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 salutary 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 oozing with wit, erudition and humour. Whatever his opinion of women, his ability to tell a charming story overrides any sense of misogyny or demonization of the female sex. Bennett exposes us to everyday pretences that exist in all of our lives, 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!