
Soup is such a trying dish.
Don’t misunderstand me, I like soup. True, in a restaurant one always has the vague feeling that the soup is the cheaper choice and the restaurateur laughs all the way to his bank account when he sees patrons happily drinking hot water that he can produce by the bucketful for a few cents. But it does taste good and on a winter’s day what is there better than nourishing, hot soup?
It is perhaps a reflection on the way that I was brought up that, from my experience, soup offers so many opportunities for the solecisms that terrified my mother.
So many things could and usually did go wrong. Soup is a watery, mine strewn plunge pool for the socially inept.
I was always sternly told, with a seriousness that I can still not really understand, that soup was always ‘eaten’ never ‘drunk.’
True, it was rarely offered in a cup when attending a formal meal, but I couldn’t help noticing that my favourite soups were quite clearly liquid with the ostensible eponymous vegetable or meat fibre having been reduced to a silky flowing consistency negating the necessity of chewing. Surely ‘drinking’ was the more obvious activity in its consumption. Such linguistic cavils were regarded as contumacy and were rejected as being merely mischievous.
More adventurous soups like minestrone with interesting bits in them which did necessitate some gentle chewing were seen as reinforcing the ‘eating’ aspect and showing the way for the more namby pamby soups which lacked the muscular viscosity of a true dish of food.
And this philosophical speculation was before you had picked up your spoon and started the socially hazardous process of eating the stuff!
The fact that the menu del dia in my corner restaurant offered soup as the only choice for the first course gave me ample opportunity to revisit my memories of the various prohibitions from my youth.
The restaurant provided baguette already cut into chunky slices. This precluded those lewd fellows of a baser sort from committing the ultimate crime of cutting their bread roll with a knife. I did this as a small child in a restaurant and my mother had the self control to wait until we got home before I was told to Never Do That Again. The knife by my plate I was told was there to allow me to spread butter on the roll which I would have broken in my hands. This was presented to me as one of the unalterable laws to question which would bring about the Fall of Humankind and bring lasting opprobrium on my poor self.
We still, you will note, have not tasted the soup.
The next obstacle was to find the soup spoon.
In later years I was told that it was terribly lower middle class to have soup spoons at all (and fish knives and forks and pastry forks) and that dessert spoons were perfectly sufficient for soup – but the finer details of ‘U’ and ‘Non-U’ always left me behind; the jam/conserve controversy confused me and I invariably chose the wrong one in polite society!
Finding the soup spoon (because we were lower middle class) was usually not a problem using the old ‘start from the outside and work in’ principle when it came to cutlery laid out for you.
The real problem with the spoon was how to hold it. Luckily this was not a problem for me as I was told very distinctly how to hold it in a ‘fountain pen’ grip. But not a grip, more of a light balance.
With broken bread and balanced spoon you were now ready to begin the process of eating the soup. Under no circumstances whatsoever and especially if alone, could you blow on the soup to cool it. It might after all be gazpaco or Vichyssoise and the social humiliation of cooling the already cold might well be considered irreparable.
Soup should be taken on to the spoon by drawing the spoon gently away from the diner. At no time should be metal of the spoon touch the sides of the bowl. If you were so inept as to make a scraping sound taking up the soup then you might as well go the whole hog and simply tip the dish into your open mouth!
As the soup approached your mouth the only acceptable way of eating the stuff was to sip from the side of the spoon. Sipping did not mean slurping. To slurp was to put yourself beyond the pale of civilized life. Putting the whole spoon in your mouth was the cultural equivalent of spitting and putting your feet on the table.
As the level of soup slowly decreased (assuming you had managed to master all the necessary techniques to allow your continued presence at the table) it was allowable for you gently to tip the dish away from yourself and gently spoon up the soup.
Any soup adhering to the bottom of the dish and refusing to acquiesce to the laws of gravity had to be regarded as lost as only the most sensitively adept diners were capable of making the nice calculations which allowed them to use the spoon to gather the remaining drops of soup without scraping.
Having finished the soup (and resisting the urge to lick the spoon clean) the said implement should be placed neatly on the plate on which the soup bowl had been placed. In the absence of a supporting plate then the spoon should be placed at right angles to the diner and slightly off centre if the soup plate is flat rimmed or parallel to the diner if the soup bowl is without flat rim.
The table napkin (never, ever, ever a ‘serviette’) may be used to dab (not wipe) the lips.
At no point is it acceptable to put your elbows on the table.
It’s all quite simple really.
And none of the diners I observed in my local restaurant adhered to those rules. I include myself.
But, obviously, I kept to the most important rules, the essential ones.
And ‘we’ all know which they are.
