In the latest issue:

Real Men Go to Tehran

Adam Shatz

What Trump doesn’t know about Iran

Patrick Cockburn

Kaiser Karl V

Thomas Penn

The Hostile Environment

Catherine Hall

Social Mobilities

Adam Swift

Short Cuts: So much for England

Tariq Ali

What the jihadis left behind

Nelly Lahoud

Ray Strachey

Francesca Wade

C.J. Sansom

Malcolm Gaskill

At the British Museum: ‘Troy: Myth and Reality’

James Davidson

Poem: ‘The Lion Tree’

Jamie McKendrick


Jenny Turner

Boys in Motion

Nicholas Penny

‘Trick Mirror’

Lauren Oyler

Diary: What really happened in Yancheng?

Long Ling

Fog has no memoryJonathan Meades

Terms and Conditions

These terms and conditions of use refer to the London Review of Books and the London Review Bookshop website ( — hereafter ‘LRB Website’). These terms and conditions apply to all users of the LRB Website ("you"), including individual subscribers to the print edition of the LRB who wish to take advantage of our free 'subscriber only' access to archived material ("individual users") and users who are authorised to access the LRB Website by subscribing institutions ("institutional users").

Each time you use the LRB Website you signify your acceptance of these terms and conditions. If you do not agree, or are not comfortable with any part of this document, your only remedy is not to use the LRB Website.

