The Ex-Communicator

What happened in 2012

2013-01-06T09:56:45Z

I was just thinking that the biggest change I saw in 2012 is a kind of waking up about misogyny and sexual exploitation. Up until recently you just could not say that something (say a joke) was sexist or misogynist without being jeered at just for saying it. Suddenly it is something you can at least say sexism is bad in general conversation, even if people disagree with you. And I think - am I being optimistic - that some of the strategies misogynists use to shut down discussion are being recognised and named.

I have seen a similar change happen in my lifetime. Sometime about 1978 our whole culture woke up to racism in some way. What was acceptable in humour and drama just changed. I don't mean it suddenly all became lovely and harmonious and we all lived happily ever after but making 'Irish jokes' or 'Paki jokes' ceased to be respectable and normal almost overnight. Including one or two non-white faces in drama became expected (Blakes 7 is an example).

Also in the late 70s sexual exploitation of children became something that could be discussed. Actually, now I think about it, Blakes 7 is an example again. Again, a change in what was counted as 'funny' was a big part of it.

There have been serious issues raised in India and in the West about rape culture this year. I think an improvement can happen because it has happened before. That change in what can and can't be spoken, so that it is OK to complain, and not OK to condone.

That Locus list

2012-12-24T12:53:55Z

I have stolen from nwhyte his list of the Locus poll of 'best' SF and fantasy novels of the 20th and 21st centuries. Bold means I have read it, italic means I didn't finish it.

Conclusion: I have read more SF than fantasy. Something has alienated me from mainstream SF over the past few years.

20th Century SF Novel:

1 Herbert, Frank: Dune (1965)
2 Card, Orson Scott: Ender's Game (1985)
3 Asimov, Isaac: The Foundation Trilogy (1953)
4 Simmons, Dan: Hyperion (1989)
5 Le Guin, Ursula K.: The Left Hand of Darkness (1969)
6 Adams, Douglas: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (1979)
7 Orwell, George: Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949)
8 Gibson, William: Neuromancer (1984)
9 Bester, Alfred: The Stars My Destination (1957)
10 Bradbury, Ray: Fahrenheit 451 (1953)
11 Heinlein, Robert A.: Stranger in a Strange Land (1961)
12 Heinlein, Robert A.: The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress (1966)
13 Haldeman, Joe: The Forever War (1974)
14 Clarke, Arthur C.: Childhood's End (1953)
15 Niven, Larry: Ringworld (1970)
16 Le Guin, Ursula K.: The Dispossessed (1974)
17 Bradbury, Ray: The Martian Chronicles (1950)
18 Stephenson, Neal: Snow Crash (1992)
19 Miller, Walter M. , Jr.: A Canticle for Leibowitz (1959)
20 Pohl, Frederik: Gateway (1977)
21 Heinlein, Robert A.: Starship Troopers (1959)
22 Dick, Philip K.: The Man in the High Castle (1962)
23 Zelazny, Roger: Lord of Light (1967)
24 Wolfe, Gene: The Book of the New Sun (1983)
25 Lem, Stanislaw: Solaris (1970)
26 Dick, Philip K.: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (1968)
27 Vinge, Vernor: A Fire Upon The Deep (1992)
28 Clarke, Arthur C.: Rendezvous with Rama (1973)
29 Huxley, Aldous: Brave New World (1932)
30 Clarke, Arthur C.: 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
31 Vonnegut, Kurt: Slaughterhouse-Five (1969)
32 Strugatsky, Arkady & Boris: Roadside Picnic (1972)
33 Card, Orson Scott: Speaker for the Dead (1986)
34 Brunner, John: Stand on Zanzibar (1968)
35 Robinson, Kim Stanley: Red Mars (1992)
36 Niven, Larry (& Pournelle, Jerry): The Mote in God's Eye (1974)
37 Willis, Connie: Doomsday Book (1992)
38 Atwood, Margaret: The Handmaid's Tale (1985)
39 Sturgeon, Theodore: More Than Human (1953)
40 Simak, Clifford D.: City (1952)
41 Brin, David: Startide Rising (1983)
42 Asimov, Isaac: Foundation (1950)
43 Farmer, Philip Jose: To Your Scattered Bodies Go (1971)
44 Dick, Philip K.: Ubik (1969)
45 Vonnegut, Kurt: Cat's Cradle (1963)
46 Vinge, Vernor: A Deepness in the Sky (1999)
47 Simak, Clifford D.: Way Station (1963)
48 Wyndham, John: The Day of the Triffids (1951)
49/ Keyes, Daniel: Flowers for Algernon (1966)
49 Delany, Samuel R.: Dhalgren (1975)

20th Century Fantasy Novel:

