Narrow Dog to Carcassonne was Swallow Bookworms' February choice.
Actually it has been on our choice list for ages, but it seems that a lot of other book groups were of the same mind so it has taken two, if not three years to reach us, and we were all very much looking forward to it.
Maybe it is a mistake to look forward too much to anything since the reality seldom lives up to the expectations. Anyway, for whatever reason, I was just a bit disappointed. Expecting something in the way of a cross between Three Men in a Boat and A Year in Provence, I felt it did not live up to either. Before I give my reasons, I will say that it is not at all a bad book - pleasantly readable - just the sort of thing you would want to read on a slow relaxed holiday - possibly one taken on a narrow boat.
Well, my reservations about it come in three categories:
Style: It doesn't read like a completed, polished narrative, but has the feel of a blog or a series of emails. There is too much mixing of tenses from present to past and back. There are to many sentences without a main verb. There is too much second person narrative around an unspecified 'you', before it switches back to the normal first and third person mix.
Tone: This may be just me, but I did not warm to Mr. Darlington. I love the word 'gongoozler', but he first introduces these people who stand on the banks and bridges and chat to people on passing boats as if they were the enemy, and that persists throughout the book so that I felt no warmth for his fellow man. His whole attitude including that towards his wife and his dog seemed to me wholly self-centred: that of the kind of man who pats you on the head (literally or metaphorically) and tells you that you are too young or too female to understand things which are clear to his superior older male mind. Nor did he really seem to be enjoying his adventure, and found fault with everything along the way. There are lots of blogs like this (and I hope that mine isn't one) some of which have the sole purpose of pointing out the folly of people in the media, in government, in authority of any kind . . . but in this book I hoped for - nay, expected - a celebration of a wonderful adventure; of course there would be some downs along the way, but this seemed to me to be one long moan with a few highs by way of contrast.
At this point I have to admit a third objection:-
Pure Prejudice: I have a deep dislike of the names Terry and Monica, and by extension have to fight my prejudice against any owners of these names.
Explanation: When I was a child we had a teacher whose first name was Terry who was one of the pettiest people I have ever encountered. He built himself up as the big 'I AM', and to do this belittled the children in his class and their families. I won't bother with examples, but believe me they were numerous. He also had it in for me and took every opportunity he could to put me down. Most of the time it was water off a duck's back and at nine years old I had his measure and made sure that he knew it. I won't say that being in his class was a good time in my young life, but I emerged from that year unscathed and ready to take up my due place as a House Captain in my final year of primary school. What I have never forgiven him for is the damage he did to my little sister (and it is damage that exists to this day) in doing to her (a much less confident and forthright person than me) the the things he either didn't think of with me or couldn't manage. He cast the nativity play on the one half day she was off all year so she arrived back from the dentist in the afternoon to discover that she was not even an angel while every other child in the top two groups had been given a proper role. (These plays were always cast on academic rather than thespian ability which was wrong but the accepted tradition of the school and she had every right to expect a proper part.) He moved a girl (a teacher's daughter) from one house to another (against all the traditions of the school) on purpose to make sure that she, not my sister, would be the House Captain the next year. He told her that she had only a slim chance of passing the 11+ when he knew perfectly well that in the initial test which decided who would sit the exam her IQ had not merely been the highest in the school but the highest in the county. And, to add insult to injury, she was stuck with him for two years instead of the usual one as the deputy head who usually took the top class was ill and decided to take the lesser pressure of not having the exam class. Anyway that is why I have a deep rooted prejudice against people called Terry, and I am sorry if any perfectly lovely Terry happens to read this, but that's how prejudice works.
Less explicable is my equally deep dislike of the name Monica. There was a teacher called Monica in the infant department when I was an upper junior, but she was lovely. (I often saw her visiting next door to us. She and our neighbour sang in musicals and quite often practised together. Some romantics liked to think that she was his girlfriend, but the neighbour was gay, and, though such things were not mentioned at that time, most people knew.) She was the only Monica I knew - in fact I think she is the only Monica I have ever known - but for some reason in Helen's and my games and stories the nastiest girl in the school, the wicked step-sister, the sort of girl who tortured kittens was always called Monica.
Terry Darlington's wife, clearly a long-suffering woman, is called Monica which didn't help endear me to the couple though it is not their fault that they have the pair of names right at the bottom of my pile.
While we are on names, my prejudice extends even to the dog 'Jim': I tend to like Jameses known as James or Jamie better than those known as Jim or Jimmy.
Anyway, away from my prejudices and back to the book. I read it. I quite liked it. I just didn't like it as much or in the way I expected I would, which disappointed me.