British Isles Books

I write as someone who had a major role in this book (my job was to write the annotations), so obviously I'm hardly an impartial reviewer, but nonetheless I want to say that Keith Tuma's Oxford anthology is a landmark book. English-language anthologies in any field have typically been rather exclusive in focus. On the one hand, there's "mainstream" anthologies, which usually carry a bland title that promises an objective synopsis (Ellmann & O'Clair's _The Norton Anthology of Modern Poetry_, for instance, or Edna Longley's _The Bloodaxe Book of Twentieth Century Poetry_) which conceals the extremely partial account of the field actually given in the book (Longley's book, absurdly, omits to mention anywhere on its cover or spine that it omits American poetry; Ellmann & O'Clair's book is heavily slanted towards American writers, especially in its second half; each book gives only cursory accounts of nonmainstream poetries). On the other hand, there's "avantgarde" anthologies: Hoover's _Postmodern American Poetry_ book, Silliman's _In the American Tree_, Crozier and Longville's _A Various Art_, Caddel & Quartermain's _OTHER_, Joris & Rothenberg's _Poems for the Millennium_. These books pointedly exclude anything from the "mainstream" side of the spectrum, & are often bolstered with highly polemical introductions that dismiss that mainstream as producing any writing of value at all.

Keith Tuma's new anthology is one of the very few books to pull together both mainstream & avantgarde together, as well as many authors who are hard to categorize in terms of such a binary. As he notes in his introduction, conventional literary histories in the UK, Ireland & the US have often portrayed UK & Irish poetry as a mirror-image to US poetry: hostile to modernist innovations; modest in ambitions; highly traditional in form. One thing his accent on nonmainstream poetries does is to undo such cliches: such writers as Mina Loy, JG Macleod, Thomas MacGreevy, Brian Coffey, WS Graham, Lynette Roberts & David Gascoyne are set beside better-known modernist figures like Eliot, Lawrence, Jones, Bunting & MacDiarmid. There are also many authors who aren't easily classified. What do you call Ivor Gurney? An experimentalist Georgian? Or Charlotte Mew--is she an avantgarde Decadent poet? What about FT Prince, or FR Higgins, or Elizabeth Daryush, or Nicholas Moore?

The book is organized chronologically according to birthdate: such an organization makes for startling juxtapositions of style & reputation. How about Keith Douglas (1920-1944: wrote a handful of great WW2 poems & a prose work, _Alamein to Zem Zem_, & died at Normandy); Bob Cobbing (b.1920: sound-poet, creator of visual poems by e.g. manipulating images on a xerox machine, founder of the redoubtable little press writers forum); Philip Larkin (1922-1985: Eeyoreish head of the Movement, author of some of the most loved contemporary poems in Britain, supporter of Thatcher, & now fallen from grace due to the posthumous publication of his bile-strewn letters). Or two Leeds-born contemporaries: Tony Harrison (b.1937: represented by the long poem _v._, an elegaic poem whose four-letter words were the cause of a public uproar when it was broadcast on television by the BBC) next to John Riley (1937-1978: represented by the long poem _Czargrad_, a religious poem showing both his fascination with the Orthodox Church and with the poetics of Pound, Olson, Blackburn and Williams; the author died at age 41, killed by muggers in Leeds).

Probably the easiest way of demonstrating the book's unique diversity is to list the authors included. They are: Hardy, Hopkins, Kipling, Yeats, Mew, de la Mare, Ford, E. Thomas, Monro, Loy, Hulme, Wickham, Lawrence, Sassoon, Sitwell, Daryush, Muir, Eliot, Butts, Rosenberg, Gurney, MacDiarmid, Warner, MacGreevy, Owen, Rodker, Jones, Graves, Cunard, Clarke, Higgins, Bunting, S. Smith, Macleod, Kavanagh, Coffey, Empson, Beckett, Auden, MacNeice, Parsons, Devlin, Roberts, MacCaig, MacLean, Prince, Madge, D. Thomas, Sisson, Gascoyne, Moore, Graham, Scott, Douglas, Cobbing, Larkin, Davie, Berry, Finlay, Benveniste, Jennings, Middleton, Tomlinson, Kinsella, Turnbull, Montague, Gunn, Feinstein, Hughes, R. Fisher, Silkin, Tonks, Redgrove, Hill, Adcock, Harrison, J. Riley, Raworth, Langley, Reedy, Markham, James, Harwood, Heaney, P. Riley, Mahon, Crozier, Leonard, Raine, Boland, A. Fisher, Pickard, Reading, Forrest-Thomson, Lochhead, Joyce, D. Riley, MacSweeney, Griffiths, Catling, Halsey, Nichols, McGuckian, Lopez, O'Sullivan, Muldoon, Kuppner, Monk, Johnson, Scully, Wilkinson, Shapcott, Alvi, Duffy, cheek, Sheppard, Dabydeen, Healy, Breeze, Zephaniah, Kay, Herbert, Bergvall, Milne, Walsh, Macdonald.