1 Tolkien, J. R. R.: The Lord of the Rings (1955)
2 Martin, George R. R.: A Game of Thrones (1996)
3 Tolkien, J. R. R.: The Hobbit (1937)
4 Le Guin, Ursula K.: A Wizard of Earthsea (1968)
5 Zelazny, Roger: Nine Princes in Amber (1970)
6 Lewis, C. S.: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (1950)
7 Mieville, China: Perdido Street Station (2000)
8 Rowling, J. K.: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (1997)
9 Crowley, John: Little, Big (1981)
10 Adams, Richard: Watership Down (1972)
11 Goldman, William: The Princess Bride (1973)
12 Martin, George R. R.: A Storm of Swords (2000)
13 Beagle, Peter S.: The Last Unicorn (1968)
14 White, T. H.: The Once and Future King (1958)
15 Pratchett, Terry (& Gaiman, Neil): Good Omens (1990)
16 Kay, Guy Gavriel: Tigana (1990)
17 Gaiman, Neil: Neverwhere (1996)
18 Wolfe, Gene: The Book of the New Sun (1983)
19 Vance, Jack: The Dying Earth (1950)
20 Bulgakov, Mikhail: The Master and Margarita (1967)
21 Rowling, J. K.: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2000)
22 Tolkien, J. R. R.: The Silmarillion (1977)
23 Leiber, Fritz: The Swords of Lankhmar (1968)
24 Jordan, Robert: The Eye of the World (1990)
25 Donaldson, Stephen R.: Lord Foul's Bane (1977)
26 Bradbury, Ray: Something Wicked This Way Comes (1962)
27 Peake, Mervyn: Gormenghast (1950)
28 Rowling, J. K.: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (1999)
29 Powers, Tim: The Anubis Gates (1983)
30 Martin, George R. R.: A Clash of Kings (1998)
31 Bradley, Marion Zimmer: The Mists of Avalon (1983)
32 Hobb, Robin: Assassin's Apprentice (1995)
33 Pratchett, Terry: The Colour of Magic (1983)
34 Holdstock, Robert: Mythago Wood (1984)
35 King, Stephen: The Stand (1978)
36/ L'Engle, Madeleine: A Wrinkle in Time (1962)
36 Pratchett, Terry: Small Gods (1992)
38 Ende, Michael: The Neverending Story (1983)
39 Peake, Mervyn: Titus Groan (1946)
40 Howard, Robert E.: Conan the Barbarian (1950)
41 McCaffrey, Anne: Dragonflight (1968)
42 Orwell: George: Animal Farm (1945)
43 Feist, Raymond E.: Magician (1982)
44 Silverberg, Robert: Lord Valentine's Castle (1980)
45 Lovecraft, H. P.: At the Mountains of Madness (1936)
46 Swanwick, Michael: The Iron Dragon's Daughter (1993)
47 King, Stephen: The Shining (1977)
48 Garcia Marquez, Gabriel: One Hundred Years of Solitude (1970)
49 Saint-Exupery, Antoine de: The Little Prince (1943)
50 Hughart, Barry: Bridge of Birds (1984)

21st Century SF Novel:

1 Scalzi, John: Old Man's War (2005)
2 Stephenson, Neal: Anathem (2008)
3 Bacigalupi, Paolo: The Windup Girl (2009)
4 Wilson, Robert Charles: Spin (2005)
5 Watts, Peter: Blindsight (2006)
6 Morgan, Richard: Altered Carbon (2002)
7 Collins, Suzanne: The Hunger Games (2008)
8 Gibson, William: Pattern Recognition (2003)
9 Mieville, China: The City & the City (2009)
10 Stross, Charles: Accelerando (2005)
11 Mitchell, David: Cloud Atlas (2004)
12 McDonald, Ian: River of Gods (2004)
13 McCarthy, Cormac: The Road (2006)
14 Harrison, M. John: Light (2002)
15* Willis, Connie: Black Out/All Clear (2010)
15* Chabon, Michael: The Yiddish Policemen's Union (2007)

21st Century Fantasy Novel:

1 Gaiman, Neil: American Gods (2001)
2 Clarke, Susanna: Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell (2004)
3 Rothfuss, Patrick: The Name of the Wind (2007)
4 Mieville, China: The Scar (2002)
5 Martin, George R. R.: A Feast for Crows (2005)
6 Rowling, J. K.: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (2007)
7 Bujold, Lois McMaster: The Curse of Chalion (2001)
8 Mieville, China: The City & the City (2009)
9 Fforde, Jasper: The Eyre Affair (2001)
10/ Bujold, Lois McMaster: Paladin of Souls (2003)
10 Pratchett, Terry: Night Watch (2002)
12 Gaiman, Neil: Coraline (2002)
13 Wolfe, Gene: The Wizard Knight (2004)
14 Pratchett, Terry: Going Postal (2004)
15/ Gaiman, Neil: The Graveyard Book (2008)
15 Lynch, Scott: The Lies of Locke Lamora (2006)

Oxfam Christmas present

2012-12-24T12:02:03Z

Dear livejournal friends, I have bought you a Christmas present in lieu of sending cards. I donated to Oxfam 'train a teacher'. I could only send the e-card to one person so I have sent it to altariel because she introduced me to livejournal and Twitter.

But I think better than an e-card, here is the Oxfam video about the work they do under the train a teacher programme:

Gylfinir

2012-12-21T22:04:41Z

gylfinir has died. We spent one day together once and I have a scarf she made. I think about her quite often but I did not do enough to let her know.

