Google Search

Saturday, December 21, 2013

Art books of the year – review

Il Duomo in Florence 'A soaring airborne breast': Brunelleschi’s dome in Florence. Photograph: Jeffrey Blackler/Alamy

Now that books are shedding weight and dematerialising into electronic pads, I worry about the fate of coffee tables. Books of a certain kind need to be bulky, and they also cry out to be displayed. Leafing through them can be as much of a tonic as the coffee on the table beside them.

The Vatican: All the Paintings: The Complete Collection of Old Masters, Plus More Than 300 Sculptures, Maps, Tapestries, and Relicsby Anje Grebe, Ross King Tell us what you think: Star-rate and review this book

A prime specimen is Anja Grebe's huge, heavy The Vatican: All the Paintings (Black Dog & Leventhal). The subtitle is almost a threat: yes, every last painting is here. Grebe conducts you on an exhaustive tour of the ecclesiastical spoils, concluding with an unexpected display of modern religious art. Ross King's introduction calls the papal HQ "a place sacred to the arts"; I'd say it was a place sanctified by the arts, since the Catholic church almost atones for its iniquities by its habit of commissioning artists. It's good to know that the genius loci predates Christianity: the hill behind St Peter's was once the symbolic resort of Apollo, the god of poetry and music.

Jonathan Jones's The Loves of the Artists (Simon & Schuster) is an antidote to Grebe's pious inventory. For Jones, Renaissance painting is a pornotopia, and the artists he studies are sexual radicals, flagrantly disrupting convention. Their scandals, in his racy telling, are tabloidesque: the erect penis of Fra Lippo Lippi is a symbol of Christ's resurrection, and Donatello's David sports kinky "bronzie lingerie". A painting's "tactile values", as Berenson called them, are only too palpable when Jones appraises the mammaries of Titian's models or the "bulging codpiece" of a figure in Giorgione. Sometimes he gets overexcited. I find it hard to envisage Brunelleschi's dome in Florence as "a soaring airborne breast", and do Venetian windows really resemble slit skirts?

After the worship of Eros in Jones's Renaissance, Vic Gatrell in The First Bohemians (Allen Lane) deals with the late 18th century and its rowdier urban delights, exemplified by Boswell picking up hookers in Covent Garden and adjourning to Green Park for consummation. Jones sees artists as libertines; Gatrell comes close to equating them with whores, since both lived off rich patrons. This is dense, jostling, ripely enjoyable social history, a memento of a time when central London, not yet an over-priced shopping mall, had its own raffish left bank.

Michael Petry's Nature Morte (Thames & Hudson) is equally lively, despite being about corpses. The fauna in this anatomy of contemporary still life is perverse – a two-headed sheep knitted into a jumper by Elaine Bradford, a china dog made of cigarettes by Sarah Lucas – and so is the flora, which includes Petry's own shamelessly randy flower sculptures. Still life, however, is a euphemism, and the final section about death includes work "by the artist who goes by the moniker Jim Skull". Petry's book is a cabinet of curiosities, both beautiful and weird – and it's the first I've ever seen with a lenticular cover.

Turner & the Sea by Christine Riding and Richard Johns (Thames & Hudson) is about the pictorial challenge of a subject that does not stay still and has no fixed form or colour. Contemporary reviewers who grumbled that Turner's works underwent "dissolution" before they reached the canvas paid him an inadvertent compliment. His chaotic storms, blurry mists, smudged rain showers and shimmering rainbows captured the most unstable element and transformed bad weather into great art; even Nelson's naval victories disappear into a luminous haze.

Norbert Wolf in Art Deco (Prestel) begins by rounding up the usual icons – the beaky gargoyles on the Chrysler building, the sharp sleek prow of an ocean liner – but then extends his survey to include Christ extending his arms on a mountain above Rio de Janeiro and Lenin with upraised arm on a design for the Palace of the Soviets. The predatory German eagle, spreading its wings in a Third Reich poster, also qualifies for inclusion. The book is large and lavish, but its sober text saves art deco from the frippery of all those multi-coloured Miami hotels and Erté mannequins: this was the style of the machine age, coldly dehumanised, and Wolf finds in its mannerisms a chilling prognostication of war.

Derek Jarman's Sketchbooks (Thames & Hudson) began as little leatherbound volumes bought in Italy. Jarman painted over the covers, blackened the pages and wrote on them in gold ink, turning them into profane missals that he stuffed with stray feathers, pressed flowers, newspaper cuttings and saucy male pin-ups, even a £10 note, which was his entire fee for directing a film of Britten's War Requiem. This facsimile is a precious relic of an era that was "pre-latop, pre-PhotoShop", when creativity was manual not digital; it is also an entrancing vindication of the book – whether handmade or printed – as an object of art.


View the original article here

Friday, December 20, 2013

David Simon: 'There are now two Americas. My country is a horror show'

The Wire creator David Simon in Baltimore David Simon, creator of The Wire, near his office in Baltimore. Photograph: Stephen Voss/Redux / eyevine

America is a country that is now utterly divided when it comes to its society, its economy, its politics. There are definitely two Americas. I live in one, on one block in Baltimore that is part of the viable America, the America that is connected to its own economy, where there is a plausible future for the people born into it. About 20 blocks away is another America entirely. It's astonishing how little we have to do with each other, and yet we are living in such proximity.

