Reviews Round-up

The critics' verdicts on Orhan Pamuk, Henning Mankell and Rosa Luxemburg.

The Naïve and Sentimental Novelist by Orhan Pamuk

Writing in the Observer, Adam Mars-Jones finds Orhan Pamuk's The Naïve and Sentimental Novelist unintelligent: "The Nobel prize-winner's book of reflections on art and life is the high-culture equivalent of the celebrity fragrance...Sometimes the book makes sense, sometimes the fragrance achieves a distinctive balance of notes, but this outcome is largely accidental". More directly: "There is plenty of academic mannerism here ("one might conclude", "I can now introduce", "let me be forthright"), nothing of intellectual substance".

Philip Hensher of the Telegraph, meanwhile, is "engrossed" by this latest in the trend of "writers, in their different ways" telling us "what they think about their own art form". Hensher admires Pamuk's rejection of dualities ("He has no time for the reader who assumes it's all true, nor for the sophisticated one who maintains everything is a constructed fiction. It is this sort of flexibility that makes him such a rich writer"), whilst recognising an unwitting divorce of theory and practice: "if he stuck to his declared principle, it would make a dull novel indeed." Even so, "every novelist will want to read this, and will learn from a master."

Leo Robson, in the New Statesman, finds Pamuk contradictory. Noting Pamuk's objection to dualities, he counters that "despite himself" the novelist "has a taste for the tidy." At his most damning, Robson asserts: "When Pamuk isn't confusing what is true for him with what is true for all novelists, he is stating the obvious, or treating the spurious as the obvious".

The Troubled Man by Henning Mankell

Henning Mankell's The Troubled Man, his final novel to be graced by the detective-protagonist Kurt Wallander, has a plot that "is relatively simple", finds James Urquhart of the Independent. However, as murder and mystery unfold, "Wallander's drive to make sense of it all pushes The Troubled Man relentlessly on towards murky revelations of high-level treachery." Wallander is the key: his "personality" sees that the novel "operates as a good, gritty procedural rather than a spy thriller, but the historical context adds depth and texture to the investigation."

Ian Thomson writing in the Financial Times emphasizes the importance of Mankell's homeland as a shaping force of the novel: "morose cogitations on Sweden's social malaise" are accompanied by "ever-more despondent talk of his and humanity's demise", and "the landscape of southern Sweden, its fog-bound flatlands and grey seas." Thomson briefly notes a thematic seriousness ("Questions of responsibility and morality, of justice and democracy are explicitly raised"), before hoping that Mankell might just yet resurrect his hero: "He is far too good to lose". 

The Letters of Rosa Luxemburg

A new edition of The Letters of Rosa Luxemburg is "absorbing", finds Ian Thomson of the Observer. The volume reinforces the way in which Luxemburg "was inevitably shaped by Judaism and its fierce moral parables of deliverance and survival", whilst demonstrating her "self-ironical humour". Thomson speculates on the new relevance of Luxemburg's "insistence on social justice", which "seems more pertinent now with the world financial crisis", but also sees a curious display of a "middle-class fastidiousness at odds with her combative politics".

"We witness Luxemburg's attempts to draw supporters of a genuinely revolutionary stand around her" writes Mark Thomas in Socialist Review, "but we also see how weak this current proved with the test of the First World War in 1914". The letters "shine a light on her significant intervention in the work of revolutionaries in Poland and Russia", and although the personal aspect of many of her letters "at times ... feels like quite an invasion of her privacy (she wanted her letters burned)", Thomson concedes that such invasions serve ultimately to "give a sense of this extraordinary woman."

Photo: Popperfoto
Show Hide image

How the Oval regained its shape: the famous cricket ground hosts its 100th Test

The challenge for Surrey is to ensure that the new fans drawn to the stadium in recent years keep coming.

Few stadiums have as rich a sporting history as the Oval. After opening its gates in 1845, it hosted England’s first home football international, the first FA Cup final, and Ireland’s inaugural rugby Test.

