Friday, October 30, 2009

A trick question for Raymond Carver?

The master of minimal storytelling loathed experimentation in fiction, but his hated 'licence to be silly' is vital to the life of short stories

Conventional reading ... Raymond Carver in 1984. Photograph: Bob Adelman/Corbis

Speaking at the Manchester Literary Festival, James Lasdun – probably the closest in recent years this country has come to a genuinely great practitioner of the short story – expressed dismay at the publication of Beginners; the original, more expansive version of Raymond Carver's minimalist masterpiece What We Talk About When We Talk About Love. Unlike Blake Morrison, who saw it as a revelation, Lasdun suggested that this was muddying Carver's great legacy. Reading the two volumes side by side, I found it hard not to agree with Lasdun; in all too many cases it's like looking at a Edward Hopper painting to which someone has added graphic-novel-style thought bubbles.

The rights and wrongs of publishing these stories before editor Gordon Lish took a scalpel to them can be debated, but there's no doubt that this publication has once again put Carver in the limelight – if he'd ever really been in the shadows. Carver is, I suppose, the ultimate modern short story writer. His fiction has a resonance that is attractive to both readers and writers. How he achieves this mesmerising effect is set out in his essay "On Writing", published in the same year as his much shortened version of Beginners.

"On Writing" is Carver's vision for fiction; his blue-collar blueprint. It's a fine and persuasive piece, full of insight into the creative process and the obligations of the writer. There are moments of personal confession, coupled with elegantly quotable sentences – "Get in, get out. Don't linger" for example. But as with his very best writing, there is a darker, less palatable truth lurking within its pages.

The lessons that Carver provides are second hand ones, derived from creative writing teachers and authors he admires. This is no criticism when you consider his mentors are Chekhov, Isak Dinesen, Isaac Babel and Flannery O'Connor. The advice, it seems to me, is well chosen. Trusting your instincts, while also being open to new discoveries; to write a little each day without despair; to revel in the mysteries of revelations.

All good – if slightly non-specific – advice, told in a considered, conversational tone. But then, Carver hits you with a curve ball. "No tricks." He says. "Period. I hate tricks." Experimentation, as Carver goes on to say, is too often "a licence to be careless, silly or imitative." Which in amongst the homilies and creative class wisdom changes his essay from a fascinating insight into his working practices, into a manifesto. A sort of write-in-a-day-the-Raymond-Carver-way.

I like tricks. I like formal invention; not for its own sake, but in the sense that it gives the reader something to think about, to look at from another angle. To be told that this is wrong, somehow mistreating the reader, made me suddenly quite angry. What about Barthelme, I thought, Sterne, BS Johnson, Angela Carter? And what about perhaps this year's most feted story collection, David Vann's Legend of a Suicide?

Vann's book seems initially to conform to all Carver's edicts. It is polished, elegant and beautifully written; fitting into an American lineage that encompasses Ernest Hemingway, Cormac McCarthy, Richard Ford and Tobias Wolff. But then halfway through, Vann does something transformative, something that you simply don't see coming and nothing is the same again. You could call this a "trick", but to me it's something approaching genius.

When people talk negatively about creative writing classes and the kind of fiction they produce, it's precisely Carver's prejudice against invention and tricks to which they are usually alluding. New voices are stifled behind rules and conventions, like Carver's, that should be challenged and bent and railed against. Innovation – as Vann and his fellow countryman Wells Tower prove – is what keeps the short form vital and alive, despite its status as a commercial pariah for publishers.

For all Carver's disdain for experimentation, even Donald Barthelme and BS Johnson would look on admiringly at the effect of Beginners. How much would they have enjoyed readers holding two versions of the same stories, reading them side by side? And how ironic that a writer who said that he "ran for cover" at the sight of a trick, has now become the newest trick in town.

Stuart Evers
Wednesday 28 October 2009
The Guardian

Martin Amis's problem is not Katie Price, but women

On and off the shelf ... Martin Amis and Katie Price. (Photograph: Rex)

It's always a little bit astonishing in these relatively enlightened times when someone who would like to be regarded as an important contributor to the cultural agenda relies on lazy, casual misogyny to attempt a critique. But it's the approach that Martin Amis has taken in adding his thoughts to the current (somewhat tired) debate about celebrity writers creaming off the profits of talented ones, when he remarked of Katie Price (widely recognised as his key literary rival) that "She has no waist, no arse ... an interesting face ... but all we are really worshipping is two bags of silicone."

