The Code of the Woosters (1938) by P. G. Wodehouse — novel #260

You can’t be a successful Dictator and design women’s underclothing. ~ a musing of Bertram Wooster; just a glimpse at the depths of his profundity
 

·      Author: P. G. Wodehouse (pronounced wood-house)

·      Comic novel, British lit

·      Published: 1938

·      My edition: W.W. Norton & Company, 2011 (eBook)

·      Setting: Totleigh Towers a fictional country estate in Gloucestershire, England, pre-WWII

 

Bertram Wilberforce Wooster, Bertie to friends and family, is twenty something, a bachelor, and idle rich, residing in London with his resourceful valet Jeeves. The Code of the Woosters is "Jeeves #7": stories that were serialized in The Saturday Evening Post and The Strand magazines. They can be read in any order. Wooster has a talent for getting in trouble; Jeeves has a talent for getting him out.

 

In this story, a desperate telegram from Bertie’s old chum Augustus “Gussie” Fink-Nottle pulls him into the fray. Gussie has fouled things with his fiancé, Madeline Bassett, and now the engagement is off, threatening Wooster’s happy bachelorhood, as Madeline was previously, rather irrepressibly inclined for Bertie, and is likely to re-engage, literally!

 

According to Wooster, she is a ghastly girl.

I call her a ghastly girl because she was a ghastly girl. The Woosters are chivalrous, but they can speak their minds.

 

He admits…

…Madeline Basset was undeniably of attractive exterior—slim, svelte, if that’s the word, and bountifully equipped with golden hair and all the fixings.

 

But…

She was definitely the sort of girl who puts her hands over a husband’s eyes, as he is crawling in to breakfast with a morning head, and says” ‘Guess who!’

 

Bertie is called to the scene, ostensibly to clear things up. The reader who is familiar with Bertie’s tact and delicacy cannot be hopeful, but for the knowledge that Jeeves will accompany. There are other complications, involving blackmail, theft, arrest, assault, and a second imperiled engagement of another Wooster chum.

 

It is all quite ridiculous, preposterous, and yet—in Bertie’s world—somehow perfectly plausible.

 

It is great fun, a great read, a laugh-out-loud read, with one minor detractor: I’ve seen it all portrayed flawlessly by Stephen Fry (Jeeves) and Hugh Laurie (Bertie) in the wonderful television adaptation Jeeves & Wooster. I wholeheartedly recommend both the written format and the TV series. If you read first, picture Fry and Laurie in their respective roles.

 

My rating 4/5 stars

 

This was title #29 of 50 for The Classics Club Challenge –Round IV

 

Much of the charm is Wooster’s first-person narrative. A female acquaintance compares Wooster to Sydney Carton, the self-sacrificing hero of A Tale of Two Cities. Wooster is unimpressed.

 

Stiffy Byng thought me like Sidney Carton. I had never met the chap, but I gather that he was somebody who had taken it on the chin to oblige a girl, and to my mind this was enough to stamp him as a priceless ass.

 

Or this bit of dialogue, when Bertie discusses a hostile brute he had to blackmail. This brute was the leader of an intimidating fascist group making noise in England. Bertie, through Jeeves, learned he was also secretly the prorietor of a women’s lingerie boutique. (Bertie speaking first, then Jeeves)

‘You can’t be a successful Dictator and design women’s underclothing.’

‘No, sir.’

‘One or the other. Not both.’

‘Precisely, sir.’

For the record, the “code” of the Woosters is…

"Never let a pal down"

 

Have you read The Code of the Woosters, or other stories in the series? What did you think? I bet you are not neutral.

. 

The Loved One by Evelyn Waugh (novel #183)

The subtitle calls this, An Anglo-American Tragedy

I beg to differ. It’s a comic novel.

Waugh says of it…

The tale should not be read as a satire on morticians but as a study of the Anglo-American cultural impasse with the mortuary as a jolly setting.

But again, I beg to differ – which perhaps adds validity to the notion of an Anglo-American Cultural Impasse.

Waugh also said it was

...much the most offensive work I had done.

Dennis Barlow, a once successful poet, and an out-of-work British screenwriter in Hollywood takes work at a pet mortuary – The Happier Hunting Grounds. Dennis must make funeral arrangements for his fellow Briton, and roommate, a washed-up screenwriter, who committed suicide after being unceremoniously fired. Arrangements are handled by the Whispering Glades mortuary and cemetery, a thinly veiled portrayal of Forrest Lawn (Waugh’s inspiration), the over-the-top, opulent resting place for Southern California’s rich and beautiful. While making arrangements, Dennis develops a crush on Aimée Thanatogenos, Whispering Glades star cosmetician, who has also caught the eye of head mortician, Mr. Joyboy. Aimée is confused by her own emotions, and repeatedly writes a local advice columnist.

 

Empty-headed Aimée is further confused when she learns Mr. Joyboy lives with his overbearing mother, and Dennis’ love poems to her are not his own, but the work of England’s glorious dead poets. And although she never learns it, her advice columnist is a drunken, insensitive hack.

 

Does that sound like tragedy or comedy? I suppose I should defer to the author, but I thought it was fun and funny, reminiscent of Nathanael West or Kingsley Amis – quite unlike my other experiences with Evelyn Waugh. [Brideshead Revisited, A Handful of Dust]

 

My rating: 3 1/2 of 5 stars

 

This book satisfies a humorous or satirical classic in Back to the Classics Challenge 2021, and book with “One” in the title for the What’s in a Name? 2021 challenge.

 

I’ll share one excerpt. The unofficial head of the British enclave in Hollywood attempts to admonish Dennis for his undignified job, and relates how a previous chap, embarrassed his fellow Britons:

 

Clever chap, be he went completely native – wore ready-made shoes, and a belt instead of braces, went about without a tie, ate at drugstores.

 

Now that’s funny.

 

.

 

 

All's Well that Ends Well by William Shakespeare

All’s Well that Ends Well by William Shakespeare 

All’s Well that Ends Well is a comedy, by William Shakespeare, written around the turn of the seventeenth century.

It is primarily about Helena, daughter of a late illustrious physician. Helena is under the care of the Countess of Rousillon, and is in love with the Countess’ son, Bertram – the Count of Rousillon. But Helena has no hope of winning Bertram due to disparity in their lineage.

Until she, through craft and medicine that she inherited from father, is able to heal the King of France, who promises her any eligible bachelor of his court – which includes Bertram.

Bertram will not have her though, until the hot displeasure of the King persuades him. They have a marriage ceremony, but Bertram will not consummate the marriage, and indeed vows to never until Helena can gain the heirloom ring that he wears, and bears him a child – which of course will be problematic – the marriage being unconsummated.

Except for one of those Shakespeare hallmarks, the “bed trick”, where one person goes to bed with another, believing it to be someone other than whom it is in reality.

There’s a great deal more intrigue, and it’s very clever, but not very satisfying – name of the play notwithstanding. 

Helena – she was beautiful, virtuous, and much the victim, but I couldn’t be too happy for her, as I don’t think the Count was much of a prize. And she loses a few points for even wanting the scoundrel.

The Count – He was a cad and a libertine, didn’t like him at all. He was of noble birth, quit himself admirably in battle, probably good looking, so I guess he’s considered a prize. Meh.

There were two admirable people in the play: Lafeu an elderly Lord, and the Countess, who denounced her son, and embraced Helena.

But they didn’t make up for the ending: All’s well – really? Helena has a jerk husband, Bertram has a saint wife. Meh.

Again, very clever twists and turns, brilliantly written, very funny at times, but I just couldn’t feel good about the outcome.

Excerpts:

Helena pleading her healing ability to the skeptical King

I am not an impostor, that proclaim

Myself against the level of mine aim;

But know I think, and think I know most sure,

My art is not past power, nor you past cure.

The King admonishing Bertram for rejecting Helena

All that is virtuous, - save what thou dislik’st,

A poor physician’s daughter, - thou dislik’st

Of virtue for the name: but do not so:

From lowest place when virtuous things proceed,

The place is dignified by the doer’s deed

Countess expressing her love for Helena, in spite of Bertram’s rejection.