Don’t misunderstand me, I like soup. True, in a restaurant one always has the vague feeling that the soup is the cheaper choice and the restaurateur laughs all the way to his bank account when he sees patrons happily drinking hot water that he can produce by the bucketful for a few cents. But it does taste good and on a winter’s day what is there better than nourishing, hot soup?
It is perhaps a reflection on the way that I was brought up that, from my experience, soup offers so many opportunities for the solecisms that terrified my mother.
So many things could and usually did go wrong. Soup is a watery, mine strewn plunge pool for the socially inept.
I was always sternly told, with a seriousness that I can still not really understand, that soup was always ‘eaten’ never ‘drunk.’
True, it was rarely offered in a cup when attending a formal meal, but I couldn’t help noticing that my favourite soups were quite clearly liquid with the ostensible eponymous vegetable or meat fibre having been reduced to a silky flowing consistency negating the necessity of chewing. Surely ‘drinking’ was the more obvious activity in its consumption. Such linguistic cavils were regarded as contumacy and were rejected as being merely mischievous.
More adventurous soups like minestrone with interesting bits in them which did necessitate some gentle chewing were seen as reinforcing the ‘eating’ aspect and showing the way for the more namby pamby soups which lacked the muscular viscosity of a true dish of food.
And this philosophical speculation was before you had picked up your spoon and started the socially hazardous process of eating the stuff!
The fact that the menu del dia in my corner restaurant offered soup as the only choice for the first course gave me ample opportunity to revisit my memories of the various prohibitions from my youth.
The restaurant provided baguette already cut into chunky slices. This precluded those lewd fellows of a baser sort from committing the ultimate crime of cutting their bread roll with a knife. I did this as a small child in a restaurant and my mother had the self control to wait until we got home before I was told to Never Do That Again. The knife by my plate I was told was there to allow me to spread butter on the roll which I would have broken in my hands. This was presented to me as one of the unalterable laws to question which would bring about the Fall of Humankind and bring lasting opprobrium on my poor self.
We still, you will note, have not tasted the soup.
The next obstacle was to find the soup spoon.
In later years I was told that it was terribly lower middle class to have soup spoons at all (and fish knives and forks and pastry forks) and that dessert spoons were perfectly sufficient for soup – but the finer details of ‘U’ and ‘Non-U’ always left me behind; the jam/conserve controversy confused me and I invariably chose the wrong one in polite society!Finding the soup spoon (because we were lower middle class) was usually not a problem using the old ‘start from the outside and work in’ principle when it came to cutlery laid out for you.
The real problem with the spoon was how to hold it. Luckily this was not a problem for me as I was told very distinctly how to hold it in a ‘fountain pen’ grip. But not a grip, more of a light balance.
With broken bread and balanced spoon you were now ready to begin the process of eating the soup. Under no circumstances whatsoever and especially if alone, could you blow on the soup to cool it. It might after all be gazpaco or Vichyssoise and the social humiliation of cooling the already cold might well be considered irreparable.
Soup should be taken on to the spoon by drawing the spoon gently away from the diner. At no time should be metal of the spoon touch the sides of the bowl. If you were so inept as to make a scraping sound taking up the soup then you might as well go the whole hog and simply tip the dish into your open mouth!
As the soup approached your mouth the only acceptable way of eating the stuff was to sip from the side of the spoon. Sipping did not mean slurping. To slurp was to put yourself beyond the pale of civilized life. Putting the whole spoon in your mouth was the cultural equivalent of spitting and putting your feet on the table.
As the level of soup slowly decreased (assuming you had managed to master all the necessary techniques to allow your continued presence at the table) it was allowable for you gently to tip the dish away from yourself and gently spoon up the soup.
Any soup adhering to the bottom of the dish and refusing to acquiesce to the laws of gravity had to be regarded as lost as only the most sensitively adept diners were capable of making the nice calculations which allowed them to use the spoon to gather the remaining drops of soup without scraping.
Having finished the soup (and resisting the urge to lick the spoon clean) the said implement should be placed neatly on the plate on which the soup bowl had been placed. In the absence of a supporting plate then the spoon should be placed at right angles to the diner and slightly off centre if the soup plate is flat rimmed or parallel to the diner if the soup bowl is without flat rim.
The table napkin (never, ever, ever a ‘serviette’) may be used to dab (not wipe) the lips.
At no point is it acceptable to put your elbows on the table.
It’s all quite simple really.
And none of the diners I observed in my local restaurant adhered to those rules. I include myself.
But, obviously, I kept to the most important rules, the essential ones.
And ‘we’ all know which they are.