Now, I doubt that Amis has flickered across Price's radar; nor, if he has, that she cares much about his opinion since it would appear that she is currently preoccupied with her romance with her cage-fighting boyfriend and not much with writing books, which she employs someone to do on her behalf. But while Price may not be troubled by Amis's remarks on a personal level, I am: because they speak to the continued endurance of a surprising tolerance for misogyny from vaunted men of letters who came of age as writers in an era when the loathing of women for being women – rather than for being crap writers, or unkind people, or whatever – was still legitimate.

It may be diverting for Amis to imagine that legions of his would-be readers have been distracted from his work by Katie Price's cleavage: perhaps he thinks at the sight of her latest pony book, people on the verge of purchasing The Rachel Papers or London Fields think, "ooh! Breasts!" and toss his work aside. But this apparent anxiety is misplaced: Amis and Price's target markets do not intersect. It is risible to suggest that they do, but no matter: it's much easier, and simpler, for him to blame her décolletage for his decreasing sales and critical acclaim than to entertain the terrifying thought that his writing may no longer be quite as firmly on the pulse as it once was.

When writers like Amis, or Philip Roth – who declared this week that novel-reading would be a fringe activity in 25 years – make their apocalyptic proclamations about the state of publishing, it seems apparent that their pessimism may in fact be rather strongly influenced by anxiety that their new work no longer carries the kind of cultural clout they have grown used to, not because people aren't reading novels, but because people aren't reading their novels. And part of the reason for that may be that with the bulk of modern consumers of fiction being women, the particular brand of literary writing in which a particular aptitude for fellatio suffices as characterisation for a woman is less interesting, or resonant, than it once was.

I very much doubt that Amis is going to change at this stage – I do admire some of his immense skills as a writer, but remarks like this underscore my lack of interest in him as a cultural commentator. But I'm heartened, at the same time, by a new generation of male writers – David Vann and Joshua Ferris are two who I've recently read who come to mind – who are producing ground-breaking work that addresses issues of masculinity in fresh ways without relying on lazy misogyny; who are too busy to bother with worrying that anything that fails to preserve the long-expired literary status quo of the 70s and 80s is a sign of an apocalypse.

Jean Hannah Edelstein
Wednesday 28 October 2009
The Guardian

Man Booker Prize 2009 winners, including Hilary Mantel

Man Booker Prize 2009: Hilary Mantel poses with her book Wolf Hall

Does winning the Booker mean a boost in sales? And which of the previous winners has sold the most?

Hilary Mantel won the 2009 Man Booker Prize for Wolf Hall, but will sales match those of previous winners? Photograph: Luke MacGregor/Reuters

Hilary Mantel won the £50,000 Man Booker Prize yesterday for her historical novel Wolf Hall, which examines the life of Thomas Cromwell, an advisor to Henry VIII.

But does winning the Booker guarantee an author a boom in sales? Here at the Datablog we've pulled together Nielsen BookScan's sales figures of all 43 winners of the title since its inception in 1969 (the prize was a tie in 1974 and again in 1992).

Nielsen's data runs from 1998 onwards, so sales of older books aren't directly comparable, but the runaway winner of recent years is Life of Pi by Yann Martel, which won in 2002 and has taken over £9m and sold 1.3m copies so far, more than twice as many as Arundhati Roy's The God of Small Things in second place.

A look at the spreadsheet also reveals that Jonathan Cape is the publisher to sign to if you want to improve your chances of winning the Booker - seven of the previous winning novels have come from them, closely followed by Faber & Faber with six.

And if you really have your heart set on a Booker, the words to include in the title of your novel are Sea, Ha, God, Tiger and Road, as our Wordle shows.

Click on the link to access the full list of winners, their sales figures and a link to the Guardian review of each book (many courtesy of Sam Jordison's Booker Club blog). Let's see what you can do with the data.

Katy Stoddard
Wednesday 7 October 2009
The Guardian

Why has John Le Carré left his publisher out in the cold?

Divorces everywhere. First Peter and Jordan, now John Le Carré and Hodder.

Why should the fact that a novelist changes the merchandiser of his books be of more headline interest than, say, Martin Amis changing his dentist? Who cares? When the book trade was a cottage industry we did; it's questionable if we do any more. You can remember the title but can you recall, from the top of your head, who published Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall? (Answer below.)

