Skip to main content

England on $10 a day

When I was at university I had a tendency to buy random books just because they looked interesting (this was before the web, remember - it was a sort of physical version of StumbleUpon).

One of my favourite purchases was a guidebook to the UK called England on $10 a Day. Leaving aside the cheapness, which even then was impressive, I just loved the idea of seeing my country through slightly alien eyes - and I was not disappointed. What's not to love about a guidebook that treats Scotland as part of England?

Ninety percent of the book is on the south of England, but as a Lancastrian I couldn't help but be delighted with its different approaches to the East and the West. The North West it eulogises about. The North East? 'Unless you enjoy untamed scenery and perhaps a visit to an ancient city or two, such as York or Lincoln, then this huge hunk of north-eastern England may hold little interest for you.' Quite.

It's difficult to find a specific quote that evokes the feeling it gives. But here's an example when talking about travelling by train in the UK: 'There is something magical about travelling on a train in England. You sit in comfortable compartments, on upholstered seats, next to reserved and inevitably well-dressed Englishmen and served your meal in the dining car like a titled aristocrat.' Hmm.

Just to get a real impression of how prices have changed (the book was published in 1973), one of the recommended London hotels is the Heritage House Hotel in Bayswater where Mr. and Mrs. Bailey R. Irani charge £2 per person for bed and breakfast. Want a meal? You can get "bangers and mash" (their quotes) at The Cockney Pride in Picadilly Circus for 25p. Or (it gets quite excited here) "faggots and pease pudding" for 28p. Yum.

I ought to stress that though I may be teasing it, this was a good book for its day. Here's its philosophy, which I applaud: 'This book has not been written for the North American tourist who likes only the expensive and the gaudy - who goes through Europe rudely demanding "a room, a private bath and a good cuppa coffee." It is, rather, for those who want to experience a country's true charm, it's precious traditions, its authentic food - and who hope to make new friends.' And though those 'traditions' may occasionally be a little caricatured, it still does a very entertaining job.

Comments

  1. Hi Brian, I enjoyed this post very much. I've been trying to decide whether this was the book I brought with me to Britain on my 1st trip in 1973. I think it was the earlier "England on $5 and $10 a Day." I would love to have a copy of either one. By the way, I ended up living in the North East (Teesside) although I later got my M.A. at U. of Liverpool.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Glad you liked it, Rhiannon. I do still have my copy, but I'm too fond of it to give it away, I'm afraid!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense