What do you think?
Rate this book
When the Professor Got Stuck in the Snow
Everybody at the Women’s Institute in the village of Upper Bottom is eagerly awaiting the arrival of a very special guest speaker: the world famous evolutionary biologist Professor Richard Dawkins.
But with a blizzard setting in, their visitor finds himself trapped in the nearby town of Market Horten, with no choice but to take lodgings with the local Anglican vicar.
Will the professor be able to abide by his motto – cordiality always – while surrounded by Christians? Will he ever reach Upper Bottom? And can his assistant, Smee, save the day?
But with a blizzard setting in, their visitor finds himself trapped in the nearby town of Market Horten, with no choice but to take lodgings with the local Anglican vicar.
Will the professor be able to abide by his motto – cordiality always – while surrounded by Christians? Will he ever reach Upper Bottom? And can his assistant, Smee, save the day?
248 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 2014
12 people are currently reading
425 people want to read
About the author
Dan Rhodes
14 books197 followersIt should be noted that a recent Gallup poll revealed that there are an estimated 14,000 writers worldwide who share Rhodes’ name. He is not to be confused with the Daniel Rhodes who writes books about vampires, or the Daniel Rhodes who writes books about ceramics, or the Dan Rhodes who writes books about theology, or the Danny Rhodes who writes teenage fiction, or the character Sheriff Dan Rhodes in Bill Crider’s Western detective series, or any of the many other Dan/Daniel/Danny Rhodeses out there in bookland.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 112 reviews
January 20, 2016
On his way to deliver a lecture on "Science and the non-existence of God," Professor Richard Dawkins and his assistant, Smee, become snowbound. Forced to take refuge in a tiny town, the only available accommodation is a manger (Sorry - I couldn't resist!) a single room in the home of a retired vicar and his wife. Though Dawkins promises to be cordial, Smee secretly relishes the upcoming fireworks.
The Professor would be as civil as it was possible to be as he made mincemeat of their elderly hosts. And he would have a ringside seat.
This was the stuff of dreams.
Indeed!
Dawkins manages to ruffle plenty of feathers in his quest to attend his lecture.
'But we must reach Upper Bottom, by hook or by crook. That is a shepherd's crook, you understand, not a bishop's crook. I have women to speak to tomorrow afternoon, many of whom will be deluded churchgoers, who urgently need to hear the truth about religion from someone who has done all the experiments.'
There is some extremely funny stuff here - from the befuddled hostess who upon hearing that Dawkins is interested in genomes, fills the guest room with garden gnomes, to the Professor getting repeatedly tossed from a tank for arguing. BUT . . . the caricature of Dawkins quickly wears thin. At least I hope it is a caricature, as he is a REAL DICK! Anyone who disagrees with him (and even some who don't) are steamrollered by his opinions to the exclusion of all else. I've read two books by the man and he seems like a reasonable chap to me.
On the whole, the good outweighed the bad in this tale. I would recommend if you have a quirky sense of humor and are not easily offended.
The Professor would be as civil as it was possible to be as he made mincemeat of their elderly hosts. And he would have a ringside seat.
This was the stuff of dreams.
Indeed!
Dawkins manages to ruffle plenty of feathers in his quest to attend his lecture.
'But we must reach Upper Bottom, by hook or by crook. That is a shepherd's crook, you understand, not a bishop's crook. I have women to speak to tomorrow afternoon, many of whom will be deluded churchgoers, who urgently need to hear the truth about religion from someone who has done all the experiments.'
There is some extremely funny stuff here - from the befuddled hostess who upon hearing that Dawkins is interested in genomes, fills the guest room with garden gnomes, to the Professor getting repeatedly tossed from a tank for arguing. BUT . . . the caricature of Dawkins quickly wears thin. At least I hope it is a caricature, as he is a REAL DICK! Anyone who disagrees with him (and even some who don't) are steamrollered by his opinions to the exclusion of all else. I've read two books by the man and he seems like a reasonable chap to me.
On the whole, the good outweighed the bad in this tale. I would recommend if you have a quirky sense of humor and are not easily offended.
December 5, 2015
World famous atheist and evolutionary biologist Professor Richard Dawkins, accompanied by his male secretary Smee, is going to the quiet English village of Upper Bottom to give a talk to the Women’s Institute. Unfortunately heavy snow leaves them stranded in the nearby town of Market Horten and forces them to lodge with a retired vicar and his wife. Let battle commence!
Though the main character of this book is a real person, this is absolutely a work of comedic fiction. Dan Rhodes’ novel satirises the new atheist movement and especially its figurehead who’s written as a heavily amplified version of the real thing: an intensely smug, proselytizing atheist, who is incredibly rude to everyone he meets. The Professor’s demeanour coupled with his assistant’s name (which isn’t really Smee) is meant to put the reader in mind of a cartoonish villain like Captain Hook and that's what we get!
It’s basically a one-joke book where the Professor bad temperedly reiterates that there is no god to every person who he comes into contact with, so even if you found that funny the first time, it wears thin pretty quickly. A lot of the jokes don’t really land either: Dawkins is obsessed with Deal or No Deal, the vicar’s wife confuses scientific terms like humanitarianism and humanism, and the Professor wonders if he should put a pregnant cat through a wrangler to spare it the pain of giving birth(!).
Rhodes also makes a couple of banal observations like how the internet has connected everyone and yet isolated more than a few, as well the comparison of Dawkins’ unshakeable belief to those of a religious zealot’s, without exploring these ideas further.
That said, it’s a quick read, so it doesn’t outstay its welcome and become a bore, and it’s also a pretty decent story too. Rhodes writes the Christians in this book as people perfectly willing to accommodate Dawkins’ non-beliefs, appearing more tolerant than he, perhaps as a reaction to numerous representations in the media of Christians as brainwashed extremists ranting and waving crosses around.
I’m not religious - believe whatever you want just don’t bother me or use it as an excuse to hurt anyone - but Dawkins strikes me as an abrasive, unlikeable chap in real life, as well as in this novel, even if I agree with most of what he says. In the words of The Dude to his friend Walter in The Big Lebowski, “You’re not wrong, Walter, you’re just an asshole!” Still, his character in this book is a lively presence throughout even if you want to give him a slap on more than one occasion!
