“But the truth was, dear diary, I remembered Animal Farm as being a book simply about animals on a farm”
No, the
Monthly Book Group had not met to give their informed criticism of
George Orwell’s classic; rather the book was “Adrian Mole and the
Weapons of Mass Destruction” (2004) and the quote in question came from Adrian
himself attending the Leicester and Rutland Creative Writing Group (aka
Readers’ Club) in the bookshop run by Mr Calton-Hayes. Although arguably
missing the metaphor in Animal Farm, the LRCWG did spot the resemblance
between Tony Blair and Jane Eyre, showing Charlotte Bronte to be well
ahead of her time.
The proposer
gave a short summary of Sue Townsend’s eventful life from 1946 to 2014,
a bestselling novelist since 1982 when she commenced her Adrian Mole
series. She had left school at 15 years of age, married at 18, a single
parent at 23 with three children. Previous to her writing career, she
had experienced several low-paid jobs in her native Leicester and this
experience shone through in her writing. She was also an award-winning
playwright and had amassed several other honorary degrees and prizes.
Discussing
the book, the attendees had all enjoyed it, most reading it for the
first time. It was ‘laugh out loud’ funny with a cast of British
eccentrics, a number of running plots and gags, most notably the
deployment of Adrian’s son Glenn and mate Robbie to Iraq to deal with
the WMD, and Adrian’s (Kipling’s) amorous adventures with Pandora
(continued), Marigold and Daisy (French Fancy) Flowers. (Yes, really,
the other sister is Poppy.) One of us commented on feeling pathos; at
how poor AM couldn’t get on whereas Pandora sailed through all her
exams. Another seemed to identify with Adrian’s experience of credit
cards, as he opened one after another to pay for the one before,
commenting on the early 2000s financial irresponsibility and willingness
of banks to back a bad risk. Of course this book was written in 2004,
but we suspect Sue T. had a good idea of what was coming later in the
decade.
Another
running gag deals with Adrian’s letters to Latesun Ltd., asking Mr.
Blair to confirm the existence of WMD so AM could recover his £57.10
Cyprus holiday deposit. As the book progresses Adrian mirrors the
British public in questioning the validity of the Iragi invasion. Alas,
Mr. Blair never writes to confirm that the WMD are targeted at Cyprus.
The group wondered at Adrian’s naivety (playing the ‘daft laddie’) in
writing to Blair, Beckham, Jordan, Arsene Wenger, Tim Henman et al. to
offer advice. Well, Tim, you never did win Wimbledon. You should have
listened. Some celebrities seemed to be less than keen to contribute to
AMs forthcoming book on ‘Celebrity and Madness’.
What is
enduring in life? Taking the series as a whole, one reader was unhappy
that Adrian’s character doesn’t develop, and he is still naive at 35.
This isn’t plausible. Overall, the group felt that ST had captured the
early 2000s mood in Adrian’s aspirations to better himself, notably in
renting the less than exclusive property in Rat Wharf. (The clue is in
the name.) Equally, he bought all sorts of unnecessary and overpriced
accoutrements to improve the decor. One unwelcome neighbour at Rat Wharf
was the aggressive Gielgud the Swan; this led to some classic comedy of
misunderstanding with the Council’s Neighbourhood Conflict Unit as a
series of letters were exchanged about AMs troublesome neighbour, Mr.
Swan.
Fairly early
in the evening, however, the conversation veered from the book itself
towards the elephant in the room that was the existence or not of the
weapons of mass destruction. Some asserted that it was obvious at the
time that such didn’t exist. Was the Iraq invasion a cynical attempt to
protect oil reserves, a reaction to the Twin Towers attacks, or an
example of US cowboy culture? To what extent were the public wise after
the event? There was much discussion about the merits of the democratic
process and the truism that it cannot be imposed but has to evolve from
within. There was ensuing debate about the role of women in UK and
world politics and society, science and religions, and to what extent
aggression is a male trait. Where is Charlotte Bronte when you need a
Middle East Envoy? Somehow we revisited Dresden in the Second World War;
was this truly a war crime? We diverted and digressed and talked of the
parliamentary and committee systems. Do MPs work hard? Are they paid
enough? (Historical note: this preceded the revelations about Rifkind
and Straw in February 2015.). These notes are not coherent; neither was
the discussion!
At the end,
we returned to the book. We loved some of Sue’s turns of phrase; we
laughed, we cried. She captured the gradual realisation that the pretext
for invasion was wrong. Who was the targeted audience? We felt that it
appeals to any age and demographic. We talked of the advantages of the
diary format that allows inconsistency, showing how public opinion is
influenced by the popular press and politicians. Nevertheless, after the humour and pathos, the book ends on a serious note.
Have caused their stammering, disconnected talk.
Of course they’re ‘longing to go out again,’—
These boys with old, scared faces, learning to walk.
They’ll soon forget their haunted nights; their cowed
Subjection to the ghosts of friends who died,—
Their dreams that drip with murder; and they’ll be proud
Of glorious war that shatter’d all their pride…
Men who went out to battle, grim and glad;
Children, with eyes that hate you, broken and mad.
(Siegfried Sassoon, Survivors)
Finally, Adrian thinks to write an autobiography. Happy people don’t keep a diary.
No comments:
Post a Comment