Seven Psychopaths

2012-12-08T12:12:44Z

This is why I have kept off livejournal, because once I start I can't stop posting. Damn. I haven't written one economically productive word this morning.

I went to see Seven Psychopaths, which is a film by the same guy who wrote and directed In Bruges. It is a great film. It's a comedy, but with quite a lot of violence in it, including against women. I feel I need to say that upfront, because some people might not want to see it for that reason.

It is a writerly film, with Colin Farrell as the writer's idealised alter ego, who is struggling to write the script to 'Seven Psychopaths'. I know self-referential films like that can be shit, but this one is good. It is clever and charismatic enough to carry through that dodgy premise. As well as Farrell it has Christopher Walken, Sam Rockwell and Woody Harrelson who are all funny and compelling.

I think the reduction of women to victimhood is a significant flaw in the film, and the authorial character being told off by Christopher Walken about it does not get him off the hook IMHO. Nevertheless I think it is one of the best films I have seen this year.

Films I would compare it to, apart from In Bruges of course, are Pulp Fiction and Big Lebowski and Repo Man. I wouldn't say it was as good as any of those, which are among my all-time best films, but it is good and within that intelligent dark comedy genre.

ETA Pete Bradshaw in the Guardian: wrong again about a genre film. He's a good critic but I think he lacks instinct in spotting the gold in mainstream films.

And back in September's Guardian Catherine Shoard gave it four stars:

Witty and inventive, cracklingly obscene and sheep-dunk bracing. And it suffers some of the same short-burn as a Tarantino flick, vividly impressive at the time, but all fireworks and no Aga, a film whose parts might be more than its sum. There are scenes of complete brilliance, Walken is better than he's been in years, cute plot loops and grace notes. Yet it doesn't quite cohere.

The brutal experiment

2012-12-08T11:37:09Z

Here's an article in the New York Times expressing pity for the UK as the subject of a 'brutal' experiment to prove that austerity does not work. Anyone with any claim to economic savvy who said it might ever work should hang their head in shame.

It's ugly of me to say 'I told you so'. But it was very hard two years ago, being abused and condescended to by Lib Dems. One Lib Dem (the only person I have ever defriended on livejournal*) called me a 'Nazi' to my face. To my virtual face I mean. I do consider the evidence of the past two years shows that people like me who said it was a disaster coming, were right. We were bloody right. It is no consolation. It is literally no consolation at all.

I don't think what happened two years ago was merely a widespread intellectual error, like the geologists who disbelieved in continental drift. I think it shows that reason is a figleaf hiding murky emotional reaction. I actually think this disjunct between overt reason and hidden motive can be worst among atheist/ rationalist/ SF-Lovin'/ computer nerdy types. I know I am part of that group. I don't exclude myself.

Irrational and cruel and destructive impulses slobber around in the subconscious and all the time we talk louder and louder about intellectual matters and books and university courses. Cleverness is being used to think up pretend reasons for actions which are rooted in unexamined impulses.

In this case I think the powerful desire to be brutal was much more significant than the flimsy theoretical idea that brutality would work.

* I should say, apart from two people who unfriended me first for saying rude things about the Bible and Science. That's not bad is it, three fallings-out in ten years.

communicator @ 2012-11-11T00:39:00

2012-11-11T00:39:56Z

Sorry I have just had to put comments on friends-only because of spam. Hopefully not for long.

Television cinematography as art

2012-11-10T09:33:38Z

Can you tell this is my one time a week I allow myself to much about online? Back to work in a few moments.

Here is a beautiful video showcasing the Cinematography of Breaking Bad.

http://youtu.be/XkSk6-krSKY

What I want from art of all kinds is to feel the beauty and horror of life, to wake up from the kind of dull trance we fall into (I fall into, I think other people do): as Wordsworth said 'Getting and Spending we lay waste our powers'.

I think that video works as a standalone.

There are clever things in particular camera shots. For example, sitting in front of the desert sunset you see Walt is eating a hoop-shaped thing. That is a 'FunYun', and he has mocked Jesse for eating them. Walt eating Jesse's food is a gentle sign of their reconciliation. In the next series, on the day they destroy the camper van, Walt sees a bag of FunYuns in the van, and he reconciles with Jesse. This kind of narrative thread adds a further layer to the shots. But I think the video stands alone as a piece of TV poetry.

Tom Watson, please take special care

2012-11-10T06:54:26Z

I think the senior Tories caught up in this abuse scandal are horrible selfish people, but I don't think most of them are child abusers. I think Tom Watson MP is good to his core, and has done so many good things. But I think he is at risk of making an error.

It must be very difficult for him. He was told things which must have seemed almost impossible to credit, about phone hacking by newspapers, then about Jimmy Saville and so on. And all the allegations so far have been shown to be true, and there had been a massive establishment cover-up. What an emotional impact that must have had on him.

But now, in my opinion, unscrupulous or emotionally damaged people may have started to take advantage of him.

