|
|
|
February 10th, 2010
02:43 pm - Car park fines
On Sunday I accidentally parked in a pay-and-display car park, which I thought was a free car park. Idiot. So I got a ticket under my windscreen wipers saying 'Pay a £50 fine', which fair enough I suppose. I put it in my pocket and wrote 'pay fine' on my to-do list for Monday.
Then on Monday when I looked in my pocket the bit of paper was gone. I suppose it fell out or something. What do I do now? I assume they will write to me with a reminder - will I get an extra fine for being late or something? Sorry to be so stupid, there are lots of practicalities of life that I don't really get on with too well.
|
February 9th, 2010
02:13 pm - Mad Men blogging
I missed Mad Men S3E3 'My Old Kentucky Home' last week because I was having a row at my poetry group, so I caught up with it later on i-Player.
I'm afraid I still think this season is a mite pedestrian. It's good pedestrian, but it's not quite what it was. In fact it now resembles what people used to say it was: a character study of the lives of powerful personalities, with ironic commentary on how social notions of good and evil have changed in the last forty or fifty years. It seems so far to be more structured, more logical, more straight-forwardly moral than it was: the modern visage peeping through.
The ghastly Roger Sterling performs a minstrel song in blackface. 'What we all think about this' is so heavily present it distorts the scene. What was most interesting was not that Don was disgusted, but that Pete Campbell was, even temporarily shocked out of exploiting the networking opportunity. What does this portend? Humanity creeping into his bleak soul?
In this Valve post Scott Kaufman says Don Draper is being left behind by the flow of time.
Campbell is, in a sense, becoming us, and we revile his behaviour to the extent that we recognize our sins in his actions. Draper, however, is becoming Art, and as such we hold him as responsible for his actions as we would Emma Bovary*. His self-fashioning was ... an act of literature. *ETA - I think he means we forgive him, because he is a beautiful creation.
In contrast this Valve post says that it is Pete Campbell who is evaporating, while Don has fixity.
It is quite common in real life to let other people “get away” with attitudes or behaviours that we eschew, and that we (rather confusingly) also consider unethical. That is because, sadly, our sense of the “ethical” often functions partly as a justification for the dead spaces, aesthetic failures, and unresolved dreariness that infiltrate our lives.
And the third Valve post says that we see characters like Peggy Olsen and Pete Campbell becoming more modern, because the way they frame their lives to themselves is becoming more like the ways we frame our own life stories to ourselves ('The Glass Ceiling' for example).
Whereas Draper (in this argument) is attempting to fabricate himself from the ground up:
Draper is, then, something of an exploded man sifting through bits of himself in search of the core to which all these bits once belonged. However, until he accomplishes this impossibility, his self-fashioning will still be far more aesthetic than that of the other characters on Mad Men, and as such, the show’s literate audience will still be drawn to him more than them.
I've quoted these three posts at length, although I don't agree with any of them. Instead I think that Draper's quest, and to some extent the quest of all the characters, is towards Authentic Being. This may be - is - an impossible quest, but it is a movement from the contingencies of one time, towards something unreachable but not time-bound. In this respect it is like Lavinia, the Children's Book, Pride and Prejudice. In fact now I am starting to see something that unites the books and TV shows that I like best.
|
February 8th, 2010
11:35 am - Cliqmo
Just got a new mobile phone. How do they pick the words for predictive typing? If I sign off 'Mum' it wants to say 'Nun'. I can't believe that's a more common word. And if I want to sign off 'Alison' it prefers 'Cliqmo'. What the hell is a Cliqmo? The Google, it does nothing. The main thing I get is other people called Alison complaining about mobile phones saying 'Cliqmo' at them.
|
February 7th, 2010
09:26 am - You've Done Too Much, Much Too Young
You may have heard of the British Museum/BBC project A History of the World in 100 objects.
Each week of programmes will be tied to a particular theme, such as ‘after the ice age’ or ‘meeting the gods’. Objects have been selected to cover the broadest possible chronological and geographical period, and tell a history of the world from two million years ago to the present day. The 100 programmes will be broadcast in three tranches throughout 2010.
The Herbert Art Gallery in Coventry is doing an off-shoot 'ten objects' project. This exhibit will be launched on the 31st March.
