Ok, so the last time we broke down the text of Catullus 1 to allow anyone who read the Latin without master the language. That, for the sake of speed and my own sanity I cannot exactly replicate here, but what I can do is provide the Latin, and then an English translation with some notes that will be of interest. My translations, too, stick as closely to the meaning of the original as possible in prose. Virgil is one of my favourite poets from antiquity, mostly because he wrote of ordinary people, and was able to sympathize with them in such a profoundly meaningful way in both his Eclogues and his Georgics. His epic poem The Aeneid is also a fine adventure story in it's own right, and a worthy successor to Homer's two epics in the Ancient Greek. Since the Eclogues are long, and there are ten of them in total, I thought that it may be best to break them down into sections so they are more easily manageable. I plan to do each Eclogue in at least three parts, but since I have not finished translating them all myself it may take a while before I can talk about them all in the level detail I want to go into. So what is an Eclogue? When encountering the Eclogues for the first time it is very important to understand the work that influenced Virgil, and he is now using, to understand what he was trying to do. The Eclogues are often also called the 'Bucolic' and should be thought of as pastoral poems, poems on rural themes and peasant farmers. This poetic tradition seems to have came from the Arcadia area of Greece, and Arcadia has long been associated with images of paradise, perfection, and of a simple and pleasant life. Eclogue/Bucolic/pastoral poems were for many people perfected with Theocritus's Bucolic poems, called the Idylls. In Theocritus's poems we find farmers enter into singing contests, of sang to their flock as a from of entertainment, which is a tradition still alive in places like the Balkens in eastern Europe. We know about this thanks to the work of who is The name in Homeric scholarship, Mathew Perry. We also find women who, suffering of a broken heart, is creating a love tonic in a crazed panic, showing there is room in pastoral poetry for more than just talking about the farm and the wild life. This genre of poetry exists even today, and can be found in the work of Seamus Heaney and Robert Frost. Robert Frost even wrote a version of Eclogue 1 in his poem 'Build Soil - A Political Pastoral'. On to the poem itself, which during it's 83 lines deals with two characters, Meliboeus and Tityrus interacting. The poem is a conversation, and one that starts off with: Meliboeus Tityre, tu patulae recubans sub tegmine fagi silvestrem tenui Musam meditaris avena; nos patriae fines et dulcia linquimus arva. nos patriam fugimus; tu, Tityre, lentus in umbra formosam resonare doces Amaryllida silvas. In English this is essentially: Meliboeus Tityrus, you are dosing under that beech tree sheild cover, meditating on the muses of woods with your pipe; we however are outcasts leaving our countries boundaries and our sweet home farms. We are fleeing our homes and you, Tityrus, are cool in that shade, teaching the woods to sing back with beautiful Amaryllis. What this opening stanza does is introduce us to the character of Meliboeus, and it also sets the scene of the poem. The characters are in a woodland, that seems well lit because Tityrus is lazing in the cover of a tree playing a pipe reed. The pipe reed also indicates he is a shepherd, since the pipe reed was long associated with shepherds and pan, people close to nature, since Theocritus's time some few hundred years before Virgil. We also in this stanza get a hint as to the subject of the poem. Meliboeus is part of a 'we' that is now on the move. He is fleeing because of something, but it cannot be danger, as why is Tityrus also not running? We will find out more about Meliboeus's situation later in the poem. This stanza ends with a subtle sex joke. Amaryllis is a type of flower common to the Mediterranean. Amaryllis is also a young woman who appears often in Ancient Greek pastoral poetry, and she is often represented as very beautiful and innocent. The name means something like ‘Mrs Sparkle’, and Virgil likely encountered this name in Theocritus’s Idyll 3. If Tityrus was to 'sing' with Amaryllis, he is not only to sing with the flowers, and sing with an image of innocence and beauty (which is often the theme of pastoral poetry) but Tityrus is also teaching the woods to sing back to her, making the woman 'sing' by bringing her to orgasm. Meliboeus seems worked up in any case, as he talks to Tityrus quite sharply and directly, with the two uses of 'tu' or 'you'. Meliboeus also uses the word 'tegmine' which is in some ways a military word for cover, like the shield in a testudo when talking about the tree protecting Tityrus from the sun. Could this be a hint at Meliboeus's problem? We will find out, as Tityrus responds with: Tityrus O Meliboee, deus nobis haec otia fecit. namque erit ille mihi semper deus, illius aram saepe tener nostris ab ovilibus imbuet agnus. ille meas errare boves, ut cernis, et ipsum ludere quae vellem calamo permisit agresti. In English this is essentially this: Tityrus Oh Meliboeus, a noble god has given us a reason to enjoy ourselves. And yes, he will always be a god to me now, for his altar there will always be a lamb to slaughter from my own flock. As you can see, he has allowed my cows to wander freely, and let me play what ever music I want on my reed pipe. Tityrus's remark here is pretty flippant, and rather insensitive to Melibeous's pain. This may make Tityrus seem like a bit of a jerk, but we need to understand things from his perspective, something this stanza allows us to do. He is sitting in the shade of a large tree, watching over his flock of cows as they do ... something, most likely grazing, and he is playing a reed pipe. In short, he is happily minding his own business. Then, suddenly, along comes Meliboeus to comment in him. To suggest Tityrus is trying to somehow lighten Meliboeus's spirits with his own good news might be giving Tityrus too much credit. It is more the case that Tityrus was in a good mood and was simply not thinking about trying to console Meliboeus over his woes. This is obviously insensitive, but it also feels very real. It does appear to be an example of excellent characterization on Virgil's part, because his character has made a mistake, but one that we have surely all made before. Tityrus in his stanza talks in praise of a 'god' and it becomes quickly apparent with his comment 'namque erit ille mihi semper deus' or 'and he will always be a god to me' that this 'god' is in fact a man. This 'god' has saved Tityrus from something quite harsh, something that has forced Meliboeus to leave his home and move on to parts unknown. Just what has happened in not-too-distant past in this poem we will find out about in the next part, but before we can call this to a close two things need to be pointed out to the reader about Virgil's style. One is the constant references to Theocritus, and ancient readers who would be very familiar with Theocritus's Idylls would have picked up on them. Virgil lived during a time when the Roman empire had conquered Greece, and the Greek poets were much admired by Virgil's contemporaries. Tityrus is a name taken directly from Theocritus's Idylls, and the idea of having a simplistic voice living in innocence contrasted against someone more aware and worldly was a common theme in Theocritus. Also, Virgil had encyclopedic knowledge of plant life, which makes sense considering the genre of poetry he is writing in, but sometimes he will name plans specifically, and direct translations of these cannot be avoided, even if they can be slightly frustrating to a modern reader unfamiliar with the plans being talked about. The only example we have seen of this so far is 'Amaryllis', which thankfully also has a double meaning - which is good for us students of poetry. However further into the poem we are given the specific names of plants, and as far as I know there is no poetic symbolism to them. This is the introduction to Virgil's Eclogue 1. Please keep aboard for part two, when we go deeper into this poem and find out exactly what has happened to our new friends.
