The Death of Grass - John Christopher

 I am puzzled why I have never heard of this shocking 1950's novel before. The threat of nuclear oblivion inevitably had a strong impact on writers in this country, producing a whole crop (ironically, in this context) of post-Apocalyptic novels. Obvious examples are "The Day of the Triffids" and "Lord of the Flies", the two novels most commonly referenced in commentary on "The Death of Grass". Although it had previously been out of print for some time before being brought back by Penguin for this edition, it does not suffer from these comparisons. I can however understand why it is not a school text book (as with Lord of the Flies) - there are some shocking, brutal scenes of murder and rape, described dispassionately. 

The re-issue of this novel is timely, because the crisis that precipitates the flight across the country of the band of middle class survivors is not nuclear nor alien, but ecological. A virus arises in Asia that wipes out all forms of grass and remains resistant to any form of treatment. The famines that follow rapidly lead to a breakdown in social order. While grasses may not form the central part of our diet that the novel suggests, this is really not relevant - our food supply chains are stretched, vulnerable and fragile. Equally we may not resort to the lawlessness that engulfs the characters in this novel quite as quickly as appears here - but we might. It is on this issue that the comparisons with Golding are most interesting, because Golding's cast of characters - schoolboys, albeit mostly middle class, privately educated ones, - has led many to argue that the primitive instincts they give free rein to are only found in little boys, rather than all people. Christopher leaves us here with no such comforting evasions - even the best of us can quickly resort to murder and brutality to defend our families. The veneer of civilisation is frighteningly thin. The men in this novel go from comfortable middle class lives to people who murder innocent families for some breakfast, with hardly a pause for reflection. These are not isolated monsters - around them society fragments with frightening pace, and even the Government contemplates/resorts to (it is not completely clear which) using nuclear weapons on their own people.

The economy of Christopher's writing is striking, and the pace of the action is a strength of the novel - no time for pauses for breath are allowed. Despite my slow reading in recent months I read this in a sitting. There are some caveats of course - the brutality of the treatment of women in the novel is hard to stomach, even thought they are not all the 1950's stock characters you might expect, with some of them showing resilience and strength in the face of appallingly difficult circumstances. The digressions on leadership and its role in feudal societies are a little over done, although again at less than 200 pages there is not much time to find this irritating. This is definitely a period novel - post war behaviours, language and attitudes anchor the events of the novel in the 1950s. Class is still a powerful factor in the way people defer to their betters, the war is a very recent memory, and people are self reliant and practical in ways we would struggle with today. But the novel transcends this datedness.

We like to scare ourselves with stories of "What if...?", and cling to the comforting thought that we would face whatever is thrown at us with a stiff upper lip. That's the mythology that we used and fostered to help us survive the Blitz and the threat of German invasion in the 1940s. Christopher refuses to offer any comforting conclusion to his disaster novel - the ravaging disease isn't contained, the army doesn't arrive at the death to reimpose order. All we have left is family and, if we lucky, a gun.

Competitive Reading Lists

Every now and again lists circulate purporting to show the 50 best this or the 101 best that, inviting the reader to assess their worth by deciding how many of the books shown they have read.

I say "deciding" how many they have read, because this is rarely a binary decision. Have you read "A Christmas Carol"? You almost certainly know the tale from numerous film adaptations, but have you actually read the book? What if you have read some of the book but weren't able to finish? (An example in this category for me is Don Quixote - many years ago I made a genuine and sustained effort to read this, but failed miserably). The Bible, The Canterbury tales, and Moby Dick are other examples of "books" that often appear on these lists, but for most readers the prospect of genuinely reading them from start to finish is remote.

But these are just quibbles, because there are no rules in this game, and if the "reader" decides that owning the book, having seen the film, or read a summary on Wikipedia is sufficient to merit a "read it" tick, then no-one is really to know. My real concern is that these lists are designed to make you feel bad about your reading habits. No-one with a family and job will have ever read all of the meritorious heavyweight volumes of "A Remembrance of Things Past", "The Barchester Chronicles", or "A Dance to the Music of Time" ("God, no!", "partially", and surprisingly, "yes, but a long time ago", would be my answers). But should I really feel bad about all those Russian classics glowering at me from my bookshelves while I indulge in yet another Pratchett?

