Ten influential books in my life

In order of the date in which I read them, not in the order of importance.

1) Cats Eye - Andre Norton

A classic science-fiction bildungsroman, which I read before I was 11. In some far star-flung future, an orphaned youth gets a job as an apprentice in a pet-shop, and finds he can communicate in some strange way with the alien animals. In this way, he becomes aware of a dangerous plot which could threaten the lives of millions. This book and the next one are really what brought me to reading science fiction.

2) Islands in the sky - Arthur C Clarke

One of the very first science-fiction novels I read, this is the story of a young fellow who wins a TV quiz show, and the prize is a free ticket to anywhere in the world. The youngster insists on being allowed to visit an orbiting space station, and this is the story of his adventures whilst up there in orbit. 

3) The Fountainhead - Ayn Rand

I read this before I was 17. Though an adventure about outspoken architect Howard Roark, the real issue being dealt with is the relative importance of the individual versus the collective, or society. 

4) Time enough for love - R.A Heinlein

The story of the healing and recovery of Lazarus Long, a 2000 year-old man, from the ennui and depression caused by living for such a long time. This book and Heinlein's work in general have influenced me more than any other, including (possibly) the Bible. It is long and complicated with several independent anecdotes, rather like the “1001 nights”, to which the author pays conscious and deliberate homage.

5) Mere Christianity - C.S Lewis

A sane and reasoned exposition of my faith. Though it is dated and very much of its time (the mid 1940's) the ideas and reasoning in this book remain central to a strong and sound understanding of Christian faith.

6) Who moved the stone? - Frank Morison

A trained lawyer and an agnostic, writing in the early twentieth century, looks at what really happened between the arrest of Jesus on the Thursday night, and the discovery of the empty tomb on the Saturday morning. Setting out to prove that Jesus did not rise from the dead, he effectively proved beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus did rise from the dead. The lawyer became a Christian.

7) The Magicians Nephew - C. S Lewis

The prequel to Lewis's "Narnia Chronicles", this book tells the story of Professor Digory (the magicians nephew of the title) as a small boy and his adventures in Narnia along with his uncle, the evil Jadis and other characters. We see here the effects of sin in a world only hours old - and we see how there could have been a seven day creation.
 

8) News from Tartary - Peter Fleming

Fleming's exquisitely written account of a journey from Peking to Kashgar in the 1930's was the book that first stimulated my own interest in all things to do with Central Asia. It has also given me the taste for good writing - it is not easy to put up with poor English after reading either of the Fleming brothers.

9) The road to serfdom - F. A Hayek

I was amazed when I first read this; in a world dominated by the liberal left, it is refreshing to read, clearly outlined, what happens to a society that embraces collectivism and socialism. The clue is in the title.

10) For a new liberty: The libertarian manifesto - Murray Rothbard

Another well-written economic treatise from when people were still taught how to write properly. Libertarian economist Rothbard's arguments for "anarcho-capitalism" do not all stand up, particularly with regard to the validity of military or state-sponsored use of force, but some of his ideas make perfect sense to me.

Moran’s “The anatomy of courage”

Moran has this to say of someone going to war: “the rights of the individual have gone, he belongs to his men. He has accepted war, he must allow no mood, think nothing, do nothing, that may weaken his own purpose or the purpose of his fellows”

Very profound. If you put “Christ” in the place of the word “war” it makes just as much sense, 

On writing good english

1) Remember your readership 

·        WHO are you writing for?

·        WHY are you writing?

·        Would I be better off picking up the phone and talking to them?

If you must write…

2) Use informative and plain English

·        DO keep to the point without being blunt

o   A focussed and tidy mind should be able to express anything in less than 200 words

o   The writer should be doing the hard work – NOT the reader!

·        DO avoid editorialising

·        DO avoid metaphors, similes or any other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print

·         DO use short words rather than long

o   Why “commence” when you can “start”?

o   Why “utilise” something when you can just use it?

·        DO cut out all text that adds nothing

·        DO have a beginning, middle and end

·        DON’T express your opinion - no-one is interested!

