A Partial Book Review: Middlebrow Wodehouse: P. G. Wodehouse’s Work in Context ed. Professor Ann Rea (2016)
by Victoria Madden
Rather like looking for a word in Chambers, running a Google search means you never know what odd thing you’re going to discover. The latest piece of flotsam to strike my bemused gaze is a new book on Wodehouse: Middlebrow Wodehouse: P. G. Wodehouse’s Work in Context published in January of this year and written by a gaggle of American and British academics. Having read through some of the sections previewed online, I’m rather intrigued to know if anyone’s read it and, if so, what they think?
Although claiming to be examining Wodehouse ‘in context’ it seemed to me that the writers knew pretty little about that context: Rea makes the fairly basic mistake of referring to ‘the middle class’ rather than ‘middle classes’, throughout the Introduction, as do other of her collaborators in the examples she quotes. Their lack of the, pretty necessary, understanding of the hierarchical finesse of the period is exemplified in her comment on Richardson’s essay:
Richardson examines Wodehouse’s middle-class schooling, after which, acutely aware of his class position, he would, like middlebrows, make a career out of ‘annexing aristocratic values and identities’.
For a start, Wodehouse’s background and schooling – as any Wodehousian could have told her – was that of the well-connected, public-school educated, public service, upper-middle class; and, as such, he would already share many of the ‘aristocratic’ values, if not its identities, without any need to ‘annex’ them. Wodehouse was certainly acutely aware of class positions, as was every member of society in the early twentieth century – he would never have lumped in the lower-middle class Jeeves with the upper-middle class Glossops as ‘the middle class’ – but it was his acute awareness of his financial position that drove his career and its subsequent direction – he knew what editors would pay money for and intended to provide it.
(Rea and Richardson’s comments seem to indicate a similar lack of knowledge on the distinctions between the aristocratic and the upper class – surely fairly fundamental stuff when writing about this sort of thing?)
The other essays, likewise, seemed to fail to grasp the essential viewpoints of the period; though it must be said in the book’s defence that, as it was an online, preview copy, only the Introduction and sections of each chapter are available to be read, so that it’s quite difficult to follow a particular argument when it suddenly jumps several pages. I must also admit that I gave up reading the essays after the first chapter, and only skimmed through subsequent ones, as my constant eye rolling was giving me a pain. So there is, of course, a possibility that it improves when the whole is taken ‘in context’ but, frankly, I don’t advise you to waste the time.
From what I have read, the modus operandi of the authors seems to be re-hashing well-known facts and dressing them in academic language to present them as startling discoveries, while demonstrating, once more, ignorance of the period context they claim to be establishing:
Einhaus posits that Wodehouse’s knowledge of literature and criticism allows him to ‘position himself on the fringes of highbrow culture and at the same time to reject elitism’ through a use of allusion that not only ‘assumes his readers’ familiarity with both popular and canonical writing but refuses to treat it either reverentially or disdainfully’.
(Remind you of anything??)
We are also informed that, though people may think otherwise, Wodehouse was, in fact, Admired by many Literary Critics! – and even had over 50 reviews of his novels in the Times Literary Supplement! (I am reminded of an anecdote I read where a Disney executive, denied permission to hold some sort of shindig in Notre Dame cathedral for the premiere of The Hunchback of Notre Dame, responded in bewilderment ‘But this is going to make your cathedral famous!’) and there is a yawn-making analysis of what is deemed Jeeves and Bertie’s ‘queer’ (in all senses of the word) relationship.
What I find irritating, though, above all, is Rea’s Disney-like implication that the book is ground-breaking both in its critical attention to Wodehouse’s work and its ‘establishment’ of Wodehouse’s literary status. Statements in the Introduction, such as:
this book presents many arguments that Wodehouse’s fiction belongs to a category above literary slumming
and:
The last decade’s academic attention to formerly disparaged ‘middle-brow’ culture has … restored the reputation of many writers
and:
As these essays demonstrate Wodehouse is neither historically static nor simply anachronistic
and even:
allowed us to fill the critical void around his work
rather make you wonder on which particular solar system the authors have been secluded whilst writing their opus; and when Rea states that another chapter
importantly corrects the failure to appreciate his contribution to American musical theatre
you can almost hear the combined howl of derision from Wodehouse readers and musical theatre aficionados world-wide.
