Britain in the Sixties: The Other England

I bought this book not so much for the content, how people live in the provinces rather than the capital, but at sight of some angry handwritten annotations within the text. It is interesting to see evidence of readers letting off steam. One previous owner has taken umbrage about comments made by the author on the bad example of ‘knocking down everything in sight’ in the rebuilding of Gloucester. Asterisked at the bottom of page 60 he says, ‘On the contrary, Gloucester’s redevelopment stands out on account of sensitive treatment. Contrast with the characterless, spiritless rebuilding of Exeter’. Take that, author, and also this on page 59: ‘What! You (underlined) must be blind (underlined) to include Worcester, & I’m not show more sure about Shrewsbury either’. This is a strong challenge to the author’s suggestion that these two towns are seeking to ensure a harmonious mix of old and new. ‘Worcester rebuilt, Ludlow preserved, I fancy’ is another comment planted at the top of page 60. I always wonder why these angry and anonymous readers feel obliged to leave their mark. Is it just letting off steam? Is it for reference purposes later on? Is it just to impress the next owner? It all enlivens the plain text - much more so than bouts of underlining in blue ink that just irritate a future reader. show less