Skip to main content

Review: Dear Bill Bryson - Ben Aitken ***

This is what they call a high concept book - you don't need many details to get the point, as what it sells is a clear, simple concept. In this case it's retracing Bill Bryson's journey from his 1995 book Notes from a Small Island, as much as possible staying and eating in the same places, seeing the same sights and having the same experiences. This book just jumped at me off the bookshelf - I love travel books that are humorous (the serious ones generally come across as far too worthy) and am a big fan of Bryson, even when he had the temerity to amble into popular science.

As a result, I was a little unnerved when I read in Ben Aitken's introduction 'I mention this (the book being an irreverent homage, rather than a pious and gushing one) to give the more zealous members of Bryson's fan club a chance to back out now... Nor am I funny. If I ever seem funny, or write things that seem funny, it is almost always by accident.' So, it's arguable this introductory statement pretty much entirely counters my reason for buying the book in the first place (and probably quite a few buyers). Perhaps it should be mentioned on the back cover (interestingly, it is in the online equivalent of a blurb). Luckily, though, Aitken's comments turn out to be more self-deprecatory than entirely factual.

There's no doubt that there are dollops of humour in here, some of which work really well - though the style of book doesn't sit awfully well with Aitken's regular thoughts on social justice and inequality. It's not that I disagree with him about the impact of inequality, particularly in the North and the South West - I'm all in favour of levelling up and such - it's just that this content does not fit well with Bryson and would be more apposite if Aitken had decided to take the same approach to an Orwell or J. B. Priestley book. In fact both get several mentions, and probably the biggest thing I've got out of reading Aitken is putting Priestley's English Journey on my 'to read' list.

Aitken's writing comes alive when he recounts conversations, from the delightful to the downright scary, when encountering a character who quite clearly could resort to violence at any moment. And some of his descriptions of places are effective. But at times he follows Bryson in such a half-hearted way that it's hard to get much out of the travel writing. So, for instance, he tells us that Bryson thinks that Blackpool's illuminations were tacky and inadequate. But he doesn't bother to actually look at them himself, relying on a one line comment from a local to give his response.

In the end - and Aitken effectively admits this - any attempt to be critical of Bryson's travel writing is breaking a butterfly on the wheel. The original book was not about in-depth analysis, or even deep reaction to the surroundings. It's as much about Bryson's character and the feel he gets of the place as it is 'real' travel writing. That being the case, it was never going to be an easy job to try to follow Bryson and update us on how things have  changed, because Bryson was not offering biting social commentary or exquisite architectural observation. There is, in the end, very little in Notes from a Small Island that can sensibly be updated, unless it were done by Bryson himself - and frankly, his attempt in the 2015 The Road to Little Dribbling wasn't up to the original. So, to some extent, this was a project that was likely to fail right from the start.

Despite this, at risk of damning with faint praise, I never felt like I wanted to give up on Aitken. There was always enough to interest me to keep me going. But it's certainly not a book from which to get the same kind of enjoyment as the original.

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here
You can order Dear Bill Bryson from Amazon.co.ukAmazon.com and Bookshop.org.

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you



















Comments

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