What are you reading now?

[Rjw]

The Proof of my Innocence by Jonathan Coe.

Time to switch off the computer Jonathan you have run out of ideas.

[smittims]

Well, I'm with ff on this . It was the same with the Alan Clarke Diaries . As far as I'm concerned he and Channon were just very unpleasant.selfish people. It's much pleasanter and healthier to read about pleasant people, people who did some good.

[Petrushka]

Well, I'm with ff on this . It was the same with the Alan Clarke Diaries . As far as I'm concerned he and Channon were just very unpleasant.selfish people. It's much pleasanter and healthier to read about pleasant people, people who did some good.

Perhaps the thread title should be changed to 'What You Shouldn't be Reading Now'. I do not pass judgement on any book without having read it. Others might consider doing likewise.

[vinteuil]

... It's much pleasanter and healthier to read about pleasant people, people who did some good.

... that would be to deprive oneself of so much enjoyable literature!



.

[smittims]

I do so hate tit-for-tat bickering, so I'll just say I was not passing judgement on any book without reading it. My post was not about the books but about the subject. Surely we all have reasons for not wanting to read a book , which do not involve pre-judging its contents.

[french frank]

I do so hate tit-for-tat bickering

I don't thnk that exchanging comments about differing personal preferences amounts to 'bickering'. As ever, personal preferences should be accepted for what they are: not judgements from on high, nor questions of right and wrong. Nothing more than of limited value reflecting on the holder of the stated preferences. I don't find (for example - and not related to the current topic) bitchy gossip of any entertainment value. And when all's said and done, that's no more than a statement about me. Ignore if of no interest!

[smittims]

Quite right , ff, there was no bickering at that point I was simply concerned that it shouldn't start. Goodness knows we had enough of that on the old BBC boards, though perhaps more on the religion ones (where I used to post a lot) than the Radio 3 .

[Petrushka]

Quite right , ff, there was no bickering at that point I was simply concerned that it shouldn't start. Goodness knows we had enough of that on the old BBC boards, though perhaps more on the religion ones (where I used to post a lot) than the Radio 3 .

No bickering from me, smittims. I appreciate your comments. Having laid out my very specific reasons for reading the Channon diaries, it was with some irritation to read ff's and your remarks that felt a bit like passing judgement on my poor taste in reading this book. I may have been wrong about that but that feeling came across more strongly in ff's post than yours.

To be clear, I have little sympathy for the sort of person that Channon reveals himself to be, nor come to that, in Heffer's own politics. In reading history one comes across many unsavoury characters from the highest to the lowest and diaries can be as revealing of the author as the events described. The strongest case for them though is that they are written at the same time as momentous events were happening from someone who was there. From this point of view, despite Channon's many faults (some of which he later came to recognise), his diaries are a valuable resource and a window on to a vanished world.

[french frank]

No bickering from me, smittims. I appreciate your comments. Having laid out my very specific reasons for reading the Channon diaries, it was with some irritation to read ff's and your remarks that felt a bit like passing judgement on my poor taste in reading this book. I may have been wrong about that but that feeling came across more strongly in ff's post than yours.

I apologise if my comment was received as any kind of reflection, critical or otherwise, on your iinterest in the subject. In fact, not realising the historical importance or interest of Henry Channon, I had to check who he was and what his significance. My comment followed as a reaction to him and what seemed to be his subject matter, not to your own interest in reading about him.

[Barbirollians]

Am away in the south of France - wet but mild unlike Yorkshire ! Have started on Waverley by Sir Walter Scott - in chapter 2 he rails against his hero having access to such a large library he stops reading when a book fails to engage him and moves on to something else . By Chapter 3 I had a lots of sympathy with the hero but am battling on .

[Ian Thumwood]

Am away in the south of France - wet but mild unlike Yorkshire ! Have started on Waverley by Sir Walter Scott - in chapter 2 he rails against his hero having access to such a large library he stops reading when a book fails to engage him and moves on to something else . By Chapter 3 I had a lots of sympathy with the hero but am battling on .

I read Ivanoe many years ago and was unenthusiastic. It is very much medieval history told through a Victorian lens. Having read alot of medieval at that time, Scott's shortcomings are all too obvious. Never tempted by anything else my him

[Sir Velo]

I read Ivanoe many years ago and was unenthusiastic. It is very much medieval history told through a Victorian lens. Having read alot of medieval at that time, Scott's shortcomings are all too obvious. Never tempted by anything else my him

Same goes for that Shakespeare bloke. Those history plays, all bunk. And as for Hamlet, any Dane will tell you that play's utter nonsense. Never happened anything like that!

[Ian Thumwood]

Shakespeare's shortcomings and the spin he applied within his plays are thoroughly understood. Scott's Ivanoe tells us more about how the Victorian's thought than Medieval England. You are better reading something like Sir Gawain and the green Knight to appreciate these times better. He is as bad as Hollywood in his own way .

[smittims]

Oh dear,Sir Velo. I think Ian's taken you too seriously/literally!

I love Scott and regard him as one of the finest of all novelists. But, as with Wagner and other 19th-century masters, one has to give him time and see him in context.

Incidentally,there was a delightful Radio 4 drama spoof of Waverley some years ago with David Tennant. As with Steve Coogan's version of Pepys, the more you knew the original the funnier it was.

[french frank]

I've never read any of Scott's novels, and wouldn't because the idea of 'historical fiction' doesn't appeal. I'd prefer to read history. Nor does science fiction or fantasy fiction appeal. I read few novels these days and they would tend to be classic writers and, selectively, modern novels thought of as 'literary fiction'.

But I would see the fact of Scott reflecting Victorian thinking as being in itself interesting. Sir Gawain says more about medieval folklore - an imaginative reflection of the Middle Ages rather than presenting any form of reality.