A  /  B  /  C  /  D  /  E  /   F  /  G  /  H  /  I  /  J  /   K  /  L  /  M  /  N  /  O   P  /  R  /  S  /  T  /  U  /  V  /  W  /  X  /  Y  /  Z

Tales And Novels, Volume 1 by Maria Edgeworth

M >> Maria Edgeworth >> Tales And Novels, Volume 1

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37



"Go to bed for to-night in my house," said Dr. Campbell; "moderate your
enthusiasm, and reflect coolly upon what has passed."

Dr. Campbell, as Forester indignantly withdrew, said, with a benevolent
smile, as he looked after him, "He wants nothing but a little common
sense. Henry, you must give him a little of yours."

In the morning, Forester first went to inquire how the dancing-master had
slept, and then knocked impatiently at Dr. Campbell's door.

"My father is not awake," said Henry; but Forester marched directly up to
the side of the bed, and, drawing back the curtain with no gentle hand,
cried, with a loud voice, "Dr. Campbell, I am come to beg your pardon. I
was angry when I said you were unjust."

"And I was asleep when you begged my pardon," said Dr. Campbell, rubbing
his eyes.

"The dancing-master's ankle is a great deal better; and I have buried the
poor cat," pursued Forester: "and I hope now, doctor, you'll at least
tell me, that you do not really suspect me of any hand in her death."

"Pray let me go to sleep," said Dr. Campbell, "and _time_ your
explanations a little better."



THE GERANIUM.


The dancing-master gradually recovered from his sprain; and Forester
spent all his pocket-money in buying a new violin for him, as his had
been broken in his fall; his watch had likewise been broken against the
stone steps. Though Forester looked upon a watch as a useless bauble, yet
he determined to get this mended; and his friend Henry went with him for
this purpose to a watchmaker's.

Whilst Henry Campbell and Forester were consulting with the watchmaker
upon the internal state of the bruised watch, Archibald Mackenzie, who
followed them _for a lounge_, was looking over some new watches, and
ardently wished for the finest that he saw. As he was playing with this
fine watch, the watchmaker begged that he would take care not to break
it.

Archibald, in the insolent tone in which he was used to speak to a
_tradesman_, replied, that if he did break it, he hoped he was able to
pay for it. The watchmaker civilly answered, "he had no doubt of that,
but that the watch was not his property; it was Sir Philip Gosling's, who
would call for it, he expected, in a quarter of an hour."

At the name of Sir Philip Gosling, Archibald quickly changed his tone: he
had a great ambition to be of Sir Philip's acquaintance, for Sir Philip
was a young man who was to have a large fortune when he should come of
age, and who, in the meantime, spent as much of it as possible, with
great _spirit_ and little judgment. He had been sent to Edinburgh for his
education; and he spent his time in training horses, laying bets,
parading in the public walks, and ridiculing, or, in his own phrase,
_quizzing_ every sensible young man, who applied to literature or
science. Sir Philip, whenever he frequented any of the professor's
classes, took care to make it evident to every body present, that he did
not come there to learn, and that he looked down with contempt upon all
who were _obliged_ to study; he was the first always to make any
disturbance in the classes, or, in his elegant language, _to make a row_.

This was the youth of whose acquaintance Archibald Mackenzie was
ambitious. He stayed in the shop, in hopes that Sir Philip would arrive:
he was not disappointed; Sir Philip came, and, with address which lady
Catherine would perhaps have admired, Archibald entered into conversation
with the young baronet, if conversation that might be called, which
consisted of a species of fashionable dialect, devoid of sense, and
destitute of any pretence to wit. To Forester this dialect was absolutely
unintelligible: after he had listened to it with sober contempt for a few
minutes, he pulled Henry away, saying, "Come, don't let us waste our time
here; let us go to the brewery that you promised to show me."

Henry did not immediately yield to the rough pull of his indignant
friend, for at this instant the door of a little back parlour behind the
watchmaker's shop opened slowly, and a girl of about seven years old
appeared, carrying, with difficulty, a flower-pot, in which there was a
fine large geranium in full flower. Henry, who saw that the child was
scarcely able to carry it, took it out of her hands, and asked her,
"Where she would like to have it put?"

"Here, for to-day!" said the little girl, sorrowfully; "but to-morrow it
goes away for ever."

The little girl was sorry to part with this geranium, because "she had
watched it all the winter," and said, "that she was very fond of it; but
that she was willing to part with it, though it was just come into
flower, because the apothecary had told her, that it was the cause of her
grandmother's having been taken ill. Her grandmother lodged," she said,
"in _that_ little room, and the room was very close, and she was taken
ill in the night--so ill, that she could hardly speak or stir; and when
the apothecary came, he said," continued the little girl, "it was no
wonder any body was ill, who slept in such a little close room, with such
a great geranium in it, _to poison the air_. So my geranium must go!"
concluded she with a sigh: "but, as it is for grandmother, I shall never
think of it again."

