Skip to main content

Review: The Full English - Stuart Maconie ***

I don't think I've ever read a book before where I was struck by such an immediate sense of deja vu - because the chapter headings in Stuart Maconie's The Full English were the same as the ones in a book I'd read only the week before. I had bought J. B. Priestley's English Journey (inspired by a reference to it in another book) in the same batch of shopping as Maconie's latest English socio-travel title without realising that Priestley's book was the inspiration for Maconie's. It's not necessary to read Priestley first... but I did really gain something by doing so.

The book retraces Priestley's journey of 1933/4. Maconie is, without doubt, the perfect writer to do this. Like Priestley, he is a northerner who has moved down south. Like Priestley, he has a balance of socialist principles and liking a bit of the good life. And he's a big fan of Priestley's original. But, strangely, there are some problems with the format. It's limiting: Maconie visits places he's written about before and sometimes doesn't really do much while he's in any particular location. The oddest failing is that one of the most interesting bits of the 1930s predecessor was Priestley's descriptions of his visits to various factories, but Maconie doesn't do this at all. That was a real shame.

This doesn't make this a bad book - it's not. It was really interesting to see Maconie struggling with the less pleasant and politically acceptable aspects of English Journey - a bit of a case of never meet, or in this case re-trace the journey of, your hero. And unlike Priestley, who didn't even make much of an effort on his visit, Maconie quite likes Swindon, for which I will forgive him a lot. We also get some of Maconie's excellent interactions with and overhearing of random people in the locations he visits, plus his often enticing descriptions of the food he eats on his travels. (To be fair, he has a huge advantage here over Priestley, as the food is so much better in England than it was in 90 years ago. Apart from one hotel, the places Maconie stays are far better too.)

The best part by far is towards the end, when he reaches Lincolnshire and Norfolk. Here Maconie is more on form, particularly on Skegness - even though neither he nor Priestley visits, he passes through on the train and reminisces about his childhood visits to various Butlins holiday camps - and Boston which must be one of the strangest towns in England for reasons he describes well. He's also excellent in Norwich, though he does sing the praises of UEA's brutalist Lasdun Wall without pointing out that it is a maintenance nightmare and falling apart.

I honestly expected Maconie's version of this trip round an eccentric English itinerary to be better than Priestley's, and in some ways it is. I prefer Maconie's writing style and (after all) he is from Lancashire rather than Yorkshire. The best of Maconie shines through when he tears apart the terrible mine owners of the Victorian North East (and suggests very reasonably that statues of these 'noble' buffoons should be torn down). But, for me, this is the weakest of all Maconie's socio-travel books. It feels like something that seemed like a good idea when it was commissioned, but that proved hard to make work in practice.

I'm still a big fan of Maconie's writing. I'll be pre-ordering his next book without a qualm. But this one was a bit of a let-down.

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here
You can buy The Full English 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 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