leanston, meanston, deanston

Better do this whisky post before the bottle disappears - a very real danger as it's the only one in the cupboard at the moment. The brief glory days of immediately post-birthday (supplemented by the Christmas backlog) have long since been whittled away and we're into the long dark teatime of the soul that precedes Christmas 2025 and hopefully a bit of a bump in the stocks.

Anyway, this is Deanston, not one that you see in supermarkets a lot, although I seem to remember Marks & Spencer used to sell it. I happened to see it on the spesh for about £25 on Amazon a while back so I decided to snap it up; I mean, why not, right?

Deanston distillery is located a few miles west of Dunblane, fairly southerly as Highland distilleries go though not as far south as Glengoyne. It's a fairly young distillery, being opened in 1965, but inhabits a set of buildings with an interesting history which were used as a cotton mill for around 200 years before being re-purposed for whisky production. 

This is the entry-level Virgin Oak expression, the name referencing the year or so the whisky spends in new oak casks which have never before held any spirit. This alone would not qualify the spirit to be called Scotch whisky, as it must first be matured for at least three years in casks that have previously held some other spirit; in this case American bourbon. So you might say, well, this whole Virgin Oak thing sounds like a bit of a gimmick then, and I'd say, yes, you may be right there. In their defence it is bottled at a beefy 46.3% which represents some commitment to delivering a bit of oomph at the cost of wringing out a bit of extra profit. It would be easy enough, after all, to just dilute the whole thing down to the standard 40% and squeeze out roughly an extra bottle for every seven or so bottles at 46.3%, so respect to them for not doing that. They also make a big thing on the packaging of it being non-chill-filtered, and there are no cryptic messages in foreign languages which denote the inclusion of extra colouring. There is, as it happens, a slightly complex relationship between chill-filtering and the bottling strength of your whisky which I won't attempt to explain but which you can read about here.

All that don't amount to a hill of beans if your whisky tastes like donkey ass, though, in fact slightly more concentrated donkey ass might even be a bad thing. No worries on that particular score, though. I mean it's not especially startling, adhering to the present-day standard of being a no-age-statement whisky sitting below the 12-year-old which they are thereby able to charge more money for and which I don't deem myself able to afford what with having kids to feed and all that malarkey.

But, to be fair, there's nothing wrong with it, any more than there's anything wrong with a whole host of unpeated Highland and Speyside whiskies that I'd struggle to tell apart in a blind taste test. I'd put this in the top half of the imaginary chart, because it's got some nice dried-fruit spiciness going on. A sploosh of water doesn't hurt here, especially since the higher bottling strength means it won't damp the aforementioned oomph down too much.

slider way, give it all you got

Here's a crackpot theory for you, and, as all the best theories do, it has to do with Robert Redford, who died last week at the age of 89, and shoes.

The only films in which Redford starred which I could say with complete confidence that I've seen are Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid, The Sting, All The President's Men, The Great Waldo Pepper, Out Of Africa and Pete's Dragon. The first three there are obviously classics, the fourth is a bit of fluff with some surprisingly dark moments thrown in (such as Susan Sarandon falling off an aeroplane, or when Redford's character has to cave a fellow aviator's head in with a hunk of timber to prevent him burning to death in his crashed plane), the fifth is a bit turgid for my taste and I can't honestly remember Redford even being in the last one, presumably because I was distracted by a giant furry green CGI dragon.

Anyway, the central point made in a number of the obituaries was that it was easily to be distracted from his acting ability by how absurdly handsome he was, something easy even for a tediously vanilla heterosexual bloke such as myself to appreciate. That is something that Redford himself complained about (but not too much; I mean, come on) in the context of it limiting his range of roles. The quote that was circulating on the internet after his death was this one from director Mike Nichols in relation to Redford being considered for the role that eventually went to Dustin Hoffman in The Graduate:

“I interviewed hundreds, maybe thousands, of men,” Nichols explained. “I said, ‘You can’t play it. You can never play a loser.’ And Redford said, ‘What do you mean? Of course I can play a loser.’ And I said, ‘O.K., have you ever struck out with a girl?’ and he said, ‘What do you mean?’ And he wasn’t joking.” 