Henry Campbell and Forester were both struck with the modest simplicity
of this child's countenance and manner, and they were pleased with the
unaffected generosity with which she gave up her favourite geranium.
Forester noted this down in his mind as a fresh instance in favour of his
_exclusive_ good opinion of the poor. This little girl looked poor,
though she was decently dressed; she was so thin, that her little
cheek-bones could plainly be seen; her face had not the round, rosy
beauty of cheerful health: she was pale and sallow, and she looked in
patient misery. Moved with compassion, Forester regretted that he had no
money to give where it might have been so well bestowed. He was always
_extravagant_ in his generosity; he would often give five guineas where
five shillings would have been enough, and by these means he reduced
himself to the necessity sometimes of refusing assistance to deserving
objects. On his journey from his father's house to Edinburgh, he
lavished, in undistinguishing charity, a considerable sum of money; and
all that he had remaining of this money he spent in purchasing the new
violin for M. Pasgrave. Dr. Campbell absolutely refused to advance his
ward any money till his next quarterly allowance should become due.
Henry, who always perceived quickly what passed in the minds of others,
guessed at Forester's thoughts by his countenance, and forebore to
produce his own money, though he had it just ready in his hand: he knew
that he could call again at the watchmaker's, and give what he pleased,
without ostentation.

Upon questioning the little girl further, concerning her grandmother's
illness, Henry discovered, that the old woman had sat up late at night
knitting, and that, feeling herself extremely cold, she got a pan of
charcoal into her room; that, soon afterwards, she felt uncommonly
drowsy; and when her little grand-daughter spoke to her, and asked her
why she did not come to bed, she made no answer: a few minutes after
this, she dropped from her chair. The child was extremely frightened, and
though she felt it very difficult to rouse herself, she said, she got up
as fast as she could, opened the door, and called to the watchmaker's
wife, who luckily had been at work late, and was now raking the kitchen
fire. With her assistance the old woman was brought into the air, and
presently returned to her senses: the pan of charcoal had been taken away
before the apothecary came in the morning; as he was in a great hurry
when he called, he made but few inquiries, and consequently condemned the
geranium without sufficient evidence. As he left the house, he carelessly
said, "My wife would like that geranium, I think." And the poor old
woman, who had but a very small fee to offer, was eager to give any thing
that seemed to please the _doctor_.

Forester, when he heard this story, burst into a contemptuous exclamation
against the meanness of this and of all other apothecaries. Henry
informed the little girl, that the charcoal had been the cause of her
grandmother's illness, and advised them never, upon any account, to keep
a pan of charcoal again in her bedchamber; he told her, that many people
had been killed by this practice. "Then," cried the little girl,
joyfully, "if it was the charcoal, and not the geranium, that made
grandmother ill, I may keep my beautiful geranium:" and she ran
immediately to gather some of the flowers, which she offered to Henry and
to Forester. Forester, who was still absorbed in the contemplation of the
apothecary's meanness, took the flowers, without perceiving that he took
them, and pulled them to pieces as he went on thinking. Henry, when the
little girl held the geraniums up to him, observed, that the back of her
hand was bruised and black; he asked her how she had hurt herself, and
she replied innocently, "that she had not hurt _herself_, but that her
schoolmistress was a very _strict_ woman." Forester, roused from his
reverie, desired to hear what the little girl meant by a _strict_ woman,
and she explained herself more fully: she said, that, as a favour, her
grandmother had obtained leave from some great lady to send her to a
charity school: that she went there every day to learn to read and work,
but that the mistress of the charity school used her scholars very
severely, and often kept them for hours, after they had done their own
_tasks_, to spin for her; and that she beat them if they did not spin as
much as she expected. The little girl's grandmother then said, that she
knew all this, but that she did not dare to complain, because the
schoolmistress was under the patronage of some of "the grandest ladies in
Edinburgh," and that, as she could not afford to pay for her little
lass's schooling, she was forced to have her taught as well as she could
_for nothing_.

Forester, fired with indignation at this history of injustice, resolved,
at all events, to stand forth immediately in the child's defence; but,
without staying to consider how the wrong could be redressed, he thought
only of the quickest, or, as he said, the most manly means of doing the
business: he declared, that if the little girl would show him the way to
the school, he would go that instant and speak to the woman in the midst
of all her scholars. Henry in vain represented that this would not he a
prudent mode of proceeding.

