Susan Green

Charlie Porter begins this book in 1920, with Virginia Woolf writing to T.S. Eliot, confirming his invitation to stay at her home, Monk’s House, in rural Sussex.
The letter concludes: ‘Please bring no clothes: we live in a state of the greatest simplicity.’

‘Bring no clothes’, in this context, doesn’t mean there’s to be a nudist getaway; she’s saying that there’s no need for fancy or formal clothes, wear whatever you like. Essentially, ‘come as you are’. I hadn’t realised what a revolutionary attitude this was, what a contrast to the rigid sartorial expectations of ‘polite society’ (the middle- and upper-classes) which ‘cemented hierarchies of class, power and gender’ through clothing.  Though the women’s fashions of the 1920’s were a far cry from the corseted, trussed-up, restrictive dresses of the Edwardian era – when Virginia Woolf and Vanessa Bell grew up – there were still so many rules. You wore certain clothes in the house, and different clothes to go out. There were hats and gloves and stockings and shoes with heels. You changed out of your day clothes; you ‘dressed for dinner’ in more revealing dresses if you were a woman, and an evening suit if you were a  man. You were attired for your role. The Bloomsbury group, a ‘loose collective of artists, writers and thinkers’ were more interested in the person than the role, and that was a definite philosophy of fashion.

According to Porter, it was a philosophy that said,
We are no longer living by those rules. We refuse them, we reject them, we are pushing for something new. If we were to accept Woolf’s invitation, we could ‘bring no clothes’ to our own lives, breaking from preconceptions to forge new ways of being’ .

Porter examines first the deliberate clothing choices of sisters Virginia Woolf and Vanessa Bell. Looser, more comfortable dresses, often home-made and slapdash (Vanessa was quite fond of safety pins as fastenings); flowing fabrics, shawls; daring colours (Virginia had orange woollen stockings). I hadn’t known that George Duckworth, the step-brother who sexually abused the sisters, insisted on making Vanessa his society companion, clothing her in elegant evening gowns, buying her jewellery, fans and handkerchiefs and all the feminine extras he decided she needed. He prevented her from studying and making art; she was a plaything. In later years, she remembered one dress in particular, transparent black over white, with silver sequins.

‘…though I felt all the thrill of putting on such a frock, still I came to dread the sight of it, so miserable were the many evenings I spent covered in the filmy black and white and sparkling sequins.’ 

What a relief it must have been when the sisters escaped Duckworth. No more abuse, and no more corsets.

Porter also takes us through the wardrobes of Lady Ottoline Morrell, the economist John Maynard Keynes, artist Duncan Grant (who liked to wear as little as possible) and novelist E.M. Forster. I found Forster’s story very moving. A closeted gay man, he covered himself in the uniform of suit, shirt and tie for most of his life. ‘Trapped in tailoring,’ as Porter puts it, his clothing choices ‘tell us much about repressed queer lives in the first half of the 20th century’. It was only in his  late 30’s, while in Egypt during WWI, that he found sexual love with a young tram conductor. And there is photograph of him, taken from Forster’s album. Apparently, it is the first photograph where he is smiling. And his shirt is unbuttoned.
Near the end of his long life, Forster wrote:
…when I am  nearly 85 how annoyed I am with Society for wasting my time by making homosexuality illegal. The subterfuges, the self-consciousness might have been avoided.

Porter is a queer man, too. He writes,
In the UK today, it’s easier for a lanky, soft, awkard queer human such as Forster to find a place for themselves. I am one. I was born in 1973, three years after Forster died. I remember the pain I felt as a young kid, of imagining my future life unrealized. It felt tight, like the bitter tightness in Forster’s words. It felt like my life was likely to be wasted.

I could write more, but instead I’ll encourage you to read ‘Bring No Clothes’. It’s intimate, warm, engaging and makes you think again about what you put on your body, and why.