Dan Rhodes’ novel though has its charms. When the Professor Got Stuck in the Snow might not be anywhere near as funny as the blurbs would have you believe (as if they ever are!), nor is it a particularly gripping read but it’s a gently enjoyable farce refreshingly lampooning atheists for a change with an amusing larger-than-life main character.
Though the main character of this book is a real person, this is absolutely a work of comedic fiction. Dan Rhodes’ novel satirises the new atheist movement and especially its figurehead who’s written as a heavily amplified version of the real thing: an intensely smug, proselytizing atheist, who is incredibly rude to everyone he meets. The Professor’s demeanour coupled with his assistant’s name (which isn’t really Smee) is meant to put the reader in mind of a cartoonish villain like Captain Hook and that's what we get!
It’s basically a one-joke book where the Professor bad temperedly reiterates that there is no god to every person who he comes into contact with, so even if you found that funny the first time, it wears thin pretty quickly. A lot of the jokes don’t really land either: Dawkins is obsessed with Deal or No Deal, the vicar’s wife confuses scientific terms like humanitarianism and humanism, and the Professor wonders if he should put a pregnant cat through a wrangler to spare it the pain of giving birth(!).
Rhodes also makes a couple of banal observations like how the internet has connected everyone and yet isolated more than a few, as well the comparison of Dawkins’ unshakeable belief to those of a religious zealot’s, without exploring these ideas further.
That said, it’s a quick read, so it doesn’t outstay its welcome and become a bore, and it’s also a pretty decent story too. Rhodes writes the Christians in this book as people perfectly willing to accommodate Dawkins’ non-beliefs, appearing more tolerant than he, perhaps as a reaction to numerous representations in the media of Christians as brainwashed extremists ranting and waving crosses around.
I’m not religious - believe whatever you want just don’t bother me or use it as an excuse to hurt anyone - but Dawkins strikes me as an abrasive, unlikeable chap in real life, as well as in this novel, even if I agree with most of what he says. In the words of The Dude to his friend Walter in The Big Lebowski, “You’re not wrong, Walter, you’re just an asshole!” Still, his character in this book is a lively presence throughout even if you want to give him a slap on more than one occasion!
Dan Rhodes’ novel though has its charms. When the Professor Got Stuck in the Snow might not be anywhere near as funny as the blurbs would have you believe (as if they ever are!), nor is it a particularly gripping read but it’s a gently enjoyable farce refreshingly lampooning atheists for a change with an amusing larger-than-life main character.
December 12, 2017
For the first 90% of this comic novel, I thought it was a solid 3 stars. A rather obvious satire on Richard Dawkins’ heartless, belligerent atheism, yes (he sees nothing wrong with a “tiny little bit of infanticide” or cannibalism), but all in good fun. When a snowstorm strands Dawkins and his male secretary Smee at Upper Bottom and threatens to keep the professor from giving a much-anticipated lecture to the All Bottoms Women’s Institute, he finds other benevolent ways to spend his time: turning on the village Christmas lights at a special ceremony, delivering a litter of kittens, setting up an impromptu science advice clinic, and of course enlightening the many religious types he encounters about the superiority of humanism. But the last 10% pretty much ruined it for me...and that’s all I shall say about that, given the author’s plea for readers not to spoil the ending.
September 7, 2015
This book is my first foray into reviewing for NetGalley and I'd like to say a big thank-you to them and to the publishers for providing the book, and making it such a great experience.
My usual reading choice is a cosy mystery but, as I was branching out into unknown territory, I thought I would try something different for my first NetGalley choice. This book could be thought of as cosy in as far as it is set in a village, or more accurately a group of villages, and has some of the characters associated with cosy mysteries such as the semi-retired vicar and the president of the Women's Institute - but that's as far as the similarity goes!
The basic scenario involves an invitation by the All Bottoms Women's Institute to evolutionary biologist Professor Richard Dawkins to speak at one of their meetings on the subject of 'Science and the non-existence of God'. We find him at the beginning of the book on a train with his assistant, Smee, on his way to Upper Bottom, where the meeting is being held. They soon find themselves stranded in nearby Market Horten because of heavy snowfalls.
The less you know before reading the book apart from this the better, but it's a very funny book. I do actually think anyone who's usual reading choice is a cosy mystery would enjoy this book if you like humour and surreal situations that don't always turn out the way you expect them to.
My usual reading choice is a cosy mystery but, as I was branching out into unknown territory, I thought I would try something different for my first NetGalley choice. This book could be thought of as cosy in as far as it is set in a village, or more accurately a group of villages, and has some of the characters associated with cosy mysteries such as the semi-retired vicar and the president of the Women's Institute - but that's as far as the similarity goes!
The basic scenario involves an invitation by the All Bottoms Women's Institute to evolutionary biologist Professor Richard Dawkins to speak at one of their meetings on the subject of 'Science and the non-existence of God'. We find him at the beginning of the book on a train with his assistant, Smee, on his way to Upper Bottom, where the meeting is being held. They soon find themselves stranded in nearby Market Horten because of heavy snowfalls.
The less you know before reading the book apart from this the better, but it's a very funny book. I do actually think anyone who's usual reading choice is a cosy mystery would enjoy this book if you like humour and surreal situations that don't always turn out the way you expect them to.
December 17, 2015
Hmm ... the subject matter was interesting, and I could not help wondering what the real life Richard Dawkins would think of this book and his depiction as a smug, rude, pontificating know-it-all. As for the premise of people being stranded in the snow for days on end, in a small English village without help from the emergency services, I'm not sure it's entirely believable, but then there is a surreal quality to the book.
I had that curiously detached feeling that I sometimes get when reading a book which I can clearly see is meant to be funny, but in fact isn't. The group of villages is named The Bottoms, as indeed is quite possible in rural England, and while the professor is trying to get to Upper Bottom, you just know that there is going to be a Front Bottom and Back Bottom.
Sorry to say this did not work for me in the humour department, but nevertheless it was a pleasant read, and well written with just a few errors which I would expect to have been dealt with during the editing process. Reviewed in exchange for a preview copy from the publisher.
I had that curiously detached feeling that I sometimes get when reading a book which I can clearly see is meant to be funny, but in fact isn't. The group of villages is named The Bottoms, as indeed is quite possible in rural England, and while the professor is trying to get to Upper Bottom, you just know that there is going to be a Front Bottom and Back Bottom.