It is, or at least it should be still, available on video or DVD. Watch it. But the books are so much more even that a superlative television adaptation. Enjoy!

novel ‘Michael’. This is an odd little tome which concerns the progress of an unprepossessing member of the aristocracy who defies his father’s wishes and turns to a life in music. It was published in 1916 in the middle of the First World War and the action of the novel takes place before the start of the conflict and ends with a situation of mawkishly sentimental morality when the hero is invalided out after being wounded in the trenches.




Gary Oldman steals every scene he is in by his sheer professionalism; Christian Bale is content to take second place to the dictates of the narrative and all are bound together by a genuinely stimulating script. The bangs and flashes and gadgets are all as good as one would expect and are subordinated to the necessities of the story line.



tripe; Big Brother and the renaming of Marathon bars – all of these will be regarded with a wry chuckle and a gentle lifting of the shoulders and the eyebrows. That attitude is pernicious. All the things listed are inherently evil and must be extirpated, terminated with extreme prejudice. At least.
an author who was famous in the nineteenth century and noted for his detective stories with his rather engaging detective, Martin Hewitt. I must admit that I had heard of (if not read) the novel for which he is best known, A Child of the Jago (1896) and, if the site offers a free copy I will read it.

grew on me as did his nemesis Paolo Albani (Marco Vratogna) but the level of acting was dire and it detracted from the voices. There was, for me, a distinct feeling that this production had been under rehearsed.
I thought that some attempt at political comment was going to be made using the idea that the power struggles were contained in a glittering artificial box while the real struggle of the people went on outside and supported the indulgence of those who played at power etc. But it seemed just an opportunity for the effective grouping of people for the final big scene.









This is a book written by a nine year old which lay undiscovered for years and then was published with Daisy Ashford’s own punctuation and spelling. It is an artlessly cunning construction which uses the authentic naivety of Daisy with what now reads as a clever illumination and critique of society in the late nineteenth century. It is very funny. I was first given a copy of this wonderful book by Aunt Betty and read it with delight and disbelief. It is the story of a Mr Salteena and his attempts to become a gentleman. When the book was first published with a foreword by J M Barrie it was an astonishing success and was later alleged to have been a sort of literary joke produced by an adult author pretending to write down to a child’s level. Indeed some of the observations in the book seem a little arch and knowing to be those of a young girl, but the authenticity of Daisy Ashford’s work has never been in doubt.

It only seems fair to include the ™ mark as sign of my breathless admiration for the ruthless marketing campaign which has seen this yellow family appear on everything that has a space large enough for the logo and the reproduction of a member of the family. The figures are lovingly crafted from machine moulded plastic but the set is worth it for seeing Marge and Homer and Queen and King. Bart as the Bishop and Lisa as the Castle provoke metaphorical speculation which is as satisfying as it is futile. The whole set is a delight and I even won my first game!