I browsed through that book once but tossed it aside. I didn’t think it was very well-written, and I found many of the ideas in it hackneyed and commonplace. As others have said, she exaggerates her points for effect, and the whole thing just reads like a very long version of some light-hearted newspaper column about how quirky we Brits can be. There are germs of truth in it, yes. But it’s just one person’s take, and not a particularly insightful take from what I saw of it.
Looking at her publication history, Fox appears to be a lightweight who spends most of her time in pubs.
There’s a glamorous picture, too. If she has 3 gal-pals, they could make the London Reality TV version of Sex & the City!
For someone who’s not British, you surely do spell a lot of your words as if you are. (Emphasis mine.)
Are you Canadian? Or just pretentious? 
It’s about 10% accurate observation and the rest is bullshit. It’s also coloured by the perceptions of someone brought up and educated in an immensely privileged position in society. It’s the anthropology of an upper middle-class writer and her upper middle class friends.
To the OP: So, don’t go visit England. Why reading this book would make you feel “patriotic” eludes me. America is fraught with unspoken, complicated “rules” governing social behavior. Or do you live in Mayberry? (which as some of the most complicated rules of all)
Do you think your not going to England matters a damn to anyone British? They’re drowning in tourists and sometimes I feel bad for them: to try to live your normal life while constantly tripping over strangers cannot be pleasant. Maybe that’s why I’m on my best behavior in UK (and Paris and anywhere else that acts as a tourist magnet. I live in dread fear of being that Ugly American–and I’ve seen horrid American behavior in Europe, but that’s another thread).
I have been to UK several times, traveling from London to Dover, up to Durham and bits of Surrey (and I do not claim to have “seen England or UK”; there is so much to see and do, I wish I could live there for a summer). In all my travels there, I have encountered True Rudeness exactly once: a cabbie in Dover. No sooner did I get in his cab and tell him where I needed to go (the train station) than he started in on “American tourists who think they can experience a country in less than a week” etc. He really pissed me off. He wasn’t being funny or taking the piss or showing that famous British humor (which I adore). He was an asshole. And NO, I did NOT tip him (heinous crime).
If I was to judge all my trips there on that one encounter, I’d say all Englanders were boors and louts and should be slapped upside the head. But to counter this lovely man, there were the many shopkeepers who were extremely helpful to me re directions and places to see; the volunteer guide lady who made jokes in Westminster Abby about Elizabeth I and Mary Tudor, as well as Camilla Parker Bowles (this predates that royal marriage); the nice older ladies on the Thames boat tour who discussed everything from flowers to UK/US relations with me, the fish and chips guy who said, “Bang, bang” with a wink as soon as I answered Chicago when he asked where I was from; the cabbie who let my youngest son sit behind the wheel so we could get a pic of him driving a London cab-he offered, we didn’t think to ask. I have met all manner of nice, friendly, genuine people in UK on my travels. But, perhaps my preference for more formal manners, an innate shyness and a willingness to open myself up to the country have something to do with it. I would think that any traveler should be aware that they are off their home turf and that they may encounter new rules and expectations. Diffidence and a smile will get you far in any country.
There was one thing in a London pub. I was traveling with my 13 year old daughter and we wanted a good, inexpensive meal. The pub near our B&B seemed very nice, and not too pricey (and thank god they put the menus out on placards in UK and Europe–thank you for that). I was not at all sure if they would allow her to eat in the pub (hell, in US, she’d never get even in the door to use the toilet). I had her wait in the vestibule, approached the bar (doing a roaring trade–this was Friday night), leaned in, caught the publican’s eye (a woman) and yelled (I had to yell to be heard) my question. Of course they would be happy to serve us dinner–but in the back. I think it was called the snug. We had a great meal, and a great time, watching the crowd and being a part of it, while not in the midst of it. It was fantastic. I’d go back tomorrow in a heartbeat.
(1) Humans are social creatures. It’s not that huge a burden to expect that going out in public entails the possibility of having to interact with other people.
(2) Such interactions are infrequent, generally brief and are just as likely to be pleasant as not. Why would you fear it?
(3) If someone really doesn’t want to talk, it’s not that hard to respond in a manner that discourages further interaction. There are occasionally a few people who don’t get the message, but it’s pretty rare.
(4) “Much better things to be doing with your journey?” What? Are you performing brain surgery? Communing with alien life forms? I’m a habitual reader myself, but I really can’t see getting upset at having to pause in my reading for a brief interaction with another human being.
(5) The train is pretty crowded. Often you’re crushed up against a bunch of strangers anyway with no room to move your arms. If the person staring you in the face for the next 15 minutes wants to talk to you, is that so horrible?
