Besides, the programme is not particularly highbrow. On the topic of narrowness, did you notice that they were basically choosing novels which had all been serialised by the BBC?

Yes that's true but it was probably because thay needed the clips from those serials, otherwise the programme would have been mostly Faulks and the talking heads.

[kiki1982]

That's what I also discovered, the BBC serials... But it's probably got to do with copyright, I guess. If they were to show clips of non-BBC stuff, they would either have to buy the whole thing or otherwise pay copyright on it and that would be a bit expensive for such a programme... So, use your own, was the best option.

I didn't quite agree with the assessment of Heathcliff and the failure to recognise that Darcy as 'the lover' was also satirised rather than really serious. Particularly his strange proposal should not be considered really serious. But I suppose time was again running short.

I just think the categories are probably too diverse to do a good programme about them within one hour. I mean, how diverse can you get with 'the hero' and 'the lover'. Only to explain the Byronic Hero (who is in essence also a lover), you need more than an hour...

[wessexgirl]

That's what I also discovered, the BBC serials... But it's probably got to do with copyright, I guess. If they were to show clips of non-BBC stuff, they would either have to buy the whole thing or otherwise pay copyright on it and that would be a bit expensive for such a programme... So, use your own, was the best option.

I didn't quite agree with the assessment of Heathcliff and the failure to recognise that Darcy as 'the lover' was also satirised rather than really serious. Particularly his strange proposal should not be considered really serious. But I suppose time was again running short.

I just think the categories are probably too diverse to do a good programme about them within one hour. I mean, how diverse can you get with 'the hero' and 'the lover'. Only to explain the Byronic Hero (who is in essence also a lover), you need more than an hour...

They weren't all BBC, WH was the ITV adaptation. One of the items on The Review Show was about the programme, and the panel said that the book is more detailed, (glad as I've ordered it for school), and it was made clear that it was Faulks own subjective view. The fact that he used clips from adaptations was obviously because an hour long programme on books could have been done just as well on the radio if there wasn't any visual links. I found the second programme better than the first.

I was a bit disappointed tonight to find that there wasn't a second programme on the British novel. I thought it was a series :confused5: I will have to keep a sharp eye out for the next one, whenever it's on.
For those who can access the Beeb, we have some treats coming up in their year of books. "South Riding" is up next on Sunday, and "Christopher and his Kind" is on next month, starring Matt "Dr Who" Smith as Christopher Isherwood.

[kiki1982]

You are right, actually, there were a two ITV ones, Bridesheid Revisited and WH, that is true, but the overall majority is BBC. But I start to understand the concept of the programme better now you have said that it was actually a book. Although, you do not really have to use clips from adaptations to make a point... At least, The Birth of the British Novel was not like that... At any rate, though, it's a matter of style, isn't it, although you are really limited to the points the adaptations make...

On the subject of The Birth of the British Novel:

it is on next on BBC4 on Tuesday at 11 pm.

Here (http://www.tvguide.co.uk/) a link where you can see a clear TV schedule AND look up certain shows when they are on.

I am also kind of looking forward to South Riding, and doing Downton Abbey now (missed it the first two times it was on :flare:). :)

[Emil Miller]

I've just watched the Faulks programme on the lover and agree that it was better than the first. The scenery will do wonders for UK tourism if the series is shown abroad. As with the first programme, the final two novels were lacking in substance and simply didn't have the quality of the forerunners. The last one, as with the Amis book last week, was just another example of nothing succeeds like excess. I wonder if Faulks chose the examples given or whether they were chosen for him.

[Emil Miller]

The most recent of the Faulk's series dealt with The Snob and was interesting enough but slightly inaccurate in it's depictions. To bring James Bond into the category was audience pandering at its most gratuitous. If Ian Fleming's 'literary' creation was looked down upon by Fleming's wife's circle, it is hardly surprising, and to suggest that Fleming is still read while Cyril Connolly is not, is simply because James Bond is, and always has been, read by overgrown schoolboys and, if that reads like snobbery, so be it. The final part of the series, The Villain, looks worth watching.