Because translations are very time consuming and very difficult to get to a standard I consider good - especially considering my knowledge of Latin is always slowly developing, I've decided to try something out in this long-silent blog: making the Latin texts as accessible as possible without requiring you to actually learn the language. So, here's the first poem I want to break down, Catullus 1: I. Cui dono lepidum novum libellum arida modo pumice expolitum? Corneli, tibi: namque tu solebas meas esse aliquid putare nugas. Iam tum, cum ausus es unus Italorum omne aevum tribus explicare cartis . . . Doctis, Iuppiter, et laboriosis! Quare habe tibi quidquid hoc libelli— qualecumque, quod, o patrona virgo, plus uno maneat perenne saeclo! Basically this poem is dedicated to Catullus's friend Cornelius, as is the book of Catullus's poems this poem opens. Cornelius was apparently famous at the time for writing a history of the world on three scrolls of papyrus (which in some translations is phrased as a light hearted joke). The tone alternates between self-deprecation (which is actually quite rare in Catullus) and praise for Cornelius, and this difference in tone is what generates most of the humour in the poem. Catullus was very funny, and loved paradoxes. The first two lines: Cui dono lepidum novum libellum arida modo pumice expolitum? Are essentially 'To whom do I dedicate this smart new book, all worked out with pumice to a polished product?'. Notice how with the first line the word 'Cui' meaning 'to who' is at the beginning of the line, signifying it's importance in the poem, and the second most important word in the line is the one that ends it 'libellum' which means 'book'. This may sound obvious, as English speakers we are accustomed to seeing grammar work in this way, but it must be said that Latin the meaning comes mostly from the actual use of words. You can have a sentence in English 'The boy killed the man', and if you reversed the two identifiers 'boy' and 'man' the meaning of the sentence would change in English. This doesn't happen in Latin, where the meaning of the sentence would depend on which version of the word meaning 'boy' and 'man' has been employed. This is often something a reader needs to take into account when reading Latin poetry. The word 'expolitum' means essentially finished, or more accurately polished, suggesting the poems have been carefully crafted and labored over from something rough and pumice-like to work that has been polished and refined. Also, manuscripts in ancient times were finished off by having them rubbed down with pumice to smooth the ends of the papyrus rolls out as a way of completing the work. This is a good example of Catullus's being clever with his use of words. The poem then goes on to 'Corneli, tibi: namque tu solebas / meas esse aliquid putare nugas'. This is essentially 'To you, Cornelius, because you always liked my rubbish poems' - the word 'nugas' at the end of line four means essentially rubbish or waste. 'Solebas' is used in the imperfect tense, meaning he is talking about something Cornelius used to do, but still might do - which is enjoy Catullus's work which Catullus then mocks by calling his work 'nugas'. Since we find in later poems that Catullus isn't so self deprecating, it's safe to assume this line and poem is Catullus having his tongue very much in his cheek. So why is Catullus being so self deprecating? Well, Catullus then goes on to flatter his friend, pointing to his history of the world, and the poem makes a comparison between Catullus's poems and Cornelius's work inevitable. Catullus says Cornelius's history of the world was 'Doctis, Iuppiter, et laboriosis!' which roughly translates in to: 'Academic/Scholarly, by Jupiter, and laborious/was hard work'. Cornelius's work is explicity mentioned in these lines: Iam tum, cum ausus es unus Italorum omne aevum tribus explicare cartis . . . This is essentially 'Now already, and with daring you are the first Italian to detail all the ages on three paper pages'. Saying Cornelius was the first Italian to do it is something of an hour, as Greek poets had wrote a history of the world even before Rome became a credible force, but Cornelius was the first Roman to attempt such a task - considering Rome always admired Greek achievements, what would this say about Cornelius's standing in Roman intellectual life? That's a question for you to consider when thinking about this poem. Having praised his friend Cornelius and justified his own poem, Catullus goes on to the self-depreciating note once again: 'Quare habe tibi quidquid hoc libelli— qualecumque, quod, o patrona virgo, plus uno maneat perenne saeclo! Essentially 'So you have this book, whatever this book actually is, and whatever it actually is, may it survive protected by the grace of the Virgin, and last into the next age' also hinting that their author considers the poems unworthy. The 'Virgin' is a reference to Minerva, the Roman god of poetry and music, and the Roman equivalent of the Greek god Athene. The poem ends with Catullus hoping his poetry outlasts him, which gives this dedication a further unintended humor, as Cornelius's work is now rare and hard to find. The sections of the poem I have translated are by necessity prose paraphrases, not intended to be exact or poetic translations of the original Latin, but rather an accurate indication of what the original is saying at that point of the poem. There is no substitute for reading it in the original Latin. The rhythm of the Latin is wonderful. However, for sake of convenience I will repost the original poem, and then a prose translation of it, based on my paraphrasing: The original poem: Cui dono lepidum novum libellum arida modo pumice expolitum? Corneli, tibi: namque tu solebas meas esse aliquid putare nugas. Iam tum, cum ausus es unus Italorum omne aevum tribus explicare cartis . . . Doctis, Iuppiter, et laboriosis! Quare habe tibi quidquid hoc libelli— qualecumque, quod, o patrona virgo, plus uno maneat perenne saeclo! The prose translation: To who do I dedicate this smart new book, all worked out with pumice to a polished product? Cornelius, to you, because you always liked my rubbish poems. Already, and with such daring you are the very first Italian to detail the history of the world on three paper pages. And how academic and Scholarly they are, by Jupiter! And how hard you worked on them! So you have this book my friend, whatever this book actually is, and whatever it actually is, may it survive protected by the grace of the Virgin Minerva, and last into the next age.
[This is a repost of an article I wrote for another forum - quotes used are for criticism purposes and fall under 'fair use'.'] Alexander Pope once wrote: and in honour of Miss Lavigne's engagement to Nickelback frount man Chad Kroeger I will try to critique as best I can Nickelback's most famous song ‘How You Remind Me’. I will try my best not to tire your Patience or your Sense (with the latter, I don't think I could do that!) This is the song that introduced me to Nickelback's music, and I'm sure I'm not alone in this. This being so, it has a certain place in my head, and after so many years and so many rounds of alcohol to try and force it out this song for some reason sticks. So, without further stalling, here I start to dive into the poetry of Nickelback: The song opens with a chord and the first line so it deserves special attention, since this is the line that is to open the thesis of the song. There isn't even a flashy intro to welcome the listener in, the song just starts with a chord and the song. The opening line being, of course: My first reaction to this is just 'Wow'. Has there ever been a more clear statement that you have nothing new, interesting or original to say with your song. With this one line Kroeger brings into question why the song even exists. Why, if he is not wise and has nothing to say, is he saying anything at all? At first glance this line is to indicate that the singer is down on his luck and has little else to hope for, but closer inspection (i.e. a single inspection) reveals something much deeper. Why did he not succeed as a bum? Was it because of some moral obligation? Is the narrator of the song (probably Kroeger himself) dealing with some sort of higher, ethical struggle? Would this mean that, since he cannot be wise, he has something modest to say? Nope. Also, what does this line even mean? Does Kroeger wear sunglasses indoors, walk around with a guide dog even though he doesn't need one? With this he is potentially depriving someone who really needs a guide dog of a guide dog, which makes him a bit of an asshole. ... what? Ah! Now we get somewhere. Kroeger presumably here comparing himself to the Troubadour poets of the 12th and 13th centuries, of whom the most famous was of course Dante Alighieri, with his book La Vita Nouva in which ... wait a minute. The structure of this stanza is a bit confused. The singer is down on his luck, being a bit of a jerk by presumably keeping a guide dog without any need, and then someone comes along and 'reminds' him of who he is? Well, who are you? This is where the first verse ends and the chorus begins. And the chorus begins with: What the hell is this? Aside from a shitty attempt to rhyme 'sorry' with 'story'. You know, Chad, you don't have to force a rhyme. This is actually a pretty tell-tale sign of a shitty song writer because to accommodate the feminine rhyme you have the line 'I was waiting on a different story' which is terrible. And what 'story' are you talking about? House of Leaves? Pride and Prejudice? Wait wait wait. Wait. This time you are mistaken about how someone reminds you of how you are not a wise man or a bum, except you are not a bum or a wise man, you are only emulating those life styles and I the listener don't know who you even are, even though that's the point of the entire song. This song is structurally coming apart and it's only into the first time this chorus is played. This line deserves close attention because it is clearly a cry for help. Except not in the way our friend, whoever he is, probably Kroeger himself, intended. The obvious message in this line is that the narrator of the song is abusing drink because of - actually, what the hell is this chorus even about? - but with the word 'every' Kroeger is implying that he's drank every bottle. Not every bottle he could find, but every bottle ever. Which