Why do authors stay loyal to publishers? Gratitude is one reason. After 20-odd rejections it was Faber that finally plucked William Golding's grubby Lord of the Flies from the slush pile. Grateful comradeship with his editor, Charles Monteith, kept Golding at Faber for the whole of his long career.

Editors often mean more to an author than publishers. David Lodge seems to have remained attached to Secker because he got on so well with John Blackwell (a brilliant worker on manuscripts, and one of the heroic drinkers of his day). Look at the dedication to AS Byatt's latest novel – it is to her editor, Jenny Uglow. A dedication to "Chatto and Windus"? Absurd.

Nonetheless, for some authors, loyalty brings with it the nagging sense of being "owned". It breeds resentment. Thackeray suggested publishers' carpets should always be red, because – like the butchers in Smithfield market – they traded in authors' blood and brains.

Most authors, at the start of their careers, get snubbed or – in a few cases, robbed – by publishers. They can develop a deep-seated hatred of the publishing breed – "brigands" all of them, as Dickens (the least publisher-loyal of writers) called them.

Resentment is the most radioactive of emotions. Gratitude, like Golding's, usually has a much shorter half life. And then, of course, there are agents, those serpents in the literary garden (Le Carré has dumped that partner as well). It was the so-called "jackal", Andrew Wylie, who enticed Amis away from his long-standing literary agent, Pat Kavanagh. It resulted in a broken friendship with Kavanagh's husband, Julian Barnes, and a letter which, as Amis recalls, had a lot of fs in it. As in f-words.

So why has Le Carré divorced Hodder? More money? Prettier dustjackets? Artistic restlessness? Most likely, it's something else. Who, to answer the question above, is Mantel's publisher? Fourth Estate. Well, no, it isn't. Fourth Estate is these days part of the HarperCollins Anglo- American megacombine. Hodder? A division of the Anglo-French giant Hachette. Where publishers are concerned, there's no identifiable editorial friend to be loyal to any more. So why be loyal?

John Sutherland
Thursday October 29 2009
The Guardian

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Quote of the Week #2

Ben Jonson

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Quote of the Week, #1

"Don't loaf and invite inspiration, light out after it with a club, and if you don't get it you will nonetheless get get something that looks remarkably like it." Jack London

University of Phoenix - faculty member

1000 words a day!

5 Year Anniversary of Dear England blog!

It's a Book! No, It's a Vook! No, It's a... Nook?

As Joseph L. Selby pointed out in yesterday's comments, Barnes and Noble just unveiled the Nook, and I must say, it is a handsome device indeed. And with its dual screens, Wi-Fi capability, an open format, and (GET THIS) a "book lending" feature, I think it's my new favorite reader. (Sorry, Sony... we can still be friends.) And what are you talking about, Kindle? We were never anything at all.

With the e-reader market exploding and some even more promising technology on the way, I feel I must reiterate my position that e-books are absolutely the future of reading/writing/publishing. Don't get me wrong: there will be challenges, and there are some of you who will only surrender your printed books when AmaGoogleMart.com pries them from your cold, dead fingers, but I think change is in the air (and has been for awhile) and while e-books certainly won't spell the end of publishing, they're going to be game-changers. Industry professionals who can't keep one step ahead of said game (or at least keep up) will be left behind.

Which brings me to today's question: has Barnes & Noble's e-reader changed your opinion about the technology in any way? Are you more likely to buy a Nook than a Kindle?
--
Source: Pimp My Novel

Monday, October 19, 2009

James Bond and Chess

"The two faces of the double clock in the shiny, domed case looked out across the chess-board like the eyes of some huge sea monster that had peered over the edge of the table to watch the game. The two faces of the chess clock showed different times."

With these words Ian Fleming opens chapter 7 of FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. In 1963 this novel became the second film in the perennial James Bond series.

But there's not much 0-0 in 007 -- or much chess in most chess fiction, for that matter. The book only tells us that grandmaster Kronsteen, a secret agent of the deadly SMERSH, won this game after introducing "a brilliant twist into the Meran Variation of the Queen's Gambit Declined to be debated all over Russia for weeks to come."

The position on a wallboard in the movie is based on an intruiging King's Gambit won by Boris Spassky against David Bronstein at the USSR Championship in 1960. Here it takes place at the Venice International Tournament where Kronsteen ignores a courier's sealed message ordering him to stop play on the spot. He knows he risks his life if he fails to obey, but how many players can abandon a sure win?