Even though we have been visiting Adelaide for over 30 years to visit my husband’s folks, I’d never been to the State Library. The Museum, yes. The Art Gallery, yes. Last week, my husband took me to see the place where he’d spent many, many hours wagging school to finish his essays – the staggeringly marvellous Mortlock Chamber, in its own wing of the State Library. The only word for it is magical. Hogwarts comes to mind. It’s attached to the new library buildings, and now seems to house an eclectic collection of old fiction and non-fiction. I picked out a clutch of 1930’s crime novels; a few bays away, the shelves held histories and biographies from the 1910’s and ’20’s, all shabby and much read. There were visitors wandering about the place, like us, and also students using the carved wooden tables and chairs tucked into each bay for study. And, amazingly, the place was quiet. No phones, no loud conversations. It was hushed, as libraries used to be. Beautiful!

The State Library of South Australia is officially the Second Most Beautiful Library in the world.

The department’s ‘principal enemy’ was the United States, with Britain as a close second. …Department V…became known notoriously as the ‘wet affairs’ department for its proficiency in ‘liquidating’ targets.

The Defector is the story of a KGB Department V agent, Oleg Lyalin, who was sent to London in 1969 under the cover of a businessman specialising in the export and import of knitwear. He was in fact ‘one-part saboteur, one-part fashionista’, because his real role was to learn how to break the British people and their government through ‘the penetration and ultimate destruction of their central nervous system: their critical national infrastructure, ranging from their food supply warehouses to their electricity grids’.
His day-to-day job involved meetings with British textiles suppliers, managing his ‘agents’ (spies)…and socialising. He enjoyed going to pubs, bars, nightclubs and fine-dining restaurants; he was a big spender, a natty dresser and a dedicated womaniser.
When he finally defected, in 1971, he seemed not driven by ideology, or money, but rather by his messy private life. His estranged wife had begun to pose a serious threat to his career, telling  KGB colleagues that he was a cheat, a liar, untrustworthy and disloyal to both his family and to the USSR. The threat of a recall to Moscow and ‘severe administrative action’ loomed. So he jumped, taking his Russian lover along with him.

And thereby created a pivotal event in the Cold War. As a direct result of his defection, more than 100 Soviet spies were expelled from the UK – and the formerly close relationship between MI5 and the CIA was broken.
In the past, MI5 would have requested CIA assistance with Lyalin’s debriefing. But the British agency was finding the CIA’s head of counterintelligence, James Jesus Angleton, increasingly paranoid and obsessed with the hunting down of ‘moles’ within both intelligence organisations – so they decided to go it alone. Good decision. It turned out that Lyalin had information that would discredit the CIA’s prize defector, Anatoly Golistsyn, reveal the CIA’s misguided approach to other genuine defectors and eventually end Angleton’s career.

The whole story is riveting, incredible, creepy and just a little mad. I was left wondering what kind of a life it was for Lyalin and his partner, Irena Teplyakova in the UK. They were never to go back to the Soviet Union, never to see their children. False identities for life, and probably always wondering whether they would be taken out by the ‘wet affairs’ department…

The Defector is a little out of my time frame, but it involves many familiar 1950’s players, like the notorious British spy Kim Philby and the CIA’s James Jesus Angleton.  I keep telling myself that the NEXT book I write will require no research. Or minimal research. Or research that is really only fact checking after the first draft is done. It’s so easy to go chasing down multiple rabbit holes – and so enjoyable! – that I can put off the actual writing quite easily.

In meandering long hours spent with friends I often have the welcome feeling of having drunk to my heart’s content from a deep well. I associate such time with the replenishment that is possible in leisure, without effort or agenda. Reading Milner helped me recognise an interior experience, which shares something with the quality of such time spent with friends. I feel it when I can let my thoughts and feelings gather instead of trying to dig them up to subject them to the harsh glare of investigation, or chasing after them to know exactly what they were. What surfaces out of such a gathering is sometimes unexpected, at other times mundane. An intention can take shape, or I may just feel a bit more rested than before. In the privacy of one’s mind, as well as in the company of others, there may be some things that lend themselves to  scrutiny and purpose, but there are others best encountered at leisure. It isn’t possible to reach them by means of expedition or pursuit, much better to issue an invitation, extend a welcome, and let the guests gather.

