<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Charming
Review: A modest understanding of British history through WWI is necessary to enjoy this book. One of the main things I enjoyed was learning that there actually was British Humour written in the time between Skaespeare and Monty Python. It a must have for any anglo-phile.Note: Due to numerous (and humorous) illustrations, this is a "one-sitting" read.
Rating: 
Summary: The Way History Should Be Taught!
Review: As a student of history, with the aspiration of eventually becoming a teacher of the same, I find that 1066 And All That is a laudable work. In a captivating, easy-to-read manner it connects various dates in English history in such a way as to make sense out of the otherwise useless jumble of facts so often presented by teachers. I highly recommend that anyone planning on teaching history read this book for inspiration!
Rating:
Summary: a satire classic
Review: history as seen from the examination (rear) end. For the most part the book looks at English history from minds that can't quite digest it, leading to the innocent desecration of high-minded and ossified conventions. It takes great skill to pull such a conceit, and probably a few drinks. The historical conventions 'addressed' are represented by labels and are therefore altogether too concrete. Introduced into a slightly inebriated mind determined to get the exam 'out of the way', the labels are subjected to all manner of puns and non sequiters. Almost every page is a roar. Highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: Still funny after 37 years
Review: I first read this book when I was 10, and 37 years later I still find it just as funny as the first time. It is possibly the best, and certainly the funniest, history of England ever written. From the Roman invasion of 55 B.C. ("the first genuine date in English history"), through to 1930, when "America was thus clearly top nation, and history came to a ." there is hilarity on every page. The brilliant text is accompanied by amusing drawings on every page, and just about every sentence in the book is memorable. The only thing wrong with this gem of a book is that it is so short, I can never make reading it last long enough. As brilliant as Will Cuppy's 'Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody', though a different sort of humour.
Rating:
Summary: Still funny after 37 years
Review: I first read this book when I was 10, and 37 years later I still find it just as funny as the first time. It is possibly the best, and certainly the funniest, history of England ever written. From the Roman invasion of 55 B.C. ("the first genuine date in English history"), through to 1930, when "America was thus clearly top nation, and history came to a ." there is hilarity on every page. The brilliant text is accompanied by amusing drawings on every page, and just about every sentence in the book is memorable. The only thing wrong with this gem of a book is that it is so short, I can never make reading it last long enough. As brilliant as Will Cuppy's 'Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody', though a different sort of humour.
Rating:
Summary: A very Good Thing! and Memorable!
Review: I read this first in high school, and in many ways it taught me a philosophy of history that subsequent decades have only confirmed. History is not what you thought - it is what you can remember. What's so marvelous about this work of historical humor is its skewed accuracy, and the uncanny way in which it captures the circularity of misinformation and facts that we use as cultural narrative. While it has a distinctly England-Between-the-Wars sensibility, the tone actually works in its favor. Passages like the discussion of Gaul's division into three parts (weeny, weedy, and weaky) illustrate the ways in which we all attempt to make sense of information which we cannot truly understand because we have no accurate context for it. And when the authors state that this history is the result of "years of research in golf-clubs, gun-rooms, green-rooms, etc.", they are making a very trenchant comment on how ideological history is created, taught, and made into a dominant belief system. This would make a great foundation for a course on history. I'm only sorry that it ends when America became top nation.
Rating:
Summary: A GOOD THING
Review: In 40 years of visiting the United States and hosting return visits I have only managed to get a vague idea about what English humour appeals to Americans. I am in no doubt that this is a great book, but it is as English as the Ascot, and the humour is very Oxbridge undergraduate humour. If my memory serves me, the authors graduated from Oxford with the accolade of a third-class honours, maybe less, in modern history apiece ('modern' being defined as not ancient Greek and Roman). You do not need much knowledge of British history to enjoy it, a Walt Disney or Saxons-and-sandals overview will be enough. What you may get out of it is completely unpredictable, at least by me. I am still reduced to helpless laughter by the humour in the book that is downright infantile, like the exam questions - 'Fill in at least two of the following: 1 (blank) 2 (blank) 3 Simon de Montfort. Do not write on more than two sides of the paper' - that sort of thing. The confusions between names are not much more adult and nearly as funny, like the story of how King Arthur burnt the cakes as told by Arthur Lord Tennyson, or Florence Nightingale gradually transmogrified into Flora McNightingown the Lady With the Deadly Lampshade. I still get a kick out of the Anglo-Saxon kings such as the Wave of Egg-kings (Eggfilth etc) and others such as Thruthelthrolth. Maybe the funniest joke in the book is about the king who perished by his own hand on learning that his sons were revolting. That is a little nosegay of my own favourites jotted down completely at random. If they don't appeal to you, that could just be because of the way I tell them, or it could be that this is not your own idea of funny. For me this little book is a true classic, a book that wears well down the years and decades, much as Lear's limericks do. I should maybe say that I myself am not English although I am Oxbridge. On the other hand I first read the book, and first found it hilarious, when I was only a child. Its great precept is that history is what you can remember. Listening to points of view as I hear them expressed with the modern advantage of instant communications I have to conclude that selective recollection for many people starts right away and does not have to wait for anything to become 'history'.
