Letter from London to the Bookworms Book Club in Stockholm

Letter to the Stockholm Bookworms prior to a meeting to discuss the much-hyped 'Normal People' by Salley Rooney.

Greetings from London,

I couldn't resist sacrificing some valuable shopping time to have a brief word about this book. It is definitely not my cup of carrot juice. I had difficulty getting beyond the first few chapters. Had I picked it up in a bookshop to read a little before making a decision, it would have gone back on its shelf double quick. Apart from finding the present tense uncalled for and difficult to get used to, I kept coming across expressions like, “It's a face like a piece of technology.” Can someone explain what “a piece of technology” is and what such a human face really looks like

 

Before long there was: “She was attuned to his body in a microscopic way.” What, may I ask, is that supposed to mean? And then: “Their secret weighed inside her body...pressing down on her pelvic bones.” After that, I'd had enough as the writing was beginning to press down not only on other vital parts of my anatomy but all my senses.

An Amazon 1-star reviewer gives some more Rooneyisms, like: “He's wholesome like a big baby tooth.” And: “The heat beats down on the back of Connell's neck like the feeling of human eyes staring.” And so it goes on. And on. Book of the year? For me, how this gibberish got into print remains one of the mysteries of the year. At the very least, the publisher's editor should be arrested and put on trial charged with gross negligence, causing untold harm to perfectly innocent and unsuspecting readers duped by the hype.

Yet on both the British and US Amazon sites, 44% of those rating the book gave it a 5, although no fewer than 24% of the UK reviewers were lone-star people and some of those would have given it a very round nought if that were possible. Nevertheless, let's let the admirers (I suspect that Rooney has a very large extended family) have their say.

“I loved this book, I couldn't put it down,” writes one (her mother?). “I felt a strong connection with all the characters, it explores human relations at it's best and worst... This is one of those books that will stay with me and I can't wait for what Sally Rooney (my daughter?) comes up with next!”( Hmmm.)

“I cried a little and found it moving,” writes someone else. “It was an easy read, which was a pleasant welcome after some stuff I have read recently.”

Here's another member of the fan club: “Rooney has a real talent in making you care about these characters and what happens to them, as well as subtly explaining the reasons for their seemingly unexpected and usually misguided actions and decisions... I cannot recommend this book highly enough...”

Contrast those remarks with these from the opposite end of the scale:

“I absolutely hated this book and hated that it sucked hours of my life reading it. I kept hoping it would get better but it just droned on. If this is what millennial writers have to offer, I will begin re-reading the classics or authors from previous generations who knew how to write. Ugh. Horrible.”

“If I could have given this book no stars I would have! It was so dull, boring, badly written and irritating! I had no empathy with any of the characters. I can't believe the comments on the cover are actually about this book!”

“Quite the most inane and intensely annoying book I have ever read.No cliche is left in the bag,the main characters are self absorbed bores,stuff just stupidly happens to enable the damn thing to keep moving forward until the inevitable ending is crowbarred in.”

“Worthless. I wish I could delete the mental pain caused by "this thing", but it is too late now that I've read it. There was no space in the household waste for it, and Bonfire night is too far away, so I have recycled it.”

And there's lots more in the same vein, on both sides. I don't think I've ever found a book with opinions about it so polarised 

My advice is beware of people with heat-ray eyes breathing down your neck, and above allt, take good care of those pelvic bones.

Love to all,

Stanley

http://stanleybloom.weebly.com

Books And Biscuits

We had tea and biscuits at the first book club meeting. But if you meet on a Sunday afternoon and carry on talking well into the evening, tea and biscuits don't make for very stimulating conversation. Certainly not after the first hour or two. So the simple afternoon tea soon gave way to more substantial sustenance, with anything from sandwiches and slices of pizza to pieces of home-made pie. But not even that lasted long once one of our members provided a two-course dinner, which has been the norm ever since. If the host or hostess wants help in the kitchen from others, it is willingly provided. Convinced that good books and good food go well together, we realise we had initially not only insulted our stomachs, but the authors we read. Well, most of them.