What you might be asking at this point is: yes, but what does all this have to do with shoes? Well, I'll tell you. I was at Newport Leisure Centre the other day taking the girls to a swimming lesson, and there were several people there sporting what these days seems to be quite a common footwear combo of shortish white sports socks pulled up quite tight, and sliders. I assume the original idea was to give some sort of post-training-session Premiership footballer vibe, but it seems pretty ubiquitous now. One of the Dads who was supervising the activities of his child in the showers even had socks and sliders on and must have been getting wet socks. 

So, getting to the point, my thesis is this: there are two sorts of people in the world, with two fundamentally different sorts of outlook on it, and life. The first sort either apply absolutely no thought whatsoever to what might happen beyond two minutes from now, or have a sort of blithe assurance that all will be well, nothing can or will go wrong, and they won't ever get into a position where they get stranded (e.g. if the car breaks down) on the way home from the swimming run and have to hike across a field in the dark in sliders, flip-flops, whatever. The other group of people assume that these things may well happen and that some more robust ready-for-anything footwear may be required. I myself for instance do own a pair of flip-flops, but they are strictly for home or holiday use and never worn in any situation where I might be required to do anything involving walking any significant distance or driving a car. I might wear my Converses or Vans if I'm in a cazh mood and the weather is warm and dry, with the caveat that I probably wouldn't wear the Converses for the swimming run as the thin canvas material and those two little instep holes mean they suck up water pretty effectively.

Looking at it another way I think this probably also divides down the nerd/jock boundary, where the nerd contingent might be slightly more inclined to get into the habit of wearing shoes that facilitate a quick getaway in the event of trouble. To put it another way, people who might feel a need to escape from other people (anyone who was ever bullied at school, for instance) might be more inclined to wear escape-facilitating footwear than those who might more generally expect other people to run away from them.

The pursuer/pursuee (yeah, I know, not really a word) model works for linking this back to Robert Redford as well - imagine (if you can) being someone who looked like him. I don't want to use the phrase "beating them off with a shitty stick" but it seems pretty appropriate here; it's hard to imagine him ever having to expend very much effort to be in the company of someone who wanted to get into his pants. The only advantage for the rest of us who might have to work slightly harder is that (this is what I choose to believe, anyway) since we had to work a bit harder at attracting a partner in the first place, and additionally might have more of an incentive to keep them around, we might be more inclined to generosity and attention to detail in the bedroom department, if you know what I mean, ladies. 

a salt with a deadly ramen

There I was, enjoying a piping-hot mid-week bowl of lunchtime noodles as I am occasionally to be found doing, only to have my wife come into the kitchen and say, hahaha, the internet says those will probably kill you. This was unexpected and slightly unwelcome news to me, as I'd been scrupulously careful, as I always am, to avoid the risk of accidentally shooting myself in the nuts with multiple rockets during the noodle-preparation process. 

As always, once I'd gone and checked out the article Hazel had seen on the internet it turns out the reality is slightly less exciting than the headlines suggest, the shock revelation being that primarily noodle-based meals are quite high in carbohydrates (I mean, no shit) but are also extremely high in salt. This latter observation is undoubtedly true, as the 3.6 grams of salt that a standard packet of the Nong Shim ramen noodles contains constitutes around 60% of an adult's recommended daily intake. 

Yeah, you'll be saying, I see that, but that's surely only a problem if you're eating these things every day. And you are right, of course, but the whole variety and moderation thing doesn't generate those sweet sweet clicks that food websites crave even more than another delicious bowl of spicy noodles. So, for that reason, someone went and did the diligence and ate nothing but a variety of packets of ramen noodles for a week, and arrived at the shock revelation that it's probably not a great idea. This is its very own sub-genre of internet food "journalism", as you can see, some of the stunts probably being more toxic and inadvisable than others. I'm not sure when this all started but I think Morgan Spurlock may be at least partly to blame.