There's no barbed wire around West Baltimore or around East Baltimore, around Pimlico, the areas in my city that have been utterly divorced from the American experience that I know. But there might as well be. We've somehow managed to march on to two separate futures and I think you're seeing this more and more in the west. I don't think it's unique to America.

I think we've perfected a lot of the tragedy and we're getting there faster than a lot of other places that may be a little more reasoned, but my dangerous idea kind of involves this fellow who got left by the wayside in the 20th century and seemed to be almost the butt end of the joke of the 20th century; a fellow named Karl Marx.

I'm not a Marxist in the sense that I don't think Marxism has a very specific clinical answer to what ails us economically. I think Marx was a much better diagnostician than he was a clinician. He was good at figuring out what was wrong or what could be wrong with capitalism if it wasn't attended to and much less credible when it comes to how you might solve that.

You know if you've read Capital or if you've got the Cliff Notes, you know that his imaginings of how classical Marxism – of how his logic would work when applied – kind of devolve into such nonsense as the withering away of the state and platitudes like that. But he was really sharp about what goes wrong when capital wins unequivocally, when it gets everything it asks for.

That may be the ultimate tragedy of capitalism in our time, that it has achieved its dominance without regard to a social compact, without being connected to any other metric for human progress.

We understand profit. In my country we measure things by profit. We listen to the Wall Street analysts. They tell us what we're supposed to do every quarter. The quarterly report is God. Turn to face God. Turn to face Mecca, you know. Did you make your number? Did you not make your number? Do you want your bonus? Do you not want your bonus?

And that notion that capital is the metric, that profit is the metric by which we're going to measure the health of our society is one of the fundamental mistakes of the last 30 years. I would date it in my country to about 1980 exactly, and it has triumphed.

Capitalism stomped the hell out of Marxism by the end of the 20th century and was predominant in all respects, but the great irony of it is that the only thing that actually works is not ideological, it is impure, has elements of both arguments and never actually achieves any kind of partisan or philosophical perfection.

It's pragmatic, it includes the best aspects of socialistic thought and of free-market capitalism and it works because we don't let it work entirely. And that's a hard idea to think – that there isn't one single silver bullet that gets us out of the mess we've dug for ourselves. But man, we've dug a mess.

After the second world war, the west emerged with the American economy coming out of its wartime extravagance, emerging as the best product. It was the best product. It worked the best. It was demonstrating its might not only in terms of what it did during the war but in terms of just how facile it was in creating mass wealth.

Plus, it provided a lot more freedom and was doing the one thing that guaranteed that the 20th century was going to be – and forgive the jingoistic sound of this – the American century.

It took a working class that had no discretionary income at the beginning of the century, which was working on subsistence wages. It turned it into a consumer class that not only had money to buy all the stuff that they needed to live but enough to buy a bunch of shit that they wanted but didn't need, and that was the engine that drove us.

It wasn't just that we could supply stuff, or that we had the factories or know-how or capital, it was that we created our own demand and started exporting that demand throughout the west. And the standard of living made it possible to manufacture stuff at an incredible rate and sell it.

And how did we do that? We did that by not giving in to either side. That was the new deal. That was the great society. That was all of that argument about collective bargaining and union wages and it was an argument that meant neither side gets to win.

Labour doesn't get to win all its arguments, capital doesn't get to. But it's in the tension, it's in the actual fight between the two, that capitalism actually becomes functional, that it becomes something that every stratum in society has a stake in, that they all share.

The unions actually mattered. The unions were part of the equation. It didn't matter that they won all the time, it didn't matter that they lost all the time, it just mattered that they had to win some of the time and they had to put up a fight and they had to argue for the demand and the equation and for the idea that workers were not worth less, they were worth more.

Ultimately we abandoned that and believed in the idea of trickle-down and the idea of the market economy and the market knows best, to the point where now libertarianism in my country is actually being taken seriously as an intelligent mode of political thought. It's astonishing to me. But it is. People are saying I don't need anything but my own ability to earn a profit. I'm not connected to society. I don't care how the road got built, I don't care where the firefighter comes from, I don't care who educates the kids other than my kids. I am me. It's the triumph of the self. I am me, hear me roar.

That we've gotten to this point is astonishing to me because basically in winning its victory, in seeing that Wall come down and seeing the former Stalinist state's journey towards our way of thinking in terms of markets or being vulnerable, you would have thought that we would have learned what works. Instead we've descended into what can only be described as greed. This is just greed. This is an inability to see that we're all connected, that the idea of two Americas is implausible, or two Australias, or two Spains or two Frances.

Societies are exactly what they sound like. If everybody is invested and if everyone just believes that they have "some", it doesn't mean that everybody's going to get the same amount. It doesn't mean there aren't going to be people who are the venture capitalists who stand to make the most. It's not each according to their needs or anything that is purely Marxist, but it is that everybody feels as if, if the society succeeds, I succeed, I don't get left behind. And there isn't a society in the west now, right now, that is able to sustain that for all of its population.

