REVIEW: Stasi Child

How do you find a fresh way to approach the detective novel? David Young's Stasi Child has a decent answer - with the setting, scenario and characters required for a fascinating tale.

After wallowing in a bit of degree nostalgia with Richard J Evans, I was attracted to this book by the fact it was set in 1970s East Germany. I'd been fascinated by the GDR and the Stasi at university and this seemed an intriguing backdrop for a detective story. The central character, Karin Müller, is a police chief tasked with investigating the case of a grisly murder under the prying eyes of the Stasi, the infamous secret police.

Fittingly, there's more than meets the eye about the case and pretty much all of the characters we come across. Young captures the paranoia and corruption of the East German state well and it all serves to keep you guessing. All of the main characters have their own agenda and we see their back stories slowly peeled back, mirroring the progress of the case itself. It's refreshing to see the focus on 'real' people too - this is a Cold War thriller that isn't all about spies.

Through Müller we also see a different at the GDR. She's someone who doesn't yearn to escape to the west - she's sympathetic to the ideals of the socialist state and is appalled by the perceived excesses of the 'other Germany'. This makes her character all the more interesting for me. It's often difficult to understand how people in authoritarian regimes thought - and why they 'go along' with them - Müller helps us to see this. Her outlook doesn't make for a rose-tinted view of the GDR, but it does offer a richer understanding of the way real people acted and thought. Hopefully it will encourage people to delve further into the history of this short-lived but fascinating regime.

It's perhaps no surprise that the book is pretty grim too. I'm not sure anyone has a happy ending - and many characters are forced to make dark choices as events unfold. Just as we think Irma - a child we first find locked up in an institution for 'wayward' children - is going to get a positive future, for example, we learn that the price of her freedom is to spy on her mother for the Stasi. Informing on friends, family and neighbours was a macabre feature of the East German state and her story brings this to the fore powerfully.

We learn much of Irma's journey through first-person chapters which are interspersed throughout the narrative. It's an interesting writing device, and helps to build up the sense of mystery as the case develops.

Perhaps it's a little convenient that Klaus Jäger - the Stasi puppet master pulling the strings for much of the book - just fills in Müller with some of the missing details at the end to bring us up to speed but that's definitely forgivable and does explain away why some of the steps in the investigation feel a little coincidental.

All in all, Young weaves a complex web of intrigue over an atmospheric backdrop with Stasi Child. It's a riveting read and you can't help but be impressed by the quality on offer for this debut novel. Young tackles child abuse, corruption, authoritarianism, sexual abuse and relationships for good measure. He's also produced a set of three-dimensional characters and a detective story with a difference. I'm certainly looking forward to catching up on how he puts all of these puzzle pieces together in the next two Müller stories.

REVIEW: What Sport Tells Us About Life

Some people have it all don't they? You could surely be forgiven for envying someone with the talent to be a top cricketer. It's a sport that I'm only 'built' to watch but love. I also find myself reading some top class writers and wishing I had their flair and marvel at the talents of skilled broadcasters. But someone who can do all three? Now that's just not fair...

Yet, in Ed Smith, such a person exists. I'd maybe hold it against him if I did enjoy his work so much.

Having appreciated his insight on Test Match Special - and been impressed by his forays into the pages of the New Statesman - this book was an obvious choice. It's a short book, comprised of 15 essays that address thought-provoking topics. These range from 'The age of the amateur has passed. Worse luck', 'What do people see when they watch sport?' and 'Why luck matters - and admitting it matters more'. All perfect fodder for a lunch time work reading club.

There's a lot packed in to a short space and it's a richly rewarding read that manages to remain insightful without ever becoming inaccessible.

It'd be unfair to categorise this as a sports book - as the name suggests, sport is merely the prism through which we consider some fascinating observations about the world around us, including the role chance plays in our lives and cultural identities.

Best of the lot, for me, was the chapter entitled 'Why history matters in sport (and how England won the 2005 Ashes)'. It's hard to do it justice here, but the way Smith sums up the different theories that might be used to explain the 2005 victory over Australia by comparing them to historical approaches ticked every box for a cricket-loving history graduate.

The chapter also contains a beautiful definition of history, with Smith stating: "The past is a treasure trove of information waiting to be ordered analytically into judgements."