At his own peril Kronsteen waits three more minutes to accept his opponent's resignation; but later he must explain to his superior why he did not obey at once. In the book his excuse is accepted reluctanctly:

"To the public, Comrade General, I am a professional chess player. If, with only three minutes to go, I had received a message that my wife was being murdered outside the door of the tournament hall, I would not have raised a finger to save her. My public know that. They are dedicated to the game as myself. Tonight, if I had resigned the game and had come immediately upon receipt of that message, 5000 people would have known that it could only be on the orders of such a department as this. There would have been a storm of gossip. My future comings and goings would have been watched for clues. It would have been the end of my cover. In the interests of State Security, I waited three minutes before obeying the order. Even so, my hurried departure will be the subject of much comment."

In the real game Spassky gambled by rejecting the prudent 15 Rf2. Black in turn missed the best defense by 15...exf1/Q 16 Rxf1 Bxd6 17 Qh7 Kf8 18 cxd6 cxd6 19 Qh8 Ke7 20 Re1 Ne5 21 Qxg7 Rg8 22 Qxh6 Qb6 23 Kh1 Be6 24 dxe5 d5 25 Qf6 Kd7 and the king trips to safety with a possible draw in the offing.

Later if 17...Kxf7? (necessary is 17...Qd5 18 Bb3 Qxb3) 18 Ne5 Kg8 19 Qh7! Nxh7 20 Bc4 Kh8 21 Ng6 mate.

White: BORIS SPASSKY Black: DAVID BRONSTEIN King's Gambit 1960 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 d5 4 exd5 Bd6 5 Nc3 Ne7 6 d4 0-0 7 Bd3 Nd7 8 0-0 h6 9 Ne4 Nxd5 10 c4 Ne3 11 Bxe3 fxe3 12 c5 Be7 13 Bc2 Re8 14 Qd3 e2 15 Nd6!? Nf8? 16 Nxf7 exf1/Q 17 Rxf1 Bf5? 18 Qxf5 Qd7 19 Qf4 Bf6 20 N3e5 Qe7 21 Bb3 Bxe5 22 Nxe5 Kh7 23 Qe4 Black resigns

Source: Evans On Chess. June 30, 1995. From Chess Connection

Sunday, October 18, 2009

From Gambit: Where was the Paul Morphy Chess Club?

WHERE WAS THE PAUL MORPHY CHESS CLUB?

Blake Pontchartrain

Hey Blake,

Ronnie Virgets wrote a wonderful column on the history of Paul Morphy. My question is: where was the Paul Morphy Chess Club? I can remember an uncle of mine speaking of it often as a place where men met for lunch, cards and cigars.

Kenny Mayer

Dear Kenny,

Virgets' story ("Chairman of the Board," News Views, May 6, 2008) about our local chess genius who died in 1884 at age 47 was excellent.

Morphy was the first great American-born chess player. He traveled to Europe in the 1850s, defeating all challengers except the English champion of the time, Howard Staunton, who refused to play him. Morphy, however, still was hailed as the chess champion of the world.

Paul Morphy Chess Club in New Orleans had several locations, the first in the Balter Building, in the block surrounded by Commercial Place, Camp Street, and St. Charles and Poydras avenues. The last was at 316 St. Charles Ave.

The club was organized in May 1928, when several chess-playing gentlemen agreed to form a new club devoted exclusively to the game. Members were solicited, and the club soon had officers and a charter. New members decided to name the club after the local chess master they so revered. The club opened its doors to members for play on June 22, 1928, Paul Morphy's birthday. There is no longer a chess club by this name in New Orleans, but there are several in America, and there's even a Paul Morphy Chess Club in Sri Lanka.

An earlier group called New Orleans Chess Club was founded in 1841, but it languished due to lack of interest. Later, many New Orleanians became interested in the game when young Paul Morphy burst on the scene. By the mid-1850s, the club sponsored weekly tournaments and membership increased rapidly. Morphy himself was elected president of the club in 1865. Earlier, when Morphy went to Europe in June 1858, the New Orleans Chess Club offered to pay his way. Morphy declined because he did not want to be considered a professional chess player.

Another famous club in the Crescent City was the New Orleans Chess, Checkers and Whist Club. This organization was founded in 1880, shortly before Morphy's death. The club first met in July in a room at 128 Gravier St. There were 27 members. It was an immediate success and membership grew rapidly. New quarters had to be found, so the group relocated to Common Street and then to a three-story building at the corner of Canal and Baronne streets.