Sorry to say this did not work for me in the humour department, but nevertheless it was a pleasant read, and well written with just a few errors which I would expect to have been dealt with during the editing process. Reviewed in exchange for a preview copy from the publisher.
September 2, 2020
3.5 stars
Interesting read. Bits of humor and fun!
Interesting read. Bits of humor and fun!
February 23, 2014
There's something gloriously innocent about Rhodes' recent books, and The Professor... is no exception. Fast-paced, hilarious and utterly unexpected, it's like waking to find that someone has dropped a large Christmas present down your chimney. In the middle of June. Suspend your disbelief for a few hours and take a trip into Rhodesland - few modern writers are this funny, or this unique.
December 19, 2015
This a great piece of comic fiction. It is a quick, quirky and entertaining read. It is the first Dan Rhodes book that I have read and I have to say that I enjoyed it.
It centres on a larger than life Richard Dawkins and his assistant, Smee. Dawkins is to speak at the WI in Upper Bottom when snow disrupts his plans. He ends up staying with the vicar in Market Horton. Dawkins displays an arrogance that is breathtaking in all his encounters. He is positively obsessed with Deal or No Deal. In this piece of satire, Dawkins comes across as the extremist and the christians are the reasonable, kind and tolerant ones.
This book had a fast paced narrative and is amusing. I would recommend it to others as a humorous and light read. Many thanks to the publisher for a copy of the book via netgalley.
It centres on a larger than life Richard Dawkins and his assistant, Smee. Dawkins is to speak at the WI in Upper Bottom when snow disrupts his plans. He ends up staying with the vicar in Market Horton. Dawkins displays an arrogance that is breathtaking in all his encounters. He is positively obsessed with Deal or No Deal. In this piece of satire, Dawkins comes across as the extremist and the christians are the reasonable, kind and tolerant ones.
This book had a fast paced narrative and is amusing. I would recommend it to others as a humorous and light read. Many thanks to the publisher for a copy of the book via netgalley.
December 27, 2015
‘Everybody must take me seriously, and this is something that needs to be enshrined in the law of the land.’
There’s an evolutionary biologist named Richard Dawkins. He and his downtrodden assistant Smee are travelling to the British village of Upper Bottom, where the world famous professor is to address the Women’s Institute.
But, when a blizzard sets in, Dawkins and Smee find themselves stranded in the nearby town of Market Horten. With the help of Dave the taxi driver, they find emergency accommodation – with the local Anglican vicar and his wife. The prospect of staying with Christians has the professor reminding himself (and Smee) of (one of) his motto(s) ‘Cordiality always’.
So, how will Richard Dawkins survive his stay with Reverend and Mrs Potter? And why do people confuse him with Stephen Hawking? Can Smee get Richard Dawkins to Upper Bottom in time?
This is a short, funny story in which the fictional Richard Dawkins proves himself every bit as illogical as he claims the Christians are, and nowhere near as tolerant and pleasant. He is obsessed with the television program ‘Deal Or No Deal’, and with a very important and uninterruptable experiment involving a magnet and iron filings. But eventually Smee is able to prevail upon him to interrupt his experiment to assist with a most difficult delivery. Will the kittens be grateful? And the ending? What does the future hold for Richard Dawkins and Smee? Will the Women’s Institute of Upper Bottom ever hear (and appreciate) his words of wisdom?
‘I currently hold thirteen doctorates so the proper way to address me is “Doctor Doctor Doctor Doctor Doctor Doctor Doctor Doctor Doctor Doctor Doctor Doctor Doctor Dawkins”, but as this is as informal setting I shall permit you to call me simply “Doctor Doctor Dawkins”.’
I chuckled my way through this novel: this is particularly British humour, complete with double entendres. Not everyone will find this funny, but those of us who do will appreciate it.
Note: My thanks to NetGalley for the opportunity to laugh my way through this novel.
Jennifer Cameron-Smith
There’s an evolutionary biologist named Richard Dawkins. He and his downtrodden assistant Smee are travelling to the British village of Upper Bottom, where the world famous professor is to address the Women’s Institute.
But, when a blizzard sets in, Dawkins and Smee find themselves stranded in the nearby town of Market Horten. With the help of Dave the taxi driver, they find emergency accommodation – with the local Anglican vicar and his wife. The prospect of staying with Christians has the professor reminding himself (and Smee) of (one of) his motto(s) ‘Cordiality always’.
So, how will Richard Dawkins survive his stay with Reverend and Mrs Potter? And why do people confuse him with Stephen Hawking? Can Smee get Richard Dawkins to Upper Bottom in time?
This is a short, funny story in which the fictional Richard Dawkins proves himself every bit as illogical as he claims the Christians are, and nowhere near as tolerant and pleasant. He is obsessed with the television program ‘Deal Or No Deal’, and with a very important and uninterruptable experiment involving a magnet and iron filings. But eventually Smee is able to prevail upon him to interrupt his experiment to assist with a most difficult delivery. Will the kittens be grateful? And the ending? What does the future hold for Richard Dawkins and Smee? Will the Women’s Institute of Upper Bottom ever hear (and appreciate) his words of wisdom?
‘I currently hold thirteen doctorates so the proper way to address me is “Doctor Doctor Doctor Doctor Doctor Doctor Doctor Doctor Doctor Doctor Doctor Doctor Doctor Dawkins”, but as this is as informal setting I shall permit you to call me simply “Doctor Doctor Dawkins”.’
I chuckled my way through this novel: this is particularly British humour, complete with double entendres. Not everyone will find this funny, but those of us who do will appreciate it.
Note: My thanks to NetGalley for the opportunity to laugh my way through this novel.
Jennifer Cameron-Smith
October 22, 2015
Fifteen years ago my friends were writing sketches taking the piss out of Richard Dawkins - back before he was the honey-loving Atheist Pope, when he was just an obscure academic who'd won Lalla Ward in an arm-wrestling match with Tom Baker. Radio 4 never showed any interest in those sketches, but seven years later, Graham Linehan invented Twitter and now you can publish a book full of jokes about Richard Dawkins that I'm guessing hundreds of people will appreciate.
I'm in that heathen, god-blasted demographic, and so really enjoyed this - *maybe* a bit of a thin plot, and at this point Dawkins has spiralled into self-parody to such a point that he's a fish perfectly adapted to the environmental niche of his barrel, but that doesn't matter, because it's a super-quick read with plenty of really good gags to keep you going.