Throw in a pleasing reference to Brian Clough and Peter Taylor - I'm a sucker for a Forest mention - and a thought provoking passage on the way any people watch the same action on the field but 'see' something different (something we all ought to reflect on in an adversarial age of Twitter spats) and you're left with a brilliant blend of material.

Perhaps the only problem here is that there isn't more. I could've easily tucked into twice as many chapters. It certainly feels like I landed on an underrated gem with this book, one that wouldn't disappoint if you landed on it too.

REVIEW: The Third Reich in History and Memory

Do you ever wish you could go back to the subject you studied at university? Maybe I'm sad, but I often do. I finished my three-year history undergraduate degree 11 years ago, but I still wish I could keep up to date with the latest ideas and interpretations being put forward by historians. A BBC History Magazine subscription scratches the itch to be fair, but I know there's more 'going on' in the world of history that I'm missing.

I quite fancied doing a Masters but journalism called - and I don't regret moving on to something that offered a job at the end of it.

Anyway, it was a sense of 'degree nostalgia' that drew me to my latest book, The Third Reich in History and Memory by Richard J Evans.

My degree actually started with a module looking at the study of history. In essence, we were asked to consider whether the study of history was really possible or worthwhile. I wonder of they still do that in an era of £9,000-plus fees. Would they want those high-paying students to question the value of their course??

Still, it was during this daunting and difficult early module that I stumbled across Richard J Evans' book In Defence of History. As the name suggests, it offered a strong case for the real value of my degree subject of choice. It remains to this day the most inspiring and influential book I've ever had the pleasure of reading.

From then on I knew I could trust Evans to provide a robust analysis of history and this book was the perfect fit for me. A collection of essays, speeches and reviews from recent years, this explores the latest debates and developments in the studies of Nazi Germany. In essence, this filled me in on everything that's happened in the decade since I was last engaged in academic study and had access to journals etc.

The book is a real triumph, flowing surprisingly well given that it's a collection of material that weren't originally intended as one volume. Indeed the 'episodic' nature of the content was ideally suited to our reading club at work - even if the occasional passer by looked a little perplexed by the subject matter for a lunch time read.

I was particularly intrigued by the sections exploring the way in which people have attempted to link 19th Century German foreign policy and the actions of the Nazis - and Evans' views on the extent to which we can say the Nazis led a 'dictatorship by consent'.

I won't attempt to explore any of the arguments here - I doubt I'd do Evans justice - but it's great to read the work of someone at the top of their profession arguing passionately and persuasively based on facts and experience. Evans is sometimes scathing in his reviews but always seems, to me at least, fair even when he's being firm.

This book ended up being much more than just degree nostalgia. It was intellectually stimulating and enlightening at every twist and turn and I'm pleased I picked it up. If you're missing your degree subject at all, I hope you're lucky enough to be able to find a book like this one.

Good Lord's: Hales and Read secure cup final joy for Notts

Saturday's Lord's final will live long in the memory for all sorts of reasons. A record breaking innings, a fitting 50-over sign off for a legendary skipper, a top class overseas star ending on a high and a trophy for Nottinghamshire.

Indeed, it's moments like these you have to savour as a sports fan. Technically the last time I saw 'my team' win silverware was the 1992 Zenith Data Systems Cup Final triumph for Forest, just up the Jubilee line at Wembley. Don't get me wrong, there have been highs in between but you get the point, these days don't come around too often.

The omens weren't great at the start of Saturday's showpiece occasion, however. Both Surrey openers were dropped - including a chance to remove Jason Roy from the first delivery - and runs flowed as Notts struggled to gain control either with the ball or in the field.

Still it helps to be able to call upon Stuart Broad and James Pattinson to get a foothold in a game. The latter has been a superb servant in his spell as an overseas player and I'd love to get him back again. A fiery Aussie with something of an edge, he adds a pace and venom that has a tendency to leave many batsmen uncomfortable - a great asset to have in our armoury.

Still, while the two bowling stars brought control it was - as is so often the case in limited overs cricket - the combination of Samit Patel and Steven Mullaney who took important wickets. Samit struck with his first delivery and Mullaney conjured up the crucial wicket of dangerman Kumar Sangakarra, with the help of some smart glove work by Chris Read (I wonder how many times we've said that over the years?).

