What are you reading now?

[Ian Thumwood]

Richard

Baughen's point was that the British, American, French and Germans were all beset by issues with aircraft being unable to fulfil their design criteria. The reason so many aircraft from the 1930s are unknown is because they did not remain in service too long. They ether quickly became obsolete or, more often the case, performed poorly. It is quite an interesting book to read if you ever have been involved with procurement.

I am crrently reading Harry Sidebottom's "The Falling sky." I picked this up cheaply and was interested as it is a fictionalised account set during the civil war between Postumus and Gallienus in 265 AD and alot of the action takes play in Autun and Lyon which I both know . The first few chapters were dreadful and I wondered if this book was really intended or teenagers. As I have progressed, it is interesting for the historical context even though I find the dialogue to be a bit crass.

[richardfinegold]

Baughen's book is really insightful with regards to the poor performance of the French Air force in 1940. There were combinations of factors but manufacturing became an issue by the time they got their act together. I think there wasone plane produced by Potez which had such poor stability that Polish pilots refused to fly it. It was a catalogue of disasters that culminated in poorly designed, under-powered aircraft and an inability to produce planes that fulfilled their perceived requirments. The book is fascinating as so much is unfamiliar and interesting to see that other countries had their own procurement issues too. British aircraft form that era were not much better either other than the likes of Hurricanes and Spitfires. The book advises that even America produced it's fair share of duds in the 1930s. It does not seem to have been a great decade for aircraft design.

There planes were inferior, but not worthless. I believe that they downed over 100 Luftwaffe planes during the invasion. One reason Sea Lion never took place was that Goering felt he needed a bit of time to replace their losses . More importantly, had they attacked the German supply columns that were stacked in the Ardennes, even if it meant taking heavy losses, it could have really made a difference

[smittims]

Ah, yes. Someone saw me watching the old Russian film of Hamlet (the one with music by Shostakovitch) , and knowing I had no Russian, asked me how I could understand it without subtitles. I said 'well, I don't need subtitles. It's Hamlet!'

[LMcD]

I'm enjoying a re-read of Henry VI part 2. What a nasty character Margaret is. Just like Ann in The Brothers, she's the one we all love to hate.

For some time now I've preferred reading Shakespeare plays and imagining my own ideal staging to seeing or hearing them performed. The modern acting style in Shakespeare is anathema to me, as is the fashion for 'modern' or 'relevant' staging.

Quite the opposite in my case - I can only get through a Shakespeare play if I can watch what's going on as I read the sub-titles!

[smittims]

I'm enjoying a re-read of Henry VI part 2. What a nasty character Margaret is. Just like Ann in The Brothers, she's the one we all love to hate.

For some time now I've preferred reading Shakespeare plays and imagining my own ideal staging to seeing or hearing them performed. The modern acting style in Shakespeare is anathema to me, as is the fashion for 'modern' or 'relevant' staging.

[AHR]

Marguerite Young, 'Miss MacIntosh, My Darling.' This could take some time.

[Ian Thumwood]

The French primarily kept their Air Force mothballed during the German invasion. If they had aggressively attacked the German columns trudging through the Ardennes then the outcome could have been very different

Baughen's book is really insightful with regards to the poor performance of the French Air force in 1940. There were combinations of factors but manufacturing became an issue by the time they got their act together. I think there wasone plane produced by Potez which had such poor stability that Polish pilots refused to fly it. It was a catalogue of disasters that culminated in poorly designed, under-powered aircraft and an inability to produce planes that fulfilled their perceived requirments. The book is fascinating as so much is unfamiliar and interesting to see that other countries had their own procurement issues too. British aircraft form that era were not much better either other than the likes of Hurricanes and Spitfires. The book advises that even America produced it's fair share of duds in the 1930s. It does not seem to have been a great decade for aircraft design.

[smittims]

The policy of the British and French governments was to avoid dropping bombs on German soil in the vain hope that it would persuade Hitler to do likewise. In the same way,they expected the war to be an economic stand-off which they were , on paper, well-placed to win. It was of course a tragic mistake, as their blockade succeeded so well that it provoked Hitler into the Blitzkrieg campaign .

The Fench air force was frequently described as the world's largest, but quantity didn't ensure quality. Maybe their best brains had been killed in 1914-18, when French losses were not only greater that British but also a higher proportion of the country's smaller population.

[richardfinegold]

I love old aeroplanes and found Greg Baughen's "The rise and fall of the French Air Force - 1900-1940" to be quite fascinating if you have interest in the inter-war years. The book tackles the issue of aircraft development in France and how it went from producing the best aircraft of the First World War to some designs prior to the outbreak of the Second World War which were barely flyable. It is fascinating because the French were effectively looking to produce one aircraft which could carry out mult-combat roles and ended up with a suite of fighters and bombers which could barely function. When the French received reports of the capabilities of the Spitfire they flatly refused to believe the claims and continued developing inferior planes. However, the book does stress that the British, Germans and Americans along with the French struggled to develop effective aircraft in the 1930s.

Just finished David Grann's "The Wager" which is about a ship assigned to Admiral Anson's fleet and was shipwrecked in the 1740s . The survivors were abandone on a remote island off the coast of Chile and managed to rebuild a viable boat which they then navigated back to Brazil, The style of writing is quite light as is typical for American historian but the story is an absolute page-turner and recalls a tale of survival as impressive as Shackleton's. I really enjoyed this book.