means Kroeger has the most serious drinking problem in human history. He is drinking more than the average human could possibly handle. Which sounds like more of a boast, but a really pathetic kind of boast, making him, again, seem like a bit of an asshole. Know what exactly? This is the problem with the song, there is constant references to ... something, how he is reminded of himself, but what that thing is I wish i could tell you. In translation: 'I am an asshole'. At this point I honestly began to consider a smarter, more metaphysical side to this song. Maybe it's the song itself that reminds him of who he really is? But that would require some sophistication on the park of Nickelback that I just can't accept. The chorus here kicks in again and shatters this idea that Nickelback could maybe write an intelligent metaphysical song with the line 'This time I'm mistaken'. Not only does this ruin the last chance to save the song, but with it's repetition implies that Kroeger is wrong a lot of the time - so his 'this time' is only passing off guilt. Which, again, makes him sort of an asshole. This is essentially the end of the song, but there is this interesting bit near the end: Read this in your most monotone voice and you'll see just why this part of the song blows so much chunks. It sounds like a computer is stuck on two words and just randomly pumping them out in what just happens to be a sequence. It doesn't feel like anyone actually wrote this, more that it was compiled by computer, from a collection of rubbish lines. The song has no connectivity, and breaks apart within the first half a minute. This isn't exactly helped with the really boring riffs and sequences of the guitar. The drums seem too artificially timed, in order to produce the most 'rock'-like effect. Almost as if Nickelback is saying 'yeah, we have guitars and drums and such, we are a rock band, listen to us'. This is made really sad by the fact that the track is devoid of any passion, even the moments in the song that push Chad's vocals really leave me cold and uninterested. It's like they are emulating a band that is emulating Pearl Jam. The lyrics of this song really suck juice, and I honestly can't understand how they could be this bad. There is just no consistency, nothing is solid, and in the end it just comes across as a song written to sound like a rock song, rather than being an actual rock song. Now a lot of good rock songs don't need to make sense, or need to have real lyrics (look at The Melvins and see a masterclass of songs written just to sound good and mean nothing) but 'How You Remind Me' was a song that sounds like it was written to have a meaning, to sound like a guy down on his luck and singing about it. This song was clearly written to be part of, or at least be an echo of, the Grunge tradition, instead it just comes off as a bad song because the lyrics are so awful. Whatever meaning it should have had is now lost under a sea of stupid. Site used: azlyrics.com
When watching the recent Hollow Crown series, broadcast by the BBC, I was struck by a rather odd and yet somehow very empowering thought. The Hollow Crown was an excellent series of adaptations of William Shakespeare’s Henriad plays (Richard II to Henry V respectively) and is worthy of a watch by anyone seriously interested in both history and English Literature while it’s still on iPlayer. The thought I had was a simple one, and yet is also influenced by things I feel I must explain, and it is this, if you start on the first day of any given month you could read/watch the complete works of Shakespeare in just over a month if you devote a night to one play, and within one, two, three, or four nights for the complete poems. Let us be fair and allow some off-days, and say reading/watching the entire works of Shakespeare could take no more than a month and a half, which is in no way a great expenditure of time. This relates to The Hollow Crown in an interesting way. Over the course of watching The Hollow Crown I recorded them on my parents Sky box and starting with Richard II gave basic background information to parents as they watched it about the subjects in the play themselves. This was nothing extensive, just explaining about The Great Chain of being that often recurs in Shakespeare’s work, and explaining more difficult passages, nothing that could not also be answered with a quick Google search. I found with Richard II a few questions were asked during the play, but not as many as expected. Over the course of Henry IV part 1 no questions where asked. What I guess the lesson of this is: with enough exposure to the old-fashioned style of English the sense of strangeness that can so easily put people off the plays quickly disappears. In fact I often find that the more someone is exposed to Shakespeare’s language the easier it becomes to understand. So then, why do not more people try it? I suspect that it is because Shakespeare has the reputation of being ‘boring’, or perhaps worse, being difficult. The charge of Shakespeare being difficult is worse than being boring is because Shakespeare is very funny and very eventful, but it can be a struggle for some getting used to the language and the way it is spoken. Also, it must be said, Shakespeare is taught so poorly in schools that it is no wonder a large number of people are turned off him. Here are three ways which are, in my eyes, good at introducing Shakespeare to someone: 1) Explain some of the background to the plays briefly. Simply the nature of the Great Chain of being and the Divine Right of Kings (both recurring themes in Shakespeare) and the nature of Tragedy and Comedy. The nature of Tragedy and Comedy can be best explained in a single sentence, and is phrased for us by Lord Byron: ‘All tragedies are finish'd by a death,’ and ‘All comedies are ended by a marriage’. 2) Start with a beginner friendly play, not something like King Lear or The Tempest, but something simpler, and yet still dramatic such as Macbeth. It might be best to start with the Henriad, as it introduces some of Shakespeare’s best plays, and are generally simple in both language and story. 3) Shut up! At first, not understanding a scene can leave you lost, and a scene by scene retread might be required before viewing a production for those who do get lost. But other than this, nothing is more off-putting than being asked the typical school questions of ‘What do you think this means?’ or ‘What does that make you feel?’ With these three rules (let us call them rules for sake of clarity) it would still be difficult to completely turn someone in favour of Shakespeare without the full effort of the person you are trying to introduce Shakespeare too. This seems obvious, but with the atmosphere around Shakespeare of being ‘difficult’ and ‘boring’ and with both of these being widespread and easy to believe that it must be stated. How, then, is the best way to deal with this? Unfortunately, this is an impression that might be too strong to properly introduce Shakespeare to everyone who might enjoy him, and very difficult to combat without a restructuring in the way Shakespeare is taught. The problem has a lot to do with the way Shakespeare is taught in schools. In this case my three rules might also be of use. It might also be best to introduce him earlier to children – since I grew up in an area with the three-tier education system my introduction to Shakespeare was in high school (around twelve to school-leaver) and at this point I already thought I would not like Shakespeare, thinking him ‘difficult’ and ‘boring’ and that affected the amount of interest I had in those classes. What also did not help was that the play we did, Romeo and Juliet, seemed to us boys too feminine at the time, something the girls would like and not us. I had known of Shakespeare before, obviously, and actually I rather enjoyed as a child reading a collection of Shakespeare’s stories, mostly the Tragedies if memory serves me right, translated for children into simple modern prose, called something like ‘Tales from Shakespeare'. However, while I was aware of the stories, and I knew I liked the stories, I thought I would loathe the plays themselves, and thus I sat through lesions not engaging fully with the subject. It actually took university, and doing a module on Shakespeare for me to change my mind on him and his plays, and I, I suppose, am lucky in this respect because I was given a second chance to engage with the subject – and this time around, and without prejudice, I found it a much more enjoyable experience. I had to do Shakespeare at university because, with my doing an English degree, many people, especially employers, we were told, do not consider a degree full if you do not know Shakespeare. I was able to engage with Shakespeare a second time around because I generally did not care about my own past prejudice against him. The Hollow Crown series would probably not have seen a fantastic number of viewers, but what is good about it is that the series could have been recording on a good number of Sky boxes, and it got people talking about Shakespeare again in ways they have not done for some years. It also provided excellent, modern adaptations of the Henriad, perhaps Shakespeare’s easiest plays to be introduced to, and if they introduced someone to Shakespeare, who previously did not appreciate him (maybe a previously disinterested boyfriend of an English Student perhaps, or a disinterested wife of a husband who always had an interest, but was too scared to tackle the full thing) then the series can be said to have done something excellent. Even if this did not happen, and it was only people already fans of Shakespeare who watched it, then the series still has considerable merit by any standard. However, no one ever said that Shakespeare did not take some getting used to. Returning to my original thought. If one were to read the complete works of Shakespeare over the course of a month and a half, the entire prejudice against Shakespeare could very well be demolished. Enough exposure to Shakespeare does, and I have seen this numerous times, make the whole language barrier less and less intimidating, and less and less of a barrier. If everyone did this, who knows, maybe something magical could happen. Shakespeare was, and is, exceptional at bringing people together and creating joy. This is the primary reason why his works have survived four-hundred years.
