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



Fatigued with the recital of the various petty artifices of this
avaricious and dissipated young laird, we shall now relieve ourselves, by
turning from the history of meanness to that of enthusiasm. The faults of
Forester we hope and wish to see corrected; but who can be interested for
the selfish Archibald Mackenzie?



FORESTER, A CLERK.


We left Forester when he was just going to offer himself as clerk to a
brewer. The brewer was a prudent man; and he sent one of his porters with
a letter to Dr. Campbell, to inform him that a young lad, whom he had
formerly seen in company with Mr. Henry Campbell, and who, he understood,
was the doctor's ward, had applied to him, and that he should be very
happy to take him into his service, if his friends approved of it, and
could properly recommend him. In consequence of Dr. Campbell's answer to
the brewer's letter, Forester, who knew nothing of the application to his
friends, obtained the vacant clerkship. He did not, however, long
continue in his new _situation_. At first he felt happy, when he found
himself relieved from, the vulgar petulance of Miss M'Evoy and her
brother Colin: in comparison with their rude ill-humours, the clerks who
were his companions appeared patterns of civility. By hard experience,
Forester was taught to know, that obliging manners in our companions add
something to the happiness of our lives. "My mind to me a kingdom is,"
was once his common answer to all that his friend Henry could urge in
favour of the pleasures of society; but he began now to suspect, that
separated from social intercourse, his mind, however enlarged, would
afford him but a dreary kingdom.

He flattered himself, that he could make a friend of the clerk who had
found his key: this young man's name was Richardson; he was good-natured,
but ignorant; and neither his education nor his abilities distinguished
him from any other clerk in similar circumstances. Forester invited him
to walk to Arthur's Seat, after the _monotonous_ business of the day was
over, but the clerk preferred walking on holidays in Prince's-street;
and, after several ineffectual attempts to engage him in moral and
metaphysical arguments, our hero discovered the depth of his companion's
ignorance with astonishment. Once, when he found that two of the clerks,
to whom he had been talking of Cicero and Pliny, did not know any thing
of these celebrated personages, he said, with a sigh,

"But knowledge to their eyes her ample page,
Rich with the spoils of time, did ne'er unroll;
Chill penury repressed their noble rage,
And froze the genial current of their soul."

The word _penury_, in this stanza, the clerks at least understood, and it
excited their "noble rage;" they hinted, that it ill became a person, who
did not dress nearly as well as themselves, to give himself such airs,
and to taunt his betters with poverty; they said that they supposed,
because he was an Englishman, as they perceived by his accent, he thought
he might insult Scotchmen as he pleased. It was vain for him to attempt
any explanation; their pride and their prejudices combined against him:
and, though their dislike to him was not so outrageous as that of the
gardener, gentle Colin, yet it was quite sufficient to make him uneasy in
his situation. Richardson was as steady as could reasonably be expected;
but he showed so little desire to have "_the ample page, rich with the
spoils of time_," unrolled to him, that he excited our young scholar's
contempt. No friendships can be more unequal than those between ignorance
and knowledge. We pass over the journal of our hero's hours, which were
spent in casting up and verifying accounts; this occupation, at length he
decided, must be extremely injurious to the human understanding: "All the
higher faculties of my soul," said he to himself, "are absolutely useless
at this work, and I am reduced to a mere machine." But there were many
other circumstances in the _mercantile system_, which Forester had not
foreseen, and which shocked him extremely. The continual attention to
petty gain, the little artifices which a tradesman thinks himself
justifiable in practising upon his customers, could not be endured by his
ingenuous mind. One morning the brewery was in an uncommon bustle; the
clerks were all in motion. Richardson told Forester that they expected a
visit in a few hours from the gauger and the supervisor, and that they
were preparing for their reception. When the nature of these preparations
was explained to Forester; when he was made to understand that the
business and duty of a brewer's clerk was to assist his master in evading
certain clauses in certain acts of parliament; when he found, that to
trick a gauger was thought an excellent joke, he stood in silent moral
astonishment. He knew about as much of the revenue laws as the clerks did
of Cicero and Pliny; but his sturdy principles of integrity could not
bend to any of the arguments, founded on expediency, which were brought
by his companions in their own and their master's justification. He
declared that he must speak to his master upon the subject immediately.
His master was as busy as he could possibly be; and, when Forester
insisted upon seeing him, he desired that he would speak as quickly as he
could, for that he expected the supervisor every instant. Our hero
declared, that he could not, consistently with his principles, assist in
evading the laws of his country. The brewer stared, and then laughed;
assured him that he had as great a respect for the laws as other people;
that he did nothing but what every person in his situation was obliged to
do in their own defence. Forester resolutely persisted in his
determination against all clandestine practices. The brewer cut the
matter short, by saying, he had not time to argue; but that he did not
choose to keep a clerk who was not in his interests; that he supposed the
next thing would be, to betray him to his supervisor.

