willoyd

The Last Viking by Stephen Bown **** Roald Amundsen all too often gets a rotten press in Britain, being cast almost in the role of the nefarious villain who cheated in beating Scott to the South Pole. One of Stephen Bown's self-professed aims behind the book was to help put the record straight. That is not to say that this is some sort of hagiography: Bown makes no bones about Amundsen's weaknesses, but he also brings out his many strengths, not least his all consuming commitment to polar exploration, his passion for being perfectly prepared, and his superb (but not faultless) leadership skills that generated almost universal loyalty and approbation from the men who worked with him. Nor is this a biography where every twist and turn, every nuance of the written record, is examined in microscopic detail. Amundsen's life is full of adventure, almost larger than life, and the author makes sure that none of this sense is lost, telling a story that fairly rattles along, with just enough time to pause and reflect where necessary. The result is an enthralling story told by a writer with a huge but well balanced sympathy for his subject. I have to admit this broader brush approach did have a slight downside: I never felt that we really got inside Amundsen's personality, rather that we were on the outside looking in. There were occasions where I would have liked to hear a bit more of Amundsen's own voice rather than an author's rather cool analysis. And there were occasions when we rattled through events rather too quickly for my taste. However, these are relatively minor points. Roald Amundsen has for too long been seen in this country as a mere adjunct to the Scott story. Stephen Bown has not only given him the prominence he deserves in his own right, but amply demonstrated that, at least from Amundsen's perspective, the South Pole expedition was but one event in a life full of others of equal stature. Not only a good read, but probably an essential one for anybody interested in polar exploration. Recent acquisitions: A History of the World in Twelve Maps - Jerry Brotton The Norman Conquest - Marc Morris How England Made the English - Harry Mount Umbrella - Will Self This is Life - Dan Rhodes A Foreign Country - Charles Cummings (Kindle) The Apple: Crimson Petal Stories - Michel Faber

Three books I'd suggest: Charles I: A Life of Religion, War and Treason by Christopher Hibbert For an overview of the Civil War: Civil War: The War of the Three Kingdoms by Trevor Royle Drilling down into a more detailed look at a critical time: The Noble Revolt by John Adamson The latter is probably rather more than you'd want at A-Level, but it is an outstanding book!

Having finished Stephen Bown's excellent biography of Roald Amundsen, The Last Viking ****, have started Dominic Sandbrook's history of Britain in the period 1974-79, Seasons in the Sun. We went to see a National Theatre Live transmission of the play This House last week - brilliant production, one of the best modern plays I've seen in years - which was based on this period and which left me wanting to learn more. It's a big book, 800 pages, but the first 20 or 30 suggest it'll be a good read. Not a volume I can carry around with me, so have also started reading Virginia Woolf's first novel, The Voyage Out on the Kindle, needing some respite from the steady stream of book group selections that have all got a bit samey of late.

12 in one and 9 in the other. The larger is now full, with a waiting list.

Any that you'd recommend for a non-physicist?

I really enjoyed (if that is the right word - it's a pretty grim book) Lord of the Flies when I reread it a year or so ago - having hated it as a teenager. Powerful stuff, and has led me on to trying other William Golding, with positive results! Huck Finn was one that grew on me, gradually sucking me in as he travelled down river - much preferred it to Tom Sawyer! Like chaliepud, I didn't rate Slaughterhouse Five, giving it 1 star out of 6 - I'm mystifed as to its appeal. Unlike chaliepud, i thought the same of The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas - finding the research plain sloppy and thus the story not credible. It didn't surprise me to hear he wrote it in a couple of days. Another one where its popularity surprises me! Otherwise, a few on my TBR list (Ethan Frome for instance). A interesting mix!

Love those lists - there are some fabulous books on them. You include at least three of my favourite writers in your non-fiction list: Claire Tomalin, Simon Schama and Peter Ackroyd. I can also thoroughly recommend the biographies by Jenny Uglow - her most recent, The Pinecone is one of my 6 star books (but then, Schama, Tomalin and Ackroyd have all scored 6 stars as well - we both use the same rating system). I equally love your fiction TBR list: I can particularly recommend the Lee (but then you knew that!), the Miller and the Boyd, whilst the Classics list is just that - classic! Happy reading, and look forward to your reviews!

