Blog Break

Hi everyone,

I don’t want to disappear without letting you know, so this is to say that I shan’t be uploading new posts here until mid October, because I am in the final stages of finishing my DPhil thesis, and it’s very time-consuming, exhausting, and a little bit stressful.  Something has to go, for a bit, and I’m afraid that’s Stuck-in-a-Book.  I probably won’t have much time for reading blogs either, sadly.

My deadline is 3 October, and then I will be in America for a couple of weeks – during which time I’ll be seeing a couple of American bloggers, so I’ll be able to report back on that.

There is another series (the fourth!) of My Life in Books coming – apologies if you’re one of the lovely people who has taken part, I had intended to have it prepared to appear while I was in America, but that’s also not going to be possible.  But look forward to hearing from fourteen more bloggers about their lives in books at some point in October or November!

And I’m also afraid this means no more Great British Bake Off recaps for a while.  I don’t know if it’ll still be on when I’m back from America, but I’ll make sure I blog about the final, at least, even if it’s happened a while ago.

Right, I think that’s everything.  Next time you hear from me I won’t be a student any more, marking the end of my, hmm, 23 years of education, I think(!)  Hopefully I’ll have lots of books read and bought to tell you all about.

love, Simon

Great British Bake Off: Series 4: Episode 4

This week in Bake Off news: I unfollowed Paul Hollywood on Twitter.  He used the wrong ‘your’, and then he missed out an apostrophe by writing ‘Bake Offs on’, and I couldn’t bear it anymore.  He’s taking it pretty hard.

Last week: The Great Custard Robbery 2013! Trifle! Frances created a life-size model of the Leaning Tower of Pisa from flaked almonds, and it’s now the country’s most lucrative tourist attraction!

And now…. pie week!  Or Soggy Bottom Week, as it’s come to be known across the nation.  I’ve been following the Bake Off on Facebook (no grammar misuse yet, so they’re not persona non grata yet) and they’ve got into puns in a big way.  PIEtanic was a personal favourite this week – excellent work, social media minion, you’ll earn yourself a Golden Pun Klaxon before long.

Mel and Sue open proceedings with some fake food bumps, because of course they do.  I love that one of the most watched programmes in Britain has all the finesse and production standards of an enthusiastic village pantomime – those ‘costumes’ must have taken all of five minutes to craft.

Can we talk about Ali’s hat for a moment?

I have no words.

He’s apparently come as a pixie this week.  A pixie who matches his hats exactly to his T-shirts – and note that subtly rolled up sleeve!  He’s heard that Mary is using GBBO to launch a fashion line (N.B. this may not be a true) and he wants a slice of that pie (PIE JOKE).  Well, he would, but I can only assume the pie is added to the pantheon of everyday food items of which he’s never heard.

Ooo, listen up, I have a (tenuous) excuse for putting Bake Off recaps on a book blog – Mel references the Life of Pi(e)!  And after we had a quotation from Jane Eyre last week (which I forgot to mention in last week’s recap, but which Thomas mentioned in the comments – it was a ‘Reader, I married him’ moment, which is always nicer to say on television than, say, “I meant to be a bigamist; but fate has out-manoeuvred me.”) it’s become a regular little book group.  (Ali has never heard of books.)

Exhib. 1: pastry

The signature challenge is ‘double crusted fruit pie’, which is apparently the correct way to describe a pie which has pastry on the top and the bottom.  Well, to me that’s just the description of a pie.  Pastry is my favourite part, and if it’s only on top I would feel CHEATED and ANGRY and probably pull a RUBYFACE.  I’ve been asked by Keen Reader Becci (er, my friend Becci) to include a catalogue of her faces this week – but they’re essentially all variations on ‘Angrily Considering Whether Stabbing Is An Overreaction And Deciding In Favour’, with the odd beatific smile thrown in.  She has no spectrum of faces.

Ali, of course, has never made a pie.  But even he should probably be aware that clingfilm isn’t the best ingredient to include…

“I love to use ingredients from around the world,” he says.  This invariably means using ingredients that nobody, anywhere in the world, would even briefly consider using.  It’s a euphemism for ‘fondness for the inedible’, isn’t it?  He admits that he doesn’t like – nay, loathes – fruit pies, and I think it’s time for our first Mary Berry Reaction Face, don’t you?

The Great British Bake Off so gradually became a
sequel to The Exorcist, that I barely noticed the change.

It’s no secret that I now adore Howard and could listen to his voice all day long.  My new favourite Howard Word (Howord?) is ‘polenta’.  I can’t express how wonderfully he says it.  It’s a mini-play all by itself.

Apparently it gives the pastry a ‘more biscuity’ flavour.  Since he’s previously used the adjective ‘cakey’ of his cake, I can only assume that he just sticks ‘y’ on the end of everyday baked goods when describing things.  Get ready for his bready meringues, desserty cottage loaves, and pastryey crème brûlée.

His VT can’t possibly compare to Joggingate – I’ve come to terms with the knowledge that the rest of my life will be an anticlimax now – so instead we see him hand out cakes in an office.  I’m absolutely certain that he has never been in this office before.  Those women clearly have no idea who he is.

Is that even a real office?
It looks suspiciously like it’s been crafted at the back of the tent.
By Frances, from isinglass.

Taking up the jogging mantle is lovely Beca – appropriately enough, since she is rivalling Howard for the place of my favourite – and she looks more competent, but rather angrier.  Compare and contrast, you ask?  Why, yes, of course.

Note the scandalous words on Beca’s T-shirt.  I’m wearing a shirt which says ‘Bad grammar makes me [sic]’, which just goes to show the difference between us.  Let’s look at some food, shall we?  I must remember to do more of that in these recaps… and here is what Beca is planning for her ‘cherry-apple’ cake.  Apparently a cherry-apple is what her grandmother used to call rhubarb to get them to eat it.  Beca, the minx, is just perpetuating a vicious lie.  Won’t SOMEBODY think about the children?

Apparently her grandmother’s pies did have soggy bottoms, but “it didn’t never bother us.”  God bless Wales.

Frances is playing fast and loose with my affections.  She is treading such a tightrope.  I love the inventiveness, I love the mad creativity… but it has to come with a dollop of self-consciousness.  I was at a wedding last weekend, and discussing GBBO (obvs) – my friend Rachel loathes Frances.  I still like her, but… just don’t become Holly, Frances.  This week she is making a James and the Giant Peach pie, which is yet another link between books and pie.  It’s almost as though this review had some sort of place on this blog.  As Sue says, “It sounds like it needs planning permission.”

