Liane Moriarty, Big Little Lies, Thomas Williams, Viking Britain: A History, Edith Wharton, The House of Mirth, Ian Mortimer, The Outcasts of Time, Mark Seddon & Francis Beckett, Jeremy Corbyn and the Strange Rebirth of Labour England, Mick Herron, Real Tigers, Daniel Defoe, Robinson Crusoe

Big Little Lies has been on my shelf for a while, but I started reading it as Helen had another Liane Moriarty book for her Book Club (I'm very jealous of Helen being in a book club). It's marketed as chick-lit, but it's actually a lot darker and revolves around dysfunctional relationships and domestic violence. the format makes it seem more light-hearted with the flashback interviews with clueless pompous parents. The House of Mirth was that rarity, an 'essential novel' that engaged me and wasn't too much of a slog. i loved the character of Lily too, a female protagonist trapped in a patriarchal society that limits her freedom of action, but who still manages to chart her own course. Outcasts of Time was disappointing, a time-travelling novel by an author whose history books I've enjoyed. it just seemed flat and a whistle-stop tour of what has changed from century to century. Forks! Mirrors! Trains!. Meh.  The Corbyn book I couldn't put down, so good to read a book where I agreed with practically every word and which gave a fine overview of Labour history and its current status. I really don't know what is going to happen with the party, part of me wants the Blairites to split off as they are undermining Corbyn so much by weaponising anti-semitism and Europe, and I don't believe for a second that the country is crying out for another liberal, pro-market party. Just like the SDP, it'd be immensely popular with a certain type of broadsheet reader, but no-one else. On the other hand, splitting the progressive vote just means the Conservatives get back in.  Real Tigers was fab, which seems odd for any novel where the climax is set in a warehouse in Hayes. Robinson Crusoe was hard work, I ended up skim-reading through. i understand its importance as arguably the first novel in the english language, but after 300 years of plot development and character building, it seems primitive and from the 'and then' school of children's creative writing. The introduction was very interesting, explaining that Defoe's motivation for writing the novel was entirely commercial, and in explaining the character of Robinson Crusoe as a protestant proto-imperialist. It is quite shocking how casual he is about selling his companion Xury into slavery, and assumes that everything on the island is his by right to exploit as he wishes.  I guess that's the 21st century interpretation of Crusoe though, but blimey, it was hard to believe some of his behaviour and assumptions