"I am no traitor!" exclaimed Forester; "I will not stay another instant
with a master who suspects me."

The brewer suffered him to depart without reluctance; but what
exasperated Forester the most was the composure of his friend Richardson
during this scene, who did not even offer to shake hands with him, when
he saw him going out of the house: for Richardson had a good place, and
did not choose to quarrel with his master, for a person whom he now
verily believed to be, as he had originally suspected, insane.

"This is the world!--this is friendship!" said Forester to himself.

His generous and enthusiastic imagination supplied him with eloquent
invectives against human nature, even while he ardently desired to serve
his fellow-creatures. He wandered through the streets of Edinburgh,
indulging himself alternately in misanthropic reflections and benevolent
projects. One instant, he resolved to study the laws, that he might
reform the revenue laws; the next moment, he recollected his own passion
for a desert island, and he regretted that he could not be shipwrecked in
Edinburgh.

The sound of a squeaking fiddle roused Forester from his reverie; he
looked up, and saw a thin, pale man fiddling to a set of dancing dogs,
that he was exhibiting upon the flags, for the amusement of a crowd of
men, women, and children. It was a deplorable spectacle; the dogs
appeared so wretched, in the midst of the merriment of the spectators,
that Forester's compassion was moved, and he exclaimed--

"Enough, enough!--They are quite tired; here are some halfpence!"

The showman took the halfpence; but several fresh spectators were yet to
see the sight; and though the exhausted animals were but little inclined
to perform their antic feats, their master twitched the rope, that was
fastened round their necks, so violently, that they were compelled to
renew their melancholy dance.

Forester darted forward, stopped the fiddler's hand, and began an
expostulation, not one word of which was understood by the person to whom
it was addressed. A stout lad, who was very impatient at this
interruption of his diversion, began to abuse Forester, and presently
from words he proceeded to blows.

Forester, though a better orator, was by no means so able a boxer as his
opponent. The battle was obstinately fought on both sides; but, at
length, our young Quixote received what has no name in heroic language,
but in the vulgar tongue is called a black eye; and, covered with blood
and bruises, he was carried by some humane passenger into a neighbouring
house. It was a printer and bookseller's shop. The bookseller treated him
with humanity; and, after advising him not to be so hastily engaged to be
the champion of dancing dogs, inquired who he was, and whether he had any
friends in Edinburgh, to whom he could send.

This printer, from having been accustomed to converse with a variety of
people, was a good judge of the language of gentlemen; and, though there
was nothing else in Forester's manners which could have betrayed him, he
spoke in such good language, that the bookseller was certain that he had
received a liberal education.

Our hero declined telling his history; but the printer was so well
pleased with his conversation, that he readily agreed to give him
employment; and, as soon as he recovered from his bruises, Forester was
eager to learn the art of printing.

"The art of printing," said he, "has emancipated mankind, and printers
ought to be considered as the most respectable benefactors of the human
race."

Always warm in his admiration of every new phantom that struck his
imagination, he was now persuaded that printers' devils were angels, and
that he should be supremely blessed in a printer's office.

"What employment so noble!" said he, as he first took the composing-stick
in his hand; "what employment so noble, as that of disseminating
knowledge over the universe!"



FORESTER, A PRINTER.