From previous entries in this blog it will be clear that I have made a concerted effort to fill some obvious gaps in my reading record - Frankenstein, Dracula, The Great Gatsby, etc - but despite this I still find myself admitting "not read" as I run through each list more often than I would have expected. The other trick played in this game is to include less popular works by popular authors - for example by listing "The Quiet American" instead of "Brighton Rock", or "Men Without Women" (which is a collection of short stories) instead of "For Whom the Bell Tolls".  

I know I am taking this way too seriously, but there is a point underneath all this - if people read these lists on FaceBook or wherever and think "I must be really dim because I haven't read any of these" they will be put off even trying them, rather than filling in the gaps. So let's start writing "These are really fantastic books that you should read if you like romance/thrillers/historical novels/etc" lists, which would be a much more constructive approach to list making wouldn't it?

The Jefferson Key - Steve Berry

I have had a really bad run in recent weeks - some sub-par McEwan and the execrable Amis - so what led me to pick this one up I am not quite sure. Certainly the cover told me pretty much all I needed to know - US flag on fire, presidential seal, White House with lone figure in background - this is going to be a derivative thriller. Interestingly the cover art for the US version had a much more prominent picture of the White House - I am guessing that American reader won't need the Jefferson link spelling out so clearly.

No surprises there then. This book is a lazy cash-in on Dan Brown's success with "The Da Vinci Code". Many of the components are copied without any attempt at disguise, from the supposedly impenetrable code (tick) to the reinterpretation of historical events (tick) and the secret society hiding in our midst, controlling historical events (tick). The narrative style - many very short scenes cutting from one location to another quickly - and the attempt to compress the events of the novel into as short a time period as possible, (forgetting people's need to nap, eat, etc,) to give a sense of pace and speed is also copied directly from Brown. And then there is the simple fact of the novel's name itself, following the formula "The (Name of figure from history) + (synonym for mystery). Expect the Michelangelo Conundrum, the Caravaggio Puzzle and the Newton Sudoku to follow.

For what it matters, the plot revolves around an American pirating community which had its origins in the American War of Independence, when privateers were encouraged to attach English shipping. These pirates were allegedly given Presidential authority - letters of marque - to operate with impunity as long as the work against enemis of the state. Successive Presidential attempts to rein them in had been countered with assassinations. This novel focusses on attempts by a President Daniels to curb the powers of the "Commonwealth" and the pirates attempts to fight back. The cast of leading characters includes Cotton Malone, who has appeared in six previous and I guess highly similar novels (from their titles) although the characters are not distinguished from one another in any marked way.

While the plot is a huge predictable disappointment, the writing is equally dire. The author seems to have been paid by the word, because the plot is ground out to its far foreseen conclusion without a hint of suspense or interest. For example, some characters die in a building ruin which floods todally - this is flagged as likely early  on, returned to many times, and finally claims the expected victims, almost in passing. Techniques such as having a character shot, followed by a switch of focus to another scene, then returning to the shooting scene only for the character to have amazingly survived through a misfire, bullet proof vest, blank shot etc happens at least three times. As the novel is seventh in the series the reader is in doubt that the principal character will survive. The writing is as turgid and cliche ridden as one would expect, although some phrases still jump out with their awkwardness - for example a stairway is said to "rightangle". I have no problem with using nouns as verbs, but this one is a step to far for me.

Novels of this kind - written for the "if you like this writer why not try this writer" Amazon recommendation algorithm - really shouldn't apear here - but I did promise to try not to censor myself, and to review my reading good bad or otherwise. Gosh I have even written about books I have read and not written about! So I return to the question I began with - what possessed me to read this? In part it was because this was a gift, and I didn't want to show disrespect to the giver. Also, I was hoping that this might be one of those "so bad it is good" novels, or even something that was unoriginal but had its merits notwithstanding the genre. Sadly, not - trust the cover.

P.S. One other quibble. One character uses the phrase "a sticky wicket" which as far as I know is not American vernacular. This is a clumsy attempt to give "colour" to a character with a Spanish background - and the text refers to her father funding several Spanish national cricket teams. Now they do play cricket in Spain, Google tells me, but it's not the traditional home of the sport. Another example of clumsiness which really jarred.