  1. By registering for access to the LRB Website and/or entering the LRB Website by whatever route of access, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions currently prevailing.
  2. The London Review of Books ("LRB") reserves the right to change these terms and conditions at any time and you should check for any alterations regularly. Continued usage of the LRB Website subsequent to a change in the terms and conditions constitutes acceptance of the current terms and conditions.
  3. The terms and conditions of any subscription agreements which educational and other institutions have entered into with the LRB apply in addition to these terms and conditions.
  4. You undertake to indemnify the LRB fully for all losses damages and costs incurred as a result of your breaching these terms and conditions.
  5. The information you supply on registration to the LRB Website shall be accurate and complete. You will notify the LRB promptly of any changes of relevant details by emailing the registrar. You will not assist a non-registered person to gain access to the LRB Website by supplying them with your password. In the event that the LRB considers that you have breached the requirements governing registration, that you are in breach of these terms and conditions or that your or your institution's subscription to the LRB lapses, your registration to the LRB Website will be terminated.
  6. Each individual subscriber to the LRB (whether a person or organisation) is entitled to the registration of one person to use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site. This user is an 'individual user'.
  7. The London Review of Books operates a ‘no questions asked’ cancellation policy in accordance with UK legislation. Please contact us to cancel your subscription and receive a full refund for the cost of all unposted issues.
  8. Use of the 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is strictly for the personal use of each individual user who may read the content on the screen, download, store or print single copies for their own personal private non-commercial use only, and is not to be made available to or used by any other person for any purpose.
  9. Each institution which subscribes to the LRB is entitled to grant access to persons to register on and use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site under the terms and conditions of its subscription agreement with the LRB. These users are 'institutional users'.
  10. Each institutional user of the LRB may access and search the LRB database and view its entire contents, and may also reproduce insubstantial extracts from individual articles or other works in the database to which their institution's subscription provides access, including in academic assignments and theses, online and/or in print. All quotations must be credited to the author and the LRB. Institutional users are not permitted to reproduce any entire article or other work, or to make any commercial use of any LRB material (including sale, licensing or publication) without the LRB's prior written permission. Institutions may notify institutional users of any additional or different conditions of use which they have agreed with the LRB.
  11. Users may use any one computer to access the LRB web site 'subscriber only' content at any time, so long as that connection does not allow any other computer, networked or otherwise connected, to access 'subscriber only' content.
  12. The LRB Website and its contents are protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. You acknowledge that all intellectual property rights including copyright in the LRB Website and its contents belong to or have been licensed to the LRB or are otherwise used by the LRB as permitted by applicable law.
  13. All intellectual property rights in articles, reviews and essays originally published in the print edition of the LRB and subsequently included on the LRB Website belong to or have been licensed to the LRB. This material is made available to you for use as set out in paragraph 8 (if you are an individual user) or paragraph 10 (if you are an institutional user) only. Save for such permitted use, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt such material in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department.
  14. All intellectual property rights in images on the LRB Website are owned by the LRB except where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited. Save for such material taken for permitted use set out above, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt LRB’s images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department. Where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, reproduce or translate such images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. The LRB will not undertake to supply contact details of any attributed or credited copyright holder.
  15. The LRB Website is provided on an 'as is' basis and the LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website will be accessible by any particular browser, operating system or device.
  16. The LRB makes no express or implied representation and gives no warranty of any kind in relation to any content available on the LRB Website including as to the accuracy or reliability of any information either in its articles, essays and reviews or in the letters printed in its letter page or material supplied by third parties. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) arising from the publication of any materials on the LRB Website or incurred as a consequence of using or relying on such materials.
  17. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) for any legal or other consequences (including infringement of third party rights) of any links made to the LRB Website.
  18. The LRB is not responsible for the content of any material you encounter after leaving the LRB Website site via a link in it or otherwise. The LRB gives no warranty as to the accuracy or reliability of any such material and to the fullest extent permitted by law excludes all liability that may arise in respect of or as a consequence of using or relying on such material.
  19. This site may be used only for lawful purposes and in a manner which does not infringe the rights of, or restrict the use and enjoyment of the site by, any third party. In the event of a chat room, message board, forum and/or news group being set up on the LRB Website, the LRB will not undertake to monitor any material supplied and will give no warranty as to its accuracy, reliability, originality or decency. By posting any material you agree that you are solely responsible for ensuring that it is accurate and not obscene, defamatory, plagiarised or in breach of copyright, confidentiality or any other right of any person, and you undertake to indemnify the LRB against all claims, losses, damages and costs incurred in consequence of your posting of such material. The LRB will reserve the right to remove any such material posted at any time and without notice or explanation. The LRB will reserve the right to disclose the provenance of such material, republish it in any form it deems fit or edit or censor it. The LRB will reserve the right to terminate the registration of any person it considers to abuse access to any chat room, message board, forum or news group provided by the LRB.
  20. Any e-mail services supplied via the LRB Website are subject to these terms and conditions.
  21. You will not knowingly transmit any virus, malware, trojan or other harmful matter to the LRB Website. The LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website is free from contaminating matter, viruses or other malicious software and to the fullest extent permitted by law disclaims all liability of any kind including liability for any damages, losses or costs resulting from damage to your computer or other property arising from access to the LRB Website, use of it or downloading material from it.
  22. The LRB does not warrant that the use of the LRB Website will be uninterrupted, and disclaims all liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred as a result of access to the LRB Website being interrupted, modified or discontinued.
  23. The LRB Website contains advertisements and promotional links to websites and other resources operated by third parties. While we would never knowingly link to a site which we believed to be trading in bad faith, the LRB makes no express or implied representations or warranties of any kind in respect of any third party websites or resources or their contents, and we take no responsibility for the content, privacy practices, goods or services offered by these websites and resources. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability for any damages or losses arising from access to such websites and resources. Any transaction effected with such a third party contacted via the LRB Website are subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the third party involved and the LRB accepts no responsibility or liability resulting from such transactions.
  24. The LRB disclaims liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred for unauthorised access or alterations of transmissions or data by third parties as consequence of visit to the LRB Website.
  25. While 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is currently provided free to subscribers to the print edition of the LRB, the LRB reserves the right to impose a charge for access to some or all areas of the LRB Website without notice.
  26. These terms and conditions are governed by and will be interpreted in accordance with English law and any disputes relating to these terms and conditions will be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
  27. The various provisions of these terms and conditions are severable and if any provision is held to be invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction then such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the remaining provisions.
  28. If these terms and conditions are not accepted in full, use of the LRB Website must be terminated immediately.
The Tiger in the Smoke: Art and Culture in Postwar Britain 
by Lynda Nead.
Yale, 416 pp., £35, October 2017, 978 0 300 21460 4
Show More
Show More