Then disaster struck: A fire in 1890 burned the building to the ground. Lost in the fire was invaluable Morphy memorabilia. The owner of the structure agreed to rebuild, and soon the club was re-established in comfortable surroundings on the third floor. At this point, there were more than 1,100 members.

In 1920, another move brought the club to 120 Baronne St., where the men played various games in splendor. It occupied four floors in a large building, which had many rooms for games, as well as dining rooms, a billiard hall, a library and bedrooms for men who lived at the club.

It was after the death of Judge Leon Labatt - a strong supporter and member of the New Orleans Chess, Checkers and Whist Club - and a number of resignations that the members decided to form a new group: the Paul Morphy Chess Club.

Morphy retired from chess long before his death. He played absolutely no games of chess with anyone after 1869.

To read my chess novel about Paul Morphy's life, please see this link.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Chess Book of the Year, part 3

Ronan Bennett & Daniel King
Tuesday October 13 2009
The Guardian

Gligoric-Nikolic, Novi Sad 1982. Black to play. Who stands better?

RB Our third shortlisted book for the Guardian Chess Book of the Year award is Winning Chess Middlegames by Ivan Sokolov (New in Chess, GBP 24.95). Like our first shortlisted title, Chess Strategy for Club Players by Herman Grooten, Sokolov's book focuses on the middlegame, but whereas Grooten emphasises the dynamic aspects of the game, here the stress is on pawn structure. In an introduction Michael Adams makes the point that we often learn opening lines without giving serious thought to the kind of pawn structures they create.

Sokolov arranges his material into four different types of pawn structure: doubled pawns; isolated pawns; parallel hanging pawns in the centre; and pawn majority in the centre, further dividing these into subgroups. He then analyses the structures with reference to the opening. Chapter 1, for example, deals with doubled pawns arising mainly from the Nimzo. Chapter 2, on isolated pawns, looks predominantly at lines in the Queen's Gambit Declined. The essential point - but one often overlooked - is that from the opening we should be able to anticipate the structure of the middlegame.

The diagram position arose out of a Nimzo (H?bner Variation), with the characteristic doubled pawns on c3 and c4. White has tried to exploit the semi-open b-file to create threats against the enemy king. His rooks are doubled, the bishop is on b5, and the queen lurks on a3. On the other wing, Black's pawns are advancing, supported by the rooks. Who stands better?

Fritz assesses the position as roughly equal. But Sokolov is unequivocal: "A sorry sight. On the queenside White is not able to create a single threat, while on the other side of the board the battle is lost." The computer is wrong. White is dead lost. After Black's simple defensive expedient 1...Na6-b8, the game continued 2 Nf1 g4 3 f4 exf4 4 Bxf4 Ng6 5 Rf2 h4 and the pawns quickly smashed the white king's position.

guardian.co.uk Copyright (c) Guardian News and Media Limited. 2009

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

fullerty@gmail.com has shared: Johns Hopkins University - MFA in Fiction and Poetry


Johns Hopkins University - MFA in Fiction and Poetry Source: mfaconnect.com

fullerty@gmail.com sent this using ShareThis.

Chess Book of the Year, part 2: Kasparov vs Karpov

Ronan Bennett & Daniel King
Tuesday October 6 2009
The Guardian

Smyslov-Botvinnik, 5th game World championship 1958. Black's king is in check. Should it move up to c5 or back to c7?

DK Two books on world championship matches made it on to our shortlist for book of the year. Kasparov vs Karpov 1986-1987 (Everyman Chess, GBP 30) written by Garry Kasparov, is an automatic choice. This is the latest volume in the former world champion's monumental series, and this time he dissects the matches in London/Leningrad 1986 and Seville 1987.

Kasparov's detailed analysis of the games is admirable but I skimmed them and just read the story ? it's gripping. Gorbachev had just come to power and was implementing his policies of glasnost and perestroika in the face of conservative opposition. In that context the result of these matches had enormous significance: Kasparov was the outspoken outsider, Karpov the loyal communist. Which image would the Soviet Union be projecting to the world? Kasparov alleges - and backs up with strong evidence - that there were spies in his camp passing information to Karpov, backed by the KGB. Some of the episodes could have come straight from the pages of a le Carré novel.

Botvinnik-Smyslov, Three World Chess Championship Matches: 1954, 1957, 1958 (New In Chess, GBP 28.95) is another reminder of a great chess rivalry. The annotations are mainly by Botvinnik and are characterised by his typical "objectivity" (read harshness). These notes were, of course, written in the pre-computer era, which means fewer variations than many contemporary books. That's a relief. I'd rather have a few well-chosen words than blocks of indigestible moves.

