My salon about The Tortoise and the Hare — one of the great post-war English novels — is on February 1st. We’ll be discussing the novel and the real life story behind it. I’d love to see you there. (And if you haven’t, do read the novel.)
Thank you
First things first: thank you so much for responding to the survey, and for all of your kind words. Mostly, you sent high praise and good wishes. It was very gratifying. It’s always splendid to get emails from you when you have enjoyed books reviewed here, and there was a lot of that sort of thing as well, which was excellent to hear. That’s why we’re all here, after all. Special thanks to those of you who told me how good this blog is compared to other criticism you read.
Whoever wrote “this is the only substack that matters” is my new favourite.
Housekeeping
You seem happy with a weekly essay on Tuesday. Dissenters were few and in great discord with each other.
“Keep standards up” came up several times, twice in one answer. A slim majority says things have improved over time. Others think standards have been maintained throughout.
The diaries were popular — we might do more of those, but seasonally perhaps. If you enjoyed them, I recommend The Assassin’s Cloak (US link), one of my favourite anthologies.
Some of you share the essays — thank you! Nothing helps me more than when you share them.
Interaction was politely but firmly declined. You’re here to read. — I was quite pleased to hear this. But I am also thrilled to see that several of you are coming to the salon about Elizabeth Jenkins and I am very much looking forward to that discussion.
Am I open to suggestions?
Very much so. All ideas always welcome (although I can’t promise to follow them.) Please send all and any ideas by hitting reply, leaving a comment, or contact details here. (If you missed the survey or forgot to respond or think I misunderstood the feedback or just have something to say, same applies. I always enjoy hearing from you and I always respond.)
People like the footnotes.
Good footnotes are indeed under supplied. If you like footnotes, try Supermac (US link) by D.R. Thorpe, a very wonderful book I used to lug onto the early train from Royston. It was a damp winter as well as a damp train service and the windows were often dripping, not to mention my fellow passengers. But with a flask of coffee and those footnotes nothing could bother me.
Robust Evelyn Waugh attitude
A few of you said something like this: “Write out of your own sensibility. Don't curry to us.” There were also comments that you enjoy the way the essays are written and that for some of you the content is somewhat secondary. I was pleased to discover these robust, Evelyn Waugh-ish, attitudes among you.
“I am trying to fortify myself sufficiently to undertake the Churchill Biography”
If you are only going to read one biography of Churchill, don’t make it that one. Too bloody long and too “pro”. I recommend Mr Churchill's Profession (US link) or Five Days in London, May 1940 (US link) as the places to start. They are short, specific to one part of his life, give a good general impression, and are well written.
“I have grown more curious about Samuel Johnson, but I am not sure where to start.”
The obvious things are the Selected Essays (US link) or just to buy the Major Works (US link) and see what you like — that will have a good selection from Lives of the Poets. Johnson on Shakespeare is my favourite. His Preface to Shakespeare is everything good critical writing ought to be. Dipping into the Dictionary is always rewarding. Rasselas is genius, but some people find it awkward and unreadable.
What you like and want to see more of
”How literature (or literary figures) can help fill the gaps (or bridge them) when it comes to finding solutions to our problems.” — Yes this is a great idea and I will write about it in some way.
Book reviews and essays about lesser known authors — lots of you enjoy discovering new authors and I will try to do more of this. It is the core of why this blog exists, along with the deep interest in biography.
Eclecticism — the generalist topic choices seem to be popular. I do try and keep within some limits, which is why there has not yet been an essay about the churches of Lewisham, but perhaps we will try to stretch those limits this year.
Gutenberg &c — this is, perhaps, a minority interest (along with education) but it is very popular among the few, and we might have some more of it — but only once I have something new and interesting to say.
“Books and authors that have made a difference in the author’s creative/intellectual life” — this is an excellent point and I will keep it in mind as I write.
“I often find myself playing catch up with your UK history/culture writing more than I do with e.g. The Guardian or the TLS.”
Quite right, too. Whoever wrote this is a model to their community.
Don’t get political!
Several people mentioned this. I didn’t think I had got especially political — was it a warning, the Rittenhouse thing, homeschooling, the old books stuff? As a former Parliamentary dogsbody, I am well acquainted with political ennui. Rest assured, unless old politics counts, there are no plans to “get political” on this blog. Apologies for having done so already.
A miscellaneous list of “things to see less of”.
“Long quotes from authors” — I am prone to this but sometimes reading the author is the only thing. That goes double if the author is Samuel Johnson.
“Essays on well known historical figures” — that’s kind of what we do here, although we can certainly aim to tip the balance to the less well known. Of course, how well known the well known really are is open to question.
“I think it’s OK to give more of a recap in the books pieces and it doesn’t compromise the essay” — well that very much depends what you call a compromise. Aristotle said that when a tragedy is truly great a five minute summary of the story will horrify a first-time hearer as if they had seen the play. (He was right: it happened when I told someone at university the plot of Othello. They nearly cried.) But almost all blurbs and summaries are junk. Often they are just wrong. And so myopically literary. Most people cannot describe most books accurately, especially novels and especially book people. I try and write about books in an alternative way to the usual blurbing practice because summaries usually make me roll my eyes so hard they nearly roll out. I may write a whole essay about this one day. You can look forward to that. (Don’t worry, my wife has an occasional veto.)
There was someone who wants to hear less about Tyler Cowen — probably not going to happen.
Don’t forget to book your ticket to the salon about The Tortoise and the Hare — one of the great post-war English novels — on February 1st. We’ll be discussing the novel and the real life story behind it. I’d love to see you there. (And if you haven’t, do read the novel.)
Thanks for reading. If you’re enjoying The Common Reader, let your interesting friends know what you think. Or leave a comment at the bottom.
If you don’t subscribe to The Common Reader, but you enjoy reading whatever’s interesting, whenever it was written, sign up now.
I absolutely agree that you should write out of your own sensibility. On a platform like Substack one should only write what they truly enjoy writing. That enjoyment will certainly come through to the reader.