Forester disdained prudence, and, trusting securely to the power of his
own eloquence, he set out with the child, who seemed rather afraid to
come to open war with her tyrant. Henry was obliged to return home to his
father, who had usually business for him to do about this time. The
little girl had stayed at home on account of her grandmother's illness,
but all the other scholars were hard at work, spinning in a close room,
when Forester arrived.

He marched directly into the schoolroom. The wheels stopped at once on
his appearance, and the schoolmistress, a raw-boned, intrepid-looking
woman eyed him with amazement: he broke silence in the following words:--

"Vile woman, your injustice is come to light! How can you dare to
tyrannize over these poor children? Is it because they are poor? Take my
advice, children, resist this tyrant, put by your wheels, and spin for
her no more."

The children did not move, and the schoolmistress poured out a torrent of
abuse in broad Scotch, which, to the English ear of Forester, was
unintelligible. At length she made him comprehend her principal
questions--Who he was? and by whose authority he interfered between her
and her scholars? "By nobody's authority," was Forester's answer; "I want
no authority to speak in the cause of injured innocence." No sooner had
the woman heard these words, than she called to her husband, who was
writing in an adjoining room: without further ceremony, they both seized
upon our hero, and turned him out of the house.

The woman revenged herself without mercy upon the little girl whom
Forester had attempted to defend, and dismissed her, with advice never
more to complain of being obliged to spin for her mistress.

Mortified by the ill success of his enterprise, Forester returned home,
attributing the failure of his eloquence chiefly to his ignorance of the
Scotch dialect.



THE CANARY BIRD


At his return, Forester heard, that all Dr. Campbell's family were going
that evening to visit a gentleman who had an excellent cabinet of
minerals. He had some desire to see the fossils; but when he came to the
gentleman's house, he soon found himself disturbed at the praises
bestowed by some ladies in company upon a little canary bird, which
belonged to the mistress of the house. He began to kick his feet
together, to hang first one arm and then the other over the back of his
chair, with the obvious expression of impatience and contempt in his
countenance. Henry Campbell, in the meantime, said, without any
embarrassment, just what he thought about the bird. Archibald Mackenzie,
with artificial admiration, said a vast deal more than he thought, in
hopes of effectually recommending himself to the lady of the house. The
lady told him the history of three birds, which had successively
inhabited the cage before the present occupier. "They all died,"
continued she, "in a most _extraordinary_ manner, one after another, in a
short space of time, in convulsions."

"Don't listen," whispered Forester, pulling Henry away from the crowd who
surrounded the bird-cage; "how can you listen, like that polite
hypocrite, to this foolish woman's history of her _extraordinary_
favourites? Come down-stairs with me, I want to tell you my adventure
with the schoolmistress; we can take a turn in the hall, and come back
before the cabinet of minerals is opened, and before these women have
finished the ceremony of tea. Come."

"I'll come presently," said Henry; "I really want to hear this."

Henry Campbell was not listening to the history of the lady's favourite
birds like a polite hypocrite, but like a good-natured sensible person;
the circumstances recalled to his memory the conversation that we
formerly mentioned, which began about pickled cucumbers, and ended with
Dr. Campbell's giving an account of the effects of some poisons. In
consequence of this conversation, Henry's attention had been turned to
the subject, and he had read several essays, which had informed him of
many curious facts. He recollected, in particular, to have met with the
account[2] of a bird that had been poisoned, and whose case bore a
strong resemblance to the present. He begged leave to examine the cage,
in order to discover whether there were any lead about it, with which the
birds could have poisoned themselves. No lead was to be found: he next
examined whether there were any white or green paint about it; he
inquired whence the water came which the birds had drunk; and he examined
the trough which held their seeds. The lady, whilst he was pursuing these
inquiries, said she was sure that the birds could not have died either
for want of air or exercise, for that she often left the cage open on
purpose, that they might fly about the room. Henry immediately looked
round the room, and at length he observed in an inkstand, which stood
upon a writing table, a number of wafers, which were many of them chipped
round the edges; upon sweeping out the bird-cage, he found a few very
small bits of wafer mixed with the seeds and dust; he was now persuaded
that the birds had eaten the wafers, and that they had been poisoned by
the red lead which they contained; he was confirmed in this opinion, by
being told, that the wafers had lately been missed very frequently, and
it had been imagined that they had been used by the servants. Henry
begged the lady would try an experiment, which might probably save the
life of her new favourite; the lady, though she had never before tried an
experiment, was easily prevailed upon. She promised Henry that she would
lock up the wafers; and he prophesied that her bird would not, like his
predecessors, come to an untimely end. Archibald Mackenzie was vexed to
observe, that knowledge had in this instance _succeeded_ better, even
with a lady, than flattery. As for Forester, he would certainly have
admired his friend Henry's ingenuity, if he had been attending to what
had passed; but he had taken a book, and had seated himself in an
arm-chair, which had been placed on purpose for an old gentleman in
company, and was deep in the history of a man who had been cast away,
some hundred years ago, upon a desert island.

