This is an interesting, but ultimately disappointing book. It concerns the last decade before Europe was thrown into the abyss of the Nazi regime in Germany and the Second World War. It concerns the intelligentsia of the time from the fields of science, politics, art and literature and the roll call of participants sounds like a “Who’s Who” of the period (including, for example, Thomas and Klaus Mann, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Henry Miller, Anaïs Nin, Picasso, Dali, Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Josephine Baker, Otto Dix and many more).
It must be said that Mr Illies writes well and has a droll, and often witty, turn of phrase and there is some prurient interest to be gained from reading the snippets of the love lives of these luminaries. But there is very little about love. This is mainly about their affairs and peccadillos, their unusual sexual activities, and their copious use and abuse of alcohol and drugs. As a consequence, this is a story of the lives of desperately unhappy people; yearning for missed opportunities, lashing out in anger, spending times in the asylum or sanatorium, and often sadly ending in suicide. Love is something sadly lacking in all these tales.
At times snippets of poetry or songs are given to reveal the emotional states of the participants but these are alas far too small to be of value. They are so brief they reveal nothing of the work from which they are taken and seem simply a trite echo of already stated conclusion. Further, being so short, and also translated into English, they have lost any of the beauty and power the sound of their language may have carried.
However, the biggest failing of the book is the absence of any consideration of the hatred of the period and how it may relate to the participants. Were their frenzied love lives a recognition of the gathering storm and created by the growing hatred, a sort of last dance before we all die ? Or was the hatred a response to the apparent debauchery of the elite and their estrangement from the rest of society ? Looking at our present society, with the cultural battles raging between the progressive elites and the traditional herd, this could hold very valuable lessons for us to learn. Unfortunately, this is not explored, and we are left with a gossip magazine for the intellectuals – a missed opportunity.
I blame Kate Bush although, to be honest, she was egged on by Merle Oberon and Laurence Olivier. Between them ,these three, had caused Wuthering Heights to be filed in a large section, in the imaginary library in my head, called “Books which I think I have read, and upon which I will pontificate, but whichI have never actually opened“. I am regularly finding new items filed here and I worry this is a very large section of my knowledge – books that I know the plot, the author and how they are critically received. I have amassed this information by cultural osmosis rather than by doing the actual work of reading them.
For many years, thanks to Kate, Merle and Laurence, I had avoided reading Wuthering Heights because I knew what it was about. It was a tragic tale of doomed and thwarted love and a story laden with barely concealed smouldering passion. Although I was quite happy to watch Kate dance I felt I lacked enough X chromosomes, or perhaps had one too many Y chromosomes, to read the book. I could safely leave that to my sisters or my wife, I knew what it was about anyway.
What I didn’t know, not having read the book, was what a minor part of the work they had focussed upon. The film had only looked at the story of first generation of characters (and only concerned the first half of the book) and ignored the meat of the book, in the second half, where the chickens come home to roost and allow some closure. Kate’s song, though excellent, is only a flash from a single facet of a multifaced jewel.
Now having read Wuthering Heights I can understand why it has been considered one of the greatest works of fiction. This is anything but a simpering tale of doomed love, or of hidden passions thwarted. This is a gigantic gothic novel; a battle between good and evil across the generations. The thwarting of Catherine and Heathcliffe’s young affection is important but it is only one factor which drives the primary passion of Heathcliffe which is that vengeful vindictiveness. All characters are flawed, they are all weak and hurtful, they fail those who rely on them and manipulate others for ther gain. The love story element is minor, it is chaste and asexual, and much stronger than any telling of love and affection it is a depiction of abuse and battery. The depictions of wife beating and cruelty are incredibly hard to read and must have struck even harder to readers with a Victorian morality
The daemonic, and frankly depraved, character of Heathcliffe is the one who has been so miscast by curent culture. Now he is often thought of as a sullen, brooding, handsome Lothario and a focus for lust or desire. This does not reflect the man in the novel. Here we have a man, corrupted by early deprivation and callous treatment, grown to be a fiend. A cruel man who beats his wife, tortures his son, hangs his fiancé’s puppy, cheats his neighbours, is abusive in talk and, to top things off, desecrates the grave. At his demise no-one was able to think of any redeeming feature to put on his gravestone so he was interred under a stone with the single word – Heathcliffe.