I was moved to wonder what the current rates of noodle consumption are here at Halibut Towers - this is more difficult to calculate over the last few years than it was back when I was tracking it in a serious way, because Wing Yip have closed their online store and I spent a couple of years trawling the far reaches of the internet for noodle bargains before returning to Amazon in the last couple of years. In any case, the numbers from back in, say, 2014 are meaningless in comparison with today's numbers, since we're now up to three enthusiastic noodle-consumers in the house. Nia and Huwie are on a couple of bowls a week on average, and if I have a couple as well that's very nearly a bowl a day between us on aggregate. Alys, contrarian as always, does not relish them.

That finger-in-the-air estimate is borne out by my recent Amazon order history, which shows that we collectively consumed 440 packets in 584 days between January 2024 and August 2025. I have no data on our collective sodium levels or blood pressure, and that's probably just as well.

My only hope here is that the mild scepticism about a perhaps-too-simplistic link between salt intake and blood pressure expressed in the excellent book The Man Who Ate Everything turns out to be true. Even if it isn't, this is a hugely entertaining read which I recommend highly.

I don't have a lot of food-related book recommendations but I would also suggest you read Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation, a bit more of a downer but fascinating and well worth a go.

you don't know jack

Following on from the last book post and its predecessor, I observed at the end of the Jack Maggs review that its title was the latest in a short series of titles that were just someone's full name. A similar list could be constructed for Jack, its exact composition depending on the rules we decide to specify. Most obviously we could make a list of books whose title is a single word which is clearly someone's given name, or a near-variant or diminutive form of it (Jack Boughton's given name is actually John, for instance).

If we did that, and with the caveat that this may not be exhaustive, since that would require a degree of effort and attention to detail that I can't be arsed with, we'd end up with a list that went something like: Jack, Dalva, Lila, Rebecca, Beloved, Fremder, Clea, Walter, Lolita, Balthazar, Justine. 

If we included single-word names that were pretty clearly someone's surname then we might end up adding these: Ravelstein, Stoner, Mountolive, Demian, Chatterton, Kleinzeit, Utz.

Finally, single-word names that clearly refer to a particular person but which are some sort of nickname rather than strictly a given name: Candide, Fiskadoro, Nostromo, Lanark, Stick, Pilgermann. 

A full analysis, should you require one, of one-word, two-word and indeed many-word titles featured on this blog can be found here.

the last book I read

Jack by Marilynne Robinson.

So here is John Ames Boughton aka Jack, who you'll recall we met in Home and Gilead and who was an occasional off-screen presence in Lila, and who was in many ways the most interesting character in those books, having a murky past involving various unforgivable misdemeanours, much dissolution and misbehaviour and equally much saintly patience and forbearance from his father and siblings. Well here he is getting a whole book to himself, or mostly to himself.

We're back a few years before the events of Gilead and Home here, probably at the tail-end of the 1940s. Jack is living in St. Louis, holding down a succession of menial jobs which just about allow him to rent a dingy room in a boarding-house. Despite this he occasionally finds himself on the street if his drinking habits get the better of him. As luck would have it he is looking reasonably respectable when he helps Della Miles pick up some papers that she's dropped during a rainstorm, and senses an instant connection. Only one problem: Della is black, and for all that she's highly-educated and with a respectable job as a schoolteacher, that's still a pretty insurmountable problem. 

A couple of further encounters and an ill-fated first date later and Della happens to find herself locked in a cemetery at night, and who should happen to be skulking around on one of the benches but Jack, who takes it upon himself to look after her for the night. Luckily Jack is a man of some reading and erudition and is able to engage her in diverting philosophical discussion to while away the long hours until the caretaker arrives to open up the gates in the morning. 

And so a tentative romance ensues, though obviously severely constrained by several different factors - obviously there's the whole forbidden inter-racial thing, and it is literally rather than figuratively forbidden, inter-racial marriage being illegal, at least in Missouri, but there is also Jack's own inherent unreliability. Partly there is his weakness for The Drink, but this is really just a symptom of a more general problem: a tendency to deliberately torpedo his own happiness and then try to escape the consequences by fleeing, either literally or by recourse to the bottle. That in turn may be just a symptom of some deeper issues around self-worth and not wanting people to rely on him for anything for fear of letting them down - better to let them down hard and early to get it out of the way.