Surrey's innings felt a little strange in the end. Opener Mark Stoneman provided rock solid foundations with a high class and remarkably measured 144 not out, but no-one really cut loose with a significant better-than-a-run-a-ball knock to supplement his efforts. There were few fireworks yet, despite that, Gareth Batty's men had still put the best part of 300 on the board in a Lord's final.

Given Notts' batting prowess in the tournament so far - chasing down a record 371 in the semi final - it felt like a 'gettable' total but that didn't stop a few nerves creeping in among the travelling Outlaws in the Compton Stand.

As the wickets fell at regular intervals, those nerves only grew. One by one the big hitters who had powered us to Lord's fell without troubling the scorers. By the time we reached 150-5 Surrey had control of the tie and must've been sensing this was their day at last, having lost the last two One Day Cup finals here.

Yet one man didn't fall, of course. As his partners vanished at the other end, Alex Hales seemed to be playing a different game. Yes he was dropped early on, but he was undeterred by either that, the occasion or the situation of the match. He let loose a perfect blend of exquisite textbook and powerful blows and carried the club's hopes on his shoulders.

There's little doubt that this was the best innings I've seen live. It was brilliantly judged and beautifully executed, a mature display that ticked along at a rapid pace without falling into the trap of trying to push too hard. The fastest 100 in a Lord's final, the highest score made on such an occasion (beating Geoffrey Boycott's 52-year record) and the biggest total made by anyone at Lord's in List A cricket (beating David Boon's 28-year record), this was something truly special and a real 'I was there' moment.

But Hales alone couldn't see us over the line, and that's why 150-5 felt so precarious. While the lower order are useful with the bat, we couldn't rely on them to make too many under the pressure of a run chase in a cup final. 

Cometh the hour, cometh the captain. What Notts and Hales needed most was a calm head to steady the ship and stay with him. In Chris Read, he surely couldn't have asked for anyone better.

The skipper, in his final year at Notts and last ever 50-over game for the Outlaws, gave a masterclass of controlled batsmanship in a quite brilliant 58 that ensured he would be the one to lift the trophy. The word legend is, of course, overused in sport but not when it comes to Read, who has been an incredible gloveman, excellent batsman and fantastic figurehead during his 19 years of service. I'd name a stand after him if it were up to me.

He'll be massively missed at Trent Bridge but it was a perfect end to his 50-over career to win the cup as captain and then be held aloft by his team mates to accept the adulation of the travelling Outlaws, who serenaded him with a hearty blast of 'Ready, Ready, Ready'.

While it would've been nice to see Read hit the winning runs, it was also fitting that Pattinson's last act in a Notts shirt was to strike the final blow.

It was a pretty good atmosphere all told in the Compton Stand - with a few Forest favourite songs thrown in with some good natured ribbing of Tom Curran, who had the dubious honour of being stationed right in front of us and didn't enjoy the greatest of days.

The Notts fans were certainly whipped up into a frenzy by Luke Fletcher, who clearly loved every minute of his day and led the chants himself as the team came to celebrate with us at the end. We're lucky to have a settled squad of talented players who seem to love turning out for the club and that spirit was evident on Saturday. Coach Peter Moores also deserves credit for his role in helping to mastermind the success here even though the club's main focus has surely been on promotion in red ball cricket.

My first visit to Lord's had been pretty special - an Ashes test two years ago - and so was this one. Let's just hope my next successful sporting final isn't another 25 years away...

Forget the rest, Theresa May hasn't proved herself a worthy Prime Minister

It's annoying when you start out on a task that should be straightforward but ends up being harder than you'd hoped. Maybe you've left plenty of time to get to an all-important meeting but your car decided to pick the worst moment to break down, or perhaps a short and simple DIY task swallowed up days of your life that you'll never get back despite saying '2-3 hours' on the box. Or maybe, if you're like me, you start off a supposedly 'easy' crossword and allow the ruddy thing to take over your life. Anyway, you know the sort of thing.

I can't help thinking that that's the way Theresa May feels about the current General Election. It was supposed to be a walk in the park for the PM - a 'coronation' as the Lib Dems put it. Yet, it's good if she's starting to feel under a bit of pressure. Frankly, it serves her right.