And so in my country you're seeing a horror show. You're seeing a retrenchment in terms of family income, you're seeing the abandonment of basic services, such as public education, functional public education. You're seeing the underclass hunted through an alleged war on dangerous drugs that is in fact merely a war on the poor and has turned us into the most incarcerative state in the history of mankind, in terms of the sheer numbers of people we've put in American prisons and the percentage of Americans we put into prisons. No other country on the face of the Earth jails people at the number and rate that we are.

We have become something other than what we claim for the American dream and all because of our inability to basically share, to even contemplate a socialist impulse.

Socialism is a dirty word in my country. I have to give that disclaimer at the beginning of every speech, "Oh by the way I'm not a Marxist you know". I lived through the 20th century. I don't believe that a state-run economy can be as viable as market capitalism in producing mass wealth. I don't.

I'm utterly committed to the idea that capitalism has to be the way we generate mass wealth in the coming century. That argument's over. But the idea that it's not going to be married to a social compact, that how you distribute the benefits of capitalism isn't going to include everyone in the society to a reasonable extent, that's astonishing to me.

And so capitalism is about to seize defeat from the jaws of victory all by its own hand. That's the astonishing end of this story, unless we reverse course. Unless we take into consideration, if not the remedies of Marx then the diagnosis, because he saw what would happen if capital triumphed unequivocally, if it got everything it wanted.

And one of the things that capital would want unequivocally and for certain is the diminishment of labour. They would want labour to be diminished because labour's a cost. And if labour is diminished, let's translate that: in human terms, it means human beings are worth less.

From this moment forward unless we reverse course, the average human being is worth less on planet Earth. Unless we take stock of the fact that maybe socialism and the socialist impulse has to be addressed again; it has to be married as it was married in the 1930s, the 1940s and even into the 1950s, to the engine that is capitalism.

Mistaking capitalism for a blueprint as to how to build a society strikes me as a really dangerous idea in a bad way. Capitalism is a remarkable engine again for producing wealth. It's a great tool to have in your toolbox if you're trying to build a society and have that society advance. You wouldn't want to go forward at this point without it. But it's not a blueprint for how to build the just society. There are other metrics besides that quarterly profit report.

The idea that the market will solve such things as environmental concerns, as our racial divides, as our class distinctions, our problems with educating and incorporating one generation of workers into the economy after the other when that economy is changing; the idea that the market is going to heed all of the human concerns and still maximise profit is juvenile. It's a juvenile notion and it's still being argued in my country passionately and we're going down the tubes. And it terrifies me because I'm astonished at how comfortable we are in absolving ourselves of what is basically a moral choice. Are we all in this together or are we all not?

If you watched the debacle that was, and is, the fight over something as basic as public health policy in my country over the last couple of years, imagine the ineffectiveness that Americans are going to offer the world when it comes to something really complicated like global warming. We can't even get healthcare for our citizens on a basic level. And the argument comes down to: "Goddamn this socialist president. Does he think I'm going to pay to keep other people healthy? It's socialism, motherfucker."

What do you think group health insurance is? You know you ask these guys, "Do you have group health insurance where you …?" "Oh yeah, I get …" you know, "my law firm …" So when you get sick you're able to afford the treatment.

The treatment comes because you have enough people in your law firm so you're able to get health insurance enough for them to stay healthy. So the actuarial tables work and all of you, when you do get sick, are able to have the resources there to get better because you're relying on the idea of the group. Yeah. And they nod their heads, and you go "Brother, that's socialism. You know it is."

And ... you know when you say, OK, we're going to do what we're doing for your law firm but we're going to do it for 300 million Americans and we're going to make it affordable for everybody that way. And yes, it means that you're going to be paying for the other guys in the society, the same way you pay for the other guys in the law firm … Their eyes glaze. You know they don't want to hear it. It's too much. Too much to contemplate the idea that the whole country might be actually connected.

So I'm astonished that at this late date I'm standing here and saying we might want to go back for this guy Marx that we were laughing at, if not for his prescriptions, then at least for his depiction of what is possible if you don't mitigate the authority of capitalism, if you don't embrace some other values for human endeavour.

And that's what The Wire was about basically, it was about people who were worth less and who were no longer necessary, as maybe 10 or 15% of my country is no longer necessary to the operation of the economy. It was about them trying to solve, for lack of a better term, an existential crisis. In their irrelevance, their economic irrelevance, they were nonetheless still on the ground occupying this place called Baltimore and they were going to have to endure somehow.

That's the great horror show. What are we going to do with all these people that we've managed to marginalise? It was kind of interesting when it was only race, when you could do this on the basis of people's racial fears and it was just the black and brown people in American cities who had the higher rates of unemployment and the higher rates of addiction and were marginalised and had the shitty school systems and the lack of opportunity.