Akshi Singh, born in Rajasthan and now living and working in London and Glasgow, has written this book as a response to and conversation with another book, another writer. Singh appears to be in her late twenties or early thirties; the other writer, Marion Milner, was born in 1900 and died in 1998. Milner was a British psychoanalyst, surprisingly (or not, given that she was a woman ) forgotten, even though she was widely published in her day.

I first encountered Marion Milner in 1988, through a surprise present from my dad. He was always on the alert for books he thought would interest me. Or perhaps, help me along my way to being happy and creative and fully alive. The book was A Life of One’s Own, a Virago reprint of the 1934 original. The author began with the realisation that she didn’t really like her life, and asking herself what she could do about it. But unlike today’s lifemaxxing, optimising self help gurus, she took a gentle and non-prescriptive approach, instead simply asking herself, how do I want to spend my free time? What do I really like to do?

It seemed to me an unusual question…of course you know what you like to do. Or do you? She ran an experiment on herself, noticing, paying attention, without a plan or agenda or purpose. Creating, painting, travelling, resting, playing, daydreaming, drifting…she became alert to ways of being that can be unexpectedly joyous and creative. After reading it, I remember I got curious about myself and discovered the weirdest paradox; when I’ve got genuinely free time, I often feel panicky and out of sorts, and can rush to fill it with something, anything, rather than sit with myself in emptiness and feel my way to what I want to do.

I’m so happy to see Milner’s writing, in this memoir, celebrated, re-examined and shown to be relevant and useful in 2026. Singh writes about herself candidly in a way that Milner never did (she was always elliptical and guarded about her private life and relationships). She talks about being a young woman from a traditional Indian family, about family ties and expectations, about personal losses and grief, struggles with relationships and sexuality, with sub-standard housing, Covid, domestic chores and the Byzantine UK  immigration procedures – but with Milner as a companion. Singh doesn’t shy away from the issue of privilege; Milner stresses the importance of the creative life, but Singh is alert to the fact that many woman are overwhelmed by the stresses of sexism, racism and poverty.

I’m going to re-read the Milner books I own – A Life of One’s Own, An Experiment in Leisure and Eternity’s Sunrise – and then re-read In Defence of Leisure.

The pen scratches across the page rebel hump rebel hump rebel hump*. What do these words mean, asks the pen. I don’t know, replies the wrist. These are the words forming and the writer, stationed at Dolina Charlotty, in a valley in northern Poland, will decide later. Charlotty, a name evoking the porcelain face of a doll, left in the grass by a child so that she might go off to pick wild berries. Not for very long, but long enough to be forgotten, and through the passing of time the abandoned doll becomes Charlotty in the rain, Charlotty in the snow, Charlotty pulled apart by a playful dog. Her porcelain head swathed in the shadows of beech trees growing higher through seasons of snow, of red then dead leaves. Seasons of sun fade the pink of her cheeks yet fail to subdue the impassive intensity of her marble eyes.

I never really got into Patti Smith. Back in the mid 1970’s, when my friends were into the Sex Pistols, I was more likely to be listening to Sam Cooke. So despite a strong memory of seeing Horses, Patti Smith’s breakout debut album, amongst the share house collection, I couldn’t really bring her music strongly to mind. It wasn’t part of my personal soundtrack, the ’70’s mixtape of my young adult years.

Therefore, my interest in Bread of Angels was limited, and when a friend gave it to me – ‘Borrow this, you’ll like it’ – I thought they were wrong. Reader, I was wrong. I loved this memoir. From the first paragraph (above), it’s intriguing and enthralling. I found myself transported to a late 1940’s American childhood that was nevertheless almost Dickensian in its poverty and hardship. But this is no misery memoir, it’s more like her very own ‘Song of Innocence and Experience’, as she renders those early years magical, rich and very strange as filtered through her wildly poetic sensibility.

