History of Britain in Maps - Philip Parker ***

As someone who earns most of my living from writing books it is genuinely painful to be negative about whole classes of books, but for me, there are definitely three circles of bookish hell.

The worst, without doubt, are adult colouring books. I once upset Alex Bellos by being snarky about a mathematical adult colouring book he wrote the words for, both because it missed the opportunity to give far more text to accompany the pictures and also because... well, it was an adult colouring book. But that was arguably one of the better examples of the species.

In the next circle come the coffee table books. These seem now to be something of an endangered species. You don't see them as much, perhaps because fewer people have coffee tables these days (or perhaps because there's less pretentiousness in home decor - we have less of the Changing Rooms vibe). The idea of a coffee table book is that it should be large format and picture driven. No one is intended to read it from end to end - it's just to flick through when you need a minute or two distraction.

Coffee table books are not always disastrous - I was quite impressed, for example, by Images from a Warming Planet, for instance, (and if I'm honest, my own Scientifica Historica has something of a coffee table vibe, though there is a fair amount of text).

Finally we reach the circle of the gift book. Some of these can be excellent, even if their entertainment timescale is quite short. I loved my copy of Jan Pienkowski's pop-up book Haunted House (which I was given as an adult). I am very fond of How it All Works, which I think I can say because I only wrote some words to accompany Adam Dant's wonderful artwork. And I was transfixed by the J. M. Richards/Eric Ravilious book High Street (which I really did encounter on my sister-in-law's coffee table, but is far more than a coffee table book).

Gift books can be a godsend when trying to buy a present for that 'difficult to buy for person' - which is probably why I get so many. Which brings us on to the titular topic of this review, History of Britain in Maps. It was originally published by Collins but has been reissued by bargain bookstore Postscript Books, who rather oddly are selling it at a discount of £1 more than the list price.

It sounds really quite positive in the description: 'Including the earliest known map of pre-Roman roads and one showing Beeching's proposed cuts to the railways in the early 1960s, Philip Parker presents reproductions of around 90 maps and uses the complex information they contain to trace the history of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland from prehistory to the 2016 EU Referendum.' We've got, to pick three at random, the Hereford Mappa Mundi (though the partial image in the book doesn't really give the feel for its structure), a sketch map of Elizabeth I's Norfolk progress in 1578, which at a glance could be a constellation, and the ground plan of the 1851 Great Exhibition.

In theory, many of these maps could be quite interesting. But in practice, I really struggled to find any enthusiasm to do more than flick through a few. I certainly won't be going through it end-to-end. By all means buy gift books, but I do recommend at least reading the text for a few pages before buying them.

These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee or taking out a membership:

See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

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...

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...

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...

Search This Blog