The ten objects are:
E-type Jag
The first safety bike
Coventry Strasse sign
original lyrics sheet for Too Much too Young
Rugby's atomic clock
The first rugby ball
The Waverley flint axe
Frank Whittle's jet engine
William Shakespeare's seal ring
The Sheldon tapestry
The museum have asked my poetry group to create a poem for each of the objects, to be performed on the night the exhibition opens. I think I am going to try Too Much Too Young and the Hand Axe. I've never really tried to write to a commission before, so it might all go horribly wrong.
|
February 3rd, 2010
04:11 pm - As above so below
Slaughterhouse 90210 mashes literary quotes with stills from TV shows. Here are some of my favourites.
Henry Miller and Lost
EM Forster and The Office (US)
Graham Green and 30 Rock
Jeanette Winterson and True Blood
Anais Nin and Mad Men
Albert Camus and Stephen Colbert
Flannery O'Connor and the Muppet Show
Junot Diaz and something
JD Salinger and Six Feet Under
Sylvia Plath and Sex and the City
This is just the kind of thing I like best, though some don't work so well for me, when they are US sitcoms and chat shows that I don't know at all. The best though, I think illustrate the book or comment on the TV show in a very interesting way.
|
February 2nd, 2010
12:55 pm - Political salad
I just did a test on that political ethics site I was talking about, on positional vs absolute goods. Positional goods are benefits you have relative to other people (like being healthier than them) and absolute goods are benefits you have regardless of what other people have (like being healthy).
My results are here. Basically I could give a monkey's about relative benefits, I want absolute benefits for meee. This makes me 'extreme liberal' (?) I don't understand how anyone prefers positional benefits over absolute. For example - 'Would you like two weeks holiday in a world where most people get one week, or four weeks holiday in a world where most people get eight weeks'. That seems like a no-brainer to me. I get twice as much holiday, and I get to feel virtuous and hard working. What's not to like?
Incidentally, I heard a joke on the radio yesterday.
'People ask for healthy food, and then they don't eat it. At any barbecue there's always a load of raw cabbage and carrot left over.'
'Is that Murphy's Law?'
'No, coleslaw'
|
January 31st, 2010
10:53 am - Tennant Hamlet
I watched the Tennant Hamlet, that I saw at the theatre about 18 months ago, on BBC4 last night. You can watch it on i-Play here for the next seven days (it's about three hours long)*. I tuned in a little way through last night, and I caught it at just a bit where I didn't think it was working too well (Hamlet seeing the ghost) and I thought 'Oh no, I've said this is so good, and it hasn't been converted successfully to TV'. However, I think it quickly got a lot better, and rewatching it now online, I think there were just one or two less good scenes, and I was unlucky enough to tune in during one of them.
I think Patrick Stewart and Oliver Ford Davies (Polonius) were brilliant, live and here. I thought Ophelia and Horatio were actually better in this version than the night I saw them on stage. I thought Tennant was perhaps not quite as brilliant, but very good. I thought he was more involving and moving when he was right there physically.
Overall I think a very brief review would be that this is a pure transparent production. The story and the text are clear. I like the modern way of foreshadowing and then delivering Shakespeare's words, so that they are the most natural thing to come out of that person's mouth at that time. I don't think it spoils the poetry, but it makes you feel a link between the ultra-life of the play and one's own life.
*PS Not sure if you can watch this outside of the UK? I think BBC i-Play should be viewable by anyone in the world. As a license payer I lose nothing by that.
|
January 30th, 2010
01:58 pm - Reading
The shortlist for the BSFA Awards has been announced. Here are the nominated novels:
Ark by Stephen Baxter
Lavinia by Ursula K Le Guin
The City & The City by China Mieville
Yellow Blue Tibia by Adam Roberts
I have already read Lavinia. I think I'll read the other three. Well, I'm not sure about Ark because it's a sequel.
Anyway, my reading seems to have slowed to a crawl this month. All I have read if Voices by Le Guin, and The Children's Book on audio (which I've not even finished yet). I have read bits and pieces of other books but nothing all the way through. Something about the restless way I have been feeling. At the moment I'm reading Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing? by Leszek Kolakowski, which is just a quick romp through the history of philosophy, from a relatively easy-going capitalist/monotheistic perspective. I find this point of view a bit complacent, but his writing is pleasant to read; he doesn't come across as a git like some modern philosophers.
|
January 28th, 2010
03:58 pm - Mad Men blogging
BBC have started broadcasting Season 3 of Mad Men (BBC4, 10pm Weds), starting with a two-episode premiere. UK folks can view online here.
