Skip to main content

The Gift of a Radio - Justin Webb ****

This isn't the kind of book I usually read, but it piqued my interest when someone told me about it - and it certainly was worth getting into. If you are a BBC Radio 4 listener (or subscribe to the Americast podcast) you will be familiar with Justin Webb's soothing tones - this memoir of his childhood through to going to university gives a vivid picture of his bizarre upbringing.

Webb never met his father (who would become a reasonably well-known BBC reporter), being brought up by his mother and stepfather, each of whom had quite serious problems. His stepfather had a form of mental illness that included paranoia, while his mother was intensely snobbish, insisting on every little social divider that would put a gap between her upper-middle-class-on-hard-times position and anyone she considered socially inferior. 

Their home life seems to have consisted mostly of silence, though there was a strong bond between Webb and his mother, arguably an unhealthy one. He was then sent to a dire second-rate public school, run by Quakers who somehow ignored violence amongst the students, before finally escaping to the LSE and a job at the BBC (via one dramatic road trip disaster). It's one of those stories where it's almost impossible to prevent yourself from describing parts of his experience to anyone nearby in amazement.

One thing that comes across very strongly is how dire Webb considers the 1970s to have been I can't help but feel that his intense dislike for the decade reflects his personal circumstances. I'm just a little older than Webb, but I loved the seventies, where I was experiencing my last years at a school I liked, time at two universities which I loved and starting a great job. Of course there were political and economic problems in the 70s, but I think the experience of being a child or teenager then has far more to do with what you were going through as an individual than a dark nature of the decade as a whole.

If you aren't familiar with Webb's work, you can hear him here, interviewing me for Radio 4's Today Programme (somewhat ironically, given his admission to totally giving up on science at school):


See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here
You can buy The Gift of a Radio from Amazon.co.uk Amazon.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 recent 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 ex

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

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope