Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.82 AVERAGE
3.82 AVERAGE
This certainly would have made my first research trip a lot easier! From an English social anthropologist, an attempt at codifying and explaining the rituals of English behavior, including the subtle class differences of couch and sofa, pea-eating, pub-round-buying, queue jumping, acceptable interactions on public transport, reciprocal weather conversations and dog hair.
An absolute monster of a book and therefore a bit repetitive but admittedly VERY good!
ah, finished at last. I had thought that this would make a fun book to read before bed, but it really didn't. It was caught, and never really chose, between being anthropological humour and serious academic study, trying to interject humorous anecdotes, while retaining a detached demeanour - which is a problem, because the anecdotes aren't that humourous, and the writer is English. Being English does afford her a special insight, but it also means her own prejudices aren't fully divorced from the study.
So what is it? It is presented as a guide to the strangeness of English behaviour, and it tries really hard to that end, breaking down any kind of human interaction you can think of and describing how we do it, and how it accords to the class we are in. Class is a pretty big thing, so there are lot of passages that go, "if you do this, you are working class. If you do that, upper-working class", etc, etc. It turns out there are many more classes than most people probably realise - lower-middle, middle-middle, upper-middle, and upper for instance. That might sound amusing, but it gets pretty tiresome, pretty quickly.
Apparently class isn't determined by wealth or profession, which traditionally it would be. No, it is determined by what words you use, whether you use coasters, whether you have garden gnomes and whether you display them ironically or not... again, stuff that sounds amusing, but after 416 pages of small type of this stuff, it really isn't amusing. I kept turning to the back to see how many pages were left, and consistently couldn't believe it was taking so long. But, like I say; small type.
So, let's continue with some of the problems I have with this book. First, there are a few observations that are inaccurate:
1. English people abbreviate "thank you" frequently to "anks". Now, I'm not saying that no English people do this, but I am English, and I have literally never heard anyone say "anks". Maybe in Oxfordshire where the writer lives, but nowhere else I'm aware of. "Thanks", "ta" and "cheers" are much more er... typical - to reference a recurring observation within the text. [Clever].
2. Fox reckons it is normal to tip in pubs by ordering your drinks and instructing the barman; "and one for yourself". Again, I'm not saying this doesn't happen in certain small villages, but I am 38 and I have literally never done this, nor have I seen it done by anyone outside of a soap opera setting. It is much more common to over pay and say "keep the change". And even doing that means the people either side of you will think, "bellend".
You might think I'm being picky, but I would justify my viewpoint by saying it's all very well to provide examples of behaviour, but to supply behaviour that isn't typical in a "guide" format and suggest it is typical behaviour is misleading to anyone who might be relying on the information during a visit.
Those are all I can think of right now, so I'll move on to another problem, which is that Fox frequently ascribes patterns of behaviour to English people, which are not uncommon among other societies in the world. Most pressing of these, is the observation that commuters don't tend to talk to each other - in fact, that they can share the same journey with each other for many years without entering into any kind of familiar relationship. This of course, is very true. But I suspect it is true of commuters throughout the world. If it wasn't, the world would be chaos! No one would get on the train because the platform would be locked with people swapping pleasantries with each other every day. You'd have to have another night out at Christmas, this time with your 'commuting friends'.
Fox does go on to demonstrate that there are situations in which a commuter will talk to another commuter which, again, is valid, and I don't know under what circumstances commuters in say, New York, would be allowed to speak to each other, but the validity of this doesn't make the previous statement applicable only to the English.
Then you've got clubs. Apparently English people join clubs because they don't know how to meet other people, so they have to almost pretend to be interested in something external (say, tennis or astronomy) so that they can make friends. I'd say this is missing the point. People join clubs so that they can meet people who share the same interests - not just so that they can meet people. Though some people probably do join clubs just to meet people. You see that in sitcoms from time to time, but there are clubs in other countries in the world, and presumably people in other countries join clubs for the same reasons as us. I was a member of a whisky club once, but I left because I didn't like hanging out with the people, and preferred to drink whisky on my own.
One of my biggest sticking points was the idea that English people, despite their excessive use of pleases and thank yous, are not actually polite. We're only pretending to be polite because our class system so pervades every day affairs that we're actually only trying to make people we consider to be below us feel they're on the same level as us by asking the bus driver for a ticket "please". Even if that were the case, that would still be fairly polite. However, my opposition to this is that I don't consider anyone to be below me, and in every day life, I am often required to interact with people who, regardless of perception, are on the same level - and I still say please and thank you to excess. "Manners cost nothing", people say, and that's because they don't, they are nice, and people like to hear other people saying please and thank you.
Finally, a more topical point: the English notion of fair play. Yes, I do believe in fair play, but I would suggest that the very class system Fox writes so extensively about, suggests that the upper classes don't...