I should also (in all modesty) add that this is one of the few volumes of modern poetry with full annotations. I assembled these with the assistance of scholars, other readers, poets, & in the case of the living, the poets themselves (indeed, some of the notes quote the letters they wrote me). I have continued to augment the notes, & have fixed a few small errors: readers who want to get the errata can write me at ndorward@sprint.ca for a copy.

I was moved to place this notice in response to the others I spotted here, having already written an extensive essay on the book for Chicago Review (Vol. 47, No. 3, Fall 2001 issue). This book is significant precisely because it cuts across existing preconceptions of what is important in 20th Century British and Irish Poetry - some of my own included. While its coverage of Welsh poetry of this period could be better, this is counterbalanced by a very astute view of Irish poetry, which brings mportant figures to notice (above all in the UK and the USA, where they are almost unknown) such as Devlin, Coffey, Joyce, Walsh and others. The fact that (for instance) Michael Longley is missing from the selection is due to the editor's assessment that Longley is not as interesting a poet as his current reputation in the UK would suggest. This holds good for a number of other well-known names too, such as Paulin and Armitage, but is inevitable if an editor is to make serious and informed choices, rather than simply produce a list of the Top Hundred as defined by the boulevard press or London's Poetry Review.

Several significant practitioners of what might be termed post-modernist, or late-modernist, or even "avant-garde" poetry have been included, but they represent less than half the selection from the post-1950 period, which does not seem to me to be unfair. I disagree with some of the inclusions and exclusions too, but I can't think of an anthology that I have agreed with totally in this respect, and it's not about to start now. This is far and away the best, and fairest survey of the period
so far, and it should open a number of eyes. It will offend the preconceptions of those committed to a more conservative view of history, but that is the job of an anthology - to redefine, to challenge, to suggest that appearances are not everything. This is a fine book that deserves to be on most reading lists, and on the shelves of most people interested in the subject. If it creates irate debate, so much the better: at least we'll all be talking about a subject that is all too often ignored.

This is one of the finest popular histories I have ever read. Whether it is a book about 5th and 6th century British history using Arthur as a organizing principle, or a book about the "real" Arthur using 5th and 6th century history as a backdrop, this book is wholly convincing concerning the reality of Arthur and the historical context in which he lived. The book may actually be too good. The most convincing evidence it cites -- the so-called British Easter Annals -- appear to have been called into question by subsequent scholarship; and the link between Arthur and Mount Badon is not quite as convicing as it seeme to be when Alcock wrote the book. In short, this masterpiece needs updating. But a masterpiece it is. No one who reads this book with any care can fail to come away from it without a vastly improved understanding not only of the British dark ages, but of the nature of historical evidence, scholarship, and truth. This is a great book.

I have researched and researched all over the Internet about
King Arthur, Camelot, and his knights. I found many misleading websites that only talked about the fantasies of Camelot and King Arthur. Now, I found this book that tells the "REAL" side of who was King Arthur, Camelot, Merlin, and many others.
It is a "must" for those who want to know the truth, and nothing but the truth. Leslie Alcock has done an excellent job in this book. I highly recommend it.

Gildas is probably most important today because of his connection to Arthurian legend. The Ruin of Britain (De Excidio Britanniae) contains the first mention of the Battle of Badon Hill, where traditionally Arthur met his death. But--Arthur is usually placed in the late 400s (Malory puts the Grail Quest in the year 454, others later). This means that when Gildas was writing, ca. 540, the late 400s were still within living memory. And Gildas makes no mention of Arthur. The great hero of the Ruin is Ambrosius Aurelianus. This is really all the proof anyone needs that Arthur never existed. To forget a great leader so soon would be like a modern person not knowing FDR or Churchill. King Arthur is an amalgam of several people, including Aurelius. Yet Gildas' work is the basis for many later legends, and is thus an essential text for anyone interested in Arthur.