[kiki1982]

Yes, where James Bond came into the bargain as the typical snob, was a bit of a riddle to me.Yes he's got great gadgets to play wirh and great cars and really expensive suits, shoes and whatnot, but he is a secret agent and secret agents earn a lot while every day they are under threat of dying by the villain. Is it then not a bit logic that he lives the moment and goes for luxuries that make his lonely life a bit more bearable? He has no parents or siblings to look after and no children, so what is he to do with his money? (thank you, IMDb!) Or at least that is how I perceive that character. There was one film, don't know whether that was true to the book though, where his new wife was shot as they drive away on honeymoon. What happened to his first wife , I don't know, but things like that take a toll on a person, even if they look as cool as a secret agent should be. At any rate, that's a bit emotional isn't it :blush:, but calling him a snob... That word never entered my mind while watching the films (with all possible Bonds), to be honest...

I personally had a problem with Emma. I know she can easily be said to be snob, but I can't help thinking that her 'snobbery' was just a product of her (lack of) education, era and in particular her status in that era. In that, snobbery really does not exist for her, but should be sought in people like Mrs Elton. And her actions in connection with Harriet were motivated by genuinely being convinced of it that she was the illegitimate daughter of a baronet. If anything, Knightley is the snob there for saying that she couldn't get better than Martin because no-one would marry someone without connections... At least Emma did not care about them, as yet, being unseen. SLIGHT SPOILER In the end she wasn't too far from the truth, although Harriet's father was only in trade, but Knightley was taken up by his own preconceptions. SLIGHT SPOILER OVER

What does anyone think about the celebrity book programm with Ann Robinson?

Tremendously English again... And PD James can't read aloud (sorry, PD James :blush:). For the rest, I found it enlightning, but a bit rushed to be honest.

[wessexgirl]

I thought the James Bond inclusion was a bit strange, but as we've said, it's his subjective opinion. I look forward to the Villains, to see what weird and wonderful characters he assigns to this trait.

I watched the programme with Ann Robinson, and enjoyed it. The fact that we have 2 weeks of a daily book programme is wonderful. I have to say though that I'm not Ms Robinson's greatest fan, although I do appreciate that she is a book lover, as both her and PD James defended the beauty of a book over an ipad. I think the programme will vary in interest with the guests/choices, but tonight should be good, as it's Sue Perkins and Giles Coren, who have an established relationship, and, I think, will be very engaging. Sue in particular is a very articulate and witty speaker, and I think is obviously a book lover who has been on the panel of Booker judges before now.

Kiki, can you access BBC radio where you are? You may be interested in our R4 programmes about books, which include "Open Book", "A Good Read", (which is similar to the AR programme as guests choose a good book to champion), and "Book Club", where an invited author has a talk with an audience about a particular book of theirs. We also have "Poetry Please" and "With Great Pleasure" where someone chooses their favourite extracts from poetry and prose to be read out. We are quite spoiled by the Beeb! If you can get Sky tv too you might be interested in "The Book Show" which is a weekly programme.

Still no sign of part 2 of the BBC 4 programme about the novel. The first episode was repeated, but I haven't found when the 2nd episode is yet. My listing magazine comes out today, so I'll hurry off to get it and check. It's very frustrating, as there are often programmes I want to watch from BBC4, and plan to watch them on Catch up only to find they aren't there.

Edited to say that I've only just read your message Kiki, thanks but the 11pm slot was a repeat. I scoured my magazine from start to finish and no sign of it yet :frown2:.

[kiki1982]

I am not a fan of Robinson either, at least not in such chat shows. She is maybe a great talker, but rather in the way that she should be good at being a guest on the chat show, rather than the host...

I like Sue Perkins too...

I don't have access to Radio, I'm afraid. Or I do, possibly, on TV, but call me a bit strange, but I don't like listening to radio with meaningless things on the screen... ;)

Sounds interesting though.

Birth of the British Novel:

I know! It was so disappointing that it was a repeat! I was really set on watching it! Maybe tonight? I'll have a look on the internet.

[wessexgirl]

I don't have access to Radio, I'm afraid. Or I do, possibly, on TV, but call me a bit strange, but I don't like listening to radio with meaningless things on the screen... ;)

Don't look at the screen ;) :biggrin5:.

I try and potter around and do chores whilst listening. It's actually an incentive to get me off my butt and doing something :nod:.

[Seasider]

Snobbery, it seems to me is mostly displayed in interaction with others. James Bond is a materialist rather than a snob. The directors of the Bond films played up to that and expanded it further than Fleming had. I cant recall an instance from the Bond books I have read where he is condescending, patronising or arrogant to a social inferior.
I think there are at least 2 kinds of snob; one is like Lady Catherine de Bourgh convinced of her own social superiority, the other a person who attempts to detach him/herself from the perceived lowliness of his/her origins and strive for attachment to superiors in the hope that something of their class etc will rub off and that he/she will be perceived as included in their world.

