Recent Comments
Blog Roll
Links
Search
Dave's Twitter Feed
    follow me on Twitter
    Navigation
    Books we're reading
    • House of Suns
      House of Suns
      by Alastair Reynolds

      Stunningly good read, one of Reynolds best so far.  Big vision stuff and, by rights, a strong contender for next year's Hugo list.

    • Debatable Space
      Debatable Space
      by Philip Palmer

      Hmmm...  it isn't working for me at the moment.  I'll let you know if it does. [EDIT] Nope, still not working. [EDIT of the EDIT] Still slogging through, not improving... :(

    Powered by Squarespace
    Friday
    01Jan2010

    Tens for the Tens: Politics

    A ++Politics might be good. But we're apes with a thin veneer of language-based reasoning smeared on top. Some political systems are better that others, but they all involve politicians (or people who become politicians when they get inside the system). Anyway, in the seventeen UK general elections since 1945, only one (1970) has involved a party of one political stripe with a working majority being replaced by a party of the opposite political stripe with a working majority. Of the two elections most like the 2010 one, in 1964 Labour was returned with a small working majority, and in 1992 the Tories were returned with a small working majority. My gut feeling is that Cameron will become PM this year, but likely of a minority government or with a small majority that could be eaten away at by-elections thus opening up the possibility that his stay in power might not be an extended one (with Hague becoming Leader again in the Australian style). But, of course, four months is a long time in politics. If Labour (i.e. Peter Mandelson) can run and effective campaign - if it can make something of the Eton/Bullingdon Club/braying Tory Boy images - and that something does backfire, if some squalid scandal slithers out of the fetid pit of Cameron's or Osborne's past, if Brown can land a couple of punches on Cameron in the debates (and we haven't seen televised debates in a UK GE before, so their impact is unpredictable - if unlikely, in the final analysis, to be actually that significant), if enough voters still just don't trust the Tories (as they didn't Labour in 1992), maybe Brown could just sneak back in. That would make 2010-2015 a rerun of 1992-1997 unless Something Happened. It is very difficult for a party to reinvent itself in power and it might preferable for Labour to lose now and perhaps under Alan Johnson or, more likely, James Purnell (an apparatchik, but of the NuLab apparatchiks, probably the one who possesses the closest approximation to an actual human personality, and certainly plausible as an all-purpose Cameron clone) reinvent itself as some kind of (radical, progressive) social democratic party for the Twenty-First Century. Yeah, yeah. I know, I know. But, the truth, it that one would still always prefer to have one's own team in power. Cameron in power might cover himself with some Red Tory/Blue-Green rhetoric, but he will likely be in practice, a by-the-numbers social authoritarian/economic neoliberal. His mantra will be: (a) privatise what you can privatise (so the banks will sold for a song to private equity investors); (b) outsource what you can't privatise; (c) managerialise what you can't outsource. After thirteen years, being a public servant over the next half-decade might not be a terribly comfortable situation to be in. (As Irvine Walsh might put it, if you liked New Labour, you'll love the Tories!) If Cameron is elected, the next few years are likely to be as dominated by the constitutional crisis as they are by the economy. Scotland could vote for independence as early as this November, although probably more likely in 2011 (assuming the Nats win a majority in the Scottish election that year). It's possibly that some - many? - Tories might look favourably upon the prospect of an England with a perpetual Conservative majority. But there is the issue of Faslane. Extraterritoriality seems a doubtful option. I suspect that Cameron would try and cut a deal offering the Scots full home rule expect for defence, foreign affairs and certain macroeconomic issues. But would this be enough for Wee Eck? But all of this is politics more or less as usual. With the failure of the economic system and the failure of the political system to deal with it as well as its failure to deal issues such as climate change (consider the debacle of Copenhagen), we desperately need something fresh. Where is the new thinking (on the Left) going to come from? Will be be forced to dust off The State We're In? I suppose it would be a start. But in America, we have the very real prospect of a Palin candidacy in 2012. The 80s were the decade of Thatcher and Reagen and the 2000s the decade of Bush and Blair. Things may have to get worse - much worse - before they can get better.
    Blogged with the Flock Browser

    Tags:

    Wednesday
    08Apr2009

    Earworm

    C and I like listening to Scouting for Girls eponymous debut album Scouting for Girls while do things in the kitchen. I was listening to the album a few Sundays and couldn't find the Michaela Strachan song. So I looked up the album on the FoAK and discovered that "Michaela Strachan You Broke My Heart (When I Was 12)" is, in fact, a hidden track. The Wikipedia page lead me to this amusingly vituperative review of the album.

    Now it is interesting that the reviewer contrasts The Beautiful South and Danny Wilson (Danny Wilson? Danny Wilson!) favourably with SfG. For me, The Beautiful South have long been the exemplar of MotR dinner party/coffee shop/easy listening radio music. In my early days of buying CDs, I actually bought a Beautiful South album (Blue is the Colour). I quite like their songs and I quite the like album, but I still lie awake at night wondering what on Earth possessed me to buy it. And to compound the error, on the suggestion of my life coach a few years later, I bought a Dido album, a David Gray album and even a Coldplay album. What was I thinking and what would someone think who saw them on my CD rack?