Rating:
Summary: It's all that and more!
Review: Most everyone on the internet (which makes most of you, as you're reading this review via the internet) has encountered, either in a website or a mass emailing, various humourous and hilarious historical satires, usually presented (alas, urban legend alert!) as inaccuracies found in actual student papers. Mistakes such as: Egypt is in a desert, and watered by irritation. Handel was half-German, half-Italian, and half-English. Lincoln lived at the Gettysburg Address. And so on. Well, in the days before email and websites (and photocopiers, to pass such gems around the office), these things did exist, and were, because of the difficulty in finding it by other means, published. Much to our pleasure, one such collection can still be found. `1066 and All That' is a humourous if fractured look at British history. As an aid for the newly historically literate, this text tells you when something that happened is a Good Thing. Here we find that Julius Caesar conquered Britain on the first date in British history (a very fortuitous coincidence, that) but failed to overrun the country, and left the natives, who were after all only natives, and completely lacking in the skill of making properly constructed Latin sentences such as Veni, Vidi, Vici (a quality absolutely required for gaining the appellation of 'civilised'). `Important Note
The Scots (originally Irish, but by now Scotch) were at this time inhabiting Ireland, having driven the Irish (Picts) out of Scotland; while the Picts (originally Scots) were now Irish (living in brackets) and vice versa. It is essential to keep these distinctions clearly in mind (and vice versa).' We are introduced to the conversion of the Angles (no, not Angels, but Angles, hence, Anglicans), helped of course by the Venomous Bead. Shortly thereafter, we had the Egg-Kings (Eggberd, Eggbreth, Eggfroth, etc.), `none of them, however, succeeded in becoming memorable, except in so far as it is difficult to forget such names as Eggbirth, Eggbred, Eggbeard, Eggfilth, etc. Nor is it even remembered by what kind of Eggdeath they perished.' Of course, you've probably never read the Magna Carta, being as it is in a foreign tongue (funny how English tends to do that). So, this book provides a summary: `1. That no one was to be put to death, save for some reason (except the Common People).
2. That everyone should be free (except the Common People).
3. That everything should be of the same weight and measure throughout the Realm (except the Common People).
4. That the Courts should be stationary, instead of following a very tiresome medieval official known as the King's Person all over the country.
5. That no person should be fined to his utter ruin (except the King's Person).
6. That the Barons should not be tried except by a special jury of other Barons who would understand. Magna Charter was therefore the chief cause of Democracy in England, and thus a very Good Thing for everyone (except the Common People).' Skipping a bit (you will of course have to read the book for yourself; I can hardly be expected to do all the work for you, now, can I. What am I, a typist?) we come upon the death of good King William IV, at which time, `Queen Victoria, though asleep at the time and thus in her nightdress, showed great devotion to duty by immediately ascending the throne. In this bold act she was assisted by Lord Melbourne and the Archbishop of Canterbury, who were both properly dressed.' Each section ends with a term paper covering the historical period in question, with questions such as: + Which do you consider were more alike, Caesar or Pompey, or vice versa? (Be brief.) + Why do you picture John of Gaunt as a rather emaciated grandee? + Ruminate fearlessly on (I) Lord Cardigan, (2) Clapham. We discover the truth of the Magna Garter (a very great garter indeed--as distinct from that Great Charter mentioned above); that Victoria died in fact of a surfeit of Jamborees; and that when America became the top dog nation, history came to an end. Hence, as history is at an end, this is the only history book which can claim to be complete. Enjoy with your tea (not of course to be confused with the compulsory tea-party demanded by George III of all American colonists, who started pouring the tea into Boston Harbour `until they were quite Independent, thus causing the United States'), biscuits, and a good dose of humour!
Rating:
Summary: Monty Pythonesque, yet sophisticated Public School Humo(u)r
Review: One friend to this day, actually believes that this intentionally garbled whacky pseudo-history book is actually just a humorous introduction to British history. I can't convince him otherwise. His wife just mutters "Baby has a shortage" - she knows he'll never get it. But if you do get the joke, even if you know little or nothing of British history, you will come to love this subtle simulation of school-boy ignorance. My favorite parts are the review questions after each chapter: <quote>
12. Would you say that Ethelread the Unready was directly responsible for the French Revolution? If so, what would you say? N.B. -- Do not attempt to answer more than one question at a time.
</quote> The writing reminds me of Robert Benchley at his zaniest. In true British public (elitist private) school fashion, all events are evaluated as either a "Good Thing" or not depending on whether Britain is still "Top Nation". The illustrations are reminiscent of Ernest Shepard's for Winnie the Pooh and perfectly complement this charming, goofy book.
Rating:
Summary: If you want to learn about the Kings Egbert, Egghead, etc.
Review: What is wonderful about this book is that it is extremely silly - I imagine it would appeal strongly to fans of Monty Python - it has very similar humour. On a more serious side I feel you would need to have more than a passing knowledge of English history (as it really was) to appreciate the blistering satire offered here. It is certainly very, very funny, but I guess you need to know what you're laughing at!
<< 1 >>
| 
