Feed on
Posts
Comments

Before Are You Somebody? was published, Nuala O’Faolain was a minor Irish celebrity, a opinion columnist with The Irish Times commenting with clarity and perception on the various aspects of Irish society and culture that caught her attention. She had also achieved a certain notoriety as the long-term partner of Nell McCafferty, an outspoken political and social journalist, intrepid feminist, lesbian and Northern Irish republican. She wrote Are You Somebody? just one year after her fifteen year relationship with Nell broke up.

This was a book that was never intended to be. A small Irish publisher acquired the rights to a number of Nuala’s newspaper articles and planned to assemble them in book form. Nuala offered to write an introduction. When she sat down to write, the words flowed onto the page until it became a 200 page essay contemplating the high and low points of her life to date at 55 years. Somehow her account of alcoholism, despair, love, sex, loneliness, the stuggle to find meaning in life all struck a chord with many people and her publisher quickly repackaged the book as a memoir. Within a year it was number one on the New York Times Bestseller list. She was inundated with thousands of letters from readers touched by her story who saw themselves in her specificity.

‘I’ve been on television, so it sometimes happens that in a lounge-bar, say, women at another table start looking at me and pointing…They’ve seen me before but they’re not quite sure…

“Are you somebody?” they frankly ask.’

This book is Nuala O’Faolain’s attempt to answer that question.

In Angela’s Ashes, Frank McCourt says: ‘It was of course a miserable childhood. The happy childhood is hardly worth your while. Worse than the ordinary miserable childhood is the miserable Irish childhood, and worse yet is the miserable Irish Catholic childhood.’ And so too was Nuala’s. She recounts without a trace of sentimentality or self-pity her childhood, the second eldest of nine children, abandoned between a philandering, socializing father and an alcoholic mother trapped in a domestic prison she hated. They were not particularly poor in that they had enough to eat but they were deprived of love.

She only realizes this with hindsight. ‘They [her cat and dog] have given me the measure by which I find my parents wanting…I took it for granted they had little tenderness for us. They made me accept that, for myself and my brother and sisters. But I can stop feeling passive when I think – they would have had no tenderness for Molly! They would have said: “You’re not expecting me to mind that dog, are you?” …And I think for the first time – I let myself feel it – how did my mother and father not care more for the small children around them? How did they not pick them up, not comfort them?’

She highlights the moments, relationships and changes that marked her life. Throughout her life she was at odds with herself. She was a feminist but, despite herself, believed that her happiness would be given to her by men. She no longer believed in God but pined after the religion she had been brought up in. She was convinced she could not be a good mother but struggled to find a place for herself as a middle-aged, childless woman.

At a moment when she was devastated by the slow death of her father, tottering on the edge of alcoholism, lacking in self-esteem, she tells how she fell in love with Nell McCafferty: ‘it was by far the most life-giving relationship of my life’ .

At the end of the book Nuala describes her first Christmas Day spent since the end of her relationship with Nell, a day spent traveling across the Burren alone with her dog. It is a poignant picture of a woman bravely counting her blessings and yet fearful of the future. ‘Behind me, up in the Burren, nothing knitted together. There’s a pre-historic burial site. There’s a village abandoned in the Famine. There’s a tiny twelfth-century church. There’s a holy well. There’s a mound of shells near a cooking-pit. Each thing is itself, discrete. Near each other, and made from the same material, but never flowing into each other. That’s how the life I describe here has been. There has been no steady accumulation: it has all been in moments. But in front of me there is a vista – empty, but inexpressibly spacious. Between those two – landscape of stone, and wide blue air – is where I am.’

Some readers may find this memoir unsatisfying because despite her piercing intelligence and unflinching honesty (the Guardian described it as ‘a truthfulness that sometimes bordered on the self-destructive’ in her obituary: http://books.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,,2279405,00.html) this is not a tale of triumph over adversity, there are few insights into herself and her life and there’s no sense of progression towards self-understanding. But it is an immensely truthful picture of a woman struggling, often unsuccessfully, to reconcile what she knows with how she feels.

Earlier this year Nuala O’Faolain discovered that she was in the terminal stages of cancer. She was interviewed on radio on April 12th by the broadcaster and her friend, Marian Finucane. (You can listen to this deeply moving interview here: http://www.rte.ie/radio1/marianfinucane/1084847.html Programme 29.)

True to herself, Nuala faced death with a frightening lack of armour, just as she faced life.

From the transcript:

N. O’F: Even if I gained time through the chemotherapy it isn’t time I want. Because as soon as I knew I was going to die soon, the goodness went out of life…it means nothing to me anymore — the beauty. For example, twice in my life I have read the whole of Proust. I know it sounds pretentious, but it’s not a bit. It’s like a huge soap opera. But I tried again the week before last and it was gone, all the magic was gone from it.’

She also challenged the fundamental beliefs of a still strongly Catholic country, fearless for herself and initiated a wave of compassion across the nation.

MF: Do you believe in an afterlife?

NO’F: No, I do not.

MF: Or a God.

NO’F: Well that’s a different matter somehow. I actually don’t know how we all get away with our unthinkingness. Often last thing at night I walk the dog down the lane and you look up at the sky illuminated by the moon and behind the moon the Milky Way and, you know, you are nothing on the edge of one planet compared to this universe unimaginably vast up there and unimaginably mysterious.

And I have done that for years, looked up at it and given it a wink and thought ‘I don’t know what’s going on’ and I still don’t know what’s going on, but I can’t be consoled by mention of God. I can’t.

MF: Would you like it?

NO’F: No. Oh no I wouldn’t. If I start doing that something really bad is happening to my brain, though I was baptised and I remember my First Communion and I went to Catholic schools and I was in the legion of Mary and I tried to stick to my pledge.

And though I respect and adore the art that arises from the love of God and though nearly everybody I love and respect themselves believe in God, it is meaningless to me, really meaningless.

Nuala O’Faolain died on the 9th of May 2008, a ‘difficult’ woman, but most definitely somebody.

