Smut (two unseemly stories) by Alan Bennett

'Smut' consists of two short stories about middle-aged woman. They are women of modest, but reasonably educated, backgrounds, who lead very respectable lives. Or so we are led to suppose at first. What we discover as the stories unfold is that the two characters react to the events in their respectable lives in a rather unexpected, and, at the risk of sounding prudish, altogether indecent way. Mrs Donaldson, recently widowed, has lodgers who suggest an alternative way of paying their rent. Mrs Forbes can't understand why her very handsome son is getting married to a very plain-looking woman called Betty . . .
The first question of the evening's discussion was whether we (as middle-aged women ourselves) empathised with either of the characters. A resounding NO! Both Mrs Donaldson and Mrs Forbes dealt with their predicaments by acquiescing to some pretty deviant behaviour - which we felt we definitely would not do. Or would we? After all, most people want an easy life, and just because we are 'respectable' doesn't mean that we can't accommodate our scruples to go with the flow ... Though these tales may make you feel rather uncomfortable, they are salutory reminders that you cannot, and never should, judge people by their appearances.
Even if  the content of the stories takes you out of your comfort zone, the pure magic of Alan Bennett's prose cannot be denied. It was sheer joy to read such beautifully constructed sentences that were ouzing with wit, erudition and humour. Whatever his opinion of women, his abilty to tell a charming story overrides any sense of mysogeny or demonization of the female sex. Bennett exposes us to everyday pretences that exist in all of our lifes, and portrays them with a highly amusing, tongue-in-cheek attitude.
The final sentence reads: 'So the secrets abound, with Betty more richly endowed with them as she is with everything else. Still, for all that everybody, while not happy, is not unhappy about it. And so they go on.'
And I wouldn't be surprised if that is indeed the case for most of us.

As You Like It by William Shakespeare

Despite some initial misgivings about reading a play by Shakespeare, and feelings of being back at school, most of us enjoyed the play.

The play is mainly about love, sisterly, brotherly, parental and married love (very appropriate for a meeting on St Valentine’s day) and has some connotations with homosexual love, for men and women, especially in the relationship between Rosalind and Celia both played by men acting as women (so in effect doubly so).

The main part of the play revolves around the relationship between Rosalind and Orlando. Orlando sees Rosalind in the court of Duke Frederick, and falls madly in love with her. Rosalind has to flee to the forest of Ardene and for safety’s sake, disguises herself as a man. Rosalind as Ganymede comes across Orlando (also seeking refuge in the forest) and goads him to woo her as if she were Rosalind. Orlando smitten writes reams of very bad poetry that he nails to trees. His love is spontaneous, wild, hectic and romantic, while Rosalind on the other hand, is more measured; her response is more prosaic and realistic. When Orlando says that he will die for want of love, Rosalind responds with “Men have died from time to time, and worms have eaten them, but not for love”.

We discussed how Orlando's lovemaking follows the tradition of 'courtly' love, where love was seen as a disease and made men slaves to it. Rosalind though expunges these rather extreme emotions and makes fun of them. We realised that this theme, about the differences in the expression of love, continues in the play between the other couples (of which there are many). Touchstone the haughty court jester takes up with the uncouth goatherd Audrey, hardhearted Phoebe eventually accepts the doting Silvius, and Celia marries Oliver after meeting twice and speaking two sentences to him.   

We also realised that the play explored other social differences. These were developed in the many sub plots, for example the differences between life at court and life living in the forest, the differences in family relationships concerning jealousy and revenge. Above all the play also showed us that Rosalind, as a man, was able to express herself with some freedom, and could tell the audience what is it really like to be a woman in love. We thought this would have been quite shocking to a Tudor audience.

This brief synopsis can’t do justice to the other machinations in the play or how much we talked about them. But as usual with a Shakespearean comedy everything ends happily, the bad get their just deserts and the good get married, in this case with four marriages in the last act.

The meeting went on longer than I’d expected; the more we talked the more interest we found and the more we found the more we talked, and so it went round and round only to be ended by coffee and slices of black forest gateaux.  