Lynda Nead​ ’s new study of the ways in which postwar Britain was represented by what was not yet called its media is tirelessly oblique. She contrives to see everything through the reductionist lenses of colour and colourlessness. She leans heavily on Raymond Williams’s notion of a ‘structure of feeling’ which supposedly defines the ‘particular and characteristic colour of a period’. What Williams intended by ‘colour’ was ever-changing mood, constant only in its intangible slipperiness. The idea demands faith in a collective consciousness, evanescent, resistant to analysis and not capable of articulation save by example. Mood is closely related to, if not exactly synonymous with, the received idea or la pensée unique or, heaven help us, the zeitgeist – save that it has not quite arrived. Vagueness is hardly explained by further vagueness. Searching for something tangible to hang on to, Nead takes Williams’s ‘colour’ literally: skin colour, food colour, bombsite colour, housecoat colour (really), Sunday afternoon colour, kitchen sink colour and, most insistently, meteorological colour.

Roy Ward Baker’s ‘Tiger in the Smoke’ (1956)

Roy Ward Baker’s ‘Tiger in the Smoke’ (1956)

In The Tiger in the Smoke, fog and smog are ubiquitous. They are past and present, a continuum from the High Victorian age to the New Elizabethan age, which was also, according to Nead, the first neo-Victorian age. They possess a palette that is specific to them and to the gobs of phlegm they provoke, known in Partick and Govan as Glasgow Oysters (London Peculiars and London Particulars excite more genteel expectorations). The ‘characteristic colour’ she assigns to the period – 1945-60 – is a foggy sort of greyish brown. Dickens’s monumental fog in Bleak House is perhaps correctly reckoned by Nead to be metaphorical. She doesn’t state what it’s a metaphor for. Presumably the torpid, sclerotic chaos of Chancery. But the impasto fog and smog (a coinage not made till 1904) were also real. They were insouciant evidence of what we now recognise as the grubby dawn of the Anthropocene.

The questionable maxim in Our Mutual Friend that England suffers a ‘national dread of colour’ is surprisingly overlooked by Nead. It should be there because it explicitly supports one of her disputable cardinal points. It should also alert us that Dickens was a fabulist for whom exaggeration was a norm. His most engrossing works were hyperrealist and chromatically inaccurate. He lived in an age of polychromatic brickwork, dazzlingly bright inflammable crinolines, gilded smoking rooms, saturated ottomans, luminous painting, garish advertisement hoardings and the Great Exhibition. Its gaudy vulgarity appalled such aesthetes as William Morris and, retrospectively, Nikolaus Pevsner, who wrote of Victorian manufacture’s ‘rank growth’.

Dickens was true neither to life nor to his age. He was a cartoonist rather than a documentarist – not that the veracity of documentarists is to be trusted any more than that of cartoonists. He railed against social ills of his own invention, and living conditions that had disappeared by the time he described them. The adjective ‘Dickensian’ is so widely applied that it has become meaningless: urchins, smuts, back-to-backs, urban indigence, foundlings, gluttony, gross sentimentality – they all answer to it. To evoke a society through reference to its most distinguished, most protean artists is usually a hazardous enterprise. In seeking a record or snapshot it disregards the manipulations, the omissions, the wild anachronisms and the very inventions that cause the artist to be reckoned ‘great’.