These two episodes were I thought more 'enabling of future brilliance' than 'awesome in their own right'. Don't get me wrong - the script was exemplary, and the characterisation superb - but I felt that these were episodes doing a lot of groundwork to enable the rest of the season. For example we saw a brief glimpse of a wedding invitation (Roger Sterling's daughter) and the date was the Kennedy Assassination. Draper and Pete Campbell, in their respectively very clever and very stupid ways, compete themselves into predicaments they will regret later. Peggy and Salvatore struggle with expressing their sexual selves.
What was missing was the extra almost mystical under-current which the very best episodes have. This is when you realise that people then, like people now, can tap into a hidden creative power, a bit like electricity or groundwater. There was however excellent character development, irony and subtle use of language. These are great features to find in a TV show. In contrast, I watched Midsomer Murders earlier, with a lovely cast including Jenny Agutter - but the script! Oh dear. 'As you know Bob, I am a recovering alcoholic and ghost-writer.' 'Ah yes, I did realise that old chap, as I have known you for twenty years.'
Example of how Mad Men does it. Don has seen Sal in a hotel room with a half dressed guy. They are on the plane going home. Don: 'Sal I am going to ask you something, and I want you to answer me honestly.' Sal looks at Don, and you see him frightened, ready to spin a story, then deciding to be open about himself for the first time in his entire life. 'OK'. Then Don, seemingly-oblivious, outlines an ad campaign idea he has about a woman exposing herself on the underground (employing the same pose as the air hostess he fucked the night before). And you think - shit, Don is so selfish, and sexist, and he can't see beyond his own creativity to Sal's needs. But then he adds that the slogan of the advert is 'Limit your exposure'. And you think - is that Don's secret message to Sal? (ETA - and is it a supportive or dismissive message?) Or is Don selfishly using Sal's emotional pain to generate ideas? Or is he cannibalising his own life for ad copy? Or what? Now - that's script writing. (NB the answer is 'all of these' I think)
|
January 27th, 2010
04:21 pm - Inglourious Basterds
Todd Alcott's unfolding overview of Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds (link to latest excerpt) is worth a read. I think he correctly identifies the ambivalence and moral challenge which is coded into the film. It is surprising to me how the reviews by professionals I read in newspapers and so-on seem not to get that aspect of modern film and TV, while amateur/online reviewers do.
|
10:04 am - St Martin's Day
And another poem.
( Read more... )
|
January 26th, 2010
12:43 pm - Quiz on moral values
The other night I couldn't sleep so I was messing about on the Internet at 3am. I spent some time on a site called Your Morals.
We are a group of professors and graduate students in social psychology ... Our goal is to understand the way our "moral minds" work. Why do people disagree so passionately about what is right? Why, in particular, is there such hostility and incomprehension between members of different political parties? By filling out a few of our surveys, you'll help us answer those questions We, in return, will give you an immediate report on how you scored on each study, quiz, or survey. We'll show you how your responses compare to others and we'll tell you what that might say about you.
You have to register, and give your email address, but I am pretty sure it is legit, and private. I did several of the surveys, and it was interesting to see my results.
For instance, I took a test about the importance of five moral principles (harm-avoidance, fairness, loyalty, authority and purity). This graph compares my results (green bar) with the averages for liberals (blue bar) and conservatives (red bar) - American meanings of colours and terms of course.
'Liberals' tend to be higher on harm-avoidance, and lower on concern for purity and authority than conservatives, and my bars do follow that pattern, but more so. But I had a weaker commitment to fairness than a typical US liberal. I think this is because I am a socialist. I think 'to each according to his needs', not 'to each according to what is fair'.
And I am more like a conservative than a liberal in one measure - valuing loyalty. I do value loyalty, and I love England, and the people of all types who live here. And this is part of the reason I am a socialist.
ETA - further down in the site they explore the aesthetic preferences of liberals and conservatives, because their hypothesis is that political differences reflect deep-seated neural preferences, such as tolerance of disorder. I think they probably need to do a lot more on this before they frame any conclusions. As political stance seem to be influenced (though not of course determined) by family environment, the relationship with neural development I think must be reciprocal.
|
January 22nd, 2010
06:47 pm - Wretched cat
Thanks for advice, people. When I said 'my friends will disapprove', I was projecting my own self-criticism, which I've done before. Sorry about that. My mum phoned, and gave me permission to do whatever seemed best. I took the cat to the vets with intention to put it to sleep, and then couldn't go through with it, and I've come back with a live cat and a load of needles and insulin. I am softer hearted headed than I thought. To celebrate the bloody animal pissed on my new coat. Wretch.
|
10:19 am - More on the dilemmas of life
I've posted a couple of f-locked posts bemoaning my boring job. But this morning I think the problem was that I was exhausted. Sometimes I need to recognise when I am worn out, and to let myself have a quiet day. And sometimes I need to give myself a kick up the arse and get on with things. Never sure which is which.
