Bright Young Things discussion

Welcome to our June group read for the 'beyond 1940...' category:

The Uncommon Reader: A Novella by Alan Bennett

I hope you enjoy your reading and pop back here as soon as you can to let us know what you thought!

Ally

the book was fun and entertaining plus everything seemed to flow naturally from the Queen's showing up at the Library to the end
also comments about the politicians were insightful whether a direct comment or an indirect one

This is one of my very favorite books. First, it's a book about books and the joys of reading. Second, I'm a huge fan of the novella form. Third, it's smart and witty and endearing. I've read this a couple of times (and listened to Mr. Bennett read too).

From the moment those dogs wander away and "One" follows them to the book mobile, I knew I was in for a rare treat. I couldn't believe that she asked Norman if he knew Cecil Beaton. Talking about David Hockney and J. R. Ackerley and the Mitfords [I'm presently reading [book:Love in a Cold Climate|5293858]] all works and artists I'm familiar with. The fact that Norman, a young gay man, is self educating by reading books by and about other gay people is too ironic not to appreciate as I facilitate an LGBT book group with the same focus. That he recommends these volumes to The Queen because they're basically the only books he knows is simply priceless.

I'm not going to go on - not now. This is only my first post, and I don't want to give too much away. Please, please, please, read and enjoy and share your thoughts and opinions.

I liked all the little observations about writers - and how just because you enjoy their books, doesn't always mean you'll enjoy their company.

I'm always shocked when a writer reveals which books and authors appeal to them or have influenced and inspired them and it's someone (or some book) I can't stand at all.

Due to the enthusiastic comments about this book in this thread and the nominations thread, I am really looking forward to reading it. Hope to locate a copy soon.

Oh, this book was great.

It is a fairly quick read - a couple of evenings for me. And it is funny and so on point.

I loved when they thought she must be going senile or getting Alzheimer's.

And, Ivan, when I read earlier your Message #5 I didn't know what it meant. It has a whole other meaning now for me.

I will refrain from further mention until mroe have completed the book except to say how wonderfully I thought that Bennett spun his tale.

Do you think an English reader would react differently to this book than a reader from elsewhere in the world?

I'm not sure. I'm a California boy living in Florida - and yet I love all things to do with Mother England.

I think one's pleasure [or is that One's pleasure?:] is certainly enchanced if one is aquainted with the books discussed in the narrative.

I was quite taken with her relationship with Norman. In many ways she seemed to value his opinion and companionship more than anyone else in the book.

Being a reader, I was shocked by the reaction of those around her, supposing she may have Alzheimer's, simply because she enjoyed getting lost in a good book. I thoroughly loathed Sir Kevin and the way he would manage and manipulate; the first Elizabeth would have sent him to the Tower!

I do hope that Bennett follows this with "Drudgery Divine" the memiors of Sir Claude Pollington.

This was one of my favorite reads last year--it's a gem. The reaction of those around the Queen was priceless. And I loved her reaction when she met the authors! One of the few books, you get to the end and wish there was more.

I started reading this tonight and am enjoying it so far. I am not familiar with many of the authors mentioned, so I'm keeping a list of them so I can look them up later. However, I find I must keep a dictionary close, as there are an unusual number of words I must look up. Some of them are "British" phrases that my dictionary cannot help me with, and I wonder if someone can assist me. For instance, what is a "duff read?" and "she did her boxes with less assiduity" (boxes?) and my personal favorite "bowled them a googly." That one just makes me laugh!

I only had any idea about a "googly" because I saw a movie called Hope and Glory (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093209/) where the father was teaching the son how to throw a googly.

Maybe it is akin to a screwball in baseball?

A "googly" is a Cricket term.

Well, as an English person, let me shed some light...

a 'duff read' is one that is no good.

doing her 'boxes' relates to the government papers/official business etc that the Queen must ratify and are sent to her in offical (I think red) boxes.

and a googly is, as Ivan states, a cricketing term - I think the ball spins the wrong way and therefore throws the batsman off his stride.

