Interesting the assertion that his humorous books were the "good ones" -- I felt they all went on too long, though perhaps because a joke can't really be told for too long (exception that proves the rule: Wodehouse). Rather I much prefer his later, more serious and even cynical work.
I've read it all because he is such a master of language and even if I tire of the plot I drink up his prose. He is one of my favorites.
Decline and Fall is an excellent read, and I did enjoy Sword of Honor, but I never much cared for any of his other work; I think perhaps I read them a little too young to get the underlying themes
Recently got into reading Waugh, and really loved 'Handful of Ashes' - some of the interactions between the characters feel very modern somehow. Also his ability to write characters is amazing.
Anyway, enough of the terrible literary criticism. Far more important is this line from Waugh's wiki page:
> The twin blows were sufficient for him to consider suicide. He records that he went down to a nearby beach and, leaving a note with his clothes, walked out to sea. An attack by jellyfish changed his mind, and he returned quickly to the shore
I feel that 'He records that' is a polite way to say "this is obvious nonsense". I mean, sure it's possible that Waugh decided not to commit suicide due to jellyfish, but it certainly seems suspiciously like something that a character in his novels would do ...
Not even Brideshead? Though I confess I did see the ITV series first, can't know what I'd think of it to read without having those characters/actors' interpretations in mind, which definitely skews it.
Tempting as it may be, to read the headline and wade in to add you point of anecdata from the time you spent in London, and found it terrible/ wonderful, i really urge you to click the link.
Spoiler: its about the release of 5 books by Evelyn Waugh, not about the pro's and cons of a city that you may love, or hate.
I am reminded of that bit in Lord Edgware Dies where Lady Edgware mishears something about "The Judgement of Paris" and starts confidently bleating about fashion, New York and London.
This summary has helpfully saved time that I might otherwise have wasted reading the apparently tedious (though well-regarded) works of Evelyn Waugh.
> From that moment,’ Auberon Waugh recalled, ‘I never treated anything he had to say on faith or morals very seriously.’
If the person telling you smoking is unhealthy is a smoker, then it's obviously a lie and you should enjoy the healthy smoking habit whenever possible.
But I look forward to HN comments about how and why London is or is not hell. Those are likely to be both interesting and informative. ;-)
If you still have to pay off some kind of rent/mortage and work for a living, you're basically just an NPC-style window dressing for the well and truly rich sons of millionares and oligarchs that make up the London global elite.
Barring some of the super-top-tier jobs, your salary will realistically cap out at maybe £100-150k as the absolute best of the best at which point you're technically really rich on paper but still not like "can actually afford to buy a really nice house and have two kids in a really nice area" rich.
For all the talk about "bigger salaries" and "career progression", I'm genuinely not convinced that those who join the London rat race are actually truly better off than someone in Leeds. Sure you can hit upwards of 80k after like five, but that completely ignores that you need to be earning like £60k to have a half-decent standard of living to begin with.
I clicked the link and was confused about the list of 5 books at the top (not even sure if it was books or what it meant), that's why I looked at the comments first. :P
I've never been to London, nor will I, but I once sent my spouse off for a look-see and she came back with the usual Trafalgar and pigeon snaps, a can of Nukie, a copy of 'Viz' and a 'Parklife' CD. Close enough; add that to a deep familiarity with the London of Dickens and Sherlock, and I'd wager that it's no more Hell than any human anthill of its ilk.
People write these headlines for the readers of their publications, not random link aggregators such as HN, and they're not intended to be an analytical and accurate summary of the article content. Sometimes people have some fun with the headlines – that's not "clickbait".
Your caustic contemptuous attitude is nonsensical, humourless, and exactly the sort of thing that just sucks the fun out of HN at times.
There's probably more of a traditional fun with headlines streak in the UK than the US. The titles in The Economist print edition are full of wordplay. (Admittedly the subtitle is a more straightforward intro to the article.)
But there's obviously a subset of people here and elsewhere who really have an aversion to that sort of thing.
>Clickbait is a text or a thumbnail link that is designed to attract attention and to entice users to follow that link and read, view, or listen to the linked piece of online content, being typically deceptive, sensationalized, or otherwise misleading.
Every internet writer I've talked to, or heard speak publicly, had their own rationalization that amounts to admitting to the desire to entice with headlines that don't convey an idea of what's on the other side of the link, but disclaim malice sufficient enough to earn the label "clickbait".
>Sometimes people have some fun with the headlines – that's not "clickbait".
I feel zero obligation to make the title of an article or presentation strictly dry and factual. (Though often I do go with more straightforward titles when it makes sense.) And I'm fine with you not reading or listening to it.
Honestly it's too big. Lived there for 7 years and had enough of the cold, grey, miserable existence marked by having to travel at least 30 minutes, typically 45 minutes to go anywhere in any direction. And I lived in Stratford Zone 2!