My heroine Virginia Woolf was so conscious of being thought of as a snob that she even wrote and essay on it. Am I a snob?

[kiki1982]

Don't look at the screen ;) :biggrin5:.

I try and potter around and do chores whilst listening. It's actually an incentive to get me off my butt and doing something :nod:.

Yesn that's something too, but I tend to look at the screen no matter what's on it. Even the number four... If I could have the possibility of turning off the screen instead of the sound and have a black screen, then alright, I'll give it a go...


Snobbery, it seems to me is mostly displayed in interaction with others. James Bond is a materialist rather than a snob. The directors of the Bond films played up to that and expanded it further than Fleming had. I cant recall an instance from the Bond books I have read where he is condescending, patronising or arrogant to a social inferior.
I think there are at least 2 kinds of snob; one is like Lady Catherine de Bourgh convinced of her own social superiority, the other a person who attempts to detach him/herself from the perceived lowliness of his/her origins and strive for attachment to superiors in the hope that something of their class etc will rub off and that he/she will be perceived as included in their world.

My heroine Virginia Woolf was so conscious of being thought of as a snob that she even wrote and essay on it. Am I a snob?

Yup, that's what I perceived as a snob (the two kinds) and that's not what I found in Emma, at least not as extreme as in Lady Catherine, Mr & Mrs Elton, Mr Thorpe, even Darcy himself at first, the family Eliot of Persuasion. Emma is more a deluded and bored drama queen who is not consistent in her own opinions (she does like Mr Weston who made his fortune in trade, but does not like the Coles for the same...). She is lead by instant like or dislike and does not like to aknowledge that she is limited in any way due to her own weaknesses and those of her governess. That's a cross between snobism and pride really, but more pride. Or that's my opinion anyway.

[wessexgirl]

[QUOTE=kiki1982;1011234]Yesn that's something too, but I tend to look at the screen no matter what's on it. Even the number four... If I could have the possibility of turning off the screen instead of the sound and have a black screen, then alright, I'll give it a go... QUOTE]

The screen does go black after a while Kiki, with the 4 going, at least it does on my screen, so give it a go. I think you'd like the book programmes.

[mal4mac]

What does anyone think about the celebrity book programme with Ann Robinson?



I thought PD James was great. Not so impressed with the Blue Peter reject, though. How does being famous for snorting cocaine give you the right to appear in this programme as an expert on books? In football programmes they always have *only* previously famous footballers on the panel (Hansen, Shearer...) They don't have someone famous for snorting cocaine, and being fired from a kids program. Why lower the standards for a book program? I don't want to get book recommendations from a druggy - unless he/she is also a writer or a respected critic - just like I don't want PD James to teach me how to 'bend it like Beckham'.

[prendrelemick]

He wasn't there as an expert on books.

At least there's a chance such a person may bring something different to the feast. We don't want to be too literary do we?

[kiki1982]

haha :lol:

Giles Coren said about his guilty pleasure Asterix, 'The French and their Bandes Dessinées... They have no literary heritage like Shakespeare or Dickens...' And then Perkins went, 'Dumas, Balzac, Zola' or something of the sort.

:lol:

I think there will be some writers turning in their grave like Molière, Rostand and all the great 19th century ones... Or even better, maybe they'll come and haunt him :biggrin5:.

:lol:

[prendrelemick]

Then he muttered something like:- "All comics and restaurant menus -The French.":biggrin5:

[kiki1982]

:lol:

[prendrelemick]

South Riding has been mentioned on this thread. Did anyone else see it?

It is a book I am aware of but haven't read. I thought it was very well acted though, the girl in the lead, Anna Maxwell Martin was particularly good.

[kiki1982]

Yes, found it alright, actually. Have not read the book, so I can't really comment how good, but to me, as a drama, it was fine, and it is done by Davies, so we may presume some quality there...

Did you also get some echos from Jane Eyre? I mean, it seems that the man's (have forgotten the name) wife was a bit balmy, he has a daughter who is alone in the house and who extremely likes the new head mistress and her father seems strangely interested in her despite on the surface disagreeing... And they meet each other for the second time in a field when he is killing a horse which has broken its foot... Not sure whom he was going to take flowers to in the end... Would that be the wife? :D

[wessexgirl]

Yes, found it alright, actually. Have not read the book, so I can't really comment how good, but to me, as a drama, it was fine, and it is done by Davies, so we may presume some quality there...