When I was in Portugal last week I seen the picture of a horn on a mail box and immediately thought of Thomas Pynchon. This got me thinking about writers, and about reading in general, and there is something I have noticed while reading, and that's something that has really built up over years of reading many different books by many different writers on an unconscious level. I suppose this might be something unsaid between great readers, but I've never heard it before mentioned or even referenced and so I'll talk about it here. What I'm talking about is this: reading is now more than just exploring, like it was in the past for me, but it is now more, about building connections and relationships with writers on a very personal level. With some writers I find that this connection manifests itself in certain ways. For instance, I always associate Haruki Murakami with the strong and powerful emotions of growing into full maturity, and music - I don't think I've ever listened to 'Norwegian Wood' by The Beatles in the same way since reading Murakami's novel of the same name. But Murakami the writer (not Murakami the man) also brings certain things to mind that I associate with him: the dark, dimly lit street, the lonely troubled girl, the liveliness of the city, the smooth jazz of a smokey night club, the wildness of being young and joining in the eternal party that is night life. If he were anything he'd be a Jazz composition played on a beach with young attractive men and woman surfing, if he were any place he'd be downtown Tokyo, swelling with people, lights and activity and there is one man alone amid the chaos of people. Murakami not only writes about, but embodies being young and cool with his work, but there is also a level of fantasy in Murakami. Some strange things happen in the novels, but never once do you question anything if you are caught up. You just go with it. I've heard people say that reading Murakami feels like something is going on in your head, that your mind is actually being played with. This only sounds strange if you have not read Murakami, or anyone like him. Some writers are like that - they just have this air and mystique for me that separates them from the rest. There is just something in writers like Murakami, and it is very hard to actually define. That is something metaphysical, it reaches over the works themselves and becomes a part of you, it infects you, changes you, rattles you about until there is a new person standing where the old you, now someone else once stood. I find as I read more the more personal connections I build with books and writers, and the happier I am for it and this is a lot like music. When you hear a song you especially like for the first time you form a connection with it, and then as you listen to more and more of that artist, and the liking for them and that song grows stronger. It reaches the point when you and that artist have something of a history, and a personal connection, even though the artist/s and the listener are never likely to have met. I think of Poe in much the same way I think of R.E.M., since I have known and loved the work of both since a very young age. I tend to think of Chinua Achebe in much the same way as Atlantic Five Jazz Band, or any jazz for that matter since I've only recently discovered them for myself. Following this train of thought my relationship with the work of Don Delillo can be compared to how I feel about the work of the singer YUI who I instantly fell in love with when I first heard it, but over the years I've drifted away from her music. There is nothing 'wrong' with his novels per-say, just as there is nothing wrong with YUI, and I still keep the work of both, I just don't like them as much as I once did, and they do not seem as powerful or moving to me. And that's fine, tastes and opinions change all the time, but as I read more, more widely, and get to know more writers works I find (like with musicians) I can feel a writer's work more, and it allows me to enjoy it more. Sometimes this writer has such a great scope and amount of talent that this feels like an intimate relationship, and it becomes more powerful than music, because music is merely a part of the atmosphere surrounding a writer's works, and I associate a wide chocolate box selection of emotions, images and memories with a writers that I don't think I'll ever forget. Of course, not with every writer is this connection going to be strong, not with every writer will you have a connection, but the writers you can build a strong connection with, and really grow to know and feel the whole aura around them - those are the writers who are the absolute best. The writers who can build entire worlds for you and let you live in them, not in any fantasy sense, but in a real sense, writers who can build a whole other philosophy or way of thinking on to the real world from which you never really escape, and nor should you want to because that's what makes reading such a joy.
While rereading the Penguin Modern Classics collection of George Orwell’s essays (named: George Orwell Essays, appropriately) I was struck by two main things while rereading the essay ‘The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius’. First by Orwell’s intelligence, warranting Lionel Trilling’s comment that Orwell is good because he is not a genius, and secondly I was struck by how amazingly unprophetic, and how hopeless at prophesy he was. Orwell was, and still is, a great commenter on his own time, and as a literary critic he is not without merit, but as a prophet he was hopeless. Nineteen Eighty-Four, sometimes claimed to be a prophesy by some, is not so, and those who claim it to be a prophesy often have not read anything other than that novel and Animal Farm. Those of us who have read Orwell’s other works understand that Nineteen Eighty-Four is partly a novel of its time, party a Swiftian satire, but mostly a novel against Totalitarian thought in any form it may take, about which Orwell himself, in the essay ‘Why I Write’ said: ‘Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.’ (Orwell 2000: 5). This misunderstanding it not unique to Orwell, it also affects his friend, and former Eaton French Teacher, Aldous Huxley. The only real difference here is it appears that Huxley’s Brave New World is even less seriously read than Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. The ‘predictions’ (for lack of a better word) in ‘The Lion and the Unicorn’ concerns an English Revolution apparently taking place during his life time. In it, Orwell claims that the way to a more Socialist England (not Ingsoc of course) is the defeat of Hitler, (Orwell 2000: 170) and the Nazi party. However, earlier in the essay he claims two of the main forces at work, unconsciously, in English everyday life is Patriotism and Stagnation (Orwell 2000: 146-147 & 155-156). This is as true today as Orwell says it was then. The English, as a people, seem naturally resistant to change, and it is both this unconscious Patriotism and Political Stagnation that Orwell says causes this resistance, despite, he claims, the Leftist Intelligentsia, which consciously tries to be as progressive and unBritish as possible. Up until the 1970s this was certainly the case. Orwell's 'English Revolution' obviously never happened. The ruling class are still in power and preference in Britain, the idea of the Empire (which still exists) still has power in Britain, and Britain continues to have a capitalist, unplanned economy that survives on capital and profit (not a bad thing, in this writer’s eye). The English are, or more accurately have been, a nation of hobbyists, of engineers and builders rather than radicals. To have a private interest in abstract concepts such as Poetry or Philosophy has been felt something to explain, or even apologise for, though this attitude has actually been changing in the past 20 years. However, while the English people might be resistant to change, this is merely the people of one nation in a union of nations. And of all the nations under the Union Flag the Scottish are the most progressive. As I write this we are a few years away from a Scottish referendum, to decide to remain within the Union. Such a Referendum is risky to Scotland, to say the least, and if Scotland is to withdraw from the Union then it must be because of careful consideration, not overwhelming nationalist feeling, as seems to be the case. Scotland relies heavily on England for economic and political support, and as a figurehead the Queen still has great influence over parts of Scotland, particularly in the Highlands. But a worry is that Scotland might be too poor by itself, too underdeveloped, and too lacking in national resources to be independent and keep its current standard of living. Scotland may depend on England in terms of economy, military tradition, and political influence, but one area in which the Scottish are amazingly strong and efficient is that of culture. In the border regions of England there is a strong and clear influence of Scotland, and in the very north of Northumberland it is common to hear accents that sound indistinguishable from Scottish to an outside ear. Many Northumbrians also consider themselves more Scottish than English, when they are not calling themselves Northumberians. This battle of culture between Scotland and England is not anything direct, or even easily identifiable, but it is an unconscious preference for Edinburgh over London. This is of course influenced by the North/South divide in England, but it is not because of it. Culturally Scotland is very strong in the British Isles but economically it is not, and this overwhelming nationalist feeling that is calling for this coming referendum, and leading to the rise of the Scottish National Party (SNP) could prove risky. It should be made clear that Scottish nationalism is very different from English or British nationalism. The Scottish National Party is a pro-democratic and rather liberally minded party, and its main aim is purely Scotland’s withdrawal from the Union. The British National Party (BNP) or UK Independence Party (UKIP) are notoriously anti-Europe, and the BNP have been described as racist, and fascist. Even UKIP, an apparently Libertarian party, have to describe themselves as ‘non-racist’, which is highly suspect to say the least. The SNP may have a good reputation, may have a good amount of support from across Scotland (the Scottish as a people appear to very much desire independence) and to be honest, they could even gain independence from the union. This very real possibility of this break from the union is obviously a great gamble for Scotland. And it is partly because of some of the attributes about the English that Orwell identified: political stagnation, unconscious patriotism among the English, and a mistrust of the ruling, privileged class. That Orwell did not see this eventual stagnation and potential breakup of the union, that he thought some kind of Socialist movement in England would result in a shift in power toward the people, away from the traditional ruling class, and that this ‘Revolution’ did not actually happen says more about his own time than ours. Orwell miscalculated how much the English enjoy homeliness and tradition (something that was parodied in J.R.R. Tolkien’s Middle Earth stories) and so far it seems there is nothing that can actually change the English character other than something drastic. Maybe, this Scottish withdrawal from the union could be the beginning of a change in attitude that England does not really want. Nothing can tell us what is the best course to take, for the sake of the British union, and to some it will not seem worth gambling with the future of two nations to find this out. But maybe this was the revolution Orwell was writing about, and could feel happening (even though he was 80 years off) when he wrote ‘The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius’: a change in English attitudes and way of thinking, rather than an actual Socialist leaning, like Orwell promoted. G. Orwell, (2000) George Orwell: Essays, Penguin Modern Classics, Penguin Publishing, London.