Jack - the son of a preacher, don't forget - seeks refuge in a church in one of the black neighbourhoods of St. Louis, looking for a couple of things: firstly, some soup, and secondly some sort of homely reassurance that things will be OK. The minister is reluctant to offer this, though, and points out all the ways in which Jack will be ruining Della's life if things continue. 

Of course Della is not some unwilling participant in all of this, and has her own challenges to overcome, particularly her own father - also a preacher, as it happens, and also not especially keen on the whole thing, not out of some reflexive hatred of whitey (although maybe a bit of that too) but more that Della will be letting herself in for a world of hurt and anguish regardless of how respectable and upstanding a white man she happens to choose, and a shifty intermittently-employed drunkard is just the cherry on the cake.

While Della is in Memphis dealing with her family Jack does what he does best and flees to Chicago, where he makes quite a nice respectable life for himself for a short while working at a bookshop, until he happens to mention to his landlady that the "wife" he's left back in St. Louis and who may be joining him later is a coloured lady, at which point he is swiftly shown the door. Having pretty much nowhere else to go, he turns up at Della's father's church in Memphis and is taken back to the family home on the understanding that this is a one-off event during the course of which Della will be invited to make an irrevocable choice between Jack and her family.

Since this is effectively a prequel to Gilead and Home, the reader who's read the books in something resembling publication order will already know that Jack and Della don't get to waltz off together into the sunset, maybe to a state with less draconian laws regarding inter-racial marriage, but instead that Jack turns up at his father's house pretty obviously having left somewhere in a hurry at the start of those two books' timeline (this would be at least seven or eight years later), and that later on Della shows up looking for him. So that knowledge colours the reader's perception of Jack, in particular of how it ends. 

If you were of the opinion that, instead, you wanted to read the books in the order of when they were set, then broadly speaking Jack and Lila happen around the same time (maybe a year or two apart, it's hard to tell), and then there's a gap of maybe seven or eight years (judging by the age of, for instance, John Ames' son in Gilead) and then Gilead and Home happen roughly in parallel. I'm not sure why you would do this, though, to be honest.

What I would say about Jack, as beautifully written as it is, is that I expected to enjoy it slightly more than I actually did. That's because Jack is an interesting character in the first two books, Home in particular, who you feel you want to know more about and who has some enjoyably spiky interactions with his father and siblings. There is a bit of a repeated cycle in Jack, though, of Jack and Della having some delightful stolen moment somewhere, Jack going back to his lonely room and reflecting that actually she'd be better off without him, resolving to confront her and end it for her own good, and then turning up on her doorstep only to find her waiting to reassure him and persuade him to stick around. A few cycles of this process occupy more of the book than they perhaps should, and things which we know happen (i.e. from reading the earlier books), like Jack and Della having a child, don't happen within the quite narrow timescale the book's narrative occupies (probably a couple of months at most). That it's probably the least satisfying of the four books in the series shouldn't be taken as too much of a criticism, as the standard is very high, and I think if you're going to read one (probably in the order they were published, so starting with Gilead) you should probably read all of them.

I very deliberately choose not to analyse my own thought processes in terms of how I decide which book to read next; if I had done so here it might have occurred to me that the title of this book is a shorter version of the title of the previous book in the series, Jack Maggs. I couldn't swear to it but I think the only other example from this list is the pair of Invisible and Invisible Cities, though they were a couple of years apart. That's if you require the shorter title to appear at the start of the longer one, of course; if you relax that requirement you get things like Home appearing in The Road Home and Dinner At The Homesick Restaurant. 

[STOP PRESS: there's also the pair of Transit and Transition]

celebrity lookeylikeys of the day

I've got two for you today, which it seems to me fall into the categories, respectively, Fairly Commonplace and Incredibly Niche, although that is of course partly a matter of perspective.