I'm in that heathen, god-blasted demographic, and so really enjoyed this - *maybe* a bit of a thin plot, and at this point Dawkins has spiralled into self-parody to such a point that he's a fish perfectly adapted to the environmental niche of his barrel, but that doesn't matter, because it's a super-quick read with plenty of really good gags to keep you going.
March 4, 2014
A very funny, very clever book. It's hard to describe, especially without spoiling it. Just go ahead and read it. If you like unusual books and have a sense of humour, you are very unlikely to be disappointed. The same applies to all his other books. Very original, full of heart, guaranteed to make you laugh.
March 2, 2017
Dan Rhodes is one of my favourite writers. What makes his writing so special is his ability to take you on a roller coaster ride of emotions, one minute you laugh and the next you cry. If it wasn't so funny, it would be really, really sad. I had big expectations of his latest book. Unfortunatelly, it bored me to tears. The story is rather dull. Having read almost all his books ( except Gold ), I can say that this one is his worst.
February 7, 2021
DNF at 100 pages. I love smart humor, even of the acerbic kind being rather acerbic myself in RL, but there was nothing smart or humorous about this book. The main hero was rude and offensive, plain and simple. Don't get me wrong, I've met plenty of people like him, mainly online - especially SJWs tend to be like this - but since I prefer to avoid these people whenever possible, why would I read a whole book about someone like that? No, thank you.
April 24, 2019
Seriously the worst book I’ve ever read!! Such a waste of time!
December 30, 2017
not as funny as I hoped it would be. :(
May 24, 2020
A proper farce - loved it.
May 23, 2014
Smee' (not his given name) is the male secretary to Professor Richard Dawkins. There are many aspects to his role - not just organising the Professor's life, including his many public engagements, but various forms of guerilla marketing promoting the hunmanist movement in general, and specifically Dawkins himself both online and in 'real' life - even in pubs and wandering round towns starting Chinese whispers.
The Professor is out of touch with humanity, has no social abilities, is pompous, arrogant and self-satisfied, but after a heart-breaking split from his wife, this job seems to be just the kind of focus that Smee needs.
As Smee and the Professor are on their way to a talk at the Women's Institute in the quaint English village of Upper Bottom, bad weather hits, and they are forced to hole up at the rectory.
I adore Dan Rhodes. Anthropology and Little Hands Clappingare a couple of the quirkiest, funny and surreal books I've ever read. And I DO love a bit of surreal.
Taken at face value, WTPGSITS isn't at all 'surreal'. It is however, very quirky and extremely funny. It's a pretty short read, and to be quite honest is just daft. From people being pleased that the Prof was 'finally out of his wheelchair' to jokes about the ridge between Front Bottom and Back Bottom and a quick battle with Mr Tumble, it was silly and childish throughout.
And just this childishness is what made it so funny. I felt quite light and gleeful whilst reading it. There was no 'side' to the story either - although the Prof was completely detached and self-righteous as a character, there was something still quite appealing about him. His naivete about his fellow humans made him come across as a big kid himself. The characters that he encountered that argued his argument of there being no God were all very accepting and intelligent.
I loved that as a reader, I didn't feel that I had to pick a side and stick to it - it didn't make any difference what my belief was.
I know that it sounds as if this whole book was about making Richard Dawkins look bad, but honestly, it wasn't - and I'm afraid you'd have to read the book to understand. No spoilers here ;)
However, I bought this on Amazon at the weekend, and had absolutely NO idea that it was planned to be 'removed from sale' by the author and publisher on Wednesday (21st May 2014). It had been on sale for 12 weeks by then, and they have been conducting an 'experiment'. You can read more about that on Dan Rhodes' website http://danrhodes.wordpress.com/2014/0...
I thoroughly recommend it as an irreverent, light, no-brain-required read when it is republished. Cast all doubts to the wind, let yourself go, and giggle at the sheer silliness!
The Professor is out of touch with humanity, has no social abilities, is pompous, arrogant and self-satisfied, but after a heart-breaking split from his wife, this job seems to be just the kind of focus that Smee needs.
As Smee and the Professor are on their way to a talk at the Women's Institute in the quaint English village of Upper Bottom, bad weather hits, and they are forced to hole up at the rectory.
I adore Dan Rhodes. Anthropology and Little Hands Clappingare a couple of the quirkiest, funny and surreal books I've ever read. And I DO love a bit of surreal.
Taken at face value, WTPGSITS isn't at all 'surreal'. It is however, very quirky and extremely funny. It's a pretty short read, and to be quite honest is just daft. From people being pleased that the Prof was 'finally out of his wheelchair' to jokes about the ridge between Front Bottom and Back Bottom and a quick battle with Mr Tumble, it was silly and childish throughout.
And just this childishness is what made it so funny. I felt quite light and gleeful whilst reading it. There was no 'side' to the story either - although the Prof was completely detached and self-righteous as a character, there was something still quite appealing about him. His naivete about his fellow humans made him come across as a big kid himself. The characters that he encountered that argued his argument of there being no God were all very accepting and intelligent.
I loved that as a reader, I didn't feel that I had to pick a side and stick to it - it didn't make any difference what my belief was.
I know that it sounds as if this whole book was about making Richard Dawkins look bad, but honestly, it wasn't - and I'm afraid you'd have to read the book to understand. No spoilers here ;)
However, I bought this on Amazon at the weekend, and had absolutely NO idea that it was planned to be 'removed from sale' by the author and publisher on Wednesday (21st May 2014). It had been on sale for 12 weeks by then, and they have been conducting an 'experiment'. You can read more about that on Dan Rhodes' website http://danrhodes.wordpress.com/2014/0...
I thoroughly recommend it as an irreverent, light, no-brain-required read when it is republished. Cast all doubts to the wind, let yourself go, and giggle at the sheer silliness!
August 8, 2020
Amusing, ridiculous and over the top in parts - a book that has a real pop at Professor Richard Dawkins and his ilk - who often come across as arrogant and self-important.
It's quite funny - not much of a storyline, but very amusing portrayal of a man who is generally right but doesn't have the communicaton skills to convince people otherwise.
It's quite funny - not much of a storyline, but very amusing portrayal of a man who is generally right but doesn't have the communicaton skills to convince people otherwise.
