Bright Young Things discussion

I was wondering how you would feel about a nomination for....





Karl Marx by Francis Wheen

Whilst Marx was not alive during our era he cast such a huge shadow on the BYT era (and beyond) that it feels like it could be a great book to read and discuss.

What do you think?

We have previously discussed Madame de Pompadour by Nancy Mitford which was similarly not written during, or about a person from, the BYT era.

As for the book itself, it sounds absolutely brilliant....

A major biography of the man who, more than any other, made the twentieth century. Written by an author of great repute. The history of the 20th century is Marx's legacy. Not since Jesus Christ has an obscure pauper inspired such global devotion - or been so calamitously misinterpreted.

There have been many thousands of books on Marxism, but almost all are written by academics and zealots for whom it is a near blaspemy to treat him as a figure of flesh and blood. In the past few years there have been excellent and successful biographies of many eminent Victorians and yet the most influential of them has remained untouched.

In this book Francis Wheen, for the first time, presents Marx the man in all his brilliance and frailty - as a poverty-stricken Prussian emigre who became a middle-class English gentleman; as an angry agitator who spent much of his adult life in scholarly silence in the British Museum Reading Room; as a gregarious and convivial host who fell out with almost all his friends; as a devoted family man who impregnated his housemaid; as a deeply earnest philosopher who loved drink, cigars and jokes.

And here's a review from the Guardian...

This book created such a stir when it came out that I feel I hardly have to summarize it. Still, here it is: the warts-and-all, lively and highly readable biography of the man whose self-proclaimed heirs shaped half the 20th century. Wheen's technique will be familiar to readers of his column in this paper: respect for the facts, determination to stick up for what one believes in, an instinctive and, I must add, wholly appropriate distrust of those with a right-wing agenda; and a certain matiness of tone at which some readers might raise an eyebrow, as it is, at times, more matey than his Guardian column. For example: Marx may have said that philosophers have interpreted the world, but "the point is to change it", yet Wheen remarks: "Nevertheless, Marx and Engels proceeded to spend the winter of 1845-6 theorising like billy-o as they composed their German Ideology."

You will also find rum coves, boobies, squiffy letters written after lunch and scallywags. Well, this is his way. He more or less directly signposts his influences when discussing Henry Hyndman, the Eton and Trinity-educated socialist who made Marx's last years more of a trial than they already were. "There is more than a trace of him", Wheen writes, "in PG Wodehouse's character Psmith, who converted to Marxism when he was expelled from Eton... thereafter he addressed everyone as 'Comrade'."

Personally, I think Comrade Wheen has done a fine job, and if it takes the shade of PGW to help him on his way then so be it. The key phrase in the first paragraph is "highly readable", for to resurrect Marx for the average reader is to do humanity a favour in both the long and short runs. There were one or two reviewers who despaired that Wheen reduced so much of Marx's political and philosophical thought to what amounts to not much more than the literary equivalent of a thumbs-up; but (a) this is preferable to a thumbs-down, and (b) it will send readers off to the original texts. (Not to mention to Martin Rowson's remarkable cartoon book, Scenes from the Lives of the Great Socialists , in which the pun-laden escapades of Marx and Engels will be seen to have more relation to reality than previously supposed.)

"Rowdiness and blackguardism," wrote Marx in an editorial for the Rheinische Zeitung, "must be loudly and resolutely repudiated in a period which demands serious, manly, and sober-minded persons for the achievement of its lofty aims." A few years later, he was smashing gas-lamps and being chased by the police after an epic pub-crawl up the Tottenham Court Road; while borrowing money from his baker, he would also complain of exiled revolutionaries who never had jobs; long resident in London, he would regularly despair of the workers' failure to do anything momentous with their discontent ("these thick-headed John Bulls, whose brainpans seem to have been specially manufactured for the constables' bludgeons").

Wheen's Marx is a loveable old rogue (Engels emerges as a long-suffering hero); he may have been hypocritical in the kind of minor details that intellectual pipsqueaks like Paul Johnson make so much of; he may have been a hector and an intellectual bully - there was a reason why there were only 11 mourners at his funeral - but he was also charming, funny, and a devoted father. It is this last that I find such an affecting detail, and one that is lovingly treated by Wheen; as for the old man's death, I found myself wiping away a tear, and I dare say I wasn't the only reader to do that.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2000...

What do you think?

Specifically...

a) do you think it would be an appropriate nomination?

b) how interested are you in reading and discussing it?

What do you think?

Specifically...

a) do you think it would be an appropriate nomination? I'm not sure. It's true we read Mitford's Pompadour, but at least Nancy Mitford was in general a BYT era author/personality. And as you recall, there WAS a lot of brouhaha about reading that. With this book, Wheen is clearly not BYT era and Marx wasn't either, so that leaves the question of influence. Certainly Marxism was hugely important during our period. I could go either way on whether or not this is an appropriate nomination.

b) how interested are you in reading and discussing it? This question is easier. I'm VERY interested in reading and discussing it. In fact, thanks to you, I just ordered a kindle copy. I know shockingly little about Marx and reading this book sounds like the perfect cure for that. If nothing else, we could do a hot read....