Firstly, JJ Spaun, this year's US Open champion and unwitting instigator of incredibly laboured punnery (see below), and Jeffrey Wright, fine actor with a wide and varied body of work but pictured here as James Bond's CIA buddy Felix Leiter, solely because while playing this role he happened to have roughly the right sort of beard. 

finally - FINALLY! - after a couple of near-misses, I get to do the YOU SPAUNY GET joke. holing a 64-foot putt for it (with the caveat that he did have a spare one if he'd needed it) makes it even more perfect #golf #USOpen https://t.co/vbe07yEf1l

— Dave Thomas (@electrichalibut) June 16, 2025

I try not to get in my own way too much with a lot of self-analysis once my brain has popped one of these unbidden into my head, but of course when people of colour are involved you have to ask yourself: am I, even entirely subconsciously, Doing A Racism here? I think there are two answers to that: the first one is, well, I can't possibly know for sure, so probably best not to worry about it, and the second is that I'm pretty confident a jury would not convict me of this pair being the most tenuous and squint-requiring supposed resemblance on this blog. Even applying the incredibly restrictive condition of only considering US Open golf champions I think most people would agree that the Lucas Glover one was more obscure. The Webb Simpson one was pretty good, though, although technically he wasn't a US Open champion at the time of the post.

Secondly, American stand-up comic - well, not exactly stand-up, as you'll see if you follow the link - Fiona Cauley and wild warrior woman Ygritte from the TV series Game Of Thrones, as played by Rose Leslie. I should point out that I have never watched an episode of Game Of Thrones, or, as Stewart Lee would have us call it, Peter Stringfellow's Lord Of The Rings. This is partly because I just don't watch TV very much, partly because there's just SO MANY SEASONS of it to get through, and partly because it's firmly in swords and sorcery and Things Of Power fantasy territory, something that doesn't really do it for me, tits notwithstanding. I really am only aware of either Fiona Cauley or Ygritte because some ill-judged clicking on some short videos a while back has unleashed the fearsome power of the Facebook/YouTube algorithm on me and now I get an unavoidable steady diet of stand-up comedy and Game Of Thrones clips presented in my feed, during the course of which I happened to see these two people in quickish succession.

dark bookmark skidmarks

A couple of book-related points relating to recent book-related posts. 

Quite a few of the articles about From A Buick 8 make some reference to how it ties in with King's Dark Tower series. This is a series of nine novels, none of which I've read, published between 1982 and 2012, which are more in the fantasy realm than the (mostly) real-world supernatural horror genre that King is most famous for. It's not quite as simple as that, though, as there are references to the Dark Tower universe in many other novels, sometimes clear and central to the plot (Insomnia, for instance, which I haven't read) and some retconned via references to books published before the first Dark Tower novel, The Gunslinger, was published in 1982, for instance The Shining and The Stand. This page on King's own website lists the places where other non-core Dark Tower novels refer to events in the Dark Tower series, or where Dark Tower novels reference people or occurrences in other works. Those works include From A Buick 8, as it happens, and I quote (from that page):

The Buick 8’s previous owner was most likely a low man and the car a portal to the todash spaces from which creatures escape.

I have literally no idea what any of that means, and there is a sense in which it doesn't matter in terms of enjoying the novel as a stand-alone work. There is also a sense, though, in which not being familiar with the wider universe leaves a slight gap in the reader's understanding of the car's origin and its previous custodian.

I'm going to come out here and say I do not love this, and would prefer it if the novels could just be novels without having to tie in to some wider universe which you're expected to know about. I recall being a bit vexed when the episodes of The X-Files changed from being one-off weird monster things you could just dip into at will to pieces in some giant conspiracy theory jigsaw to which you were required to bring some background knowledge (like who the constantly chain-smoking dude was). Part of this is that, as much as I love Stephen King's books, I have no intention of committing to read any of the Dark Tower books, partly because ploughing through the whole series is a major commitment that I'm not inclined to make and partly because it's further into the realm of fantasy than I really like, that being a genre I have a limited appetite for.

