25/3/2021 “SHUGGIE BAIN” by DOUGLAS STUART

INTRODUCTION

The proposer said that the author was born in Glasgow in 1977. Douglas Stuart was brought up in Sighthill in the East End of Glasgow and went to school in Pollock. Having never known his father he was brought up by his mother who was an alcoholic. He grew up incredibly poor, raised on benefits, the queer son of a single mother who died of her addiction when he was only 15.

He then lived alone in a bedsit and took responsibility for his education. He was bullied at school and underperformed. He was interested in writing from an early age but never received encouragement.

He gained the qualifications required to study at Heriot-Watt School of Textiles and Design in Galashiels and then went on to obtain an MA degree from the Royal College of Art in London. He was headhunted by Calvin Klein and moved to New York 20 years ago. He is married to Michael Carry and still lives in New York.

“Shuggie Bain” was written over a period of ten years. Stuart stresses that it is not autobiographical but is a work of fiction.

He writes about poverty, addiction and homophobia, all of which he has experienced. He acknowledges that “I come from what I write about” but insists the story is fictional.

The book was written in Stuart’s spare time as a means of healing. Writing was a pleasurable activity for him and he had no thought of the book being published.

It was rejected by 32 publishers before being picked up by Grove Atlantic in the USA and then Picador in the UK. It is to be translated into 34 languages and a television adaptation is planned.

Stuart has written short stories published by the New Yorker titled “Found Wanting” and “The Englishman” He has also had work published by the Lit Hub. His second book titled “ Loch Awe “ has been written but not yet published.

He is only the second Scottish Booker Prize winner over the 51 years of its existence. The first was James Kelman for ” How late it was, how late”, winning the Booker in 1994.

The proposer chose the book for a number of reasons:

.          At the time of reading it was shortlisted for the Booker Prize.

Speaking about the novel, he said “I did not expect it to win. I thought that the Glasgow dialect would prove to be incomprehensible to American readers. Californian friends have since advised me that their book reading group had no trouble deciphering the meaning of words or phrases and that they enjoyed the challenge.

• It describes living in Glasgow in the 80’s. A time and place I am familiar with. My mother’s family living and working in the tenemented suburbs of the city described in the novel.

• It explores the corrosive impact of alcoholism on both the individual and family. Circumstances I am also familiar with.

• I read the only other Scottish Booker prizewinner written by James Kelman “How late it was, how late”, a book exposing the grim underbelly of Glasgow.  Stuart refers to Kelman as an inspiration, stating that the book “ changed my life”.

• I listened to the book on Audio and was captivated by Angus King’s use of strong Glasgow accents to bring the story to life.

• I was totally enthralled by Stuart’s descriptive powers and gripped by his characterizations.”

The images of place and grinding poverty were juxtaposed with the overarching power of love and in combination they painted a vivid picture of life on the edge.

Critics have generally been complimentary but some have thought the book would have benefited from better editing. In their view the book is overly long and deploys more adjectives than necessary.

DISCUSSION

Following on from the proposer’s indication that he was familiar with the background of Glasgow at the time the book was set in the 1980s, quite a few members indicated similar familiarity with some aspects of the background. Others however indicated the setting was wholly outside their experience. In the reviewer’s assessment, those with some familiarity with the subject matter were more disposed to like and appreciate the book than those without such experience.

Some members with some experience of communities such as described in the book considered that the portrayal was a bit grim, unremittingly bleak, and overdone slum porn.

The impression given in the book was that the conditions people were living in were not their responsibility in any respect. The book displayed a sense of victimhood.

Not all people in such communities were addicts and criminals;   indeed most were hard working and keen to get an education and job.

Originally the book had been a series of vignettes of Glasgow life over which the author had labored for many years to bring to its current status. There was some debate as to whether the author had written a ‘Glasgow’ novel. The author had grown up in a Catholic family but the sectarianism of the time was underplayed and the emphasis of the book was very much about personal relationships within a family bubble, in particular the magnificent portrayal of  Shuggie and his mother.

Some members approached the book with trepidation. At first sight it fitted into the popular genre of misery memoirs about family dysfunctionality, poverty, alcoholism and growing up gay in a hostile society.

Despite the subject matter, most members enjoyed and appreciated the book. It was perceptive, remarkably well written with well described characters and riveting scenes.  It was formalized realism with a musical energy. Comparisons with Hardy and Dickens were mentioned. There was discussion of the significance of the different dust jackets in the UK and US editions. It was not all grim; Glasgow humour was noticeably present.  The ending was very effective.

For most, these qualities outweighed the depressing subject matter which made the book a hard read. For some members though the book was too depressing to be enjoyable and one member as a result could not complete the book though acknowledging the excellence of the writing.  

There was majority agreement that the book was too long, over descriptive and repetitive. Nevertheless most members considered the book as a fine novel which had been well worth reading..

25/2/2021 “THREE MEN ON A BOAT” and “THREE MEN ON THE BUMMEL” by JEROME K. JEROME

The Proposer chose Three Men in a Boat because from a young age he had enjoyed it and other Jerome writing. It continued to amuse him.