OK - I have to admit (as an English reader of this book) that I simply cannot imagine the Queen in the role Bennett has created for her. This lends the book an air of unreality for me - now I know that this is 'tongue in cheek' and not meant to be taken literally but I still had difficulty with the concept I'm afraid.

There were parts of the story I really enjoyed - I liked the little scene where the book she left in her carriage was discussed as a security threat that 'may have been blown up', I liked that Norman got a good education. I liked the Queen's idea of reading with a notebook beside her so she could write down passages and quotes that struck her as she read (...similar, in a way, to our florilegium thread - check it out!) - I think I'll dig out a notebook and do the same. I thought that the meeting of the authors was very funny - particularly as it put her off reading living authors!

However, although I'd definitely say this book is worth a read, I don't find it particularly outstanding. probably a 3 star rating from me.

Ally

Ally wrote: "Well, as an English person, let me shed some light...

a 'duff read' is one that is no good.

doing her 'boxes' relates to the government papers/official business etc that the Queen must ratify..."

Thank you, Ally, Jan, and Ivan for clearing those mysteries up for me!

Spoiler Alert--please skip if you have not finished the book.


Towards the end, there is a very short scene that implies that everything the Queen says is recorded, even in private moments. Would you say this is another of the author's jokes, or more like some of our U.S. presidents who actually taped all of their Oval office meetings?

Here in the UK our Queen has just asked for a pay-rise, which has propmpted a media debate about the 'value for money' we get out of the royal family and the civil list.

One of the most often quoted reasons from royalists is the pomp, ceremony and pagentry, which they say improves our image overseas and creates a wealth of tourism revenue for the UK.

I immediately thought of our little thread about this month's group read - and had to chuckle at the 'value for money' questions surrounding a Queen that (god forbid) spends her time reading!

As we have lost of non-british members here I'd love to know your wider thoughts about the british royal family? do you love them? hate them? not see the point? would you prefer Britain to move away from monarchy? do you agree that having the royal family in the UK would make you more likely to travel here? are they an international soap opera or are they taken more seriously. Do you like the Queen herself but would prefer the lower ranks of the civil list to disappear? - I'm just very interested to hear your wider thoughts about the British Royal Family...

Ally

I love them; or rather it. House of Lords, House of Commons - it maintains a continuity with history. The pomp and circumstance, Lords and Ladies. I like it the way it is, with the real power coming from elected officals.

What I don't understand thoroughly, and this is something that occurs in Bennett's narrative, is the monarch's lack of personal autonomy. The Queen seems pushed and prodded all day long: "at 9am you see so-and-so; 10:30 you address the horse and hound league; at noon its lunch with thus-and-such society" and so on and so forth. Does the monarch have no teeth, no bite? I couldn't understand when Edward gave up the thrown for Mrs Simpson - "I'm the King, you don't tell me who I can and can't marry - I'm the KING, now piss off." From reports I read Lady Diana was quite upset being told what to do and what to say and what to wear and where to stand and when to scratch and who to speak to and, and, and.... I don't understand that.

It's a keen observation that Bennett makes about The Queen having read the autobiography of Lauren Bacall and thinking the actress had the better end of the stick.

I'm re-reading this and it sounds like such a hodge-podge of inarticulate notions. Sorry.

No its not a hodge-podge at all!

I think the Queen has a profound sense of duty - she's the last of the generation that holds fast to the old royal protocols and standards of behaviour (...I don't think you'll find the younger generation behaving in quite so detached or disciplined a way). - everything is governed by strict and ancient rules such as the priority order of who sits besides who at dinner or having to talk to the person on your right during one course but the left during another course, even how deep to curtsey if you're ever lucky enough to meet the queen. - Its mostly tradition and that is part of what the royal family knows and does best. The Queen is a figurehead - she is apolitical and holds no sway in government. Her life is bound by ceremony and i'm sure that if the protocol was all removed tomorrow that the royal family would cease to be 'special'.

Ally

Well, then, you better not remove the protocol.