I pr’vthee, lady, have a better cheer;

If thou engrossest all the griefs are thine,

Thou robb’st me of a moiety. He was my son;

But I do wash his name out of my blood,

And thou art my child

Helena, explaining the trickery that will get Bertram to her bed – he thinking it is with another

Why, then, tonight

Is wicked meaning in a lawful act

Where both not sin, and yet a sinful fact;

But let’s about it

Lafeu, thinking Helena is dead, now pleads to the King to forgive Bertram

But first, I beg your pardon, – the young lord

Did to his majesty, his mother, and his lady,

Offense of mighty note; but to himself

The greatest wrong of all: he lost a wife

A maiden who Bertram thought he seduced, but was a conspirator with Helena, explaining things to the king

…but for this lord [Bertram]

Who hath abus’d me, as he knows himself,

Though yet he never harm’d me, here I quit him:

He knows himself my bed he hath defil’d;

And at that time he got his wife with child.

Dead though she be, she feels her young one kick;

So, there’s my riddle – One that’s dead is quick

And now behold the meaning.

    [Enter Helena]

Final verses

The king’s a beggar, now the play is done:

All is well-ended if this suit be won,

That you express content; which we will pay

With strife to please you, day exceeding day:

Ours be your patience then, and yours our parts;

Your gentle hands lead us, and take our hearts.

This play satisfies square I-3, Classic Drama or Play, in the 2020 Classic BINGO Challenge.

.

The Universal Baseball Association by Robert Coover (novel #139)

[baseball] It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart ~ Bart Giamatti, former commissioner of Major League Baseball

As the full title states, Henry (J. Henry Waugh), is the proprietor of the Universal Baseball Association (UBA): a fantasy roll playing game of Henry’s own creation, ruled by dice and elaborate charts. Henry plays out entire seasons, and keeps meticulous records – alone, at home, on his kitchen table. But in spite of that rather pathetic picture, Henry is not the socially awkward loner you might imagine. 

But running the UBA is his greatest passion. In the middle of the 56^thseason, a rookie pitcher completes one of the rarest feats in baseball, a perfect game*: no runs, not hits, no errors. To celebrate Henry visits the local bar, engages in playful banter with the barkeep, and has a tryst with one of the denizens. 

Henry is flying high, until a few games later, with the rookie phenom back in the lineup, successive rolls of triple six brings out the “Extraordinary Occurrences” chart and one more roll. But this roll, brings about an event so extraordinary, that it rocks Henry’s world.

The novel begins with the perfect game in progress that I thought was a real game. But, there were random references to Henry (wait, who’s Henry?), or the dice (wait, what?), that slowly reveal what is going on – brilliant! Throughout the novel Henry slips into his created world, and back to the real world. He has developed personas and drama in the lives of his players, and though he knows his creation is not real, he is personally invested. 

One of Henry’s few regrets is the inability to share his creation. There is no one to exult with over the perfect game – no one would understand. The games are real to Henry – not in a deluded sense that he thinks the players are living beings – but the games are real, the outcomes are real, determined by rules, probability, chance; they have integrity, tradition, sanctity.

So, Henry invites Lou, a friend and colleague from work to join him. Lou is a decent chap, but rather a simpleton. He finds the game complicated and makes irrational lineup changes, not respecting the realism that Henry observes – such as not starting a pitcher with only one day rest. Henry is exasperated by Lou’s ignorant and irreverent approach, and Lou leaves without completing the game. It was a painful and poignant chapter. I hurt for Henry. 

I really wanted to love this novel. I’m a baseball fan, and I love stats, history, records, and legends. I did love the story in the beginning. The game itself is impressive. It is an elaborate system of die, charts, records, bios, even a Hall-of-Fame. It truly seemed like a fair approximation of baseball. I wanted to play. But after the extraordinary occurrence, I was let down a little with the turn the story took. It’s very existential, contrasting creationism, determinism, randomness, and free-will (J. Henry Waugh is probably an allusion to Jawheh – the Hebrew name of The Creator). At a crisis point Henry struggles with the option to intervene – he has the power and the right as creator – or to let things play out according to the rules he created. I liked the struggle, but wasn’t completely thrilled with how the narrative depicted it. It is told mostly from the point of view of the fantasy players who reveal Henry’s rule of his universe. I wanted to learn more of what was going on in Henry’s life. Still it was an unusual and entertaining novel.