I can only assume that the book is aimed at other academics – whom the writers believe consider Wodehouse beneath them: a January publication date means it’s obviously not aimed at the Christmas gift market; and at over £70 for the e-book – hard copy prices not given – it’s not the sort of thing you’re going to pick up for yourself during a Sunday afternoon browse at Waterstone’s, despite its attractive cover. In fact, I’d say that most Wodehouse readers would probably find it as irritating as I do.
I feel as if it should come with a sticker, advertising it as a tonic along the lines of Buck-U-Uppo:
Young Man!!
Do you enjoy the works of P. G. Wodehouse?
Is your life grey and dull, notwithstanding this? Do you lack the impetus to tackle the daily round?
Read this book and feel your blood pressure rise to invigorating levels!
Perhaps, though, I’m not being fair – bear in mind I have only read isolated sections. Perhaps someone else, with the patience to wade through these essays, could write a review and give the book a better outing than I have. Noel has already done good work on this sort of thing; I’d be very interested in what he, Honoria or Ashok make of it.
Or perhaps we should, as always, Leave It To Jeeves:
INT: DAY – BERTIE’S FLAT IN LONDON
BERTIE LAYS DOWN THE BOOK in which FLORENCE CRAYE has tried to interest him
BERTIE:
Rummy stuff. Dashed rummy! Reminds me of something or other,
you know, Jeeves. Some dashed poem by that blighter they thought
such a lot of at my school.
JEEVES:
I believe you may be alluding to the poet Wordsworth, sir. The line
‘Our meddling intellect’ would seem peculiarly apposite.
BERTIE:
By Jove! – that’s it! How do you do it, Jeeves? How does it go now?
JEEVES:
(clearing his throat)
‘Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:-
We murder to dissect.’, sir.
BERTIE:
(heartily)
That’s it!
(ruminating)
That’s it, exactly.
(in surprise)
Have you read this blithering book then, Jeeves?
JEEVES:
I took the liberty of glancing through it, sir.
(pause, with a wealth of meaning)
I found it to be Fundamentally Unsound.
BERTIE:
(cheering up)
Too bally right! Chuck this rot out, Jeeves, and let’s have one of your Specials.
JEEVES PLACES the BOOK on a SILVER TRAY in a MANNER WHICH INDICATES WHAT HE THINKS OF IT and LEAVES THE ROOM, RETURNING with a COCKTAIL which he PLACES ON a SMALL TABLE NEXT TO BERTIE
JEEVES:
Will that be all sir?
BERTIE:
Yes, thank you, Jeeves
JEEVES EXITS
BERTIE LEANS BACK LUXURIOUSLY in his ARMCHAIR and PICKS UP THE LATEST DETECTIVE THRILLER
BERTIE:
(happily)
No one like old Jeeves!
END
Ah Victoria! It is a dangerous thing we do sometimes, browsing the internet. Having read your review of this astounding tome, I typed its name into Dr Google and was even more astounded. First, there is an entire website devoted to academic discussion of the middlebrow in literature. Then there is a website by a contributor to the Rea collection which reviews the book. Finally I was able to download the entire essay of one contributor. I have yet to read it but it will be, I have no doubt, the outstanding bilge you have pinged so ably. I could go on and on but I won’t, at least for the moment, as I think this intellectual meddling could be a good topic for my next presentation as a latterday Mr Mulliner to the serious thinkers of the Ferkytoodlers at the Savage Club. Nil desperandum, old girl.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I have not yet forked out the advertised price of this book to see for myself, but have come to a few preliminary conclusions along similar lines to yours.
My main impression, looking at the chapter titles, is that it is a collection by academics who have attempted to make a Wodehouse connection (tenuous ones in some instances) to their own specialist subjects.
Judging from your reading of the content, it sounds as if the result has placed Wodehouse in the ‘context’ of pockets of specialist knowledge, rather than ‘in context’ in any broader sense.
Some of the sections you comment on suggest the authors’ familiarity with Wodehouse’s life and work fall short of the familiarity required to write with authority on the subject. To be fair, writing about Wodehouse is fraught with danger because there is so much more to him (and his work) than commentators with a cursory knowledge of the Jeeves stories realise. This is one of the many reasons why I think Wodehouse is misrepresented and misunderstood.