Holt (Henry) & Co ,U.S.; 1st Owl Books Ed edition (31 Jan 1999), 215 pages, ISBN-10: 0805056645

chickDon’t be fooled by the title.  I love chicklit.  Some of my favourite fiction authors are of this genre.  Well, I do suspect that some of them have been crammed into it with a crowbar: it’s always been a mystery to me why Marian Keyes and Freya North, who both tend to address dark and difficult themes,* should be sold with pretty pastel covers.  Some of them, though, are very much in line with the chicklit mission statement, such as I imagine it.  Genuinely fun, enjoyable to read, not scared of addressing a real issue or two and yet ultimately optimistic; the kind of book you can safely pick up in the knowledge that the heroine is going to be just fine and all the loose ends will be tied up.  The kind of book authors like Katie Fforde, Jill Mansell and Kate Lace specialise in producing.  Happy stories. And I don’t believe for a moment that writing that kind of story is in any way an inferior exercise.  People need happy stories, and writing one well requires a great deal of skill.  In other words, it’s hard to write an easy read.

So yes, I do love chicklit.  I am even secretly a little bit grateful for the evil marketing conspiracy that ensures these books are easy to identify.  One of the great pleasures in life, for me, is to nip into WH Smith before a train journey and pick out a fat shiny colourful volume.  A whole book to read as I travel, with no other demands on my time and no worries that I’m going to arrive at my destination with elevated blood pressure or sudden-onset depression.

Well… in an ideal world.  In an ideal world, every book I picked out would be as joyful and uncomplicated and soothing as Restoring Grace.  However, this is not an ideal world.  And in this world, the act of picking out a chicklit novel is fraught with hazards (at least for me).  Because for all I love about the genre, certain odious themes keep cropping up and spoiling my reading pleasure.  For the sake of brevity I managed to streamline them all into five short bullet points: the five things I consistently, and heartily, hate about chicklit.

1.  Sex

Now, I have no moral or aesthetic issues with sex scenes in literature.  But, let’s be realistic here, the majority of sex scenes are crap.  It’s no accident there’s an annual prize.

Aside from the fabulous Jilly Cooper - her work may pre-date the chicklit label by some time, but by god, she should be worshipped by all exponents of the genre - very, very few chicklit authors write sex well.  Freya North manages it; so does Marian Keyes.  But generally, sex -and especially graphic sex - is not something chicklit does well.  In fact, many of the books I have most enjoyed in the genre have no sex scenes at all.  Kate Lace’s The Trophy Girl is just one example of a novel that conveys all the excitement of a developing romance without even the whisper of a sex scene. No clunky descriptions, no awkward nomenclature. (I mean, what can you call the various… parts that doesn’t classify as clinical, cheesy or sleazy?)  If only more authors would realise that it’s not old-fashioned to close the bedroom door.

2.  Stereotypes

Now, I would be the first to admit that the issue of class is all-pervasive.  But it doesn’t mean that I’m going to laugh at your hilaaaaarious portrayal of a weak-chinned aristocrat, stodgy working class person, vulgar nouveau riche or strident, purple haired ecowarrior.  Especially if you recycle that stereotype in more than one novel.  I’m looking at you, Ms. Wendy Holden.

Even setting aside the class issue (which is oh so British), it seems that on both sides of the pond the cookie-cutter nature of chicklit marketing has spread and festered and infected vast swathes of the writing and characterisation of said genre.  Do we really need more dumb blondes, studious brunettes, virtuous poor girls, feisty forty-somethings, fabulous gay men, nagging mothers, laddish blokes, blokish lads, bored housewives or amoral aspiring actresses?  This chick votes no.  The old phrase about a cliche being a cliche because it is true can excuse only so much.

Closely related to:

3. Snobbery

Whether it’s class snobbery, lifestyle snobbery, brand snobbery or aesthetic snobbery, it’s all equally revolting and, unfortunately, all too common in chicklit.

Out of all of these snobberies - all of them irritating in their own way - lifestyle snobbery is perhaps the most common form.  Since this is a short piece I will isolate one particular strand here: the issue of children (say: chiiiiiiiiiildrennnnnn).  I once read three chicklit novels in one weekend (I had to take a lot of trains), all of which touched on the old trope of the selfish childless woman to varying degrees.  By far the worst offender was Jane Green’s Second Chance, which contained precisely one happily single, childless character… who of course had to have a one night stand, conveniently forget all contraception, end up pregnant and then be forced, by a dramatic turn of events, to accept her destiny as a mother.  Not that such things don’t happen in real life.  But in the context of a novel where the state of motherhood seemed to be prized above all else, it felt contrived; more than contrived, in fact.

I have no objection to motherhood, or the desire for motherhood, being a central theme; after all, it is a very real experience and a defining factor in many women’s lives.  Again, it’s all about how it’s done.  Jill Mansell’s novels very frequently deal with family themes, and her portrayal of motherhood - planned and unplanned - is overwhelmingly positive… but there is no judgment implicit in her stories.  I feel that this is the key thing.  This, for me, is what distinguishes natural human bias from snobbery; I have endless patience for the former, but the latter makes me fume.

Other forms of lifestyle snobbery include the corresponding assumption that motherhood always makes you drab and uninteresting and/or crazy and obsessed; the supposed supremacy of New York/London life over the rest of the humble planet; constant harping on body image and personal maintenance (seriously, who in their right mind waxes their nose hair?); fashion snobbery (which is the sole basis for more novels than it ought to be); sexual snobbery (too much? too little? not up with the latest trends?); and that peculiarly chicklittish snobbery that dictates that any girl who is deemed to be plump, dowdy, shy, unfashionable, in need of a haircut or generally slightly odd must be dragged out of her shell and damn well MADE TO CONFORM.  (I am sorry to say that one of my favourite authors let me down with this recently: Katie Fforde, who usually specialises in creating charmingly odd characters, dedicated far too much of Wedding Season to a similar transformation sequence complete with extended product placement for Colour Me Beautiful [see: Shopping].)

4.  Slapstick

Unfortunately this section does not deal with slapstick in the Charlie Chaplin/Buster Keaton/Pierre Richard sense of the word.  It deals with that inexplicable tendency of chicklit authors to make their heroines into outright idiots, who bluster and blunder and stumble their way through life, bouncing from cringeworthy moment to cringeworthy moment, until some sensible man sets them right.  It’s the reason I never really enjoyed Bridget Jones.  It’s the reason I outright cannot read Catherine Alliott.  It’s the reason I hated The Devil Wears Prada.  Stop it.

5.  Shopping

I like a pretty dress as much as the next girl, but deeply resent the idea that luxury brands (such as Pr*d* and J*mmy Ch**) have come to be shorthand for some kind of aspirational philosophy.  For this excellent reason, I never pick up books with shoes on the cover, anything with the word shopaholic in the title, or anything by Candace Bushnell.  You would think that this would be enough.  No, it is not.