Did you also get some echos from Jane Eyre? I mean, it seems that the man's (have forgotten the name) wife was a bit balmy, he has a daughter who is alone in the house and who extremely likes the new head mistress and her father seems strangely interested in her despite on the surface disagreeing... And they meet each other for the second time in a field when he is killing a horse which has broken its foot... Not sure whom he was going to take flowers to in the end... Would that be the wife? :D

Oh yes Kiki, I never spotted those JE echoes. I really enjoyed the programme, and thought that I might try the book, although it's huge! I thought it was excellently acted too, and of course, as with most of Davies's adaptations, it holds your attention. I couldn't wait for the next episode. Of course it helps that I am a massive David Morrissey fan :ihih: and I really like Douglas Henshall too, so the excellent Anna Maxwell Martin has the sort of dilemma looming that I wouldn't mind! Excellent cast all round actually, including one of my favourite actresses Penelope Wilton. She seems to be popping up in a lot of things lately, but I see her as a fledgling "national treasure", so I don't get fed up of seeing her. I hope you've managed to catch Downton Abbey Kiki, and you will have spotted her there too, going head-to-head with the redoubtable Maggie Smith, a wonderful double act.

[mal4mac]

He wasn't there as an expert on books.

At least there's a chance such a person may bring something different to the feast. We don't want to be too literary do we?

Imagine if the BBC replaced Hansen by a failed children's TV presenter famous for snorting coke and said, "well we don't want to get too many experts involved in our football coverage." Imagine if the BBC replaced David Attenborough by a famous alcoholic who had been to London zoo a couple of times? "Well we don't want someone who has a degree in zoology and fifty years of field experience do we, when we can give poor Whatshisname a job, cause he can't get any work, because he's a reprobate. They're only monkeys anyway, everyone has something to say about monkeys..."

The BBC is already dumbed down enough, they need to err on the side of "too literary"...

[kiki1982]

erm, hello, they are not planning to make even an informative programm on books like Birth of the British Novel and Faulks on Fiction, but they are trying to get people reading, as they are trying to do with Book Night or however it's called.

In that, asking people who are famous even for sniffing cocain, provided that they have read (otherwise the aim of the show is defeated isn't it), are a good choice because stuffy names like PD James put people off. Celebrities get peple watching. And they mght just pick up that book that so-and-so said was good (cfr Oprah Winfrey).

Tonight is Claire Balding (however you write that name).

At any rate, the fact that you're a physicist does not keep you from reading, does it? So, the fact that the guy has sniffed some cocain, has not kept him from reading. Therefore, as long as he does not come out with, 'Books are crap and a waste of time', he is a good enough choice for that show.

[mal4mac]

Methinks Giles Coran made that remark about the French because he's a self-publicist. He can laugh it off by suggesting he was being ironic, after he's generated far too much publicity from those daft enough to think his views worth commenting on. (I was most upset by his offhand remark about Dickens!) The comments he made about just making up book jacket blurb, and not bothering to read the book, was revealing about the puerile nature of much of the modern literary establishment - and he basically declared himself as one of the corrupt - totally not to be trusted.

That said, I thought he was spot-on about Moby Dick. I'm reading it at the moment, and he's right about it being very readable.

All in all Coran was almost as bad a choice as the cocaine snorter in the first programme. His journalistic record indicates he targets the most dumbed-down, trendy & prostitutional areas of writing ("Food And Drink", Fashion, ghost-writing biographies of the famous... see Wikipedia...) His first novel, Winkler, won the Literary Review's "Bad Sex in Fiction Award". OK he's a writer, but to have him on is like getting Vinnie Jones to provide an in depth analysis of the last match between Arsenal and Barcelona. Good for a laugh maybe? Nah - I'm crying.

The producer of this series should be fired, and the producer of Melvyn Bragg's In Our Time hired .... he always seems to be able to get seriously interesting non-self-publicists to appear week-in-week-out.

P.S. Wikipedia gives an account of the publicity he generated by attacking the Poles. Maybe he thinks he can get more by attacking Dickens and the French.