And kind of interesting in this last recession to see the economy shrug and start to throw white middle-class people into the same boat, so that they became vulnerable to the drug war, say from methamphetamine, or they became unable to qualify for college loans. And all of a sudden a certain faith in the economic engine and the economic authority of Wall Street and market logic started to fall away from people. And they realised it's not just about race, it's about something even more terrifying. It's about class. Are you at the top of the wave or are you at the bottom?

So how does it get better? In 1932, it got better because they dealt the cards again and there was a communal logic that said nobody's going to get left behind. We're going to figure this out. We're going to get the banks open. From the depths of that depression a social compact was made between worker, between labour and capital that actually allowed people to have some hope.

We're either going to do that in some practical way when things get bad enough or we're going to keep going the way we're going, at which point there's going to be enough people standing on the outside of this mess that somebody's going to pick up a brick, because you know when people get to the end there's always the brick. I hope we go for the first option but I'm losing faith.

The other thing that was there in 1932 that isn't there now is that some element of the popular will could be expressed through the electoral process in my country.

The last job of capitalism – having won all the battles against labour, having acquired the ultimate authority, almost the ultimate moral authority over what's a good idea or what's not, or what's valued and what's not – the last journey for capital in my country has been to buy the electoral process, the one venue for reform that remained to Americans.

Right now capital has effectively purchased the government, and you witnessed it again with the healthcare debacle in terms of the $450m that was heaved into Congress, the most broken part of my government, in order that the popular will never actually emerged in any of that legislative process.

So I don't know what we do if we can't actually control the representative government that we claim will manifest the popular will. Even if we all start having the same sentiments that I'm arguing for now, I'm not sure we can effect them any more in the same way that we could at the rise of the Great Depression, so maybe it will be the brick. But I hope not.

David Simon is an American author and journalist and was the executive producer of The Wire. This is an edited extract of a talk delivered at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas in Sydney.


View the original article here

Thursday, December 19, 2013

Dodger by Terry Pratchettt - review

I hadn't read any of Terry Pratchett's books before, but when my granddad bought this book for me for Christmas I got straight into it. From the front cover I was intrigued, about the look of murder in his eyes and the look of mystery of it, from the clothing that he was wearing to the razor or knife in his dirty left hand, and the brown scruffy matted dog showing its ribs leaning next to him.

Dodger is a tosher; he walks around the sewers all day every day collecting money, and pickpocketing people on daily basis just to make a living. Everybody who is nobody knows him - anyone who is anyone doesn't. But when he rescues a young girl from a beating, things start to get rougher and dirtier than they already are. Everyone who is anyone now wants to get their dirty little hands on the now famous dodger.

It's a 335 page book that is brilliantly written with awesome wordplay. However unfortunately for you younger ones I recommend this to 11+ as it has quite a bit of swearing and violence and some other not very nice stuff.

Want to tell the world about a book you've read? Join the site and send us your review!


View the original article here

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

The enduring legacy of Elizabeth David, Britain's first lady of food

Simon Hopkinson first met Elizabeth David in 1984, or thereabouts, at Hilaire, the Chelsea restaurant of which he was chef. She came for supper with Valerie Eliot, and the widow of the poet was wearing – he remembers it vividly – a polka-dot dress. "I was very excited," he says. "Because I was a fan." By this time, David was in her early 70s and a little frail (in the early 1960s, she had suffered a cerebral haemorrhage, and in the 1970s, she was in a serious car accident). As a result, she had a miniature appetite. "She ate like a bird. But I remember that I'd made a consomme, very clear and gorgeous, from some prawn shells. She asked for a second helping, and I was so pleased." Made brave by this, at the end of her lunch, the young Hopkinson left his kitchen, clutching a copy of An Omelette and a Glass of Wine, David's collected journalism and the book of hers that he loves the most. She duly signed it for him, and so began a friendship that would last until she died in 1992.

At first, their relationship consisted mostly of conversations snatched when she came to lunch at Hopkinson's next berth, Bibendum, of which she was very fond (she sometimes came with another pal, the food writer Richard Olney). In time, though, the two of them became closer, and Hopkinson would take her out, or visit her at home in Halsey Street, Chelsea. On one occasion, they went to the River Café: its chef-proprietors, Ruth Rogers and Rose Gray, having been warned, were wearing T-shirts with David's recipe for chocolate – or was it almond? – tart printed on the back (she took this in good part). On another, they celebrated her birthday at home with Jill Norman, David's long-time editor, and a bottle of Dom Pérignon, nibbling all the while on her favourite Roka cheese biscuits. Hopkinson was even able to introduce her to one of his most famous regular customers, Francis Bacon. The artist was – this seems so wonderfully unlikely – another fan of David's, and kept her books, as so many people do, beside his bed. "That was exciting," says Hopkinson. "Two completely different geniuses shaking hands." Oh, that he had pulled out a camera and taken a photograph.