The idea that this is mainly a love story is important to dispel, this is more a dramatic and brutal revenge narrative. As with her sister’s Wildfell Hall, the abuse and control of women is more an issue than any love of them. The often-quoted claim by Catherine that “I am Heathcliffe”, and that she cannot distinguish between herself and Heathcliffe, rather than a sign of the depth of love might be more usefully seen a symptom of Coercive Control. Love plays a secondary role in this novel and the corruption of love to cause suffering is a much more prominent issue.
While I will still enjoy Kate singing “It’s me Cathy let me in” and “I’m so cold” the song is now separate from the book. The book too has been refiled in the library in my head. It now correctly resides in the section “The best books I have ever read“
This story is set in an alternative 1980’s. A 1980’s when Britain lost the Falklands war, Labour under Tony Benn ousted Margaret Thatcher, and when Britain discussed Brexit and nuclear disarmament. It is also the 1980’s when autonomous vehicles took over driving, the internet and mobile phones took over as news and information providers and AI made such strides that it mechanisation started to replace workers in a wide range of industries – no longer confined to those doing manual jobs but replacing those doing repetitive thinking tasks. (Lawyers and doctors watch out)
Into this alternative 1980’s arrives Adam and expensive, realistic android bought by the main character Charlie essentially as a toy. The descriptions of his purchase and initial set up will ring bells with anyone old enough to remember the personal computing revolution. The mix of excitement and disappointment is excellently described. Once Adam has booted up we enter quickly into a saga involving the three main characters : Adam, Charlie and his (or possibly their) girlfriend.
This story moves along at a pace with many twists and turns that keep you hooked to find out exactly what will happen next. The narrative is so well drawn that, in addition to genuinely funny humorous passages, there are periods of real suspense and also episodes of disquieting, disturbing threat. There are many chapters that are obviously scenes for the blockbuster movie that will need to be made from this novel. It is worth reading just at this level; an interesting yarn told by a master story teller at the top of his game.
However, like all science fiction it is much, much more than this. The novel covers many important topics. What is consciousness and what is it to be alive ? What is it that makes life worthwhile; when is suicide the rational option ? It explores the nature of guilt and atonement and the dangers of revenge, whether redemption is possible and who is responsible for moral judgements. The nature of love and art are prominent themes and like the myriad others handled deftly in a way that stimulates thought and doubt. A very modern twist on the nature of infidelity comprises a segment that is both funny and darkly unsettling.
There might have been the danger that such important themes could have been dealt with glibly or in a clichéd fashion but the writing avoids this. Complex arguments are given their due and McEwan’s intellectual breadth is on show here. He has been listed as one of the most important authors in English in recent years, by The Times, and one of the most important people in British culture, by The Daily Telegraph. This book cements his place in this pantheon of the greats. Either to see a craftsman at the peak of his skills, or just for a damned good read, you should pick up this book.
I came across this film while browsing on Amazon Prime. I was looking for something so that I might avoid the misery of watching the news and its endless litany of death and blame. Despite its big name stars, Mel Gibson and Sean Penn, and capable cast (Natalie Dormer, Steve Cougan, Laurence Fox, to name a few), I had not heard of it. I checked online and it was free from awards, aside from a nomination for the musical score, and had rather lacklustre reviews which told more of the politics of the film’s manufacture than of the film itself. However, user reviews were good so, trusting in the hive mind and the wisdom of crowds, I decided to give it a try. That, in summary, is how I discovered one of the best films made in recent years.
This is a drama documentary about the creation of a dictionary and the story of two men who are thrown together in this task. One is a Scottish autodidact. a polyglot or rare intelligence who is supported by his wife, and his faith, in his diligent attempt at a mammoth task. He fights against prejudice and doubt and stands steadfast despite setbacks. The other is an American doctor who, while insane with schizophrenia and labouring under delusional beliefs, shoots and kills the father and breadwinner of a poor London family. He is incarcerated in in an asylum and must face and cope with his delusions, depression , guilt and remorse. Like the Scot he is helped in his battle by his faith, his intelligence and the support and intervention of a woman (on his part, the widow of the man he killed).