Nead is apprised of this but sometimes forgetful. She has a taste for the exceptional. She admires Bill Brandt, noting that as well as making exquisite photographs he collected Victorian furniture, which often appears in the photographs. She goes on to say that these two endeavours combine to signal ‘a deep longing for an essential national heritage and identity’. She illustrates this claim with several works that exhibit Brandt’s sedulous mises en scène. One is of Shoreditch backyards. Brandt’s demonstrative art mitigates the photograph’s efficacy as illustration. It is specific, ordered, an obvious pastiche of Gustave Doré, rather than displaying the generalised ‘Victorianism’ which Nead finds lurking everywhere.

By piling film upon painting upon print upon novel Nead exaggerates this fashion’s role in the ‘structure of feeling’. ‘Victorianism’s extended cultural reach’ evidently strained every sinew. It apparently infects the 1947 film of Brighton Rock, based on Graham Greene’s novel of 1938. With the exception of Ida’s Pierrot troupe there is little in the film to suggest any link to Victorian England. But then the ‘structure of feeling’ is a woolly conceit, almost a faith. Proof isn’t required. A Brighton film of two years earlier, Robert Hamer’s delightfully sinister Pink String and Sealing Wax, set, to judge by the costumes, in the 1880s, does indeed have ‘Victorianism’ written all over it, as does Hamer’s subsequent Kind Hearts and Coronets. But neither of these is scrutinised by Nead, maybe because they are pure period pieces and – I surmise – the conditions for a ‘structure of feeling’ are only satisfied if there is a perceived reciprocity between present and past. One has, perhaps, to be an initiate of ‘feeling’ to detect this temporal exchange. When Nead describes Miss Havisham’s Satis House in David Lean’s adaptation of Great Expectations (1946) as a ‘Gothic bombsite’ – which it wasn’t – we are assured that it exhibits the ‘colour of the period’, which seems to mean low-key lighting, glutinous blackness and overwrought decor.

Cinema is as much an auditory medium as a visual one and should be treated as such. Great Expectations’s score is in the mid-century, modernist-lite idiom created when the Second Vienna School was instructed not to upset the children. The dialogue is at functional pitch, tending towards Classics Illustrated. Nead calls this adaptation ‘Dickens Noir’, an epithet which would be more useful had Noir not become such a hackneyed suffix. ‘What,’ she wonders, ‘did this fabulous cinematography mean to postwar audiences and how did it relate to the greyscale aesthetics of the fog and the bombsites?’ The answer, probably, is very little indeed, at least consciously. Cinema was mass spectacle, an entertainment. The habit of analysis had yet to be widely learned. Tellingly, The Tiger in the Smoke’s copious notes refer to few sources contemporary with the films Nead discusses. There was no British equivalent of the theorist André Bazin. British film studies were still in utero. Lindsay Anderson and Gavin Lambert didn’t start the student magazine Sequence till a year after Great Expectations appeared. Anderson, it goes without saying, despised David Lean.

Another energetic hater, Wyndham Lewis, wrote of London in his novel Rotting Hill (1951): ‘a monstrous derelict of a city, built upon a bog and cursed with world famous fogs: every home in it has a crack from the blast of a bomb and dies at last of chronic dry rot.’ This was a commonplace opinion. Anti-urbanism had been an English (though not Scottish) norm since the 1870s. The city was reckoned toxic. The suburbs were favoured because they were thought to offer safe shelter and an unpolluted atmosphere. Rotting Hill appeared in the year of the Festival of Britain, when the middle class’s stuttering reclamation of the inner city still lay some years in the future. That demographic shift, ‘gentrification’ (Ruth Glass’s coinage of 1964), was at least partly occasioned by the 1956 Clean Air Act. The Act’s effects were, however, only gradually noticed. One of my teenage pleasures in the mid-1960s was getting lost in peasoupers the colour of a flasher’s mac. The fog, pace countless cinematic representations, didn’t swirl. It was an endless static wall to be walked through.