That actually looks like a list that goes a long way to disprove my thesis, and sounds like a book group well worth being a member of! I can't remember ever reading a western (although I have The Sisters Brothers on my Kindle to read), and, aside from Connie Willis's time travel books, I've not read any sci-fi since a teenager (I've actually got Iain M Banks's Consider Phlebas on my to read pile simply because I've not read any for so long). But then my female friends tell me that I'm a bit girlie when it comes to reading, so that may explain that (it was meant, and was taken, as a compliment!). I would take what I say with a small (maybe large!) pinch of salt: I'm probably having a bit of a reaction to the sequence of selections in the various groups I contribute to, which do seem to be a bit samey at present: literary fiction, largely contemporary (certainly post war), largely aimed at a particular market. I was just hoping for more variety: the odd western or sci-fi wouldn't go amiss (just because I've not read any for ages), even some fantasy (Gormenghast anyone?), perhaps some classics, maybe in translation, the occasional biography, travel writing, a collection of essays, history, some popular science, a play, a book of poetry, some natural history, perhaps a bit of philosophy (or is that the Jostein Gaardner you read?!), current affairs, a collection of short stories, some satire (Oscar Wilde!)..... and so on. Please forgive my chuntering - once I get going, I do have a habit of rumbling on for a bit. Not quite what this thread was meant to be about, and in spite of what you might feel from the above, I do actually enjoy the book groups! I just live in hope! Fair comment, Claire. That's almost certainly the explanation for the availability list I've seen.

Interesting that, because I'm finding more and more the opposite - that the people in book groups/circles I belong to show a great reluctance to try anything new. Yes, new authors maybe, but they stay very much in their comfort zone in terms of types of books. Which is why, for instance, the book list for our local library groups is so samey - they've all been chosen by book groups, who very much go for more of the same. And those book groups are dominated by a certain profile, gender etc. Having said that, I have some sympathy with that viewpoint - I know, for instance, that I generally dislike horror, fantasy, modern teen fiction etc, and I don't need to read more of them to prove that. But I'm increasingly finding that book group choices are generally fairly predictable.

I currently belong to two book groups, mainly because when I was looking for one to join last autumn, the two both cropped up virtually simultaneously through different routes, I thought I'd try them both out to see which I preferred, and I'm currently happy going to both! One is a new groups set up through the library, like yours Kidsmum. We're an evening group, after the library is shut, so we meet in the a local pub - because it's a Monday meeting, they like us being there as it helps keeps numbers up! The books come through the library service, so we don't know what we're getting until we open the box at the meeting, after discussing the previous choice. There are about a dozen of us. I have to say that so far there's not been a single book I've liked - several I've not been able to bring myself to finish. I've enjoyed the discussions and meeting the rest of the group (who are a lovely bunch of people), and intend to keep going for the moment, but I have found the continual disappointment with the books somewhat debilitating. They're all books that have been bought by the library based on the choices of its various book groups, but I've found them rather monotonous - all middle of the road literary fiction, pretty unremittingly gloomy and, IMHO, rather overrated (see list below, and you'll probably disagree with me!). Books discussed so far with my star ratings: Christine Falls - Benjamin Black **; When We Were Orphans - Kazuo Ishiguro **; The Boy in Striped Pyjamas - John Boyne *; Alone in Berlin - Hans Fallada **; Notes on a Scandal - Zoe Heller * The other group I belong to was originally set up by a group of friends who were looking for some new blood - and they acquired me! We circulate round members' houses, and books are chosen in order round the group (my first choice is coming up in July). The range is somewhat broader than the library group - there have been some really awful books, but there have also been some really good ones too. I've loved the discussions which seem to be a wee bit more lively, the best one being on a book that I didn't particularly rate, but which proved a great book to discuss (it might have helped that we were also eating a Christmassy buffet at the time!),which goes to underline the fact that the most enjoyable discussions come when there's a range of views and opinions - the least interesting discussions are when we're all in agreement, either liking or hating. (BTW, the book was The Help). Books discussed so far, with my star ratings: Ash - James Herbert *; The Help - Kathryn Stockett **; David Copperfield - Charles Dickens ******; Yellow Birds - Kevin Powers *; Starter for Ten - David Nicholls *; Sarah Thornhill - Kate Grenville ***; Overall, I've found that I've read quite a number of books that I would probably not have read otherwise, so to that extent it's opening my horizons up. However, I have to say that the majority of those books have ultimately disappointed - I have never had so many one or two star reads in a year, and we're not even half way through. Many/most are books that have featured highly in awards or in the best seller lists, so it's probably me and my tastes, which is why I've listed them above so you can make your own judgement. What has suprised me though is how narrow the range is, especially with the library group. We'll see how it all progresses - I do love the opportunity to discuss books with other readers, that's the really big plus, and one that will in all likelihood keep me going. In terms of the framework for discussions, the library group don't use questions, just starting off going round the group for opinions and going from there, whilst with the other group, the host takes a lead by researching some questions beforehand (or using generic ones we've got as a back up/supplement) and leading the discussion.