I have had the tests back from the vet and my mother's cat is diabetic. I knew he was. I am taking him in today to start him on insulin. But I have got to say, and I know that people on my f-list will think I am very wrong to say this, I would rather send the money to Haiti than spend hundreds of pounds on keeping a very old cat alive. My dilemma is that I also can't just ignore a dying animal in my house. And my third option - have him put down while my mum is on holiday - no I think that is a step further than I am prepared to go.
|
January 21st, 2010
09:54 am - TV meme
Some questions about the telly:
( Read more... )
|
January 19th, 2010
10:21 pm - 44 inch chest
A British gangster film by the makers of Sexy Beast. It is on a very small scale, like a one-act stage play. It's mostly set in one room in a horrible derelict house. Ray Winstone is a jealous husband, and psycho gangster. The boy his wife has run off with is tied to a chair, and he's deciding whether to kill him. He has drunk so much that he's hallucinating.
In support are a Greek chorus of maladjusted hard men: John Hurt, Ian McShane, Tom Wilkinson and Ian Dillane. What a cast eh? What a cast.
This is a philosophical gangster film, like The Hit or In Bruges, but it isn't really awesome like they are. It's very short, contained, and it gestures towards ideas rather than explicating them. Obviously the acting is excellent, but stagey rather than filmy, and the writing too. The characters are well done, they seem whole real people, and a bunch of uneducated emotionally stunted toughs.
I suppose compared to most films of this kind there isn't a sympathetic character, except possibly the blank cypher of the silent, bound, young man. That means it's hard for it to go anywhere much. It's perhaps a film made for people like me who like the genre, want another one in the same vein. I was glad I went to see it, but it's not a must-see like Sexy Beast.
|
January 16th, 2010
04:58 pm - Small fandom video
Thanks to ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) obsessive24, a link to entries in a small fandom video competition Festivids.
Nicky posts to recommend Mr Blue Sky - a Wall-E vid. This is really good, and I recommend it to anyone who enjoys fanvids.
Of the others, I particularly liked this video of Bruce Willis in Die Hard, to Radar by Britney Spears: 'Significant amounts of violence'.
|
11:12 am - Haiti
I haven't posted about Haiti because I can't think of anything helpful to say. But I don't want to act like it isn't happening. In the last day it's become clearer that it's worse than it seemed at first - which was pretty bad anyway. I'm not going to gripe about the stupid things a few people have been saying. I think the very impressive immediate reaction from around the world is wonderful. The problems with getting relief to the area are to do with logistics not lack of will, it seems. I know that's scant comfort for people who haven't got water and medicines. However, I hope that because of the big gesture from all sides, once the aid does get through there is sufficient to establish some proper facilities.
ETA - OK just one criticism, of my newspaper, the Guardian - starving and dehydrated people scavenging for the necessities of life are not 'Looters'. I expect better.
|
January 15th, 2010
12:28 pm - The Children's Book
I am reading another Booker nominee novel: The Children's Book by AS Byatt. This is the story of the large late-Victorian family and progressive circle of a prolific children's novelist who seems to be based on E Nesbit. In fact now I'm sorry I read that wikipedia entry as I think it's given away a plot point or two. The family of the story reminds me a little of The Wouldbegoods, which I read as a child.
I am at an early stage of this long novel, but I wanted to quickly post because I think it is just the sort of thing that several on my f-list would enjoy. It is elaborately and densely decorated, like a piece of embroidery. A key theme of the book is the contrast between luxuriant richly decorated objects and the poverty of most people. I think one aspect of what she is saying is that the opulence, progressivism, archaism and elaboration of Victorian art reflect the rich consciousness of Victorian people, who therefore lived in a world which was not quite as - well, 'Victorian' - as we like to portray them. Instead it was dense with imagination, rooted in folklore, and also darkened by the disease, death and misery of childhood.
I am listening to it on audio, which is very enjoyable. The reading is lovely and the various class backgrounds and social strata are very cleverly and carefully distinguished by the reader.
My only caveat is that compared to Wolf Hall and The Little Stranger (both of which are also about talented working class outsiders invading the upper echelons) I feel that AS Byatt's instinctive location is with the upper echelons, while I felt Mantel and Waters were more democratic in their sympathies. Don't get me wrong - the sympathies of AS Byatt are progressive and generous, but the centre of gravity is with the privileged or so it seems to me. This may weaken as the story goes on.
|
|
|