There was an interesting passage about how terrible we are at saying goodbye. This, again, is true. It goes on to say that we indoctrinate our children into this at a very young age, teaching them to say "bye" over and over again, and wave until visitors have passed out of sight. I didn't realise we were teaching our children this. I just thought kids loved to say goodbye. We are terrible at taking our leave, but I still think kids love saying goodbye and waving.
So anyway, I wouldn't normally focus on as many negatives as I can think of (or maybe I would), but I found these particular negatives pretty annoying. In the interest of fairness though, Fox gets much of the rest of it right - or at least right enough that I can't confidently dispute it. She makes many, many observations about our behaviour that are definitely things I've seen or can relate to, or even that describe me - like the passive aggressive way you react when it looks like someone is going to queue jump.
This social "dis-ease" thing that she keeps going on about; I can relate to that, but I don't think all English people can be said to struggle in social situations - the ones who join clubs for example; joining a club means you regularly and voluntarily put yourself in an awkward social situation. You just wouldn't do that if you found the whole thing difficult. And is it the case that all Spaniards, for example, are perfectly comfortable all the time? Or does it just not have any effects on their behaviour.
Am I reading too much into this? I would say not. If it were purely a humorous book, then yes, you could say that. But Fox is essentially presenting a hypothesis (that she arrived at in the process of writing it), and as such, it is open to peer review - though I don't think I can really call myself her peer. She seems to represent a higher class than I do.
Should you read it? That's a tough one. It will give you some insight into the behaviour of English people, but it would be more interesting if it stuck to observations and left out the analysis. It's just too long and repetitive to really be compelling. And despite it's length, there's a surprising lack of depth - the conclusion at the end of each section, essentially just agrees with the conclusion at the end of the previous section, so you feel like you're being forced to read two redundant extra pages every time you finish a chapter. It reads, overall like a compendium of blog posts, and perhaps would have been best in that media. So... I'm going to say no. It just isn't as much fun as it should be.
So what is it? It is presented as a guide to the strangeness of English behaviour, and it tries really hard to that end, breaking down any kind of human interaction you can think of and describing how we do it, and how it accords to the class we are in. Class is a pretty big thing, so there are lot of passages that go, "if you do this, you are working class. If you do that, upper-working class", etc, etc. It turns out there are many more classes than most people probably realise - lower-middle, middle-middle, upper-middle, and upper for instance. That might sound amusing, but it gets pretty tiresome, pretty quickly.
Apparently class isn't determined by wealth or profession, which traditionally it would be. No, it is determined by what words you use, whether you use coasters, whether you have garden gnomes and whether you display them ironically or not... again, stuff that sounds amusing, but after 416 pages of small type of this stuff, it really isn't amusing. I kept turning to the back to see how many pages were left, and consistently couldn't believe it was taking so long. But, like I say; small type.
So, let's continue with some of the problems I have with this book. First, there are a few observations that are inaccurate:
1. English people abbreviate "thank you" frequently to "anks". Now, I'm not saying that no English people do this, but I am English, and I have literally never heard anyone say "anks". Maybe in Oxfordshire where the writer lives, but nowhere else I'm aware of. "Thanks", "ta" and "cheers" are much more er... typical - to reference a recurring observation within the text. [Clever].
2. Fox reckons it is normal to tip in pubs by ordering your drinks and instructing the barman; "and one for yourself". Again, I'm not saying this doesn't happen in certain small villages, but I am 38 and I have literally never done this, nor have I seen it done by anyone outside of a soap opera setting. It is much more common to over pay and say "keep the change". And even doing that means the people either side of you will think, "bellend".
You might think I'm being picky, but I would justify my viewpoint by saying it's all very well to provide examples of behaviour, but to supply behaviour that isn't typical in a "guide" format and suggest it is typical behaviour is misleading to anyone who might be relying on the information during a visit.
Those are all I can think of right now, so I'll move on to another problem, which is that Fox frequently ascribes patterns of behaviour to English people, which are not uncommon among other societies in the world. Most pressing of these, is the observation that commuters don't tend to talk to each other - in fact, that they can share the same journey with each other for many years without entering into any kind of familiar relationship. This of course, is very true. But I suspect it is true of commuters throughout the world. If it wasn't, the world would be chaos! No one would get on the train because the platform would be locked with people swapping pleasantries with each other every day. You'd have to have another night out at Christmas, this time with your 'commuting friends'.
Fox does go on to demonstrate that there are situations in which a commuter will talk to another commuter which, again, is valid, and I don't know under what circumstances commuters in say, New York, would be allowed to speak to each other, but the validity of this doesn't make the previous statement applicable only to the English.
Then you've got clubs. Apparently English people join clubs because they don't know how to meet other people, so they have to almost pretend to be interested in something external (say, tennis or astronomy) so that they can make friends. I'd say this is missing the point. People join clubs so that they can meet people who share the same interests - not just so that they can meet people. Though some people probably do join clubs just to meet people. You see that in sitcoms from time to time, but there are clubs in other countries in the world, and presumably people in other countries join clubs for the same reasons as us. I was a member of a whisky club once, but I left because I didn't like hanging out with the people, and preferred to drink whisky on my own.