No - but just bought it in Kindle format! Thanks for the tip Claire.

That could have been my set of comments, our views are so similar! I'm glad (if that is the right sentiment!) that somebody else also found that section dragged a bit. It did seem to take a bit of winding up again, and then the last hundred pages or so got quite frenetic! Thanks for the extra questions, Athena. I have to admit, I came across some/most of them whilst researching what questions to set, but equally have to admit that I didn't have a clue how to answer most of them! A few did seem somewhat contrived (maybe because the writer was trying to think of something a bit different to the usual?). The one question that did raise an issue that engaged me was the presence of Ashwell and Bodley. I did wonder if they were going to be the vehicle by which Sugar was unmasked (especially given she'd retained her distinctive name), and was surprised to find them petering out fairly innocuously. As to Caroline being given the closing line, I thought that was simply the writer closing out full circle - finishing with the person he started with. I don't think it said anything about William's fate at all. This applied to several of the questions - I don't think the line of the questions featured in the author's mind, rather in the setter's mind.

I don't think it was invented for anything - as far as I remember, it's simply a contraction of the Middle (or Old?) English words for 'fourteen nights'.

Bankside by David Brandon and Alan Brooke *** This is a history of this part of Southwark, in south London, and a fascinating area it is too (made all the more so for me by the fact that I was born close by, and that I bought it having just visited the area for the umpteenth time). The book itself is an interesting read, filling in a lot of the holes in my knowledge of the area, anything but dry - indeed it has quite a personal feel to it, the authors not being without a sense of humour! Chapters are themed rather than chronological, focusing on different aspects of the district: religious buildings in one, crime and punishment in another literary connections and theatres in yet another, inns providing the focus for another, and so on. This has the advantage of providing a ready focus for each chapter, and the opportunity to draw thematic connections, but it did mean that the strong chronology sometimes became obscured, and there were several instances of duplication (yes, we know The Globe was destroyed by fire, you've told us twice already....). It also meant that some chapters became a bit listy: we've dealt with one church, so let's just move on to the other, and then a third, and so on. Those caveats aside, this is a well-written, entertaining history of one of the most interesting areas of London, from which I learned much, and which will provide a useful and readily accessible source of information when I come to check something up. If you are anything but an expert on this area and want to find out more about it, this is well worth a read.

Yes, but then tedium is in the eye of the reader - what's tedious for you might not be for me, and vice versa. Same with language and style. I find Woolf, Dickens, Austen, Trollope, Eliot, Tolstoy, Zola etc utterly readable, others find just the opposite. Equally, I can't abide many of the modern best sellers, finding the likes of Dan Brown, Lee Child, Linwood Barclay, Gillian Flynn, George Martin, Harlan Coben, Suzanne Collins, and Ken Follett (amongst others, but they're ones I've tried in the past couple of years) totally boring. Of course, not all Classics are great, and not all modern best sellers are boring (far from it!), but I've not found tedium or writing style/language any more barriers with classics than I have with modern books. Do you mean The Woman in White? If so, I loved it: not much tedium there! Hope you find the same.

Thank you, and thanks for your responses- I can't disagree with them (which doesn't make for good discussion I know!). Please do. The more grist to the mill, the better. I don't think there would be any problem legally.

Completed Sarah Thornhill. Okay, but not a lot more. Still reading Bankside but it's more of a dipping book, so got going on The Last Viking, biography of Roald Amundsen.

