Tom Hodgkinson

This is either the best or worst book to read when you’re finishing a PhD and thinking deep thoughts about what to do next with your life. I’m not sure which yet - ask me in a few years. ‘How to be Free’ continues in the same vein as [b:How to Be Idle|623922|How to Be Idle|Tom Hodgkinson|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1388368701s/623922.jpg|1768914], which I greatly enjoyed. The former has a more philosophical and political bent, however. The tendency to skip thither and yon, show more drawing inspiration from Sartre and Chaucer, reminds me a little of a less obtuse Žižek. Hodgkinson makes no claims to present a coherent political philosophy, which is good because he doesn’t. Instead, he critiques many aspects of modern life - or rather, modern life in 2006 when the horrible invasion of smartphones had barely begun. Given his scathing words about blackberries, I don’t imagine he approves of them. The book is structured around pieces of mostly practical advice, like replacing your car with a bicycle, growing your own vegetables, and accepting that the only meaning of life is that which we create ourselves.

I am sympathetic to almost all that Hodgkinson says and his so-conservative-it’s-radical philosophy is interesting and appealing. He harks back to late Medieval times, which he feels exemplify freedom from centralised authority and local co-operation. It’s certainly a valid point that taking inspiration from the past rather than the future is more pragmatic, given that the future is only ever an illusion. Hodgkinson is strongest when dismantling consumerism and presenting the appeal of thrift and self-reliance, but weakest when assuming that everyone else (who isn’t a straight white man) enjoys the same things in life as him. Thus, I definitely agree with the pursuit of inexpensive pleasures, but drinking and smoking have no appeal for me. I prefer night-time walks, browsing libraries, and rambling discussions with friends. Also, I don’t want to learn the ukulele, I’d rather learn Spanish. Nonetheless, the neo-Medieval anarchism advanced here is not proscriptive. Moreover, it’s refreshing to be told not to worry about having a career and the comments on housing are very good. A mortgage is essentially renting a house from the bank, at great cost. If only renting wasn’t so appallingly insecure. It’s relaxing to read a book in praise of carelessness - what’s the point of trying to earn lots of money, to get more than anyone else? We’re all going to die anyway. Might as well enjoy life, rather than trying to purchase enjoyment in rare hours not spent working. show less

Mood: Annoyed and disappointed.

It's a nice idea, to have a collection of writings dedicated to knocking down the Puritan work ethic. But the anthology suffers the serious shortcoming that it is almost entirely male -- thus leaving one to wonder whether this is a commentary on the laziness of the editors, putting into practice what they preach, or on the hard-working nature of women.

An alternative theory is suggested by the authors' note in the introduction that

The hours of research we put

show more

in at the British Library yielded a minimum of material; the off-hand telephone inquiry, the randomly browsed volume, the bookshop where the relevant works seemed to leap off the shelves and into our hands -- it was out of these serendipitous sources that the collection was hewn.

This bizarrely lopsided anthology, then, it is the fault of stray booksellers and the editors' circle of acquaintances.

Regardless of the explanation, it's too bad, because I generally like the editor Tom Hodgkinson's work, but how do you develop an anthology spanning contributors over centuries and somehow manage to find only one woman among fifty-seven? And her piece is about sex, natch.

For gods' sake, gender is the foremost category in the specialization of labor -- it didn't occur to the writers to consider that women might have something useful to say about idleness and/or the puritan work ethic?

One can only conclude that there must be something awry with the editors or the world (or, as I suspect, both).

If the former then unfortunately I find their sad failure to even consider gender in their contributors undermines their argument because first I have to conclude that works of scholarship do better with a bit of effort; and second, I find it difficult to take seriously an anthology that so evidences male privilege. Really? Men are idle? Women the world over will not be surprised. "Women do two-thirds of the world’s work, receive 10 percent of the world’s income and own 1 percent of the means of production."

I'd like to celebrate idleness, but when I'm confronted with a lot of men celebrating idleness I am inescapably forced to wonder if their female companions are picking up their men's share of the work. Hey, I'd like to be idle, and I was in fact hoping to engage in a little constructive idleness by reading this anthology. But once again I'm forced to abandon idleness to fight the patriarchy. show less

'How To Be Idle' filled me with a huge sense of vindication, as I am an idler by nature. In this book, Hodgkinson takes the reader through a day of idling, covering such topics as lie-ins, hangovers, rambling, and fishing. He draws on a diverse and idiosyncratic range of literature, including [b:Against Nature|210255|Against Nature|Joris-Karl Huysmans|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1385099642s/210255.jpg|306152], [b:Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America|1869|Nickel and Dimed show more On (Not) Getting By in America|Barbara Ehrenreich|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1442378091s/1869.jpg|1840613], and [b:Three Men in a Boat|4921|Three Men in a Boat (Three Men, #1)|Jerome K. Jerome|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1392791656s/4921.jpg|4476508], all of which I enjoyed. The tone is affable and amusing, albeit avowedly masculine (this is my only real quibble). The idea is to present a philosophical alternative to the tedious protestant work ethic that gained ascendancy during the Industrial Revolution. Rather than living to work, we should work just as much as we need to in order to live and spend the rest of our time enjoying ourselves.

My personal style of idling is somewhat different to Hodgkinson's, whilst retaining the same spirit. I don't drink or smoke and prefer coffee to tea. However, my daily routine is that of an idler. I wake up sometime after 10am, doze for a while thinking about the day ahead, assemble a cup of coffee and bowl of muesli, consume both slowly whilst still in my pyjamas, then spend most of the day reading in libraries and cafés or pottering about the house. I can enjoy this lifestyle as I am a PhD student, one with a work ethic than tends to spending weeks thinking and then half a day actually producing work. It's a happy life, much more congenial than the nine to five office job that I used to have. (Being time-rich suits me much better than having twice the income and getting up at 7am every day.) Other idle pleasures I would add to Hodgkinson's list include: doing the washing up whilst listening to music, mocking terrible films with friends, cycling around at 2am, browsing libraries, and writing reviews on goodreads.

Now I'm tempted to try and sort my friends into idlers and botherers. Whilst the world needs both, I am content to be an idler who sometimes bothers. show less

I sure don't agree with all of his premises, but he does raise some interesting points- and advocates some possibilities that most of us would not really think of otherwise.

Note that i do NOT favor his dicta to stop voting. I think voting is not only important, but a civil obligation. However, voting for what YOU want- not to try to game the system- is vital here. In the next election, I plan to vote green; I know they won't win, but I would hope that my vote, combined with others, might show more give the Powers That Be pause. I am no longer willing to vote for the "lesser evil".

I think the author is really ignorant about a lot of the history he raves about- like "Athens was great, except for a few slaves". Well, MOST Athenians were not citizens nor had a vote; not just the slaves, but the lower classes and the women.

And favoring the American South over the North because it was more courteous? How "courteously" did they treat the slaves???

I was also not impressed by his "revelation" that when women whinge- they don't want solutions! Since he'd been all along discussing male whingeing without the desire for solutions, the notion that this was a female peculiarity is ridiculous, and casts some doubt on his ability to get outside himself and see others fairly.

So: I think he has some interesting and enticing points, but his arguments from history show a partisan lack of historical knowledge and/or willful ignorance and/or intentional provocation.

However, I also think it's true that we can be more empowered to change our condition than we normally think of ourselves as being- and that's really valuable. show less