David could be difficult; this is no secret. But Hopkinson knew how to handle her. "Well, I knew never to bring up the Carrier word," he says [a reference to Robert Carrier, the American cook and television presenter whose recipes were almost as rich as his to-camera style]. "And if you didn't agree with her, those little, beady eyes would pop right open. She could be … vociferous. One was on one's mettle, put it like that. She could be pedantic, too. My thing about crisp and crispy [he loathes the latter word] came from her in the beginning. She pointed it out one day, the fact that the extra 'y' is completely unnecessary, and I thought: yes, you're right. But I had huge respect for her. She was so learned and intelligent, and I loved the way she looked. Those eyes. She was so delicate. I remember seeing her tucked up in bed, recuperating, Post-it notes everywhere – all the things she wanted to moan about – and the room full of beautiful things."

Somewhere in his flat is an ancient answer phone, on which there remains the last message she left him. David died in the early hours of 22 May 1992, having enjoyed a good bottle of chablis and some caviar brought to her bedside by friends. A memorial service was held at St Martin-in-the-Fields on 10 September, after which a lunch was held at the Institute of Contemporary Arts in the Mall, the food provided by the chefs Sally Clarke, Martin Lam and, of course, Hopkinson. What did he make? "Piedmontese peppers, and spiced aubergine salad, a particular favourite of hers." The recipe for the latter – fragrant with cumin, allspice and fresh coriander – can be found in his book Roast Chicken and Other Stories. It is completely delicious and, if you follow the quantities exactly, somehow magically abundant.

A book of Mediterranean food

What does Hopkinson make of David's legacy now, in the month of the centenary of her birth on Boxing Day 1913? He can only speak personally. "The writing had a big impact on me; you have to really want to cook to use her, it's not just a case of following a recipe. You have to pay attention. I loved the short ramble around, and then the perfect recipe within. But someone once told me Jamie Oliver had sold more copies of just one of his books than have been sold of Elizabeth's entire oeuvre, and what can you say about that?" He sighs, theatrically. As to her wider influence, the powerful effect she famously had (or not) on British palates, he believes this was as much a question of timing as anything else. David, whose first book, A Book of Mediterranean Food, was published in 1950, arrived on the scene at just the right moment: the British middle classes, exhausted by austerity, were longing, even if they did not precisely know it, for the taste of sunshine. David was, moreover, able to forge her career in an environment more suited to her particular talents and personality: "She wouldn't have been able to do television, and she wouldn't have wanted to do it either." The life of the celebrity was not for the redoubtable Mrs David. Hopkinson could no more have imagined her posing for the cover of a glossy magazine, dripping spatula in hand, than he could dashing to the nearest McDonald's for a Big Mac and fries.

To understand Elizabeth David, and her place in the history of the mysterious eating habits of these islands, one must have some sense of what it was like to live through the second world war. Last summer, I spent several days in the British Library reading austerity cookbooks: survival manuals for housewives who had to cope with the rationing that would outlast the war by several years (butter, cheese, margarine, cooking fats and meat did not come off the ration until 1954). In my locker downstairs, my (Elizabeth David-approved) lunchtime sandwich of prosciutto and brie patiently awaited my return, but even so, it was a dispiriting business. Before me were the least appealing recipes ever written: mock marzipan cobbled from haricot beans and almond essence; "eggs" that were tinned apricots fried in bacon fat. I opened one book, and realised with a horrible gulp that I was looking at advice for cooking crow. "Boil it up with suet," said the writer, "to keep the meat as white as possible." There was a recipe for sparrow pie too – though the Ministry of Food did not "encourage" the eating of these tiny birds.

David was abroad for the duration of the war. A restless and independent young woman – after St Clare's Private School for Ladies in Tunbridge Wells, she'd tried unsuccessfully to become an actress, and had briefly worked as a junior sales assistant at the fashion company, House of Worth – in early 1939, she and her lover, Charles Gibson Cowan, had set sail for Greece in their boat, the Evelyn Hope. When war broke out, they were in the south of France, and it was in Antibes, where they wintered, that she met her mentor, the writer and traveller Norman Douglas (the sybaritic Douglas would be the single biggest human influence on David when it came to food). She and Cowan set sail again in the spring of 1940, a decision that led to a brief internment in Italy and the loss of their boat, which was impounded. For a time, they lived on Syros in the Cyclades, but when the Germans invaded Greece in 1941, they were forced to flee to Cairo. She spent the rest of the war in Egypt, and there she married Anthony David, an officer in the Indian army, though the relationship was doomed from the start, and did not last.

Elizabeth David Elizabeth David. Photograph: Elizabeth David Estate

No wonder, then, that when she returned to Britain in 1946, she was so appalled by what she found; in Egypt, she and Suleiman, her servant, had wanted for nothing, foodwise. She had even been able to hold regular lunch parties, at which she served lavishly seasoned kebabs and ice-cream, churned in an ancient and noisy ice bucket. "She couldn't believe it," says Norman, of what she found back at home. "I think she was really upset: shocked, even." Having moved in with her pregnant sister (Anthony was by now back in India), David took over the shopping: "One day, I took back to her, among the broken biscuits and the tins of snoek … one pound of fresh tomatoes. As I took them out of my basket to show her, I saw that tears were tumbling down my sister's beautiful and normally serene face." Elizabeth asked Diana what on earth was wrong. "Sorry," came the reply. "It's just that I've been trying to buy fresh tomatoes for five years. And now it's you who've found them first."