This is a fascinating story well told. The acting is consistently good. accents authentic and emotion convincingly displayed. Likewise the dialogue is well written and entertaining, and as a bonus will expand your vocabulary – you will know what ‘assythment‘ means at the end if you did not at the beginning. But perhaps most importantly you will know the answer to the question “If Love … Then What?“; as, in addition to language, the most important theme of the film is that of love and redemption. It deals with them through issues of guilt, diligence and honour but does manage to consider these in a real sense, not in a glib way, and to consider more difficult aspects such as Agape and Grace.
I perhaps should not have been surprised or wary that the film garnered no awards or that its review were lukewarm. I knew Mel Gibson remains a persona non grata in media circles and would be unlikely to be given any gongs. But having seen the film I understand the empty awards shelf. A film driven by drama rather than action, entertaining with thoughts rather than deeds, a film celebrating moral steadfastness rather then the joys of transgression, a film that wasn’t riding on the back of any current bandwagon but looking at more basic principles, a film wondering at the love we can have form one and other without any sexual reward – how on earth could such a film win any wards ? It is probably too late for it to be recognised now and it may disappear into the bargain basement bin of films on free to view channels, but if you get the opportunity to see it and are in the mood for something moving then this is worth a few hours of your time.
I have not found a book so initially distasteful as this since I read Bret Easton Ellis’s “American Psycho“. I had to persevere at the beginning as much of the content was so unpleasant that it created a visceral emotional response. However, I am glad I persevered as, after a time, the satire of capitalism and consumerism was well worth reading. There are similarities between American Psycho and this book but Houellebecq’s satire is much more wide ranging and scathing. Rather than having an aspect of our society in its sights this book takes aim at the entirety of Western Culture.
This is a book about the end of our culture; a look at the end of a millennium that ‘had previously been known as Judeo-Christian’ and one that appears to be ‘one millennium too many, in the way that boxers have one fight too many’. This is a book about a culture which has lost its sense of love and purpose and has been left only with its desires and the consequential emptiness that this brings.
The narrator, of this story, has little that makes life worth living and only survives, after a fashion, by taking antidepressants to try and keep his brain biochemistry in the range where life is tolerable. He has lost love, both personal erotic love and also agape: the positives of life are absent. Similarly the negatives of life are no longer felt. He knows (intellectually) many things are wrong but he cannot feel appropriate anger or disgust. This is truly a nihilistic story. This is the story of a man, and a culture, who have huge gaping holes at the centre of their being which no amount of sex, pornography, eating or violence can fill. They are left with suicide as the rational options.
Despite these themes the book is well written and at times beautifully lyrical. It is also often very, very funny. A black desperate humour runs through this tale. This may be a problem to some readers as the author’s misanthropy and disgust with our cultural changes is very well described and it can be difficult to see, in back and white, just how debased some aspects of our lives have become. Many will find this story too excessive and gruesome, however, if you can stomach it, then it is a worthwhile read. Indeed, by the end, of this torrent of sadness and depravity the narrator, and reader, discover that only love and self-sacrifice really matter.
I have been feeling increasingly sorry for Emrys this last month or so. Emrys is our rather elderly Sussex cockerel and over recent times has started to look rather the worse for wear. He is the only cockerel we have who has a name as he was a gift from a neighbour and arrived named. My wife has continued to use the name since so he is quite unique amongst our poultry in having a name (Though I think secretly my wife has names for some of the ducks also. I sometimes call the stag turkey names, but these vary on how annoying he is and are not fit for printing). Emrys and his flock live at the front of the small holding and the other flocks of hens and their cockerel are spread as far apart as possible. This gives them space to roam and, initially at least, reduces the fighting.
