The Hobsbawm-Mona Lisa principle. Or just a bad book?

It is hard to judge how critical one is. I have at least long since decided that life is too short for books that are too enjoyable. Books may be so for a variety of reasons. Mostly if I simply struggle to get into the story, as it were, and that persists, then I give up. There are too many books left to be read to waste time on that which requires more energy than it provides. Reading should definitely be a net gain in terms of returns.

Sometimes I think it is simply because not every book can (or should) "speak" to the reader. This is the point at which I invoke what I have titled above as the "Hobsbawm-Mona Lisa principle". It stands to reason that given my personal beliefs, the writings of the leftist historian Eric Hobsbawm should be right up my alley, as they say. I do however find him a bit difficult to read. I did however manage to read his autobiography Interesting Times. In that book he writes the following upon viewing the Mona Lisa in the Louvre: "But she did not speak my language". I thought that brilliant. In a few words he captured a feeling I also had felt when I finally saw the Mona Lisa myself. Not to mention a sense I had when viewing or reading many famous works of art or books. At that moment it somehow became permissible to just not enjoy everything that everyone else does. You enjoy what you enjoy, period.

So that is a principle I also adhere to when reading books. It is not a reflection on the book in question, it is simply one of those things.

This is of course, not to imply that there are no badly written books. There are many reasons why I may struggle to get into a book or otherwise decide to put it aside. I am at the moment struggling to get into a novel, and to my chagrin put aside C.J. Cherryh's Fortress of Eagles. That had absolutely no relation to anything of the above, it is one of the books I have abandoned that I am quite sure I will try again. The timing was simply off,  that also happens.

However, to the book in question for this post - Charles Todd's Wing of fire. Putting aside my annoyance that a mother and son writing team write under the name of the son, this is the second book featuring Inspector Ian Rutledge. (Perhaps also wondering why USians must write series based in a country they do not live in. Did no soldiers from the US suffer from shell shock? I digress and concede that I might be surprised if this does not make me appear more critical than I clearly would like to). I managed to read the first book, and I think it was fine. I was not a particular fan of "Hamish" I recalled as soon as I started reading this one, but the entire concept, of a historical crime set in the twentieth century should be one that I enjoy. Except that I did not enjoy this. Hamish aside, it was just poorly written. Not the language (there are editors for that), but the story. Already in chapter four there is a character who in the one instant is trying to bully and intimidate Inspector Rutledge into giving up an investigation and yet in the next is accusing his step-sister, one of the deceased of a triple murder! Furthermore the aforementioned Inspector Rutledge seems to accept this rant at face value, only pausing to point out the lack of evidence for his accusations. At no point does it occur to him to question why this man has no qualms about accusing someone, in two cases a mere child of seemingly cold-blooded murder, and this on a fairly thin basis. This followed by the unmitigated admiration for a titled widow simply oozed precisely USian stereotypes of the UK during that time.

Now that my own rant is complete, I would add that I did read the first novel in a series by the same author(s) featuring one Bess Crawford, which I rather enjoyed. I suspect (assume/hope) the author(s) have in fact matured in the course of their writings - the latter book was after all published some thirteen years after the first Inspector Rutledge, and eleven after Wings of Fire. I have nevertheless decided to abandon Inspector Rutledge forthwith. Which is a bit of a pity. Perhaps I will reconsider. Time will tell. Either way, in this case, it feels like a combination of the Hobsbawm-Mona Lisa principle (perhaps henceforth the HML principle?) and that the book was just not well written. Or I am becoming more critical, and not necessarily in a bad way.

Six in Six

I confess that I like making lists. An enjoyment I have long felt should be put to use in my job, but which I unfortunatley have not had sufficient use for. The most consistent list in my life is my list of books read. The four lists, if one includes Goodreads.

Thankfully, a blog I follow shereadsnovels.com has provided me with a lovely idea for a new list. That idea is from The book jotter (thank you Jo!)


So inspired, here is Mystic's Six for Six for the first half of 2019:

Six new authors

1. N.K. Jemisin
2. Ann Leckie
3. Elizabeth Bear
4. Sheri S. Tepper
5. Claire North
6. Quentin Bates




Six best crime novels so far this year (in no particular order)

1. Malcom Mackay - How a gunman says goodbye
2. Maureen Carter - Dead old
3. Peter Robinson - Wednesday's child
4. Jill Paton Walsh - The Wyndham case
5. Martha Grimes - The Anodyne necklace
6. Aline Templeton - The darkness and the deep

Six best science fiction or fantasy novels (in no particular order)

1. N.K. Jemisin - The hundred thousand kingdoms
2. Lois McMaster Bujold - Paladin of souls
3. Sheri S. Tepper - Shadow's end
4. Elizabeth Bear - Carnival
5. Ann Leckie - Ancillary Justice
6. Douglas Adams - The hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy

Six books that disappointed a mite

1. Christopher Fowler - Full dark house
2. Larry Niven - The smoke ring
3. Kim Stanley Robinson - Red Mars
4. Delia Sherman & Theodroa Goss (Eds) - Interfictions
5. Ann Cleeves - Red bones
6. Nnedi Okorafor - Binti: the night masquerade

Six books that surprised

1.Anne B. Ragde - Berlinerpoplene
2. David Weber - On Basilsk station
3. Kage Baker - The empress of Mars
4. Martin Amis - Time's Arrow
5. Mathews Phosa - Deur die oog van 'n naald
6. Susan Cooper - Over sea, under stone

Six books I abandoned (some very disappointingly so)

1. Elizabeth Taylor - Angel
2. Frank Welsh - A history of South Africa
3. Rachel Pollack - Golden Vanity
4. Doris Lessing - Re. colonised planet 5. Shikasta
5. Sophie Hannah - Little face
6. C.J. Cherryh - Fortress of eagles

Time to decolonise South African history

I grew up in South Africa during apartheid. Which means my education has significant gaps, not least of which is the history of my own country. As part of my self-education, and also so as to be able to engage with my father, who is obviously also a product of the Union of South Africa, I started reading a book I bought a while ago, The History of South Africa, by one Frank Welsh.

I purchased the book quite a while ago (as I am wont to do - books need to gather a fair amount of dust in my bookshelves before I embark on reading them). Perhaps before I underwent my own awakening as to the racism and white supremacy of my upbringing and childhood world. (Yes, it was apartheid South Africa, but to the best of their ability raised me to know that all people were equal and that our society was deeply unjust and wrong). Nevertheless, despite already getting rid of Martin Meredith's The state of Africa for its distinct colonial 'whiteness', I decided to give Frank Welsh a shot.

It has been interesting, and not as bad as Meredith's book. It provides a fair amount of information as to the history of black (and brown) South Africans which was exactly what I was after. I realised that I would have to accept that it could not be comprehensive (what exactly is the relationship between the Xhosa and the Thembu? Where did the Griqua's come from?), but it was not bad.

Except for one thing. He is far too comfortable using archaic terms which in this day and age are simply offensive and inappropriate. I am not even convinced that it would be necessary to quote writers who use it, but when he uses a term when not quoting? Why? WHY?? (In case you're wondering I refer to use of the k-word and - the camel that broke the straw's back, as it were - the n-word as well!).

I put the book aside this afternoon, irritated and after a few hours I realise that I simply have no further interest in reading it any further. I feel a mite intolerant, perhaps, but really, it is 2019. It is time for a decolonised historical narrative which breaks from the past. Even if the book was first published twenty years ago, these were not terms which were acceptable even then. It is time for literature and history which explains and creates a new decolonised and respectful narrative. We do not have to use terms which are offensive and hurtful to people. This book is not that. I am not sure such a book even exists.

Perhaps it is up to me to write it in that case. This book, though by far not overtly racist or even particularly biased is nevertheless headed for the bin.

Or maybe not. I have been searching (my whole life) for a writing project. Perhaps I have just found it.

Annoying characters: Angel

Life is too short. Furthermore, I have literally thousands of books in my own library which I have yet to read. Consequently, if I am not sufficiently drawn into the story of a book, or if I simply not enjoying the book, I waste no further time on it.

Nevertheless, I must confess to being somewhat discomfited. Not too long ago it was the Booker award-winning The Sea, the sea by Iris Murdoch which I was not able to finish. The reason: the main character was simply too annoying.

I am therefore additionally perturbed now to give up on Elizabeth Taylor's Angel. (In case you are wondering, this author has absolutely no relation to the much more famous actress by the same name). This is my second book of hers, as an author published by Virago, a publishing house I generally take as a guarantee of a book I am more likely than not to enjoy. Among their authors I have loved include Antonia White, Rosamond Lehmann, Margaret Atwood and Nina Bawden. I collect what I for some reason call the "greenback" editions (see the picture).

I thoroughly enjoyed the first Elizabeth Taylor I read: Hester Lilly. In this one however the character whose name also serves as the title, Angel, or Angelica Deverell, is simply too annoying. I managed a whole 52 pages before she behaved exactly as I feared. Nicely summed up by the line:

"No," said Angel. 

So did I.

The character is the most selfish and egotistical character I have come across in a while. No redeeming charms within those pages at any rate.  I even tried to like her as I harbour secret dreams of becoming an author myself. In some respects it reminds me of The curious incident of the dog at night time by Mark Haddon. Also a widely acclaimed book. The emotionally sterile character (who is autistic) was a stretch too much for me though. Perhaps it is precisely the emotion I connect with. I shall consider this further. 

In stressing times I am acutely aware of my propensity to prefer crime or speculative theory, as they are more engrossing. It concerns me however if I am losing my ability to enjoy well written literature. This will need to be tested.