This in turn poses a dilemma for those of us who want to set the record straight, because many Wodehouse lovers resent any ‘serious minded’ discussion of Wodehouse at all. It’s a fine line, and one that I struggle with often.
But dash it all — some things just need to be said!
I’d love to reblog this, at some point, if you are happy for me to share it.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Yes, please do!
A debate at your excellent site is just what is needed to ensure the record is kept at the appropriate angle. – Editor
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dear Victoria (and Mrs Plum),
I’ve been trawling the internet looking for the preview you cite but I note the publisher has been taken over by another so perhaps the preview has been removed. However, what I have discovered is that, far from being the concern of one website, middlebrow literature is a whole academic subject and has been for years. My astonishment at this shows my lack of formal education. It’s been a fascinating journey though and I’m tempted to cough up the $170 for the book — but I don’t pay to see train wrecks, so I don’t think I will. But I have hooked on to the blog of one of the Rea book’s contributors, an academic at Reading Uni, Kate Macdonald, to follow for a while. She’s the one who analyses Wodehouse’s and Dornford Yates’s concerns with clothing — but she seems halfway sensible and possesses a sense of humour.
One serious question arises out of all of this shallow academic posturing and it’s this: why is that a writer who has endured for more than century, who has created at least one character and a number of words that have slipped into the English language and who has been celebrated by his peers is not studied at schools and universities as part of the standard English canon?
I imagine that the answer lies, at least in part, with the lingering impression that Wodehouse was a traitor, or at least a Nazi sympathiser. I’ve had it said to me (again) by an otherwise well educated friend in only the past couple of weeks. But true researchers should, I think, take up this subject as part of the study of not only a great writer and his work but as an interesting man who fell from grace and was accepted back into the Kingdom of Heaven. What a metaphor! Anyway I’ll ask the good Dr Kate and you never know what might bob up. Maybe a whole lot of resentment, as Mrs Plum notes.
Happy new year.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dear Noel,
I included a link to the preview tagged to ‘write a review’. My reasoning was that I wanted people to read the post first without getting sidetracked – not to send you on such a bicycle journey. I’ve now added another link in the expected place.
I also took the liberty of adding paragraph breaks to your reply as it came through in a block – let me know if I’ve put them in the wrong place!
I think your journalistic background makes you the ideal person to attempt at least some bridges – we’ll all be very interested in any dispatches from the Front.
Happy New Year to you too – Editor
LikeLiked by 1 person
What Ho again, Victoria & Noel.
My theory regarding the lack of academic scholarship on the subject of Wodehouse is that literary studies rarely look at popular authors of ‘lighter’ material. This field of study, with its interest in metaphor, subtext and deeper meaning, is at a loss in the absence of such features, and inclined to dismiss writing beyond their comfort zone as lowbrow.
At some point when this book was first released, I saw a list of contents and contributors to this book, which I can no longer find to double check, but the contributors seemed to hail from a range of academic areas –it is not a book of literary studies. My suspicion is that the project was compiled and contributed to by academics who share a liking for Wodehouse. Well done, I say, as far as that goes. I’d buy the thing myself if it weren’t so bally expensive.
I had also initially liked the title ‘Middlebrow Wodehouse’ as it seemed, to me, to be poking fun at the sort of people who take the idea of highbrow and lowbrow seriously. But having read a short blub about the book, I rather fear the title is in earnest, and that the contributors are aiming to give Wodehouse academic legitimacy by claiming him as middlebrow.
I sympathise with their intentions of raising Wodehouse’s literary reputation, but it’s not the approach I would take when, some sunny day after a generous benefactor has given me a wad of cash, I sit down to write my PhD on the subject. The academic classification of Wodehouse as low, middle or high brow is superbly ridiculous and of no relevance whatever. What’s more, it detracts attention and debate from things that really are worth exploring about the wonderful world Wodehouse created, and the therapeutic benefits his writing still brings to readers, from all walks of life, more than a century after he begun.
LikeLiked by 2 people
A list of contents and notes on the contributors form part of the excerpt that I found of the book, if you wanted to refresh your memory.
The link is very long so Wodehouse book excerpt here
– Editor.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What Ho and thanks, Victoria.
I had read it when the book was first released, and again when I read your post originally. But I had trouble accessing it yesterday.
