Wodehouse

Having had a go at a few books now, I've decided to devote this post to the works of P.G. Wodehouse. I'm not going to review a single novel, for several reasons. Firstly, I couldn't possibly choose one. Secondly, if you like one, you're likely to like all of them (and, indeed, vice-versa) and finally, the plots are all pretty similar, so going through them one by one seems rather redundant.

I can sketch you a standard Wodehouse plot, for those of you who are interested. His most frequently recurring plot is boy meets girl, boy loves girl, boy and girl get engaged. Then someone, usually an aunt or stern uncle, chucks a spanner in the works and all is doom and gloom until it resolves itself, almost magically. He has a few variations on the genre, most notably the Jeeves and Wooster novels, in which the boy and girl are never our protagonists, but unfortunate friends of Bertie's, and the tangle in which they find themselves is resolved by Jeeves.

The reason to read Wodehouse is the language. He is genuinely hilarious (for which reason, it seems, people find it hard to give him the credit he deserves - if it's funny, it can't be art is the logic. Or so I'm told) and somehow manages never to repeat a simile or metaphor. I read once that he used to stick every page he was working on to his wall. If it was going well, he stuck it high up, if it was going badly, it went somewhere around knee-level. His aim was to have every page near the picture-rail before he was done. The testament to this method of writing is that his novels all look almost effortless and, as we all know, that's one of the marks of truly brilliant writing (unfortunately, it's also one of the marks of terrible writing, so, as a system, it isn't foolproof).

The only problem I have with Wodehouse is that I find myself wandering around, wanting to read bits to people, which, inevitably, irritates them (I should really control that urge...). His other bad habit is making me laugh out loud in public places, which results in people giving me odd looks, and my face colouring to match a ripe tomato. However, the enjoyment I get from his work is such that I'll forgive him.

The characters he creates are absurdly privileged, and live in a world most of us can't even imagine, and yet, despite all this, they are almost uniformly charming - I suppose because they are all evidently so well-disposed towards their fellow man (apart from the villains, obviously. If his villains were that likeable, the whole thing would become ridiculous).

There isn't really much of a conclusion to make to this post, though I will sum up by telling you that, although he is a pleasure to read, if you're into plot-driven, fast-moving novels, with tough-talking characters and other hyphenated attributes, he's probably not the man for you. Otherwise, go for it. You'll know by page three whether you like it or not anyway, so you've nothing to lose and if you do like him, I can say that I have found a good Wodehouse, on a sunny day with a cold drink, to be one of life's greatest pleasures. Or, indeed, a good Wodehouse on a rainy day with a warm drink (let's face it, far more likely in England). In fact, just get hold of a good Wodehouse, and you're sorted (no need to worry about that part of it, they're pretty much all good!).

And, just to convince you, I think we can all agree that a man who can use a phrase like "ice formed on the butler's upper slopes" as a throwaway line is worthy of our respect.

Our Mutual Friend

You know that moment when you're chatting to a stranger and you suddenly realise you have mutual friends? The excitement as you work out how close you've been to each other in the past? Well, that is sort of what this novel's about. But mostly not. I'm not going to run through the plot in detail with you, because it's extremely long, very convoluted and I'll almost certainly misremember some detail, thus destroying your whole impression of the novel.

The basic idea is as follows. Man goes missing, presumed dead. A large legacy, intended for him, goes elsewhere. The woman he was ordered to marry by his, now late, father is left widowed without having ever been married. The new legatees, to compensate her for her disappointment, effectively adopt her. Strange man shows up, no-one knows where from, and shows an unusual interest in the girl and the legatees. Do you see where this is going? (I don't feel bad about making it obvious, as Dickens does himself and, indeed, tells us he intended to!)

Spoiler alert! In brief, the girl learns a lesson about the value of money, the fortune returns to its rightful owner and he falls in love with and marries the girl. So much for the main plot. However, this being Dickens, there are about 500 other, smaller plots going on in the background, into which I will not go. Suffice it to say that they include a character rather more villainous and grotesque than humanly possible as well as one more angelic and beautiful than one might reasonably expect to come across in one's lifetime, I suppose to create a balance.

The point, though, is not really the plot, it's the writing and characterisation. Which are fabulous. I think that this is one of Dickens' more underrated novels - the characters are, for the most part, very real and the writing is hilarious. I found it hugely entertaining, and sped through it faster than I have many a shorter novel (Wuthering Heights springs to mind here). It also contains one of my favourite moments of any novel. The exposition of the central mystery is fantastic in its clumsiness.

You can clearly see Dickens sitting there thinking "Hmmmm, I need to explain how such a misunderstanding came about... How to do it subtly and naturally? How? Oh, sod it, I'll just shove in a soliloquy!" Our main character simply, under the guise of "thinking it through", tells the reader, in detail, what happened to him - it's brilliant!

I also really liked Bella and found her little sulks and her obsession with money completely realistic for a girl in her circumstances. In her, Dickens creates a believeable difficult teenager (and a rather less irritating one than many - Harry Potter in "The Order of the Phoenix", to name but one). I also enjoyed Eugene's monents - more, I think, than Dickens did, as he, bafflingly, dislikes Eugene until his near-deathbed reformation.

In conclusion (a phrase I've always wanted an excuse to use), the writing is compelling and very very funny, the characters are generally believable and likeable (this is no "Old Curiosity Shop") and the plot entertaining, if not always completely convincing. A fantastic way to get into Dickens, and a great read!