September 11, 2015
I have waited to read this book for ages. Anticipation due to my fondness for Dan's books, but the difficulty was mostly in acquiring the book in the first place mainly due to how Rhodes decided to release this. It was self published, initially under the notion that it might be easier to get the story out to his readers, but this was done on a limited scale and I missed the time frame. It soon became apparent that the reason it was self published was due to the inevitable fear of lawsuits that would emerge from this, despite the twist/turn at the end. Despite this, I am glad that it finally got a proper release through Aardvark Bureau and that I was able to get a copy somehow before the official release date.
The book itself is a joy. Dan Rhodes has stuck to his unique and now trademark offbeat fable storytelling and produced another funny satire, this time poking fun at the belligerency/intensity of the new atheist community. He has a knack at creating characters that have a certain naivete about themselves, who are often outcasts and oddballs in some exaggerated and preposterous way. It is this outlandish eccentricity that makes his characters likable and enjoyable, even if you find them brutish, bizarre or horrible. They are like cartoon characters that act ridiculously, but yet you still retain fondness for. The part featuring Mr Tumble is hilarious and the little moments of characterization such as Dawkins fondness for Deal or No Deal.
Brilliant, underrated writing
The book itself is a joy. Dan Rhodes has stuck to his unique and now trademark offbeat fable storytelling and produced another funny satire, this time poking fun at the belligerency/intensity of the new atheist community. He has a knack at creating characters that have a certain naivete about themselves, who are often outcasts and oddballs in some exaggerated and preposterous way. It is this outlandish eccentricity that makes his characters likable and enjoyable, even if you find them brutish, bizarre or horrible. They are like cartoon characters that act ridiculously, but yet you still retain fondness for. The part featuring Mr Tumble is hilarious and the little moments of characterization such as Dawkins fondness for Deal or No Deal.
Brilliant, underrated writing
October 2, 2015
Firstly thank you for the opportunity to read and review this book through Netgalley. This book isn't for everyone, it is slap stick comedy with a couple of threads being repeated throughout the book, such as the play on the main character's name, Professor Richard Dawkins being mistaken for Stephen Hawking. It also tackles the subject of science versus the belief in God so you have been warned. If on the other hand you enjoy this type of tongue in cheek comedy you are going to smile, giggle and laugh. Professor Dawkins and his assistant, man servant and dogs body Smee, are travelling to Upper Bottom so he can convert The Bottoms Women's Institute into Humanists. Unfortunately the snowy weather puts an halt on their journey and they find themselves staying with The Reverend and Mrs. Potter of Market Horten. The Professor is a totally over the top character, self righteous, pompous, arrogant and so incredibly rude, woo betide anyone that doesn't agree with him.
The story goes from one hilarious event to another. Switching on the Xmas lights, Cyril, the journey in the snow, Mr. Tumbles and Smee. My favourite has to be the final journey to Upper Bottom, some people just don't know when to keep their opinions to themselves!!!!!!! (sorry couldn't help it). I thought the end of the book was excellent, again and again. I am looking at other books this author has written.
The story goes from one hilarious event to another. Switching on the Xmas lights, Cyril, the journey in the snow, Mr. Tumbles and Smee. My favourite has to be the final journey to Upper Bottom, some people just don't know when to keep their opinions to themselves!!!!!!! (sorry couldn't help it). I thought the end of the book was excellent, again and again. I am looking at other books this author has written.
September 25, 2019
I can't decide whether this was a good idea written all wrong (there certainly were some smiles in it) or whether I have wasted time reading a spliffy riff.
I felt ready for a light read and since the book is a farcial fiction about fundamentalist atheist and rude little boy Richard Dawkin, whose lack of religious belief I share and whose behaviour I hope I do not, I expected to enjoy it. The Professor has a sidekick, Smee and the two of them, as the title says, get stuck in the snow... but this does little to dent the zeal to put everyone straight about the non-existence of God and the ludicrousness of their faith at every opportunity and still shoehorning in where there should be none. Monsters can be very entertaining but this got wearisome and too often felt lazy rather than clever. This carried over into some unfortunate tropes.
However, it was funny in places... ridiculous how the silly business of rude placenames like Upper Bottom can still tickle.
I felt ready for a light read and since the book is a farcial fiction about fundamentalist atheist and rude little boy Richard Dawkin, whose lack of religious belief I share and whose behaviour I hope I do not, I expected to enjoy it. The Professor has a sidekick, Smee and the two of them, as the title says, get stuck in the snow... but this does little to dent the zeal to put everyone straight about the non-existence of God and the ludicrousness of their faith at every opportunity and still shoehorning in where there should be none. Monsters can be very entertaining but this got wearisome and too often felt lazy rather than clever. This carried over into some unfortunate tropes.
However, it was funny in places... ridiculous how the silly business of rude placenames like Upper Bottom can still tickle.
March 26, 2018
This fantastical but very amusing and entertaining novel is good fun and I enjoyed it a lot. Professor Richard Dawkins, our much admired/reviled militant atheist, is expected in the village of Upper Bottom (cue lots of very puerile bottom jokes) to give a talk to the local WI. Snow disrupts his plans and he’s forced to accept an offer of overnight accommodation from the local vicar. The narrative stumbles from one farcical misunderstanding to another and it’s all pretty silly, but if you accept it for what it is, it’s quite good fun. Dawkins is lampooned unmercifully – has he read it, I wonder? And there are a lot of in-jokes (a taxi driver called Dave and so on) but underneath the froth there’s some seriousness about fundamentalism and dogmatism, which stops it being too frivolous. Take it for what it is – some light-hearted satire – and enjoy.
March 12, 2014
Oh my goodness! Another funny, unusual story from my favourite author. I don't know how Dan Rhodes manages to make all his characters so likeable even when they are despicable!!!!!! (Is that enough exclamation marks?) I really loved the village atmosphere and the lovely aura of kindness from the people of Market Horten - 'The Gateway to The Bottoms'. I always recommend Rhodes books to everyone because no matter what the subject you can always be confident that it will be so different from anything they have previously read. Some fall in love with the style of writing, but for the people who don't like this book all I can say is that you're wrong - I've done all the scientific experiments and it is brilliant!
August 24, 2015
didn't know what to expect from this book. It certainly made me laugh in places. Some of the humour and most of the plot is very contrived.
It is hard to describe the book without risking spoiling it for others. I really like the characterisation of the professor's assistant, Smee. The vicars wife is also an amusing character.