Glenn solemnly intones “Moisture is the enemy of everything today.”  I just don’t know what to do with that sentence.  But – he’s in a Scrabble club!

There are some pretty colours going on in Glenn’s bake – I missed what he used to get this colour, but it doesn’t look super-appetising.  Is now a good time to admit that I don’t get very excited about fruit pies?  I think it’s because I don’t much like cooked apple unless there is a very high ratio of blackberries or something else.  So I wasn’t particularly tempted by the bakes for this challenge.  Sorry, folks. (But my housemate Ellie did make an AMAZING apple and blackberry crumble this week, so sometimes it works brilliantly.)

Curiously, Ali turns towards the camera and says in a kind of robotic voice “Gas mark 4 for 35 to 40 minutes”.  Is he auditioning to be the new audio-description-for-the-visually-imparied person?  More power to him.

But it’s not as strange as Christine, who starts rhyming… “I’m bending down to have a look / Because I’m waiting for my pie to cook.”  Well, it’s better than anything Andrew Motion achieved in ten years as Poet Laureate, I’ll give her that.  And Kimberley seems amused.

Is now a good time to tell you about the time I went to buy a pastie, and somehow put ‘pastry’ and ‘pastie’ together and asked for a ‘paystie’.  As in ‘pasty’, as in a pale and unhealthy appearance.  Good times.

Sue is her usual helpful self, with pro-tips for baking excellence: “I think that brown stuff is burn.”

She’s not wrong.

“It is what it is,” says Glenn, and my soul shrivels up a bit.  As mentioned before (I admit this far too readily) I watch a lot of bad American reality shows, generally with people aiming to be models or fashion designers or join the cast of Glee, and “It is what it is” is their go-to expression.  It’s unutterably fatuous.  Of course it blinkin’ is what it is.  It’s hardly investigative journalism, is it?

On the topic of investigative journalism, I have one question for you.  Is Glenn Paul’s illegitimate son?

Inconclusive.  (Can we talk for a moment about Beca’s EXCELLENT photobombing here?  But, also…. is it me, or has ‘horror movie’ become the inadvertent theme of this recap?)

Let’s whip through the judging.  My favourite moment during the critique is when Paul tells Kimberley that her pie is the best one he’s eaten in a long time, and Mary just tells her what it is: “It’s a toffee apple pie!”  Other than that, biggest shock is when Frances is given a ‘style over substance’ talk.  “You’re miles away from the flavour point,” says Paul, incomprehensibly.  But… look how pretty!

My favourite post-critique moment is this, frankly terrifying, staring-down that Christine is giving Ali.

Right, it’s the Technical Challenge, and this week (despite Sue’s suggestion that they just have a rave) it’s sponsored by Lionel from As Times Goes By – that’s right, custard pies!  Paul goes into eulogies about the pies put in front of him, and shows off a fine specimen.  He talks about how they must have ‘a slight wobble’, and shakes a tart which does not, for the merest moment, show the slightest sign of a wobble.  But it certainly holds shape when it is cut in half, and already I have images (some of which, admittedly, come from the what’s-coming-up bit at the beginning of the episode) of pies self-destructing all over the place.

As per usual, the instructions for the technical bake are ludicrously brief.  As Beca notes: “Make the custard. Helpful.”  There are distinct schools of thought over whether it should be heated or not, and there’s quite a bit of staring and self-doubt

In the midst of a baking frenzy, we have an oo-er-missus speculation on Howard’s sexuality: “that would be telling!”  The Bake Off becomes ever more like a village panto.  And, in this case, “she’s behind you!” would be apt.

Beca is such an excellent photobomber, yet again.

“Already time is against us,” laments Glenn.  He is taking on the role of John from last series, who just said melodramatic and vague warnings, like a pessimistic sooth-sayer of the middle ages.  Shortly afterwards he says he is “pouring like a buffoon”, so maybe he’s more like a Jennings character.  Can’t decide.

“We’re all going to die one day anyway.  Fossilized fishhooks!”

Ruby has a very clever technique for making her sure her pies come out easily – which I think others might soon wish they’d thought of – and I’ll certainly be copying it in the future.

BAKING HISTORY is actually quite interesting this week.  But I’m still going to gloss over it.

BYE BAKING HISTORY THXBYE.

Mel’s fatuous voiceover advice this week?  My favourites are “The pastry must reach the top of the mould.” and “The oven must be hot enough to cook the pastry.”   But what role does gravity play in this, Mel?  And should – or should not – the bakers close the oven doors?  Enquiring minds want to know.

Everything’s going wrong in the tent.  Ali sticks his tarts in the freezer, Frances is genuflecting, and Glenn has started hitting himself in the face with a baking tray.

Horror film. Again. 

Ruby’s tabs have worked a treat, but her pastry isn’t cooked… and this is happening over at Glenn’s station.

…and Howard’s.

It’s all a bit of a mess, with only a couple people coping.  We haven’t such despair and haplessness since the Fondant Fancy challenge of 2012.  Paul is positively gleeful at the idea of all these disasters.

My friend Meg pointed something out to me on Facebook during the week, and I made sure I checked it out this week… Rob’s face on the placard identifying him in the Technical Challenge.

Good lord!  What a beaming smile, and what a discrepancy between that, and this usual ‘delighted’ face.  Let’s remind ourselves…

Glenn is last in the Technical Challenge.  Top three are Rob, Beca, and Frances…

Another day, some incidental pictures of sheep, and we’re back in the tent for the Showstopper Challenge – which is a filo pastry pie.  I am intrigued as to how they can make filo pies look ‘showstoppery’ (officially a w word – I used to work for Oxford Dictionaries, m’kay?) but I am ready to be impressed.  I also know that there isn’t the smallest chance I’d ever try making filo pastry, because it looks incredibly difficult… Paul says “It’s like a membrane – you have to open it up and throw it over a newspaper.”  One can only be grateful that his career as a surgeon never came to much.

