In a moment of vintage seeking I embarked (or more likely re-embarked, I am %70 certain I read this long ago), on Nancy Mitford's Don’t Tell Alfred, having read a very engaging article about Mitford in an old newspaper clipping. The clipping itself is probably vintage, going by the age of the yellow newspaper.This is a good book and it probably deserved more stars than I gave it but I couldn't fully say that I enjoyed this book.I enjoyed most of the primary characters, the random chaos (which is in fact the main plots) and the overall sardonic humour. I liked the satirical treatment Mitford dishes out to the classes (upper? Middle? *Shrug*) but herein lies my problem; Satire and light humours social commentary are not genera that always date well. (Austin is one of my favourite, a standout author whose books and characters have dated awesomely well). I do not know enough about the era or England or France to get all of the humour/satire in Don’t Tell Alfred. I am fairly well read so I get bits of it; the English French squabbles over nothing, the English Oxford subculture and so on. I am further inhibited I suspect, by never by any stretch of the imagination, having been a Francophile as my mother was and as I believe Mitford Herself was. I have also not read (or do not remember reading) her books which precede this one, maybe I would like this better if I had but I doubt it.My main problem was that some of the characters are annoying where they are meant to be engaging. (view spoiler)[ Northey. I wanted someone to strangle her and instead she danced her dysfunctional way through the book, I can SEE that she is meant to be funny but I could not find her so. The parcel of idiotic kids... The menagerie that Northey dumps on you... Dawn... the adopted baby...chuck them out Fanny and Albert, for goodness sake, but no. Again I can tell they are meant to be funny not annoying. The plot see-sawed a bit for me, it had sections I thoroughly enjoyed and then went into downward spirals usually due to one or two or more of the annoying characters. The other thing is that Mitford’s generation assume that anyone could read other languages so there are random French words and phrases that remain unexplained, of course I could goggle for them but it interrupts the flow that little bit more.The ending was good though the writing was exceptionally good by comparison to a lot of modern writing so I might try more Mitford since I have them all to hand, but not immediately. (hide spoiler)]
Il terzo volume della trilogia che include The Pursuit of Love and Love in a Cold Climate. Scritto (e ambientato) molto più tardi degli altri due, risente decisamente del confronto, pur difendendosi bene in generale. La trama è come sempre più o meno inesistente e si basa sul trasferimento come ambasciatore a Parigi di Alfred, il marito di Fanny, la narratrice dei primi due romanzi che qui diventa protagonista. Nonostante questo Fanny non brilla per originalità, a differenza di tutti gli altri personaggi, che creano terribili scompigli che devono essere tenuti nascosti ad Alfred, già impegnato di suo (da qui il titolo, ovviamente). La consueta ironia è un po' smorzata dal carattere piuttosto sotto tono di Fanny, caratteristica messa opportunamente in luce dalla prima gaffe (ovvero il non essere riusciti a mandare via dall'ambasciata la precedente moglie di ambasciatore, che intrattiene tutta Parigi nei suoi appartamenti, noncurante del fatto che il mandato del marito è terminato. Inoltre il romanzo è pervaso da una certa malinconia. Sarà la mezza età di Fanny, e della stessa protagonista...
Do You like book Don't Tell Alfred (1990)?
Although I loved both of Nancy Mitford's earlier novels in this loose autobiographical trilogy (In Pursuit of Love and Love in a Cold Climate), I feel that this was my favourite of the three. It may be due to her narrator, Fanny, who had been very much on the sidelines in the other two novels finally taking central stage. Also, the novel is set in the late 1950s, which I had experienced as a child, and so the society and some of the cultural references were more relevant to me than those in the 1920s-30s. There is something of a French farce about the novel, which had me smiling and laughing while I was reading it. I especially loved how she continually takes the piss out of The Daily Mail (renamed of course for the novel). It shows that their editorial policies havevn't changed all that much since the 1950s (and I suspect much longer).Aside from all the delightful fun there was one chapter that struck me as deeply poignant. Fanny and a French companion talk during a country drive and they reflect upon the world they were born into and how the two World Wars had changed civilisation irrevocably but that this was something lost upon the new generation.
—Vivienne
This is the third Nancy Mitford I have read, and unfortunately I did not enjoy it as much as the first two. Fanny is still the narrator of the story but the years have passed and she now has four grown boys. Her Husband, Alfred, a don at Oxford, has taken over as Ambassador to France and so Fanny up and moves to Paris. It is here we meet a whole host of characters, some likable and some not. Fanny has to learn the role of Ambassadress and familiarize herself with all the new faces. Poor Fanny's job is not made easy as the former ambassadress locks herself into one of the suites and refuses to budge. When she thinks she is finally settling in her grown boys pay a visit and they are not at all the respectable people she would like to have at cocktail hour. I did enjoy this novel and there is still the usual sharp Mitford wit prevalent on every page but what disappointed me was the political aspect to the novel, although not heavily talked about, it was still enough to put me off giving it 5 stars.
—Leanne (Booksandbabble)
This novel takes place about 15 years after the events of Love in a Cold Climate. Fanny is a middle-aged mother of four grown children, slightly bored by her life as the wife of an Oxford don, when her husband is suddenly appointed ambassador to France. Wacky antics ensue when she and her newly knighted husband Alfred move into the embassy in Paris.I don’t doubt that Mitford’s contemporaries found this book entertaining, but I didn’t like it nearly as well as the first two books in this loose trilogy. It’s amusing in a few places - particularly I like Fanny and Alfred’s careful non-interference policy concerning their sons, who all seem to have lost their minds. But for the most part I found this bland. I suspect much of the humor was lost on me as I missed some of the contemporary references.It's worth a read as a followup to the other books.
—Jamie