This edition has the complete text of the Ruin, fragments of letters from Gildas, and his penitential. All of these are presented in English in the first half of the book, with the original Latin in the second half. The text is numbered by paragraph and line, so it's easy to cite from.

There are other editions of Gildas, but none are complete, and none that I know of contain the Latin. If you want to read Gildas, this is the edition to have.

The Ruin of Britain, written in 540 AD, is not what we would consider history yet is the only surviving narrative 'history' of the 5th century Britain. Gildas mentions only a few names (from his time) in the entire text however, he states his purpose for writing was not to write a history but rather to fiercely denunciate the rulers and churchmen of the day. Thankfully, historians known enough of the period from other references/sources to understand Gildas' comments.

Historical Background:
In 410 the Emperor, since the Roman Empire was on verge of collapse, instructed England to provide their own defense and government. Initially, the rulers were successful in fending off attacks from neighbors but fatefully, Vortigen invited in Saxons who in 441 rebel and capture Britain. An British counter rebellion begins and supposedly after 30 years (under Ambrosius and 'Arthur') they defeat the Saxons (English) at Baldon hill. However, this victory had destroyed most remnants of Roman institutions (Villas destroyed, farmland pillaged, etc). Soon after Gildas' death, the Saxons rebel again and establish control - that lasted until Harold's defeat in 1066.

Gildas' Purpose:
The victorious British, after defeating the Saxons, ruled well for a generation but in Gildas' time power had passed to war lords who exploited the church and overrode law. It is this anarchy that Gildas' denunciates. He supports his argument about the decrepitudes of society (especially the clergy) with Biblical quotes and offers 'patters for better priest.' What is perhaps the most important aspect of this source is its ramifications. Instead of reforming society, mass numbers opted out (i.e. founded monasteries) completely reinvigorating the monastic movement that was mainly defunct in Gildas' time.

Pros and Cons of Volume:
The introduction is brief and concise however, it could be supported by more examples to illustrate important conclusions. The most obvious being the monastic movement supposedly spawned by this text. The section on Gildas' Latin is very welcome as well as the inclusion of the actual Latin text. An index of biblical quotations is very helpful as well as a list of names (since Gildas' only names one individual this list clarifies Gildas' references to others). Gildas, although he does not refer to Authur, was used as a source for later Arthurian legend since many concluded that Ambrosius was Arthur. A fascinating source which is fun to read ('as the Romans went back home, there eagerly emerged from the coracles that had carried them across the sea-valleys the foul hordes of Scots and Picts, like dark throngs of worms who wriggle out of narrow fissures in the rock when the sun is high and the weather grows warm). Thankfully, the text is supported and explained by a good introduction.

Having been brought up on the notion that Elizabeth Barrett Browning was the slighter and less-talented adjunct poet of her husband Robert, I was pleased to find I was wrong.

She's terrific.

This is a brilliant work, full of dazzling poetry and insights.

It's loaded with allusions and references (I read the Penguin edition; and the notes there run for many, many pages--and these barely skim the surface), but it is remarkably accessible and fun.

This is a work full of wisdom and unusual perspectives. Luminous and grand and down-to-earth all at once. Imagine Jane Eyre written by Shakespeare.

It's an education in Victorian (upper-middle-class) England, and also the Victorian English infatuation with Italy. It's also a biting and incisive feminist portrait, full of rebellion and self-discovery.

I strongly recommend it to anyone who likes poetry, or Victorian novels.

E.B.B. set out to outstrip Milton and does so in an amazingly original way. Aurora Leigh is a novel in blank verse that is actually longer than Paradise Lost! She combines the genre expectations for a woman writer--the novel--with an audacious bid for poetic immortality. The book tells a good story but it also works as a formidable reminder to her contemporary poets that the novel is taking over and poets must make sure that they are writing in the spirit of the age.

This is by far the best bare knuckle boxing book available. Bob Mee has written a history book without the dryness and mistakes found in most books on the subject. Highly recomended!