In the position above, Botvinnik was short of time and played the reflex 1? Kc5, following the general rule that kings should be as active as possible in the endgame. But Smyslov replied with 2 Kd3, and checkmate with b4 was unavoidable. Black should have tried 1?Kc7, and he still had chances to save the game.

Thursday, October 08, 2009

Chess Book of the Year: Part 2

Ronan Bennett & Daniel King
Tuesday October 6 2009
The Guardian

Smyslov-Botvinnik, 5th game World championship 1958. Black's king is in check. Should it move up to c5 or back to c7?

Friday, October 02, 2009

The war for Roman Polanski (The Australian Article)

If you're having trouble viewing this article, click here to view it in your browser

The Murderess and the Hangman, Matt Fullerty (fullerty@gmail.com) thought you might find this article from interesting:

The war for Roman Polanski

| October 03, 2009

From: The Australian

The latest on the Roman Polanski case:

SHOULD Roman Polanski be extradited to the US over his statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl in Los Angeles in March 1977? It's an interesting legal question. But it's not the question that is driving the trans-Atlantic furore that followed the film director's arrest in Switzerland last weekend.

Instead, various prejudices and unresolved battles are being projected on to l'affaire Polanski, robbing it of its legal complexities and turning it into a proxy culture war in which clapped-out conservatives and disoriented liberals are hurling intellectual (and not-so-intellectual) grenades at one another.

Polanski, the Polish-French maker of some decent films (Chinatown, Rosemary's Baby, The Pianist) and some awful ones too (Frantic, The Dance of the Vampires), pleaded guilty in a Los Angeles court in 1977 to having sexual intercourse with a minor.

Click here to read the full article on the website

Alternatively, you can copy and paste this link into your browser:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26153425-5013479,00.html

The Ig Nobel Awards!

A article from The Chronicle of Higher Education was forwarded to you by: fullerty@gmail.com

Message from the sender:

Winning an Ig Nobel Beats a Sharp Blow to the Skull, Maybe

The 2009 Ig Nobel Peace Prize goes to Swiss researchers who compared the dangers of having a full beer bottle smashed on one's head versus an empty one.

Most E-Mailed

The Library-Catalog Wars: 'Chronicle' Readers Weigh In
Heteronormativity Is Hot Right Now
Multitasking Is Dangerous to Your Health
U. of California and Ethiopian Collaborators Unveil Oldest Known Proto-Human
Winning an Ig Nobel Beats a Sharp Blow to the Skull, Maybe

Finding it hard to keep up with all that's happening in academe? The Chronicle keeps you up-to-date with award-winning reporting and analysis of current events in higher education. Academe Today, our daily e-mail newsletter is available to everyone. Go to http://chronicle.com/myaccount/newsletters to sign up.

Karpov-Kasparov, KK2 16th match game, 1985

Ronan Bennett & Daniel King
Tuesday October 6 2009
The Guardian

Smyslov-Botvinnik, 5th game World championship 1958. Black's king is in check. Should it move up to c5 or back to c7?

DK Two books on world championship matches made it on to our shortlist for book of the year. Kasparov vs Karpov 1986-1987 (Everyman Chess, ?30) written by Garry Kasparov, is an automatic choice. This is the latest volume in the former world champion's monumental series, and this time he dissects the matches in London/Leningrad 1986 and Seville 1987.

Kasparov's detailed analysis of the games is admirable but I skimmed them and just read the story ? it's gripping. Gorbachev had just come to power and was implementing his policies of glasnost and perestroika in the face of conservative opposition. In that context the result of these matches had enormous significance: Kasparov was the outspoken outsider, Karpov the loyal communist. Which image would the Soviet Union be projecting to the world? Kasparov alleges ? and backs up with strong evidence ? that there were spies in his camp passing information to Karpov, backed by the KGB. Some of the episodes could have come straight from the pages of a le Carr? novel.

Botvinnik-Smyslov, Three World Chess Championship Matches: 1954, 1957, 1958 (New In Chess, ?28.95 ) is another reminder of a great chess rivalry. The annotations are mainly by Botvinnik and are characterised by his typical "objectivity" (read harshness). These notes were, of course, written in the pre-computer era, which means fewer variations than many contemporary books. That's a relief. I'd rather have a few well-chosen words than blocks of indigestible moves.