Because it seems that even the most sensible novelists are not immune to the lure of the brand.  Product placement is practically inescapable in this weird, diverse genre known as chicklit.  In fact, the one thing that marred my enjoyment of the excellent Ms Keyes’ The Other Side of the Story - apart from the daft Russian stereotype, oh Lord - was the constant mention of a certain cosmetics brand.  I started to think of this cosmetics brand as a main character after a while.

Perhaps this is the nature of “commercial” fiction, but it makes me sad anyway.  For one thing, it feels an awful lot like I, the reader, am supposed to be some easily manipulated, gaping idiot who will run out and buy whatever it is that the author happens to be plugging.  And this is very disappointing.  After all, the best of chicklit - the best of any genre - presumes that the reader has a mind of his or her own.

The Verdict

Do these five things really and truly hamper my enjoyment of a novel?  Yes, they do.  Do I come across them often?  All too often.  But despite having more than enough material for this very ranty soapbox, do I really love chicklit?  The answer is yes.  The best of chicklit is so enjoyable, you see, that I’m quite prepared to brave the hazards.  I’m going to keep on picking up those fat, colourful novels for as long as they are around.

* Ms North, I have a bone to pick with you about prostitution.

justinscroggie_

My memory is superb . . . in its ability to overwrite information that it deems unnecessary for my everyday survival, so fact-books such as Tic-Tac, Teddy Bears and Teardrop Tattoos are a short-lived pleasure, but for a few glorious days I am a repository of all manner of wildly fascinating mental tidbits.

Recently on Vulpes Libris we have questioned the grammar freaks, prodded the emoticon-haters, but today I insist on championing the fact-book and its loyal following of trivia-addicts, because, yes, pub quizzes are dang good fun. TV shows that offer a new random fact with each sentence can cheer the grisliest of winter evenings and who wouldn’t want to read a book that discusses everything from prison tattoos to common poker tells to the Queen’s secret handbag code? (if she puts her handbag on the table top, the Queen would like the event to end in about five minutes, whereas handbag on the floor indicates she’d like to be rescued by a lady-in-waiting ASAP and handbag hanging from the crook of her left arm signals that she’s fine.)

In the hope that there are other trivia-addicts lurking, I present some Secret Service code names for your delectation:

Renegade = Barack Obama
Tumbler = George Bush
Elvis = Bill Clinton
Cowpuncher = Air Force One.

True, one doesn’t NEED to know the origin of the Star Trek Vulcan salute, or discover Catalina’s hidden messages to the Spanish-speaking audience in My Name is Earl, or detect hidden Masonic symbols in the American dollar bill and one definitely doesn’t need to know that Hans Christian Andersen recorded occasions of masturbation in his diary with the symbol ++ (e.g “When they left, I had a double-sensuous ++” ) and yet these little factoids had me grinning like a kid on Christmas morning.

In the Introduction, the author tells us:

If there is a door marked ‘Private’ I want to know what’s behind it. If I see a squiggle on a wall, I wonder what it means. If I hear a conversation between people-in-the-know I want to understand what they are saying.

Yes, I found myself nodding, Me too. So with that in mind, and the author’s invitation to “Be nosy. Find out. Read the book,” I flew through the pages and found the answers to questions that I’d never thought to ask.

I greatly enjoyed Tic-Tac, Teddy Bears and Teardrop Tattoos and feel sure that I will return to it repeatedly over the years; I might even find a way to work some of its fabulous facts into my own novels.

So if you’re of an inquiring mind and would likely feel a small shiver of pleasure from decoding monastic sign language or spotting mobile phone masts hidden in plain sight (”The pole supporting the angel weathervane on Guildford Cathedral is in fact a mobile mast. So is the clock on the town hall in Hungerford, and the belfry of St Stephens church in Edinburgh”) then I would recommend Tic-Tac, Teddy Bears and Teardrop Tattoos. After all, when it comes to decoding the world around us, we can’t know too much.

*Christmas Present Suggestion* My dad already pinched my copy of Tic-Tac, Teddy Bears and Teardrop Tattoos and at least three other relatives will be receiving a copy of this excellent little info-feast for Christmas.

Hodder & Stoughton, Hardcover: 256 pages, ISBN-10: 0340976489, £12.99.

emoticonbiscuitWelcome to The Tuesday Alternative (with all the cult, late-Friday-night, young persons’ vibe that might suggest - apart from the fact of not being cult, late-night, on Friday or particularly designed for young persons).

The Tuesday Alternative is a hopefully humorous (and sometimes pontificating, obnoxious and ranting) look at everything Word, Blog and Book. It will alternate with Kirsty’s Russian series and Kirsty and I may even collaborate on the odd (and potentially mind-boggling) combo of comedy and Russian Revolution in future posts -something I think we can safely say you almost certainly won’t find anywhere else.

But today, to launch the series on everything Word, Blog and Book…I have decided to go for Blog. And talk about that key part of the online writer’s toolkit: the emoticon.

The emoticon tends to get a bit of a bad press. Like the exclamation mark, it tends to be looked down on. They are derided as crude and obvious, silly and tasteless and the sign of a lazy wordsmith. If you can’t get your point across about how to end Third World Poverty without the help of a grinning face in a comedy hat then - quite frankly - you can’t be much of a writer.

I have to admit to being a bit of a fan of the emoticon. I didn’t used to be. Like every other slightly self-conscious individual who has a fancy towards creative writing, when I first arrived on the internet scene I vowed I would never use them. It seemed like air-kissing, going “yay!” or calling people “darhling” - unnecessarily friendly, falsely cutesy, with that hint of desperate, doggy tail-wagging  (”I’m harmless, I’m harmless, please don’t shout at me”), designed merely for those ingratiating individuals who wouldn’t or couldn’t rely on the iron-fist of cold rationality to support their arguments…

Within weeks, I was peppering every sentence with the grimacing gurning little things.

The internet is a weird and wonderful place, and without expressions and body language and tone of voice to signal intent, misunderstandings are all too easily made.

****Joke alert****Joke alert**** (((((((JOKE))))))) (it was a joke, honest. ;)) No really. ***300winkies***(Definitely just a joke. Promise.)

may be a bit crude and obvious, but being crude and obvious is infinitely preferable to the possibility of an aggrieved cyber-acquaintance getting the wrong end of the stick and arriving round your house with a sawn-off shotgun.