Christine is making a Roasted Vegetable Filo Pie with Feta Cheese – which sounds delicious – but is it just me, or does that BBC-colouring-pencils sketch look far more like an octopus than the depiction of Rob’s octopus ever did?  Compare and contrast time again…

Bakers are slapping their filo pastry over the desks with gay abandon, and then suddenly the show decides to become everything I ever hoped or dreamed for.  In quick succession, there are several moments which, individually, would each have been Highlight of the Week.  It’s like they read my blog, and decided to give me a helping hand.  First up, OFFICIAL ANDREX PUPPY MOST ADORABLE MARY BERRY MOMENT:

I’m not one to question the decision-making of our great monarch, but I’ve got one burning question – why the heckitty d. peckitty is Mary Berry not a Dame yet?

Frances is using a shower cap on her pie, which is pretty impressive, but before I can pay close attention, Rob says this: “I have joined a local mushroom club.  I do like to forage.  It is a very unforgiving pastime.”

Is this foraging?  It looks a lot like getting stuff out the fridge.

He adds that he’s making ‘piethagoras’.  Can we declare the Great Age of Television over?  It’s all downhill from here.

Frances is making a baklava cherry tree…

As I say, to Ellie watching it with me, “Of course she is.”  And then Mel says the same thing on the voiceover.  I adore baklava, but her description of combining the pistachio of baklava with cream cheese (was it?) and orange sounds rather disgusting.

This post has been going on far too long, as usual, so I’m afraid we’re going to fast-forward through to the results.  Which is a shame, because the manipulation of filo pastry is pretty amazing.  We see pastry covering two-metre expanses of table, and quite extraordinary preparations.

Check out Rob’s craftily made ruler thing.  I have no idea what function it’s supposed to perform, or whether it was successful.

He’s long behind, because the mushrooms took half an hour longer to clean than he expected.  Couldn’t they just have provided clean mushrooms?  He does have a lovely moment with Sue, when he tells her to get lost but “I’ll call” – to which she replies “They all say that!”

Favourite pun moment?  Mel saying that she might be “throwing a spanikopita in the works”.  Golden Klaxon to you, m’lady.

The angst highlight is the three-person job of getting Howard’s pie out of the dish – Glenn gurns in the background, saying he can’t look while obviously looking, the liar, and it’s treated a bit like the big scene in The Great Escape or The Dam Busters.  I have never seen either of those films, but I’m guessing they have big scenes, no?

Here are my favourites, appearance-wise:

Bonus points to Ruby for saying “It’s a lot better than what I normally knock up.”

And time for the results!
.
.
.
.
.
.
Star baker is…

BE LESS PERFECT KIMBERLEY

But going home – and thus removing the promised meltdown for which I’d been waiting, is:

Ruby’s eye here provides the last terrifying moment of the episode.

He claims not to recognise Mary Berry, or to know his own name, or to understand the word ‘out’, but sadly these technicalities do not keep him in.  Bye, Ali!  It’s been emotional.  Bless poor Howard, he has a little weep, and I love him x 100.

Hope you’ve enjoyed this week’s recap, and if you have a sad moment this week (Howard) just think about Mary Bezza threatening Paul H with a lump of raw filo dough.

That Sweet City: Visions of Oxford

I have been meaning to write about That Sweet City: Visions of Oxford by John Elinger and Katherine Shock for ages – ever since I was kindly given a copy by Signal Books in May – but somehow it hasn’t happened before today, for which I can only apologise.  But it is a timeless book, so a few months here or there shouldn’t make much difference.  It’s a clever mixture of art book, guide book, poetry volume, and a celebration of Oxford.

Full disclosure time: I have known Kathy all my life, as she is my Mum’s best friend from school, and my first trips to Oxford were to the house in North Oxford where Kathy and her family have lived as long as I have known them.  Little did we think, back then, that I would eventually call Oxford home too – for nine years now – and, if I do not have Kathy’s familiarity with the city yet, I certainly share her love of it.

And, as long as I have known Kathy, I have known that she is an artist.  I remember Mum, Kathy, and their respective children (including me) sitting by a river bank and painting the view, with varying levels of success – and I’ve had the privilege of seeing examples of Kathy’s work for many years, and would recognise her work anywhere.

But it is not just partisanship which makes me say that the illustrations are the best part of this book – I’ve included a couple in the post, apologies for wonky camerawork.  I certainly don’t know how to write art criticism, but I will say that Kathy’s watercolours have a wonderful vitality – sprightliness, even – which brings stone walls alive just as much as the river.  Look at this lovely view into Worcester College (which is, in my very subjective ordering of Most Beautiful Colleges, in at no.4, after Magdalen, New, and Corpus Christi):

I want to keep using variations of the word ‘liveliness’, as that is what I think Kathy does best.  There are hundreds and thousands of pictures of Oxford out there, whether postcards or paintings or sketches or photographs, and so any artist turning once more to these much-depicted places must bring something new, and for me, Kathy does that through this liveliness.  Is it the not-quite-straight lines, or the dashes of colour which are graphic rather than precise?  I don’t know, I haven’t the expertise to judge, but I know that it works.
I attended the launch night, back in May, where poems were read brilliantly by Rohan McCullough, and learnt a bit about the process behind the book.  Apparently John Elinger’s poems were written first, and then Kathy painted scenes to go alongside them.  After some success with postcard series in this line, they decided to go a step further and put together a book, published beautifully by Signal Books – and it is, incidentally, exceptionally well produced, a really lovely object.
So, the poems.  Well, you know that I struggle with poetry, and I have to admit that it was a while before I ‘got into’ these.  Apparently the order in the book pretty much reflects the order in which they were written, which didn’t surprise me, as they definitely improve,  A great deal of the poetry is in a form which, though seeming to follow a rhyme scheme on the page, uses enjambment so much that, when read, it becomes much more like prose.  Indeed, the earliest poems in the book are more or less a paean to enjambment. (For those who took their GCSE English a long time ago, definition of enjambment here!)  Of course, it’s a perfectly valid technique, but I felt it was rather overused.  (And, on a personal note, I found the recurrent jabs at the church in Oxford a little unnecessary…)  Having said all this, when Rohan read a few of them, they came to life wonderfully – so perhaps a good orator is what is needed.
But, as I say, they improved.  This was my favourite poem in the collection – I thought it was structured rather cleverly.
I haven’t properly mentioned the clever way in which the poems and paintings are arranged yet – they follow various suggested walks around Oxford, which is where the guidebook bit comes in.  There is a map at the beginning of each section, and then seven places to stop off and see along the way – I think it would be a very fun way to take yourself around Oxford (some of the walks are pretty long, so it’s not just a case of walking down the High Street) with sites to match up to the paintings, and poems to read to oneself or aloud when one gets there.  These walks are cleverly chosen, and far more interesting than the usual tour guide traipse through the biggest colleges and (Heaven preserve us) the places where Harry Potter was filmed.
For instance, how many people see the unprepossessing exit near the railway station, and follow the beautiful canal along to this bridge?  (I took the photo a while ago… I *think* this is relatively near the railway station, apologies if not.)  It’s another of my favourite illustrations.

If you’re visiting Oxford, That Sweet City is available in a few of the bookshops – if you want to imagine you’re visiting Oxford from afar, you won’t be able to follow the walks in person (of course) but it’s the next best thing.  Indeed, what fun it would be to get to know and love these pictures – and then, when you finally come to Oxford, match them up with the real places!

Six Fools and a Fairy – Mary Essex

I forgot to take a photo…
This one is from here,
where you can buy a copy

You may remember that, back in November 2011, I wrote about Mary Essex’s The Amorous Bicycle, which was very witty and fun and delightfully middlebrow – and I puzzled over the fact that Essex (in fact Ursula Bloom) had managed to write so many novels (over 500) and still put out quality.  Sometime before that, Jodie (known to us as Geranium Cat) kindly sent me her copy of Six Fools and a Fairy (1948), saying that she’d tried it a couple of times and couldn’t get into it… fast forward a couple of years, and my Reading Presently project has propelled me into finally getting it down from my shelves.  How would I find it compared to The Amorous Bicycle and another Essex novel I’d loved, Tea Is So Intoxicating?

Well, I’m afraid it’s not as good… That sounds like a very ungrateful way to start a Reading Presently review, so I shall also say that it was a fun read, and just what I wanted for relaxing in the evenings after working away ferociously on my thesis, but it’s an idea which doesn’t quite get off the ground.

And that idea is a school reunion where each of the six men recounts a story, relating to each course, about… well, I’ll let Charles Delamere explain:

“I should enjoy it immensely if we each told our own story.  About the woman, the one woman who meant something out of the rut to us.  The one each of us remembers most forcefully.”
The courses are Consomme Paysanne, Sole a la bonne femme, Vol-au-vent, Roast Lamb, Gooseberry fool, and Angels on horseback.  Give or take a few accents that I’m too lazy to find.  I’ll confess, I was already unsure about how things would go when this premise was set up.  Surely it would lead to a great deal of disjointedness?

It’s essentially a series of short stories, each of which relate all-too-appropriately to the course in question, and each of which recounts a lost love.  At one point a character makes a caustic reference to the stereotypical heroes and heroines of an Ethel M. Dell novel, but Essex isn’t far behind – her heroes aren’t swarthy silent types, but they do all fall into much the same mould as each other.  I usually hate the criticism that “He can’t write women” or “She can’t write men”, because it is (usually) silly and reductive, suggesting there are only two types of people – but Essex does seem, in Six Fools and a Fairy, to be under the impression that all men fall in love instantly, are proud, and are quite keen to hop into bed as soon as poss.  And throw into that stereotype that they’re all generally a bit hopeless.  She spends a while delineating her characters at the beginning, but it’s pretty impossible to tell the difference between them when they start talking.

Each chapter tells a difference character’s story, only occasionally returning to reunion dinner, and since they have only about thirty pages to do, we whip through fairly stereotypical tales of misadventure and the-ones-that-got-away without building the characters up enough for the reader to care.  And then the story is over, and we’re onto the next.  The chapters aren’t even structured as anecdotes, but instead are shown through an omniscient narrator.  It’s all a little bit bewildering and unnecessary.

Mary Essex is certainly an engaging writer, though, and it’s easy enough to whip through the chapters.  She has that ability to write a page-turner, even if (once turned) one has no particular wish to mull over what one has read.  For a novelist renowned chiefly now for romance literature, though, this book – the first of the three I’ve read which prioritises romance – is surprisingly less interesting than Tea Is So Intoxicating and The Amorous Bicycle, which are about gossipy villagers and amusing incidents.  For wit has absented itself from Six Fools and a Fairy, creeping only into the odd line, then slinking out again quickly.

So, diverting enough for a quick read, if one doesn’t want to feel at all challenged or invested.  But while her other novels made me think she was approaching the middlebrow joys of Richmal Crompton or even E.M. Delafield, had I read Six Fools and a Fairy first, I’d never have bothered with another.  Thanks very much for giving me a copy, Jodie, but ultimately I’m not too far from your assessment of it – and I think I’ll be passing it on again.

Great British Bake Off: Series Four: Episode Three

Apologies for the delay in posting this recap, folks!  I was halfway through it last night when iPlayer stopped working, and then my internet stopped working altogether.  But at least it sets a precedent for me being a bit tardy with these… think of it as delayed gratification, k?

Last week: the bakers baked bread, Paul was in his element, and a lady whose name I have already forgotten seemed to believe that an ordinary loaf qualified as a showstopper, and thought that putting tomatoes on top qualified as ‘a twist’.  Mary did her I’m-not-angry-I’m-just-disappointed face, and Paul did his I’m-not-disappointed-I’m-just-angry face.  Meanwhile, I got the wrong James Bond, apparently – it’s Roger Moore who was fond of the raised eyebrow and the I’m-glad-you-dropped-in punnery, not Sean Connery, so here is Mary again with the right Bond comparison.

That’s Moore like it.  Ahahahaha.  Sorry.

This week: desserts!  Much more exciting than bread.  If I know anything about the Great British Bake Off – and I’ve spent more time watching it than I have in all the world’s art galleries combined – then I’m expecting a number of references to ‘just desserts’.  But I have to say that Mel and Sue start the show off in fine fettle, with mention of ‘stressed’ being the word ‘desserts’ backwards.  That’s cleverer wordplay than “It’s a trifle difficult” or “Creme patisserNO, morelike”.  And Mel looks rightfully pleased with herself.

Sue’s Eric Morecambe tribute act continues apace.