I am a Republican – in the UK, where I live, this means a person who rejects the power of the British Monarchy, but instead wishes to return to the Republic we had following the English Civil War. This is not related to the Republican Party in the US. This is an important distinction I will need to return to again. This distinction is important because it lays down some very real and fundamental differences between words as some may understand them. As mentioned before Republicanism means different things between the US and the UK. The same goes for the word which is also important in this discussion: Libertarianism. I am a Libertarian. But I am a Libertarian in the same vain as Noam Chomsky, and that is Libertarianism on the left side of the political spectrum. This again is something different from the common understanding in the US. When most people hear the word Libertarian they either think of Ron Paul or the American Founding Fathers. One of these interpretations is accurate to my understanding of Libertarianism, the other isn’t. If one thinks of Ron Paul, and a system of severely reduced government and Laissez-faire Capitalism, then we have a wildly different interpretation of Libertarianism from me, and, I hesitate to say, the fathers of the Libertarian movement such as John Locke and Adam Smith, who the American Founding Fathers took influence from. The very phrase ‘Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness’ found in the American Declaration of Independence is copied from John Locke, only he put it: ‘Life, Liberty and Property’ which suits me much better. To have a monarch who, if only in theory, has domination over my life and can very much harm my Liberty is quite simply demeaning, even if it is only in theory. I am not in reality a ‘Citizen’ of Britain, but a ‘Subject’ of ‘Her Majesty the Queen’. I flat out reject this for numerous reasons, some of which are philosophical, but first I will deal with the more announced criticisms on both sides. Against my own position there are a number of arguments, some have more validity than others and here I will briefly address them: Tradition: this to me is not a problem. I find British history interesting personally, and especially the history of the kings and queens of England, but tradition is something that British people will forever have, no matter how much the present changes. And even without the Monarchy we still have a fine tradition of great men and woman in almost every field: Shakespeare, Hawking, Darwin, Keats, Wordsworth, Locke, and since I am speaking about Britain, not just about England, David Hume too. And we would still have the history of the Monarchs. If England were to have Republic then great dramas like (for sake of example) Shakespeare’s Richard II would not simply vanish from history. We would still have that grand tradition. Also is the argument that the Monarchy brings in a lot of money from tourism. And what is better: To have something that is right or something that is popular? Besides, this isn’t really a point in either favour anyway because it is about how Britain is perceived as a nation, rather than what it actually is. One great point against which I will admit I can fully see is that the Monarch is good as a figurehead. For uniting the British Nation around something. This is so demonstrably true that examples seem rather pointless but I will give some anyway. The death of Diana was an interesting time that I remember vividly, showing that if anything the British are suckers for idol-worship, the royal wedding last year and the Jubilee this year also show how much the British like to indulge in unrealistic fantasies of wealth and pomp. But the mere fact that these are unrealistic presents again a problem. British Society is very hierarchical, a common complaint from us Republicans, but the simple fact is that I, as a middleclass half English half Scottish man just leaving University will never become a member of their ‘elite’ and I don’t have the ‘privilege’ they do. This is a complaint about the social society surrounding the aristocracy, one I can never enter no matter what I do. This is wrong, because it is a society based on title, rather than actual worth or wealth. How better to prove a man’s worth than through their achievements after all, and for some it can be as simple a thing as raising a family. This would be something I consider commendable, because it takes work, time and mental or physical strength. Being part of elite because of an accident I do not consider commendable. It is an accident of birth. I simply don’t believe power over a nation to be because of hereditary rule. The other main common critique of my position is that republics have not always succeeded in stopping the rise of Totalitarianism or Dictatorships. I consider this point more a problem for the person presenting it, while it is true that the Weimar Republic did little to nothing to stop the rise of National Socialism, a Monarchy is in effect a Tyranny or Oligargy, because it is a nation led by a single figurehead who has (theoretical or not) an ruler with considerable power, unelected by the people. And besides, there is a difference between a rule that is elected, and a rule that was inherited. Even if the rule of the elected is criminal, it was still elected by the people so the people become ultimately responsible of their leaders actions. This is the essence of a Democracy. To say too that the Monarchy has, or exercises little power over their subjects is simply a mute point, just because they don’t does not mean they can’t. And this is frankly an argument from ignorance. The Monarchy can still change or pass laws without going through Parliament. The queen can also dissolve Parliament. And during the Royal Wedding last year and the Jubilee this year Republican supporters were arrested for breach of the peace, just for protesting against Monarchy rule. This is nothing short of criminal, and I stand by this as being an affront to Free Speech. As far as my philosophical reason for opposing the Monarchy my main one is that she is not only the head of the country she is also the head of the Church of England. In Libertarian philosophy there is the separation of power between Church and State, and this is so no one person could have absolute power. It is a mere detail that I am an atheist, and a triviality at that. Politics and Religion have proven themselves again and again to be very bad bedfellows, and the separation of church and state is a core ideal of our secular western democratic tradition. This does mean however that Christians are the favoured majority, despite the fact that the majority of the British people are not Church of England. But my main contention with the Monarchy, and the main Reason I am a convinced Republican is this: as a Libertarian I firmly believe in man’s right to Life, Liberty and Property. Why I believe in this is related to my atheism. In a godless world I consider it man’s right to freedom, because without freedom we have nothing. But aside from this, and dealing with just the politics: the Monarchy does represent a challenge to my personal Liberty. I do not think that anyone, theoretical or otherwise, should claim me to be a subject or a servant. I own myself, and I am the author of my own future, therefore I simply do not accept another person’s claim over me. It just does not follow that a lover of Liberty and Equality (such as myself) should be happy under a Monarchy. If I cannot be equal I am not free, and if I am not free I may as well be dead, because Slavery, under any other name, is simply not an option to a Libertarian. In essence, Aristotle put it well enough in Book 1 of his Politics, which I will paraphrase as: ‘A man chooses, a Slave obeys’. A republic could do great things for Britain. Firstly, it could dispel the frankly sad illusion over the British people that our Empire (which technically still exists, the current Queen is still the sovereign over the Commonwealth, counties which include Canada and Australia, and Britain still has some colonies remaining such as the Falkland Islands) is still truly a major contender on the international stage. It could also create a society once again interested in the political system, and the feeling that we, the people, have a voice that is truly heard. There is a lot of apathy among the British public, who do feel there is a distant between them and their regional representatives in Parliament. But I am not saying that a republic could solve everything, I don’t think anything is that naive. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: When passion governs she never governs wisely - this is a danger to the Republican system, but isn’t this also a danger in any political system? There is also the objection that the royal family generate a lot of positive PR for the British nation. This is true, I cannot dispute this, and the current Queen herself has proven to be a rather excellent Monarch by many standards. However, positive PR should really, in a fair and democratic system, to come from the actions of the people and their elected leaders, not from the ruling class. A republic is in no way a perfect system, but in Britain we have a proud tradition of Liberty and Republicanism, especially, but not exclusively, the men of the English Civil War such as John Milton (one of England’s greatest poets) and Oliver Cromwell. The great tradition of Monarchy we have in Britain is as established as the tradition we have of Republic and Democracy. As a left-leaning Libertarian, I consider our Republican tradition better in every respect, and the current Republican movement both necessary and justified in being a real voice for a more liberal, democratic Britain. Because of this I am a Republican, but then again, I am not so closed-minded that I cannot see and understand the other side.