Daddy-Long-Legs

This is one of my favourite novels. It is also one of my favourite rant topics, so you're in for a treat! Firstly, I suppose I should tell you something about the story, otherwise those of you who are looking for a brief synopsis and review will be left scratching your heads perplexedly as I rant on and on (and, knowing me, on and on and...).

The story begins in the John Grier orphanage, where we meet Jerusha Abbott, our protagonist. After a brief introductory chapter, in which we are brought up to speed on her life so far, we learn that a trustee of the orphanage has decided to send her to college, and the story proper begins. It takes the form of letters from Jerusha to said trustee (whom she calls Daddy-long-legs, due to his height) detailing the highs and lows of her daily life.

The letters are very sweet - Judy (she changes her name pretty fast. I don't blame her, I've never even heard of the name Jerusha, so I can't imagine having to live with it) is a charming narrator and the plot (and love story!) proceeds very happily, without at any point feeling contrived. The characters are real and one could imagine oneself sitting down for a coffee with almost any of them (not Julia. But then you aren't meant to). I was able to relate to her emotions and changes of feeling even if I couldn't quite relate to the experience (I've never been to an American university, especially not in the late 19th century. Have you?). Good! I have now finished my summary of the novel, and given you my opinion (I love, love, love it!).

Now, on to the rant... First, a spoiler alert - this is the bit where I give away some of the ending... It may sound like it, but I'm not about to complain about the novel. I think it's a fantastic novel, with no important faults, so I don't intend to bitch. No, I'm going vent about other reviews of the novel. The number of times I have read reviews that imply that Jervis is a paedophile, grooming his future wife from the age of about 12 is ridiculous. These are reviewers who have not read the novel.

Firstly, he meets her at 18. I cannot emphasise this enough. 18, people! (ok, maybe 17, but still...) In the UK, she would have been legal for almost two years, and even in the States, she either is legal or is about to be, when she hears her good fortune. I now realise I've made a slight mistake - he doesn't even meet her at the start of the novel! That's when we meet her. He doesn't meet her until he pops up to "visit Julia". So he clearly is not a paedophile (because she's an adult - I know I've laboured the point, but, listening to other reviewers, it's necessary) and, as he had no real idea of her existence until the day he heard her essay, he can't have been grooming her.

He may attempt to shape her views and encourage her to think more once he has met her, but that is no more than anyone does when they fall for someone who has slightly different views to them. Or at least it's what I do - I don't use as light a hand as he does either! My tendency is more towards simply ordering whoever the lucky boy is to agree with me (but then no-one's ever accused me of subtlety).

In summary, I love this novel (did you get that? I'm not sure it came through...), but I do feel that it has been unfairly maligned and I think some reviewers would do well to read the damn thing before they panic about paedophilic implications which simply aren't there.

The Curious Incident of the dog in the night-time

I love reading. I mean, I really love reading. Ever since I first learned to read, I've had my nose in a book. Rather like Lily Bollinger and her champagne, I read to cheer myself up when I'm sad, to celebrate when I'm happy, to clear my head when I'm confused or to entertain myself when I'm bored. It suddenly occurred to me that, as a result of this, I have read a very large number of books. Not all great quality, by any means, but I've certainly achieved quantity.

Now, I don't know about you, but before I embark on a novel, even an acknowledged classic such as "War and Peace" (in view of its length, especially before a classic such as "War and Peace"), I want a clear idea of what I'm getting myself into. So, that is what I hope to provide - I intend to write informal reviews of all the books I read, more or less as I read them.

I want to start with the last book I read (not "War and Peace". In the interests of strict honesty, I should tell you that, not having read a definite opinion, I haven't yet attempted "War and Peace"), which is "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time".

I had, as I'm sure you have, heard a lot about it. The writing-as-an-autistic-kid gimmick definitely helped sales for that one! What I wasn't sure about was whether the hype would turn out to be justified. Having read it, I'm still not sure. On the one hand, our narrator is very likeable, his quest rather sweet and the twist, though not entirely unexpected, perfectly acceptable for this kind of novel. The author, having built us up to expect some sort of mystery novel, rather neatly turns it around into a different kind of novel altogether (though I'm not sure I could classify it - a family troubles novel? Maybe?).

I liked the way Christopher sets about his investigation and some of the characters were very appealing (I warmed to Siobhan). Saying that though, I don't think it really works. The first issue I had was with the resolution of Christopher's mystery (Spoiler alert - I'm going to tell you whodunit...).

Christopher's father is presented to us as a calm man, who doesn't get agitated and is much better at dealing with his son than the boy's mother is. Would a man like that be rash enough and, not to put too fine a point on it, psychotic enough to stab his ex-girlfriend's dog to death because she left him? I can absolutely understand why Christopher is scared of him. I would be, wouldn't you?

And yet Christopher's fear is presented to us as though it were a result of his condition, not the natural reaction to discovering that your father, who recently hit you, is a kind of male Glenn Close (in Fatal Attraction, obviously. Not just Glenn Close. That would be a bit harsh). I also found the police's reaction to this a bit odd. If I told the police that my ex had gone crazy and stabbed my dog with a fork, I'd expect more than "Oh? Ok, fair enough. Anything else?"

My verdict then, was that this was an entertaining read, with a narrator to whom I warmed and some interesting ideas. However, the plot holes and inconsistencies bothered me, and I felt that an awful lot of its reputation had come from the person narrating it, rather than an appraisal of the novel itself.