Studying modern British literature: about a boy by Nick Hornby

In 2007 when a professor of our university participated at the Contemporary English Literature seminar in Perm, our Linguistic Institute was presented with three sets of books by modern British writers. They are The Sea House by Esther Freud, Magpie by Jill Dawson and About a Boy by Nick Hornby.

At the lessons of home reading and individual reading with second-year students I started introducing these new books. I am going to speculate now on Hornby’s book, as 1 have read the book twice so far with two different groups of students. I have taken great pleasure in reading and discussing this novel with my students.

As we teach linguists, every authentic written work for us is a unique opportunity to ‘taste, chew and swallow’ (if liked) the language, every phrase and word, any new meaning or connotation. It was pointed in the commentary by Karen Hewitt that ‘the language of

‘About a Boy’ records the everyday colloquial speech of Londoners’ -that is, actually, where we are usually behind in the process of teaching (and learning!) the language. When reading ‘About a Boy’ my students were given a chance to know and learn such words as ‘potty, be nuts, a bloke, sackful, dosh’ and a lot more. They are the ones we don’t take at the lessons of practice and never come across in classic works. Another thing that is peculiar about the language in the book is the abundance of dialogue speech which is gorgeously coloured with all the repetitions, shortenings, exclamations, interjections. The dialogues are full of disjunctive questions (of which students are not much fond...) and it makes them use this type of question more often, instead of ‘Right? Really?’ as it is most common in the Russian language. They also come to know that, for instance, to ask ‘How do you mean?’ sounds quite English. The dialogues serve as a wonderful example of how to build up a conversation in every day life, in common circumstances. Hornby is a master at making trivial things sound important, yet it is done in the way that makes a reader smile or even laugh every time. Let's look at the conversation between Will and Marcus when they were going to buy trainers for Marcus-

“Do you like those shoes?” Will asked him. <.„>

“How do you mean?”.

“I mean, do you like them?”»

“They are my shoes. I’m not supposed to like them.”

, “You can like everything you wear, if you can be bothered.” -, > “Do you like everything you wear?”                t.

“I don't wear anything 1 hate.” <....>.

? It is one of the moments when Will and Marcus learn from each other discussing, on the one hand, something very unimportant, common; on the other hand, something vital, as it comprises their style, their way of life... No matter how serious the speakers can be in this situation, the reader cannot but smile due to absurdity of the situation and the author's superb observation.

However, depicting the language peculiarities is not the only goal I have as a university reader. I feel I am not only to teach students, but also to educate, to bring them up, to evoke their deep feel- ings. While discussing the contexts, the plot, the structure and the narrative of the book, we touch upon different themes that seem to be essential and important here and now. A

While discussing the book, my students nearly never said that Fiona was a bad mother, as it is clear she cared in her own way. However, we never see in the book proper talks between Fiona and Marcus. Most of the time they just argue with each other. Yet, Marcus loves his mum, he looks after Fiona and wants her to make a good match. He wants it to be done for the sake of the family, for Fiona’s sake. He wants her to have a full life, so his life in return will become more realistic, he will become more independent. Thus, we agree that if a child can ‘maintain’ a family, any adult should be able to do that as well.

The second theme that appealed to me and my students is Judging by appearances is the wrong way to go. I should mention, 1 asked my students what they thought of Will and Marcus after they had read five chapters, that is, thirty pages. The most common word they used in their answers (the one they picked in the book) was weird. Most of them liked neither Will nor Marcus in the beginning. What was different, did not coincide with their perception, was considered to be wrong. Marcus seemed to the students too obedient, he wore the clothes mum bought for him, listened to the music she approved of, read books instead of playing computer games as other children did. All these are wrong for young people as they are sure that one has to choose oneself and not be too dependent. As for Will, he seemed egoistic, careless, inexperienced in a lot of ways at his 36. He was an adult who had neither time no opportunity to grow up.

After we had read the book, 1 asked the same question one more time. It is no wonder, most of the students changed their minds concerning the main characters. Will didn’t seem to be shallow and irresponsible any more. He learnt how to care, he experienced the feeling of being needed and formed a liking for it. He finally grew up and knew how to accept responsibilities. Marcus turned out to be a sympathetic child, a 12-year-old boy, not a “hundred year old man” (as Will thought of him at times). Marcus is clever and talented at bringing people together, at making someone go ahead. This theme makes students understand that one should not be too quick to judge, to pronounce the verdict. We should always give someone a chance to act and live in different circumstances. And even if we consider a person is not like us, this does not mean one is strange, weird, wrong, they are just of another type - DIFFERENT.