Though it took 35 years before a cricket Test match – the first ever in England – was played at the ground in Kennington, south London, it was worth waiting for. WG Grace scored 152 runs, setting the tone for many memorable performances  at the Oval. Among the highlights: Len Hutton’s 364 in 1938, still the highest Test score by an England batsman; Viv Richards’s double century and Michael Holding’s 14 wickets for the West Indies before an ecstatic crowd in 1976; England’s Ashes-clinching match in 2005, when a skunk-haired Kevin Pietersen thrashed the Australian attack.

But just five years later, in 2010, the Oval and its host club Surrey were in a bad way. For the first time since 1986, the first day of the annual Oval Test was not a sell-out, and attendances for county games were down. Finances were so stretched that Surrey made a dozen administrative staff redundant, and there was talk of insolvency. The club, which is owned by its 10,000 members and is a tenant of the Duchy of Cornwall, was “very close to a substantial crisis”, Paul Sheldon, then chief executive, said at the time.

Today that seems far away. On 27 July, the Oval hosted its 100th Test, the third match of the series between England and South Africa. The first day was sold out. And Surrey are now the richest first-class county, with £12m of reserves. In 2019, work will begin on a redevelopment scheme that will increase the Oval’s capacity from 25,000 to 40,000, making it the biggest cricket ground in England. (Lord’s, the Oval’s more illustrious rival, can seat 28,000 people.)

“We are in a good place,” said Richard Gould, the current chief executive, one recent afternoon in his grandstand office overlooking the pitch, where a big group of local schoolchildren ran around in the sun.

How did the Oval regain its shape? Gould, whose father Bobby played football for Arsenal and was manager of Wimbledon when the team won the FA Cup in 1988, lists several factors. The first is a greater focus on non-cricketing revenue, taking advantage of the club’s historic facilities. In 2011, when Gould joined Surrey after stints at Bristol City football and Somerset cricket clubs, revenue from corporate events and conferences was £1.3m. This year the projected income is £4.6m.

The second factor is the surge in popularity of the T20 competition played by the 18 first class counties in England and Wales. Unlike Tests, which last for five days, a T20 Blast match takes just three hours. The frenetic format has attracted many people to games who have never previously followed cricket. Surrey, which like Lord’s-based Middlesex have the advantage of being in London, have been especially successful in marketing its home games. Advance sell-outs are common. Surrey reckon they will account for one in six T20 tickets bought in the UK this season, with gate receipts of £4m, four times more than in 2010.

Whereas Test and even one-day international spectators tend to be regulars – and male – Gould estimates that up to 70 per cent of those who attend T20 games at the Oval are first-timers. Women, and children under 16, typically constitute a quarter of the crowd, a higher percentage than at football and rugby matches and a healthy trend for the game and the club.

The strong domestic T20 sales encouraged the Oval’s management to focus more on the county than on the national team. Until a few years ago, Surrey never seriously marketed its own merchandise, unlike professional football clubs, which have done so successfully for decades.

“When I came here, everything around the ground was focused on England,” Gould said. “We needed to put our team first. In the past, county cricket did not make you money. With T20, there’s a commercial business case.”

To raise its profile and pull in the crowds, Surrey have signed some of the biggest international stars in recent years, including Australia’s Ricky Ponting, South Africa’s Hashim Amla, Sri Lanka’s Kumar Sangakkara and Kevin Pietersen, who is now mainly a T20 franchise player. For the players, as with the counties, it’s where the money is.

The challenge for Surrey is to ensure that the new fans drawn to the Oval in recent years keep coming. In common with many businesses today, customer data is crucial. The club has 375,000 names on its marketing database, of which 160,000 are Surrey supporters. But since the average T20 purchaser buys six tickets, many people who attend games at the Oval remain unknown to the club. One way Surrey are trying to identify them is through a service that allows one person to book tickets for a group of friends, who then each pay the club directly. Another method is through offering free, fast Wi-Fi at the ground, which anyone can use as long as they register their email address.

For all the focus on T20, Gould is keen to stress that England internationals, especially Test matches, are a crucial part of the Oval’s future – even if the business model may have to be tweaked.

“We always want to be one of the main Test venues. The problem we have is: will countries still put aside enough time to come to play Tests here? In many countries domestic T20 now takes precedence over international cricket. It may be that we may have to start to pay countries to play at the Oval.” 

Xan Rice is Features Editor at the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 27 July 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Summer double issue