Below is a link to BBC Radio 4 and a reading of 'And His Letters . . .' by the actor Nigel Havers who btw is appearing as Maxim de Winter in Rebecca on the London stage. Perhaps not quite Olivier but he does have that aristocratic 'something' about him. At the BBC site click on Monday And regarding aristocrats, Frieda, maybe some people in the UK feel that a hangman's gibbet should stand outside the House of Lords or that hereditary peers should be replaced by friends of the Government with deep pockets . . . not so different from the old system when you consider how many 'top people's' ancestors obtained their titles. Either way, arriving with William the Conqueror or slightly more recently when various Royal Mistresses demanded positions for their offspring, this group is part of the Establishment. No amount of money, delicacy of character, nobleness of soul makes it possible for the rest of us to join this elite group (and it is amazing how many would like to be Up There). Top actors, pop singers, Party Girls etc hang round the edge but they are almost never admitted into this inner-sanctum. Of course there are some very wealthy people in this bracket; mostly from ownership of land and lots have 'Stately Homes'. Many of you have probably been to Chatsworth, Castle Howard, Warwick Castle etc. who's owners have wisely turned their properties into money-making enterprises. Interesting about the story of the student and her father. Surprisingly over here, for everyone below Royalty if such a thing had happened (a father writing in on behalf of his daughter) any university would have put the application straight in the bin; there is no automatic right of entry to any uni' for sons/daughters of alumni. Re adoption: there are certainly far fewer babies available these days. Although many many more babies are being born 'out of wedlock' (for want of a better expression) this is usually by choice . . . of at least one parent . . . and in both big cities and small country towns the sight of groups of very young females pushing baby buggies, smoking, chatting to boys (the possible fathers?) is very common. Our Govt gives out vast amounts of benefits to this group so the need to put a baby up for adoption is very low and many people only want healthy white children. The Social Services who are usually the first port of call in these matters make the 'process' very very difficult, especially for middle-class couples. It seems that if a child comes from a poorer, perhaps racially mixed background the social workers wants it to be adopted by people from that 'class' without considering whether the child might stand a chance of a better life. Some parents look abroad as I expect they do in the US, but this can lead to even more problems . . . and cost far more than going through the usual channels. When the cases of the Romanian orphans was first aired on TV some people tried to adopt a child, thinking with their hearts rather than...

What criteria is used to choose these books? Since reading and loving "The English Patient" (first Booker I ever read), it always caught my attention if a book had a sticker on it -- "Booker Winner" or "Booker Shortlisted". But when I read "God of Small Things" it was such a disappointment! Couldn't understand what that book was trying TO SAY ... and it was obvious that the writer was trying to get SOMETHING across. It was odd, when I returned it to the store, the guy behind the counter said, "You're returning this?!?!" ... He didn't have any great explanation as to why I should love it. (Did get my money back, tho'.) Since then I've been wary of buying Booker Prize novels. But am always curious to see which ones are nominated, which wins, which are shortlisted. I think, as with most prize competitions, judges give up handing out awards to the same people. Like the Academy Awards not going out too many times to the same actors who've already won Oscars and been nominated So Many Times Already. E.g.: Meryl Streep. So maybe that's why certain writers who've written wonderful novels this year but already won Bookers are left out -- even if they should be nominated again this year. What do you think?

Here is an exerpt from the official Booker Man site: "The prize, which celebrated its 40th anniversary in 2008 after launching in 1969, aims to promote the finest in fiction by rewarding the best novel of the year written by a citizen of the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth or the Republic of Ireland." Okay.........WHY change the whole premise? I understand the " every kid is equal and every one has to get a trophy" epidemic that seems to be sweeping our country ...but let's leave some things alone.

The Secret River - it's pretty good, but it's just another story about a convict who is transported to Australia and makes good. Also had an annoying affectation of putting all the dialogue in italics, rather than the usual quote marks or dashes. I'm used to italics being used for what people think, so it wasn't easy to read. I enjoyed the book, but I'd be astonished if it wins. I have to say that I think it's a fairly weak short-list this year. My own personal favourite is Carry Me Down, which stands out head-and-shoulders better than any of the others. But others will almost certainly disagree with me. I thought The Testament of Gideon Mack was at least as good as most of the books on the short-list, and I also liked Black Swan Green - though I can see why they wouldn't want both BSG and Carry Me Down on the shortlist. I'm certainly not thrilled enough by any of them to risk a bet. Anyway, I'm told the result will be live on the 10:00 news on the BBC. Looking forward to it, but not with the same sense of anticipation as I felt for the last two years. Last year was an exceptional short-list, and the year before had Cloud Atlas which I still feel is one of the best books of the last ten years, and should have won the Booker. I'm going to re-read The Night Watch as it's a while since I read it - just to be fair. So, in summary:- Desai, Kiran: The Inheritance of Loss A bit wordy, but I quite liked it. Confusing as to dates. Can't see this winning. Grenville, Kate: The Secret River A good yarn, but not what I'd look for in a Booker winner. Hyland, M.J: Carry Me Down My personal favourite - a powerful story about a family in Ireland, and the consequences when a young boy finds out more than he ought to know. I hope this wins. Matar, Hisham: In the Country of Men Probably my second favourite - a powerful story of a young boy in Libya under Gaddafi. I'd be quite happy if this wins. St Aubyn, Edward: MotherÂs Milk A horrible book. Well written, but not a single nice person among any of the characters. I am so sick of books about rich people's problems. I bet this one wins. Sigh. Waters, Sarah: The Night Watch A good book about the relationship between four women during the war. Written "backwards", so to speak - we find out what happened later in the war, and only later in the book do we find out how they got there. The favourite, and already a best-seller. I don't think it'll win, though I wouldn't be upset if it did.