Skip to main content

Review - This is Not a Book about Charles Darwin

This has to be one of the most unusual books I've ever read. Historical fiction author and creative writing lecturer Emma Darwin takes us on the sometimes painful journey of failing to write a new novel. Along the way we meet many members of the Darwin / Wedgwood / Galton (and co.) clan as Emma (my apologies for using a first name, but to say 'Darwin' in this context would be totally confusing) tries to put together a historical fiction story that incorporates members of her family tree.

The obvious attraction for potential publishers and readers in such a novel is the Darwin name - Emma is great, great granddaughter of the Charles Darwin - however, she quickly dismisses Charles himself as a subject who is far too well known and takes us instead on a trip around a family tree that features a remarkable number of scientists, artists and other notables. In fact, if anything, it might seem that the struggle would be to find individuals who were dull. In reality, though, the difficulty that forms a thread throughout the book is that the well-known individuals (even featuring one of my musical heroes, Ralph Vaughan Williams) are just too familiar and documented, not giving the wiggle-room that a historical fiction writer needs, while the unfamiliar names tend to be rather, well, ordinary, without enough in their lives to carry a story.

As a writer myself, I find Emma's description of her process fascinating. There surely can't be any branch of fiction that requires so much research as historical fiction (though, to be fair, it seems that Emma is particularly conscientious about this - I suspect there are some hist fic authors who are more cavalier) - it feels more like the depth of research required for a non-fiction book. We are taken into the back room, as it were, experiencing the to and fro with Emma's agent (constantly asking where the story is within the writing), and the whole process is illustrated both with snippets of novel-under-development and photographs - mostly period - as photography is another of Emma's passions.

In the end, after several false starts, the central character seems to be likely to be Imogen, a fictional character (I think - I'll explain why 'I think' in a moment) who becomes entangled with the extended Darwin family. After attempts to make the novel work in various periods, this pushes the story forward to focus primarily on the 1930s. The fact that I have to say 'I think' about Imogen being fictional highlights the only real problem with this book. There are so many characters tried out that I totally lost track of who they are (not helped by a family tendency to reuse first names). At one point, Emma's agent complains about how many characters are introduced in a draft of the novel - it's the same for the meta-book.

Despite the degree of confusion arising from this, the reader gets a fascinating insight into a British dynasty in which pretty well everyone will have heard of a few names, combined with an exploration of Emma's writing process and some of the difficulties writers come up with along the way - including honesty about the requirement to keep money coming in somehow. There's a fascinating conflict between the urge to use the family to get the public interest and the desire not to intrude on real people's lives, especially as the time period moves to one where there may still be living relatives. A truly innovative book.

This is Not a Book about Charles Darwin is available from and


Popular posts from this blog

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 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

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