The bakers file in across The Bridge, which is fast becoming my favourite bridge in all of fact and fiction (take THAT bridges of Madison County, battle of Stanford Bridge, Bridge[t] Jones) and share their thoughts about dessert week.  Christine is pretty excited about it all, while Ruby Tearday cheerfully says that, having been Star Baker last week, “it’s only going to go downhill.”  Ali looks ready for a baking breakdown and, in the nicest possible way, I can’t WAIT.

And it would be remiss of me to go any further without mentioning Mary’s luminous yellow jacket.  Is she at the forefront of Fashion for the Older Woman, or has she recently been shimmying up a telegraph pole to have a quick look at the telephone wires?  You decide.

So, the signature bake is trifle – and it turns out that my pun klaxon has taken on prophetic ability, as we instantly get a ‘trifle’ pun.  I’m already a bit nonplussed by this choice of challenge, to be honest, because I wouldn’t have thought you could go far wrong with a trifle (and hadn’t thought they involved all that much baking) but I’m ready and willing to be proved wrong.  Mel solemnly intones that this is the first time the baker have been asked to multi-task, which can’t possibly be true, and Beca already seems to be losing it.

Sue talks about ‘a base of lady fingers’, and I can hear her physically restraining herself from making a pun, possibly because it would wander into the lewd.  Ali claims never to have heard the word ‘trifle’ before, or to recognise any one of the ingredients or utensils in front of him, or to know where he is or how he got there.  However he’s making a raspberry and coconut trifle, which is always a wonderful flavour combination, so good luck to him.

I’m intensely relieved to discover that Glen does have a home to go to after all (although it looks suspiciously like a show home on a housing estate, and he’ll probably be asked to leave in the next ten minutes.)  Here he is, having whipped up a croquembouche…

“You’ll note that this room is dual aspect…
sir, SIR, I MUST ask you to leave the kitchen alone.”

…but more importantly, here is his adorable dog.

But there is strong competition for most adorable thing – OFFICIAL ANDREX PUPPY MOST ADORABLE MARY BERRY MOMENT – in Mary’s face when Glen tells her he’s using her ‘flavour combination but not her recipe’.

Incidentally, this face is every argument you’d ever need against Botox.

Since that flavour combination is ‘raspberry and almond’, I remain unconvinced that anybody is pushing the boat out.  Where is whatshername from two years ago, who insisted on adding hyacinth branches or diced yak to the most innocuous of dishes?  The nearest we get is Una Stubbs, who is apparently disregarding the challenge altogether and making a lemon Swiss roll.

And giving me kitchen envy.

She is also seemingly a closet alcoholic, and has hidden cointreau in a spray bottle.  She swiftly pretends that it is connected to her baking (hiding her bottle of vodka in the oven) and Paul, Mel, and Mary all spray it into their mouths – giving us an honourable mention for OFFICIAL ANDREX PUPPY MOST ADORABLE MARY BERRY MOMENT, when Mary gives a little jump of surprise at the aftertaste.

We leave Una Stubbs to her inevitable intervention (wouldn’t Inevitable Intervention be a great name for a band?  Noting it down…) and head over to a battle of titanic proportions.  Here’s an antagonism waiting to brew.

“I’m not a big fan of jelly. It’s just not my cup of tea.”

“I’m sorry, you can’t have a trifle without jelly.”

It’s about to get REAL in here, folks.

Oh, and I love Beca for saying that, in West Wales, they have Sunday roast “pretty much every day of the week”.

There still isn’t really very much to say about making trifle, since it seems to consist almost entirely of bits they would normally make at the last minute to shove on top of their more ambitious creations (I’m always impressed by how these bakers make jam at the drop of a hat, while it would take me most of a week) so let’s leave them to it.  It gives me a moment to say that, far from being Brend 2, Howard is a complete sweetie and I love him.  He may be from the combined creative vision of Alan Bennett and Woody Allen, but neither of them could have dreamt up the wonderful vision of him jogging.

If I knew how to make a GIF, I would.  I don’t.

Kimberley update: her hobby is salsa dancing.  NO, Kimberley, NO.  You need a hobby which makes you look less cool.  Take a leaf out of my book – my hobby is watching reality television and writing about it on the internet.

It’s like salsa dancing, only you sit alone in your room and don’t move.

Words of wisdom from Ali: “Nobody likes a soggy macaroon.”  Comment in the comment section if you do!

The intro promised us ‘the first ever baking burglary” – I’d assumed that Christine would swipe Mary’s jacket – but in fact it is Una Stubbs stealing from Howard!  She accidentally takes his custard – and he is FILLED WITH RAGE.

Haunting.

The trifles are judged, and they all look… like trifles.  Although I have to put in a good word for Ruby Tearday’s impressive tropical-themed trifle, complete with palm tree.

Mary and Paul struggle to say very much to everyone – Mary does say to someone “It’s a bit like a cake with cream and fruit on top of it”, which is precisely the definition they’ve given us of trifle – so we get half-hearted comments about bowls being too full, or flavours being overpowering.  And it turns out that Howard’s custard was better than Una Stubbs’s, so her Grand Larceny was either very canny, or… not.

More importantly… is that a rival bridge I spy?  Don’t even think about it, bridge!

I have no idea what he was saying.
I was too distracted by the bridge.

TRIFLE HISTORY!

THANKS TRIFLE HISTORY!

The second challenge is… floating islands, or, umm, whatever that was in French.  Here is the one Mary (probably didn’t) make earlier, and it looks delicious:

I’m also pretty sure Tina Turner had the hairstyle in the ’80s.

I haven’t quite grasped what floating islands are, but it seems to involve poaching meringue in milk.  I’ve made plenty of meringues in my time, but I’ve never done this…  Frances claims that she’s in ‘meringue no-man’s-land’, which is presumably the latest spin-off of Foyle’s War. It has to be conceded that they don’t look very attractive at the moment.  Sue holds up Howard’s custard (see fig.1) and says that it looks like a metaphor for climate change.

Er, fig.1.  Why not?

To me it looks more like a metaphor for cauliflower cheese, but sure.

Then they start making spun sugar…

I’m always relieved when they turn to something that I have done before, because then I can assess how over the top the programme is being about difficulty levels.  Spun sugar is pretty easy, but you wouldn’t guess that from the interviews we have as the cameraman dashes from panicked baker to panicked baker.  “I don’t what temperature it should be!” cries one; “I don’t know how to get the shape!” cries another.  Ali, of course, claims never to have heard of sugar before.