[Footnote 2: Falconer, on the Poison of Lead and Copper.]

He condescended, however, to put down his book when the fossils were
produced: and, as if he had just awakened from a dream, rubbed his eyes,
stretched himself, and joined the rest of the company. The malicious
Archibald, who observed that Forester had seated himself, through absence
of mind, in a place which prevented some of the ladies from seeing the
fossils, instantly made a parade of his own politeness, to contrast
himself advantageously with the rude negligence of his companion; but
Archibald's politeness was always particularly directed to the persons in
company whom he thought of the most importance. "You can't see there,"
said Forester, suddenly rousing himself, and observing that Dr.
Campbell's daughter, Miss Flora Campbell, was standing behind him; "had
you not better sit down in this chair? I don't want it, because I can see
over your head; sit down." Archibald smiled at Forester's simplicity, in
paying his awkward compliment to the young lady, who had, according to
his mode of estimating, the least pretensions to notice of any one
present. Flora Campbell was neither rich nor beautiful, but she had a
happy mixture in her manners of Scottish sprightliness and English
reserve. She had an eager desire to improve herself, whilst a nice sense
of propriety taught her never to intrude upon general notice, or to
recede from conversation with airs of counterfeit humility. Forester
admired her abilities, because he imagined that he was the only person
who had ever discovered them; as to her manners, he never observed these,
but even whilst he ridiculed politeness he was anxious to find out what
she thought polite. After he had told her all that he knew concerning the
fossils, as they were produced from the cabinet--and he was far from
ignorant--he at length perceived that she knew full as much of natural
history as he did, and he was surprised that a young lady should know so
much, and should not be conceited. Flora, however, soon sunk many degrees
in his opinion; for, after the cabinet of mineralogy was shut, some of
the company talked of a ball, which was to be given in a few days, and
Flora, with innocent gaiety, said to Forester, "Have you learnt to dance
a Scotch reel since you came to Scotland?" "_I!_" cried Forester with
contempt; "do you think it the height of human perfection to dance a
Scotch reel?--then that fine young laird, Mr. Archibald Mackenzie,
will suit you much better than I shall." And Forester returned to his
arm-chair and his desert island.



THE KEY.


It was unfortunate that Forester retired from company in such abrupt
displeasure at Flora Campbell's question, for had he borne the idea of a
Scotch reel more like a philosopher, he would have heard of something
interesting relative to the intended ball, if any thing relative to a
ball could be interesting to him. It was a charity-ball, for the benefit
of the mistress of the very charity-school[3] to which the little girl
with the bruised hand belonged. "Do you know," said Henry to Forester,
when they returned home, "that I have great hopes we shall be able to get
justice done to the poor children? I hope the tyrannical schoolmistress
may yet be punished. The lady, with whom we drank tea yesterday is one of
the patronesses of the charity-school."

[Footnote 3: There is no charity-school of this description in Edinburgh;
this cannot, therefore, be mistaken for private satire.]

"Lady patronesses!" cried Forester; "we need not expect justice from a
lady patroness, depend upon it, especially at a ball; her head will be
full of feathers, or some such things. I prophesy you will not succeed
better than I have."

The desponding prophecies of Forester did not deter Henry from pursuing a
scheme which he had formed. The lady, who was the mistress of the canary
bird, came in a few days to visit his mother, and she told him that his
experiment had succeeded, that she had regularly locked up the wafers,
and that her favourite bird was in perfect health. "And what fee,
doctor," said she, smiling, "shall I give you for saving his life?"

"I will tell you in a few minutes," replied Henry; and in a few minutes
the little girl and her geranium were sent for, and appeared. Henry told
the lady all the circumstances of her story with so much feeling, and at
the same time with so much propriety, that she became interested in the
cause: she declared that she would do every thing in her power to prevail
upon the other ladies to examine into, the conduct of the schoolmistress,
and to have her dismissed immediately, if it should appear that she had
behaved improperly.

Forester, who was present at this declaration, was much astonished,
that a lady, whom he had seen caressing a canary-bird, could speak
with so much decision and good sense. Henry obtained his fee: he asked
and received permission to place the geranium in the middle of the
supper-table at the ball; and he begged that the lady would take an
opportunity, at supper, to mention the circumstances which he had related
to her; but this she declined, and politely said, that she was sure Henry
would tell the story much better than she could.