It is in arguments that emoticons can be particularly useful. Building bridges; diffusing tension. Observe the following typical sort of encounter between two opera-loving buffs on a particularly vicious opera-loving forum:

PuciniRocks17: You ****** ****** ****** Wagner-loving *****!!!!

Wagnerbuff5: Interesting sentiments, PuciniRocks17. It’s a shame I cannot even compute the thoughts of someone tasteless enough to prefer Callas’s rather screeching and melodramatic performances over that of Birgit Nilsson.

Unpleasant, eh?

Now, compare with the following debate on the pros and cons of a meat-eating lifestyle over on a Vegan Lifestyle Forum:

MybodyisnotaCharnelHouse: You murdering animal-hating piece of dog turd. *Winkie*.

IlovetoDrinkBlood88: You f****** soya-eating piece of dairyfree scum. *Hula-hoop* and *Afro with side-burns*…

So much more civilised!

The insistence that someone else is a prize chump takes on a completely different nuances when accompanied by a emoticon in sunglasses, an emoticon wiggling its eyebrows or one wearing a paper hat. It is a whole new subtle language of its own. Will the emoticon find its way into the literature of the future (much of which, after all, may well be online)? What would the great writers of the past have made of them? Given the chance, would Austen have thrown in a few winkies; Edgar Allan Poe, shockies; Thomas Hardy - the occasional roll of the eyes (added by his editor)?

In the den we have a particularly impressive range and it can be interesting to observe how the different foxes gravitate towards different symbols. My favourites are a grinning green alien and a cyclops with an inflatable eye, whilst tough-talking knee-capping Moira accompanies every tough-talking knee-capping message with an albino rabbit. (What this says about the pair of us I’m not sure  - that I identify with monstrous outsiders whilst underneath Moira’s knee-capping exterior lies a cute fluffy interior, perhaps? A whole essay could be written about this possible emoticon subtext.)

The den has emoticons for fear, for suspicion, and even for when we’re a little bit tipsy. Although, so far, none of us have found a satisfactory use for a cheerful-looking fellow sporting a full Egyptian headdress.

But one day…you’ll see…there will be nothing else to express whatever Egyptian headdressed comment we are trying to make (discussing the new Indiana Jones movie, maybe?). After which, we won’t understand how we ever managed to communicate without him.

*Thanks to Carbon NYC for the cheery emoticon-biscuit reproduced under the Creative Commons license.

Starbucked by Taylor Clark

One of my best memories from last winter is repeatedly stopping at the new Starbucks that had opened near my pharmacy and having a raspberry latte, while watching the snow fall. It always seemed to be snowing, but I felt cozy inside by the big windows. This could mean a) I’m a person who enjoys Life’s simple pleasures or b) I’ve been brainwashed by a faceless corporate monolith. These are the two main questions Taylor Clark tries to answer in his book, though obviously, not about me, personally.
He divides his book into halves, the first being “The Rise of the Mermaid”, charting the origins of the company in 1971 by 3 friends who wanted to have anti-establishment jobs, to the conglomerate we know today. The second part, “Getting Steamed”, explores the cultural imperialism, employees, ethics and reactions to the giant coffee company. Along the way, we learn a lot about the history, biology, marketing and social significance of the drink and the often revolutionary places that have served it over the years. It’s all told with quite a bit of humor and a good dash of sarcasm, which makes it an entertaining read.
The company that took its name from the first mate of Moby Dick and its logo modified from a mermaid in a 15th century Norse woodcut, hired Howard Schultz in the mid-1980’s. He is an aggressive, micro-manager who set them on the path to world domination by the time he bought the company in 1987. He explores how “…one of the company’s signal achievements was its ability to take the counterculture bite out of coffeehouses and transform them into beverage-dispensing day spas.” The author uses extensive interviews and research to debunk PR myths, debates moral dilemmas and presents an almost neutral view of the coffee giant. Only at the very end does he reveal his personal feeling about it.
There’s a couple minor complaints in the book, but both are repeated throughout. He continually tells us what’s ahead via footnotes, i.e. “as we shall see in Chapter 15”, which get annoying. He also tells us some things multiple times, such as Starbucks paying health insurance for part time employees working more than 20 hours a week, presenting it in a positive way. Then in the last third of the book, reversing the tone, by informing us that only 42% of those employees are covered, a number reduced by secretly docking hours of others who qualify. He does something similar with Fair Trade coffee. I suppose that one could say that as long as the facts are exposed in the end, it doesn’t matter, but it feels like a trick. To be fair, these are small quibbles in an otherwise informative and timely book about not only a drink, but a cultural phenomenon.

Little, Brown and Company 2007 297 pp. ISBN-10:0-316-01348-X

Coming Up on Vulpes Libris

This week, VL ponders seemingly contradictory subjects. We have teddy bears and tattoos, feminists and chicklit, and soothing beverages that threaten to take over the globe. Plus, the debut of Rosy’s new series about, well, you’ll have to read it on Tuesday to see…

MONDAY: Jackie serves up Starbucked in which Taylor Clark determines if it’s the drink of Dr. Evil or a cup of coziness.

TUESDAY: Rosy starts her new slot: The Tuesday Alternative, alternating with Kirsty’s Russian Series, a hopefully humorous (and sometimes pontificating, obnoxious and ranting) look at everything Word, Blog and Book.

WEDNESDAY:Lisa has Tic-Tac Teddy Bears & Teardrop Tattoos by Justin Scroggie, a fun fact-book that unlocks the secret world of signs and symbols.

THURSDAY: Kirsty steps up on the Thursday Soapbox to tell us the five things she hates about chicklit.

FRIDAY: Mary on Irish journalist and feminist, Nuala O’Faolain.

SATURDAY: Eve reviews Eggs by Jerry Spinelli, which she says is a wonderfully quirky and deeply thought out novel that leaves you wondering about the characters long after you’ve finished reading.

Reynard design on decorative mini coffeepot from Royal Doulton

Darwin

Lowes Harbour, Chonos Archipelago, off the coast of southern Chile, January 1835: The Beagle is moored in the harbour and twenty-six year old Charles Darwin is walking on a sandy beach looking for specimens for his collection. He stoops and picks up something that is destined to become one of his most prized possessions: a thick-walled conch shell which is riddled with hundreds of tiny boreholes.

When he gets it back to the ship he examines one of the holes under his microscope and sees that at the bottom is a minute cream-coloured creature, apparently cemented in by its head, upside down and waving six jointed legs at him.