Sarah Thornhill by Kate Grenville *** The sequel to The Secret River, this is the story of the eponymous heroine, daughter to TSR's central character William, a transported convict, whose relationship with mixed race Jack Langland is affected by the prejudices and history of her family. On the whole, it's received rave reviews on Amazon and elsewhere, and there is no doubting the author's skill in telling a story. I loved her descriptions of the settings, whilst Sarah is a thoroughly believable, complex character who matures as she grows throughout the book. Other characters, however, never really came alive for me in the same way, not even Jack. However, for some reason, I never really settled: the book got off to a good start, but about a third of the way through I'd had enough, and found myself skimming sections. It was only in the last third that recovered some of the absorption, only to find the ending probably the weakest aspect of the book - given all that had gone before, it all seemed a bit out of character, and thus somewhat unlikely. Why the initial disturbance though? I think it's because the storyline was so utterly predictable: almost a cliche of nineteenth century narratives: feisty girl meets love of her life who's 'not good enough for her', thwarted they part, another more acceptable man comes into her life who she's not attracted to, all leavened with a sprinkling of stepmother influencing natural father and so on and so on. I was also thoroughly irritated by the author's constant use of the word 'of' instead of 'have', as in 'would of'. Yes, I know it was deliberate, but with multiple examples on some pages, it came close to driving me totally bonkers! I'm not convinced that it's even a realistic speech pattern for the time. Less irritating, but still making life occasionally difficult, was the author's reluctance to use speech marks - compete abandonment would be more accurate. Nothing particularly serious, but all combined, it made reading awkward, and broke up my involvement. So, rather like the curate's egg then - some wonderful, some totally offputting. I came very close more than once to putting it down for good, but found myself wanting to read through to the end, to find out what happened to Sarah if nothing else, even if in the end it didn't really satisfy. So, at the least, it deserves three stars and I certainly wouldn't be too fed up if I found myself with only another Kate Grenville book to hand. Recent acquisitions, all Kindle Daily Deals or Sales: Secrecy by Rupert Thomson She Rises by Kate Worsley Dark Star Safari by Paul Theroux John Saturnall's Feast by Laurence Norfolk The Complete Mapp and Lucia by EF Benson

Classics have lasted the test of time. They aren't just books of the period they were written in, but have greater universal relevance. They are, by definition, well written. None of that guarantees enjoyment, but your chances are far greater. I know what you mean by the density too, Ian, and agree - it's something I enjoy in books too. I've started to appreciate them all the more since joining a book group (two in fact!): I can't get over how few books chosen for these I actually enjoy (or how few others actually enjoy them too!), and have found myself hankering after a decent classic all the more. And yet it seems that other members tend to shy away from them, or regard them as something to be 'tackled'.

1. The book is a pretty massive volume. Did you find it difficult or easy to read? Indeed, was the length inherently important to the impact of the book? Easy. Really easy. In fact, I was surprised how quickly and easily I got through it, it slipped down without the slightest murmur. And it needed some length for space to cover what he covered. I have to admit a certain feeling of longeurs in the second half - after Sugar became the governess - and felt that stronger editing would have helped here, but aside from that, the length of the book was an inherent characteristic that I would be reluctant to see lost. 2. The book is a classic example of a story told by an omniscient narrator, one who makes it perfectly clear that they are directing what the reader 'sees' and 'hears'. What, if any, impact did this deliberately intrusive style have on your reading? Again, I think the omniscient narrative style was an important element,in particular enabling the author to more easily show what characters are thinking. Characters thus become more sympathetic, especially in enabling us to understand more readily why they have done something they have, even if against what we, the readers, would prefer seeing happen. That ability to see inside the thinking of characters is essential in the author's own development of those same characters. The author is also better able to control what we 'see' and 'hear' and focus our minds on what he thinks is important. 3. The depth of historical research is worn very clearly on the author's sleeve, with extensive detail in places. Did you enjoy this, Did it enhance your reading, or did you find it intrusive? To what extent did it affect the story? Yes I did, very much so. indeed the research very strongly grounded the book in its time and place, and for me that's almost more important than the plot! Without that all, the book would have been half or even less t he value. 4. The theme for this month was 'The Great Wen' - books that included London as a character in its own right. Did Faber achieve this. If so, in what way(s), and if not, what prevented London fulfilling this role? How has your impression of Victorian London been influenced, if at all? Certainly he did - much to my relief! And that's where his research paid dividends. What I particularly enjoyed was the contrast between the squalor of Soho and the development of the more upmarket settings in Notting Hill. Faber thus managed to provide a portrait of different aspects of London to give us a much fuller picture. 6 What are your feelings/views on the (at least to me!) very surprising ending? At the time it took me completely by surprise, and left me somewhat irritated. But the more I sit on it, the more I'm beginning to appreciate it, along the lines outline by chesilbeach - life goes on and a book is merely a time constrained snapshot. But I would like to know what the author thinks happened next.....!