We choose books to discuss in democratic fashion, taking turns to suggest three titles, the one then receiving the most votes becoming our book for the month, or whenever the next meeting is scheduled for. This replaced our former method under which anyone could make suggestions at any meeting, which in practice meant the same people, with the same tastes, were always at the ready, while others had to accept their choices. OK, the rest of us could blame ourselves for not taking the trouble to come armed with suggestions, but otherwise could only react by harshly criticising a book we did not like.

There are no dissenting views about the food, however. Indeed, word of it has spread well beyond our circle, with the result that some people who seldom if ever open the covers of a book but with a good appetite (for food prepared by others) have wanted to join. We meet in each other's homes, but it does happen that a member unable to accommodate us hosts a meeting at someone else's place.

At the moment, we are a couple of people short, so if you are in the Stockholm area and are a book lover, do get in touch. (We are a friendly bunch.)

https://stanleybloom.weebly.com

stanleybstanleyb@gmail.com

Mythos

Thoughts on Mythos, the Greek myths retold by Stephen Fry

Mythos, a book-club choice, effectively reveals what an extraordinarily large crowd of cunning, self-seeking, vengeful cut-throats and sexual predators the Greek deities and demigods were. Without saying as much, it clearly illustrates that there was no attempt to combine morals with religion in those times. But it is mostly what the book doesn't do that leaves me dissatisfied.

Thus there is little or no attempt to place the myths in a wider context. What are their origins? What are the influences from the prehistoric past? What do they tell us about the people, or peoples, and their societies that devised them? The Hellenic world covered a vast area in the eastern Mediterranean. How widespread was belief in these mythical beings? All, or only some of them? And if morals weren't mixed up with religion, sport certainly was. Why no mention of this?

The ancient Games at Olympia were devoted to Zeus, those at Delphi to Apollo and so on. Participation or attendance was part of a religious duty or devotion. Yet the only mention of sport of any kind comes when Cadmus, said to be unrivalled in throwing stones, the discus and javelin, states that he is pretty good at running round the track as well. Round the track?! The ancient Greeks didn't run round tracks! They ran over a straight course. Then we are told that Cadmus's female companion bursts out: “My hero!” And buries here head on his chest! It makes me wonder whether Fry is writing the script of a third-rate Hollywood film or perhaps a Mills and Boon novelette?

To be fair, it's not all like that, but it does raise the question of whether trying to put twenty-first century supposedly 'with-it' language into the mouths of ancient Greek characters makes the whole thing sound ridiculous. Then Fry admits in his Afterword that he has 'tinkered' with the tales, and says that is what people have always done with myths. But unless we are already very knowledgeable on the subject, how are we to know what is Fry and what is ancient Greek? And if we know all about the myths already, why read this book? Many volumes have been written on the subject. Does this add anything? I doubt it.

One useful thing Fry does, however, is to point out words in the English language that are derived from the names of these beings. But such references are scattered here and there. I would have liked to see a comprehensive list of them, as well as a clearer table of the main deities. I found the great list of names at the beginning simply too long to be anything other than off-putting.

A final thought: without any kind of analysis, reading tale after tale about these characters and their antics simply became tedious. The club as a whole gave the book a weak three out of five, using the Amazon-Goodreads etc. rating system, – which, let it be said, was well below the average on those sites. I gave it two-point five.

Eleanor Oliphant - a book club choice

When travelling abroad I still like to keep up with what the Stockholm Bookworms are reading and send them my thoughts on the current book, usually together with some of the comments I have found online from other readers. This is what I had to say about Eleanor Oliphant is Perfectly Fine by Gail Honeyman. But a word of warning. It does reveal details of the story.

The question I asked my self repeatedly while reading the book was, “How plausible is Eleanor?” Extreme loneliness is undoubtedly widespread, especially in the cities, and all-too-many people have lived through a horrendous childhood and cannot but be affected by it for life. But how can one reconcile Eleanor's intelligence – after all, she went to university at the age of seventeen and is a wizard at cryptic crosswords – with her extreme naivety and ignorance of the world around her. She lived with foster families when she was growing up and even if she took no part in social life at university, she must have gone to classes and lectures with other people and was subsequently aware of what her office colleagues thought and said and were up to.

