One of J. M. Barrie’s ‘hints to his team from their captain’ was that: ‘No batsman is allowed to choose his own bowler. You needn’t think it.’ The same applies to authors and critics.
My book Peter Pan’s First XI has been reviewed three times in the past week in the Irish Times, the Guardian and the Financial Times. It’s been a mixed bag. The Irish Times review, by John S Doyle, was exceptionally positive. Doyle concluded by writing that:
‘This engaging book scrutinises its many subjects well, but with a kind eye. The author is obviously himself passionate about cricket, and explains enough of the pleasures of the game to pass on some of that passion to the reader . . . ’
The reviews in the Financial Times and the Guardian were a combination of the good and the not-so-good. Stephen Moss in the Guardian wrote that ‘the book is deeply suggestive, without ever exhausting any of its numerous themes.’ And that it is ‘a chancy cameo, then, rather than a dutifully compiled double-hundred; an innings more suited to village cricket than a Test match. Which, in its way, is not inappropriate for a book about this most unlikely of cricket teams.’
Unfortunately Moss makes a careless mistake when he reports J. M. Barrie writing of Jerome K. Jerome, that ‘he was a great cricketer, at heart.’ The description is actually Jerome writing about Barrie which is a little bit embarrassing when Moss uses it as an example of ‘Barrie’s wonderfully dry observations’ though it does rather sound like something that Barrie might write, it’s true.
And I believe he is both mistaken and also rather disingenuous in his review when he accuses me of using a ‘kitchen sink approach to history’. He lists what he sees as the offending examples here:
‘Thus, towards the end of the book, we get Milne joining the team in 1910 as the “last member” of the Allahakbarries (cue six pages on his literary career), a politician member of the team being beaten up by Suffragettes, a sensational innings in a first-class match in 1911 by a Nottinghamshire player who has nothing to do with the Allahakbarries, the death of Scott on his expedition to the South Pole in 1912, and the almost contemporaneous sinking of the Titanic (perhaps included because one of those killed was an artist who had played against the Allahakbarries).’
Moss implies that these examples have been plucked from the annals of history as some kind of ‘pre-war best hits’ selection but in fact they are all directly connected with J. M. Barrie and his cricket team, the subject of my book after all, with the sole exception of the 1911 innings (one of the most remarkable knocks in cricketing history about which an entire book was written by John Arlott). He fails to mention in the review that Scott was one of Barrie’s greatest friends or that Frank Millet, the artist who went down in the Titanic, was a key member of the Broadway side that the Allahakbarries played against between 1897 and 1899. It is these remarkable connections which make this such a compelling story; without them it would indeed be a kitchen sink approach to history, with them ‘Barrie’s haphazard team [becomes] a prism through which to view the wider pre-war period’ according to The Sunday Times’ literary editor Andrew Holgate, whose review of my book really seems to ‘get it’.
Stephen Moss, it seems, did not, but of course he is entitled to his view, however much I might disagree with it. If authors could choose their critics after all, we’d be hitting metaphorical boundaries all day long. And where’s the fun in that?
Oh, hang on a minute . . .