The Finkler Question - Howard Jacobson

November 2010

Julian Treslove, the character through whose eyes we view all other characters and events, is a rather pathetic former BBC radio producer. A man who seems to be desperately seeking an identity while, an interesting irony, working as a lookalike. The story reveals his complicated and unhappy relationships. There is Sam Finkler, a Jewish philosopher, successful writer and television personality; Libor Sevcik, an old teacher, Julian's two estranged wives, both alike, whom Treslove has imagined dying in his arms; his two sons, equally alike, disliked by their father who named them after characters in La Boheme and La Traviata; and Hephzibah, a rather wonderful, warm and refreshingly sane woman who, it appears likely for a short time, will actually make Julian happy. As Treslove tells the reader his life had been, "one mishap after another", we realise that he is not destined for happiness. He's a man never satisfied or accepting but always questioning and wanting something else. Early on Treslove is mugged by a mystery attacker: he suspects a woman and spends much of the ensuing story pointlessly wondering on the significance of the event and trying to rationalise it. There was some discussion about whether we felt sympathy for his character but the general consensus was dislike for his increasingly selfish preoccupation with his own concerns and interests as the story developed. It is not surprising that he fails to make the official opening of the museum at the end but instead makes a complete spectacle of himself with his inappropriate response to the people holding a vigil outside. His self -indulgence makes him a master of misinterpretation and misunderstanding. There are a number of themes running through the book which enabled a lively and varied discussion: about love, loss and the process of grieving, ideas of belonging, of family and identity. Did we appreciate the humour? There was much that was funny but we wondered whether the author was perhaps trying to be a bit too clever at times, almost smug in the proliferation of in jokes and references. It did generate much discussion about attitudes to race and, inevitably,  the history and politics of the Middle East and the significance of the inclusion of the group known as the ASHamed Jews. There was mixed opinion as to its being considered a "good read". These ranged from vehement dislike to a liking in parts, from an appreciation of the humour to an overall enjoyment of the book. I must confess that such a long time had elapsed between our reading and my preparing to write this that I had to reread it recently and thought I gained more from the second go!

Our Kind of Traitor - John Le Carre

John Le Carre continues his series of post-Cold War spy novels with a cast of intelligence professionals and keen amateurs against the dangerous web of present-day Russian criminal syndicates and their limitless resources.  This is the story of a Russian mafioso called Dima, who meets by chance a young British couple, Perry and Gail, while they are holidaying in the Caribbean.  Dima will become 'lethally expendable' following a mafia reorganisation, and he decides to use Perry and Gail as go-betweens with British intelligence to trade knowledge for refuge for himself and his rag-tag extended family.  They are put in touch with Hector Meredith, a marginalised and close to retirement senior spy manager, who judges Dima's offer to be a career-redeeming, last big operation. 

Hector and his number two Luke, who is similarly marginalised, take Perry and Gail through the ensuing action, to an abrupt ending, which though written large from the beginning, comes as a shock nevertheless. 

There was some disappointment to find that the plot does not stand very close scrutiny, and is unbelievable in parts, and sometimes a bit convenient, like the original meeting in Antigua.  Nevertheless, it is a good read, though Le Carre's distinctive voice jars a little in places and we are drawn back to the Cold War, when this story is set firmly in the current financial crisis threatening us all.   There is a wonderful account of a meeting between politicians and financiers on a yacht in the Adriatic - which unashamedly refers to Peter Mandelson's visit a couple of summers ago to a yacht in Corfu owned by a Russian oligarch.  Is what Dima has to sell of any value to the British?   The betrayal at the heart of the book is part of the degradation of everything around it.  Have things been turned upside-down so completely that is necessary for those who once held 'old-fashioned' values to depend on the proceeds of crime for survival?

 Highly recommended are two earlier novels by Le Carre,  'The spy who came in from the cold' and 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy'.

Jamaica Inn — the film

This 1939 Alfred Hitchcock film bears little resemblance to du Maurier's book. Mary played by Maureen O'Hara, who is noted as coming from Ireland, was yet to become a Hollywood Star. Charles Laughton, as co-producer of the film, threw his not inconsiderable weight around.insisting on taking the role of the Squire. He can well be described as 'lording' it over everyone — the albino, villainous vicar being an impossible character to include in 1930's Hollywood. Leslie Banks who played Joss, Mary's uncle has a suitably wonky eye, heavy features and a menacing stance but isn't half as bad as in the book. Patience, his wife, is perhaps the most uninspiring of the characters — rather like the book.

However, the wild seas — how very wet the actors must have got — the bleak moors and the coldness of the Inn came over well. Jem, the romantic interest in the book, is changed into an undercover customs/police man, Traherne. The story line diverges dramatically towards the end.