This is an excellent read. Bob Mee takes you through the history of bare knuckle boxing from the past ot the the present day. My only gripe is that he sees modern day bare knuckle boxing as brutal. I disagree. While abroad, I have seen bare knuckle boxing. It is no more brutal than fights with gloves and there have been no deaths in the ring. The fighters are also evenly matched which is more than you can say for a lot of big fights. The fights I have seen have been fast, very exciting, and come to a conclusion quickly - usually with a knockout. If you get a chance to see one, do go. I found it thrilling. Apart from that, this is a good book.

This book is lean and mean.Very little is devoted to the battle itself,because apparently there wasn't much to it,except in intensity.It seems the English didn't have much cavalry and not enough archers either,the Normans had plenty of well trained experts in both.In addition it seems that during this period Angleland was very politically unstable and had only recently repelled 2 invasions from Norway and the Danes as well.With all the chaos maybe the Normans were a positive addition to the English gene pool.This book also explains well the history of English territorial claims on the European continent.The claims of Henry the fifth were the reassertions of territorial rights in existence since the rule of William the Conqueror.There are some excellent interpretations of the Bayeux Tapestry as well.You'll be an expert without doing the original 3 volume 2000 page set and it will cost you about 3 or 4 hours and 3 or 4 cups of coffee(or tea?).The famous English Longbowman at Agincourt is an original French(Norman) invention.True the normans didn't have the longbow at Hastings but they used the bowman in groups for mass firepower and the Saxons had their archers sprinkled throughout the ranks.When the longbow was invented and used with Norman archery tactics it made the English dominant for 200 years or so.According to this book the Normans gave the Saxons a lesson on how to use archery.

The Battle of Hastings was a key turning point in the history of Northern Europe. Together with the Battles of Fulford and Stamford Bridge, this trilogy of battles enabled the great civilization that was coming into being in Western Europe penetrate into the British Isles, when at that time were culturally and economically part of Scandanavia. Bradbury's account is the best that I have read - it is clear, concise but detailed enough to satisfy anyone who wants to find out more about the climactic battle of 1066. I loved the way he used the Bayeux Tapestry right through as a reference document. Many accounts (and I would include Frank McLynn's recent '1066 - Year of Three Battles'), use the tapestry as a secondary source only, a sure sign of the tyranny of the written word! Yet the Tapestry was made within at least twenty years of the battle on the order of one of the major participants (Bishop Odo of Bayeux, the Conqueror's half-brother). It is therefore perhaps the prime source for the battle. It is also a significant document on the weapons and tactics used, besides being a prime work of art! You feel that Bradbury is judicious and discerning on the major puzzles - Did Harold swear an oath to William? Did Edward support William's succession? What use did the English make of horses? How did Harold die? Did the Normans win the battle with a 'feigned flight'? How did the Normans use their archers? Where were the English archers? Anyone with an interest in medieval politics and military history should have this book on their shelves.

J. D. Fleeman has left us a hefty 2-volume set of incredible value to some people, but perhaps not to many. It's an extremely comprehensive listing of various editions of Johnson's works, both as sets and isolated volumes. The date range is from original editions when Johnson lived (18th C), up to recent times. Some of what is here is surprising - - such listings of Johnson's Dictionary in foreign languages, which initially caused me surprise (but were understandable with more thought).

I have used it on occasion in placing bids on eBay (it has helped me understand editions such as a 1970's facsimile reprint of the 1st edition of Johnson's Dictionary), as well as when buying 19th C editions of his books over the Internet, and helped take some of the guesswork out of what I was purchasing. It's told me more about some of the editions I already own. It has also helped me anser questions from visitors to my Johnson website.

I imagine that this set is very valuable to the specialist, but I imagine that even the specialists would prefer to borrow it from their local library than to buy it. While this is a monumental achievement, and deserves all five of the stars I've given it, at $460 for the 2 volumes together, I think most people's uses for this would be limited.

Scholarly books have become absurdly and prohibitively expensive. This volume, and its companion, vol. 2, covering the years 1760 to 1816, exemplify this unfortunate trend. However, occasionally, a book comes along that warrants, if not justifies, the expense. Such is the case here. Johnson studies has been blessed with excellent scholars and editors, commencing in its modern phase with the efforts of the Victorian GB Hill (whose 1905 edition of the Lives of the Poets still holds sway), and continuing majestically through he 20th century with the excellent Yale Johnson, the Yale treatment of the Boswell papers, Redford's splendid edition of Johnson's letters, and so on. Fleeman's magnificent contribution, however, stands forth even from this rich tradition.

