Whacky Wodehouse

Here’s a book you haven’t read. It will be published early next month.

It is one of the advantages of being the website editor of the PG Wodehouse Society that this and similar treasures fall into my hands. A disadvantage is that the punishing schedule of society meetings means that I have to give up the booty to my elders and betters before I can read them. All I can do is show you the back cover and see if that inspires you to read this more than slightly whacky take on PGW, St Paul, Evangelist Luke et al.

Another gem is a mesmerising article about Networking Theory shared by its author in Arizona. To strictly stick to the truth he sent his theory to the UK Consul General in Los Angeles, Michael Howells, and copied it to the PGW Soc website editor. Bob Blecha has developed a theory that Bertie Wooster is a networker par excellence. Furthermore, if I have understood him, the Wooster way could be implemented to boost British business. I apologise if I’ve got this a bit wrong.

Anyway, my humble job as website editor is, as it were, like Beach handing over the stuff on a salver to the PGW Soc committee. However, I do sometimes get above myself and I had the temerity to suggest to Mr Blecha that Mr Mulliner is a better exponent of his theory. He concurs and now we are moving forward to establish our preeminence in Networking Theory inspired by PGW.

At the risk of being a bore, if you enjoy reading PG Wodehouse you might enjoy belonging to the society. It’s a snip at £22 if you live in the UK and if you live overseas it’s a super-plus-snip because the subscription doesn’t cover the quarterly mailings of Wooster Sauce.

One comment

  1. I find myself today forced to retire ‘in casa’ due to a most inconvenient white out. I resolved to use my confinement productively, so I have been trawling through the archives of Christopher Bellew which, for the most part have been characteristically absorbing.

    I wish to respectfully draw your attention to one recurrent shortcoming I have encountered. Often on your travels you refer to ‘we’- in the plural rather than the general sense, but we never seem to learn the identity of whom ‘we’ might involve? The name ‘Robert’ crops up frequently but, alas I have no insight whether said is human or canine? Although surprise and suspense are well worn tools of the writers trade, pretension towards ambiguity is never welcome.

    Some clarification on the aforementioned would greatly assist the reader and prevent his mind from unnecessary boggling.

Comments are closed.