Here is what he wrote this week:

As I type this blog post, I’m half-smiling about how insane all this appears. It sounds like I’ve taken leave of my senses – just like they said I had during the early days of the hacking scandal. Maybe I have.

I don't believe he has taken leave of his senses. I think he is - quite understandably - overwhelmed by how many seemingly-impossible things have proved to be true, that it is hard for him to know what to credit. This does not make him bad or stupid. But it makes him vulnerable.

Many ordinary people have contacted me about suspicions they have had of a wider wrongdoing – in some cases so heinous it made me cry. They have talked of psychopaths marking children with Stanley knives to show “ownership”.

I think the knife thing is an urban legend. And I think there is a big risk that individual details like this will be proved false and people will use that to discredit the overall story. People want to restore the status quo. They want to believe it is all about specific individuals, who can be exposed once they are safely dead. People really, really want to believe that powerful people are basically benign. So Watson - a good, brave man - needs to be very careful this week.

The Tory abuse allegations

2012-11-10T06:29:32Z

The Tory I didn't want to name the other day was Lord McAlpine. It now transpires that it was sensible to be cautious. It appears the abused children were told the person abusing them was McAlpine when he was actually some other rich old man. The BBC fucked up for the second time, which is tragic.

I also know at least two of the names that were given to David Cameron (on air by Philip Schofield) - and I don't believe these two men to be paedophiles. Although they are senior Tories whose policies I hate I think they are innocent of this. They were both part of an upper crust gay subculture in the 80s and 90s. I am pretty certain of that because a very affluent gay man I used to be close to was part of the same subculture. I have never made anything of that knowledge, because I don't believe in outing harmless sexual proclivities. One of the two is an affable enough chap, the other is a nasty piece of work in my opinion. It doesn't matter, I think they are both innocent.

On the subject of sexual abuse I stand by what I have been saying all week:

Obviously there are secrets - like who exactly did what and when - but secrecy is there to protect the incompetence and weakness of the powerful. It doesn't give politicians and their pet journalists special power or competence, quite the reverse, it allows them to be rubbish... The only thing that happens when details come out is that what has been frankly obvious to anyone with eyes can't be denied any longer - not the individuals but that attitude that some people are expendable, usable, less important. Although of course some people will bitterly continue to deny.

sheenaghpugh rightly responded that the names of individuals are important for prosecution. Yes, and I won't deny there is also a natural human tendency to want to know names and faces - that's how our mind's work.

But the overall issue doesn't change - which is that child abuse has been allowed to flourish by a culture which says rich white men are more important than all other types of human being. That their word is more reliable. That their sexual needs are the norm. That their pleasure is more important than the pain of children. A rape culture in other words.

What I am scared about is that people will focus on names, and when a particular name is shown to be false they will think this solves the problem. It does not. The names are - I won't say a red herring - but the insider knowledge is less important than what should be clear to all. Rape culture is evil and needs to be changed.

The Long Con

2012-11-04T08:53:33Z

I just read an article by the American historian Rick Perlstein (author of Nixonland) which develops the idea I was kind of kicking around in my head yesterday, that 'Insider knowledge' is overrated. The article is called The Long Con and it's about how political mailing lists have been used by con artists since the early sixties to mail scams out to victims. And a lot of these scams are based on supposed 'insider knowledge', send money to learn about the cancer cure doctors are keeping to themselves or whatever.

In the last page of the article Perlstein raises another point, which I find fascinating. Loud public affirmation of things that people at some level know are not true serves as a group bonding thing. Here he is on the Romney campaign:

Lying is an initiation into the elite. In this respect, as in so many others, it’s like multilayer marketing: the ones at the top reap the reward... Sneering at, or ignoring, your earnest high-minded mandarin gatekeepers—“we’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers,” as one Romney aide put it—is another part of closing the deal. For years now, the story in the mainstream political press has been Romney’s difficulty in convincing conservatives, finally, that he is truly one of them. His lying—so dismaying to the opinion-makers at the New York Times—is how he has pulled it off once and for all.

Knowing deep inside that something isn't true makes it bizarrely more emotionally compelling to a certain kind of person. Orwell wrote quite a bit about this. For example I think those people who make a big fuss saying 'Obama is a Muslim' don't really believe it. And in a funny way the fact that they know it isn't true makes it more exciting to say it, and hang out with other people who say it. Or you know 'Homosexuals are going to inject our children with AIDS' or whatever bullshit. It excites them in an unhealthy way I think, because they know it isn't true, but they can all get together and say it to each other.

If I try to put it in a nice way, some people are strongly attuned to group cohesion and group membership - which is a natural human thing - and affirming an untruth in solidity with others emphasises the strength of their social ties. Just like for a different kind of person affirming 'the truth' against social unpopularity is quite thrilling in a different way.

You don't need to be an Insider

2012-11-03T08:44:28Z

I went to bed early last night. Apparently there was a Newsnight report about the ongoing child abuse revelations which are rocking the British establishment. The BBC cautiously redacted the name of the friend of Margaret Thatcher who was closely involved. So this morning I thought I would give myself a little test of how easy it would be to find out who he was. It took less than five minutes. And it was only as long as that because I had the wrong name in mind. I have decided not to link to any websites, because it will all be out by the end of the day anyway. For example, wikipedia staff have edited content, but wikipedia editing history is open to anyone to read. If you care to know you can find out. PS it is not a fascinating fact or anything.