"Come out and walk with me," said Forester to Henry, as soon as the lady
was gone. Henry frequently left his occupations with great good-nature,
to accompany our hero in his rambles, and he usually followed the
subjects of conversation which Forester started. He saw, by the gravity
of his countenance, that he had something of importance revolving in his
mind. After he had proceeded in silence for some time along the walk,
under the high rock called Arthur's Seat, he suddenly stopped, and,
turning to Henry, exclaimed, "I esteem you; do not make me despise you!"

"I hope I never shall," said Henry, a little surprised by his friend's
manner; "what is the matter?"

"Leave balls, and lady patronesses, and petty artifices, and supple
address, to such people as Archibald Mackenzie," pursued Forester, with
enthusiasm:

"Who noble ends by noble means pursues--"
"Will scorn canary birds, and _cobble shoes_,"

Replied Henry, laughing; "I see no meanness in my conduct: I do not know
what it is you disapprove."

"I do not approve," said Forester, "of your having recourse to _mean
address_ to obtain justice."

Henry requested to know what his severe friend meant by _address_; but
this was not easily explained. Forester, in his definition of _mean
address_, included all that attention to the feelings of others, all
those honest arts of pleasing, which make society agreeable. Henry
endeavoured to convince him, that it was possible for a person to wish to
please, nay, even to succeed in that wish, without being insincere. Their
argument and their walk continued, till Henry, who, though very active,
was not quite so robust as his friend, was completely tired, especially
as he perceived that Forester's opinions remained unshaken.

"How effeminate you _gentlemen_ are!" cried Forester: "see what it is to
be brought up in the lap of luxury. Why, I am not at all tired; I could
walk a dozen miles further, without being in the least fatigued!"

Henry thought it a very good thing to be able to walk a number of miles
without being fatigued, but he did not consider it as the highest
perfection of human nature. In his friend's present mood, nothing less
could content him, and Forester went on to demonstrate to the weary
Henry, that all fortitude, all courage, and all the manly virtues, were
inseparably connected with _pedestrian indefatigability_. Henry, with
good-natured presence of mind, which perhaps his friend would have called
_mean address_, diverted our hero's rising indignation by proposing that
they should both go and look at the large brewery which was in their way
home, and with which Forester would, he thought, be entertained.

The brewery fortunately turned the course of Forester's thoughts, and,
instead of quarrelling with his friend for being tired, he condescended
to postpone all further debate. Forester had, from his childhood, a habit
of twirling a key, whenever he was thinking intently: the key had been
produced, and had been twirling upon its accustomed thumb during the
argument upon address; and it was still in Forester's hand when they went
into the brewery. As he looked and listened, the key was essential to his
power of attending; at length, as he stopped to view a large brewing vat,
the key unluckily slipped from his thumb, and fell to the bottom of the
vat: it was so deep, that the tinkling sound of the key, as it touched
the bottom, was scarcely heard. A young man who belonged to the brewery
immediately descended by a ladder into the vat, to get the key, but
scarcely had he reached the bottom, when he fell down senseless. Henry
Campbell was speaking to one of the clerks of the brewery when this
accident happened: a man came running to them with the news, "The vat has
not been cleaned; it's full of bad air." "Draw him up, let down a hook
and cords for him instantly, or he's a dead man," cried Henry, and he
instantly ran to the place. What was his terror, when he beheld Forester
descending the ladder! He called to him to stop; he assured him that the
man could be saved without his hazarding his life: but Forester
persisted; he had one end of a cord in his hand, which he said he could
fasten in an instant round the man's body. There was a skylight nearly
over the vat, so that the light fell directly upon the bottom.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37

Extract: The Whales by Evie Wyld

Christos Tsiolkas and David Mitchell, both much-tipped when they appeared on the award longlist, have been overlooked in the six finalists

It headed the most controversial Man Booker prize longlist in years, but Christos Tsiolkas's The Slap has failed to make the final cut for the literary award, as has David Mitchell's much-tipped fifth novel, The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet.

Judges overlooked Australian novelist Tsiolkas's tale of the consequences when a child is slapped at a suburban barbecue – which is either "unbelievably misogynistic" or "riveting from beginning to end", depending on who's asked – and Mitchell, twice shortlisted for the prize in the past, to select a shortlist which ranges from two-time former winner Peter Carey's Parrot and Olivier in America to Emma Donoghue. The Irish writer has also stirred up debate with her Josel Fritzl-inspired Room, the story of a boy and his mother imprisoned in a tiny room for years.

Orange prize winner Andrea Levy's The Long Song, about the last years of slavery in Jamaica; Howard Jacobson's The Finkler Question, a cerebral comedy about grief and Anglo-Jewishness; experimental novelist Tom McCarthy's C, which tells the story of Serge Carrefax, a first world war radio operator who escapes from a German prison camp; and South African writer Damon Galgut's tale of a young man travelling through Greece, India and Africa, In a Strange Room, complete the six-strong shortlist for the £50,000 prize, announced this morning.