Secondly, among the bits of promotional blurb on the back of my copy of Jack Maggs is the following review snippet from the Evening Standard:

Wait, what? Let's take a closer look:

I can see what they were probably trying to convey here - the reader will be reading so compulsively fast that they may fly out of control in some way analogous to losing control of a car - but, depending how childish you are, it's hard to avoid other interpretations. 

the last book I read

Jack Maggs by Peter Carey.

It's 1837, and Jack Maggs is in London. This is of note because he's meant to be in Australia, and indeed was transported there on the understanding that returning to England would mean an automatic death sentence. So why is he here? And why, when he appears to be a man of fairly substantial independent means, has he taken a menial job as a footman at the house in Great Queen Street owned by Mr. Percy Buckle, a man of similarly humble origin transformed into a man of wealth and status by a handy inheritance?

Mr. Buckle likes to entertain interesting people, and one of those people is Mr. Tobias Oates, amateur magician, published novelist and semi-professional mesmerist. Look into my eyes, not around the eyes, into my eyes, etc. Upon putting Jack Maggs into a trance it quickly becomes clear that he has a wealth of exciting secrets to reveal and Oates quickly books him in for a series of sessions. Maggs is a bit suspicious but agrees, realising that this gives him some leverage with Mr. Buckle who wants to ingratiate himself with his new friend. Oates isn't entirely straight with him, though, selling the sessions as some sort of hypnotherapy to help smooth out Maggs' mental state, while actually using them to get Maggs to describe his prior life, eye-watering crimes and adventures and banishment to the other side of the world, the idea being to gather some material for a future novel. As an aside, Oates isn't being entirely straight with his own wife Mary either, since he hasn't told her that he's been knocking off her sister Lizzie, who conveniently happens to live in the same house.

It turns out that Jack Maggs is particularly interested in the occupant of the house next door to Mr. Buckle's, one Henry Phipps - interested enough to break into the currently empty house and write a series of letters to him, letters whose content is sensitive enough that a series of subterfuges is deemed necessary including writing in invisible ink and in mirror writing. But why? And, come to that, why isn't Henry Phipps in his house where he could just be called upon and all this subterfuge avoided?

Part of Jack Maggs' agreement with Tobias Oates rests on Oates' acquaintance with a man called the Thief-Taker, someone who can supposedly track down anyone, upon handing over of an acceptable fee of course. Oates takes Maggs to where he can be found, which turns out to be Gloucester, a quick scoot down a couple of motorways lasting no more than a couple of hours in our glorious mechanised future, but a bumpy coach ride lasting several days in the 19th century. 

While they are away a bit of intrigue plays out involving some of the other members of the Buckle household - fellow footman Edward Constable and housemaid Mercy Larkin. Constable knows Henry Phipps, it turns out, in the sense of knowing his current whereabouts (holed up at his club after getting wind of Jack Maggs' arrival), but also in the more Biblical sense of having indulged in a bit of highly irregular (for 1837 anyway) man-on-man bumsex activity with him in the past. Mercy has a similar sex-based arrangement with Mr. Buckle and is also a highly expert snoop and busybody and knows everyone's business, including Henry Phipps' and a good deal more of Jack Maggs' than he would like.

Oates and Maggs meet with the Thief-Taker and find him to be an obvious charlatan and mainly concerned with relieving them of a large sum of money, something Jack Maggs is very willing to murder rather than allow to happen. Having done a bit of slightly messy murdering in the back-room of an inn it then becomes necessary for Oates and Maggs to make good their escape, which they do by stealing a boat and escaping down the River Severn to Bristol, and thence back to London. During the course of this journey Oates reveals that not only is he having some personal issues with his wife and her sister, issues made more complicated recently by his having impregnated Lizzie, but moreover he too knows perfectly well where Henry Phipps is. Maggs, understandably a bit vexed by this, agrees not to kill Oates as long as he facilitates a meeting with Phipps, and moreover agrees to help Oates out of his current mess by acquiring some back-street abortion pills from one of his shady contacts.