‘Every thinking person fears nuclear war and every technological nation plans for it. Everyone knows its madness, and every country has an excuse.’ – Carl Sagan. It would be difficult to not be moved by this comment. It would be difficult too to find anything but horror in the idea of a full nuclear exchange. Like Carl Sagan, and many others, I am terrified by the concept of nuclear war. The bright light, the atomic fireball, and the mushroom cloud are all symbols for me of human’s ingenuity, and agressive savagery. In our mad rush to kill each other we have harnessed the very same power that has kept the stars burning for billions of years. If we are alone in the universe, and the only known measure for moral behaviour then with nuclear weapons we come to a troubling position, and relisation. That we have used the best minds of a generation to build weapons capable of wiping most, if not all life, from earth: Robert J. Oppenheimer quoting the Bhagavad Gītā. Not everyone, however, would be killed in a full nuclear exchange; the survivors would face new horrors: radiation ruining the land and water, dust covering the skies potentially leading to a ‘Nuclear Winter’, leagues of people blinded and burned by the fireballs, and the overall sense of hopelessness: civilisation destroyed because of petty, immature differences. It is fully within mankind’s power to kill itself in a blinding light of destruction, and potentially ruin the planet that gave us life and has been our home. The mere fact that these weapons still exist should tell us that we as a speices need to mature – we need to realise that we are not heroic Man, or Humanity, a proud and noble race apart from the rest of the animal kingdom because of our ‘genius’ and ‘intelligence’. Instead it seems that ‘genius’ and ‘intelligence’ is one of the main problems with humanity, but so can it also save us. There is obviously great potential in humanity, and if we can fully learn to accept the fact that we are mere animals on a small and fragile planet, alone and adrift, then we might have a better chance of survival. We are not gods, and we should only hold ourselves to blame for our own actions. For all our proud achievements, theories and ideas we are little better than children showing off a doodle to a disinterested parent. We must learn to accept ourselves as the simple and violent, but basically rational animals that we are, aspiring to something more - something we can’t fully describe or appreciate yet: Civilisation. If we give ourselves over to our own primordial impulses then we are ruining ourselves and our potential.
In book reviews there are three clichés that often appear: ‘A book everyone should read!’ or ‘Something memorable on each page!’, or ‘A book you’ll never forget!’. With Ayn Rand’s 1964 book The Virtue of Selfishness all these clichés certainly can apply, but obviously for the reverse of their intention. Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism is one of those children of the 60s that just doesn’t seem to go away no matter how much you want it to; there are still plenty of people today who consider themselves Objectivists, and if you want to read about the ethics of Objectivism The Virtue of Selfishness is the main book to read. Before any critique can be made of the ideas presented in the book let me neither be the first or last person to comment on the quality of Ayn Rand’s writing. It is abysmal. She keeps making statements as if they are revolutionary but that are in reality self-evident and apparent, and then analogizing them to their logical ends: stopping just short of herself, before her own analogies fall apart. Let me quote for an example: Page 17. There are plenty of better (worse) examples, but let us focus on this sentence. Visually the first thing that strikes the reader is the two italicized words, value and life. Of these two only Life could really be acceptable, she wishes to stress this word as life being also a result of existing by objective morals. This was her intention, and this, to us, is at least understandable. The italicisation of Value, however, is just not needed; and it does not add anything to the sentence, but only emphasises the meaning of a word that does not need to be centred. Ideally Rand would not need to italicise at all, but rather allow the syntax to stress the words itself, but this is something Rand repeatedly demonstrates she just cannot do. Rand also has this very strange habit of backing up her own arguments with quotes from her own work, particularly her two staggeringly large books Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. This not good practise, especially in a philosophic argument; and the more The Virtue is read the more this became apparent, and grating; however, this is a philosophy, so effort on the part of the reader is required. However. In her introduction to the book she claims that Objectivism is directly opposed to the ideas what she calls ‘Nietzschean egoists’. The philosophy of Fredrick Nietzsche can easily be seen in Rand’s work, almost to the point of Objectivism simply being another name for, and the expension of, the Will to Power; and Rand does not satisfactorily explain why her position is any different from Nietzchean Egoism, who she claims as being a product of altruism. This is, quite literally, non-sense. If one were to read Thus Spake Zarathustra, even badly, one would find there is not much of a difference between the character of Zarathustra, and the character of John Galt. The entire point of Nietzche’s work was moralising a world in a post-god era; about the abolition of ethical altruism (not, strictly, practical altruism however) in favour of reason, advancement of the self, and freedom from moralistic constraints. Nietzche was not opposed to ethics, just morals. In Rand’s philosophy every conscious person is his own moral agent, and she criticises Immanuel Kant’s position (though never mentioning Kant directly) of recognising other people as moral agents in themselves. While she does criticise people who dominate in society, this is only because, so she claims, they are sub-human. Living on other’s produce and never and never thinking independently: thus not actually being either alive, or fully conscious. However she also has a morality based on rationality and Universality. This is where the Objective in Objectivism comes from. Another part of her philosophy is the recognition of Capitalism as an ideal, because it is based on rationality and not an ideal; and to Rand rationality is the only thing that truly matters. Rationality is, according to Rand, the thing that mainly separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom, and thus must be revered as an ideal in itself. While these are self evident as the philosophy behind her novels, the fully meaning and development of these ideas need to be pulled out from so much clutter and waste. The book is, I must point out, a series of essays, not all by Rand herself, which attempt to deal with Objectivist ethics; however, after the first two essays the reader may stop, because the rest of the book is little more than repeating, already mentioned ideas, and approaching them from different angles. In fact, in the introduction to the book the first two essays are the only ones mentioned, and the rest is Rand shamelessly trying to promote her fiction. As an opening to the ideas of Objectivism The Virtue of Selfishness is little better than waste paper, or waste storage if you have a Kindle. But the ideas presented by Rand are interesting as a critique of philosophers and philosophy of the past, and as a re-evaluation of Capitalism (contemporary culture not usually being the area for Philosophy) but as a system, and as a position Objectivism does not seem to be much more than a plagiarism of Nietzschean thought, and a cultish ideology of reason and self-advancement, that tries desperately to appear as a philosophy. On paper it succeeds, but paper is flimsy, and starts shows to show through itself when grease is applied.
