Comments on: Shakespeare: the World as a Stage

By: Karen Hall

Karen Hall — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:06:29 +0000

For the shop I was working in the decision was made at head office. As were decsions about what to stock. It may have changed now as it has been taken over but I always felt a bit more local decision making wouldn’t be a bad thing as what will sell fantastically in London will not necessarily go down well up here. Similarly there were books (mainly by local authors) which I felt we should have stocked and didn’t.
As for where to put Shakespeare I have to admit I am not sure. In Literature possibly but then it wouldn’t be spotted by the reader of light non-fiction. I’d probably put a few in each section which might solve one problem but would be difficult for stock control. Interestingly the University I now work at hasn’t got a copy in the library. Obviously too lightweight..??

By: Fiona

Fiona — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:40:49 +0000

Interesting that you say sales of Shakespeare were down at your shop Karen. Bad move to put it in biography, me thinks. History or literature would have been better. Who makes these category decisions? Is it up to each shop manager?

By: Karen Hall

Karen Hall — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 09:54:01 +0000

It’s a good point – Bryson will sell just because he is Bryson. A new writer offering that to a editor would probably be told that they wouldn’t know where to place it. It isn’t scholarly enough to be considered academic and yet how many people casually pick up a book on Shakespeare for light reading?
When I worked in the book shop it didn’t sell as well as his other recent book Thunderbolt Kid but it also didn’t seem to get the same level of promotion. It was also shelved in Biography which whilst technically correct meant it was a bit lost amidst bestsellers like My Booky Wook and Richard Hammond’s biog (the title of which eludes me)

By: Karen M

Karen M — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:27:48 +0000

Good point, Fiona, and seen even more obviously in the fact that he managed to write ‘A Short History of Nearly Everything’ and have it published even though he’s neither a scientist or an historian. But that’s his skill – he can filter immense amounts of facts and present them to ordinary readers in an accessible way, picking up on the human interest as well as the ‘heavy’ facts.

By: Fiona

Fiona — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 07:31:00 +0000

Well said Karen! But I don’t think most other writers would be able to get away with simply amusing and informing in such a scholarly field, do you? I contend that he was given grace to do so simply because of Brand Bryson. What do you think?

By: Karen Hall

Karen Hall — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:26:20 +0000

I love the thought of waffling with panache – I wish I had that technique. I too love Bill Bryson’s books although Walk in the Woods is in a pile waiting to be read somewhere. Thunderbolt Kid had me howling with laughter so this was a bit of a change. I was impressed with the facts – and with his demolishing of so much i always understood to be “gospel”. Including little snippets of info about the times and some of the people brought it very much alive for me. The trouble is that although I was fascinated by so many of the facts I can’t remember any of them so I want to read it again and again until I remember and can impress my friends with my knowledge! I’ve read criticisms of the book for not being scholarly enough but I don’t think his intention was to write a scholarly text – i think he set out to amuse and inform and achieved it.

By: Darrell

Darrell — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:30:29 +0000

I love panache on my waffles!

By: Fiona

Fiona — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:02:48 +0000

Waffling with panache! I love it!

By: Rodney Smith

Rodney Smith — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:53:57 +0000

I’ve got to agree with Darrell – A Walk in the Woods is my favourite too. He presents himself as such a bumbling oaf (which clearly he is not), and manages to weave in all kinds of fascinating historical trivia along the way. A really good read!

By: Karen M

Karen M — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:04:34 +0000

I’m another one who read this just because Bill Bryson wrote it. Well, that and the fact that it was a Christmas present.I think it illustrates more than any of his books that he can make absolutely anything, even padding, seem interesting and entertaining, and accessible too. It’s not so much what he writes as how he writes it – you get swept along in the enjoyment and only afterwards realise that quite often he’s just waffling with panache.
I find this one and ‘Mother Tongue’ a bit different from his travel books in that his credentials as a wordsmith are obvious and give him authority on the subjects. In the travel books half the fun is that he comes across as being not very good at travelling. I loved his description of himself (can’t remember which book)as having ‘happy hair.’I could go on and on – I love ‘em all!