·        DON’T write too much – avoid waffle

·        DON’T use clichés, scientific words, or jargon

·        DON’T use Latin or foreign languages if there is an everyday English equivalent

Whatever you write - remember to wash your hands afterwards (R.A Heinlein)

After George Orwell “Politics and the English Language”, 1946

What is business class for? An open question

Apropos of a discussion at work on business travel, I was minded, towards the end of a long-haul flight into LHR terminal 4, to catalogue what business class is about, what it is for. These are some thoughts, MY ideas on what I think is most important in business class.

A William Gibson character, probably played by Keanu Reeves in the film version of one of his short stories, once said that when he opens his mouth on a business journey, he expects drinks to arrive, wheels to turn, meals to be brought, rooms to be made ready. 

Fundamentally then, it is all about making things easy and reducing stress:

1) Swift and easy boarding and access to priority/shorter queues - less stress

2) later check-in possible - three hours is just not necessary in business

3) Swift disembarkation and quicker access to immigration at LHR/home bound

4) Access to the aisle without inconveniencing fellow passengers

5) Legroom, elbow room and general seat comfort

6) Luggage allowance - relaxed about large(r) carry-ons (where possible I’m a hand luggage only man: see 1, 2, 3)

7) Personal service to dozens in business c.f. hundreds in economy

8) Lounge access home-bound

9) At-seat mains power

10) Food and wine served in proper crockery, glasses and metal cutlery

11) Nicer food and wine than in economy

12) Noise cancelling headphones provided gratis

13) Greater selection of films (or is it the same as in economy these days?)

14) More on-board lavatories per passenger

15) Lounge access out-bound

In my last job (all flying in economy) I had a saying that there were five things that mattered when flying:

1) Leg room

2) Leg room

3) Leg room

4) Leg room

5) Personal service. 

Enough32 is 194cm tall and believes strongly in customer service.

Reading Freya Stark’s “Valleys of the Assassins”.

She writes “of travelling around and seeing things – like the old holy man in Rim – we might look with wistfulness and longing. But each of us is on a journey at home, wherein we might go to new and unheard-of places every day”

and

“there is a sadness in coming to these once inhabited places, built by prosperous and settled communities, where now, for many days ride on every side, the nomad in his black tent dwells alone”

and

“the satisfactory disentanglement of those who had worked and must be paid and those who had not worked but hoped to be paid likewise”.

She writes of the amenities of civilisation and cities not being amongst the “indispensable necessities of mankind” and goes onto name four such indispensable necessities – freedom, religion, authority and leisure.

An Anglican temperament?

Paul Goodman posts today in Conservative Home on "What Cameron can do next for the churches". I'm not a natural Tory, I'm too right-wing - but the title caught my eye and so I opened it and started to read. I didn't finish it; I've no slight interest in the details of what the Prime Minister can do for the churches. Some way into the article there was a wonderful statement of what Mr Goodman calls the "Anglican temperament", which was of interest because it defines almost everything that I am NOT - member of an Anglican church though I am. 

He writes of David Cameron that he "brings to politics what might be called an Anglican temperament: a certain moderation of tone, a reluctance to get hung up about doctrinal differences, an attraction to consensus, an aversion to “enthusiasm”, a sense of establishment and his own place in it, and good manners (most of the time)."

It's worth going through clause by clause!

A certain moderation of tone - I've never been accused of moderation of any kind, much less of tone, and I'm proud of that. I have been accused of being "abrasive", "alienating", and "undiplomatic". What is moderation for?   

A reluctance to get hung up about doctrinal differences - here is the heart of modern Anglicanism and one of the core identifying features of Englishness. The English, Anglicans or otherwise, don't really think that what they believe matters. But doctrinal differences do matter. What we believe is a matter of life and death - in fact, as Mr Bill Shankly famously said of football, it is much more important than life and death. For me, both as a Christian and as a political animal, I do embrace doctrinal differences - I am partisan. The challenge for me and others like me is to be partisan without being tribal, to allow doctrinal differences without violent disagreement - in other words, agreeing to disagree.