Struggling to make headway with Sarah Thornhill (Kate Grenville) - another book club book that I find myself wondering why I'm spending my time reading it. Aside from David Copperfield back in January, haven't enjoyed a book club read for some six months or so (I belong to two), and beginning to wonder why - perhaps because it's the element of compulsion; or is it that i'm genuinely not interested in the sorts of books book clubs select? Don't know, but they all seem to be rather samey - middle of the road literature, and the discussions are exactly full of people enthusing - rather the opposite. My other book club has had selected A Most Wanted Man (John Le Carre). Fingers crossed! Am also reading Bankside (David Brandon, Alan Brooke), a themed history of the eponymous area of London - much more interesting, even if not exactly high literature. Why do so many book clubs always seem to go for the same sort of books? I joined to get a bit more variety, and it seems just the opposite. Bought a couple of books in Waterstone's yesterday: Umbrella (Will Self) and This is Life (Dan Rhodes). Looking forward to the chance of reading them, especially the former.

Apology completely unnecessary; it's far more interesting when people disagree about a book. I had completed a detailed response to the questions to go with this, but when I clicked the post button, it deleted the lot, and I haven't got the energy to retype it out tonight, so will wait for another evening. it's happened once or twice before, and am a bit fed up that almost half an hour's work has just evaporated. Grrrrrr!

Look forward to your comments bobblybear. I finished this a couple of weeks ago, but rather than leading off with my views, I'd rather see what others make of it, particularly those who voted for it! In the meantime, suffice to say that I thoroughly enjoyed it (although I did think it needed a bit of trimming - but only a bit!) and am in actual fact glad it was chosen - I'm not sure if I would have ever got around to it otherwise, and am so glad that I did!

Capital by Maureen Duffy **** A book that I found difficult to pin down. At the heart of the novel is Meepers, homeless, living in a sequence of outbuildings and tower blocks found through his knowledge of the city, a self-made expert on London history, particularly the Roman period and the Dark Ages, obsessed with whether London ceased to exist or not during this period, and what that means for the future. Interspersed with vignettes from London's past and the letters to his distant partner of Emery, the more establishment orientated academic who rejected Meeper's submissions for publication, but who then finds himself building up a relationship, even friendship, with Meepers, the whole provides a view of London that precedes the likes of Ian Sinclair, Peter Ackroyd and others - psychogeography in all but name - depicting the city at a time of severe change (the book was written in 1975, with Thatcherism and its impact on the capital still over the horizon (Duffy was being thoroughly prescient). If that all sounds a bit too abstract or nouveau to make enjoyable reading, I found Capital a thoroughly engrossing, entertaining, and intriguing read. Ultimately, it's a character centred novel, the character being London itself. It may have been written some forty or so years ago, but much, indeed most, is still pertinent today - but then some cities are timeless, or at least feel that way to those who inhabit them. This is the third book in a row that I've read around the London theme - all three having been nominated for the May Reading Circle, themed on London, and I do feel on a bit of roll. I've another book to read for one of my face to face reading groups, but, having focused on London in fiction, I've also got a few more straightforward history books lined up for the near future now, so hope to read a couple of those over the next few weeks.

Hi Poppyshake - wonderful to have you back. :smile: My favourite Dahl is Matilda which, coincidentally, I went to see last Wednesday in London (with 30-odd children!). Matilda herself is one of my favourite characters in fiction - great to have a heroine so passionate about books!