Jerome was born in 1859 to a well to do family, then experienced them falling on hard times. Brought up in the East End of London, his parents both died before he was 16 and he was left to make his own way in life. These experiences he considered responsible for his “melancholy and brooding disposition.” He became a clerk aged 14 and other similar jobs followed. He also became a part time actor touring the Provinces with a theatre company, writing plays, stories and essays in his spare time. On 21st June 1888, Jerome married Georgina Henrietta Marris (Ettie), nine days after she divorced her first husband. The honeymoon took place on the Thames in “a little boat,”  a fact that was to have a significant influence on his next and most important work, “Three Men in a Boat”.

Jerome sat down to write the book as soon as the couple returned from their honeymoon. In the novel, his wife was  replaced by his longtime friends George Wingrove and Carl Hentschel (Harris). This allowed him to create comic and non-sentimental situations which were nonetheless intertwined with the history of the Thames region. The book, published in 1889, became an instant success and has never been out of print. Its popularity was such that the number of registered Thames boats increased by 50% in the year following its publication, and it contributed significantly to the Thames becoming a tourist attraction. In its first 20 years alone, the book sold over a million copies worldwide. It also sold a million pirated copies in USA.

With the financial security that the sales of the book provided, Jerome was able to devote all his time to writing. He wrote many plays, the most successful being “The Passing of the Third Floor Back”, essays and novels. In 1892 he was chosen, over Rudyard Kipling, to edit “The Idler”. The magazine was a satirical monthly catering for gentlemen who, following the theme of the publication, appreciated Idleness, and which had among its contributors Mark Twain and Arthur Conan Doyle. In 1893 he founded a weekly journal, “Today”, with some brilliant contemporary writers, which became one of the most successful journals of the nineties.

His literary contacts meant he became a member of the Allahakbarries, a cricket team founded by the author J.M. Barrie, which was active from 1890 to 1913. Notable figures who featured in the side included Rudyard Kipling, H.G. Wells, Arthur Conan Doyle, P.G .Woodhouse, G.K. Chesterton, A.A. Milne, E.W. Hornung, A.E.W. Mason, E.V. Lucas and himself.

In 1898, a short stay in Germany inspired “Three Men on the Bummel”, the sequel to “Three Men in a Boat”, reintroducing the same characters on a foreign cycling tour. The book was nonetheless unable to capture quite the same comic energy and historic rootedness of its celebrated predecessor, lacking as it does the unifying thread that is the Thames itself, and it has enjoyed only modest success by comparison. This said, some of the comic vignettes that make up “Bummel” are as fine as, or even finer, than those of “Three Men in a Boat”.

Jerome had a particular and abiding affection for Germany, in line with much British opinion of the time. He visited there many times and also visited Russia and made three lecture tours of the USA. During WW1, having been rejected by the British as too old, he acted as a voluntary driver with a French motorised ambulance unit near Verdun. He publicly supported the Lansdown Peace Initiative in 1916. He died in 1927.

So what did we think? The first reaction was that the humour was farce. Amusing but not laugh out loud. This produced comments from those who had “laughed out loud.” We looked at the comparison with Bill Bryson who as a more recent author, aimed at comedy with social comment. But the “Three Men” have to be seen in their time. Was the real aim to evoke the Thames of the 1880s? Was the humour more an adjunct than a centrepiece? The book contains a very sad tale, minute details of ordinary life, a love of nature and of course history. Many had walked along parts of the river and could compare their contemporary experiences. The individual accounts of scenes are sometimes just that. But sometimes we are sucked in only to be surprised and delighted when it all goes wrong! Was there the influence of early Dickens? Possibly the Pickwick Papers? Also from our times, a hint of a Ronnie Corbett anecdote? One of us asked if a book which was so undemanding was not too shallow? This view was resisted. PG Woodhouse is undemanding, but brilliant in his humour and social comment. There have been ratings of the all time best books and, for its humour, the “Boat” is still very highly regarded. With the passage of time, this is praise indeed.

It was noted that stories of Cromwell and the Magna Carta and some other potted history betray dated attitudes which now fall rather flat as part of a liberal illusion. This seemed to be accepted.

The majority were hooked on the “Boat”. But turning to the “Bummel”, some of the tales were very amusing, but the humour was not as universally appreciated. There was lots of interesting social comment. The book contained more generalisations, the recently conquered French speakers were vaguely spotted, but the war of 1870 seemed not to have been noticed. Mensur, the tradition for sabre fights among students, was grizzly enough, but one of us noted that a sabre cut on a cheek is still occasionally seen even if the full blooded events are now history. “Bummel” just did not have the sense of place that we enjoyed with the “Boat”. 

One member reported that Jerome’s books are still seen in school curricula in Sweden and Germany. We wondered if this was good or bad! What of the portrayal of women? This was mostly very dated but there were examples of real characters in Bummel.

Personally, if, as the scribe, I can add my tuppence worth, it is good during Zoom meetings during Corvid 19’s reign, to be able to smoke my pipe without complaints. Jerome posted the idea of using a tie instead of a belt for trousers. Ripping notion! Boys in shops were available to carry groceries home, or to the boat. Must ask the memsahibs at the local. Don’t throw boomerangs. I think this Jerome chap is on to a few good tips!