[kiki1982]

Oh yes Kiki, I never spotted those JE echoes. I really enjoyed the programme, and thought that I might try the book, although it's huge! I thought it was excellently acted too, and of course, as with most of Davies's adaptations, it holds your attention. I couldn't wait for the next episode. Of course it helps that I am a massive David Morrissey fan :ihih: and I really like Douglas Henshall too, so the excellent Anna Maxwell Martin has the sort of dilemma looming that I wouldn't mind! Excellent cast all round actually, including one of my favourite actresses Penelope Wilton. She seems to be popping up in a lot of things lately, but I see her as a fledgling "national treasure", so I don't get fed up of seeing her. I hope you've managed to catch Downton Abbey Kiki, and you will have spotted her there too, going head-to-head with the redoubtable Maggie Smith, a wonderful double act.

haha, of course it's her! I have never been really good at recognising and following actors, although I'm starting to get better. But I have only a few I am interested in.

That double act is really good, yes. Downton Abbey in general is ok, but they could have put more beneath the plot. On the whole though, it is an interesting Upstairs-Downtairs thing... More realistic than Servants and more interesting to a certain extent than Upstairs Downstairs. Maggie Smith as the dowager makes me really roar with laughter sometimes :lol:. 'What shall we call each other, Lady Grantham?' 'Well, we could start with Lady Grantham and Mrs Crawley.' :lol:. One commedian in Fast and Loose in the Weakest Link-section had to answer a question in a Downton Abbey-character's style and she went, with quivering lip and kind of getting in hysterics, 'The lady dowager never answers questions!' :lol: That was so true!
And then, somewhere in the beginning of Downton, when she is complaining of 'the glare' of the electric light, shielding her face continuously from the light with her fan. :lol: I liked that so much! Credit to the writer for considering the great change in brightness it must have been for those fossils who lived in an age of candles only.
Her character so delightfully self-conscious! And certainly when she sees that Mrs Crawley as an imposter. How smug she pointed out that the problem with the butler's hands was 'just' an allergy. It was lovely. :nod: :lol:

Tonight episode 5 and 6. And then it's almost finished :(.

[mal4mac]

erm, hello, they are not planning to make even an informative programm on books like Birth of the British Novel and Faulks on Fiction, but they are trying to get people reading, as they are trying to do with Book Night or however it's called.

In that, asking people who are famous even for sniffing cocain, provided that they have read (otherwise the aim of the show is defeated isn't it), are a good choice because stuffy names like PD James put people off. Celebrities get peple watching. And they mght just pick up that book that so-and-so said was good (cfr Oprah Winfrey).

Tonight is Claire Balding (however you write that name).

At any rate, the fact that you're a physicist does not keep you from reading, does it? So, the fact that the guy has sniffed some cocain, has not kept him from reading. Therefore, as long as he does not come out with, 'Books are crap and a waste of time', he is a good enough choice for that show.

I'd be more than happy to hear Will Self on books. He's famous for imbibing illegal substances, but he's famous for *more than that*. He's actually famous for writing books.

I recently complained about two physicists presenting a program on star-gazing. (I'm fussy :) ) But at least they had some experience in a related area, with some common subject matter. The whole choice of the guests on this programme seems to suffer from a close relation of the 'anyone can write, so anyone can write a novel' fallacy. It's the 'anyone can read, so anyone can become a book reviewer fallacy'. It's as wrong as 'anyone can look up, so anyone can be an astronomer' fallacy.

[prendrelemick]

I can't understand why you're objecting to Richard Bacon so strongly. He brought along several books I hadn't heard of, that sounded interesting. His opinion on the tabloids was interesting, considering his run-in with them. PD James on the other hand brought mostly the usual suspects and nothing recent.

The title of the series is "My Life in Books." Richard Bacon is the number one expert on the influential books in Richard Bacon's life. That's the primary source brought to your living room. What more do you want?

[mal4mac]

The title of the series is "My Life in Books." Richard Bacon is the number one expert on the influential books in Richard Bacon's life. That's the primary source brought to your living room. What more do you want?

But what makes him any more interesting than 50 million other people? I'd much rather hear prendrelemick's book choices! Bacon is part of the Celebrity culture that rewards over-privileged people for not doing much, and doing it badly. The BBC shouldn't reward him with any air time, but especially not on a programme that has some pretensions about being serious and worthwhile. look at his wikipedia entry - a dropout public-school wastrel with a yummy mummy who works for the BBC... and my license money is still keeping him in the white stuff... grrr...