My rating: 3 1/2 of 5 Stars

I read this to coincide with the 2019 World Series.

Excerpt:

And so, finally, he’d found his way back to baseball. Nothing like it really. Not the actual game so much – to tell the truth, real baseball bored him – but rather the records, the statistics, the peculiar balances between individual and team, offense and defense, strategy and luck, accident and pattern, power and intelligence. And no other activity in the world had so precise and comprehensive a history, so specific an ethic, and at the same time, strange as it seemed so much ultimate mystery.

*Perfect Game: In the real world there have been only 23 Perfect Games in 150 years of Major League baseball, or approximately once every 10,000 games. In 2010, Armando Galaragga of my Tigers was robbed of a perfect game, which inspired me to write the following about perfection: Splendid Failure

.

Pericles, Prince of Tyre by William Shakespeare

Pericles, Prince of Tyre by William Shakespeare 

Pericles, Prince of Tyre is a comedy, written in early 17^thcentury.

It is the tale of Pericles, of course. Who must flee his own country as the King of Antioch has set an assassin after Pericles – for Perciles knows the king is involved in an incestuous relationship with his daughter, causing Pericles to state…

   

   One sin I know another doth provoke:

   Murder’s as near to lust as flame to smoke:

   Poison and treason are the hands of sin,

   Ay, and the targets to put off the shame:

   Then lest my life be cropp’d to keep you clear

   By flight I’ll shun the danger which I fear.

His flight sets off a series of tragedies. He takes a wife, Thaisa princess of Pentapolis, but shortly after she gives birth to their daughter Marina, Thsisa is lost in a storm at sea. Pericles leaves Marina in the care of trusted friends, as he returns to his own kingdom – as those seeking his life have met poetic ends. Later, upon returning for Marina, he learns she has died, and Pericles slips into a listless and speechless depression.

But lo, Thaisa or Marina are alive after all, but each believes the others to be dead and hence none of the three are searching for the others. It will still take some clever Shakespearean twist of fate to bring them all together again – but fear not – it is a comedy after all.

Not my favorite. I’m probably not alone, as this is certainly not a very popular play. Also, possibly not entirely the work of Shakespeare.

I hope it sill counts, as I read it for the 2019 Year of Shakespeare Challenge. The last comedy for this year. Next month/quarter it will be histories.

.

The Comedy of Errors by William Shakespeare

The Comedy of Errors by William Shakespeare 

Nay, he’s [Time] a thief too; have you not heard men say

That time comes stealing on by night and day? ~ Dromio of Syracuse

The Comedy of Errors is one of Shakespeare’s earliest plays written and first performed in late 16^thcentury.

It is, as the name asserts, a comedy. Set in a single day, it is about two sets of identical twins, each separated from his brother early in life in a tragic shipwreck. The father and one twin, are rescued and taken to Syracuse; the mother and other child are separately taken to Ephesus. Neither knowing what has become of the other. Accompanying each is another boy, also a twin, also separated from his brother.

And while their separation, is thinly plausible, one thing puzzled me: each twin, raised separately have the same name. There is Antipholus of Syracuse and Antipholus of Ephesus, and their servants Dromio of Syracuse and Dromio of Ephesus.

But the identical names are crucial to the farce, so I suspended disbelief and accepted it.

The pair from Syracuse arrive in Ephesus not knowing it is home to their long-lost twins.