Nead’s title, The Tiger in the Smoke, is lifted from a thriller by Margery Allingham from 1952, which was made into a film four years later. London is a site of danger and menace. Hark, hark, the dogs do bark – a band of peripatetic buskers, stumbling in single file, begs importunately and steals. Its leader (played by a choice cut of period beefcake called Tony Wright) is a murderer. They might be revenants from a Neue Sachlichkeit painting. Fog permeates every shot. It seeps into houses. According to Nead: ‘The fogs of the 1950s were different … from the fogs of Conan Doyle and Henry James. They drew on the accumulated meanings of the Victorian fogs, but they were also distinctively modern.’ This is, at best, questionable, quasi-anthropomorphic, ascribing to fogs memory and mimetic capacities.

Nead goes on to grant meaning to other inanimate objects: immigrants’ clothes, knick-knacks, domestic appliances, packaging. She seems unwilling to accept that the world is neither meaningful nor meaningless but that it just is. The ‘kitchen sink’ painters insisted that they had no political or social programme, that they did not constitute a ‘school’. Too late. As Nead observes, they were ‘rendered ideological by the critical discourse of the period’, that’s to say, by John Berger’s insistence that they were ‘engaged’ whether they liked it or not. Their drab everyday subjects and their exaggerated reprise of the Camden Town Group’s brand of murky domestic realism lent plausibility to Berger’s interpretation.

‘Rendered ideological’ is the fate of just about everything Nead surveys. Sundays are polarised as slow hours to be fought over by the sabbatarians of the Lord’s Day Observance Society on one side and, on the other, just about everyone else save enslaved ‘mothers’ who spent the morning preparing a contender for the three most depressing words in the language, Traditional Sunday Lunch. She quotes part of a letter to Picture Post from the Reverend Marcus Morris who refers to the society’s members as ‘cranks and fanatics’: there is no indication Nead knows that Morris was the founder and publisher of Eagle, the most instructive of 1950s comics and quite the most colourful. Mass Observation’s investigations into behaviour on Sundays were perhaps not widespread but they did give that organisation’s ‘reporters’ something to occupy themselves with. Nead’s intriguing assumption that ‘social investigation and spying might … be numbered amongst the customary activities of the English on postwar Sundays’ suggests that net curtains across the country hid an army of prying neighbours to rival the Stasi’s.

This does not accord with my memory of Sundays in the 1950s. There was, for any child of the petite bourgeoisie, a lot of sitting in a car outside pubs with uncrisp crisps and a hallucinatorily bright fizzy drink. But there was also the beach at Friars Cliff (friable, shifting lagoons), the western side of the New Forest (beware amanita muscaria) and Huckles Brook, the ruins at Wardour, at Great Witley and Highcliff, the entire populace of Birmingham parked on the bank of the Avon at Evesham (IPA from the bottle and pedalos). Sundays were fun, and they culminated in sugared, diluted whisky.

Bert Hardy’s model for a Picture Post feature entitled ‘Big City Loneliness’, a state exacerbated on Sundays, was the young Katharine Whitehorn, described by Nead as ‘a journalist who went on to work for Picture Post’, which is a bizarrely emaciated description of one of the most celebrated journalists of her era. The reliance on Picture Post as a point of reference is both extensive and partial: Nead uses it intelligently, though she is perhaps disinclined to acknowledge that its world-view was as parti pris as that of, say, the Daily Telegraph. She also overlooks the defining role its former journalists played in the establishment of BBC television’s reportorial and documentary conventions. Kenneth Allsop, Fyfe Robertson, James Cameron, Trevor Philpot, Robert Kee and Slim Hewitt (‘the scourge of Nuneaton’), all worked for it. The roles of writer, photographer and even picture editor often overlapped.