Just a short piece on a great writer, thinker, and defender of Liberty. Christopher Hitchens: A dedication You struggled every day to warm great icy glaciers. And though the glaciers advance continues more and more (much faster than before), from Nietzsche’s mountain you came to our winter-seized world, to spread word of the Übermench.
[Just when you thought I couldn't get any lower, I come up with a joke like this.] When the aliens or Russians or whoever-the-hell-it-is finally invade, and people who like being free/alive take to hiding in forests and fighting with shoes, what would I teach my hypothetical post-apocalyptic child? Aside from the fact that, contrary to the Fallout games, he should not have bitching tunes to listen to while he haunts his own wasteland looking for food. Good music, as we all know, creates a feeling of familiarization and enjoyment, and when you have to be on guard all the time this should not even come into the equation. So what would a child of mine in such a situation learn that would be of use? Never, ever, under any situation go surfing just before a very stressful period, in which you need control over your legs. I've recently - say, four hours ago - got back from a two week trip to Newquay in Cornwall. Two weeks of staying with my girlfriend's sister, and two weeks of sun, sea, sand, surf, San Miguel, and silliness. And since Newquay is a place where twenty-somethings like something go to fight off scary maturity for a few for years with glorified pieces of wood, it seemed like a lot of fun. And it was. Boy was it. The trip was very pleasant, and a lot of fun. But honestly, the real fun started when the west coast was hit with the arse-end of a hurricane, during which time I happened to be surfing with my girlfriend and two mates in the mist and light rain. This produced one of those snapshot moments in life that feel (at least) unforgettable. And there was a certain mood about because of the norish lighting from both the buildings and streetslights, poor visibility that gave everything a strange brownish colour, and the moody sea. This had a very positive effect for us because the next day was bright hot, and the waves on the famous Fiscal beech were ideal, so during a 6 hour surfing session - though only with my girlfriend this time - I was able to get a good handle on what I was doing and making progress in my surfing skills. Which is essentially: jump on a plank of wood and hope for the best. However, during this rather epic surf I managed to fall off my board and land on someone, and I twisted my ankle. It didn't stop me and I didn't think much of it at the time but over the next few days it started playing up occasionally and sent shooting pains up my leg. But, I'm not exactly soft, and I could mostly ignore it. As the fates conspired against Achillies, and Oedipus so they conspired against me on this trip. I should have been home two days ago, but on the day I was to come back our car engine died, Valve two was misfiring and the converter became clogged and stopped working. Becki, my girlfriend's sister, drove all around Cornwall trying to find a garage to fix it which only made the problem worse and the car (an Alfa Romao) eventually blew on a motorway somewhere near St. Ives. So, what to do? I needed to get back to Northumberland because the next Monday I'll being taking the position of Assistant Editor with The Northumberland Gazette for a week, and I start my third year of University the week after. Our solution was simple. Rent a car and drive like hell back up to Northumberland and Becki could then drive it back to her apartment in Newqauy. Brilliant. But we set off ASAP, which meant setting off close to Midnight and drive through the night. The thing we didn't take into account when we came up with this plan was basic: tiredness. Because the person navigating was tired and the driver being just as tired was simply following directions, we made a slight alteration to our route and we ended up somewhere near Brighton. But, as soon as we got onto the M1 things improved. Just follow the M1 until it turned into the A1 and drive until we pass Newcastle; then we would be back in Northumberland. Great. Which lead to another problem. three people in a car driving through the night. We needed coffee to stay awake, and because of the coffee we needed bathroom breaks. So we had to stop in Services every two hours for a pick-me-up and a rest. While in Trowel Services early this morning (around 6PM) my hurt ankle started acting up, sending shooting pains up my leg. Because I was tired, I felt it a lot more and I fell over just beyond the entrance on my way back from the coffee machine. Thankfully I had already drank half of the crappy coffee and it was then lukewarm. So I wasn't too badly hurt when the coffee flew all over my shirt and jeans. I don't know what is more embarrassing: that I split coffee on myself or that I fell to end up in such a graceless pose of having my arms wide apart, one leg completely on the floor and the other still holding myself up in some kind of horrible parody of The Thinker. Why, you might ask, would my hypothetical post-apocolyptic/post-invasion child need to know about this? Because hurting yourself and being tired is all well and good, when nobody is watching.
[They. Will. Not. Fooor-ce us. They will stop degrading us. They will not control us. We will be victorious - Muse Uprising] As I write this I am watching the street fighting in Tripoli. I'm watching with great interest too. And the first thing that I notice is the sounds of the fighting. The sounds are somehow so unlike, and at the same time exactly like the sounds of weapons fired in anger as I remember it. Because, I have actually been in a war-zone - having been near fighting in Turkey with Kurds - and I've felt the weirdly unreal feeling of being near a fire-fight. As I watch I feel I know something of how the BBC reporter on the TV might be feeling herself. Because it is a curiously unreal feeling. It's not quite something you can process properly when in the moment, and something you take little account of afterwards. I know this would be strange to read unless you have actually been in that sort of situation, but when you hear gun fired in war and you are nearby you don't so much hear the sound, you feel it. So what does this have to do with Gaddafi, and Libya? Because the reaction to hearing gunfire is very much like my own reaction to the news of the Popular Uprising in Libya. It took me a long time to process the events I seen and for a long time I wasn't sure what I thought about the whole affair. This does not seem to be unique to me either. Whenever I talk to someone about the subject they either do not know or do not care, and only now that the war seems to be coming to an end are people beginning to come to conclusions about the situation in Libya. So then, why do I support the Uprising? It is mostly because Gaddafi supported a number of terrorist cells across Europe including the IRA. While Gaddafi is not responsible for the situation in Ireland he did make it worse by supporting and funding terrorists. And I suppose it is a little personal, because when I was younger a family friend was killed when working in Ireland just because he was a Protestant. Gaddafi also funded terrorists that bombed a nightclub full of American soldiers in 1986. But it is not just his state sponsoring terrorism, Gaddafi made Libya a dangerous rouge state, and planned a program for building WMDs. And while he did make attempts toward international acceptance and bringing Libya back into the international community, it was too little too late. Gaddafi's Libya could not really be trusted. He was too unpredictable. This Uprising, however, is different. Because it is a Popular Uprising, as I said before. It is a movement of the Libyan people, and it is a movement already with a government and good relations with it's allies in the UK and the rest of Europe. It even has support from Obama's government, although the U.S. seems to be taking more of a backseat in this conflict. Which I consider a good thing for the U.S. reputation if nothing else, but I digress. This new Uprising is encouraging because it seems to be the result of a new movement in the Middle East. A movement toward freedom, and stronger ties with the West. This popular uprising is also a sign of Libya moving toward something of an ideal. An open government for the people, and effectively by the people. Not by the military, like Gaddafi's regime. Because Gaddafi's regime was extremely militaristic, and seemed to actively try to destable the area around Libya. Sadly, I've not heard much from a Syria, which seemed to be going in a similar direction to Libya, but if this Uprising can succeed - and it looks like it will, and soon - it would be a positive step toward toward a more open and free Middle East. A Popular victory in Libya could inspire similar pro-Freedom movements across the region, and that is nothing if not a good thing. This is why I say: Viva la Revolution!