There was an article in Crooked Timber about the concept of Insider knowledge (it's not about child abuse).

Most of the time, you can learn as much or more from intelligently consuming publicly available information as you can from attending purportedly insider briefings... (in fact) you are likely to end up with a less biased understanding. ... the reasons for the apparent near-unanimity among foreign policy specialists that going into Iraq was a good idea was a combination of bad sources, careerism, and substantial dollops of intellectual dishonesty.

I agree with that post: the idea that powerful people have some kind of secret understanding, closed to the rest of us, is self-serving bullshit. OK, obviously there are secrets - like who exactly did what and when - but secrecy is there to protect the incompetence and weakness of the powerful. It doesn't give politicians and their pet journalists special power or competence, quite the reverse, it allows them to be rubbish. And secondly, while the details of allegations can be hidden (for a while) the overall attitudes of superiority and selfishness which enable abusive behaviour are obvious to anyone who cares to see.

Let me take an example from outside Western society, and outside right wing circles. Both Stalin and Mao were linked to people who physically abused others. In both cases the details were suppressed. But do we think that ordinary people in those countries did not know? Or that the attitude which enabled that abuse was not clear to all? Of course people knew. And it is just the same for us. (By 'the same' I mean we already know in our hearts, like people in Russia did. The wicked deeds are different).

I think the only thing that happens when details come out is that what has been frankly obvious to anyone with eyes can't be denied any longer - not the individuals but that attitude that some people are expendable, usable, less important. Although of course some people will bitterly continue to deny.

Some Walking Dead music videos

2012-10-31T17:22:06Z

All featuring Daryl, my favourite character:

Animal that I've become

Remember the name

I stand alone

Oh, death

Mystery Dance

2012-10-31T09:48:20Z

pointlessride asked if she could translate one of my Breaking Bad stories into Russian and here it is. It is fun to translate it back into English with Google. Like reading a story written by someone else. I like it.

Sandy

2012-10-29T19:52:15Z

Sorry I have been very poor at reading livejournal this autumn because my life is very busy. Best wishes to all lj friends on the East coast of the US. Hope there aren't too many problems from the storm coming over this evening.

Derren Brown and magical narrative

2012-10-28T09:40:47Z

My daughter is a big fan of Derren Brown and she was telling me about his new show Apocalypse. We were saying how his explanations of 'how he does it' are always fake, and the real trick is something else going on while your attention is caught up in his elaborate psychological explanation. And also how he makes use of the narratives which already exist in our society to control his subjects. One of my daughter's closest friends was brought up on stage at a Derren Brown show, and analysing her experience afterwards made it clear how he uses the narrative of 'being on stage with Derren Brown' for example (and other common cultural narratives). By the way this is absolutely not a criticism or a debunking, I think it's brilliant stuff. There are layers within layers, and the first revelation is always a fake one. Not a problem, and I think he's a lovely man, who deserves his success.

A friend said she thought government was like that - there is one bit of business going on in the public view, which corresponds to culturally accepted narrative of 'what government does' and then another thing going on which is government actually being effective and producing results while our attention is on the showmanship. She thought the current government were only doing the 'government narrative', like a magician who does the hand-waving and distraction, but who isn't actually working meanwhile to make the trick happen.

And then I was comparing what happened to the Lib Dems in 2010 - and we saw a lot of this on livejournal - to a kind of hypnosis. They were swept up by a powerful narrative, and it ate them and destroyed them. But I don't feel they are blameless, because they were psychologically ready to be tricked. They were kind of asking for it.

Skyfall

2012-10-28T09:13:27Z

All times I have enjoyed
Greatly, have suffered greatly, both with those
That loved me, and alone; ...I am become a name;
For always roaming with a hungry heart

I went to see Skyfall, the new James Bond. This is a brief spoiler-free overview. I dunno, I will cut it in case you are utterly allergic to seeing anything in advance, but there's nothing here that gives away any significant plot development. But do try to see it.

It is terribly good, and well worth seeing. It is directed by Sam Mendes, who did American Beauty, and I think this is better, though less innovative. It is a film of its type - it is an action film, with absurd derring-do, but I think it is a very good example of that genre. I always say I am happy to be blatantly pandered to, if it is done with elegance and humour. I think this is how an action film should be made, in contrast to the recent Batman film, which was inelegant and lazy. It has good fan-service, a good older woman role, Daniel Craig tied to a chair (great scene all round - you'll see), and my favourite Tennyson poem (Ulysses), so all in all, a good night out for me.

Javier Bardem is a horrid villain, complex enough to have some kind of solidity. My daughter thinks he is based on Julian Assange - I don't agree but it's interesting thought. He reminded me more of Tim Curry.