Then there's her language.She speaks as though she has learned English from a Victorian textbook full of words and expressions that nobody today would use in normal speech. Who on earth would talk about 'micturation' or say 'heaven forfend'? 'Rebarbative', 'vertiginous', 'catatonic', 'mammaries' and many more words seem designed either to have readers pat themselves on the back for knowing what they mean, or rushing for their dictionaries. It is difficult to believe the families she lived with spoke like that and they most certainly didn't at the office where she had been working for eight years.

I thought the counselling with Maria worked far too easily. Eleanor had had counselling many times before, obviously without much effect. How come it worked so well and so quickly now? I also see the telephone conversions with Mummy, portrayed with never an indication that they were anything other than real and from a prison, as a gimmick allowing the author to add a little surprise at the end. And then Honeyman does heap calamities on her poor heroine. Not enough with being bruised and beaten before the final childhood disaster of the fire, plus the unhappiness of living with the foster families she was sent to, but the author then had her spending two years with a man who used her as a punchbag!

Another question is how Eleanor could remain unscathed by her vodka consumption, then suddenly give it up so easily. Her “iron constitution” would not have saved her from its consequences. Then there are all the unanswered questions about Mummy? How come she died in the fire? Had she intended to commit suicide and take the kids with her? Or did something go wrong and she got caught up in the flames while Eleanor, in some miraculous and unspecified way, managed to escape despite going back into the blaze to try to rescue her sister, who was locked in a wardrobe? Who was Marianne's father? Was Eleanor's little sister the result of another “assault”? And did Mummy really go to all the places Eleanor mentions? Or were they also figments of Eleanor's imagination? You can write your own back story.

Finally, how plausible are Raymond and Sammy and his family? Are these real people?

Having said all that, although I thought it was rather long-winded until being brought to a rather rapid and happy end, I found the book reasonably interesting and not difficult to read, apart from the micturation etc. Nevertheless, fact may be stranger than fiction, but for me this fiction was too strange to be swallowed whole.

Many of the online reviewers had no difficulty in doing so, however. When I looked, the average score on Amazon's UK site was a very generous 4.7 from some 6,000 readers, while on Amazon.com it was 4.6 from 4,000-odd people. Goodreads had no fewer than 319,400 ratings and more than 34,000 reviews, with an average score of 4.3.

“I loved this book,” writes a 5-star reader in the UK. “It made me laugh out loud and weep too.” Others also talk about Eleanor making them laugh and cry? I'm not in the habit of crying over books, but have been known to laugh out loud. Though not at this one. “I finished it a week ago,” this person continues, “and I've really missed her this week. I would recommend it to anyone.”

Other 5-star people write in much the same vein. “There is so much to Eleanor,” states one. “In the beginning, I thought that I didn’t care too much for her but as time went on and she opened up, well, I fell in love with her. … Beautifully written and just a lovely story, you will fall in love with Eleanor too.”

“Ohhh, I could not wish for a more perfect book,” is another 5-star comment.

Moving down slightly in the ratings, there was still little fault-finding. “There wasn’t a big BANG ending but I enjoyed the journey to get there as Eleanor’s character is a pleasure to get to know,” writes this 4-star reviewer. “Unlikeable at first but I warmed as the book went on as I began to understand why she behaved as she did.”

But move down to 3 stars and faults are found a-plenty. How about this? “Not my usual book choice, it's one of those “book club” books which I tend to avoid. Some witty prose, but really a bit clichè & predictable, apparently all you need to cure interminable loneliness and personal tragedy is a make over & a romantic life lesson, hmmm, seemed a bit shallow.” That writer may not be so hot on punctuation, but let that not detract from her views.

A slightly less critical 3-star verdict was: “I did come to like and sympathise with Eleanor and the other characters in the book; but I found it a bit of a fairy tale and I wasn't entirely convinced. The story of Eleanor's coming to grips with her traumatising past, and overcoming it, seemed a bit too pat and simplistic. It is well written, and I wouldn't say I didn't enjoy reading it, but it is not the type of book I would normally choose.”