[A few words – well, 650 words - on a series about two kids scared of a man with a very good tailor.] Some of you will be aware of the Marble Hornets phenomena on Youtube. For those that aren't, let me introduce you. Marble Hornets is a big thing now-a-days - in some horror-obsessed circles at least – but I want to go back to that primitive and ignorant age of 2009, when Marble Hornets was just two scruffy kids with a video camera and a meme to exploit. The initial premise of Marble Hornets was about the then unseen protagonist Jay going through his friend Alex’s old videos, left over from a student film he was making named ‘Marble Hornets’. The story here is that while film Alex showed odd behaviour developing, and acted erratically – even filming himself for long periods of time – before stopping the production and leaving. While searching through these videos Jay finds certain unsettling scenes that Alex captured both on and off set of the fictional Marble Hornets, but particularly off set. The more Jay discovers, the more history seems to be repeating, and he begins to exhibit the same erratic behaviour Alex showed. Today the series is a lot more sophisticated, with a liner plot and a number of characters interacting. But initially it was just two, or often one character filming strange happenings for the audience who then had to fit every new entry into a plot as they understood it. It was truly experimental, well acted and well written, and though this second session that we are in now is still well acted and well written, and still very interesting it does not have the same appeal as the first session simply because there isn’t as much audience interaction in the story. In the first session the production value was of rather low quality too. This aided to the overall feel of the series they were making. The low-tech nature of the first session of Marble Hornets also imposed some restrictions that those making the series had to overcome. And overcome they did, and rather ingeniously too. This is something that EverymanHYBRID has continued with; but that other series has bogged down and became irrelevant. The whole idea behind Marble Hornets is so like the novel House of Leaves that I was surprised to find that those making the series had not even heard of the book until the start of session two. But everything is still there, bizarre distortion in the video evidence, footage that apparently was not there before, and a cryptic storyline that feels like it has been progressing for years before the series started. As a matter of fact, it actually has, regardless of the time jumps that has happened in the series, the main antagonist of Marble Hornets is an entity known as 'The Slender Man', which was an internet meme before Marble Hornets existed, and has grown so realistic it can actually be better described as the internet’s first Folk Tale, or Urban Legend. This is also what I loved about Marble Hornets when it first started. It so reminded me of the story The Call of Cthulhu because it did really feel like you were watching and helping in the uncovering of something. It felt almost real, almost like it could happen, like it was an urban legend or a folk tale come to life. Now, with the second session a lot of this has gone in favour of a more linear, more simplistic plot that, while still very interesting – and it explores the characters a lot more than the first session, it has lost that sense of exploration that the first session had so strongly. However, this is not to say that session 2 of Marble Hornets isn’t great, and if you have only just heard about this series then do yourself a favour and check it out. beware of 2theaRk
[The next one may as well be Lord of the Flies just so I can keep posting Iron Maiden and Metal lyrics.] 'Silent screams laughing here, dying to tell you the Truth. You are PLANNED and you are damned in this Brave New World' - Iron Maiden The future. 632 in the year of our Ford, and human life is not born, but grown in a laboratory. Through the process of 'Bokanovskyfying' human relations are little more than clones, and literature is forgotten as 'Propaganda' while sports and recreational sex and drugs are used to keep people subdued and stupid. Is this Utopia or Dystopia? Heaven or Hell? This question is at the heart of Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. It is a very interesting question too, however I don't think that in this novel the question is elaborated on as well as it could have been. Everything is mechanized, and all of the different classes in the population are kept happy in their positions and are shown to be of varying degrees of intelligence, depending on their position and job; but the book is not long enough to show the people going about their lives and exploring and living in this society. As a result the question of 'Utopia or Dystopia?' does not feel important. We simply do not get a good enough overview of the society like we do in Brave New World's counterpart Nineteen-Eighty Four, we just see the world of the novel through Bernard Marx and Lenina, two characters who work in the Hatchery. The effect is to make us feel distant. We are put into the world, shown how people are born, and then introduced to the main characters after four chapters, and then around page 80 in my copy (The Vintage edition) we are sent to a ‘Savage Reservation’ where people live without technology and after four chapters of this we are back in the modern and technology-based consumer society of Brave New World. The characters are not particularly interesting either; but considering the world they live in we perhaps should overlook this. Also, the entire book goes so quickly past, and there is nothing of the slowness and building menace of Nineteen-Eighty Four, that many people expect from the book and this seems to be the bigger problem with the novel. After some 60 years of publication, and of hearing about what it is, what it is about; people could easily go into the novel not actually knowing what the book really is like. What is thought of as novel of a horrific yet subtle dystopia, what it is instead is a satire on consumer society. It was supposed to be funny and ridiculous, but the humor in the book is poor at best and will easily go over the heads of readers today; however, the novel is also rather shocking. Much of the shock in the novel comes from the callousness and frankness in which the society operates, and compared to our own it is more of a culture shock than actual shock and horror that modern readers will expect. Yet: while the novel is more subtle than Orwell's novel it both suffers from this and has as it a point in it's favor. It is not 'chilling' so to speak, it is more, subtlety off. Reading the novel you get the sense that there might be something dark going on behind the scenes but there is nothing in the book to really suggest this, aside from banning literature as 'Propaganda', and could be more paranoia than anything else. However, even this paranoia seems to be poorly founded. The writing in the novel is impressive. However, the first chapter has some rather weird rhythms that are slightly jarring, and this can potentially upset some readers and turn them off while others might learnt to expect this from the rest of the novel like I did and end up disappointing. However, the writing in the rest of the book flows well and is well considered, however one might get the impression that it is intentionally missing out details. It is a minimalist form of writing in which even important details for mood setting and location seem absent, however this is either a good thing or a bad thing. Overall it isn’t a bad novel, it just does not seem to be what everyone expects of it. The novel feels wrong at the core, and that it is part of some larger plot, but people expect it to be a dystopian nightmare alike Nineteen-eighty Four. It seems that the novel has actually been let down by it's audience.
['Politicians hide themselves away, they only started the war. Why should they go out to fight? They leave that all to the poor' - Black Sabbath, War Pigs] I have been seeing a lot of talk about 'good' and 'evil' on the forum lately, and I find it interesting because I am of the mind set that Good and Evil are almost useless in their vagueness and arbitrariness. To me good and evil is best summed up with the moral dilemma presented in Paradise Lost by John Milton, which is one of my favorite books ever written. The line ''tis better to Reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n' is the best example I can think of for why I have such a problem with slapping the labels 'good' and 'evil' around. Is it better to rule in hell than serve in heaven? The question to me does not mean literal hell or literal heaven, or being near god or far away from god. To me the question of which is better comes down to free will. Satan in Paradise Lost is presented with a clear choice, he could stay in Heaven and find joy in doing god's work, but he would have to conform, or he could rule in Hell, and have his will done, but he would be forever pained by the unseeable fire of guilt and having to face the consequences of his actions. What is interesting in this is that Satan is characterized in the poem so well. He is clearly capable of anger and wrath, but he also has a charm, a sense of humor, and subtleties, and he is a genuinely tragic hero because he was ultimately betrayed by his own vanity. Over the course of Paradise Lost Satan is turned from a beaten yet brave and very human figure, wronged by god's beneficence into a serpent running away from Eden. The Images of the book turn from striking and dramatic (such as Satan descending through the universe and chaos and falling into a lake of fire and the rebel angels waking up in a dark cavernous place illuminated briefly by that same fire) to images that are mundane and uninteresting. Is this Satan's punishment for defending his own freedom, or a symbol for realizing that actions have consequences, or was Satan purely 'evil'? This is not to say that Paradise Lost is really about the Fall of Man. It is clearly a poem of it's time: the aftermath of the English Civil War and the Restoration of the monarchy; but it leads to an interesting dilemma all the same. 'tis better to Reign in Hell, than serve in heav'n' Is it better to be free and unhappy or at least partially repressed and happy? Is it better to grow and mature or be forever young. Heav'n and Hell can, after all, mean different things to different people - but with a question like this being applied to two figures traditionally associated with the dramatic divide between 'Good' and 'Evil' it becomes very hard to hold the opinion that Good and Evil really exist. Instead it seems to me that 'Good' and 'Evil', like 'Heaven' and 'Hell', are entirely subjective.