The twist at the end was certainly not what I expected. I have not read any other books by Dan Rhodes, but on the strength of this I will certainly add him to my list of authors worth reading.
My Thanks to Netgalley and Gallic Books/Aardvark for the chance to read and review this title.
It is hard to describe the book without risking spoiling it for others. I really like the characterisation of the professor's assistant, Smee. The vicars wife is also an amusing character.
The twist at the end was certainly not what I expected. I have not read any other books by Dan Rhodes, but on the strength of this I will certainly add him to my list of authors worth reading.
My Thanks to Netgalley and Gallic Books/Aardvark for the chance to read and review this title.
July 14, 2017
Shallower than an empty rubber wading pool - the characters are barely one dimensional, and what could have been a complex and interesting satire became not particularly sophisticated characterisations of the atheist and theist positions shouting incoherently.
I came away with the impression that the author struggled to understand any nuance of the issues around atheism and science, instead framing the whole thing as smarmy elitists who aren't in fact able to substantiate their positions in any way.
The twist ending doesn't overcome the significant issues of trying to stretch an at best one-liner gag into a novel. Steer clear.
I came away with the impression that the author struggled to understand any nuance of the issues around atheism and science, instead framing the whole thing as smarmy elitists who aren't in fact able to substantiate their positions in any way.
The twist ending doesn't overcome the significant issues of trying to stretch an at best one-liner gag into a novel. Steer clear.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 18, 2015
What a comical tale! I loved it!. Professor Dawkins is an atheist, and on his way to address the Women's Institute of Upper Bottom he gets stuck in a snow storm. The only place to stay is a B&B run by none other than an ex vicar. It thought the characters were great, well described and most of all just down right fun. Dan Rhodes has written a tale that kept me laughing the whole way through. This was my first Dan Rhodes book and I can't wait to read more.
Thanks to Netgalley and the publisher for allowing me to review a copy of the ebook in exchange for an honest review.
Thanks to Netgalley and the publisher for allowing me to review a copy of the ebook in exchange for an honest review.
November 7, 2019
Do not waste your time with this 📖
June 28, 2020
Really didn’t like this book. Couldn’t empathise with any of the characters and the whole story was just awful. Not sure why I finished it...hoping it would get better?
April 9, 2022
The first thing I should say is that this book is extremely funny, and that’s coming from someone who rarely finds literature an effective medium for comedy. I mean, all the writers who over the years have been praised as hilarious, from Jerome K Jerome and PG Wodehouse through to Malcolm Bradbury or Will Self are, to me, never that funny when you compare them to a good TV or film comedy, but this is the exception. I laughed a lot whilst I read it, by which I mean proper laughing, not the smug, supercilious fake-laughter of people who find a supposed Latin pun the very height of hilarity. (And, on that note, the cover quote has Stewart Lee describe this as ‘laugh out loud’ funny, a phrase that I’m amazed exists because it’s quite obviously a tautology. Put it this way: is it possible to laugh without doing it ‘out loud’? I don’t think it is!)
The problem with so many modern books is that they’re about nothing, and just try to reassure their audience by reinforcing their beliefs about how awful the religious right is, or how awful the Tories are or whatever, whilst never daring to challenge their readers by criticising any real sacred cows. This book, however, is refreshingly not like that and gleefully pokes fun at one of the major orthodoxies of our age, the idea that atheism, rationalism and scepticism are, ironically enough, not to be questioned or challenged. It seems that there’s now an established trend for a form of atheism/skepticism whose followers fail to see the irony in how they have themselves become barely distinguishable from the religions they claim superiority over yet end up emulating far more closely than they realise, sharing their dogma, their lack of self-criticism, the groupthink, and sometimes even the rituals. A few years ago I read an article about people in North London who have taken this to an extreme by holding church-style Sunday services where they have readings and sing songs from non-religious sources (which to me sounds like hell on earth), in perhaps a perfect example of how they’ve more or less become identical to the thing they consider themselves superior to. Those are the sort of people this book was probably written to bait, so I hope they read this book and get quite annoyed by it!
So Richard Dawkins is very much one of the figureheads of this movement and it therefore follows that he makes an excellent target for criticizing it. I do respect some of his work but it’s hard to deny that like his fellow sceptic James Randi he’s become so stuck in a particular world view at the exclusion of anyone who doesn’t absolutely agree with him that he’s ended up, in a sense, becoming just as much a fundamentalist about his own dogma as many of the religious zealots he’s always attacking, which is one of this book’s recurring themes. He’s a brutal rationalist who refuses to accept the validity or even existence of emotions as they can’t be explained by science, so therefore sees his wife as nothing more than a collection of cells who he would be entitled to eat once she dies, and his relationship with her as based on nothing more than convenience, and at one point wishes to go into an infant school and dissect a puppy in front of the children ‘so they can see how their pets work’.
Anyway, as a summary of the plot, this sees Dawkins and his assistant heading to a small village in the countryside so that Dawkins can give a talk, only for them to be stranded by snow and end up staying with a vicar and his wife, for whom Dawkins has nothing but utter contempt. What then follows is a culture clash between their traditional way of life and his brutally materialist and reductionist worldview where he sees anyone other than him as being so stupid as to not even be worth engaging with. The people in the village soon come to assume that as Dawkins is a scientist he must be an expert in every field, so come to him with any problem they have, ranging from a cat needing assistance during a complicated birth (where, upon arriving, Dawkins ponders whether to just put it out of its misery by running it through a mangle seeing as how it is just a collection of cells) to an old man asking for advice about a drooping pot plant that leads to a misunderstanding where Dawkins believes he is being asked for advice on erectile dysfunction so asks the unfortunate man to show him his failing member. (Actually, now I think about it, I suppose the point here is that no scientist, including Dawkins, can possibly hope to comprehend the entirety of science so in that sense no one is an expert in anything other than their own, fairly narrow, field, which is to say Dawkins may be an evolutionary biologist but he’s not an astrophysicist or a palaeontologist or whatever.)
And as well as the mix-up with the old man there are a great many other funny parts, such as when Dawkins is invited to turn on the town’s Christmas lights because the weather means TV’s Mr Tumble is unable to make it, and uses the opportunity to give a speech on why infanticide up until the age of one should be legal, only to nearly be upstaged when Mr Tumble unexpectedly arrives so Dawkins threatens the mayor with legal action should he not be allowed to proceed with his speech. There’s an ongoing joke that gets funnier with repetition whereby Dawkins splutters that there’s no more proof for the existence of god than there is for ‘a goblin with a purple face!’, and I particular enjoyed the bit where he concedes his view of this could theoretically change if a fossil were ever discovered of a goblin… with a purple face!