The winter of 1946 was exceptionally harsh; the snow drifts were so deep the country's meagre coal supplies struggled to reach power stations, causing many to close down. By way of escape, David headed for a hotel in Ross-on-Wye with an old lover, George Lassalle. This establishment was fabulously warm: according to David's biographer, Artemis Cooper, a coal fire burned in its public rooms, and maids provided the beds with hot water bottles. But the food was beyond bad: insupportable, in David's view, even allowing for the shortages; she was overcome with a sense of "embattled rage that we should be asked – and should accept – the endurance of such cooking". To comfort herself, she scribbled down lists of the things she most missed: apricots, olives, butter, rice, lemons, almonds…. This, then, was how she first began to write. Her notes and recipes were an expression of her yearning, a way of assuaging something that was not homesickness exactly, but which must have felt a lot like it.

In 1949, she began writing a cookery column for Harper's Bazaar, and soon after this, her first recipe collection was sent out to publishers. At first, she received only rejection notices. But at John Lehmann Ltd her manuscript found its way into the hands of Julia Strachey, a niece of Lytton who was then working as a reader at the company. Strachey liked the book, especially its seeming extravagance; its commitment to ingredients that were impossible to buy. A Book of Mediterranean Food was, then, duly published by Lehmann in June 1950, with a cover and illustrations by John Minton. Among its pages were recipes for such exotic delights as moules marinières and spanakopita, bouillabaisse and brandade, boeuf en daube and dolmades. In her introduction, David quoted Marcel Boulestin, the French chef and cookery writer: "It is not really an exaggeration to say that peace and happiness begin, geographically, where garlic is used in cooking." In spite of this – in 1950, garlic was widely and sincerely feared by most British cooks – the reviews for the book were rather good.

French country cooking French country cooking

And so David's career as Britain's greatest food writer began. She followed A Book of Mediterranean Food with French Country Cooking (1951), Italian Food (1954), Summer Cooking (1955) and the book for which she is still best remembered, French Provincial Cooking (1960). She also continued to work as a journalist, at Vogue and at the Spectator. All the same, it was some time before her name was widely known. Hardbacks were prohibitively expensive; only when Penguin began to publish her in paperback did her work become more accessible (Summer Cooking was the first). Even then, her influence was limited to cognoscenti – intellectual and metropolitan. David, remember, was a woman who chose to cook – the granddaughter of a viscount, she had grown up in a house with staff - and as such, her work appealed to the upper middle classes rather than to the massed ranks of housewives in their new Formica-filled kitchens. Among her admirers, after all, was Evelyn Waugh. Certainly, she was an evangelist for olive oil, good bread and seasonal eating, but her writing, like her manner, could be patrician. It is important to remember, too, that cookbooks speak more loudly of our aspirations than our daily lives. David's ideas were only felt fully in the 1960s and 70s, which was when regular families like mine – and yours, probably – began tentatively eating such things as lasagne and avocados.

Harvest of the cold months Harvest of the cold months

In 1965, she opened a shop, Elizabeth David Limited, in Pimlico, London, where she sold Le Creuset pans and other hard-to-get-hold-of kit. The store, with its marvellous window displays, was as influential as her books would eventually be, pioneering a new generation of shops devoted exclusively to kitchenware. But it was also a business disaster, and she severed her links with it in 1973. Thereafter, she devoted herself to a more scholarly kind of writing: English Bread and Yeast Cookery was published in 1977, and Harvest of the Cold Months: the Social History of Ice and Ices appeared posthumously, in 1994. She became a vociferous critic both of the supermarkets, and of the 80s "foodie" culture as satirised in The Official Foodie Handbook by Ann Barr and Paul Levy, a volume she loathed ("To be sure they are skilful enough in the arts of toadying to their public and providing it with a little giggle at itself, but the meaning of satire in the true sense eludes them," she wrote in her review for Tatler).

Towards the end of her life, she was famously irascible. She drank too much, too – frustrated by her inability to get around, and perhaps a little lonely: since her affair with Peter Higgins, the dedicatee of French Provincial Cooking, had ended in 1963, she had been single. The death in 1986 of her sister, Felicite, with whom she shared her house, was a terrible blow, plunging her into depression. But she was also able to see, by this point, that others would carry the torch she had passed to them: Jane Grigson, Jeremy Round (until his early death in 1989, David had hoped Round would write her biography), Simon Hopkinson. And others felt it, too, this passing of the baton. Her work would not be undone. Among the baskets of lilies, blue iris and violets at her funeral at St Peter ad Vincula in Folkington, East Sussex, on 28 May 1992, someone placed a loaf of bread, and a bunch of herbs tied up in brown paper.

I've read both biographies of David (the authorised volume by Artemis Cooper, and the unauthorised version by Lisa Chaney), not to mention most of her own books. Yet mysteries remain. Why did food, of all things, became so important to her? In some ways, she was so austere, abstemious even. Her passion for Nescafé and Roka biscuits seems more of a piece with her personality than a vast bowl of osso buco. And to what degree is she still an influence on the way we cook? Does the Jamie Oliver generation even know her name? I wonder, too, about her personality. Cooper makes her sound perfectly terrifying, but what kind of cook doesn't care for other people? Isn't the whole point of food – particularly David's kind of food – that it is to be shared?