Darwin is puzzled, because what he is looking at appears to be a barnacle, but it is a barnacle without a shell - a creature hitherto unknown to science.

It would take the young Charles Darwin eight years to unravel the mystery of how and why the barnacle lost its shell, and by the end of the journey he would have knowledge enough, language enough, courage enough and, most importantly, authority enough to take from his desk drawer his long-dormant notes on ‘species theory’ and turn them into On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection.

The idea of transmutation, or the development of different species from a common ancestor, was not a new one. It had been around since the beginning of the 19th Century. It was inevitably a deeply controversial theory because not only did it imply that man had not been created in God’s image but rather had evolved from lower life forms, it also meant that there had been life on earth for hundreds of millions of years, in direct contradiction of biblical ‘history’.

In the eyes of many – scientists, church leaders, philosophers - the contents of the 231 closely written pages locked carefully away in Darwin’s study was, quite simply, heresy. He would not publish until he felt he had earned the right to do so … until he had unraveled the mystery of barnacles; how and why they came to exist in so many minutely varied forms, including his new little friend in the conch shell, whom he christened Mr Arthrobalanus.

The world of barnacles was in disarray. So many hands had been meddling that there was no one, coherent system of nomenclature. The same creature could have several different names, bestowed by different naturalists. Chaos reigned.

Darwin told his friend, Joseph Hooker, that he expected the task of dissecting, examining and classifying to take around five years, if he kept rigidly to his game plan. In fact, it was to consume the next eight years of his life. Once they knew what he was doing, friends and professional colleagues started sending him examples of barnacles from all over the world – including fossilized ones. As the number of barnacles he received and examined increased, the more overwhelmed he was by the sheer enormity of what he had taken on. In 1852, in a letter to William Darwin Fox, he said with some feeling:

I hate a Barnacle, as no man ever did before …

He completed his herculean task in 1854. The resulting four volume work was published to almost universal acclaim. Even the formidable Thomas Huxley had nothing but praise.

Darwin had earned his spurs and the time had come at last for his ‘species theory’ to see the light of day.

When On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection was finally published in 1859 Darwin’s reputation was such that the book – unlike its predecessors on the subject such as Robert Chambers’ Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation - could not be easily dismissed as badly researched heretical claptrap, however much his detractors might have wanted to.

It’s unlikely that Darwin could have foreseen quite the effect that the publication of On the Origin of Species would have on the world - or for how long. It set in motion a debate that continues to this day between those who cannot and will not accept any version of creation other than the biblical one - and those who can, and do. There is little, if any, middle ground. The debate has even ended up in court … the two most high profile cases being Scopes -v- State in 1925 and Kitzmiller -v- Dover Area School District as recently, (incredibly) as 2005.

During the years of his research, Darwin had lost a daughter, his health and, intriguingly, his faith.

Belief in evolution and Christian faith are surely not mutually exclusive unless you take everything in the Bible quite literally. In fact, you could say that a self-adjusting system which adapts according to conditions in order to ensure the continuance of life is the most impressive creation of all - but that discussion is probably not for this review and Rebecca Stott doesn’t really touch on it in her book, either. She sticks to the facts - taking a complex subject and making it – if not simple – at least accessible. By including background details of Darwin’s youth and personal life – his marriage, his children, his friends and his continual battle with his health, all of which were important factors in the progress of his work - she takes a story that could have been leaden and impenetrable and makes it human and absorbing.

She also emphasizes again and again that Darwin did not work alone. His web of correspondents – sending him samples, discussing his theories with him, acting as sounding boards – stretched right around the world. Without them, he simply could not have achieved what he did. He was a genius, yes, but also a hard-working and single-minded man who might not have flourished so well in a vacuum.

Above all - he emerges as civilized and unfailingly courteous, a good husband, a devoted (if slightly obsessive) father and a faithful friend who somehow managed to avoid making any enemies even amongst his highly competitive professional colleagues.

In the end though, in spite of the many vivid characters who populate the pages of Darwin and the Barnacle, it’s a book about one man. One man with a microscope, an extraordinarily steady hand and a dogged determination to work out just how Mr Arthrobalanus lost his shell . . .

Faber and Faber. 2008. ISBN: 0-571-21609-9. Paperback. 309pp.

The Lorax by Dr. Seuss

loraxArticle by Michelle Lewis

Like many native English speakers of my generation, I grew up with Dr. Seuss. The Cat in the Hat, How the Grinch Stole Christmas, and Green Eggs and Ham were among the many books I knew by heart even before I could read properly. The silly characters, bright artwork and outrageous rhymes captivated my imagination and took me to new worlds. However, one book stood out among many as my all time favorite Dr. Seuss book: The Lorax. From the beginning, I was drawn into the flight of the brown barbaloots, swomee swans, hummingfish and their unlikely guardian, the Lorax himself. In the end, I even found myself pitying the Onceler. It could be argued that this book and the Onceler’s final words in particular, “unless someone like you cares a whole awful lots, nothing is going to get better. It’s not,” helped to influence my career path as an ecologist/environmental educator. I’m not sure that I’d go that far, but it certainly didn’t hurt.

As a child, I saw nothing controversial about The Lorax. The thought of it being on any banned book list would have been laughable. (For those of you not familiar with its controversial history, The Lorax was challenged in the Laytonville, California school district in 1989 on the grounds that it “criminalises the forest industry”.)  In fact, it still makes me chuckle a bit; however, I am old enough now to grasp the “grown-up” themes previously missed. Detractors may call this book left-wing environmentalist propaganda. Personally, I find it to be eerily prophetic.

First off, let’s put this into historical context. The book was copyrighted in 1971 (incidentally the same year Greenpeace was founded), not far from the beginning of the modern environmental movement. Only nine years prior, in 1962, Rachael Carson published ‘Silent Spring,’ her controversial investigation into pesticide use and the pollution of our environments which is often credited with helping to start the modern day environmental movement.  Cloaked in bright colours and charming rhymes, The Lorax is a brilliant social commentary cleverly camouflaged as a children’s book.

Let’s break down the characters. The Onceler is most certainly a characterization of Big Business. He is a cunning, shrewd, faceless businessman willing to sell anything to anyone for a price. He feels he is doing the world a service as he boasts “I’m being quite useful. This thing is a Thneed. A Thneed is a Fine-Something-That-All-People-Need.” The Lorax, well, his real-life counterpart seems just as obvious:

He was shortish. And Oldish

And brownish. And mossy.

