Book reviews: The Sunday Times



Back to Book reviews main page






Anonymous: Fusilier Bluff (Bles, 1934)

ASH, Edward C.: Puppies, Their Choice, Care and Training (Miles, 1933)

CAREY, Lewis: My Gun and I (Philip Allan, 1933)

CHALMERS, Patrick R.: Dogs of Every Day (Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1933)

CLARK, Alan: The Donkeys (Hutchinson, 1961)

DAVENPORT, W. Bromley: Sport (MacLehose, 1933)

HICKLING, Grace: Grey Seals and the Farne Islands (Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1962)

HILLS, R. J. T.: Something About a Soldier (Lovat Dickson, 1934)

JAMES, Nora C.: Jake the Dog (Dent, 1933)

JOBSON, Allan: An Hour-Glass on the Run (Michael Joseph, 1959)

MOYNIHAN, Michael (editor): People at War, 1914-1918 (David & Charles, 1973)

PARKER, Ernest: Into Battle: 1914-18 (Longmans, 1964)

PERCY, Cyril Heber: Hym (Faber, 1959)

STARKIE, Walter: Scholars and Gypsies: An Autobiography (John Murray, 1963)

THOREAU, H. D.: A Writer’s Journal (Heinemann, 1961)




1933, day and month unknown


reviews sunday1



1 October 1933


reviews sunday2


22 July 1934
reviews sunday11


12 April 1959


reviews sunday3a




reviews sunday3b


reviews sunday3c




The letter from The Sunday Times gave HW a strict word limit:


reviews sunday3d


HW has quite extensively marked the text of the review copy with 'corrections' (poor expressions etc.), and inscribed it thus:


reviews sunday3e


and on the envelope pasted in at the end of the book he has written:


reviews sunday3f


This is the heavily amended/corrected TSS, which illustrates, once again, the painstaking care which HW took over his writing, even of a short review:


reviews sunday3g


reviews sunday3h


reviews sunday3i


The last sentence on the envelope note leads one to believe the The Sunday Times made some major cuts to the review before publication, but a quick comparison of the galley proof below, sent to HW for his approval prior to publication, and the published review shows that all that was cut was a short phrase and the reference to Robert Graves, which the editor probably felt wasn't really relevant. Nevertheless, HW evidently felt somewhat aggrieved by this presumption.


reviews sunday3j




7 June 1959


Anne Williamson, who worked with Suffolk Libraries at the time of this book's publication, remembers it well as being in great demand, being a book of local interest.


reviews sunday4


A reader was prompted to write in on reading this (the date his letter was published is unknown, but presumably the following week):






Henry Williamson seemed surprised to find hickory in "An Hour-Glass on the Run." Forty years ago when I was a small boy living in South Suffolk the gypsies still used hickory for making clothes pegs. My bow was hickory but from a hazel coppice.


Gerald W. Clarke





reviews sunday4a


reviews sunday4b        reviews sunday4c



4 June 1961


reviews sunday5




reviews sunday5a


reviews sunday5b



16 July 1961


In the literary archive there are two completely different versions of this review in galley proofs, sent to HW by The Sunday Times. The second version, a more considered assessment of the book, is that used for publication. On the manuscript of this HW notes that it was written on 10 July 1961, while he was staying with his friend Sir John Heygate at Bellarena in Northern Ireland.


reviews sunday6




 reviews sunday6c


The red strip on the back cover is a mark left by sellotape:


reviews sunday6d


reviews sunday6e           reviews sunday6f




The galley proof of the earlier review, the MSS of the published review and scans of the notes that HW made inside his review copy over several pages (with a transcript) are available on a separate page.



4 March 1962


(Taken from a photocopy)


reviews sunday7



15 December 1963


(Taken from a photocopy)


reviews sunday8



September 1964 (day of publication unknown)


HW was invited to review Ernest Parker's Into Battle: 1914-18 by the Literary Editor of The Sunday Times:


reviews sunday9a




Unfortunately, neither the press cutting nor the galley proof of HW's review survive in the archive. However, tucked into the review copy are the letter above and a two-page carbon-copy typescript  on thin paper. The typescript seems incomplete, but there are roughly 750 words here – more than twice the length asked for.


reviews sunday9b


reviews sunday9c




reviews sunday9d


reviews sunday9e         reviews sunday9f



October 1973 (day of publication unknown)


Unfortunately, neither the press cutting nor the galley proof of HW's review of this book survive in the archive, though there are both several drafts and a 'final' review that exist as carbon copies of the typescripts. First came this letter from the Literary Editor of The Sunday Times:


reviews sunday10a




Labelled 'Final copy', it must be presumed that this is the review as sent to and published in The Sunday Times:


reviews sunday10b


reviews sunday10c




reviews sunday10m


reviews sunday10n


HW inscribed the front endpaper thus:


reviews sunday10o




Draft reviews:


HW's first version of the review is labelled 'rejected', and 'bad':


reviews sunday10d


reviews sunday10e




Three further drafts follow, although in the first, the text on the second page doesn't follow on from the first, and seems to belong to a different draft:


reviews sunday10f


reviews sunday10g




reviews sunday10h


reviews sunday10i




reviews sunday10j


reviews sunday10k




And finally, what seems to have been a false start, quickly abandoned:


reviews sunday10l









Back to Book reviews main page