A. P. HerbertCritiques

A P Herbert was an English humorist, novelist, playwright, law reformist and from 1935 to 1950 was an Independent Member of Parliament for Oxford University. The University seats were abolished in the 1950 general election.
He was a regular contributor to Punch Magazine and that publications sense of humour is evident in Herbert's novel Number Nine published in 1951.

Reading books published in 1951 has unearthed publications from many authors that are new to me and even if the books are not particularly outstanding they can still carry a feeling for the era in which they were published, which can be provoking, interesting, amusing, perhaps dull or even odious. The most difficult books to appreciate are those that are meant to be humorous, because our sense of what is funny has changed over the last 70 years. Number Nine is a case in point. It is a humorous tale of a weekend selection programme for entry into the civil service. The 45 hopefuls referred to as the intake must undertake a series of tests where they are judged by professional assessors and a small team of Psychiatrists referred to always as trick-cyclists. There are complications: one of the intake, number 9 has infiltrated the programme to not only repay a grudge against one of the trick-cyclists, but to discredit the whole event in order to reclaim the ancestral home in which it is customarily held.

There are the usual jokes about word association tests, particularly from the answers provided by two of the women hopefuls. Romance is in the air, as is revenge and the women are targets or associates in both of these events. An elaborate hoax is undertaken and a retired admiral is there to add some misguided authority. The writing is competent enough, occasionally amusing, but a bit wordy, looking back to a a golden age of humour rather than looking forward to more trenchant satire. Sexism and racism are par for the course for the contributors to Punch magazine at this time. Jolly japes all round and 2.5 stars.½

Seriocomic novel set in contemporary London and vicinity. The principal character is Jane Bell, a girl of the lower classes living on a barge (owing to losses incurred by her ne'er do well father in horse racing). Her relationships with Fred (an illiterate bargeman), Ernest (a fiery Socialist) and Mr. Bryan (the artistic son of a peer) form the basis of the novel. There are some bright moments of comedy, as you would expect from Herbert, who was a master of the genre, but there are certainly some wince-inducing moments, and not all of them are of the kind that I think Herbert intended. It's certainly curious to see a Socialist cast as something of a villain, and the Socialist version of Sunday School is presented, not without a certain ration of acid. (Herbert himself was an independent MP, though he had not been elected as such at the time the book came out.) To be sure, some of the Bright Young Things (like Bryan's fiancee and another lady) aren't treated much better. Quite a lot of talk about domestic violence and out of wedlock marriage, which might have been a bit surprising in 1930 (and doubly surprising for a book that has been printed in youth editions). Interesting, and well-written, but like flat champagne, it left me with a lingering sour taste that was hard to dispel. A few footnotes: Herbert lived near Hammersmith, where the novel is set, owned a yacht called Water Gipsy, which he used during his World War II service on the river, and was a noted supporter of river activities.½

As a writer [a:A.P. Herbert|5061807|A.P. Herbert|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/m_50x66-82093808bca726cb3249a493fbd3bd0f.png] was known for his comic work. This, however, his first book, is an altogether darker affair.

The Secret Battle, published in 1919, might be the first of the British novels/memoirs of the First World War. It tells the story of a high strung young soldier called Harry Penrose who enlists in 1914 and is executed for cowardice in 1917. Herbert, who fought at Gallipoli and on the Western Front, vividly evokes the squalor of both theatres, more so than in some better known books. Penrose's slow approach to his inevitable fate is powerfully told.

In Britain much of what is generally believed about the First World War comes from the poems, plays, novels, and memoirs it produced (the latter categories indistinguishable in some cases). The notion of 'shot at dawn' is particularly widespread; of shell-shocked men being summarily shot for cowardice by a brutal military. This book lends much weight to that. Indeed, there was a man, Sub-Lieutenant Edwin Dyett, in Herbert's regiment who was shot for cowardice in 1917 and the circumstances of the case certainly raise the eyebrows of a civilian reader a century later.

But, if Herbert is telling Dyett's story, he certainly does so with plenty of poetic licence. And, as [a:John Terraine|225975|John Terraine|https://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1367005763p2/225975.jpg] explains in his excellent introduction, capital punishment was very rare in the British Army in World War One.

The Secret Battle is far better than some better known books. But, with the blend of memoir and novel which that war's literature generated, the reader must always question which, exactly, they are reading.

A sad and moving story of the British infantry man's experience in the trenches of the First World War. A. P. Herbert's style is as calm and measured as the events he describes are horrible.

Our hero is Harry, a delicate Oxford Scholar filled with fear and self-doubt but driven by a relentless need to conquer it. Through the lens of trenches in Gallipoli and France, the book looks at the "wind up" (what would now probably be called PTSD) and considers what constitutes courage, and how it differs from soldier to soldier.

Recommended by Meaghan.

Proof of the fact that as early as that people grasped the meaning of shell-shock/PTSD and how much the army doctrines were resented.

The engagingly told tale of a frontline port. Coastal convoys, magnetic mines, Dunkirk, the Blitz and D-Day were all part of its war.

