Clive James is a man of many talents - many more than most people are capable of having in the department of talents. Here he puts into written form the scripts of about 60 10-minute radio broadcasts delivered for the BBC over the period 2007-2009. These pieces are carefully considered views (more or less) on a very wide range of topics which, when you remember that 60 is a very big number in this context, is not easy.
To do so, he draws on the following: Experience, wit (sometimes charm), a strong sense of history (including amusing personal history), current affairs, and a highly rounded knowledge base particularly regarding literature, poetry, and journalism. Not many could venture into the minefield of possible ideas on a regular basis over 3 years and do so successfully in terms of holding an audience.
Many of the stories have a highly local (English) flavour - James's home-away-from-(his Australian)-home for many decades. To this extent, it does help to have reasonable knowledge of English events, including especially political ones, but it's not a deal breaker...and a little internet searching can always set the scene better if it comes to that for a particular story.
How does he go? Pretty well. Most of the stories are topical in a broad and useful sense, wherever in the English-speaking world you live. Wit holds many of the stories together even if the arguments are not always clear, or strong.
I'm a bit biased against Clive James though, I think. His status in Britain is near iconic, as it is in Australia because, as an Australian, he made such a name for himself overseas. (In that sense, his success feeds into Australians' sense of inferiority on the world stage). These feelings of (near) worship, however, aren't ones I share. I like his work but have never been enraptured by it (with the exception of his first autobiography, Unreliable Memoirs, which is very funny - sometimes hysterical).
The biggest downer of the book is his polemical, near-hysterical outbursts about global warming not being man-made. These are repeatedly stated both in the broadcasts (2007-2009) and in the postcripts inserted for publication (2011). Some historical perspective is perhaps needed here in that it might (I use "might" advisedly) be barely justifiable during this time period to hold a strong, cogent argument that it's all ballyhoo. But it's a real stretch, frankly.
In any event, he argues very poorly from start to finish on this issue: Personal attacks, consipracy theories about the press on a world scale, and retributive remarks about the science and scientists (many of whom he also claims are conspiring) are just not going to cut it. And it was so remarkably out of character with all the other discussions and arguments that he put together on so many topics that it was baffling to the point of embarrassing. James died in 2019. I'd really like to know if he remained, right to the end, as curmudgeonly on this issue as he shows in these broadcasts/book or if, in the light of the increasing avalanche of evidence, he was able to change his mind.
3 stars. If he'd avoided this topic, 4.