And he spoke with a voice

That was sharpish and bossy.

The Lorax is most certainly your typical environmentalist, seen as being a little odd, unkempt and eternally negative. “No, you must not cut down that tree. No, you can’t do that. No No No No NO!” (Here I would like to add that I feel this is an unfair stereotype. Today’s environmentalists come in all shapes and sizes and from all walks of life.  But I digress. That is an argument for another day.) In the beginning of the story, the Lorax is portrayed as being too cautious, much like the charges leveled at early environmentalists (which are still sometimes leveled today – can anyone say global warming?). After all, the Onceler only chopped down one tree. Surely what harm could come from that? And thus, with the successful selling of one thneed, an empire was born. (*Cough*IndustrialRevolution*Cough*) Slowly the Lorax begins to send his forest friends away. First the brown bar-ba-loots lose their food source. And what should big business, er, the Onceler make of that? Well, “business is business! And business must grow.” And so it goes until the last truffula tree falls and the Lorax himself is lifted away while the Onceler is left by himself in a barren landscape. Here we have come to the moral of the story. UNLESS. Unless we do something, plant trees, clean up polluted water, implement sustainable development and logging practices, etc, “nothing is going to get better. It’s not.”

It is now 2008 and I would love to say that we learned our lesson from this cautionary tale of a greedy, faceless businessman. In some respects, we have. We now have laws protecting endangered species (Endangered Species Act of 1973) and certain administrations have worked towards sustainable forestry practices (Clinton and the Roadless Area Rule) just to name a few. In spite of all this progress, I’m afraid we have not quite learned our lesson like Dr. Seuss intended. Not with large numbers of politicians, lobbyists and businessmen still fighting against environmental regulations on industry and vilifying environmentalists. Not when in the United States alone, there are ten times as many endangered species as are listed for protection. Not when preeminent biologists predict that 25% of all species on Earth could be exterminated within 50 years due primarily to habitat loss. Before we suffer the fate of the Onceler, we must stop to remember the brown-bar-ba-loots, swomme swans, hummingfish, truffula trees and the Lorax. We are all connected in the complicated web of nature. Losing one species may have little effect on you or I but could have (and has had) cascading negative affects in their ecosystems.

There are those who will dismiss my review as just another crazy environmentalist crying wolf and trying to stop us from our God-given right of using the Earth (His creation) however we feel. Even I must admit I do fit the typical environmentalist stereotype, and those who know me best affectionately call me a dirty treehugger. However, I would like to dispel one aspect of the environmentalist stereotype; that we want to stop all progress and have unreasonable demands. In the 1980s, the Forestry Service wrote a counterargument to The Lorax called Truax and distributed it to schools. The protagonist, Truax, is a logger who is doing his job one day when he gets harassed by the antagonist, a tree-like creature called Guardbark. Guardbark is negative and decries the logging of all trees. Truax argues with Guardbark until Guardbark sees the error of his ways and admits that logging really isn’t so bad after all. I could write another whole review on all the wrongs in this book (just ask Kirsty, she had to listen to me rant), but above all this book reinforces the stereotype that environmentalists have unreasonable demands. In Truax the title character asks, “Do we ever consider just how it would be If we could NEVER, EVER again cut a tree?” I do not believe that this was the message Dr. Seuss intended, nor is it the message of the mainstream modern day environmental movement. I am not asking you to stop using any products that have been made from trees, plants, animals or anything that might negatively impact the environment. Nor do I believe that Dr. Seuss was asking that. I know that this is impossible and I myself struggle with where to draw the line. I believe most environmentalists struggle with the conflicting themes of necessary consumption and a desire to lead a low impact life. The fate of the Onceler was an exaggeration to show us what could happen…UNLESS. Unless we exercise restraint. Unless we realize that we are a part of, not apart from, nature and our surroundings. Unless we do something, anything other than sit by and watch the world crumble while feeling powerless, or even too apathetic, to stop it. So before you dismiss my argument out of hand as the rantings of another hippie treehugger, I beg you to stop and consider the words of Dr. Seuss.

That was long, long ago.
But each day since that day
I’ve sat here and worried
and worried away.
Through the years, while my buildings
have fallen apart,
I’ve worried about it
with all of my heart.

“But now,” says the Once-ler,
“Now that you’re here,
the word of the Lorax seems perfectly clear.
UNLESS someone like you
cares a whole awful lot,
nothing is going to get better.
It’s not.

“SO…
Catch!” calls the Once-ler.
He lets something fall.
“It’s a Truffula Seed.
It’s the last one of all!
You’re in charge of the last of the Truffula Seeds.
And Truffula Trees are what everyone needs.
Plant a new Truffula.Treat it with care.
Give it clean water. And feed it fresh air.
Grow a forest. Protect it from axes that hack.
Then the Lorax
and all of his friends
may come back.”

Michelle Lewis is a treehugging dirt worshipper who spends her days trying to convince children that nature is cooler than video games.

tshirt2

Thanks to Jeremy Paxman’s controversial comments about the apostrophe, this piece has suddenly become rather topical. Is the death of that cute little punctuation mark in sight? Will kids be spelling “through” as “thru” in their GCSEs. Will L8R become standard English?

RosyB doesn’t know about any of that but, instead, lets rip with a not-totally-rational howl against Grammar Freaks and the sinister rise of something called “The Literary Quiz”…

ARGH! ARGH! ARGH! The Zero Tolerance Approach to Grammar Freaks

Let me apologise in advance for the numbers of “argh”s and general expostulations of annoyance that will take place during the following soapbox. In fact, excuse me for just a moment whilst I get something off my chest:

ARGH! ARGH! ARGH! ARGH! ARGH! ARGH! ARGH!

That’s better. Right. Where were we? Oh yes.

It’s all that Lynne Truss’s fault (or is that “Truss’ fault”?) with her runaway best-selling bible for punctuation pedants with far too much time on their hands: Eats, Shoots and Leaves: the Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation.

Just the title is enough to shoot my blood pressure up. That horrible phrase “Zero Tolerance” (which many have pointed out should strictly speaking have a hyphen) with its implication of three misuses of the apostrophe and it’s the electric chair for you.