And the mix up begins. They are greeted by people they don’t know as if they are old friends. As Antipholus puts it…

          There’s not a man I meet but doth salute me

          As if I were their well-acquainted friend;

          And every one doth call me by my name

          Some tender money to me, some invite me;

          Some other give me thanks for kindnesses;

          Some offer me commodities to buy

The Syracuse bachelors are even met by women claiming to be their wives. There are numerous incidents of mistaken identity, false accusations, false arrest, undeserved beatings, and even Antipholus of Syracuse attempting to woo his brother’s sister-in-law, who can only believe her sister’s husband is suddenly obscenely unfaithful. The poor fellows from Syracuse assume the Ephesians are under bewitchment and sorcery, while the Ephesians conclude that both sets of Antipholus and Dromio are mad, or possessed of devils.

Like all plays, it is intended to be performed, not read, but some plays still read well. Not this one in my opinion. I think the mix ups would be great fun, and easier to follow, viewed on stage or screen, than they are in reading. 

Still, it was a fast paced and farcical romp.

Like most of Shakespeare’s plays, there are little idioms coined by the Bard that have become part of modern vernacular, with their provenance often forgotten. In this case: the title itself, comedy of errors, is one such example. In another example, Dromio of Syracuse complains:

    Was there ever any man thus beaten out of season, 

    When in the why and wherefore is neither rhyme nor reason?

I read this as part of the 2019 Year of Shakespeare Challenge 

.

A Midsummer Night’s Dream by William Shakespeare

A Midsummer Night’s Dream by William Shakespeare 

How now spirit! whither wander you? ~ Robin Goodfellow aka Puck

A Midsummer Night’s Dream is a comedy by William Shakespeare, written late 16^thcentury.

It begins with the impending marriage between Theseus, Duke of Athens, and Hippolyta queen of the Amazons – all very dignified and elegant, but pretty quickly things take a rather absurd turn.

There is a love quadrangle: Demetrius intends to wed fair Hermia. He has her father’s blessing, but not Hermia’s – who is in love with Lysander. Hermia’s friend Helena is in love with Demetrius, who once toyed with her affections, but has now cast her off for Hermia. In short – two dudes love Hermia, but she loves only one, while her father approves of the other, and nobody loves poor Helena. 

It’s rather dizzying at first – and there are further complications, but I still found it easier to read than many of Shakespeare’s plays. Some of the dialogue between Hermia and Helena for example:

Hermia     O, teach me how thou look; and with what art

                You sway the motion of Demetrius’ heart

Hermia     I frown upon him, yet he loves me still

Helena     O that your frowns would teach my smiles such skill

Hermia     I give him curses, yet he gives me love

Helena     O that my prayers could such affection move

Hermia     The more I hate, the more he follows me

Helena     The More I love, the more he hateth me

Hermia     His folly, Hermia is no fault of mine

Helena     None, but your beauty: would that fault were mine

And then the fairies get involved with some magic love potion, some of it applied to the wrong suitor, some of it applied to a fairy queen causing her to fall in love with an ass.

One of the fairies, cavalier Puck, is delighted by the confusion of it all and declares:

Lord, what fools these mortals be!

Maybe, but really? Their foolishness is caused by the meddling fairies. I shouted back at Puck: Lord, what pests these fairies be!

And then, there is a play within the play, as some none too accomplished thespians enact a comic tragedy for the wedding celebration. The acting is so bad that Hippolyta, ordinarily rather gracious and dignified exclaims:

This is the silliest stuff that ever I heard

And the wedding parties riff the play. Some of the scenes are so absurd in design and delivery that the actors break character to explain things, evoking yet more riffs from the audience.

It’s a lot of fun, and a very happy ending. But…

It may have all been…but a dream. 

Excerpt from Puck’s epilogue

If we shadows have offended,

Think but this – and all is mended –

That you have but slumber’d here

While these visions did appear

And this weak and idle theme,

No more yielding but a dream,

Gentles do not reprehend;

If you pardon, we will mend.

I read this as part of the 2019 Year of Shakespeare Challenge.


Film Rendition: I watched the 68 version with very young Helen Mirren, Judy Dench and Ian Holm as Puck. You know the scene in LOTR when Ian Holm as Bilbo gets all crazed and evil looking and grabs for the ring? He makes nearly the same face as Puck in this. Good rendition...as a film of a Shakespeare play should be it was true to the play.