What are you reading now?

[Petrushka]

I'm not such a voracious reader as some people here (how do you find time to read so many books and listen to so much music - do you do it at the same time? ).

There was a time when I could read a standard book of, say, 250 pages in a day or two. Now, with so many other competing interests, I'm lucky to read that same book in three weeks. At the age of 70 with a huge 'to be read' pile and many I want to read again plus those I'm stupidly still buying, I'm starting to feel a rising sense of panic.

I've always been a 'slow' reader, relishing the journey on which the author takes me and most definitely not listening to music, or doing anything else, at the same time.

I'd fondly hoped that retirement would have given me the time to read but it just hasn't happened that way and I'm feeling that time isn't on my side!

[gradus]

A book that I think every Boarder would enjoy, The Orchestra Speaks by Bernard Shore one time principal Violist with the BBCSO. Strongly recommended for its candour and first hand accounts of the leading conductors of his day. I haven't come across a modern day equivalent.

[french frank]

The turn-off for me is mention of details such as Veronica's lovely cashmere sweater: and I fear that these occur much more frequently in books written by women. Kate Mosse is a particular culprit imho.

I'm not such a voracious reader as some people here (how do you find time to read so many books and listen to so much music - do you do it at the same time? ). On the whole I don't read modern novels at all - there is too much great literature that I'll never read once, and too many I'd like to read again but don't find time). If I read a review or hear about a new novel that interests me, I do a bit more research first before getting it.

There may be a genre of 'women's lit' written just for women but that's too grotesque to equate with 'feminism' and I wouldn't bother with it. I can't understand why anyone, still less a man, would want to read them.

[Pulcinella]

An interesting discussion between FF and smittims. Both make very valid points and because I can agree with both I don't think you are as far apart as might at first seem the case.

I would mention that I hardly ever read books by women nowadays whereas at one time I would have been completely indifferent as to the author's gender. I've more or less stopped scanning the new fiction releases in emails from Waterstones because of the deluge of books clearly, from the publicity blurbs, written by women for women. This kind of polarisation never used to be the case and, yes, I do think that it's a mirror of our society. Bookwise, it's a complete turn-off.

As a corrective to the above, I like the look of Intermezzo, a new book by Sally Rooney which concentrates on the fortunes of two very different brothers following the death of their father. Has anyone read it?

The turn-off for me is mention of details such as Veronica's lovely cashmere sweater: and I fear that these occur much more frequently in books written by women. Kate Mosse is a particular culprit imho.

[Petrushka]

An interesting discussion between FF and smittims. Both make very valid points and because I can agree with both I don't think you are as far apart as might at first seem the case.

I would mention that I hardly ever read books by women nowadays whereas at one time I would have been completely indifferent as to the author's gender. I've more or less stopped scanning the new fiction releases in emails from Waterstones because of the deluge of books clearly, from the publicity blurbs, written by women for women. This kind of polarisation never used to be the case and, yes, I do think that it's a mirror of our society. Bookwise, it's a complete turn-off.

As a corrective to the above, I like the look of Intermezzo, a new book by Sally Rooney which concentrates on the fortunes of two very different brothers following the death of their father. Has anyone read it?

[french frank]

I agree entirely. I'm in favour of fairness, justice and equality.

In that case, I don't think we've yet reached stalemate in this discussion!

What I don't like is discrimination and unfairness masquerading as 'redressing the balance'. I think 'positive discrimination'as it is called, is still discrimination and is still wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right,and the end does not always justify the means.

This was a point I made in my previous post using the analogy of the pendulum and natural motion. If a pendulum is stationary it hangs straight down by gravity. If it becomes unbalanced it will swing to one side - and stay there. It won't regain balance until it is swung back in the opposite direction beyond the equilibrium position - that point at which (in this context, in the name of fairness, justice and equality) one hopes the pendulum will end up. You cannot, I would claim, say that working to reach an equilibrium point is unnecessary in the same breath as you say you don't like discrimination and unfairness. Since discrimination and unfairness are rife throughout our society, what is your alternative suggestion for improving the situation? If you tell a 40-year-old man or woman who, for whatever reason, gender, sexuality, skin colour, has suffered discrimination for most of their lives that they should just wait patiently and maybe in years to come, everything will naturally come right - who knows? They may even shout at you or write novels about it.