One of my biggest sticking points was the idea that English people, despite their excessive use of pleases and thank yous, are not actually polite. We're only pretending to be polite because our class system so pervades every day affairs that we're actually only trying to make people we consider to be below us feel they're on the same level as us by asking the bus driver for a ticket "please". Even if that were the case, that would still be fairly polite. However, my opposition to this is that I don't consider anyone to be below me, and in every day life, I am often required to interact with people who, regardless of perception, are on the same level - and I still say please and thank you to excess. "Manners cost nothing", people say, and that's because they don't, they are nice, and people like to hear other people saying please and thank you.
Finally, a more topical point: the English notion of fair play. Yes, I do believe in fair play, but I would suggest that the very class system Fox writes so extensively about, suggests that the upper classes don't...
There was an interesting passage about how terrible we are at saying goodbye. This, again, is true. It goes on to say that we indoctrinate our children into this at a very young age, teaching them to say "bye" over and over again, and wave until visitors have passed out of sight. I didn't realise we were teaching our children this. I just thought kids loved to say goodbye. We are terrible at taking our leave, but I still think kids love saying goodbye and waving.
So anyway, I wouldn't normally focus on as many negatives as I can think of (or maybe I would), but I found these particular negatives pretty annoying. In the interest of fairness though, Fox gets much of the rest of it right - or at least right enough that I can't confidently dispute it. She makes many, many observations about our behaviour that are definitely things I've seen or can relate to, or even that describe me - like the passive aggressive way you react when it looks like someone is going to queue jump.
This social "dis-ease" thing that she keeps going on about; I can relate to that, but I don't think all English people can be said to struggle in social situations - the ones who join clubs for example; joining a club means you regularly and voluntarily put yourself in an awkward social situation. You just wouldn't do that if you found the whole thing difficult. And is it the case that all Spaniards, for example, are perfectly comfortable all the time? Or does it just not have any effects on their behaviour.
Am I reading too much into this? I would say not. If it were purely a humorous book, then yes, you could say that. But Fox is essentially presenting a hypothesis (that she arrived at in the process of writing it), and as such, it is open to peer review - though I don't think I can really call myself her peer. She seems to represent a higher class than I do.
Should you read it? That's a tough one. It will give you some insight into the behaviour of English people, but it would be more interesting if it stuck to observations and left out the analysis. It's just too long and repetitive to really be compelling. And despite it's length, there's a surprising lack of depth - the conclusion at the end of each section, essentially just agrees with the conclusion at the end of the previous section, so you feel like you're being forced to read two redundant extra pages every time you finish a chapter. It reads, overall like a compendium of blog posts, and perhaps would have been best in that media. So... I'm going to say no. It just isn't as much fun as it should be.
This was recommended to me by a Ukrainian client. He found it very useful. It's not without it's problems, it is very general. Other comments mention that it is very focused on the middle-classes. And from a middle-class perspective. It is. I enjoyed the first half of the book and then found it repetative, finally it was a tad boring. An academic going on too long, typical!
This book has a happy little story as it was sent to me by a friend who I've never met, but with whom I have connected over a shared love of Agatha Christie! I read a lot of British mystery and this book has been great to set the context of the social aspects of those novels (as well as other books/TV/movies born of the English).
If I had a complaint it would be that I don't think the author particularly likes Americans! Ha! While I could see truth in many of her criticisms of American culture, my insider's perspective suggests that there was a lot of stereotyping and generalization.
I will definitely keep this on hand to refer back to frequently.
If I had a complaint it would be that I don't think the author particularly likes Americans! Ha! While I could see truth in many of her criticisms of American culture, my insider's perspective suggests that there was a lot of stereotyping and generalization.
I will definitely keep this on hand to refer back to frequently.
Fascinating and funny ethnographic study of the English. discovered that in a number of areas I am doing "being English" wrong which explains a few things.
informative
lighthearted
informative
reflective
slow-paced
This took me ages to read and I had to read it between other books as it was just too much on one chunk.
Even then I resorted to skim reading 50%.
I found lots of interesting parts, particularly about our driving rules, homes, obsessions with please and thank you, attitude to work and humour.
I found there was way too much devotion to discussing the classes. This was interesting to a point, I liked this in relation to homes and clothing. But it felt a bit repetitive. All in all I think this book could have been shortened by about 25% and I'd have given it more stars.
I'm relieved to have finished it, but will probably continue to quote it, indirectly, to friends and family.
Even then I resorted to skim reading 50%.
I found lots of interesting parts, particularly about our driving rules, homes, obsessions with please and thank you, attitude to work and humour.
I found there was way too much devotion to discussing the classes. This was interesting to a point, I liked this in relation to homes and clothing. But it felt a bit repetitive. All in all I think this book could have been shortened by about 25% and I'd have given it more stars.
I'm relieved to have finished it, but will probably continue to quote it, indirectly, to friends and family.