The middle section of the book, which bounces through her early career, were less fascinating for me; I’ve read that these years are dealt with more fully in her other memoirs. Readers may or may not admire her refusal to compromise, to become a product instead of an artist but I was cheering her on. She left her band, her career, at its height to follow her heart. Her account of marriage to Fred ‘Sonic’ Smith, the eccentric home they made together on the shores of a lake in Michigan, the life they shared, the creativity they encouraged in each other, was made more moving by his early death. Her progress through inconsolable grief into a later blooming creative phase seems magnificent. Art, love, life. Bravo Patti.

*Rebel hump? Misfit child that she was, Patti Smith imagined that she had ‘a miniature Quasimodo trapped inside an awkward child’s body’ – but she turned the disability or disfigurement – the hump of the hunchback – into a kind of secret strength.

Minoru Aose is a middle-aged architect, single, divorced, and with only monthly visits with his teenage daughter. When he’s asked to replicate his famous ‘Y residence’ for some new clients, he decides to visit it for the first time since he handed over the keys to the finished house. He’s puzzled, upset and saddened to find it’s empty apart from a single chair, which has been placed in a room facing the north light. It seems the family he designed it for never moved in. Why not? Were they unhappy with his design? Or did something happen to them?
Trying to answer these questions (and more), he goes on a journey of discovery. What initially seems like simple detective work ends as an inquiry into the nature of art, ambition, work and creativity, of home and families and love. When he finds the answers to his questions, he discovers he too is part of a complex and unexpected story.

Well, I tried not to give away too much by talking about the plot – but I’m not sure I managed to convey how brilliant this book is. I loved it! It’s lively, intriguing, enthralling, multi-layered, and I couldn’t put it down. I haven’t read a lot of Japanese literature but I recognise (and enjoy) the characteristic flavour of tradition blended with modernity. There’s a strong streak of neuroticism that seems uniquely Japanese, too. I can’t recommend this one highly enough.

Being a good person, or at least becoming a better person, became part of my Stoic journey because it was one of the only three things that were under my complete control. Forget about trying to change other people to become good. You can become a role model or instruct and persuade other people to be good, but it is ultimately not within your control as to whether someone is good or bad, or behaving well or poorly. As Marcus Aurelius advised: teach them, or learn to bear them.

Brigid Delaney’s book is subtitled How to be Stoic in Chaotic Times. Stoic philosophy has a long history going all the way back to ancient Rome and of course, as she points out, life was pretty chaotic then too. But we have our own particular challenges at this rather dark phase of 21st century life – social media, misinformation, the use of AI all spring to mind.  She set out to write a practical guide to applying Stoic philosophy to our lives, and I think she’s done it very well.

The ‘control test’, above all, is a very useful tool. It’s come down to us from the philosopher Epictetus who, nearly 2,000 years ago, asked ‘what can we directly control in our lives?’ Not much, it seems. Stoics would say that we control only our character, our reactions (and some of our actions though we cannot control outcomes) and the way we treat people. Three things! So don’t worry about the rest. I have been fretting a lot recently. Toxic politics, Gaza, the wars in Ukraine and Iran, the climate; the health worries of family members, some sticky issues with friends; weeds in the garden, stalled progress on my book, not enough exercise. Stoic advice would be: concentrate on what you can control.  Get weeding, writing, walking. Inform myself judiciously (no doom scrolling). I can also donate, volunteer, participate and try be a useful community member. I can agitate for change. But my worrying doesn’t fix or solve anything, and just makes me feel awful.
This was the right book at the right time for me.

How ludicrous and outlandish is astonishment at anything that happens in life!