The French primarily kept their Air Force mothballed during the German invasion. If they had aggressively attacked the German columns trudging through the Ardennes then the outcome could have been very different

[Ian Thumwood]

I've got the first volume of Daniel Todman but not yet read it. I've really been looking for a history of Britain that deals with the period from 1919 to 1939 taking in all of the social, political and cultural issues. Heffer's hefty volume seems to fulfil exactly what I want and, unusually for me, I've started it almost on purchase.

I love old aeroplanes and found Greg Baughen's "The rise and fall of the French Air Force - 1900-1940" to be quite fascinating if you have interest in the inter-war years. The book tackles the issue of aircraft development in France and how it went from producing the best aircraft of the First World War to some designs prior to the outbreak of the Second World War which were barely flyable. It is fascinating because the French were effectively looking to produce one aircraft which could carry out mult-combat roles and ended up with a suite of fighters and bombers which could barely function. When the French received reports of the capabilities of the Spitfire they flatly refused to believe the claims and continued developing inferior planes. However, the book does stress that the British, Germans and Americans along with the French struggled to develop effective aircraft in the 1930s.

Just finished David Grann's "The Wager" which is about a ship assigned to Admiral Anson's fleet and was shipwrecked in the 1740s . The survivors were abandone on a remote island off the coast of Chile and managed to rebuild a viable boat which they then navigated back to Brazil, The style of writing is quite light as is typical for American historian but the story is an absolute page-turner and recalls a tale of survival as impressive as Shackleton's. I really enjoyed this book.

[Petrushka]

You might also be interested in 'Britain's War' (2 vols.) by Daniel Todman. I found it fascinating. Instead of re-telling the received stories about Britian's involvement in the second world war he has researched all the sources afresh and revealed some surprising facts. He starts with public reactions to George VI's coronation in 1937 and goes on to 1947 to show how life changed for so many.

I've got the first volume of Daniel Todman but not yet read it. I've really been looking for a history of Britain that deals with the period from 1919 to 1939 taking in all of the social, political and cultural issues. Heffer's hefty volume seems to fulfil exactly what I want and, unusually for me, I've started it almost on purchase.

[smittims]

You might also be interested in 'Britain's War' (2 vols.) by Daniel Todman. I found it fascinating. Instead of re-telling the received stories about Britian's involvement in the second world war he has researched all the sources afresh and revealed some surprising facts. He starts with public reactions to George VI's coronation in 1937 and goes on to 1947 to show how life changed for so many.

[Petrushka]

Just started 'Sing As We Go. Britain Between the Wars' by Simon Heffer.

This book is right up my street and the sort of political, social and cultural history of the subject I've been seeking for years. Alongside reading the book it will be a good opportunity to play some of the British music created during the period (Walton, Bax, Holst, Britten, RVW etc, etc).

[Ian Thumwood]

French Frank

It is interesting to read your comment. I believe that Dickens wrote"Hard Times" in order to get some ready income as he was halfway through Nicholas Nickleby at the time and it was anticipated that it would take more time to publish it.. He parked writing that book and started work on "Hard Times" purely for financial reasoms as he could churn this out quicker.

The plot is a hotchpotch in my opinion. It starts are a critique of the current eductation system and then turned in to a "sub-Germinal W commentary on industrialised, Northern England, It is like two different halves joined together. I have to say I never returned to Dickens after " Hard Times" which made me realise he was not always consistent. I often do this with authors - finding one I like and exploring their ouevre until I have come across a stinker. With Zola, it was the book about the priest meddling in affairs in Aix-en Provence, "Lord Jim" with Conrad.

Smittims is 100% correct about how we perceive the Victorians these days. Maybe the balance has swung too far the other way. They could be mawkish and sentimental but it always feels like it was something those generations needed to get out of their system. Writers increasingly became leaner although I think I have to totally disagree with Vintieul regarding American writers as that is one country whose writers I generally find insufferable. It is even worse with current American writers who either seem to over-write and be overblown or go down the route of Tom Clancy and churn out endless streams of crud. Even supposed "American Classics" such as "The Great Gatsby" are very over-rated. I very rarely read American literature and , if I go "foreign" have historically read French literature although, even there, there are writers like Proust who have driven me mad as they are frustratingly slow.

I will put something out there which is a bit controversial. I had read Ian Fleming's books as being lauded for their tight, "journalistic" prose. I found this fascinating , especially as the best of the Bond novels do fit this description whereas the worst ones are dreadful. I think it is an interesting concept. I love Dickens because of the dialogue but then feel that more contemporary writers like Kate Atkinson, Philipp Kerr and Ian Rankin are all very good in this respect too. Nothing is wasted. I am not sure how posterity will record their works nor indeed writers like McEwan or William Boyd whose works I love too. I tried one book by Julian Barnes and left it unfinished as I hated it. Same with De Bernieres. I does make you wonder which current writers people will still be reading in 100 years time. In 2024, I feel that Atkinson, Kerr and Rankin probably compose the best dialogue with modern writers and their snappy styles sits better with our times. I love the concept of writers being economic and concise but also find that cracking dialogue is something that ticks the boxes for me. I think that this is Dicken's legacy and maybe Atkinson's dark and wicked humour that would not be out of place in a "One foot in the grave" episode captures exactly why British writers always rock more than those from other countries in my opinion.

[french frank]

And maybe a reflection of his own?

That too, though perhaps more critiquable in a novelist, less valued, than reflecting his own times?