A P Herbert was a columnist in Punch and wrote these cases to satirise the law and call for reform, particularly of licensing and divorce. He campaigned for these reforms in his lifetime. The cases are funny and illustrate the problems of the law.

I cannot understand why A.P. Herbert is not more famous than he is, for this book is a fascinating, funny and thought-provoking collection of fake legal cases and until I stumbled across Herbert's name in Wikipedia while looking for something else, I had never heard of him. He really ought to rank up next to P.G. Wodehouse et al as being one of the top humorists of that time and place.

Uncommon Law showcases much of the stupidity and silliness inherent in British law at that time. Cases are included illustrating the sheer ludicrousness of, for example, the following things:

1. There was, at the time, no such thing as a no-fault divorce. (This has, thank goodness, been corrected.) To get a divorce you had to accuse your partner of something like cruelty, adultery, etc. In a lot of cases couples who wanted to split up would stage an adultery, having the husband conspicuously check into a hotel for the night with a "mistress" hired for the occasion, just so they could get out of the marriage.
2. BUT if it was proven that both husband AND wife had misconducted themselves (committed adultery, for example), then the marriage had to stand.
3. The difference between a felony and a misdemeanor is a very significant one for the criminal record (a felony being considered a more serious crime and having much more severe consequences than a misdemeanor), but it is also completely meaningless. It had grown impossible to tell whether a particular offense was a felony, or a misdemeanor.
4. The government put a tax on lectures and performances, except when they were educational. However, they didn't recognize that such events could be both entertaining and educational, and tried to tax those, so in effect a lecture or play had to be boring to claim the tax exemption.

Herbert appears to be somewhat of a libertarian. Quoting from the book: "I understand that in the opinion of all Government Departments all fun is prima facie illegal, and, if it is not illegal, deserves to be taxed."
This book was written in the latter half of the twentieth century, but many of the legal issues therein are still highly relevant today. For instance, "Rex vs. Bloggs, What is Education?" is an excellent defense of homeschooling. And several of the cases deal with the issue of the police enticing people to commit violations, then arresting them for it. (To this day, do the police not send in underage teenagers to try to buy cigarettes?)
Lawyers in particular would love this book, but I would recommend it for any intelligent person who likes humor that will make them think as well as laugh.

The story of Herbert's election as an independent MP for Oxford University (by STV)and his subsequent efforts to bring a divorce reform bill into law.

This was one of the best books I have read in quite a long while & well worth the wait. Why Waterloo? Has been criticized as not being a serious work. This is probably due to the style in which it is written. Though not written in the naive style that Those Quarrelsome Bonapartes was, it is in a unique light-hearted style, which I personally found refreshing. In no way does it take away from this detailed & informative work. On the contrary, Herbert admits his shortcomings, which are due to the conflict of information provided by historians, rather than any fault of his own. Provided at the end of the text is his explanations of how he came to the conclusions he did in able for him to write the book.
This is one of the few books providing insight into Campbell’s character, often quoting his memoirs. By doing so, Campbell comes off like another Hudson Lowe.
It has its touching moments as well. Besides Napoleon’s farewell to the Guard & his triumphant return, it contains a poignant scene of an interview between his son & Meneval. The King of Rome had already aged beyond his years.

A P Herbert's acclaimed 'word war' was first waged in Punch, for 'the lasting Benefit of the King's English', and went on to elicit a host of amused, outraged and sympathetic counter-attacks. The very best of these semantic skirmishes are collected here with APH providing a mountain of ammunition for his noble battle. 'Plain English', 'Jungle English' and 'Valuable Neologisms' are all addressed, and fortified or demolished as APH commands. Now over sixty years since first publication, the 'word war' rages on, with a host of new coinages and expressions joining the ranks, but the worthy principles of the combat remain the same. Take arms and join APH in the fight! - whichever side of the great lexicological divide you happen to fall.

Sir Arthur Herbert was born in 1890 and educated at Winchester and Oxford. Having achieved a first in Jurisprudence, he then joined the Royal Navy and served both at Gallipoli and in France during the First World War. He was called to the Bar in 1918, and went on to become a Member of Parliament for Oxford University from 1935 to 1950. Throughout his life A P Herbert was a prolific writer, delighting his many readers with his witty observations and social satires in the columns of Punch. He was the creator of a host of colourful characters - notably Topsy, Albert Haddock and Mr Honeybubble - and wrote novels, poems, musicals, essays, sketches and articles. He was also a tireless campaigner for reform, a denouncer of injustice and a dedicated conserver of the Thames. By the time of his death in 1971, he had gained a considerable following and was highly regarded in literary circles. J M Barrie, Hilaire Belloc, Rudyard Kipling and John Galsworthy all delighted in his work, and H G Wells applauded him saying, 'You are the greatest of great men. You can raise delightful laughter and that is the only sort of writing that has real power over people like me.'

World War I, Novel, Great War

Inc March for the Free to Pom & Circumstance No4