I haven't read any books by men who seem to hate women,though I admit CP Snow often seems to have a poor opinion of some of them. What I dislike is, as I've said, an arificial imbalance where all the women characters are marevllous and all the men are evil. The better novelists have a more realistic mix in characters of both sexes, Austen and Dickens being particular experts in this.

Well there are various aspects to fiction, prompted by your mention of CP Snow. Do we know what point he was making? Is he the misogynist or is he depicting misogyny? I've read several of his novels and don't remember (but it was 50 years ago) bristling over his portrayal of women, though it was a largely male-dominated world (The Masters,The New Men). Also, I asked for examples of, I will now clarify further, novels where 'all the women characters are marvellous and all the men are evil'? I wonder why on earth you choose to read them? I have to confess I get irritated by people 'batting on' about certain social aspects and think, "Oh, why don't you just shut up?" Then I think: "Well, all I mean is that the issue is not important to me." The lesson is that it is important to others and if they end up metaphorically shouting and stamping their feet it's because society doesn't care and isn't listening.

[smittims]

I agree entirely. I'm in favour of fairness, justice and equality. What I don't like is discrimination and unfairness masquerading as 'redressing the balance'. I think 'positive discrimination'as it is called, is still discrimination and is still wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right,and the end does not always justify the means.

I haven't read any books by men who seem to hate women,though I admit CP Snow often seems to have a poor opinion of some of them. What I dislike is, as I've said, an arificial imbalance where all the women characters are marevllous and all the men are evil. The better novelists have a more realistic mix in characters of both sexes, Austen and Dickens being particular experts in this.

[french frank]

Hi, Historian , I tried to start a discussion about feminism but it was quashed. It seems that like talking religion or poitics in the officers' mess, it's taboo. I make no complaint.

There's no taboo on such discussion, It's just that such topics tend not to progress beyond Mitchell and Webb's "Send in your reckons". They are expressions of opinion (unlikely to change). That isn't my concept of a useful discussion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQnd5ilKx2Y

Examples of the novels I've read which give the impression I mentioned would include Elizabeth Jane Howard,Penelope Mortimer, Salley Vickers, Carla Lane, Kate Sharam and whoever wrote 'Felicia's party' (sorry, couldn't find a name) . Yes, I know one can dismiss a lot of these by saying ' well,that's just chick-lit: no-one takes it seriously'; but some of them are best-sellers and are devoured by thousands of women. I feel after reading a few chapters of some of these that the writer clearly hates men but is possible or probably unaware of that.

For reasons of your own you appear to have selected these particular authors and chosen to read them (I haven't). I'm sure there are, I quite agree with you, women writers who 'hate men' or bear a grudge, but there again it could be that they 'hate men' on account of their own repeated experiences: that is, it represents a reality which many women share. Just as there could be Black people who 'hate white people' because of their experiences. If there are fewer men who write of their hatred for women or other minorities there could be a social explanation: that they sit at the top of the heap. Empathy involves understanding these differing points of view. Don't you think so?

[smittims]

Hi, Historian , I tried to start a discussion about feminism but it was quashed. It seems that like talking religion or poitics in the officers' mess, it's taboo. I make no complaint.

I'd say some men have had their own way for thousands of years; so have some women. other men (and women) have definitely not had their own way . If you are (or were) a neglected composer it seems more likely your music will be broadcast on Radio 3 if you're a woman.

Examples of the novels I've read which give the impression I mentioned would include Elizabeth Jane Howard,Penelope Mortimer, Salley Vickers, Carla Lane, Kate Sharam and whoever wrote 'Felicia's party' (sorry, couldn't find a name) . Yes, I know one can dismiss a lot of these by saying ' well,that's just chick-lit: no-one takes it seriously'; but some of them are best-sellers and are devoured by thousands of women. I feel after reading a few chapters of some of these that the writer clearly hates men but is possible or probably unaware of that. I think all artists cannot help revealing their inner selves subconsciously.

[Historian]

I suppose feminism, in as far as it was an attempt to adjust an imbalance (though I doubt everyone would even agree that there was any such need) is like a pendulum bound to pass beyond the point of balance. And sometimes situations need the additional force, the louder voices, the overdoing or exaggerating in order to bring about changes. But a critical focus on the overdoing rather than correcting seems more of an admission that one prefers the status quo or fails to see any need for change anyway. smittims might appreciate Doris Lessing.