[kiki1982]

But what makes him any more interesting than 50 million other people? I'd much rather hear prendrelemick's book choices! Bacon is part of the Celebrity culture that rewards over-privileged people for not doing much, and doing it badly. The BBC shouldn't reward him with any air time, but especially not on a programme that has some pretensions about being serious and worthwhile. look at his wikipedia entry - a dropout public-school wastrel with a yummy mummy who works for the BBC... and my license money is still keeping him in the white stuff... grrr...

It does not make him more interesting. The point is that the BBC does not know Prendrelemick so they cannot ask him to appear on the show. The point is also, even if they were to randomly open the phone book and phone Prendrelemick asking him to appear on the show, that no-one would watch the show as they do not know Prendrelemick and think, 'What the hell do I want to know what Prendrelemick's life in books is? I don't even know his life so I don't want to know about it.'

oo, a public school drop-out, really? Not really, actually, a uni drop out. He must be totally bonkers then. Seriously, I'm a uni drop-out. Does that make my entries on here less worthwhile? There are a number of writers who are not well educated, do they still have a right to appear on there or what? One does not need to be hyperintelligent to read, nor to write, so not hyperintelligent either to appear on that show. Only be able to tell people why they like this or that book.

And anyway, Dickens wasn't well educated, still he wrote well, or so you think. You still like him after knowing that?

[prendrelemick]

Just to say, I am available (and cheap.)



I have listened to Mr Bacon's show, and he is a bit more than specious. He seems to have background knowledge of his subjects and asks the right questions.

[kiki1982]

haha, we'll let the BBC know! :lol:

I didn't actually think he came across as clueless, to be honest. Then I rather had something against Coren...

[mal4mac]

... I'm a uni drop-out. Does that make my entries on here less worthwhile? There are a number of writers who are not well educated, do they still have a right to appear on there or what? One does not need to be hyperintelligent to read, nor to write, so not hyperintelligent either to appear on that show. Only be able to tell people why they like this or that book.

And anyway, Dickens wasn't well educated, still he wrote well, or so you think. You still like him after knowing that?

Peak-time BBC is watched by millions of people, and BBC producers have a responsibility to use that power wisely. I especially didn't like the way that Bacon's cocaine use was treated as a bit of a laughing matter, just something that cool bad boys do - at a time when kids are watching.

I didn't argue that a university degree should be a necessary qualification to appear. I only mentioned it in Bacon's case as a minor part of the stack of evidence against his suitability. The main qualification should, surely, be that the guests should be able to provide evidence that they have read (or written!) many good books, and be able to argue for them well and wisely.

I quite like the way that Ann Robinson is subtly undermining some of the naffer guests - "You've written one book called <daft title>, didn't sell very well though did it...." But I'd prefer it if the producers actually hired more decent guests.

When I sit down to Watch Barcelona v. Arsenal I expect to hear from commentators who are former players, with a shelf full of trophies, or from managers who have won many titles. And I usually get that. If Bacon appeared you'd probably have a mass of football fans phoning the BBC and swearing very loudly. That would upset the luvvies, so Match of the Day is a Bacon free zone... so come on book lovers! start complaining, swearing allowed...

[prendrelemick]

What would your five books and your guilty pleasure be. REMEMBER!! It is your life in books. Not your favourites at this time.



Could be a thread on its own, this.

[Emil Miller]

I was disappointed in the final section of Faulks on Fiction dedicated to The Villain. Richardson's 'Clarissa' may have been an historical choice but I doubt that it has been much read today, except by students and teachers of English Lit. There was an actual bodice ripping in the story which may make it the first English novel to feature one. It seems a pity that after all the author's work, this sort of activity finally ended up in the novels of Barbara Cartland.
I don't know why Fagin was chosen when Bill Sykes would have made a better villain, unless it was so that the eternal subject of anti-semitism could be introduced.
Count Fosco would also seem more of an exotic than a villain, although I haven't read Wilkie Collins' book, and the actor who played him didn't correspond the description as read by Faulks.
Gormenghast seemed to be a cross between a medieval morality tale and a teenage fantasy novel, and cross-cutting to pictures of Hitler was a distraction rather than an aid to understanding the story.
I didn't think much of The Lord of the Flies when I read it and Faulks hasn't changed my mind about it.
The Raj Quartet had a recognisable villain but, once again, the British obsession with homosexuality, as with the aforementioned anti-semitism, was strongly to the fore.
As with others in the series,the last book was the weakest, with the villain being a lonely repressed spinster, with undertones of lesbianism, under age sex and not very much else.

[prendrelemick]

I missed that one. Which goes to show, the series was not exactly riveting.