"If she were about to join us now, I'd be feeling a combination of concern and enthusiasm," says her nephew Johnny Grey, a kitchen designer, with a mournful laugh. "I hate this portrayal of her as a drunken, cross person, but I would be quite nervous, yes." For a time, he and his aunt fell out. About three days before she died, though, they talked. "She held my hand, and she said: 'I want you to know that I love you.' I was, perhaps, her honorary son. Certainly no one else in the family had the connection with her that I did." So is he able to answer my questions? "Well, you're right about the importance of food in her life. I'm still pondering that one myself. She was quite an ascetic person. Not at all greedy. She must have had her sensual side, but we didn't talk about sex, and her affairs were illicit anyway. The nearest I've got to an answer is to say that food conjured up other times, other places." He pauses. "But even that's shrouded. If she was longing for the sun, why didn't she go and live in Europe? Why did she live in a damp, dark house in Chelsea? Her last kitchen was in the basement. I think it must have been that she didn't want to be an expat, to be identified with that kind of posh, idle person."

Celebrity cook Elizabeth David David in 1969. Photograph: Empics/PA

He remembers David as quite shy and modest. It was a pleasure to cook for her, or with her (she required guests, seated at her kitchen table, to perform various tasks). She could be hilarious, when she put her mind to it. Rosi Hanson, who worked in David's shop for two years, agrees. "People say she was difficult, but I didn't find that. She was the sort of person you wanted to please. We worshipped the ground she walked on. We wanted to be around her. She was good fun, and the shop was magical. She rather loved being a shopkeeper, perhaps because it gave her a rest from writing. If someone wanted some very specific piece of equipment, I often heard her say: 'If you could come back, I think I may have one at home.' On evenings when we stayed late to do the windows, she would make a picnic for us all to eat: terrine, things in jelly. Fantastic. If it was your birthday, she would give you a recipe, typed out." She rifles through a drawer, and pulls out several of these precious documents. One is for loin of pork spiced with green peppercorns. "A most original and subtly spiced dish," it begins. Floating beside it, in ink, are the words: "For Rosemary, with love from ED." Were recipients meant to try these recipes? "Oh, yes. But if something didn't work, she never admonished you. She was interested. She wanted to know why."

I ask Norman, who looks after David's estate, how she sees the legacy of her "beautiful, elegant, reserved, witty" friend (we have this conversation, incidentally, at a table that once stood in David's house in Halsey Street: a pine affair bleached pale with years of use). "I remember Prue Leith telling me that at a catering college soon after Elizabeth's death, she asked students how many of them had read her, and not a single one raised a hand. Prue was quite shaken. But the books do sell – I see the royalty statements – and you see her influence in the cooking of Jeremy Lee, Shaun Hill and Rowley Leigh. I think she would have loved the food at restaurants such as Moro and Ottolenghi. Towards the end of her life, she did get a bit bitter and cross, but she had reason. Fiddling about with food, over-garnishing; she hated that. She felt there was too much bad food about – the way the English made pizzas, she was always complaining about that – and some of the things on television, she would have been scornful. Elizabeth never, ever promoted herself."

All these conversations are interesting, and vivid in the telling. In the end, though, you can only go back to the books, to David's stern, crystalline prose – "I was once present at a learned discussion between two stubborn gentlemen, who were arguing as to the respective merits of the snails of Bourgogne and of those of Provence … simply absurd" – and to the recipes themselves, as familiar and as cheering as old pop songs, if a good deal more useful. They will always be with us. They mark a turning point in British food, it's true, but they talk to the present, too, and the future. Some things are unimprovable, and the best of her recipes are exactly that. Norman says the one she uses most often is the daube de boeuf, "which works for everybody and is so good". Grey loves her way with courgettes (grated, to be made into fritters) and her gratin dauphinois. Hanson points me in the direction of snow cheese, a confection made from double cream, sugar, lemon and egg white that should ideally be served in a heart-shaped porcelain dish as once sold by Elizabeth David Ltd. For myself, I will take the recipe for champignons à la grecque, as it appears in Summer Cooking – an oily and delicious dish of my childhood, when my parents, in their flares and cheesecloth shirts, first began experimenting with "foreign food". Even as I type I can feel the coriander seeds crunching delightfully between my teeth.

To order Rachel Cooke's Her Brilliant Career: Ten Extraordinary Women of the Fifties for £14.99 go to guardianbookshop.co.uk or call 0330 333 6846


View the original article here

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Science books of the year – review

Marine nuclear bomb explosion Serving the Reich and Churchill's Bomb study Germany and Britain's failure to win the nuclear arms race. Photograph: Keystone/Getty Images

We have always lived in a material age of one kind or another. It is just the nature of the dominant substance that has altered — as we can see in the names we have given to the world's key stages of civilisation: the stone age, bronze age and iron age. And the process has continued, says Mark Miodownik in his splendid Stuff Matters (Viking). "Steel was the defining age of the Victorian era … while the 20th century is often hailed as the age of silicon," he points out.