Moved to Barcelona and the difference is night and day.
Barcelona is a fantastic city but you could lay down this same criticism just by moving out to Castelldefels or Forum or La Floresta.
Both are conurbations (of differing size) where you can find yourself wandering various little town centres each with their own unique vibe. It just happens that London is bigger.
Let’s be honest Stratford isn’t anything remotely considered central even if it is technically zone 2.
Night and day difference living out there on the edge than living closer in within one of the neighborhoods having restaurants, cafes and local pubs on your doorstep and being able to walk to work.
I lived about 5min towards the centre (Bow) for almost ten years - and the other side in W2 & W12 (worlds apart!) for a couple before that - and I agree with you, but the optimistic alternative reading is that it is also quite amazing how much is accessible within that time.
i.e. it takes 40m to get anywhere... But there's an incredible variety of things & places to which you can get in 40m!
That's your problem then, you're not doing in London the things people move to London for. I don't blame you for disliking London if you're not doing the things London excels at!
At 250 miles of track, it covers a much greater area than any other European (sans Russia) capital. The second largest is Madrid at 180 miles, and Paris is 140 miles.
That's only the subway; a better comparison would include at least parts of the RER network, which covers 360 miles; let's say half of that in a range comparable to London subway. And London is much more spread out than Paris, so comparing mileage is not a very interesting metric. Subway station density is another one where London “loses”.
Personally, I found London subway OK, with stations a bit too far away for my taste. The bus network however is better than in Paris, especially their frequency of passage.
My opinion is that the tube is excellent that it exists because I _can_ take it somewhere, but I hate the experience. I hate the experience and doing it every day is soul sucking. I grant you it's not as bad as the experience of not being able to go where you want.
I'd actually argue the other way around - London is a great place to live in a shoebox, because while housing is more expensive here, everything else is similar to the rest of the country, and there's a tonne of cheap/free stuff to go to. Moving to London and staying at home is like living in Sydney and never going to the beach, or to Vancouver and never going to the mountains. You're just not doing what the city is great at.
having lived in NYC, which has a more intense albeit similar vibe, I have come to appreciate having a comfortable place to go back to at the end of a day. I think that makes a total difference on your experience. That and commute time. Cities like that offer so much, but I personally prefer to take bites of it whenever I feel like it. I think the biggest wins are the job market, career progression, the business opportunities, the fact that it's one of the best travel hubs in the world, and the insane amount of quality and diverse food, entertainment, and shopping options.
The London job market is great for the UK, excellent within Europe, and stupendous by global standards. You'll find top jobs in tech, media, fashion, finance, academia, almost any professional field there is.
If you want to work in a diverse environment go work in London. It wouldn't surprise me if 50% of your colleagues weren't born in the UK, let alone London.
It's not just the landords, it's also the people themselves, especially the natives. If you mention you live in a flat (as opposed to a house) people will look down on you because you're so poor. What's wrong with flats?
I've lived in several European capitals (and in a major US city), and I've never the same "oh you live in flat, you must be poor" reaction.
Really? I’ve lived in London 10 years and have honestly never encountered this (and most people I know either live in flats, or live quite far outside of London in a house). Perhaps it’s just in a certain area you encountered this (or certain areas where I didn’t!)
In London I find that very hard to believe unless you were associating with some exceptionally rich people. The average flat prices was over £500K (most expensive is being sold for £175 million: https://onehidepark.uk/) and house was £800K. There's similar expensive ranges for rentals.
I'm not sure I know _anyone_ (who doesn't live with their parents) in London who doesn't either live in a flat or lives in a house with flatmates. And that includes doctors, CTOs, and lots of software engineers.
You're getting unfair downvotes. Are you English or something else?
One of the perks of living in England as a foreigner is you avoid the extreme class stratification that is English society or are at least given a pass.
And yes, to certain circles saying you live in a flat is akin to admitting you're poor. This along with your accent also identifies your class.
I avoided this by calling my flat an apartment though I lived in New Cross near Deptford which is definitely "low class" or as I liked to say, " gentrifying.".
That's definitely nonsense, I'd put money on there being many more rich Londoners in desirably located flats than same price house (further out/not so desirable).
The majority (loosely/anecdotally speaking) of the particularly desirably located houses are converted to flats.
> it's also the people themselves, especially the natives. If you mention you live in a flat (as opposed to a house) people will look down on you because you're so poor. What's wrong with flats?
Native here. Born '74, perhaps ironically I lived in a house when young because my family were poor and we lived in charity housing. In '99 I moved out and lived only in flats until eventually leaving London in 2021, moving back into a house at age 46. Suffice to say I don't recognise this attitude in myself, nor any of my friends or colleagues throughout those 46 years. TBH I knew very few people that lived in a house in London for most of that time anyway.