It was on the whole a bit too formal and safe. He chose the usual suspects.

[Emil Miller]

I missed that one. Which goes to show, the series was not exactly riveting.

It was on the whole a bit too formal and safe. He chose the usual suspects.

I agree but, in fairness, it's difficult to make great literature interesting to a mass audience, many of whom probably don't read books anyway. So bringing in those whom they may at least of heard or seen television adaptations of, was perhaps inevitable. On the whole I think it was reasonably successful if not as informative as it might have been. Faulks did so much walking about I imagine he was glad to put his feet up by the end of the series.

[kelby_lake]

There were loads of random bits where he'd just go into a cafe and order a coffee or something because it had a tenuous link with the novel.

[mal4mac]

I was disappointed in the final section of Faulks on Fiction dedicated to The Villain. Richardson's 'Clarissa' may have been an historical choice but I doubt that it has been much read today, except by students and teachers of English Lit.

I don't know why Fagin was chosen when Bill Sykes would have made a better villain, unless it was so that the eternal subject of anti-semitism could be introduced.

I didn't think much of The Lord of the Flies when I read it and Faulks hasn't changed my mind about it.

I've been putting off reading Clarissa, but Faulks made me think that it might be worth checking out. The sketch he produced of Lovelace was a tour de force that may just persuade a few readers to tackle a work they may never have considered reading - surely that's a good thing? Faulks has been accused in this thread of being rather safe, recommending 'the usual suspects' that common readers will probably tackle anyway. So in making such a vivid case for Clarissa I think he has gone beyond the usual suspects and challenged at least this common reader to tackle a tough read.

I think Fagin is a far better choice than Bill Sykes, he's the spider at the centre of the web while Sykes is a more peripheral character - admittedly an especially nasty and active one - but Fagin is the fully three dimensional villain of the piece.

I recently re-read Lord of the Flies and thought it was excellent.

[Emil Miller]

I've been putting off reading Clarissa, but Faulks made me think that it might be worth checking out. The sketch he produced of Lovelace was a tour de force that may just persuade a few readers to tackle a work they may never have considered reading - surely that's a good thing? Faulks has been accused in this thread of being rather safe, recommending 'the usual suspects' that common readers will probably tackle anyway. So in making such a vivid case for Clarissa I think he has gone beyond the usual suspects and challenged at least this common reader to tackle a tough read.

I think Fagin is a far better choice than Bill Sykes, he's the spider at the centre of the web while Sykes is a more peripheral character - admittedly an especially nasty and active one - but Fagin is the fully three dimensional villain of the piece.

I recently re-read Lord of the Flies and thought it was excellent.

No, if anyone decides to read Clarissa on the strength of the programme, that's fine, although I doubt many will.
Of course Fagin was evil but he didn't actually kill anyone, and I doubt if he could, but Sykes was quite ready to do so even though he pays the price for it by the end of the novel.
It is many years since I read Lord of the Flies but my memory of it is that it wasn't particularly well-written, even for a Nobel Prize winner.

[kiki1982]

The question is why people would put off reading Clarissa... Surely not because of its size? If that is the only draw-back then the major French novels would never be read. 1000 pages is nothing compared to some French and Russian ones.

But I suppose the Anglosaxon market has been 'spoiled' somewhat by nice and concise stuff and otherwise broken down in several sequels, not in one go.

There is a charm of really long works if you read them... There is almost a feeling of really a whole life or generation, or whatever, that has passed in realtime, not because you were told it was... At the end, you really have the feeling that what happened at the beginning is genuinely long gone. You do not (or I do not) have that when I read something of 600 pages even.

That said, after hearing about that book in Birth of the British Novel and now Faulks, I have put it on my list to read.

But Emil is right that Faulks chose very predictably, although I do not suppose you could actually do anything really really worthwhile in one hour, taking into account that you're going to do from the 18th century to now...

[Emil Miller]

As I have said elsewhere on the forum, it does depend on a person's temperament as to what they might read. Obviously, 1000 page novels were not uncommon in times when people had few distractions and reading was the major pastime. The novel underwent a major transformation during the 20th century, especially as regards length, and although in the past I have read some pretty hefty works in excess of 1000 pages, I wouldn't take them on board now because, among other things, I have a computer which takes up a considerable amount of my time. There are obviously novels which, because of their length, leave an indelible mark on the reader's memory. Of Human Bondage has more than 1000 pages and I have read it twice, but The Great Gatsby has only 144 pages in the Oxford World Classics edition and I have read it six times because, to my mind, it is just as significant as a work of literature.