If you’re going to be touching, then it seems only polite to acknowledge the other person’s existence before you do so.
What I’m saying is that – compared to the world that Fox describes – a stranger in America is much less likely to commit a faux pas at all, because while, yes, there is such thing as a social misstep in American culture, the “social misstep” category includes a much smaller category of possible behaviours.
That’s a strong possibility. I spent a lot of time buried in Fox’s minute descriptions of social conventions and came to the surface with an extreme impression of English culture. The reason I started this thread is to find out whether this impression was exaggerated. It looks like this is the case, after all.
Eh, when it comes to spelling, I tend to go with the flow. I grew up with as many non-American books as American books, so I’ve always been comfortable with both. Since I came into this thread having read a book full of British spellings, I decided to stick with it.
Thanks for this insight!
A lot of the stuff that didn’t seem exaggerated, also didn’t seem unusual to me either. So I kept wondering whether she was misidentifying a range of social conventions as being “English” when they really applied to a much larger set. For example, Fox makes a big deal about in-jokes, nicknames, and other shibboleths among pub regulars and staff. It seems to me that that kind of thing would be common for any group of people who spend a lot of time together. Isn’t this just an indication that the people in question spend a lot of time in this pub?
Fox goes into a lot of detail on class differences. On the one hand, a lot of it struck me as kind of old-fashioned. On the other hand, a lot of the general ideas about class differentiation seems to me to be applicable to any society, and don’t seem to be limited to English society.
Additionally, in a lot of cases, Fox seems to say one thing and then turn around and contradict herself. One example that comes to mind is the “rule” that one shouldn’t talk on one’s mobile telephone in public, and that people are always complaining about it. Well, if people are always annoying other people by talking on their cell phones, then it’s not really a very strong social rule, is it?
Here’s another one I had a question about: Fox says that tipping is not customary in a pub; however, a patron may offer to buy the server a drink, which the server will later drink in a manner such that the patron sees that his gift is being enjoyed. Well, what if the server doesn’t drink? Or what if he or she doesn’t want a drink that night? Or what if he or she has been bought too many drinks already? Or what if the landlord doesn’t want the staff consuming intoxicating substances while on duty?
For those interested in further Fox statements, there’s a section in which she goes into the popularity of home improvement (D.I.Y.):
I’m inclined to apply snoopygal’s observation that this passage stems from Fox’s privileged background rather than something generally true of English people as a whole.
I think we’ve pretty much established the book is a poor analysis of English culture. Continuing to repeat it won’t change anything. 
Yes. This is normal, world-wide human behaviour.
Again, nonsense. Mobile phone use is viewed *exactly the same way *as it is in the US.
Because it’s nonsense again. The way to tip bar staff is, indeed, to say “and one for yourself” when paying; and the bartender will take out a certain amount from the change. They’ll then either put it in a tip jar, or buy themselves a drink with it, or whatever they (a) want to do and (b) are expected/allowed to do by their employer.
It sounds to me that this book is a trivial and non-insightful look at English culture and is designed to entertain rather than inform. Of all the examples you keep producing from it, none of them hold true - and, indeed, show that Fox either deeply misunderstands her own culture or is being deliberately humourous/disingenuous/whatever in order to please the demographic towards whom the book is marketed.
This is baloney of the very worst sort, i.e. phoney.
The picture that Fox paints often is of a people who are extremely uncomfortable in their own skin and almost comically ill-suited to social interaction.
Fox on the “Awkwardness” rule:
Fox seems to be saying that upon encountering someone, you’re almost obligated to be awkward and embarrassed. Would it really be considered weird for someone to just smile and say “Hi, John, how are you doing? It’s good to see you.” I’m skeptical, because I’m under the impression that a lot of the set phrases that we Americans use upon meeting each other came from English culture in the first place.
Fox on the “No-name Rule”:
So, really? It’s gauche to introduce yourself in a social setting? Over here, it would be strange to fail to identify yourself before initiating communication. You’d want to anticipate the first thought in the other person’s mind: “Who the hell are you?”
Kate Fox has taken me for a ride, hasn’t she? It’s like a fictional Bertie Wooster world.
Ah hah. Fox does mention the “and one for yourself” verbiage, but she doesn’t indicate that the server has an option to take it in cash.
This is a relief. I thank all the Englishpeople who have patiently fought my ignorance here.
I’m happy to convert this thread into a “point and laugh at Kate Fox’s misunderstanding or disingenuousness about English culture.”
If anyone is interested in more juicy quotes, I’m happy to oblige.