It was some time before our hero acquired dexterity in his new trade: his
companions formed, with amazing celerity, whole sentences, while he was
searching for letters, which perpetually dropped from his awkward hands:
but he was ashamed of his former versatility, and he resolved to be
steady to his present way of life. His situation, at this printer's, was
far better suited to him than that which he had quitted, with so much
disgust, at the brewer's. He rose early, and, by great industry, overcame
all the difficulties which at first so much alarmed him. He soon became
the most useful journeyman in the office. His diligence and good
behaviour recommended him to his master's employers. Whenever any work
was brought, Forester was sent for. This occasioned him to be much in the
shop, where he heard the conversation of many ingenious men who
frequented it; and he spent his evenings in reading. His understanding
had been of late uncultivated; but the fresh seeds that were now
profusely scattered upon the vigorous soil took root, and flourished.

Forester was just at that time of life when opinions are valued for being
_new_: he heard varieties of the most contradictory assertions in morals,
in science, in politics. It is a great advantage to a young man to hear
opposite arguments, to hear all that can be said upon every subject.

Forester no longer obstinately adhered to the set of notions which he had
acquired from his education; he heard many, whom he could not think his
inferiors in abilities, debating questions which he formerly imagined
scarcely admitted of philosophic doubt. His mind became more humble; but
his confidence in his own powers, after having compared himself with
numbers, if less arrogant, was more secure and rational: he no longer
considered a man as a fool the moment he differed with him in opinion;
but he was still a little inclined to estimate the abilities of authors
by the party to which they belonged. This failing was increased, rather
than diminished, by the company which he now kept.

Amongst the young students who frequented Mr.----'s, the bookseller,
was Mr. Thomas ----, who, from his habit of _blurting_ out strange
opinions in conversation, acquired the name of Tom Random. His head was
confused between politics and poetry; his arguments were paradoxical, his
diction florid, and his gesture something between the spouting action of
a player, and the threatening action of a pugilist.

Forester was caught by the oratory of this genius from the first day he
heard him speak.

Tom Random asserted, that "this great globe, and all that it inhabits,"
must inevitably be doomed to destruction, unless certain ideas of his
own, in the government of the world, were immediately adopted by
universal acclamation.

It was not approbation, it was not esteem, which Forester felt for
his new friend it was for the first week blind, enthusiastic
admiration--every thing that he had seen or heard before appeared to him
trite and obsolete; every person who spoke temperate common sense he
heard with indifference or contempt; and all who were not zealots in
literature, or in politics, he considered as persons whose understandings
were so narrow, or whose hearts were so depraved, as to render them
"unfit to hear themselves convinced."

Those who read and converse have a double chance of correcting their
errors.

Forester most fortunately, about this time, happened to meet with a book
which in some degree counteracted the inflammatory effects of Random's
conversation, and which had a happy tendency to sober his enthusiasm,
without lessening his propensity to useful exertions: this book was the
Life of Dr. Franklin.

The idea that this great man began by being a _printer_ interested
our hero in his history; and whilst he followed him, step by step,
through his instructive narrative, Forester sympathized in his feelings,
and observed how necessary the smaller virtues of order, economy,
industry, and patience were to Franklin's great character and splendid
success. He began to hope that it would be possible to do good to his
fellow-creatures, without overturning all existing institutions.

About this time another fortunate coincidence happened in Forester's
education. One evening his friend, Tom Random, who was printing a
pamphlet, came, with a party of his companions, into Mr.----, the
bookseller's shop, enraged at the decision of a prize in a literary
society to which they belonged.

All the young partisans who surrounded Mr. Random loudly declared that he
had been treated with the most flagrant injustice; and the author himself
was too angry to affect any modesty upon the occasion.

"Would you believe it?" said he to Forester--"my essay has not been
thought worthy of the prize! The medal has been given to the most
wretched, tame, commonplace performance you ever saw. Every thing in this
world is done by corruption, by party, by secret influence!"

At every pause the irritated author wiped his forehead, and Forester
sympathized in his feelings.

In the midst of the author's exclamations, a messenger came with the
manuscript of the prize essay, and with the orders of the society to have
a certain number of copies printed off with all possible expedition.

Random snatched up the manuscript, and, with all the fury of criticism,
began to read aloud some of the passages which he disliked.