At the 2-star level the criticism is not only greater, but even personal. Listen to this: “I bought this book because it was recommended by my book club and also as I used to work with the author, albeit in a different department. From memory, the author does not have a social work, counselling or care background and this shows in her book.

I, however, do have some personal experience related to the book and for this reason I was extremely disappointed upon reading it. Professionals are presented so negatively and inaccurately. … Nor is it so easy to overcome loneliness, abuse and mental health problems. The whole situation with Sammy and his family is very unrealistic - it would never happen. I met you two minutes ago, come to my party etc.

The ending was so disappointing. My book group agreed... The author has undertaken insufficient research into very serious issues and it's an insult to get this all so very wrong”

Yes, sometimes it can be difficult to distinguish 2-star readers from those entertainers who give a book the lowest score. Here's one who reads books somewhere I have never considered before. “It's Mother's Day, and my family handed me bath salts and my new book and told me to go for it. They know I'm just crazy enough to read an entire book in one bath, and I was ready to do it.” I bet the water was cold by the time she got to chapter 3 or 4.

“I prepared my bath, and I began reading, and I was (very quickly) almost in physical pain. I don't mean to be rude to the author; I know how hard it is to write a novel and get it published, but this would not have made it past my eyes, if she had handed it to me.Again, ALL APOLOGIES, but this is Mother's Day, and you have one annoyed mother on your hands. You have ruined my bath, and in doing so, you have released the Kraken!!
MUST the reader be invited in to experience every one of Eleanor's bowel movements and meals? MUST we suffer through every not-interesting-in-the-least observation on life?...According to Eleanor, she has "white contours of scar tissue that slither across my right cheek." Here's where I just about threw the book. Explain. No, seriously. Explain how scar tissue slithers across a face. Do you mean as you are speaking or making funny faces? Did you attend Hogwarts? Are you a Slytherin? Help, please! ...

I saved myself from drowning by stopping at page 50.”

Pretty difficult for the 1-star people to beat I would say, although they tried. Here are some of their comments:

“It's a long time since I have been so completely disappointed by a book, or seen such a triumph of marketing over material. Eleanor Oliphant is a perfect bore, self-opinionated, judgemental and frankly bereft of a single likeable characteristic...”

“Seriously, no one is THIS odd and able to hold down a job in a busy office plus take care of themselves alone, paying bills on time and all the rest of it. Social ineptitude of this degree would have you jobless in no time, how did she even get past an interview? Of course ,sadly, there are certainly people who cannot function in society; without family to support them, they end up on the streets, unable to cope. They tend not to be promoted to office manager!”

“We are asked to believe that an alcoholic can drink herself into complete oblivion every single weekend, but never misses a single day's work due to her alcoholism. Has the author ever met any real alcoholics?”

“Eleanor Oliphant is empatically NOT fine. In real life she would probably have been sectioned, but clearly there is nothing remotely "real" about this book which manages to trivialize both genuine loneliness, alcoholism and severe mental illness in one fell swoop!”

“I read it to the end for book club, but it left me feeling like crawling into the back of a dark closet and sitting there for a day or two. (I went outside and tried to recover with some therapeutic gardening instead).”

Gardening? Maybe, but it's reading in the bath that intrigues me most. Unfortunately, it's no longer possible for me to try as my bath tub disappeared with the “mini-upgrade” to my flat. Could try the shower, of course... Well, perhaps not.

Have a great meeting.

Stanley

https://stanleybloom.weebly.com

Prisoner Exchange

It was while doing research for a guide book that I discovered the first exchange of prisoners in the Second World War took place in Sweden's west coast port city of Gothenburg. If you had been at the right quay on 19 October 1943, you would have seen the swastika and Union Jack flying side by side!

Looking for the exact spot where this ocurred, I asked two elderly gentlemen sitting near the waterfront if they could help me. Miraculously, one of them told me, “I was there!” He had been a small boy living in a building overlooking the quay and saw what was happening.