Mary and Paul step up to the table of floating islands, and they certainly differ quite a lot in appearance.

This is rather how I envisage a Waitrose-sponsored zombie drama.

In last place, for this challenge, is a man whose name I still don’t know.  I’d forgotten he was there.  The top three are Ruby Tearday, Rob (who has been rather quiet this week), and in first place is Glen.  Now that he’s been let out of the school store cupboard, he’s going places.

In the who-might-be-going-home bit, we get the inevitable custardy/custody joke – but apparently Mary hasn’t heard it before, as she dissolves into hysterics.  Was I premature in awarding the OFFICIAL ANDREX PUPPY MOST ADORABLE MARY BERRY MOMENT?  We’ll never know.

Finally, we have the showstopper challenge!   I miss what it is they’re making at first, and discover quite how vague everything they say actually is.  Lots of bakers saying how tricky it will be, and Paul mentioning that he requires perfection, while Mary makes sympathetic noises without (so far as I can tell) forming complete sentences at all.  Maybe they film a series’ worth of these segments at the beginning of August, and just intersperse them later?

It turns out that they’re making petits-four.  And it’s at this point that iPlayer starts playing up.  So I’m off to bed, and will come back to this recap tomorrow, if iPlayer is behaving…

Seamless, no?

Well, petits-fours are certainly rather trickier than trifle, and I am completely lost with almost everything they say – mostly because everything is in French.

Christine is thrilled that her petits-fours are going to be ‘sickly’ (hmm) but I am impressed with her husband, who has made her a little wooden implement especially for shaping them.

Una Stubbs, however, is heading for disaster – because she’s using edible flowers and rose.  Has anybody ever used flowers or rose without the judges saying that the end result tastes too much of flowers or rose?  Well, perhaps she’ll prove us all wrong.

But at least almost all those words are in English.

Ruby Tearday confesses that she’ll be winging it, and Paul (much like Shania Twain before him) implies that That Don’t Impress Me Much.  As ever, when at a loss, Mel talks in a voiceover about the perils of getting an even bake.  It’s like an ‘umm’ to her; I’m not even sure she knows she’s doing it.

Frances.  Ah, Frances.  You’ve been oddly quiet this week, and I assumed you might be saving yourself for the Showstopper Challenge – and you’ve not let us down.  “I’m doing my petits-fours inspired by Tchaikovsky’s The Nut Cracker ballet.”  Oh, of course you are, Frances.  I assume each petits-fours will function as a working violin.

Er, spoilers. Here’s what they’ll look like.

And Howard is making savoury petits-fours, based on things you might have at the end of a meal.  One inspired by coffee, and the other “based on cheesy biscuits.  It’s essentially like a cheesy biscuit.”  You know how sometimes the artist’s inspiration is hidden deep within their creation, unknowable to the casual observer?  This isn’t one of those times.  Mary Berry Reaction Shot Time, I do believe.

Una Stubbs has swerved past Ali on the inside track as the one most likely to have a meltdown – she clearly hasn’t recovered from the theft incident, and is getting pretty distraught about her fluting.

“I’ve lost my fluting,” she says.

I’ve never seen Cathy Come Home, but I can’t imagine it matches this for anguish.  Elsewhere in the tent, impressive things are happening with petits-fours – just look at these!

Kimberley’s, btw.

It’s a mistake, I’ve realised, to recap before dinner rather than after it.  As someone who makes nice cakes writ large but is useless with fiddly bits, I am filled with envy of all these bakers.  So, that’s coveting, envy, and (as with every moment of my life) sloth, so 3/7 Deadly Sins.  We’d best fast forward to my favourites…

Christine gets an “Mmm, that’s scrummy” from Mary, while Ruby gets “THAT’S a bit of alright”.  Mary.  Beca – who might be my favourite baker now – does fantastically well in this challenge, and certainly doesn’t hold back from arm-waving, fringe-blowing, and exclamations of joy – while Una Stubbs gurns in misery in the background.

There is a moment in the deliberation section where Sue and Mel riff on the idea of Paul and Mary marrying.  It’s every bit as wonderful as you’d imagine.  You wouldn’t get that on the French version, stuffy pompous lady who wrote this article.

Anyway, winners and losers below the jump…
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Star Baker is…

Christine! Hurray!

but going home is…

Two people!  That was rather a surprise, but if it had to be two, those are – sadly – the two.  Mark interviews that, if he hadn’t been told he was going home, he’d have questioned the decision, while Una Stubbs – no, for this last time, Deborah – laughs about her ‘cascade of misery’.  Well, if you don’t laugh, you respond in an appropriate manner.

Next week – pies and tarts!  Hope you’ve enjoyed this week’s recap, and I’ll see y’all then.

A Century of Books: 2014

Congratulations to Thomas at My Porch who has finished his Century of Books!  I know that he found it tough going at times, and I’m delighted that another person has joined Claire and me at the finish line – is anyone else still going?

For those who don’t know, A Century of Books is a challenge where you read one book for every year of the 20th century, in as much time as (and in whatever order) you choose.  Claire and I set out to do it in a year, and both completed our century in 2012 (you can read our lists here and here).  I also added in the proviso that I’d review them all, which Claire did too.

And this is advance warning that we’ll both be doing A Century of Books again in 2014!  I’m going to aim to complete in a year again, but I hope others will join in on whatever scheme they set out for themselves.  It’s such a fun challenge – in fact, it’s the anti-challenge challenge, because (for the first nine or ten months anyway) I didn’t even notice I was doing a challenge, since I could just fill in books as I went along in my normal reading patterns.  It’s also incredibly satisfying to look back at the completed list, and see a (very subjective and selective) overview of the century.

Hope you’re interested in participating in 2014!

Mr. Skeffington – Elizabeth von Arnim

A couple of times I have had the pleasure of staying with bloggers, who have kindly put me up (and put up with me) when I’ve needed a bed to crash in while in London.  One of those times I stayed chez Rachel/Book Snob, which was lovely – and even lovelier was that she sent me away with Mr. Skeffington (1940) by Elizabeth von Arnim as a present.  (I did give her a book to say thank you for having me, I should perhaps add, if I ever want bloggers to let me stay with them again.)