[kiki1982]

Oh, of course, I didn't mean to say that length is anything to go by when talking of quality in literature. It is just another way of writing. Those novels are mainly tales that comprise an incredible amount of years where the shorter ones tend not to, or tend to jump over a certian number of years/months fast because there is nothing to tell... Longer ones don't.

What I meant to say, in terms of Anglosaxon, is that, if you look at a shelf with Penguin Classics of genuine original anglophone novels, there is not much to find that is more than 2 fingers thick. Not that they are no good, far from, but that way, people do not get used to reading anyting that is beyond, let's say, 600 pages, which is already daunting in that respect.

The only thing is, of course, that with a long novel you do spend ages (and that is literally ages sometimes), reading it if you do not put the time in. That is, if you either do not have the time or, if the novel does not enthrall you :devil:

[Emil Miller]

I think that you are probably referring to the French historical romances by Dumas and Hugo which were the hallmark of the early 19th century, but with the arrival of naturalism, in the 2nd half of the century, blockbuster novels were less in evidence and those of Daudet, Zola, Maupassant etc. were considerably shorter. British writers such as Dickens, Charlotte Bronte, George Eliot etc., were also producing long novels throughout the 19th century, so this type of writing wasn't confined to French authors. Somerset Maugham's Of Human Bondage (1915) was an unusual example of the ultra long novel but it's noteworthy that he never produced anything else like it and most of his subsequent novels are around 200-300 pages long. French novel writing today is mostly confined to books of a similar length although I notice that some of the so-called post-modern American writers seem to have reverted to the ultra long novel for some reason.

[mal4mac]

It is many years since I read Lord of the Flies but my memory of it is that it wasn't particularly well-written, even for a Nobel Prize winner.

I re-read it at after many years, and it was better than I remembered...

[prendrelemick]

Did anyone catch Jeanette Winterson on "My Life in Books"? Her early life in Accrington is the stuff of legends. (Remember "Oranges Are Not The Only Friut") Her Mother changed the ending of Jane Eyre because Mr Rochester was "lost to sin.":lol:

[kasie]

I liked 'Mrs Winterson's' (as she to referred to her mother) definition of books as being 'dangerous things' because once you knew what was between the covers, it was too late.... How true, how true!

[kiki1982]

Did anyone catch Jeanette Winterson on "My Life in Books"? Her early life in Accrington is the stuff of legends. (Remember "Oranges Are Not The Only Friut") Her Mother changed the ending of Jane Eyre because Mr Rochester was "lost to sin.":lol:

:eek: :lol: How 18th century! :devil:

And that of books being dangerous... I'll remember... :D

[mal4mac]

The account of her panic attacks was touching, I wondered why she had disappeared from Newsnight review... bring back the days when they had her, Carey and Greer on frequently... now it seems reduced to thicko film critics and drug addict sculptors who admit happily to not having read Shakespeare... Who next? Bacon? (He was on the late night politics show on Thursday night! I turned off and went to bed, grumbling...)

[Emil Miller]

I have never heard of Jeanette Winterson .

[prendrelemick]

I suggest you iplayer the above for a start. I rate her very highly as an author.

[Emil Miller]

I have just 'Wikied' Winterson and I don't see anything there that would be of interest to me though.

[prendrelemick]

After seeing her wiki entry I'm not suprised.

[Emil Miller]

Having read these extracts from another website, I'm even less inclined to read her.

When Jeanette Winterson was asked (so the story goes) by a British newspaper questionnaire distributed among the nation's writers, whom she considered to be the greatest living prose stylist in English, her answer was unequivocal: Jeanette Winterson.

What you **** is more important than how you write. This may be because reading takes more effort than sex. . . . No one asks Iris Murdoch about her sex life. Every interviewer I meet asks me about mine and what they do not ask they invent. I am a writer who happens to love women. I am not a lesbian who happens to write.

[prendrelemick]

Aye, she's a gobby cow an' no mistake.:smilielol5: I hate recommending books or authors to anyone.

[mal4mac]

I have never heard of Jeanette Winterson .

"Oranges are not the only fruit" was made into a superb TV Drama series back in eighties, the woman who adopted her was the ultimate loopy fundamentalist. I'm tempted to read the novel...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oranges_Are_Not_the_Only_Fruit