"It's been a great privilege and an exciting challenge for us to reduce our longlist of 13 to this shortlist of six outstandingly good novels," said chair of judges Andrew Motion, the former poet laureate. "In doing so, we feel sure we've chosen books which demonstrate a rich variety of styles and themes – while in every case providing deep individual pleasures."

The panel of judges had previously read 138 books to select the 13 titles for their longlist, with Martin Amis's new novel The Pregnant Widow and Ian McEwan's venture into comic fiction Solar both overlooked and Carey the only previous Booker winner on the longlist.

His inclusion on the shortlist today for Parrot and Olivier in America, a reimagining of Democracy in America author Alexis de Tocqueville's visit to the New World, gives him the chance of becoming the first ever writer to win the Booker three times, having previously taken it in 1988 for Oscar and Lucinda and 2001 for True History of the Kelly Gang.

"The omission of both David Mitchell and Christos Tsiolkas from the shortlist is a real shock. While both writers might rightly feel aggrieved at being overlooked, I imagine it took some wrangling amongst the judges to reduce one of the best longlists in years to six," said Jonathan Ruppin at independent book chain Foyles, who, while praising all six books for their "lightness of touch which means the reader doesn't get bogged down in something worthy or dull", predicted that Room was the most likely title to go on to win the award.

Waterstone's tipped C to take the prize, with fiction buying manager Simon Burke calling it "a challenging yet dazzling novel". "The news that David Mitchell has not made the shortlist will cause great wailing and gnashing of teeth across the bookworld, but perhaps is a useful reminder of the independence and unpredictability of the Booker," he said. "But this is still a hugely varied and exciting list, worthy of the Booker brand. Carey and Levy have to be strong contenders, but our money is on Tom McCarthy. The more people that read [C] the better."

The bookies agreed, with William Hill immediately installing McCarthy as 2/1 favourite to win the prize. "There has been a considerable media buzz around all of the books on the shortlist, and literary punters have staked more money in total on Tom McCarthy to win than any of the other authors, so he is a worthy favourite," said spokesman Graham Sharpe. Donoghue and Galgut came in second at the bookmaker, both at 3/1, with one customer so sure that In A Strange Room would win that they placed £400 on Galgut at 7/1, the largest single bet on the prize "for a few years", said Sharpe.

Carey came in fourth, at 5/1, with Levy at 7/1 and Jacobson the 8/1 outside to take the prize.

The opinion-splitting novels picked for this year's longlist have helped make it the most popular since 2001, with Tsiolkas's novel selling the most copies, followed by Donoghue's. The winner, who will join a roster of former winners including Margaret Atwood, Roddy Doyle and JM Coetzee, will be announced on 12 October. Last year's winner Wolf Hall by Hilary Mantel is the fastest-selling Booker winner ever, with sales of around half-a-million copies to date.

The Man Booker shortlist in full:

Peter Carey's Parrot and Olivier in America

Emma Donoghue's Room

Damon Galgut's In a Strange Room

Howard Jacobson's The Finkler Question

Andrea Levy's The Long Song

Tom McCarthy's C


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

The books that send me back to school

For Ralph Miliband governments could never tame capitalism. New Labour thought otherwise – and then came the financial crisis. But what will David or Ed do if they gain the leadership? By John Gray

Viewed from one angle Ralph Miliband was a theorist of revolution who failed to notice the radical transformations going on around him. A lifelong Marxist, he never doubted that the future would be shaped by the struggle against capitalism. In fact it was capitalism that proved to be the revolutionary force in the late 20th century, consigning socialism to the memory hole. By the time Miliband died in May 1994, the Soviet system had been replaced by a type of resource-based authoritarian capitalism, while China's Communist party was overseeing the development of an unbridled market of a kind that Milton Friedman could only dream about.

In Britain in the 1980s Miliband managed to convince himself that Labour, which he had always bitterly attacked, might, under the influence of Tony Benn, turn into a genuinely socialist party. In fact Labour split, which more than any other single factor enabled the continuing dominance of Thatcher. Probably only the battles fought by Neil Kinnock prevented Labour disintegrating altogether. When John Smith became leader, the party began the "prawn cocktail offensive", a rapprochement with the financial sector pursued through private lunches with leading City figures, which formed the prelude to New Labour. Only weeks after Smith died (in the same month as Miliband) the party would start burying any trace of its socialist past.