Though it was marred in the reading, Forester could not agree with his
angry friend in condemning the performance. It appeared to him excellent
writing and excellent sense.

"Print it--print it then, as fast as you can--that is your
business--that's what you are paid for. Every one for himself," cried
Random, insolently throwing the manuscript at Forester; and, as he flung
out of the shop with his companions, he added, with a contemptuous laugh,
"A printer's devil setting up for a critic! He may be a capital judge of
pica and brevier, perhaps--but let not the compositor go beyond his
stick."

"Is this the man," said Forester, "whom I have heard so eloquent in the
praise of candour and liberality? Is this the man who talks of universal
toleration and freedom of opinion, and who yet cannot bear that any one
should differ from him in criticising a sentence? Is this the man who
would have equality amongst all his fellow-creatures, and who calls a
compositor a printer's devil? Is this the man who cants about the
_pre-eminence of mind_ and the _perfections of intellect_, and yet now
takes advantage of his rank, of his _supporters_, of the cry of his
partisans, to bear down the voice of reason?--'Let not the compositor go
beyond his composing-stick!'--And why not? Why should not he be a judge
of writing?" At this reflection, Forester eagerly took up the manuscript,
which had been flung at his feet. All his indignant feelings instantly
changed into delightful exultation--he saw the hand--he read the name of
Henry Campbell. The title of the manuscript was, "_An Essay on the best
Method of reforming Abuses_." This was the subject proposed by the
society; and Henry had written upon the question with so much moderation,
and yet with such unequivocal decision had shown himself the friend of
rational liberty, that all the members of the society who were not borne
away by their prejudices were unanimous in their preference of this
performance.

Random's declamation only inflamed the minds of his own partisans. Good
judges of writing exclaimed, as they read it, "This is all very fine; but
what would this man be at? His violence hurts the cause he wishes to
support."

Forester read Henry Campbell's essay with all the avidity of friendship;
he read it again and again--his generous soul was incapable of envy; and
whilst he admired, he was convinced by the force of reason.

His master desired that he would set about the essay early in the
morning; but his eagerness for his friend Henry's fame was such, that he
sat up above half the night hard at work at it. He was indefatigable the
next day at the business; and as all hands were employed on the essay, it
was finished that evening.

Forester rubbed his hands with delight, when he had set the name of Henry
Campbell in the title-page--but an instant afterwards he sighed bitterly.

"I am only a printer," said he to himself. "These just arguments, these
noble ideas, will instruct and charm hundreds of my fellow-creatures: no
one will ever ask, 'Who set the types?'"

His reflections were interrupted by the entrance of Tom Random and two of
his partisans: he was extremely displeased to find that the printers had
not been going on with his pamphlet; his personal disappointments seemed
to increase the acrimony of his zeal for the public good: he declaimed
upon politics--upon the necessity for the immediate publication of his
sentiments, for the salvation of the state. His action was suited to his
words: violent and blind to consequences, with one sudden kick, designed
to express his contempt for the opposite party, this political Alnaschar
unfortunately overturned the form which contained the types for the
newspaper of the next day, which was just going to the press--a newspaper
in which he had written splendid paragraphs.

Forester, happily for his philosophy, recollected the account which
Franklin, in his history of his own life, gives of the patience with
which he once bore a similar accident. The printers, with secret
imprecations against oratory, or at least against those orators who think
that action is every thing, set to work again to repair the mischief.

Forester, much fatigued, at length congratulated himself upon having
finished his hard day's work, when a man from the shop came to inquire
whether three hundred cards, which had been ordered the week before to be
printed off, were finished. The man to whom the order was given had
forgotten it, and he was going home: he decidedly answered, "No; the
cards can't be done till to-morrow: we have left work for this night,
thank God."

"The gentleman says he must have them," expostulated the messenger.

"He _must_ not, he cannot have them. I would not print a card for his
majesty at this time of night," replied the sullen workman, throwing his
hat upon his head, in token of departure.

"What are these cards?" said Forester.

"Only a dancing-master's cards for his ball," said the printer's
journeyman. "I'll not work beyond my time for any dancing-master that
wears a head."