And despite the protagonist obviously being based on the real Richard Dawkins, he’s actually a classic, well-rounded comedy character in his own right, with his own catchphrases and a fully-formed personality. I also rather enjoyed the more surreal elements, such as how the Professor has an assistant simply named ‘Smee’, which is actually a name he gives to each of his assistants upon them taking up the role. And whilst I won’t spoil the twist for you it’s really quite brilliant, and I never saw it coming, and it also cleverly sidesteps the supposed legal issues that book was at some point said to potentially face.
(Oh, and here’s a funny thing: I’d read Rhodes’ first few books in the early-2000s then for whatever reason not really kept up with his later stuff until Private Eye decided they didn’t approve of his work, first of all smugly mocking the idea that this book was at risk of the real Dawkins suing him over it, and then doing a predictable hatchet job on his most recent book, Sour Grapes. Well, as a result of that, I learnt about this book and not only bought a copy for me but one for my brother too! So, basically, a couple of smug features in Private Eye have led to me buying several copies of Rhodes’ work, and Sour Grapes is very much going to be the next book I read. Anyway, does Private Eye really know that much about comedy? Don’t get me wrong, it does a lot of excellent and important investigatory journalism that far surpasses anything the newspapers ever do, and many of its cartoons are funny, but those are far outweighed by the many unfunny ones, and you can never quite shake the suspicion that at its heart it’s a gravy train to give easy employment for untalented and entitled public schoolboys (see the never-funny Craig Brown, the strips that appear in every issue and basically just repeat the same ‘joke’ (Supermodels, Celeb, It’s Grim Up North London) or the awful Andy Capp parody that is only three panels yet inexplicably takes THREE people to produce…).
By way of conclusion I’d like to say that this is the funniest book I’ve ever read. And if you think that’s probably me overstating it, or that it’s hyperbole or over-enthusiasm then I’d like to prove my hypothesis and demonstrate my working by using the kind of reasoning and evidence-based rational thinking that would surely make Dawkins himself proud. Purely and simply, the way you measure whether something is funny is if you laugh at it or not. And logically following on from that, the more you laugh at something, the funnier it must be. And I laughed more when reading this book than I had when reading any other so, by a logical process of deduction, that makes it the ‘funniest book I have ever read’. You see? As Stewart Lee would say, I ‘laughed out loud’ a lot when reading this. And if I ever win the lottery the first thing I’ll do is set up a film production company to produce the big screen version of this… So read it before I do!
The problem with so many modern books is that they’re about nothing, and just try to reassure their audience by reinforcing their beliefs about how awful the religious right is, or how awful the Tories are or whatever, whilst never daring to challenge their readers by criticising any real sacred cows. This book, however, is refreshingly not like that and gleefully pokes fun at one of the major orthodoxies of our age, the idea that atheism, rationalism and scepticism are, ironically enough, not to be questioned or challenged. It seems that there’s now an established trend for a form of atheism/skepticism whose followers fail to see the irony in how they have themselves become barely distinguishable from the religions they claim superiority over yet end up emulating far more closely than they realise, sharing their dogma, their lack of self-criticism, the groupthink, and sometimes even the rituals. A few years ago I read an article about people in North London who have taken this to an extreme by holding church-style Sunday services where they have readings and sing songs from non-religious sources (which to me sounds like hell on earth), in perhaps a perfect example of how they’ve more or less become identical to the thing they consider themselves superior to. Those are the sort of people this book was probably written to bait, so I hope they read this book and get quite annoyed by it!
So Richard Dawkins is very much one of the figureheads of this movement and it therefore follows that he makes an excellent target for criticizing it. I do respect some of his work but it’s hard to deny that like his fellow sceptic James Randi he’s become so stuck in a particular world view at the exclusion of anyone who doesn’t absolutely agree with him that he’s ended up, in a sense, becoming just as much a fundamentalist about his own dogma as many of the religious zealots he’s always attacking, which is one of this book’s recurring themes. He’s a brutal rationalist who refuses to accept the validity or even existence of emotions as they can’t be explained by science, so therefore sees his wife as nothing more than a collection of cells who he would be entitled to eat once she dies, and his relationship with her as based on nothing more than convenience, and at one point wishes to go into an infant school and dissect a puppy in front of the children ‘so they can see how their pets work’.
Anyway, as a summary of the plot, this sees Dawkins and his assistant heading to a small village in the countryside so that Dawkins can give a talk, only for them to be stranded by snow and end up staying with a vicar and his wife, for whom Dawkins has nothing but utter contempt. What then follows is a culture clash between their traditional way of life and his brutally materialist and reductionist worldview where he sees anyone other than him as being so stupid as to not even be worth engaging with. The people in the village soon come to assume that as Dawkins is a scientist he must be an expert in every field, so come to him with any problem they have, ranging from a cat needing assistance during a complicated birth (where, upon arriving, Dawkins ponders whether to just put it out of its misery by running it through a mangle seeing as how it is just a collection of cells) to an old man asking for advice about a drooping pot plant that leads to a misunderstanding where Dawkins believes he is being asked for advice on erectile dysfunction so asks the unfortunate man to show him his failing member. (Actually, now I think about it, I suppose the point here is that no scientist, including Dawkins, can possibly hope to comprehend the entirety of science so in that sense no one is an expert in anything other than their own, fairly narrow, field, which is to say Dawkins may be an evolutionary biologist but he’s not an astrophysicist or a palaeontologist or whatever.)
And as well as the mix-up with the old man there are a great many other funny parts, such as when Dawkins is invited to turn on the town’s Christmas lights because the weather means TV’s Mr Tumble is unable to make it, and uses the opportunity to give a speech on why infanticide up until the age of one should be legal, only to nearly be upstaged when Mr Tumble unexpectedly arrives so Dawkins threatens the mayor with legal action should he not be allowed to proceed with his speech. There’s an ongoing joke that gets funnier with repetition whereby Dawkins splutters that there’s no more proof for the existence of god than there is for ‘a goblin with a purple face!’, and I particular enjoyed the bit where he concedes his view of this could theoretically change if a fossil were ever discovered of a goblin… with a purple face!