When he gave the Bennite wing his intellectual support, Miliband was colluding in the politics of make-believe. Yet in one vital respect this intractably oppositional Jewish refugee from nazism had a firmer grip on reality than the social democrats who eventually prevailed in Labour's internecine conflicts, and when he ridiculed Anthony Crosland's vision of a domesticated and pacified capitalism, he left the party with a dilemma it has not been able to resolve. Like Marx, Miliband understood that states and governments are never autonomous actors; their options are shaped, and often foreclosed, by the distribution of power and resources. This was the central theme of Miliband's The State in Capitalist Society (1969), a penetrating assault on social-democratic thinking in which he developed and extended the argument against revisionism of his earlier Parliamentary Socialism: A Study of the Politics of Labour (1961).

In The Future of Socialism (1956), Crosland had argued that Labour must distinguish between means and ends (a theme pursued later by Blair). Capitalism had changed fundamentally, and rather than opposing it Labour should use the market to advance socialist values. Properly managed to ensure steady economic growth, free markets could be used to promote an egalitarian society in which everyone could live the good life. Against this rosy vision, Miliband urged – rightly, I've always thought – that the world had not changed as much as Crosland and his fellow-revisionists imagined. Capitalism remained an unruly beast, and the idea that governments had learnt how to tame it was just an illusion.

The oil shocks of the 70s were an early warning of the fragility of the postwar order. The shocks were not fatal, and capitalism survived the crisis (as it will survive the present crisis, in one form or another). But it was already becoming apparent that while governments could withstand upheavals in the global economy, the state was not the directing agency social democrats imagined it to be. As Miliband saw it, the state was a servant of these forces rather than their potential master. Of course he exaggerated. The interests of capitalists are often at odds, and in any case politics is driven by far more than class conflict. Even so, Miliband's view that the state is constrained, reactive and hemmed in by market forces has become increasingly plausible with the passage of time. But if this is so, what role can there be for a party that aims to make capitalism a force for the collective good? Can a future Labour government succeed where past governments have failed and harness capitalism to a vision of social improvement? Or should Labour accept that it is capitalism itself that must be changed?

These are precisely the questions that face Miliband's sons as they contend for the Labour leadership. The clash between the two has an undeniable drama, and it is not just a matter of sibling rivalry. It occurs at a time when the world economy is in a crisis the founders of New Labour believed to be impossible. Lacking the Marxian insight that capitalism is inherently volatile and constantly mutating, they never doubted that the deregulated finance-capitalism that developed in the US towards the end of the past century would last. The left had to overcome its suspicion of the free market, and accept that only by exploiting its productivity could government improve society: social democracy and neo-liberal economics were actually complementary.

Just like Crosland, though without his Keynesian grasp of the dangers of recurring boom and bust, New Labour believed capitalism had been tamed. But as Ralph Miliband suspected and events have confirmed, the anarchic energy of the free market is not so easily controlled. The fall of communism was celebrated as a triumph of capitalism, which now became practically world-wide; but the effect was to make capitalism more unstable, as disturbances in one part of the system were rapidly transmitted to all the rest. The fragmented world of the cold war was more resilient to shocks, and also more hospitable to social democracy, than the world that ensued. Governments found that few of the levers they used to control the economy worked as they had before. New Labour did not want to control the market. A feature of the understanding it reached with the City was that financial markets would continue to be deregulated. In part this was accepted as the price for power, but it also reflected New Labour's Fukuyama-like faith that market capitalism was the final stage of economic development; the future lay with the self-regulating market.

As could be foreseen, things turned out rather differently. With regulatory controls relaxed or scrapped the financial institutions whose support Labour had wooed became predatory, raking in vast profits from strategies whose risks they did not understand. Inevitably this hubris led to their downfall, and the financial system imploded. The market millennium lasted hardly more than a decade, leaving a legacy of unsustainable debt.

The happy conjunction of neo-liberal economics with social democracy on which New Labour was founded is now history. This is the truth evaded in Tony Blair's autohagiography. If New Labour is obsolete it is not because of the personal defects of Gordon Brown, Blair's delusional moral certainty and incessant war-mongering or even the dysfunctional relationship between the two leaders. It is because American finance-capitalism, the model for virtually everything that New Labour ever did, has blown itself up.

The problem with the debate between the Milibands is not that it risks turning into a public family feud. It is that neither of the two contenders has come to terms with the bankruptcy of the New Labour project in which each of them was involved. Neither has acknowledged, or perhaps fully understood, the implications of the financial crisis for a future Labour government. It can only mean an erosion of the very foundations of Britain's social democratic inheritance. Yet in different ways, each of the Miliband brothers still sees government as capable of controlling market forces – the illusion their father presciently exposed.

In his Keir Hardie lecture in July, David Miliband spoke eloquently of moving away from state paternalism and reviving Labour traditions of mutualism. The state can no longer be the centre of knowledge and initiative – its function is rather that of empowering society. Top-down Fabian control must be replaced by open democratic relationships. No doubt these are desirable goals, if very much in the spirit of the prevailing conventional wisdom and perhaps not so different from Cameron's fluffy "big society". The larger difficulty is that Miliband is harking back to Crosland (whom he recently cited as his political hero) at a time when Crosland's thinking is no longer applicable.