Considering that Daphne was alive at the time of its production it seems she had little influence over the script.

We have to remember of course that 1939 was a very different time from now and also from Cornwall of the early 19th century. Hollywood films had to conform to strict production codes and audiences' expectations were different too, and of course war was looming.

The book
We were pretty critical of the film but everyone enjoyed the book. It is a good read, a page turner, as they say with good characterisation. Patience irritated me but also personified all those women, particularly in days when opting out of a marriage was very difficult, who stayed with abusive men who have holds over their women. Just a kind word infrequently reminds them of the love they once had and is sufficient. How Mary put up with it all was rather pathetic, why she cared so much is beyond me. She could perfectly well have gone back to her farm which her mother had been running on her own before she died and Mary seems like a sensible woman with the guts to do it herself. We wonder if her relationship with Jem would have ended up the same way as the older couple?
Du Maurier is a master of atmosphere and description and it is a good story.
It is surely time for it to be refilmed and we could all come up with suitable actors for the main parts. Remembering Charles Dance in Rebecca left a few swooning.

12 Books That Changed the World

Melvyn Bragg's book took 12 diverse books and dedicated a chapter to each of them. There was a strong reaction to the book; were these the right ones, why did he miss out this one and include that one, Bragg was saying more about the authors than the books and as a consequence s0me felt the writing lacked a degree of depth producing a shallow representation of the originals.

However as is often the case when there is dissention in the group it produced a very long, lively and spirited discussion leaving us to have to be very patient before reaching the coffee and cake stage of the evening.

Several themes were noted; many of the authors came from wealth backgrounds leaving them to dedicate their entire lives to their passions, several came from a similar time in history and religion was an important aspect of some of the writings and beliefs. The book, even prior to the meeting had stimulated enough interest for further reading to have taken place, adding to the discussion and at times diverting us.

A few of the authors and subjects were more familiar than others. We learnt about the influencial Marie Stopes whose book on Married Love was deemed so controversial that its publication had to be delayed until after ww1 as it was believed it would be so unsettling to both men and women such were her revolutionary ideas. We were reminded of the importance of the Magna Carta beyond the boundaries of this country and that Adam Smith's ideas on free trade and how they would assist the world are still relevant and quoted today. Language and its use in the past and todays world were a big talking point when it came to the King James Bible and Shakespeare. Our modern ways of expressions taking from these mighty tomes. Wilberforce did much throughout his life to abolish the slave trade and we admired his perseverence, despite his failing health to keep presenting his bills to parliament. When the Abolition of Slavery Act was finally passed in 1883, he was 3 days away from this death.

The FA rules were thought to be a controversial inclusion and whilst we felt they were significant we did not accept that they were the only reason why football has become such a global phenomenom. Although having seen, predominently boys play football it is a good thing that someone knows the rules as, mayhem could quite easily breakoutif left entirely to their own devices. Mary Wollstonecraft was a rather controversial figure in many ways but did very strongly believe that education was essential to ensure true freedom for women. There was absolutely no argument with this!

We liked some of the individuals more than others and warmed to Faraday who came from very humble beginnings as did Arkwright whom we liked less. The latter brought employment to many and the factory system of working enable many to find employment but it also saw the shift of people from the country to the towns to find work. Darwin made some marvellous discoveries and wrote of them in The Origin of the Species, but like many of the others mentioned in the book Bragg made little reference to those who had gone before whose research and discoveries probably made it possible for him to be so influential.

This is however true of us all, that we benefit from those that blazed the trail before us.

Much has been left out of the analysis of the book so if the gaps are very

Three Men in a Boat

5th July 2011

It was generally agreed that the story told in the book was quite "laddish". The 'pranks' of three young men in the late 1800s were comically told and made for relatively easy reading. It was noted that it is impossible to accurately provide a chronology to the story. There is a great deal of digression and many non sequiturs in the recounting of this journey down the Thames. The book suffers from the author's indecision regarding the genre of the book - whether it is a treatise on the British countryside, a comedy or a serious reflection on the mores of the period. Many of the reflections on the British countryside are maudlin and the social commentary is erratic and sits jarringly amidst the narrative. The characterisation of the three young men is poorly fleshed-out and the three merge seamlessly into a single person. Nonetheless, the book provides an insight into the period, albeit, from a very limited perspective.