I know that if and when I finally visit England (once I get over my irrational fear of airports and airplanes) some of the things that I will want to see as to do with all the pomp and circumstance. It is a show but it is a show that tourists want to see. she has a part to play and she knows what it is. Let's hope the younger generation actually know their parts and are willing to play them when it is their time.

But it is your country. If you want to get rid of it, that is your business.

I know this group is mostly interested in the English literature but I have spent years reading English history. Sometimes hating it - I am Scotch-Irish after all.

If you get a chance, read Bennett's non-fiction, particularly The Lady in the Van and A Life Like Other People's - both are quite amusing, but poignant too.

I liked it. I think Bennet is a good observer of people.

I agree. I think so many comedians are. Writing and performing sketch comedy, most notably "Beyond the Fringe," one develops a keen eye for spotting the sublime and ridiculous in the too often mundane machinations of everyday living.

It's a funny thing; I've heard that writers "write what they know" - draw from their own experiences. This isn't always evident to the occasional reader of a particular author. However, once we (I) get to know something of the authors background, it simply fascinates me to spot all the "hidden" correlations in their life and fictions. A simple example would be Bennett's film "A Private Function" - the Liz Smith character suffers from senile dementia and the Pete Postlethwaite character is a butcher, just like Bennett's parents. Indeed, Bennett has had a long history of writing characters with varying forms of dementia or mental illness, from George III to Sir Claude in his drama and fiction to his mother and Mrs. Shepard in his non-fiction.

I just read this yesterday. I really enjoyed it. I do agree that it was a little out there, but still enjoyable. I found it really interesting since I'd just read Carnival on the Page: Popular Print Media in Antebellum America for a class. In there Lehuu talks at length about what's seen as good reading and how "private" reading is bad and whatnot. So I read this a bit differently than I might've without reading the book for class. Now I want to read all the Queen read. :)

Ally wrote: ...would prefer the lower ranks of the civil list to disappear?

I'm in the US. First please explain the phrase above.

I haven't read that book, but just came across this discussion. The royal family is an anachronism, but I'm torn the way many Brits are. You support them grandly with your taxes, but they also bring in tourism. When they start behaving like normal people (Margaret, Fergie, Diana, etc), the Queen gets her knickers in a knot. Her values are in the 19th Century; she was brought up that way. I've heard the Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands interviewed on TV, and she's much more hip and modern, lives in the present.

I don't blame the Queen so much for this as the system. She was taught from childhood that her duty is to her country and the Crown, and to avoid any scandal such as her uncle's or her sister's.

In the US, many people follow the royalty because of our historical ties to England, and because we don't have royalty ourselves. I don't see huge headlines in the NYTimes when a princess in the Netherlands or Belgium gets divorced. Even the cynical Rochelle gets carried away. I was bereft when Diana died and watched every minute of the funeral in tears.

Bronwyn I'm so glad you enjoyed this book; it's one of my favorites - a little gem. I just thought it was a lark. I've actually read quite a number of the books mentioned (not all).

Rochelle wrote: "Ally wrote: ...would prefer the lower ranks of the civil list to disappear?

I'm in the US. First please explain the phrase above..."

The civil list is officially the means by which the royals are paid for their soverign and civic duties and includes stuff like security for royal visits, ceremonial stuff and state banquets, staffing and upkeep of royal households etc. If I remember rightly, I believe that the Queen and Prince Philip are the only ones that get money directly fom the civil list but any other royal that performs state duties also gets paid by parliamentary annuity and this is supposed to be paid back by the Queen - however, she can offset this against her tax bill. (I'd have to look it all up as its a bit complicated). - the lower and lower ranks of royalty that perform state duties at home and abroad cause some consternation for some people in the UK as they don't like the idea of public money being used to subsidise minor royals.

Hope that helps.

Ally

I still don't really understand, lol.

I'd say that, especially given William's engagement and how it's been covered here, the US definitely likes the royal family. I don't know that we completely understand the need for it, but the idea of it and the pomp and everything is nice. :) Personally, I do like it, it's just something different compared to what we have. If I ever make it to England I'd want to go see the palaces and everything. There's just a certain grandeur that we don't have. :)