The right book at the right time is a wonderful thing. In 1991 I decided to travel far, far away from Castlemaine, Victoria, Australia, to spread my wings and try to get over a broken heart. New skies, new people, new challenges. I thought that the end of March would be Spring in Quebec. It was, but not as we know it. There was still melting snow on the ground. Though to the folks of Montreal it was positively balmy, to me it was very, very cold. My friend David was a marvellous host, but he was an actor, and busy with his work so I did a lot of solo wandering around Montreal and Quebec City, and what with the cold, the sense of dislocation and loneliness plus heartache, I was occasionally pretty miserable. One day, in an English-language bookshop, I found a Penguin Classics edition of Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations; I bought it and Marcus became a valued travelling companion and teacher. I liked to think that this man, all those centuries ago, was also simply a human being who struggled with himself too. Meditations isn’t a manifesto or a sermon, it’s just what he wrote in his private journal. Often just a few sentences on what he had learned along his way through life. There was nothing flashy, though it was often beautifully expressed. There is no ‘Secret’ (remember those best sellers full of promises?) to success, happiness, endless bliss. Who would have known that philosophy could be so sensible?

It’s a little like the search for the perfect handbag. It takes years, decades even. You try and then buy, hoping for the right size and shape with the ideal ratio of pockets, flaps and zips, thinking you have it right but knowing that this will only be revealed in use. At last, you realise that there cannot be an ultimate bag, the one bag that rules them all; you have three or four, and each one is perfect for a particular use, a certain kind of day. You go back to them again and again, always enjoying their particular rightness. But they grow shabby and you are occasionally tempted by other, newer, bags…

And so it is with comfort reading. I go back again and again to the tried and true –  to Jane Austen, Barbara Pym, Elizabeth Goudge, to classic crime and children’s literature, to my daggy old best-sellers of yesteryear. But I thought it was time I tried a new genre – the contemporary rom-com – and this book was pressed into my hand by an avid fellow-reader who loved it.

The Wedding People tells the story of Phoebe, who arrives at a swish hotel in Newport (no, not the inner Melbourne industrial suburb; this is the one on Rhode Island, USA, home of millionaires and Gilded Age mansions) with no luggage, wearing a green silk dress and gold sandals. She’s come to a momentous decision about her life, but her plans are derailed when she finds the hotel has been taken over by a wedding party. Despite herself she becomes involved and forms an unlikely friendship with the young bride, Lila. The two of them fumble and stumble their way to happy-ish endings. There’s comedy, drama, pathos, sex, romantic confusion and feel-good family vibes as a million dollars is spent on the lavish week-long nuptials.

I read it, quickly. I laughed at the funny bits. I appreciated the skill of the writer. But it didn’t do the trick. I wasn’t comforted, even though I liked it; I didn’t love it, and I wouldn’t read it again. It seems that as with handbags, so with comfort reading. I know what works.

Recently, the wonderful coach and mentor, editor, podcaster, writer, retreatist (?) extraordinaire and lovely human Meg Dunley recorded our conversation about writing, and here it is.

Meg is so easy to talk to, and I had a lot of fun. However, I’ve watched most of Meg’s interviews with artists and writers, and I seem to have used the most ‘ums’ of anyone. It is instructive/interesting/dismaying to watch yourself talking. My face is very mobile, I see. And my hands also. But my voice isn’t what I think it is, and certainly not what I hear when I talk. Not just the ‘ums’, but the…is it the tone, or the timbre?

Our internet connection that day was not good, and so the picture quality isn’t the best, which is a salve for my vanity. Double chins! My official ‘author pic’, taken by my dear husband, is several years old and rather flattering.

Could I use this author pic, taken in 1980 by a photographer friend, instead? Actually, I would not want to turn back time and be 22 again. I like the view from here – nearly 70 – so much better, though not the creaky joints. I was indeed the very serious young person I appear to be, intent on writing very, very literary short stories. My goddesses at the time were Alice Munro and Margaret Atwood. I wonder what I would have said about my writing practice then? It was pretty scatty. Lots of beginnings. Lots of notes and first pages and then…nothing. My problem was that I rarely finished anything because of the unpleasant, carping, bitching, negative person in my head telling me that my writing was – basically – crap. My biggest breakthrough in writing was when I realised I could tell that voice that yes, it’s true, it’s crap – but I will finish it anyway. I took all the effort of fighting that nasty critic, stepped sideways and out of sight, and kept going. And these days I recognise that the nasty critic was simply doing its job, trying to protect me from disappointment of rejection.