Stuff Matters: The Strange Stories of the Marvellous Materials that Shape Our Man-made Worldby Mark Miodownik Tell us what you think: Star-rate and review this book

Today a vast library of modern materials underpins our lives and makes them bearable: from chocolates that are artfully structured to explode like taste-bombs in our mouths to carbon-fibre technology, which has transformed sports including cycling, tennis and Formula One, and which might be used one day to construct a "space ladder", a passenger elevator that would rise from Earth's equator to an orbiting spaceship.

In short, stuff matters – for without modern materials, "we would quickly be confronted by the same basic struggle for survival that animals are faced with," argues Miodownik in this artfully crafted, hugely enjoyable study.

Serving the Reich (Bodley Head) by Philip Ball, and Churchill's Bomb (Faber) by Graham Farmelo, look at how Germany and Britain respectively lost the race to be the first nation to build atomic weapons. Ball's narrative reveals a nation stuck in an ethical quagmire in which its quiescent, subservient scientists – including several Nobel prize winners – proved fundamentally lacking in morals and intellect. For his part, Farmelo provides us with a vision of a great leader, Churchill, who hesitated fatally when Britain was given, by the US, the offer of an equal share in the development of the A-bomb. Both books offer intriguing insights into the pursuit of science then and now.

Finally, in What Has Nature Ever Done For Us? (Profile), Tony Juniper gives the reader a readable, timely vision of the natural world as a recycler of waste, controller of disease and mighty carbon storage system – a living entity that we take for granted at our peril.


View the original article here

Monday, December 16, 2013

Maya Angelou writes poem in honour of Nelson Mandela

Maya Angelou Maya Angelou, who first met Nelson Mandela when she was living in Cairo in the 1960s. Photograph: Jemal Countess/Getty Images for AWRT

The American writer Maya Angelou has written and recited a poem in honour of Nelson Mandela, whom she met in the 1960s when she lived in Cairo.

In the poem, His Day is Done, Angelou mourns Mandela's death, praises him as a modern-day David who slew a mighty Goliath and a Gideon, who freed the South African people. She also marvels at his endurance of racism and imprisonment.

Angelou, best known for the novel, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, was also active in the civil rights movement, and worked with both Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. Mandela read Angelou's books while imprisoned at Robben Island and also recited her poem Still I Rise at his presidential inauguration in 1994.

Angelou, 85, has allowed the US state department to circulate the poem in 15 languages, as a tribute to Mandela "on behalf of the American people".

In the YouTube video, Angelou, wearing dark glasses, says Americans send their souls to South Africans "as you reflect upon your David, armed with a mere stone, facing down the mighty Goliath – your man of strength, Gideon, emerging triumphant."

She continues: "No sun outlasts its sunset, but will rise again and bring the dawn.

"Yes, Mandela's day is done. Yet we, his inheritors, will open the gates wider for reconciliation. And we will respond generously to the cries of blacks and whites, Asians, Hispanics, the poor who live piteously on the floor of our planet," she says.

"Nelson Mandela's day is done. We confess it in tearful voices. Yet we lift our own to say thank you. Thank you, our Gideon. Thank you, our David, our great, courageous man. We will not forget you. We will not dishonour you. We will remember and be glad that you lived among us, that you taught us and that you loved us all."


View the original article here

Sunday, December 15, 2013

Looking at the Stars by Jo Cotterill - review

Looking at the Stars is one of the best, if not the BEST book I have ever read. With great descriptions and a gripping plot, I think it should win an award - my highest compliments to the author!

This book is all about a thirteen year old girl called Amima and her
imagination. She lives in a country (which I guessed was somewhere in the Middle-East due to the traditions spoken about in the book) that has a very strict government, meaning that one step out of line equals big trouble. But when her brother joins a secret underground movement he brings trouble to the whole family. The brutality of government officials means that their mother decides that it is best for her and what is left of her family to leave Tala for a hopefully better life. At the checkpoint, newly-installed government laws mean that not all of the family can make it through, so Amima and her sister must continue their journey alone. Once they gain entry to the only refugee camp in the country they meet Aron, his brother Leon and their mother, who have been through similar experiences. But Amima only has one thing on her mind: reuniting her family. She begins to tell her stories and slowly she brings the whole camp together.

I love this book, particularly the characters; my favourite one would have to be the main character Amima. She speaks her mind and is bold and imaginitive. I particularly like the way her character develops and how she grows to be much more compassionate towards her sister and Aron in particular!

The imagery and description is something I would also like to compliment the author on; I always knew the scene and what was going on, which in my opinion is quite hard when you are writing about something like this.

In conclusion, I think that Jo Cotterill is an amazing author and I shall be very upset if there is no sequel; when there is, I shall be first in line to buy it!

Thank you very much for this book, I seriously do mean it when I say that it is one of the best that I have ever read!!!!!

Want to tell the world about a book you've read? Join the site and send us your review!


View the original article here