The messenger then said, that he was desired to ask for the manuscript
card.

This card was hunted for all over the room; and, at last, Forester found
it under a heap of refuse papers: his eye was caught with the name of his
old friend, Monsieur Pasgrave, the dancing-master, whom he had formerly
frightened by the skeleton with the fiery eyes.

"I will print the cards for him myself; I am not at all tired," cried
Forester, who was determined to make some little amends for the injury
which he had formerly done to the poor dancing-master. He resolved to
print the cards for nothing, and he stayed up very late to finish them.
His companions all left him, for they were in a great hurry to see, what
in Edinburgh is a rare sight, the town illuminated.

These illuminations were upon account of some great naval victory.

Forester, steady to Monsieur Pasgrave's cards, did what no other workman
would have done; he finished for him, on this night of public joy, his
three hundred cards. Every now and then, as he was quietly at work, he
heard the loud huzzas in the street: his waning candle sunk in the
socket, as he had just packed up his work.

By the direction at the bottom of the cards, he learned where M. Pasgrave
lodged, and, as he was going out to look at the illuminations, he
resolved to leave them himself at the dancing-master's house.



THE ILLUMINATIONS.


The illuminations were really beautiful. He went up to the Castle,
whence he saw a great part of the Old Town, and all Prince's-street,
lighted up in the most splendid manner. He crossed the Earth-mound into
Prince's-street. Walking down Prince's-street, he saw a crowd of people
gathered before the large illuminated window of a confectioner's shop. As
he approached nearer, he distinctly heard the voice of Tom Random, who
was haranguing the mob. The device and motto which the confectioner
displayed in his window displeased this gentleman, who, beside his
public-spirited abhorrence of all men of a party opposite to his own, had
likewise private cause of dislike to this confectioner, who had refused
him his daughter in marriage.

It was part of Random's new system of political justice to revenge his
own quarrels.

The mob, who are continually, without knowing it, made the instruments of
private malice, when they think they are acting in a public cause,
readily joined in Tom Random's cry of "Down with the motto! Down with the
motto!"

Forester, who, by his lesson from the dancing dogs, had learned a little
prudence, and who had just printed Henry Campbell's Essay on the best
Means of reforming Abuses, did not mix with the rabble, but joined in the
entreaties of some peaceable passengers, who prayed that the poor man's
windows might be spared. The windows were, notwithstanding, demolished
with a terrible crash, and the crowd, then alarmed at the mischief they
had done, began to disperse. The constables, who had been sent for,
appeared. Tom Random was taken into custody. Forester was pursuing his
way to the dancing-master's, when one of the officers of justice
exclaimed, "Stop!--stop him!--he's one of 'em: he's a great friend of Mr.
Random: I've seen him often parading arm in arm in High-street with him."

This, alas! was too true: the constables seized Forester, and put him,
with Tom Random, and the ringleader of the riot, into a place of
confinement for the night.

Poor Forester, who was punished for the faults of his former friend and
present enemy, had, during this long night, leisure for much wholesome
reflection upon the danger of forming imprudent intimacies. He resolved
never to walk again in High-street arm in arm with such a man as Tom
Random.

The constables were rather hasty in the conclusion they drew from this
presumptive evidence.

Our hero, who felt the disgrace of his situation, was not a little
astonished at Tom Random's consoling himself with drinking instead of
philosophy. The sight of this enthusiast, when he had completely
intoxicated himself, was a disgusting but useful spectacle to our
indignant hero. Forester was shocked at the union of gross vice and rigid
pretensions to virtue: he could scarcely believe that the reeling,
stammering idiot whom he now beheld was the same being from whose lips he
had heard declamations upon the _omnipotence of intellect_--from whose
pen he had seen projects for the government of empires.

The dancing-master, who, in the midst of the illuminations, had regretted
that his cards could not be printed, went early in the morning to inquire
about them at the printer's.

The printer had learnt that one of his boys was taken up amongst the
rioters: he was sorry to find that Forester had gotten himself into such
a scrape: but he was a very cautious snug man, and he did not choose to
interfere: he left him quietly to be dealt with according to law.

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.