Since the acquisition of books has become, mostly, an on-line rather then a hands on experience, disappointments and mistakes are inevitable and often colour our view of the book when we feel that it has been misrepresented, even if some of the fault is our own. That is very much my position with regards to 'In Churchill's Shadow' by David Cannadine. I was expecting a book about the ongoing impact (baleful in my opinion) of Churchill his myth, reputation, etc. on Britain since the second World War. But it is in fact a collection of essays, often based on reviews, lectures, talks, etc. about various aspects of Britain, roughly, but not exclusively since the War. So of course all post war events are in Churchill's shadow but that does not mean he is directly or indirectly responsible for or an influence on them. Nor do many of these essays attempt to make any such connection.
I admit that if I had been more careful in reading descriptions of the book and searched out more reviews I would not have been under the mistaken impression I suffered from. But as I like David Cannadine's writing and have enjoyed his excellent and insightful books 'Ornamentalism: How the British saw their Empire' and the 'Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy' I allowed my excitement at the thought of Cannadine tackling Churchill's ongoing influence on Britain to obscure what the book really was.
Having said all that the various essays are mostly very good - the ones on Noel Coward and also on the Chamberlain family and the rapid growth and decline of municipal power bases and identity particularly remain in my mind. So this is a book that will be worth reading but I can't help thinking like many such collection of academic odds and ends it has been repackaged and labelled to be something more then it is.