I can relate to her urge, though. We (U.S.) Southerners both love our home, and are keenly aware of some of the hidebound traditions that, in some ways, circumscribe life here. We can be a strange and quirky bunch, and we’ve embraced that in a lot of ways. We can also have a tendency to make much ado about social interactions (see the inevitable discussion of “Bless your heart” when it comes up).
One must be aware, however, that there is always a bit of exaggeration involved.
I’m an American who generally prefers to initiate the dialogue in some other way than "Hi! I’m… " The latter seems to lack imagination and smacks of a business convention.
I don’t consider someone’s name the most crucial thing to know right at the start… more important would be our “relatability” or something about the stranger’s basic personality.
Don’t know if that equates to “thinking British” or not.
Also this Ms Fox seems to think from the excerpts that London=England and or UK.
It ain’t.
I did explain what she got wrong about ‘and one for yourself’ several posts ago.
The name thing is kinda true. You wouldn’t usually introduce yourself by name before you’ve even said anything else. If you did, though, people wouldn’t cringe - that’s ridiculous; it would just be subconsciously noticed as a bit unusual, maybe even a bit American, not something to judge you harshly for. Maybe the tourist was talking too loudly, hence the cringing? The ‘loud American tourists’ stereotype has a basis in truth, though of course not for all American tourists - fewer than it was true for a few years ago, I think.
Or maybe it was completely unrelated to their nationality; they’d had garlic bread and were leaning close to talk to someone in a noisy room. 
Or perhaps they were drunk and suddenly leaned into someone else’s conversation and introduced themselves. So many possible reasons that are more likely than an apparent phobia of names.
It doesn’t seem like a bad book - she hasn’t taken you for a ride. You’re just taking it a bit too seriously.
I don’t know of anyone, in any first world country, who doesn’t want to change something about the house/flat/condo/abode they’ve just purchased/rented etc. That is fundamental to human nature–to put it crudely, to mark your territory. Couple that with the way home decor fashions change over time and it’s a given that the For Sale sign comes down and the ripping out begins.
I think Ms Fox has a genius for the obvious. How any of the above is singular to UK escapes me.
I’d say actually the “no name” thing was reasonably accurate. Share a brief chat with someone, and it’s just two strangers momentarily talking. Once you start bringing in personal information, even something as simple as a name, it does tend to imply you expect them to share back. I suppose the flipside of that is, if you’re only going to be talking to someone for a short time, why do you need to know their name? Too, it seems a bit formal. To my British ears, the “Hi, my name is X from X” formula seems a bit too stiff and businesslike, especially in a pub.
I think I have accepted that Fox’s descriptions are descriptions of the behavioural tendencies of individuals that Fox has encountered, or at the most characteristics of specific social classes or groups rather than cultural characteristics of the English.
But just for the purpose of discussion, taking Fox at face value on the issue of DIY, I don’t think what I quoted can be called universal human characteristics: No one I know goes into a house feeling that they must “rip something out” regardless of its state of wear. This is assuming that “ripping something out” constitutes something more than painting the walls, changing wall hangings, rugs, drapery, and unfixed furniture, and would require the use of construction tools to actually uninstall some fixture (for example, installed cabinetry, fixed carpeting, walls, doors, windows, and plumbing fixtures) and installing a replacement.
In fact, most people I know would be delighted to find a suitable dwelling in which nothing is in such a worn state that it requires being ripped out. What I don’t know is whether this is a cultural characteristic or just a characteristic of some people.
I think that the term “ripping out” is needlessly dramatic and that if she had said “people who have just moved in like to change things to suit themselves” we would all have realized that such behavior is not uniquely British in the slightest. In fact, IMO, she is running contrary to her own stereotype in that she is NOT understating or going for the laconic. She probably needs a cuppa to calm herself.
I wouldn’t say it quite that way either – it’s a rather caricature-like formula. But if I were at a social occasion, say a party, wedding, or night out with the guys, I would introduce myself by name at some point early in any conversation with strangers, and I would expect the same in return. It would feel weird to me having a conversation of more than a few sentences with someone who hadn’t told me his or her name at some point.
In fact, the saying your name bit at the end of the conversation strikes me as something that happens more often at professional gatherings, like conferences and conventions. You approach a vendor’s booth, or someone makes a critical comment about a presentation and a conversation begins without an introduction because people are more focused on an abstract informational topic rather than each other as people.
But at a social gathering, where the purpose is social interaction – there I would expect early self-introductions.
I’m coming around to the idea that this is the best way of looking at it. Fox speaks in hyperbole and when you strip out the hyperbole, what she’s describing is not specific to the English.