I was on a train (to the Wodehouse event at the British Library) at the time, so it’s likely my issues were wifi related. I had also drafted a short intro to the reblogged post (saying lovely things about it) which was ‘lost’ — although the intro was hardly needed as the piece speaks for itself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
[…] via A Partial Book Review: Middlebrow Wodehouse: P. G. Wodehouse’s Work in Context ed. Professor Ann R… […]
LikeLike
Something curious: I viewed a “fine books” site the other day as I’m contemplating selling a PGW or two and discovered that his books were listed under “Fiction” and those of inter alia Evelyn Waugh under “Literature”. I wouldn’t deny Waugh his place in literature (quite the contrary) but given his view of Wodehouse it’s a little strange. Anyway I’m happy with “middlebrow” and I suspect Plum would be too. So much “literature” goes unread: it’s not a fate to be wished on PGW.
And, I’m afraid Victoria, that link to Google books doesn’t produce the goods any more, unless I’m doing something wrong. It stated for me just now “no previews available”. It might have something to do with the fact that the original publisher has been taken over in recent times. The opening chapter by Anne-Marie Einhaus is downloadable, though, from http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/25720/ Pip, pip.
LikeLike
Good morning,
I’m Kate Macdonald, on of the contributors to Middlebrow Wodehouse. It’s been interesting reading the comments on this thread. I haven’t followed the reblogs, so this is the only feedback, if you like, to the book that I’ve seen. As far as i know the academic community have treated it with the same disdain, which seems a pity. However, their stance is that Wodehouse is simply too frivolous to be taken seriously, which is exactly why Ann organised the book. I’m not going to comment on my fellow contributors’ chapters, but it might make them more comprehensible if you consider the book as a battering ram of genuine appreciation for PGW and all his works, disguised in the feudal colours of that branch of US academic studies currently dominating anything 20thC, ie Team Modernism. If one is a scholar you have to publish your research. This is hard if your passion is for subjects and texts (not just novels, but all kinds of literary writing) that are so unfashionable as to be a positive hindrance to getting ahead in one’s career. So, since passion may not be denied, one disguises one’s subject in the colours of the fashionable mode, and tries to sneak it into the castle undetected, where it can mingle with Virginia ‘effing Woolf, Joyce the Interminably Tedious, and their ilk, and eventually, we all hope, accrue scholarly respectability. I think the disguise sometimes takes over the subject, but on the hole, this is the strategy we have to use.
Apropos my chapter on PGW in the book, I wrote it out of genuine curiosity as to how Bertie’s clothing errors were used by PGW to create plot, and make jokes. I was writing to explore how PGW did it, and why it worked. Adding Dornford Yates to the mix was hugely enjoyable, because PGW and Yates wrote on the same territory but in blindingly different ways. I am pretty sure that all the people who wrote chapters admire PGW’s works in different ways. Nobody writes academic research simply to get ahead in life: these book chapters take up to half a year to research, think about, write, rewrite, repeat, etc.
Will be glad to answer any questions you might have about the book, but I’m not the editor.
LikeLiked by 2 people
[…] The collection has attracted little in the way of reviewer’s attention until recently, when a blog post has appeared, objecting to the vocabulary and tone of some chapters. […]
LikeLike
Reminds one of ‘Types of Ethical Theory’, eh, what?!
LikeLike
Thanks Kate for your comment about the politics of competitive academia and the Modernist, er, ethos. Until I’ve read the whole tome, I will keep further expression of my prejudices to myself but I will say that I have now read George Simmers’ contribution, PGW and the First World War, which he has posted on his own website and found it very insightful. I had never thought to look at pre-WWI and the wartime period itself for clues as to PGW’s career and, especially, the disaster in Berlin, and nor have his biographers.
So maybe there’s much more in the Middlebrow Wodehouse collection I would find valuable if I can get past the jargon (not present in Simmers) . I’d very much like to read your chapter because, before I knew of this book’s existence, I had dabbled in the same topic to some extent (not of course in comparison with Dornford Yates). You can find a piece on my blog if you’re interested.
LikeLike
George is an excellent writer and PGW scholar. He’s also not an academic, but an independent scholar, so has no need to toe the party line re the jargon. Though I do find using some jargon judiciously is useful.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As we all do in our own particular fields. Depends on your audience. I am loving this exchange, by the way. Thanks Victoria for setting it rolling. Tally-ho!
LikeLike