The title comes from a joke about a panda, which comes into a restaurant, orders a sandwich, fires off a gun and heads for the exit. Asked why he has engaged in such unusual behaviour, he flings a copy of a badly-punctuated wildlife manual over his shoulder. And, sure enough, under the entry for Panda it says, “Eats, shoots and leaves”. Ho ho ho. (Make sure you note that comma there.)

(Excuse me whilst I just fall on the floor. Ho ho ho ho ho ho.)

Alright, it’s a joke about punctuation. And quite a good joke. But far from illustrating Truss’s argument, it underlines the fallacy. The idea that a the misplaced comma can turn a description of the eating habits of a peaceable herbivore (”eats shoots and leaves”) into a murderous action by a gun-toting bear (”eats, shoots and leaves”) is just plain wrong!

NOBODY could mistake the meaning (unless you are a moron, or a newly arrived alien from the planet Ug) because it’s not about commas, but context.

Look, it’s really quite simple: if it is listed in an encyclopaedia under “Panda” - it’s dietary requirements. If it’s included in some wild piece of flash fiction about psychopathic bears (or in a humourous book about the how punctuation is going to the dogs)…it’s the gun-toting panda. Got it?

(ARGH GLURGH YELP BURBLE BURBLE GURGLE BLARGH!)

Ok, ok, so Lynne Truss may be technically correct and actually right and all those other inconvenient things. But that’s not the point. The point is…The point is that, contrary to what the grammar freaks would have you believe, society is not about to be brought to its knees by the misplacement of a comma. A comma, out of place, is not the destroyer of civilisation as we know it. IT’S A TYPO.

You see this is what annoys me so much about grammar freaks. They act as if language is rendered completely incomprehensible by the odd misplaced apostrophe or semi-colon. But the things they get their knickers in a twist about are very rarely anything to do with actual meaning.

Take, for example, the typical kind of quarrel you find on forums all over the internet:

A: *Something intelligent about politics…*

B: *Something in disagreement with A*

A: No, no. no. *Good and detailed argument to back up what s/he was just saying.*

B: I refuse to see your very good and detailed argument. But instead will now dwell on the fact that you said “which” rather than “that” 3 posts ago.

A: But I just made a very good and detailed argument!

B: La la la. I’m not listening. And you missed an apostrophe 7 lines back. How can I listen to a very good and detailed argument from someone who can’t use an apostrophe?

A: But -?

B: Moron.

A: I -

B: Not listening! Not listening! You can’t use an apostrophe therefore I won even though I’m obviously an idiot and you’re clearly a lot cleverer than me.

Of course, these internet-savvy grammar freaks should really be classed as a subset of the grammar freak species as a whole. Traditional grammar freaks tend to decry the whole invention of the internet in the first place. Indeed, they usually blame it for the whole, rotten, poorly-punctuated edifice we call “modern life”. They certainly wouldn’t be contributing to internet forums; they are too busy sharpening their quills to fire off letters to Feedback about the pronunciation of “controversy” on Radio 4. Or complaining about dropped consonants and textspeak and the lack of the Queen’s English in schools, whilst looking back fondly to that Golden Age before Star Trek decided to boldly split the infinitive where no man had split it before.

(Has it ever occurred to these people that young persons might be inventing the impenetrable textspeak so as NOT to have to talk to their grumpy, pedantic elders and betters?)

This group are less fussed about meaning and communication than fetishising a load of rules they rote-learnt at school. As if those rules are even consistent or made any sense in the first place. As if the majority of these rules aren’t just plain ANNOYING. Take the following examples:

1. It’s/its
Surely there is NOTHING as annoying in the whole of the English language as the whole debacle that is “it’s” versus “its”. It is almost as though it was specifically invented to plague proofreaders. Undetectable by spell-checkers, small enough to escape the naked eye, ubiquitous enough to easily trip off those typing fingers in an unguarded moment. What a stupid bloody rule. Why should it be “his”, “hers”, then “its”? Alright, you say, there’s a certain consistency about that. Well, why isn’t there another word for “its” like “tis” or “ters”? And what about “one’s”? (Ha! Got you there!) And why is MY stuff always riddled with the pesky little things.

2. Which/that
There are numerous long-winded and wildly differing explanations on writing forums all over the internet attempting to explain this rule. So I say - if it’s so blooming complicated and no one really knows - why bother? Does anyone really care? The only reason this rule seems to exist in the first place is to sort out the grammar wheat from the grammar chaff. Bin it, I say.

3. Do not split Infinitives
If there’s ever been a totally pointless rule, this is it. We aren’t Romans. We don’t speak Latin. So, what’s the problem? Why do I have to go somewhere? Why can’t I have to “urgently” go somewhere? Much more exciting - even I suddenly want to know what I’m up to.

Language is constantly evolving. People use language to express themselves, and what’s wrong with that? If grammar doesn’t fit with common usage, grammar will move and change.

But amongst the grammar freaks there is a real fear, as the wonderful A Customer put it so beautifully in a review of Truss’s book on Amazon:

“a sense of panic (as if there were only one-hundred mating-pairs of apostrophes left in the wild)”.

I love this idea. As though the world used to be some sort of punctuation paradise where commas roamed free without fear of misuse, flocks of well-enunciated consonants “tut-tutted” overhead, and herds of full-stops just sort of stood around not doing very much.

But all that is now under threat! We must get out there - round up the last few semicolons into captivity and set up a breeding programme right away!

Perhaps we could then invite Julian Fellows to host it and broadcast on BBC4 on one of those just-shoot-me-now (or preferably just shoot them) literary quizzes.

Excuse me again for a moment…(ARGH! KLERB! YERAGH! BLERARGH! YOWL!)

I don’t know what it is about Literary Quizzes that manage to so comprehensively ram themselves up my nostrils. I managed to watch about 5 minutes of Never Mind the Full-Stops before imminent suffocation by nasal obstruction threatened and I was forced to stop. Oscar winning script-writer (and Tory party speech-writer) Julian Fellowes plus panel discuss important matters such as whether “ize” is an “incorrect” Americanisation, or whether “St James” should be possessive in relation to parks.

(Where’s that gun-wielding panda when you need him?)

Again, thanks to the wonders of the internet, I find myself compelled to quote a commenter, TRM Burke, from the Never Mind the Full-Stops website:

“Having to endure this pompous, anal, oh-so-middle-class excuse for entertainment every week should be outlawed as a cruel and unusual punishment under the Geneva Convention. It’s akin to being stuck in a lift with Lynne Truss while repeats of “Quote, Unquote” are forcibly piped through its speaker system. Please Mr Controller of BBC Four, make it stop!”