And so we finally learn what Jack Maggs' connection to Henry Phipps is - Phipps, as a small orphaned child, offered some kindness to Maggs while he was being transported from place to place as a criminal, and, after he'd served his prison term in Australia and made his fortune, Maggs in return became Phipps' benefactor and allowed him to live in the house in Great Queen Street (which Maggs owns). After many years of anonymous benefactorship and providing Phipps with a regular income, Maggs, who has constructed a whole fantasy life for Phipps as a fine and upstanding gentleman, comes to England to gaze with pride upon his boy.

The trouble is that not only is the real-life Phipps a bit of a shit, he's also terrified of meeting with Maggs, whose fearsome reputation precedes him. Some of Phipps' associates persuade him that if a situation could be engineered where Phipps came upon Maggs unexpectedly in his house, he'd have a valid excuse to shoot him, thereby solving his problem and, as a bonus item, inheriting the house. And so the scene is set for a climactic showdown.

Just as with A Thousand Acres and Temples Of Delight it was only after I'd finished Jack Maggs and started looking for some background material online, in preparation for writing this blog post, that I discovered it's a very loose adaptation (a re-imagining, if you must) of another, older work, in this case Charles Dickens' Great Expectations. The character of Jack Maggs is based on the convict Abel Magwitch and Henry Phipps on the main protagonist Pip. As with the other two, I was not particularly familiar with the source material (I've never read any Dickens and only seen a few brief snippets of the 1946 David Lean/John Mills film) and to be honest that seems like a good thing in terms of my capacity to enjoy Jack Maggs as a stand-alone work in its own right, something (i.e. enjoy it) I did very much. It's definitely the best of the three Peter Carey novels I've read, Oscar And Lucinda and The Tax Inspector being the other two. It's not perfect, though: the plot device of having Jack write the secret letters to Henry (and thereby explain some background detail to the reader) is a bit clunky, and some reviewers were a bit grumpy about Carey being soft-hearted enough to allow Jack a happy ending, something I reckon most readers will have built up enough of a grudging regard for Jack to be fine with, though. 

Jack Maggs won the Miles Franklin Award for Australian fiction in 1998, a prize previously won by a couple of Tim Winton books on this list, Cloudstreet and Breath. It's also the latest book on this list whose title is just the full name of its main protagonist. The most recent other example was Charlotte Gray whose review contains a list of the others (there are now, I think, five in total).

caught in the middle of a hundred and five

You might recall, if you're inclined to notice obscure cricketing milestones, some headlines a few years back about England's Joe Root scoring a hundred in his hundredth Test match. He was the ninth batsman to achieve the feat, and the first to turn such a century into a double-century. His innings of 218 remains the highest by a batsman in his hundredth Test, although Australia's David Warner emulated the feat of scoring a double-century when he became the tenth and most recent member of the club in 2022. The graphic below was produced by Cricinfo when Root joined the club in 2021.

There are, at the time of writing, 78 cricketers who have played at least 100 Test matches (Colin Cowdrey was the first to reach the milestone in 1968 and marked it by scoring 104), and by my rough calculation only around 20 of them have been primarily bowlers, which means there are roughly three times as many batsmen as bowlers on that list. That seems unsurprising, as bowling is a much more physically demanding activity than batting.

One bowler who has recently joined the list is Australia's Mitchell Starc, whose 100th Test came against the West Indies in Kingston in July, and was marked by Starc returning the remarkable figures of 6 for 9 in West Indies' second innings. That prompted me to think: since a 5-wicket haul is (roughly) the bowling equivalent of a century, how many bowlers have done that in their 100th Test match? I've done some slightly half-arsed research and I think I have the data below. It's a much smaller list than for the batsmen, but worthy of note I think.

Bowler	Country	Opposition	When	Figures
Shane Warne	Australia	South Africa	March 2002	6-161
Muttiah Muralitharan	Sri Lanka	Bangladesh	February 2006	6-54
Ravichandran Ashwin	India	England	March 2024	5-77
Mitchell Starc	Australia	West Indies	July 2025	6-9

Starc, as you can see, is the first proper fast bowler to perform the feat, the other three being spinners.