Elizabeth von Arnim is one of the most varied writers I’ve read, and there is little to link (say) the fairytale niceness of The Enchanted April with the deliciously biting satire of The Caravaners.  And then there is my current favourite, Christopher and Columbus, which has elements of both.  Where would Mr. Skeffington fit into the von Arnim spectrum?  Well, it turns out I’ve now read one of her more sombre, reflective novels… and, indeed, her last.

The novel is called Mr. Skeffington, but the central character is his ex-wife Lady Skeffington (Fanny to her friends) who divorced him over his affairs when she was still in her twenties, and is now approaching the grand old age of fifty.  In order to get on board with the novel, we have to accept the premise that fifty is terrifyingly old (although, since von Arnim was in her mid-seventies when she wrote the novel, she ought to have known better.)  But for Fanny it is a dreaded landmark, principally because – having been a renowned beauty all her life – a recent illness has taken her beauty from her, and quite a lot of her hair, and a tactless doctor tells her that she may soon be an eyesore.

An eyesore?  Was he suggesting that she was an eyesore?  She, Fanny Skeffington, for years almost the most beautiful person everywhere, and for about five glorious years quite the most beautiful person anywhere?  She?  When the faces of the very strangers she passed in the street lit up when they saw her coming?  She, Noble, lovely little Fanny, as poor Jim Conderley used to say, gazing at her fondly – quoting, she supposed; and nobody quoted things like that to eyesores.
I’ve got to say, reading Mr. Skeffington made me quite grateful that I have never been handsome – it must be very difficult to lose something like that, but especially so for Fanny, who doesn’t have many other character traits to offer – or, at least, hasn’t had to rely on them.

But that isn’t all.  The reason she consults the doctor in the first place is because she keeps having hallucinations of Job Skeffington, her estranged husband.  She can’t think why, since she has barely thought of him for years and years… but he won’t stop appearing before her eyes.

And then the novel takes us back through the men who have courted her since her divorce.  The novel is oh-so-chaste, so none of them have done more than fling themselves adoringly at her feet, and she has done little than laugh politely and ignore them – but she determines to go and find them, to make herself feel young and beautiful again, and reassure herself that she isn’t an eyesore.

So, in succession we see Fanny visit… New College, Oxford, to see an undergraduate who was recently (and somewhat inappropriately) besotted with her – only to see him busy with a much younger woman.  Then off to an older man who once loved her deeply, and still cherishes the letter she writes to him, but is shocked by her appearance after a decade or two (while she, in turn, is shocked by his) – and he, after all, is married to a young woman by now.  And then off to a vicar, living with his sister, who loved her when he was but a promising young curate, and now lives abstemiously on starvation rations.  And possibly more.

It’s an interesting conceit for a novel, but it does end up making everything feel rather disjointed, somehow.  Somehow the different meetings don’t hold together, so Mr. Skeffington is more like a series of similar short stories than a single narrative – and, although there are some interesting or delightful characters (I particularly enjoyed the vicar’s sister, who remained certain that Fanny was a prostitute, but steadfastly determined to look after her charitably, when Fanny is mega-rich) they aren’t given the opportunity to grow or impact the novel much.

And the end… well, I shan’t give it away, but it is so emphatically a tribute to a famous Victorian novel that, if it isn’t deliberate, it’s plagiarism.

This is Elizabeth von Arnim, so of course the novel is good – she is always an excellent writer – but I think it might be a novel I’d be better off reading in about fifty years’ time.  Perhaps then it would feel like a paean to youth and a empathetic mixture of nostalgia and regret… but, though I enjoyed it, and appreciated von Arnim’s writing, I missed the raucous humour of her satires.  I’ve now encountered another facet of von Arnim’s myriad writing talents… and I’m not sure I’m quite ready for it.

The Queen and I – Sue Townsend

Following on from The Restraint of Beasts, here is another gift book (from my lovely ex-colleagues at OUP), another comic book, another one which seems like it might have a message hiding in there somewhere… but entirely different.  Knowing how much I love, admire, and respect Queen Elizabeth II, my colleagues got me (amongst other Queen-related things) The Queen and I (1992) by Sue Townsend, and I wolfed it down in a day or two.

The premise of The Queen and I is something that makes me Royalist blood run cold – a politician called Jack Barker uses subliminal pictures on television to brainwash the nation into voting his party to power, and his first act is to abolish the monarchy.  (Shudder!)  The Queen and her family are sent off to live on a council estate in Hellebore Close – known locally as Hell Close.  There they must make do with benefits or the pension, with only the possessions they can fit in their tiny houses (most of which end up getting stolen pretty quickly anyway.)  The country rather falls apart with a hopeless leader in charge, but of more interest is seeing how the royals get along without any money and in surroundings which they are far from used to.

And, oh, it is funny!  But more than that, it is believable – not the premise (even if we ever lose our monarchy – Heaven forbid! – it’s unlikely they’d get aggressively shipped off to council houses) but the way in which various members of the Royal family would respond.  Sue Townsend writes very affectionately of the royals; although it’s tricky to work out whether or not she thinks the institution is a good one, she certainly has a lot of respect for certain members of it.  Chief among these is, of course, the Queen.  She behaves exactly as I would expect – that is, she just gets on with it.  Since she spends her life seeing every imaginable culture, habits, and traditions, it’s unlikely that there is anything that could wrong foot her socially.  The one thing she cannot quite get used to (and this is where Townsend’s social critique of Britain comes into play, one suspects) is how little money people are expected to live on, and how inefficient and difficult the system is.  Here she is, chatting with a social worker…

“And what is the current situation regarding your personal finances?” 

“We are penniless.  I have been forced to borrow from my mother; but now my mother is also penniless.  As is my entire family.  I have been forced to rely on the charity of neighbours.  But I cannot continue to do so.  My neighbours are…” The Queen paused. 

“Socially disadvantaged?” supplied Dorkin. 

“No, they are poor,” said the Queen.  “They, like me, lack money.  I would like you, Mr. Dorkin, to give me some money – today, please.  I have no food, no heat and when the electrician goes, I will have no light.” 
But not everybody is so resilient.  Other royals do cope well with the move – Prince Charles is thrilled about getting to some quiet gardening, Princess Anne loves getting out of the limelight, and the Queen Mother (bless her!) finds the whole thing hilarious, so long as she’s got a drink or two next to her.  But Prince Philip takes to his bed and won’t engage at all, Princess Margaret similarly refuses to acknowledge that her situation in life has changed – while Princess Diana is saddened chiefly by the lack of wardrobe space.  It’s quite odd to read a book about the royals set before Diana died – because it is impossible to think of her without that context now.  In 1992, she could still be affectionately mocked as a clothes horse and a flibbertigibbet.  Indeed, remembering how old all the royals were in 1992 and reformulating my view of them is quite tricky, since I was only 7 then, and don’t remember (for instance) Princess Anne’s days as a relative beauty.