I just have one casting criticism. I love Albert Finney, and it is great to see him on screen, but here he plays a Scottish character. I think that is a mistake, and they should have found an iconic older Scottish actor. But it occurs to me they might have tried and failed to get Sean Connery (or they are saving him for a certain role in a sequel). I haven't thought of a better alternative.

The theme of Ulysses - of an older hero, damaged by events, setting forth again - is strongly paralleled to a vision of Bond as an iconic representation of England, eternally linked in heart to Scotland and Europe, struggling against the weight of poor leadership, coming back from the dead. It is an optimistic vision, and I think many British artists now are trying to forge a positive new vision of Britain, because it is the responsibility of our artists to do that. To serve the culture that made us, and to save it. Like in the war really, when our survival was the primary responsibility of all British writers and artists.

Brick

2012-10-10T06:28:37Z

I am watching Brick, by the same director as Looper, and also starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt. It's a very black comedy, one of the many, many versions of Red Harvest that have been made over the years. Red Harvest is a fascinating novel, probably in my top ten, and it has been made into several great films, but funnily enough none of them are called Red Harvest. Perhaps that's too obviously a socialist title. I am thinking Yojimbo, Fistful of Dollars, Miller's Crossing and Last Man Standing. I am sure there more I can't think of right now. This version authentically captures the gluttony for punishment of the main character, which is downplayed in the films with Willis and Eastwood and so on. He basically wins by abasing himself, and needlessly being knocked unconscious over and over again.

Anyway, the very bleak humour in this is that all the characters are school kids (though played by actors in their twenties). It's not like 'Bugsy Malone' - there's real violence. But it is very funny to hear noir dialogue, as you might recognise from scenes in other films between a police chief and a private eye, in the mouth of a Vice Principal telling a kid off for not going to class. Or the scene in Red Harvest where the 'private eye' is beaten unconscious by the henchman, followed in this version by the protagonists eating cereal in a kitchen under the watchful eye of the chief gangster's mum.

And yet, of course kids of this age do get killed, get pregnant, get addicted and exploited. And they aren't listened to. Just in the month I have been teaching there has been serious stuff happened to kids in my classes, which would challenge any adult. The use of highly stylised noir dialogue is, as I say, comic, but also provides a way for adults to see into the world of children, in adult terms. I would like to see more recognition that the suffering of children is as serious as the suffering of adults.

Turning it around, the restrictions and powerlessness of children enables the noir plot to unfold, and makes clear the alienation and futility which Hammett's communist novel was portraying.

(I'm actually posting this before I have seen the whole film, because I have to go to work now)

Sube conmigo amor Americano

2012-10-04T13:12:09Z

For national poetry day, here is my own translation of part of The Heights of Macchu Picchu by Pablo Neruda. Oh Wilkamayu, oh you loom of sound.

Sube conmigo amor Americano

Rise up with me, American beloved
Oh, kiss with me these undiscovered rocks.
The silver torrent of the Urubamba
Drives out the pollen from its golden cup.
Everything is flying: the emptiness within the vines
The solid ground, the stony garlanding,
Above the silent canyon through the peaks.
Come, little one, between these wings
Emerging from the ground - crystal and freezing air -
Beating back, fighting the emeralds,
The savage waters at the base of snow.

Love me, love me, until the night forces
Sound from the Andean flint,
Until the rosy knees of dawn
Part to reveal the blind son of the snow.

Oh Wilkamayu, oh you loom of sound
When you break your perfect line
In white spume, like a wound in snow
When your plunging tempest sings
Punishing heaven, calling the sky to wake,
What language is this, wrenched from the Andean foam,
That gushes into my open ears?

Three films

2012-10-04T12:55:02Z

I have seen three films recently, but because I am working literally seven days a week right now, I haven't had time to post here about them. In case you are trying to decide whether to see them, here is a quick blast of opinion. No spoilers.

Anna Karenina: starring Keira Knightley, script by Tom Stoppard, and directed by Joe Wright (also directed Keira Knightley in Pride and Prejudice, and Atonement). Some people are irritated by Keira Knightley. If you are, this will irritate you, as her mannerisms are on full strength. Not a problem for me, I think she is doing pretty well & maturing as an actress. This is an extremely stylised non-realistic production, more like an opera than a normal film. It's very lush with fantastic dresses and so on. The story happens in and around a series of theatrical sets, some of which kind of open up into real life rooms or landscapes, and others close down into backstage walkways. It reminded me a bit of Kenneth Branagh's Magic Flute. It's very girly, very pretty, and a bit shallow.

Killing Them Softly: is a philosophical gangster film - there are a few of those aren't there. Like the Hit or something, but this one is American. The philosophical theme is entropy and the inevitability of decay. It is grimy and oppressive in atmosphere but very cleverly designed. Brad Pitt is a competent hitman, no appetite for emotional scenes, just does the job. He is operating in a milieu which is dominated by incompetent men with massive emotional issues that they express through greed and violence. Meanwhile the banking crisis and the McCain/Obama presidential campaign are playing out in the background, on every radio and TV in every room. As Pitt contends 'This is capitalism, now give me my fucking money'.

Looper: This is a time travel film set in the near future USA, starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt as a hitman and Bruce Willis as his older self back from the future. A big deal for me is that this was directed by a Breaking Bad alumnus - Rian Johnson who directed my favourite episode 'Fly'. It is also the best SF film we have seen for a while, though it is quite flawed. I feel it was perhaps pulled in many directions as it was made, and the emotional punch was somehow lost. You can read a full review by Abigail here: I really recommend that, and there's no point in me repeating any of that analysis. I disagree with Abigail in one respect - I think the way that the paradoxes of time travel were handled, though no doubt ridiculous, was satisfying in narrative terms, and internally consistent - like for example Terminator, where the time travel doesn't annoy the viewer, regardless of whether it makes sense.

For me the best scene hands down - and it is interesting Abigail also mentions it - was a Breaking Bad scene. Aging dangerous (bald) man browbeats and ridicules younger man in a diner, calls him a child, and they end up hurting each other. That's like in every episode, but it never gets old. I would say that Bruce Willis is - he's probably a more straightforward kind of guy than Bryan Cranston, less in touch with - erm - the problematic things inside. His delivery of the same lines is less complicit and disturbing, but nevertheless fascinating to see a different favourite actor approach the same material.

Massive cock up

2012-10-03T06:38:09Z

In the UK, since John Major's privatisation of the railways, the railway system was split up into overlapping sections, and private companies have to bid to run them. They 'bid' by offering to pay the government money during the life of the franchise. This year the contract to run the West Coast rail was taken away from Virgin and given to FirstGroup. That is because FirstGroup promised to pay the government a mad amount of money - I forget how many billions - but all at the end of the franchise period. Basically the business plan of the owners was to make money up front, and then let the company go bankrupt in five years (or be bailed out by public money as usual). That meant they were technically the 'highest return' bid and they could undercut Virgin. I mean, I don't love Virgin but this was just cynical gaming of the system.

Anyway, Richard Branson announced he was taking them to court over it, and a lot of people thought that a lot would come out in court about the processes used, possibly about corrupt practices, I don't know.

Today The Government have announced the suspension of the franchise process. They have suddenly 'discovered' that there were flaws in the process. They are going to start again. They are compensating Virgin and the other companies involved to the tune of £60m.

This almost literally could not come at a worse time for the Government, because it is only a few hours since the leader of the opposition gave the best speech he has ever managed, focusing on the Government's incompetence, U-Turns and favouritism. So, my conclusion is that they must have been absolutely desperate to shut Branson down. He'll get the franchise now, and keep his mouth shut. He's a business man.

Swing

2012-09-30T07:50:20Z

I am supposed to be writing but I have been wasting time this morning looking at lindy-hop and jitterbug videos on YouTube. I love Swing music, and I like the dancing that goes with it. I think the women are assertive and uninhibited.

The early examples in the 30s and early 40s are more dominated by black dancers, and the dancing is generally more powerful. The examples from the 1950s - taken from mainstream films about white teenagers - are mostly fairly tame. On the whole the black women are allowed to move more, pick up the men and swing them as well as vice-versa, express their physical movements more confidently. I know it is because of racism that it was acceptable to show a black woman swinging a man around, or jumping in the air and showing her knickers, and not a white woman of the same era. But the dancing of the women is not at all demeaning, regardless of race. They are full of energy and bravado.

Anyway, here are a couple of good ones.

This is the classic from Helzapoppin (1941): by a professional dance troupe. I notice that the black women dancers are all shown as working people, and they are confident and assertive with the men.

A 1945 film called Swing Fever: in this clip a woman dances with two men, a soldier and a sailor, and gets them to dance together.

Not just signal efficiency

2012-09-22T01:56:43Z

In Seven Types of Ambiguity William Empson unpacks multiple meanings from eight words of Macbeth: 'The crow makes wing to the rooky wood'. In addition to the overt meaning 'I see a bird going from a to b' he says, I think rightly, that the words suggest something like

- Night is falling
- Dark things are coming together into a collective darkness
- A solitary carrion-eating thing is moving towards a community
- A lone thing is moved to lose its individuation
- Chickens are coming home to roost
- The end of my story is coming, and it isn't going to be good

I am obviously not doing his theory justice, but I think each one of those meanings is conveyed by the words. And the meanings support each other because they are different but similar. The sounds - or words on the screen - carry much more information than they normally do.

Similarly in Breaking Bad scenes are saturated so that they carry extra information. I was thinking of two 'making meth' montages in recent episodes. One is accompanied by the Monkees, which IMO carried a subtext about commercial imitation (Monkees -> Beatles) another to 'Crystal Blue Persuasion' by Tommy James and the Shondells, which carried the meta-message that it is the perfect track, after five seasons of montages. And colour in general is information-carrying in Breaking Bad, so every scene has a colour-meaning alongside the overt meaning.

But I think that's a technical issue, and you don't get the effect by simply unpacking the meaning, like it was a compression format. What I mean is that it is not a quantitative difference from normal telly or writing. It's not 'we managed to increase the carrying capacity of the signal'. And unzipping the data packet is not the - I was going to say not the right thing. It is the right thing. But mostly you do it intuitively, and non-verbally. It happens straight into your brain, without touching the sides.