An attraction to consensus - Mrs Thatcher infamously had a low view of consensus. I recall that the vicar that married my wife and I telling us that he required his PCC to be unanimous in their decisions. While consensus has it's uses in places, at the point of crisis, it is a way to avoid making a decision. Colin Powell says that the true leader will have to annoy all of the people some of the time. At the end of the day, someone has to decide - and "consensus" may have to be over-ridden for the greater good.

An aversion to “enthusiasm” - Having spent 25 years in churches where there is a drum kit and people wave their hands in the air, I am not averse to enthusiasm. Bring it on: in fact, a faint disdain for enthusiasm is the mark of a decayed and effete culture.

A sense of establishment and his own place in it - I owe nothing to the "establishment"; I came from nothing. I am the first person on either side of my family in all of the twentieth century, to attain to higher education. I'm not part of the "establishment" - I went to a comprehensive school and a polytechnic, and many people in the "establishment" would likely cross the street to avoid a meritocrat like me. If I could say anything to the "establishment" it would be this: the status quo is never acceptable.

Good manners (most of the time) - As my kids would say: weeeell. Mr Cameron is well known as someone who can be quite breathtakingly rude to people below his station - yet without once being guilty of what he would call "bad manners". Being decent and courteous to others and "good manners" are not the same thing. 

The full article: http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2014/04/what-cameron-can-do-next-for-the-churches.html

A sermon from the late Rt. Revd. Richard Hare

Here is a sermon that was preached at St. Alkmund's, Derby, sometime in 1994. It was towards the end of Paul Corrie's time, and occurred on the eve of the congregation moving to two morning services, St Alkmund's having grown massively in the previous ten years, and the hall no longer being big enough for just one service of 500 or more people.

Richard Hare was a suffragan bishop well-known for his Charismatic tendencies. Though he had been the Bishop of Pontefract for 21 years, he was heavily supportive of the Charismatic movement. He speaks here after his retirement, at the invitation of the then vicar Reverend Paul Corrie.

I vividly remember the sermon being preached. Richard Hare's beautiful spoken English, his "cut-glass accent", and his exquisite professional timing as a public speaker, have remained with me ever since. It is fair to say that such public speaking and preaching as I have done myself, has been influenced by this one sermon - most particularly his professional timing.

At one point he recounts a poem created by a nun, in which the nun says to the Virgin Mary, thinking of her saying "yes" to the angel, as a young girl, when she replied, "it will be as you say":

 "In nine long months, in thirty-three short years, in three eternally long hours, did you never wish that yes.........................unsaid?"

His pause between "yes" and "unsaid" was theatrical - and just exactly right.

Listen and enjoy: www.houghlife.com/RtRevdRichardHare1994StAlk.mp3

The Economist on social mobility

I read an interesting article about social mobility in the USA, and reflected on my social mobility. I came from dust, from nothing. I am the highest achiever in either branch of my family, the first person in all the twentieth century to have attained to higher education – the first in many generations. My mother and father were clever and able enough, but the opportunities were not afforded to them. My father got to Grammar School but going from there to university in 1950's England,  given his mother's financial resources, can only have been a dream.

I have come further and higher than any before me in my family – and the reason is social mobility. Social mobility in the 1980’s has got me where I am now. I got A levels, got into a polytechnic, and got a job – all through either luck or just brains. This illumines my politics and my beliefs. It is why I have no patience with public school educated sons or daughters of privilege who have got to top jobs through background and education. This is why I admire Mrs Thatcher – who got into Somerville on a scholarship, and that by luck rather than anything else. It is why I tend to look down my nose at the current front bench on both sides of the House – for they are all public school educated sons and daughters of privilege. 

I'm no socialist, but I am a firm believer in social mobility. I believe opportunities should be available for the scum of the earth to rise to the top, given native ability. Common people; people like Clive James, like Norman Tebbit. People from the lower depths – people like me. It is why I have little patience or empathy with those who have a huge weight of generational expectation behind them – four generations a clergyman, or four generations an officer of the Royal Navy. I recall talking to the wife of one such officer at a party. What’s that like to be?