Skip to main content

Review - You Are Awful (But I Like You) - Tim Moore

Not a biography of Dick Emery, but a humorous UK travel book, one of my favourite genres. With Bill Bryson setting the bar and Stuart Maconie managing to better Bryson's approach with a mix of wry observation and genuine affection, Tim Moore had stiff competition. The concept behind the book was to visit places that are widely considered to be awful and see what they are really like - Moore goes the whole hog by making the journey in an awful car (an Austin Maestro) with a soundtrack of awful music, choosing to eat and stay in the dregs of the rating system.

There are dangers attached to this approach. Of the six places I've lived, three could well feature in such a book (though, as it happened, only one did - the one that most deserved it - and that tangentially), and I wouldn't be very happy if they got the same sort of treatment Moore gives to, say, St Helens, Rhyl and Cowdenbeath. The good side is that he gives genuinely interesting historical context to the sad state of places such as Hull or Barrow, but despite his claim to like these places, it's hard not to see at least some of his comments (and his attempts to phoneticise local accents) as typical 'Londoner snipes at the provinces'.

I'd also say that Moore's masochistic requirement to eat at the most horrible establishments he can find (or to stay in total dumps) does not help in giving a good picture of these locations. A Maconie version would have given us a warts and all view: Moore only provides warts and more warts.

The book is not uninteresting, and occasionally entertaining. I enjoyed the historical context and some good unlikely trivia (such as the comedian Roy 'Chubby' Brown's real name being Royston Vasey) - but I think the straightjacket of a format that Moore placed on himself limits the book's ability to be truly enjoyable and fails to give a fair picture of places where real people live. One thing is certain, though: if I'm ever in Middlesborough, I won't be ordering a parmo.

You Are Awful (But I Like You) is available from and

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you


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