In any case the effect is not quantitative. Somehow it is qualitative. I think because you get multiple meanings coming into your brain at the same time, it forces your brain to operate with multiple processes at once, which all reinforce each other. So it gives you a heightened feeling. Like a joke does, or suddenly understanding a theory. It's exhilarating.

ETA and people who say 'you think too much' or 'you are reading too much into it' are either missing out, or more likely I think they are getting the effect of the extra signal, and they like it, but it's not registering consciously. And I totally accept that as a valid response, because that's how I respond to music, compared to someone like H who understands the signal.

The ethical dilemmas of daughter and cat-carer

2012-09-14T06:33:07Z

Some of you might remember that 2 or 3 years ago I was looking after my parents' cat while they were on holiday, and it was pretty clear to me that it had diabetes, which they would not acknowledge. I started him on insulin without asking their permission. I thought they might not be able to cope with the injection regime. However, once I had taken the initiative, they picked up the routine, and the cat has survived to its current great age. It's very scrawny but hanging on.

Anyway, I've got him again, and once again there is clearly something very wrong. This time it's his right eye, which is badly infected. I am thinking this is a side-effect of the circulatory problems associated with diabetes.

Immediately I saw the cat I was thinking 'Why don't you acknowledge this problem?' It's obvious something is badly wrong. Anyway as soon as I had 'custody' of the cat, I whipped him off to my own vet. She says his eye is so bad that she would probably remove it except that he wouldn't survive anaesthetic. But as far as I can tell he is not suffering. I don't think he can feel it. There seem to be none of the tell-tell signs of pain; he's purring loudly, lets me touch the eye without flinching, and eating three or four big meals a day. Therefore I am starting antibiotics and anti-inflammatory to try to save the eye without surgery.

Eating 3 or 4 big meals a day? - bonus vet advice - he is also hyperthyroid. The vet says balancing treatments for hyperthyroidism and diabetes would be 'demanding'. If I start him on a big thyroid work-up while they are away I am committing my parents to a great deal of stress. I know I underestimated them before, but I don't think they could cope. Unlike the diabetes I don't feel his thyroid problem is harming his quality of life - if you saw him, he's a happy but very very old cat. The vet says without radical treatment his life expectancy is - well, pretty short.

So, my proposal is to not to start on a third regime on top of the insulin and eye treatment (both of which I have imposed on them without asking) but to simply let my mum and dad know the diagnosis. Then they can decide what to do. I think the only alternative would be to - I don't know - claim custody of the cat, refuse to give him back, and start some massive intervention. I think it's better to let them look after him at their home, where he is with people he has known all his life, and will probably pass away quite peacefully and quite soon.

Dredd

2012-09-08T05:39:59Z

When I was young, like a lot of British SF fans, I used to read the comic 2000AD. The main character in that was Judge Dredd, who is a future cop of fascistic disposition and severe demeanour. He patrols Mega City 1, an urban nightmare. He generally arrests and/or kills young scallywags not unlike the readership of the comic itself, as well as nasty types who richly deserve their come-uppance. It's violent and funny and ironical, so quite a British type of thing, although the story is ostensibly set in future-America.

Dredd is the second film made about Judge Dredd. The first was - by all accounts - rubbish. It starred Stallone, and he took his helmet off, so you could see his face?? And smiled from time to time?? Ridic.

This film captures the feel of the original. Dredd is played by Karl Urban (Eomer, Bones McCoy) and you never see more than his miserable down-turned mouth - quite right. He's a resourceful actor and within this restriction he conveys the character well. He teams up with Anderson - a female psychic cop who has her own 2000AD series. This is an excellent female role - she isn't hyper-sexualised or objectified, she wears realistic and protective clothes, she isn't superhuman at fighting, and she does not get slotted into a romantic relationship with the male lead or anyone else.

The plot is very similar to the Indonesian tower-block film The Raid which I saw a few months ago. But the budget is massively higher and it's about firepower rather than martial arts. The budget is well spent. The representation of the future urban environment is great I thought. The interior spaces are large, and lived-in, one of the best SF set designs I've seen for ages. The use of colour and digital film is great. They have a kind of chiaroscuro use of blackness - my son tells me that's some kind of digital effect.

Another digital audio-visual gimmick is used to represent drugged consciousness. I thought it was OK actually, I enjoyed it. Others might think it is convenient that the new drug in the community produces a particularly striking digital bullet-time effect :-)

It was easy to understand what was happening in each fight scene. The weaponry was varied but the shooting was all fairly unpretentious. The plot is slightly sadistic, and the female villain is a little bit 'older, disfigured, but somehow annoyingly sexy'. I couldn't help thinking 'Just legalise the drug already - it might cheer everyone up'.

ETA - I must just add that they have a shoot out in a Breaking-Bad style ~~meth~~ drug of the future lab. And the chief male villain and drug-dealer is Avon Barksdale from The Wire. So there are nods to the TV gods, though obviously a film is a completely different kind of thing.