But there’s more. We seem to be being besieged by a plethora of literary quizzes at the moment -  there’s Kirsty Wark quizzing literary contestants on BBC Four’s The Book Quiz, Sebastian Faulkes “pistaching” JK Rowling on Radio Four.  But all of these pale into insignificance next to my old favourite, Quote, Unquote.

What is it about Quote Unquote that has me frothing at the mouth and hurtling towards the off button like a rabid hedgehog? Is it just the smug voices, the annoying way the quotes are delivered: all portentous pauses and oh-so-over-egged-significance for the significant ones (if there’s one thing Quote UnQuote isn’t about, it’s challenging preconceptions) and oh-so-over-egged-wryness for the “witty” ones? Is it the uproarious laughter, quite out of proportion to any of the funnies on offer, signaling an audience desperate to show they know what the panelists are on about? (As a friend of mine once said “I may not have read the right books. But at least I know what the right books are.”)

The only point of Quote Unquote’s existence, as far as I can see, is to provide comic fodder for the one of my all-time favourite shows I’m Sorry I Haven’t a Clue. (So a necessary evil then.)

With its puns, double meanings, ambiguities, rudeness and just plain silliness - Clue celebrates everything that is glorious about the English language better than any literary quiz…by having fun. It revels in what is wonderful about language, its colour and creativity - not the nit-picky boring bits.

After all, isn’t that what is so great about English, that it’s just plain nuts? Moulded from so many other languages, full of idiosyncrasies and special cases - nobody can be expected to remember them all. And how boring would it be if they did? We wouldn’t have sites like these.

So, in the words of the textspeaking grammatically-challenged younger generation:

UN4TUN8ly gR W8s for no man. IMHO ppl should chill out cuz gR Fs are just ACORNS

L8R dudes (or 2dls)

(And anyone who can translate that will get a gold star.)

__________________________

*The photo is from Jrhyley on Flickr, reproduced under the Creative Commons License.

————————

Please let us know your grammar loves and hates in the comments. Do rogue apostrophes set your teeth on edge? Do you lie awake at night thinking about “its” versus “it’s”? Feel free to pitch in here and have your say. And if you find any mistakes in this piece - which there will be - tough! It’s a blog, ok? The enemy, remember?

More Thursday Soapboxes from the foxes and their guests here.

manifestoKarl Marx is one of these authors who carries a certain amount of… baggage in the popular imagination.  Some people associate him with the various movements and people who have appropriated his language, if not always his principles.  Some people have been obliged to read him at some point in their lives, and so are understandably put off.  Some even adhere to his principles, but don’t get as far as reading the man himself (you would be surprised how many fall into this camp).

And yet the experience of reading Marx is far from a horrifying one.  At worst it can be dense and rather dry; at best, though, his prose is lively and his insights more than lucid.  In fact, apart from Marshall Berman’s luminous All that is Solid Melts into Air, reading other people on Marx is generally far denser and dryer and more complicated than reading Marx.  At least, this is my experience.

When I decided to write about Marx for Vulpes Libris, The Communist Manifesto seemed an obvious choice.  It is not pure Marx, to be sure; it is written in collaboration with Friedrich Engels, although Marx is generally acknowledged as primary author and as the originator of the ideas at its heart.  But it is an excellent introduction to Marxist thought, in both style and content.  This is one of the texts I most frequently advise (for which read: badger) people to read.  And so, I present to you - honed over years of boring people at parties - my three point summary of why you should read The Communist Manifesto.

1.  For what it tells you, and for what it doesn’t.

The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working-class parties.

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mold the proletarian movement.

First published in early 1848 - a revolutionary year - and written at the behest of the Communist League, this work is, in part, a succinct discourse on the aims and beliefs of the Communist movement of the mid nineteenth century.  While Marx’s thought would evolve in the years to come, many of the points raised in The Communist Manifesto are fundamental to what is often called Classical Marxism: in other words, Marxism as propounded by Marx.  That might sound like a tautology, but so many political thinkers and political actors have extended on Marx’s framework in their own particular ways that the distinction really is necessary.

Which brings me to a salient point.  The Communist Manifesto, like the wider body of Marx’s work, provides us with an overreaching economic and social analysis.  It provides the long term aims, and short term means, that distinguish classically Communist thought from other forms of socialism.  It describes, by way of a series of revolutions, a process of social and economic development which should lead to a projected final stage: the classless, stateless and international vision of Communism.  But it does not tell us when, or how, this final stage should come about.  Revolutionary action is the province of other authors, many of whom are primarily known as revolutionaries; I would argue that in the realm of political action Lenin has been a far greater influence than Marx.

2.  For the language.

Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones.  All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify.  All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned…

The Communist Manifesto is not just a political and historical document: it is also a beautiful piece of rhetoric.  Admittedly, some passages are more beautiful than others; unsurprisingly, given the occasionally rather stodgy nature of the issues at hand.  But some stand out for their vivid language as much as for the intensity of their feeling.  This is a side of Marx’s work which, in my experience, often surprises people.

3.  Because this Manifesto is an open book, not a closed one.

Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man’s ideas, views, and conceptions, in one word, man’s consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relation, and in his social life?

Leaving aside the debate about the “relevance” or otherwise of Marxism - a debate which always strikes me as remarkably shortsighted - the themes addressed in The Communist Manifesto are by no means specific to 1848, or indeed to Marx.  Wage labour and poverty; the rapid progress of technology and the seemingly immediate obsolescence of every new advancement; the precarity of working life and the demands of “the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.” on the income of the minimum wage worker.

You can agree or disagree with the analysis of all these things; or, more desirably, you can use the analysis as a starting point for debate.  But Marx and Engels’ manifesto is not a simple work of political propaganda.  It introduces ideas which would remain, albeit often modified or distorted, in the public sphere to this very day.  I would argue that these ideas have endured for the excellent reason that they are useful.  Don’t rely on what you hear of them at second hand, whether it is through Lenin or Trotsky or Thatcher or the Daily Mail.  Read The Communist Manifesto, and get to know Marx at first hand.

Citations in this article come from the edition presented in Karl Marx: Selected Writings, ed. David McLellan (Oxford University Press, ISBN: 0199760388)

Photo of a manuscript page of The Communist Manifesto courtesy of the Marxists Internet Archive, who also provide an online collection of Marx’s work.

Older Posts »