Men have had mostly their own way in most societies for thousands of years (sorry for the clumsy wording but I seek to avoid the use of exceptions to this as the basis for a more general opposition). That is slowly changing but the process still has quite a long way to go.I regard myself (now, not so much when I was younger) as relatively supportive of women and girls but much of what they go through on a daily basis is unknown to me. This is part of the problem as it means that I sometimes fail to agree that much correction is still needed.I hope that makes sense and this post should, perhaps, be in a different thread. Do we have one on feminism?

I have no real suggestions as to what to read, however surely anyone reading much history or fiction from the past (by male as well as female authors) should be able to see that although progress has been made much still remains to be done, even n this country which is probably rather less misogynistic than many others. I have read many books written by women which 'speak' to me, even if do not always agree with the authors' point of view.

[french frank]

I don't think that well-known feminist Val McDermid writes with a largely or exclusive female readership in mind, and I'm sure Susan Hill's Simon Serrailler is of equal interest to, and equally convincing for, both genders.

I suppose feminism, in as far as it was an attempt to adjust an imbalance (though I doubt everyone would even agree that there was any such need) is like a pendulum bound to pass beyond the point of balance. And sometimes situations need the additional force, the louder voices, the overdoing or exaggerating in order to bring about changes. But a critical focus on the overdoing rather than correcting seems more of an admission that one prefers the status quo or fails to see any need for change anyway. smittims might appreciate Doris Lessing.

[LMcD]

I was interested in Ian's remark about books by female writers. Naturally these vary enormously from author to author, and I wouldn't want to draw a generalisation any more than with male authors. However ,there has been in recent years a development which I dislike.

Many new novels are written by women specifically for women to read, on the sound commercial basis that women buy a lot of new novels to read by themselves. While it's natural to make these books appealing to women, the 'new feminism' has led in some cases to what strikes me as very anti-male sexism: books which give a very false view of the world and the relationships between men and women. Typically, all the strong enduring characters are women, all the men are ineffective, whinging wimps or selfish deceivers. While this may be put forward as encouraging or 'empowering' female readers , I think it actually exploits them by feeding them a lie they will swallow eagerly.

The finest female novelists have always written well for both male and female readers: George Sand, Jane Austen, Virginia Woolf , and I would add a personal favourite, Pamela Hansford Johnson. .

I don't think that well-known feminist Val McDermid writes with a largely or exclusive female readership in mind, and I'm sure Susan Hill's Simon Serrailler is of equal interest to, and equally convincing for, both genders.

[french frank]

Many new novels are written by women specifically for women to read, on the sound commercial basis that women buy a lot of new novels to read by themselves. While it's natural to make these books appealing to women, the 'new feminism' has led in some cases to what strikes me as very anti-male sexism: books which give a very false view of the world and the relationships between men and women.

Can you give examples of the ones you've read to which this applies? When you say 'a very false view', could it simply be that the reality of women's experiences of the world, the domestic world, the world of work, the world of relationships &c, is very different from men's experiences? If you like, they're just a counter to novels of high adventure, the world of spies, war and other ripping yarns of the imagination which men enjoy vicariously.

[Pianorak]

I would recommend this American novel by John Williams: "Stoner".

[smittims]

I was interested in Ian's remark about books by female writers. Naturally these vary enormously from author to author, and I wouldn't want to draw a generalisation any more than with male authors. However ,there has been in recent years a development which I dislike.

Many new novels are written by women specifically for women to read, on the sound commercial basis that women buy a lot of new novels to read by themselves. While it's natural to make these books appealing to women, the 'new feminism' has led in some cases to what strikes me as very anti-male sexism: books which give a very false view of the world and the relationships between men and women. Typically, all the strong enduring characters are women, all the men are ineffective, whinging wimps or selfish deceivers. While this may be put forward as encouraging or 'empowering' female readers , I think it actually exploits them by feeding them a lie they will swallow eagerly.

The finest female novelists have always written well for both male and female readers: George Sand, Jane Austen, Virginia Woolf , and I would add a personal favourite, Pamela Hansford Johnson. .