And despite the protagonist obviously being based on the real Richard Dawkins, he’s actually a classic, well-rounded comedy character in his own right, with his own catchphrases and a fully-formed personality. I also rather enjoyed the more surreal elements, such as how the Professor has an assistant simply named ‘Smee’, which is actually a name he gives to each of his assistants upon them taking up the role. And whilst I won’t spoil the twist for you it’s really quite brilliant, and I never saw it coming, and it also cleverly sidesteps the supposed legal issues that book was at some point said to potentially face.
(Oh, and here’s a funny thing: I’d read Rhodes’ first few books in the early-2000s then for whatever reason not really kept up with his later stuff until Private Eye decided they didn’t approve of his work, first of all smugly mocking the idea that this book was at risk of the real Dawkins suing him over it, and then doing a predictable hatchet job on his most recent book, Sour Grapes. Well, as a result of that, I learnt about this book and not only bought a copy for me but one for my brother too! So, basically, a couple of smug features in Private Eye have led to me buying several copies of Rhodes’ work, and Sour Grapes is very much going to be the next book I read. Anyway, does Private Eye really know that much about comedy? Don’t get me wrong, it does a lot of excellent and important investigatory journalism that far surpasses anything the newspapers ever do, and many of its cartoons are funny, but those are far outweighed by the many unfunny ones, and you can never quite shake the suspicion that at its heart it’s a gravy train to give easy employment for untalented and entitled public schoolboys (see the never-funny Craig Brown, the strips that appear in every issue and basically just repeat the same ‘joke’ (Supermodels, Celeb, It’s Grim Up North London) or the awful Andy Capp parody that is only three panels yet inexplicably takes THREE people to produce…).
By way of conclusion I’d like to say that this is the funniest book I’ve ever read. And if you think that’s probably me overstating it, or that it’s hyperbole or over-enthusiasm then I’d like to prove my hypothesis and demonstrate my working by using the kind of reasoning and evidence-based rational thinking that would surely make Dawkins himself proud. Purely and simply, the way you measure whether something is funny is if you laugh at it or not. And logically following on from that, the more you laugh at something, the funnier it must be. And I laughed more when reading this book than I had when reading any other so, by a logical process of deduction, that makes it the ‘funniest book I have ever read’. You see? As Stewart Lee would say, I ‘laughed out loud’ a lot when reading this. And if I ever win the lottery the first thing I’ll do is set up a film production company to produce the big screen version of this… So read it before I do!
March 12, 2023
My partner read this, having heard about it in Private Eye. The Eye article was of particular interest as it was all about whether or not Richard Dawkins (who is sort of fictionalized and parodied in this) would take legal action over it, and Rhodes apparently took a sort of ‘publish and be damned’ approach, even though his usual publisher apparently didn’t want to risk publishing this. So that raises an interesting question about free speech: do we have it, or as society gets more and more easily offended, will we see new examples of things like the Lady Chatterley Trial, with actual novels being the subject of legal action due to their content?
Anyway, this book is very refreshing. From the aforementioned Private Eye piece I believe Rhodes self-published it for the first run before it was picked up, which I think is interesting because it really has the feel of the personal vision of a unique mind who doesn’t care what anyone else thinks and, crucially, has not had all the life and soul torn out of it by a group-thinking book editor at a major publishing house. So, basically, what I’m saying here is that the oft-derided practice of self-publishing, which the industry and critics always sniffily claim is a sign that an author’s work is not good enough to be ‘properly’ published can in some cases lead to books being brought out that are far better than they would be as a publisher would invariably have diluted or even neutered them and made sure they only expressed the same old predictable sentiments you get in 99% of books.
To summarise the book, Richard Dawkins is invited to a village to deliver a speech on atheism (what else?!) only to get stuck there after a heavy snowstorm. The villagers are all friendly and very welcoming, but he ends up being put up by the local vicar and his wife, so has to reconcile this with his fundamentalist view of religions. But it’s very funny: I don’t normally laugh at books, but did at this. There are some almost Carry On-style moments, as well as deeper satire about the nature of religion and free speech. The Dawkins character is particularly well-drawn, with his reductionist and materialist view of the world so unshakeable that he refuses to feel any emotion for his ‘latest wife’, merely referring to her as a collection of cells, over whose death he would feel nothing.
In a world where very few writers dare to actually say anything unless it’s what they know their readers want to hear, the few people who actually have an original and funny vision, and stick to it, should be applauded, and Dan Rhodes is clearly one of those. He’s not afraid to challenge the liberal orthodoxies that, despite us supposedly living in a society that cherishes free speech, you’re not actually allowed to question and will be attacked if you do.
Anyway, this book is very refreshing. From the aforementioned Private Eye piece I believe Rhodes self-published it for the first run before it was picked up, which I think is interesting because it really has the feel of the personal vision of a unique mind who doesn’t care what anyone else thinks and, crucially, has not had all the life and soul torn out of it by a group-thinking book editor at a major publishing house. So, basically, what I’m saying here is that the oft-derided practice of self-publishing, which the industry and critics always sniffily claim is a sign that an author’s work is not good enough to be ‘properly’ published can in some cases lead to books being brought out that are far better than they would be as a publisher would invariably have diluted or even neutered them and made sure they only expressed the same old predictable sentiments you get in 99% of books.
To summarise the book, Richard Dawkins is invited to a village to deliver a speech on atheism (what else?!) only to get stuck there after a heavy snowstorm. The villagers are all friendly and very welcoming, but he ends up being put up by the local vicar and his wife, so has to reconcile this with his fundamentalist view of religions. But it’s very funny: I don’t normally laugh at books, but did at this. There are some almost Carry On-style moments, as well as deeper satire about the nature of religion and free speech. The Dawkins character is particularly well-drawn, with his reductionist and materialist view of the world so unshakeable that he refuses to feel any emotion for his ‘latest wife’, merely referring to her as a collection of cells, over whose death he would feel nothing.
In a world where very few writers dare to actually say anything unless it’s what they know their readers want to hear, the few people who actually have an original and funny vision, and stick to it, should be applauded, and Dan Rhodes is clearly one of those. He’s not afraid to challenge the liberal orthodoxies that, despite us supposedly living in a society that cherishes free speech, you’re not actually allowed to question and will be attacked if you do.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 112 reviews