Crosland's vision was based above all on economic growth – steady, continuing and robust. Following Keynes, he believed that wise economic management could create a society of abundance. But the effect of the financial crisis has been to curtail growth, at least in developed economies. Even if the economy recovers, governments will not have the largesse he assumed would be available. Bailing out the banks has passed the burden of debt on to the state, and no British government can expect to avoid large-scale cut-backs in borrowing and spending. Instead of the market generating wealth that could be used by governments for collective purposes, the resources of government have been pre-empted for the repayment of debts incurred by the market's excesses. Against this background, the post-paternalist state is likely to mean higher unemployment and cash-starved public services.

Unlike his brother, Ed Miliband has chosen to define his candidacy explicitly in terms of New Labour's failings and argues forcefully for the need to remodel capitalism. "Britain's big question of the next decade," he has written, "is whether we head towards an increasingly US-style capitalism – more unequal, more brutish, more unjust – or whether we can build a different model, a capitalism that works for people and not the other way around". Once again these are noble aspirations but far removed from reality. Globalisation is an idea that has been greatly over-hyped, yet governments' freedom of action has without question been reduced as capital has become more mobile. Even the US may soon find it difficult to fund its ballooning federal debt. But if American capitalism is entering a crisis zone, Britain will not have the luxury of forging a new economic model; it will have trouble just staying afloat. Ralph Miliband's pessimistic assessment of the future of social democracy could well be vindicated.

If one of the Miliband brothers wins the Labour leadership and becomes prime minister he will confront in an acute form the constraints on the power of the state his father astutely identified. Rather than controlling or reshaping capitalism, a Miliband government would find itself struggling to preserve Britain's social democratic inheritance in the face of capitalism's renewed disorder. Ralph Miliband seems never to have lost the Marxist faith that history would eventually open the way to a truly socialist society. He would surely have appreciated the curious dialectic through which it has fallen to his sons to defend the social democracy he so fiercely attacked.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Booktrust teenage prize shortlist spans time, space and genre

It's the start of another school year and I'm dreaming of new pencil cases, satchels and the books I read in class. But what are the books you remember from your own school days?

Fourteen years after I finished school, there's still something about September which feels like the start of the year, and I'm nostalgic this morning for new pencils and felt tips, satchels and packed lunches. As the hope of the nation barrels back into classrooms, I'm also thinking back to the books I read in school.

I was away last weekend and talking about how we all read William Golding's Lord of the Flies (and no, the weekend wasn't that bad, it's just that one of my friends is currently making her way through his complete works, to settle a bet). I was 14, and I think there couldn't have been a more perfect book to pick for kids of that age – if you're not going to be hooked by Ralph and Piggy and Simon and Jack, and "kill the pig, cut his throat, spill his blood", then you're not going to be hooked by anything. This was the edition we had – just looking at it casts me back to yellow highlighters and doodling and the horrors of reading aloud.

Anyway, the shocking gloriousness of Lord of the Flies made me hungry for more Golding. Our school library was pretty small, but it did, impressively, have a copy of Pincher Martin. I am quite sure I failed to get any allegorical, existential meaning from the book, but it successfully terrified me, burning an image of Martin clinging to his lonely rock into my brain. In typically disorganised fashion, I promptly lost the book for about a month and was subsequently banned from the school library for giving it back so late – obviously as a sop to all those Golding fans clamouring for more of his work.

Golding and my thieving tendencies aside, Jane Eyre bored me, King Lear enthralled me, and I described Romeo and Juliet in my mock GSCE as a novel – so something clearly went wrong there (thankfully I'd got the right end of the stick by the time the real thing came around). But the other book which really stands out in my memory from schooldays is Wuthering Heights. I was on to A-levels by then, but for some reason we were still going through the purgatory of reading (droning) aloud in class – possibly one of the best ways to make a group of teenagers lose interest in a novel. I was lazy, more interested in messing around than working, but I was so caught up in the melodramas of Cathy and Heathcliff ("Do not leave me in this abyss where I cannot find you! Oh God! It is unutterable! I cannot live without my life! I cannot live without my soul!") that I'd be pages ahead when it came to my turn to read and would get in trouble for not concentrating. And I distinctly remember spending a break time racing to the end.

The rest of it, though, the years of English classes and essays, revising and exams, has largely faded into oblivion, which is rather worrying. But how about you? Indulge my nostalgia and tell me what you remember of your own literary school days.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Copyright (c) 2007. booksboost.com. All rights reserved.