Gothenburg, in neutral Sweden, was decided on after much bargaining under the good offices of Switzerland, likewise a neutral country. Details were settled between the two sides at a hotel in town, with the Swedish Red Cross given responsibility for the technical arrangements.

The manageress of the hotel told me she had once spoken to a woman who worked there at the time. The staff had not been informed about what was going on and were alarmed to hear men greeting each other with the Nazi salute, thinking the city must have been occupied.

The owner of the hotel was placed in a most difficult position when the German envoy demanded that he fly the swastika together with the other flags on the building. The solution was to take down all the hotel flagpoles so that unlike at the quayside, no flags were flown at all.

In all, more than 5,000 prisoners were exchanged that day, a large majority of them on the allied side. Most were severely injured and many had been in captivity since the earliest action on the western front. The elderly gentleman I spoke to said he remembered it as clearly as though it were “yesterday” as so many of the men were in a sorry state with only one arm or leg. However, they were doubtlessly delighted to be going home.

They arrived by train and boat, the Germans coming from England in a hospital ship and a troop transport, while conferences between officers on both sides were held on board the Swedish-American Line’s ‘Drottningholm’, which in happier times eight years earlier had taken Greta Garbo (whose original name was Gustafsson) across the Atlantic, where she became one of Hollywood's leading, if enigmatic, stars.

https://stanleybloom.weebly.com

 

How do you spell...?

Who were those people who bedevilled our spelling with their ...ough's, gu...s, qu...s, silent bs or ws or ks and more. Why did they do so? And why have we silently accepted their whims and fancies?

Actually, not everyone has. Proposals for spelling reform are as old as the hills. Well, not quite, but can be traced back to a 12^th century monk and various scribes in Elizabethan England, while their successors have included a US President and any number of other statesmen writers and other prominent figures from Benjamin Franklin and Theodore Roosevelt to Milton, Samuel Johnson, Dickens, Tennyson, Mark Twain, Darwin, H.G.Wells and George Bernard Shaw.

But not many people have listened to them. Theodore Roosevelt ordered the Government Printing Office to use the proposals put forward by the Simplified Spelling Board that was founded in 1906, but Congress put a stop to that. Shaw left money for a new alphabet, but members of the Simplified Spelling Society, which he supported, could not agree over the terms of his will and that too, came to nought.

The only one to have any real success since the 17^th century, when a gentleman named Howell managed to change the spelling of toune to town, for example, and logique to logic, was Noah Webster in the US. He can claim credit for most of the differences between British and American spelling, such as color for colour, and theater for theatre. But how well do they correspond to the way we pronounce the words. The vowel sound of the last syllable in those words is the most common one in the language, but no letter represents it. Shaw wanted to use an upside-down e, but you are not likely to find one on your keyboard any time soon. And by no means all of Webster's suggestions were adopted.

The trouble began with the introduction of the Roman alphabet by Christian missionaries. Prior to that, scribes used runes. The problem was that there weren't enough letters to represent all the sounds. One or two were added later, but the problem remained. After the Norman Conquest some French ways of spelling were introduced, though spelling was not consistent. The printing press helped eventually to stabilise it, but was initially part of the problem. Many of the early printers came from the Continent and brought their own ways of spelling with them, as well as making lines of equal length by adjusting the length of words! Then there were Rennaissance scholars who added a silent letter here and there to show, not always correctly, the Latin or Greek origin of a word.

A further problem is that pronunciation has changed since spelling became more stable. But should words always be spelt the way they are pronounced? Should scent, cent and sent all be spelt the same way? How about clause and claws, or pause and paws and pores and pours? And there are many more such words. Then whose pronunciation should we go by? Also, unlike many other languages, English has avoided accents and other marks over, above, or through letters, which is considered an advantage. And though there have been, and still are, many would-be reformers, they have seldom agreed among themselves.

So the k in know, the w in write, the b in doubt and so on are not under threat, spelling bees are not likely to get easier and children learning to read and write will continue to face the same problems we did. Except when they are texting, that is.

Spell-checkers are a help, but beware. They only know if a word exists. Write witches instead of switches, for example, as I once did, and they have no objection.

https://stanleybloom.weebly.com