Photo: Unsplash

Let's not kid ourselves, this election was called because she felt she could destroy the Labour party and return to the Commons with a massive majority. It's a vanity election to feed her ego and give her her own 'mandate' - while also helping her to dilute the influence of some critical back benchers and avoid going to the public for the next election too soon after the Brexit negotiations.

None of those reasons are remotely to do with 'democracy' or us, the mere voters. It's all about May. Indeed, it's estimated that the 2010 election cost £113 million to run - if it's anything like that this time then that's a lot of money to feed your ego. And people thought her shoes and trousers were expensive.

The reasons she gave for calling a snap election were laughable. She said she made the decision because the opposition had said they were going to oppose her (shock, horror) and that although the nation was united in favour of Brexit, the Commons wasn't. The latter point ignores the fact that the Commons voted in favour of her when it came to Brexit, without managing to land a single amendment to dent her progress. MPs, I'd argue, looked much more united on the subject than voters. We have to hope that she doesn't really believe that the opposition should be silenced - or the 'saboteurs crushed' as the Mail put it.

Luckily, I don't think she does believe that. In fact, I'm struggling to see what she does believe in, apart from herself. I've read a few articles in the likes of New Statesman in which writers have started to try to understand 'Mayism' and what makes the PM tick. While they've been well-written - and put forward a case for a politician who is more interventionist and in favour of the power of the state than her predecessors - I can't help thinking that hers is an empty agenda. She spouts robotic banalities such as 'Brexit means Brexit', 'strong and stable leadership' and 'coalition of chaos' that demean public debate offering nothing of substance. I think she went into the election thinking she could get away with doing as little as possible - letting Labour 'beat itself'.

Indeed, at the start of the campaign May toured remote village halls, turned up at factories after the real workers had gone home and denied local newspaper reporters the chance to ask proper questions as she executed her 'safety first' strategy which avoided 'real people' at all costs. That might be fine as a tactic, but we should be demanding much more. Theresa May called this election and it's only right that she should tell us more about what she'd do with the power she craves. Bizarre non-priorities such as fox hunting and grammar schools have been thrown out by way of distraction.

The Prime Minister also immediately dismissed all chance of a head-to-head debate with Jeremy Corbyn on TV. While I don't necessarily think a TV debate is the be all and end all, it is laughable that May wants to frame the election as a choice between her 'strong and stable leadership' and Jeremy Corbyn's 'coalition of chaos' while not having the guts to show us why she's stronger and more stable than him. Again, we deserve more. If you want to make this a presidential run-off with your face on every poster and leaflet, at least have the decency to conduct a campaign that reflects this.

Speaking of character, if Theresa May wants to make this election about the personalities of the prospective leaders then it's time to scrutinise her own record. She was the Home Secretary in charge when police numbers were cut back, when the Government failed to meet its own immigration targets and presided over the pitiful 'go home' vans that shamed us all. She campaigned for Remain - half-heartedly and maybe out of loyalty to David Cameron but still in favour of Remain - and now wants a full-on hard Brexit. She repeatedly said she would not have a snap election and here we are, heading to the polls on June 8. The Government she led seemed to achieve very little bar upsetting the people we need to negotiate with for the next two years and, indeed, her administration's only Budget ended in disaster, with a huge U-turn on a tax rise for the self-employed. Clearly, being Prime Minister or Home Secretary isn't easy - but we shouldn't allow May to go around boring us to death with a 'strong and stable' mantra that deserves to be contested.

That's before we even come to the manifesto and the row over the 'dementia tax'. I can't help thinking that she became a victim of the hysteria she's otherwise thrived on over this issue. The policy itself seemed a flawed version of other schemes floated by politicians who have desperately tried to solve the complex issue of the funding of care for an ageing population. Maybe it was flawed because May and her team were so complacent about the election result? Regardless, it quickly drew criticism from opponents (or should that be saboteurs?) such as the Mail on Sunday. The Tories, however, undermined their own wish to avoid this being framed as the 'dementia tax' by buying up ad space on Google to capture searches for 'dementia tax' and legitimising its use in the debate over this issue. The mud stuck and May and co managed the unusual feat of performing a massive U-turn on a manifesto policy before the election had even taken place. It was a poor policy that needed to have been better thought out but, at the first sign of trouble, she panicked. I imagine the EU negotiators must be rubbing their hands with glee at such a mess.