Thanks so much for this suggestion!

Thanks Barbara. Great to know you're up for reading it. And I accept and understand your reservations about its eligibility.

I agree with Barbara. Marx's influence was important in the BYT timeframe but Marx's life was outside it, and I am very interested in reading the book despite the timeframe reservations.

Well if the Nancy Mitford book was accepted, why not this? would be up for reading this book Nigeyb. Thanks for the recommendation!

Great news. Thanks Val. Thanks Roisin.

I disagree. And should it be selected I will probably pass.

A number of philosophers had a big impact on the period. Should we be reading biographies on them when neither they nor their biographers were active in the subject period?

So partly I disagree because of the lack of actual connection to the period and partly on a lack of interest in his life, which it seems is the focus of the biography and not his philosophy or work. Even if it was, I still wouldn't want to read it.

Thanks Jan - all good points, well made


I made similar points when we were discussing whether to allow the nomination for Madame de Pompadour by Nancy Mitford. Having thought about what Ally and others said then, about being flexible about eligibility, I subsequently concluded being flexible has many benefits.

I have been an active member of BYT since 2012. I am fascinated by the era. Some of the books we have read have piqued my interest in the decades before our era, and the decades afterwards. Everything is interconnected.

We can either just go deeper and deeper into the 45 years between 1900 and 1945, or we can go deeper and wider, enhancing our understanding of the years between 1900 and 1945 by discussing what preceded it and, perhaps, even what came after, for example the Cold War was a consequence of the decisions made during our era.

Not only does Karl Marx by Francis Wheen sound like a lively and highly readable biography containing much to discuss, it would also, I hope, help us to better understand important aspects of what happened between 1900 and 1945. The history of the 20th century is Marx's legacy, and his self-proclaimed heirs shaped half the 20th century. Communism and Fascism cast enormous shadows over our era and so an opportunity to discuss, and better understand, the creator of Marxism should enhance many of our discussions of the BYT era.

Yes interesting points Jan and Nigeyb. Things to consider.

Roisin wrote: "Things to consider."


Cue collective chin stroking

I wonder (more chin stroking) what Ally and Jennifer, our moderators, have to say.....

I'm minded to do the Marx book as a Hot Read as it doesn't strictly meet the criteria but there is clearly some interest and, as mentioned in the war thread, nominate Ardennes 1944: Hitler's Last Gamble by Antony Beevor for the official January 2016 non-fiction read. That should keep everyone happy.

Please let me know what you think.

Sounds like the perfect solution.

^ Thanks again Barbara. I'll do that then unless someone comes up with a better suggestion.

Barbara wrote: "I wonder (more chin stroking) what Ally and Jennifer, our moderators, have to say....."

I can't speak for Ally, but I've been watching...

^ It would be good to get some more views on the general idea. I made similar points to Jan when we were discussing whether to allow the nomination for Madame de Pompadour by Nancy Mitford. Having thought about what Ally and others said then, about being flexible about eligibility, I subsequently concluded being flexible has many benefits.

As I say above, we can either just go deeper and deeper into the 45 years between 1900 and 1945, or we can go deeper and wider, enhancing our understanding of the years between 1900 and 1945 by discussing what preceded it and, perhaps, even what came after, especially when there is a connection to the era we focus on.

I've actually considered nominating a book on Marx, myself, so I can't say the idea is foreign to me. (I personally was looking at Karl Marx: A Nineteenth-Century Life) As the moderator, though, I think it makes much more sense to put it up as a hot read.

When this group first started, we did include books well outside of our range. It was decided that we wanted to keep this group more focused and people could (and should) read beyond our time and join other groups for a wider view*. That said, we can certainly change again and put up some threads for outside influences. As the moderator, I'm here to lead the group in whatever directions we want to go. I just want to make sure that we don't get so swept up in these outside influences that we forget our main area of focus.


*As related to Marx, I did find this group on the 19th century: https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...

Or this group discussing philosophy: https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...

That's very interesting and helpful Jennifer - and I agree with all that you say.

I hadn't realised that the group was originally less focussed than it is now.

Whatever direction we decide to go in, I think you're absolutely right that the core focus should remain the 45 years between 1900 and 1945. So far it seems to me that the majority view is that, like with Madame de Pompadour, by exception we allow a bit of flexibility. Ultimately if sufficient people aren't interested then a book won't win the poll anyway.

On balance I think the books that fall outside the strict 1900 and 1945 timeframe are probably best done as hot reads.