For a writer (this writer, anyway) hearing other writers talk about writing is fascinating. We all work so differently, and I know I have changed a great deal over the 4o odd years of my career. Right now, I am concerned with enjoying my work. Not flogging myself about productivity. Having a schedule loose enough to fit in the unexpected, but not so loose that nothing gets done. A couple of weeks ago I hustled to get 10,000 words ready to submit to Varuna for one of their residencies. I’ve had 2 before, and both have led to finished books I’m proud of, and to publication. Three’s a charm? It would be lovely to go to Varuna again, but not essential. It was just good to push myself a little.

And note to self: read the submission requirements properly next time. I spent a couple of days writing a 1,000 word synopsis. My husband, reading and re-reading it, did comment that it seemed an unusually long synopsis… It turned out to be 1,000 characters required, not words. Bugger!

And here’s the link to Meg’s site. Well worth a look, and a listen.

The courtyard led through an archway onto Lenin Avenue, one of the city’s busiest streets. Ancient tin buses wheezed past carrying workers to outlying factories. Trams and trolley buses trundled up and down. Heavy black Russian tourers threaded their way through the traffic, the drivers’ hands on the horn. Like all the avenues and parks and squares here, Lenin Avenue was generously planned. Beneath the plane trees, on the wide pavements, old women with shawls wound across their mouths sold carnations and sunflower seeds in newspaper cones. Shops like cupboards carved into the gracious tufa facades sold newspapers and cigarettes. The signs on street corners, above doorways, on bus fronts, Cyrillic or Armenian, were indecipherable to Edith. She was illiterate here. The street ran on beyond the haze of petrol fumes to the city’s gaunt surrounding hills.

I would never have picked Gilgamesh from the library shelves, but a member of my Wine and Cheese Book Group did, and I loved it. A fairy-tale, an epic, a coming-of-age story, an adventure, a drama of love and war, even a spy thriller – it has elements of all these. I couldn’t put it down.

The beginning, a sort of prologue, is set in 1918, at the end of the First World War. Australian soldier Frank marries Englishwoman Ada and takes her with him to a soldier settler block in Nanderup, a small town in Western Australia. They are both unsuited to the life and the farm fails to prosper. With their daughters Frances and Edith, they live a hard, isolated and impoverished life.
1937, Frank has died, and Ada and her daughters are still living on the farm. Seventeen-year-old Edith brings some money into the house by waiting on tables and cleaning at a nearby guest house. Suddenly, exotic visitors arrive. They are Leopold, Ada’s half-Russian, half-English nephew, an archaeologist; and Aram, once Leopold’s driver and now his friend. Aram talks to Edith about his tragic homeland of Armenia; Leopold tells the story of the Mesopotamian king Gilgamesh and his friend, the wild man Enkidu. For Edith they bring with them fun, friendship, affection, news, stories, ideas, histories and myths, intimations of a much wider world than Nanderup.
And then, two years late, in 1939 and on the cusp of another war, Edith and her little son Jim set out on their own adventure, by ship and train and overland, seeking Aram in Armenia.

No spoilers after this; read it yourself. Gilgamesh is beautifully written, the language poetic but at the same time to the point. I loved every word. Every character, too; the section set in Soviet-controlled Armenia, where Edith becomes part of the ill-assorted household of the trader Hagop, could have been a novel in itself. The action moves across the map with intense, evocative descriptions: London, tiny Nanderup in the Australian bush, Istanbul, Armenia, the Middle East in wartime, and then back home to Nanderup.  As the story moves in a circle, you can feel Edith learn, survive, become strong, become herself. She’s the heroine of her own epic.

The distant wireless roar of the ocean, the cries of the cockatoos released in the wind, came straight from childhood. Everything Edith saw moved her, the slow clouds, the olive-green headlands, the great bowl of the sea. She knew everything that met her eye in every direction. The space and light could make her dizzy with happiness. Whatever the terrors and mysteries of childhood, she thought, she must have known happiness here.