What of Brexit? The biggest issue of our times and the matter that was so serious that it, apparently, caused the election in the first place? Very little of substance has been said about this. Theresa May wants permission to do whatever she wants with the negotiations. She is basically asking for a blank cheque from the electorate (maybe literally given the possible size of the divorce bill). It'd be nice to know why some options have already been ruled out. Why couldn't we try to stay in the Single Market? Will we end up like Norway, opting 'out' over immigration as they do with fishing? We seem to have spent longer talking about threatening to walk out of the negotiations than anything else so far - a prospect that would surely be economically devastating. A badly-handled Brexit has the potential to render anyone's manifesto pledges impossible and wreck the public finances. I have a horrible feeling that David Davis, Boris Johnson, Liam Fox and Theresa May just aren't up to the task, frankly.

Now it seems as though Theresa May's campaign has returned to its back-up plan. The 'bore them to tears' stuff allowed Labour to present some policies and grab the agenda and the manifesto back-fired massively. With that in mind, it's now going to be a case of attacking Jeremy Corbyn as loudly as possible. Again, this might be effective but it's a pretty pathetic sight for a Prime Minister who started the race under zero pressure. It's especially embarrassing when some of the attacks fall flat. If Boris Johnson - the Foreign Secretary - has said similar things on terrorism to Jeremy Corbyn then it's harder to portray the Labour leader as some sort of madman. Mind you, it was surely always clear that putting Boris in a position such as that would back fire - she really ought to have known better.

It's almost certain that Theresa May will still win this election. Even the most favourable polls for Labour put her five or six points ahead. Yet, she's going to win having had an abysmal campaign, with a discredited manifesto and maybe even with an eventual majority that isn't as thumping as she'd hoped for. Regardless of what you think of the other leaders - and they undoubtedly have their flaws but they didn't call this election after all - I really don't feel she's shown herself up to the task ahead. Her interview with Andrew Neill on the BBC last week only served to cement that view.

I can't help but feel gloomy for our prospects under her continued leadership. We just have to hope that the campaign might teach her a well-deserved lesson or two before she goes straight into the most important talks a Prime Minister has conducted for decades. We should also hope that her ego gets a dent from this election proving a little harder than she expected although I'm not holding my breath.

REVIEW: The Man in the High Castle

You sometimes reach a crossroads with a book don't you? A moment when you pause, scratch your chin, gaze out of the window and ponder 'where is this going?' and perhaps even 'is this any good?'.

I had such a moment with Philip K Dick's The Man in the High Castle. It was about 150 pages in but I decided to crack on, read a couple more chapters and see where it took me. Luckily my persistence was rewarded and I came away glad to have picked this unusual book up.

Take a look at any one-line review or short summary of this book and you'll see that it is described as a dystopian 'what it?' work, exploring what would happen in America if the Nazis and their allies had 'won' the Second World War.

While that's strictly true it really isn't the whole story. I'll admit I was wrong-footed by this book and it's probably what led me to question where it was going. Yes, this is set in an America divided into Japanese, German and neutral thirds but we see this world in a more abstract way, through the eyes of a clutch of intriguing characters. The book isn't about what the Nazis and Japanese would do if they were victorious, it's about how real people would react and what they would think. The ways in which day-to-day life is governed underpins it all, but it's in the background. Events in Germany - with a regime change - loom large, but are seen from afar. There's a chilling mention of what has happened in Africa since the war, with the detail left to the worst of your own imagination to fill in. Most tellingly everyone is seemingly pretty much resigned to life 'as it is', with the action taking place a good twenty years after the end of the war. There's a downbeat feel to the defeated Americans which contrasts wildly with the tubthumping 'God Bless America' of the hegemon of the real world.

The most fascinating aspect comes through the 'book within a book' that lies at the heart of The Man in the High Castle - with the fictional characters all intrigued by their own 'what if?' text, widely read across the States and written by an author who examines what would've happened if the Nazis hadn't won.

It's not always easy to identify with the characters written by Philip K Dick but remarkable things happen to some fairly unremarkable people as the book builds to a close - with a dash of espionage and intrigue coming to the boil in the final third. There's a plot to kill Hawthorn Abendsen - the man behind the aforementioned book - and the realisation that the Nazis are planning to oust their Japanese allies and take over the bits of the world they aren't already in control of.