I must admit I am not drawn to joining lots of BYT groups as it becomes too much of a commitment. I prefer to be active in a few rather than an occasional contributor in lots. And, of course, the regulars here are so lovely that I'd also rather discuss books with you, even if they may sometimes fall out of the timeframe, than try to have a discussion with people I don't know in other groups.

By the by, the last update in that 19th Century group was November 2014.

Nigeyb wrote: "I must admit I am not drawn to joining lots of BYT groups as it becomes too much of a commitment. I prefer to be active in a few rather than an occasional contributor in lots. And, of course, the regulars here are so lovely that I'd also rather discuss books with you, even if they may sometimes fall out of the timeframe, than try to have a discussion with people I don't know in other groups.

By the by, the last update in that 19th Century group was November 2014...."

It's understandable, lots of groups means lots of time. And we do have a pretty rocking core of participants!

I did notice that about the 19th Century group. From experience (as I also moderate another group that has had participation fall off), they might like some fresh new blood with some fresh new ideas!

I thought when I read your first message that this would work better (at least in my mind) as a hot read (although I couldn't think of the term hot read at the time).

Hmm? *collective chin stroking* : )

What is the criteria for a 'hot read' by the way?

I don't know if there is one.

Roisin wrote: "What is the criteria for a 'hot read' by the way?"


This is what is in the original post...

Jennifer W wrote: "Hi everyone! Ally and I have decided to give another venue to discuss books. If there's any book that is set or takes place in the years from 1900-1945, this is the place to discuss it! If there's a book you love and want to share the love, start a new thread. If there's a book you want to read but need some support, ask for a buddy or two to join you. If there was a close second in the voting for group reads, start up a secondary read here! "

..but the suggestion is to occasionally extend the years if it feels appropriate or relevant in some way - and of course there are people interested in joining in.

Nancy Mitford's biographies (and her most famous novels) were written outside the years 1900-1945, but the debate about whether the Pompadour book should be included or not was held after it had already been nominated and was about removing it. There is a big difference between allowing a nomination which does not really meet the group's criteria and censoring a nomination already made.
Marx is obviously more relevant to the twentieth century than a million kings' mistresses, but, since you are raising the question now instead of after making the nomination, his biography would still be better as a hot read.

Thanks Val, sagely and helpful as ever.

Val wrote: "Marx is obviously more relevant to the twentieth century than a million kings' mistresses, but .... his biography would still be better as a hot read."

That seems to be the emerging consensus. Thanks again.

Jennifer W wrote: "the 19th Century group ... might like some fresh new blood with some fresh new ideas! "


I'm not really interested in reading much about the 19th Century - though never say never - however I have followed your advice and put a post in the group about Karl Marx by Francis Wheento see what happens. I'll let you know.

I'll also set up a hot read here sometime in the next few weeks.

Roisin wrote: "What is the criteria for a 'hot read' by the way?"

At the time, there was flagging interest in the main group reads, so to get more participation, we set that up to give people another venue. Basically, any BYT's related book you're "burning" to read!

Ahh, then perhaps it would be better as a hot read then. Sounds like a good idea.

^ Thanks Roisin - I hope you feel inspired to join in

Yep! I'm keen to read it.

Nigeyb wrote: "I'm not really interested in reading much about the 19th Century - though never say never - however I have followed your advice and put a post in the group about Karl Marx by Francis Wheen to see what happens. I'll let you know."

So far two people have viewed it (one of them is me) and the silence is deafening. I reckon that Nineteenth Century History group is no more, it has ceased to be, expired and gone to meet its maker, it's a stiff, bereft of life, it rests in peace, kicked the bucket etc etc. It's an ex-group.

Whilst Marx was not alive during our era he cast such a huge shadow on the BYT era (and beyond) that it feels like Karl Marx by Francis Wheen could be a great book to read and discuss….


Barbara wrote: "I'm VERY interested in reading and discussing Karl Marx by Francis Wheen. In fact, thanks to you, I just ordered a kindle copy. I know shockingly little about Marx and reading this book sounds like the perfect cure for that. If nothing else, we could do a hot read...."

Val wrote: "I agree with Barbara. Marx's influence was important in the BYT timeframe but Marx's life was outside it, and I am very interested in reading the book despite the timeframe reservations."

Jennifer W wrote: "I've actually considered nominating a book on Marx, myself, so I can't say the idea is foreign to me. As the moderator, though, I think it makes much more sense to put it up as a hot read. "

Jan C wrote: “….this would work better as a hot read."

Roisin wrote: "Yep! I'm keen to read it."

Thanks so much for your enthusiasm and interest

Nigeyb wrote: "I'll set up a hot read for Karl Marx by Francis Wheen sometime in the next few weeks."

And now, here it is…

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Please come join what promises to be a very interesting and enjoyable discussion

I'll start reading it in a couple of days. Looking forward to it.

^ Hurrah. I look forward to your thoughts Barbara