‘Memories of the late 1940s and 1950s are monochrome,’ according to Nead. ‘People recall these years through veils of mist and shades of grey, conjuring images of black and white photography or newsreel.’ Do they? People, I suspect, have been so often told that this was the palette attached to that decade and a half that they unquestioningly accept it. It is an old chromatic cliché. Edward VI’s coat of arms is twice displayed in Sherborne, a small town in Dorset. One, very grand, is above a gateway. The second, smaller and framed by fluted ionic pilasters, is above a door in a courtyard; its heraldic beasts look doltishly rancorous. Both devices are painted gold (or), muted cherry red (gules) and a chalky gouache-like royal blue (azure). The last is a colour seldom used for many years, and rarely encountered. It seems to be faintly bleached but then it always was. When I do see it – and it has to be precise – it is an instant trigger of distant infancy. I am sharply returned to the 1950s, to my child self. I am once again, for a fugitive moment, a New Elizabethan.

This hue, which works on the colour receptor in my brain, is impervious to simulation. It is unknown both to Pantone (though it isn’t that far from 18-4537) and to the British Colour Council’s 1951 chart, which included ‘Nigger Brown’. An RGB toy on my computer fails to conjure a plausible likeness: all it can manage is an approximation and, anyway, a surprise staged by oneself for oneself is no surprise. It is evident that new means of reproduction inhibit accurate imitation. Colours are amended beyond recognition or disappear: the technology which determines them is overtaken, they go out of fashion, they fade, they self-destruct like early acrylics. Even today’s ‘black and white’ – aesthetic choice or affectation rather than necessity – is instantly distinguishable from that of Picture Post. Not just because of the tones of the magazine’s chiaroscuro photography, which, like cinematic neo-expressionism, derived from Weimar and the diaspora after 1933, but also its film stock, its printing methods, its page layout and its paper quality – soft and shiver-making like high-grade blotting paper.

As a vehicle for discussing the experience of West Indian immigrants, Nead’s choice of Sapphire (1959) – a ‘colour bar problem film’ according to the BFI’s Monthly Film Bulletin – is odd because its specificities are evidently unusual. A thriller about a murdered ‘lilyskin’, a mixed-race woman who can pass for white, it is however useful as a means of demonstrating clumsy liberal patronisation of black people. The Daily Worker’s critic Nina Hibbin wrote that the film ‘is perilously near to becoming a justification [for a colour bar]’. The same producer and director, Michael Relph and Basil Dearden, burdened with good intentions, would, a couple of years later in Victim, demonstrate the same clumsy liberal patronisation of homosexuals. Whether these didactic exhibitions of minoritarian decency and special pleading were anything more than worthy exercises in self-congratulation is moot. Picture Post, again, is more pertinent, asking: ‘Is There a British Colour Bar?’ To which the answer must have been yes – but with qualifications. The sociologist Michael Banton believed there was unquestionable racial discrimination while holding the view that ‘women attracted to coloured men appear to be nymphomaniacs.’ The fear of the stranger, of the other, of miscegenation and its outcome, was profound: ‘fruit of frightful mésalliances’ as the novelist Howard Spring charmingly put it. Long before the Windrush docked at Tilbury there had been, over centuries, many immigrants to Britain. Spring was referring to Tiger Bay, where, in the great tradition of tribalism, there were race riots in 1919. Brian Vesey-Fitzgerald, sometime editor of the Field, observed in 1940: ‘There is not much Hampshire in Southampton. Voices from every corner of the globe but few, very few, from Hampshire.’ The ethnic make-up of the port had seldom fomented racial violence. In the period Nead covers that would come later on, in Notting Hill (more precisely Notting Dale), the ‘little Napoli’ of Colin MacInnes’s 1959 novel Absolute Beginners, which Nead doesn’t mention. Perhaps because it is essentially an observational feature article posing as a novel, it pins down ‘the particular and characteristic colour of a period’ with a sympathetic deftness that eludes Nead’s roster of sociologists, race relations writers, dress historians, cultural historians, design historians and history historians.

Send Letters To:

The Editor
London Review of Books,
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

Please include name, address, and a telephone number.

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.