As time passes, and as the birds get more adventurous and curious, the area around their base, that that they call home, gradually expands. A few months ago, Emrys’s flock’s area grew until it butted against the newest cockerel and his flock’s area. Cockerels do not mix and never make good neighbours. Most cockerels view any other cockerel as the spawn of the devil, even if it is their own offspring, and see their presence as a reason to fight. These fights are vicious, and can sometimes can be fatal to one of the birds, though usually they are short-lived, noisy, flashes of talons and beaks until one party retreats. Although often in these quick spats they can inflict serious damage on each other.
Emrys has been losing these fights. He has lost a
Emrys after losing again
lot of his plumage and carries some scars on his comb. Sometimes he is bloodied and hides away in the bushes. His nemesis, the other cockerel, steals his ladies during the day luring them away with promises of treats and food. I know there are dangers with anthropomorphism and I am not sure how much Emrys understands of his situation, I hope not too much, but it is very hard to not feel sad when you spy him, on his own, obviously just having lost a spat and watching his wives playing with the other group. But is does bring home to you the many positive advantages that we, as a species, have experienced but failed to arrive for chickens. When one looks into the eyes of a chicken, or regards their scaly legs and talons, it is very easy to see their relationship to the dinosaurs. Looking at them is like peering down the tunnel of the years to primitive times.
Chickens and other fowl are different to other birds. The vast majority of birds, about 90%, are monogamous. Some may just be monogamous for one breeding season, some for a series of seasons, and some species mate for life (famously swans, albatrosses, owls and eagles). It is generally assumed that the development of monogamy, in bird and other animals (including ourselves), was very valuable in ensuring the development of vulnerable offspring. Having both parents actively involved in the rearing of children helps their survival, this is especially important when the young are born immature and very vulnerable as with birds, and especially so with humans.
This monogamy helps young develop more safely. It also results in closer bonds between family members and is possibly the evolutionary driver to our human experience of love. If we are to mate and stay with one individual we need an extremely strong feeling of attraction which can outweigh the pressures of sexual attraction of other potential mates. Love of one partner to another, of a parent to a child, of a family member to another is the primary glue that allows us to join people together and create families and society. Although there is a current tendency to decry monogamy as traditional, old-fashioned and out-of-date most research concludes that monogamy is a valuable and core element of stable societies. A paper by Heinrich et al summarised thus :-
In suppressing intrasexual competition and reducing the size of the pool of unmarried men, normative monogamy reduces crime rates, including rape, murder, assault, robbery and fraud, as well as decreasing personal abuses. By assuaging the competition for younger brides, normative monogamy decreases (i) the spousal age gap, (ii) fertility, and (iii) gender inequality. By shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, normative monogamy increases savings, child investment and economic productivity. By increasing the relatedness within households, normative monogamy reduces intra-household conflict, leading to lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death and homicide. These predictions are tested using converging lines of evidence from across the human sciences.
A recent review in The Economist explored the link between polygamy and war. Worrisomely it showed that in areas where polygyny was allowed, more than one woman per man, then violence and war were much more common. It also explored the reasons underpinning the breakdown of monogamy and the risks that this holds for society. Unfortunately as the Koran blesses polygyny there is considerable growth in the practice in Islamic areas. This does tend to act as a destabilising influence on society in these regions and, as the article discusses :–
Wherever it is widely practised, polygamy (specifically polygyny, the taking of multiple wives) destabilises society, largely because it is a form of inequality which creates an urgent distress in the hearts, and loins, of young men. If a rich man has a Lamborghini, that does not mean that a poor man has to walk, for the supply of cars is not fixed. By contrast, every time a rich man takes an extra wife, another poor man must remain single. If the richest and most powerful 10% of men have, say, four wives each, the bottom 30% of men cannot marry. Young men will take desperate measures to avoid this state.
This has lead to the finding that “Polygamous societies are bloodier, more likely to invade their neighbours and more prone to collapse than others are.” Although the research shows this I knew this already from watching Emrys. He is unable to cooperate with his neighbours, he can’t develop friendships with others, his whole life is fighting, preparing for fighting and trying to subdue his harem. It unfortunately seems that if as a society we start to abandon monogamy we might start to live a bit more like Emrys, and, had Emrys the ability to think, he’d tell us this is not a good idea.
Looking back in sadness 