As far as social commentary goes, Townsend obviously wants to draw attention to the plight of the poor, in the battle against bureaucracy and out-of-touch officials, but perhaps it doesn’t help her cause that every working-class character is essentially kind and decent.  A few rough diamonds, but they’re all there to help each other at the drop of a hat, issuing generous platitudes when needed and handy at knocking together a makeshift hearse.  Of course, that’s better than making them all selfish, violent thugs or benefits cheats, but it might have been a more effective portrait of a working-class community had the characters and their traits been more varied, as they would be in any other community.

Which is a small quibble with a very clever, very amusing page-turner.  The idea was brilliant, but in other hands it wouldn’t have worked.  I can only agree with the Times review quoted on the back cover: “No other author could imagine this so graphically, demolish the institution so wittily and yet leave the family with its human dignity intact.”

The Restraint of Beasts – Magnus Mills

Magnus Mills has been hovering around the edges of my reading consciousness for some time, including having read two of his novels – The Maintenance of Headway (good, but didn’t quite work for me) and All Quiet on the Orient Express (much better) – but I’ve always felt that I could really love a Mills novel, given the right novel and the right timing.  Well, about three years ago my then-housemate Mel gave me The Restraint of Beasts (1998) – where better to re-start with Mills than with his first novel?  (N.B. Mel, now that I’ve finally read the book you got me for my birthday in 2010, will you buy me books again?)

Our narrator is anonymous (which I confess I hadn’t noticed until I read the Wikipedia page for the novel) and has just become the foreman of a Scottish fencing company, led by the domineering Donald and contentedly useless Robert.  He is a foreman of a small team – Gang no.3 – which consists of just three people, including himself.  The others are Tam and Rich – inseparable but taciturn, fairly lazy, and undemonstrative.  Having been introduced to his team (and discovering that he is replacing Tam in the foreman position), the narrator and his colleagues are sent off to fix the fence of a local farmer, which has been erected poorly.

If this is all sounding rather dull, then I should let you know – the activities of the heroes (or lack thereof) are determinedly boring.  They put up fences.  They travel to England to do so, and vary the monotony of hammering in posts only with trips to the local pubs, which provide almost no incident, and are generally almost empty.

One of the things studying English for so long has enabled me to do, I hope, is identify how a writer creates certain effects or atmosphere.  I hope Stuck-in-a-Book generally shows that sort of insight into a novel, or at least tries to.  But with Mills and The Restraint of Beasts (which is my favourite of the three I’ve read so far), I am almost entirely unable to say why it works.  Here is a sample paragraph for you…

Their pick-up truck was parked at the other side of the yard.  They’d been sitting in the cab earlier when I went past on my way to Donald’s office.  Now, however, there was no sign of them.  I walked over and glanced at the jumble of tools and equipment lying in the back of the vehicle.  Everything looked as though it had been thrown in there in a great hurry.  Clearly it would all need sorting out before we could do anything, so I got in the truck and reversed round to the store room.  Then I sat and waited for them to appear.  Looking around the inside of the cab I noticed the words ‘Tam’ and ‘Rich’ scratched on the dashboard.  A plastic lunch box and a bottle of Irn-Bru lay on the shelf.
And, believe me, things get technical.  I’ve learnt more about putting up fences than I’d ever imagined I’d know.   (Fyi, they’re usually being built to pen in animals – the restraint of beasts, y’see.  Excellent title.)  Mills worked as a fencer himself for some years, so you could be forgiven for thinking this was turning into an odd autobiography.

But, in amongst this, occasionally bizarre or momentous things DO happen, and they are treated with as casually and matter-of-factly as the tedium of standing in the rain with a fence hammer.  That is one of the reasons I loved this novel – I love surreal and black humour, but I hate anything disgusting, unduly frightening, macabre, or viciously unkind (so psychological thrillers almost always off the menu.)  Mills lets the moments of darkness become instantly surreal simply by giving us a narrator who does not see the difference between life-changing, terrible incidents and the everyday minutiae of the construction industry.  (Note that I’m deliberately avoiding telling you what these dark moments are, because I don’t want to spoil the surprise!)

Somehow, throughout plain and ‘deceptively simple’ (sorry, had to be done) prose, Mills expertly implies growing menace and claustrophobia.  The humour is still there – never laugh-out-loud funny, but always a dry, bleak humour – but the darkness seems to be spreading.  And from the opening pages, the reader is pulled from page to page, without almost nothing happening… how?  I don’t know what is in the writing that makes it work so well, as tautly engaging as a detective novel.  It’s obvious that All Quiet on the Orient Express was written after The Restraint of Beasts, because it follows a similar premise and style, but with a firmer structure.  And yet I refer The Restraint of Beasts, perhaps because it is more daring in its lack of structure.

And what is it all about?  I haven’t the foggiest.  The ending (which, again, I shan’t spoil) isn’t conclusive at all, but dumps a whole load of clues about the meaning of the novel.  I wondered whether it might be a metaphor for fascism, or perhaps communism, or… well, I don’t know.  It doesn’t much matter, and I’d have been rather cross if it turned out to be a heavy-handed metaphor for anything (only George Orwell can get away with that), so I’m happy to let it be simply an excellent, bewildering, disturbing placid novel.  If you’ve yet to try Mills, start here.

It’s been a while since I did a ‘Others who got Stuck into…’ section, because I have a terrible memory, so…

Others who got Stuck into The Restraint of Beasts…


“He is able to turn the ordinary into something sinister in a way that defies description, so that you’re never quite sure whether a terrible event is going to happen or whether the author is just playing with your sense of the dramatic.” – Kim, Reading Matters


“There are a number of things said that seem to be evasions or euphemisms that are not explained. Everything is sinister and suspect.” – Kate, Nose in a Book


“It has an undercurrent of mystery and black farce that I felt it could have done without, as it remains an unresolved and unlikely subplot.” – Read More Fiction