This isn't really like anything else I've read but that's no bad thing. None of the plot threads are neatly sewn up but, strangely, that doesn't matter too much. This is an eerie book, an alternative reality that poses lots of questions and gets you thinking. If you park your preconceptions and accept the slightly odd nature of many of the characters then there's a reward to be had.

I haven't seen the TV adaptation - I've been reluctant to give money to Amazon after it blew hideous sums on those old Top Gear morons - but it would be fascinating to see what's done with the material here. My hunch is that some of the more obvious 'what if?' stuff might have to be shoe horned back in and it'd be interesting to see what impact that has.

Still, this has all whetted my appetite to return to reading a decent history book. So, next up, I'm going to make another diversion away from my 'next five books' and read something by one of my favourite historians, Richard J Evans. I'll let you know what I think...

REVIEW Brexit: What The Hell Happens Now?

Ok, so I've already deviated from my 'next five books' plan. However, it's with good reason. As soon as I'd snapped up Ian Dunt's 'Brexit: What The Hell Happens Now?' I was keen to get going, not least before Theresa May triggered Article 50. I've appreciated Dunt's superb analysis of post-referendum Britain for some time now on Twitter and in a series of columns. Luckily the book delivers the same blend of smart insight and wit.

There are two over-riding feelings I was left with by the end. Firstly, you have to take your hat off for what Ian Dunt has achieved here. To have been able to produce such an informative text within a relatively short time only increases my admiration for him. Not only that, but the book is future proofed, staying just as relevant now as it was when written - despite the election of a US president and all that has happened in the UK since (including the debate over the Scottish referendum). I feel like I'll refer back to this as a sort of instruction manual to whatever happens after this Wednesday.

For me, Dunt strikes the perfect balance in the book. There's the right level of detail on some fairly complex issues but, at 160-odd pages, it can all be digested quickly and easily. It's clearly the result of a lot of research and hard work - without ever feeling the need to talk down to the reader. The passages on veterinary medicine, farming and fishing are great examples of the complexity of the issues up for negotiation, a complexity which was all-too-often buried amid the bluster of both sides of the referendum campaign.

Yet, aside from admiration, I also came away from this feeling pretty terrified. The next few years are going to be one hell of a challenge aren't they? I'd love to say that I have confidence that David Davis, Liam Fox and Boris Johnson have mastered the topic of the EU as well as Dunt, but I just don't see it. As he ably demonstrates, there's a lot to do in a short space of time and a distinct lack of the manpower and expertise needed to deliver. Since reading this, I've been taken by how many times I've read and heard people glibly talk about 'falling back on WTO rules' or 'access to the single market' despite clearly having little or no appreciation for what this means in practice.

Indeed, you feel this book shouldn't just be on the shelves of Waterstones but in the pigeon holes of every MP. There's also a sadness to be had in the fact that so little of the workings of the EU - and the potential options for a post-EU future - were understood by the people who went out to vote on June 23rd last year. I still feel like we were given the option of a 'yes/no' answer to a question that was far more complex that a black and white choice such as that.

But this book isn't a polemic delivered by a sore loser (can we scrap the word 'Remoaner' from use? 'Brexit' is bad enough). Yes, it begins with a fairly sobering vision of a worst case scenario in the first chapter but Dunt stresses that the dangers that he outlines in the book arise from the way Brexit is delivered, not Brexit itself. As he puts it:

"Ultimately it is British values which will help get the country through this difficult new period: calm debate, instinctive scepticism, practical judgement and moderation. We appear to have lost sight of these values. The sooner we reaffirm our commitment to them, the better off we will be."

That said, I can't help feeling like Brexit will turn out to be a monumental mistake and the scale of the challenge Dunt sets out only served to convince me that we're about to head along the wrong path. I am worried about what happens next, frankly, and I've seen nothing since June that allays my fears. Dunt's values seem sadly missing from public debate.

For an understanding of what Brexit really means and what our future could look like, I couldn't recommend Dunt's highly enough. It delivers on its promise to be a readable guide to the 'biggest story of the decade' and is a superb piece of writing.

I'm heading back to my original plan next and will be picking up The Man In The High Castle by Philip K Dick. From a bleak real life vision of the future to a dystopian one, maybe it's a natural move?