The meticulous care that Fleeman has introduced into each entry is matched only by the monumental largeness of his his scope. These 2 volumes, which Fleeman's premature death unfortunately prevented his seeing through to publication, exemplify textual scholarship--an art undervalued in modern literary studies--at its Olympian height, and will remain a mainstay of reference for Johnson scholars for a very long time. Yes, they are absurdly and prohibitively expensive, but they are a must-have for the serious Johnson scholar.

This book has to be seen to believed - it's so meticulous that what isn't included here really isn't worth knowing!

These three volumes, over twenty years in the making, are an outstanding work of scholarship. Ronald Cohen has spared no effort to locate and describe the published works of Winston Churchill, examining literally hundreds of archives, libraries and private collections around the world. The scope of the Bibliography is impressive, including not only Churchill's own books, but also pamphlets and a wide range of articles, speeches and letters published in books and periodicals - only a fraction of which were included in the earlier Woods' bibliography. Cohen provides a full description of all works falling into Section A, and offers a wealth of information relating to the circumstances of publication. This is perhaps the most impressive aspect of the Bibliography. By going into the publishers' archives and the Churchill papers, the author is able to provide new details on print runs, distribution, contract negotiations, and even such things as the selection of titles. In the process he debunks many long-standing myths. This is an essential reference work for Churchill collectors and scholars, but anyone interested in Churchill's remarkable career as a writer and journalist will find the books informative and far more entertaining than any bibliography has a right to be.

Anyone remotely familiar with the British blues scene of the 60s and 70s will have heard Dick Heckstall-Smith, whether you are aware of his name or not. I'm halfway through this book and...what a treat! In his own words, Dick recounts his personal history as a musician growing up in the British Jazz scene of the 50s and the blues rock period of the 60s and beyond. In the process, he writes a veritable history of the British blues. Why? Because he was present during many of the key episodes of that history. In addition to his musical insight, DHS shares some stories of the road which sound so impossible that they just have to be true. Standouts are the tale of the "homemade stew", Jack Bruce's introduction to him and Ginger Baker's attempt to drive in a blinding snowstorm. The tales of his tenure in the Graham Bond ORGANization are worth the price of admission alone. DHS was a wonderful musician, inquisitive human being and a true ambassador of the British jazz/blues scene. This is a must read book. Rest in peace Dick.

Most blues guides focus on American blues music: Dick Heckstall-Smith and Pete Grant's Blowing The Blues covers fifty years of playing British blues, includes cd with previously unreleased tracks, and provides insights into blues saxophone to accompany a blend of autobiography and British blues history. Add cartoons by Biff making comments on the life of a blues musician and you have a honest survey of the music scene of the British blues world.

Philip Callow's BODY OF TRUTH, the second and last volume of a biography (the first was "Son and Lover") is written in an engaging style and is easy to read. And it's the story of a man who, despite his volatility and rages, I think is a real prophet. Included are discussions of many of Lawrence's later works, such as "The Plumed Serpent" and "Lady Chatterley's Lover," and records of his encounters with many people, some well-known and some not so.

One thing that comes through is Lawrence's vitality, a vitality that lasted until his untimely death in 1930. He died of tuberculosis, as had Katherine Mansfield before him. But unlike her and one of his correspondents, Lawrence would not go to a sanatorium, nor even admit he had the disease.

The subtitle is "The Nomadic Years: 1919-1930. Lawrence and Frieda were travel addicts (not always together), and this volume takes us all over Europe, as well as to Australia and America, specifically, Taos NM and environs. It was in Taos that he encountered the formidable Mabel Dodge Luhan, who sought to interpose herself between Lawrence and Frieda. But Lawrence would have none of it, or of her. In many ways, he was a Puritan, and was certainly against adultery or any casual or promiscuous sex. One thing he had to deal with was his wife infidelities. But despite this, he found her necessary to his emotional being. (After his death, she wrote an account of their years together, "Not I, But the Wind.")

In 1919 Lawrence arrived in Venice with a banned book to his name, living on very little and concerned with health problems. His last years in Venice were to include a relationship with Frieda and travels between America, Europe and England - Body Of Truth: D.H. Lawrence, The Nomadic Years, 1919-1930 re-creates his movements and his nomadic years, and his eventual reconciliation with the literary world.