    Consider, for instance, the copy of NME that Andrew Greenwood had when we went to Keithcon I in July 1997 (at least I think it was then; it was possible that it was the earlier than that or even that it was at Pandacon in 1998 - the "and" referring, naturally, to Mr G himself, who saved my life by stopping me choking to death on my vomit after drinking about a third of a bottle of cask strength whisky - my God, it's all coming back now). Andy would have been in his mid-thirties then and I did feel to me that perhaps he should have moved on, but I am 40 now and although I suspect that a 2009 copy of NME would interest me even less now that one did then, I know now were Andy was at - and even if I didn't, I'd hardly be in the place to criticise. Anyway, the particular issue under discussion contained a letter dismissing Radiohead as "middle class, white boy axe-wankery" (that might not have the exact expression and Google offers no clues; NME does not appear to be as well archived as the NYR), presumably in contrast to whichever hip hop artist was particularly popular at that time. I do have a copy of OK Computer and one might somehow feel there is something more ideologically sound about Radiohead than Coldplay, but it is not very clear to me what that something might be. Surely it is all "middle class, white boy axe-wankery"? It's just that some of it is more plangent than the rest.

    One might say Radiohead are the real thing. One might say that Coldplay are pretentious and affected. One might say SfG as manufactured. One might claim that The Housemartins spend years gigging around Hull, honing their craft, before they ever made it big (although it is pretty clear that it was not, in fact, many years). One might say that the songs on Scouting for Girls all sound the same. One might say that the songs on No Angel, all sound the same, but one might say that SfG's songs all sound more the same that Dido's do. One might say that SfG's lyrics are banal, but then (pretty much) all pop lyrics are banal. One might agree with Noel Coward that it is "Extraordinary how potent cheap music is." One might say that it is even more banal than usual to write lyrics referencing 1980s (and earlier) pop culture. Leaving aside the fact that some of us may have a great deal of emotional investment in 1980s (and earlier) pop culture, we might reply that they are fucking pop songs and that if I want profundity I will fucking well go and read bloody Geoffrey Hill. SfG's songs are earworms - both the musical and lyrical hooks catch the ear and burrow into the brain. They do this more than Dido or David Gray or Coldplay or the Beautiful South. I like them in the SfG's songs in the way that I like wine gums: they are not great art, but once you've had one you want another. Until you've had too many.

    The thing about music (or cinema or television or sport) is that it is something that is done to you. This contrasts with reading, which is something that you do to the text. The ideas in a book can be exciting (sometimes I feel as though my head is going to explode), particular sentences or paragraphs can provide a visceral frisson, but reading rarely provides the intoxicating, immersive experience that can be had by listening to a three minute track by David Bowie (in his Ziggy Stardust phase) or Motörhead or Scouting for Girls at maximum volume before a night out. The purpose of art is to induce emotional and intellectual states in its receptors. The question of modalities arises. Most people in Aristotle's time would have experienced poetry being recited, which is quite a different thing from either reading poetry or prose silently. It might be possible to obtain from words something of the violent, visceral, energised excitement we get from hearing music (or watching cinema or television or sport) when they are read to us rather than when we read them. But generally speaking we read books. A different cognitive apparatus is invoked and the emotional state induced is, generally speaking, of quite a different, but no less profound, character.  

    These days one can listen to music pretty much all the time. 15 hours a day, average album length of 45 minutes, that's 20 album listens a day, 140 a week, 7000 a year. Applying a 80-20 Pareto distribution, that's 2800 albums a year. If you're listening to that many albums you are necessarily going to be exploring some pretty remote byways. Those Moravian paleoprogressive purplemoss bands that you discovered last week really are the Greatest Thing Ever. And you can listen to the albums Over and Over Again just to make sure you were right. You can't do that with books. You can't read a book (or a writer) Over and Over Again. Some people claim they do, but they are skimming or eliding, and if they are or want to be writers themselves, just what the hell are they doing anyway?

    There is more to it than that. There is the communal aspect of music. Live music always sounds better than recorded music and has a much greater emotional impact even before adding the resonance of hearing a particular band at a particular place at a particular time with particular people. Reading is slow (and tiring), even for the fastest reader, and reading a novel, particularly a long one, is a private experience spread out through time and space - very different then from hearing "The Song Remains the Same" with your best friend at Knebworth

    120px-Knebworth1979 in 1979. And then there is the tribal aspect of music. Now, of course, sf is a tribe or rather a collection of tribes, and poetry has something of the tribal to it, but these are somewhat the exception among the divisions of the Republic of Letters. But whether you are looking for a way of life or just a goddamn hobby, music offers an vast and constantly evolving array of prepackaged possibilities from which to choose - the attitudes, the clothes, the hair, the language, and, yes, even the books.

    Scribbling angst-ridden prose poems behind your bedroom door does not make you Arthur Rimbaud, but playing bass in your garage door does make you Pete Doherty. Most people can't play an instrument so simply being able to play one at all, no matter how badly, gives one immediate rock'n'roll cache. But the thing about rock'n'roll is that it is distributive. You don't have to be in the band to have the fun, you just have to be with the band. And even being at the gig lets a little of the glamour attach itself to you. Of course, you can get something of that my hanging around near Neil Gaiman at an sf con, but generally speaking, the penumbra of writers falls fairly close to them. One might get a frisson from attending a poetry class with Craig Raine in his "airy front parlor in New College Lane, Oxford, seated immediately beneath a strikingly realistic painting of Craig Raine seated in his airy front parlour in New College Lane, Oxford", but it's not quite rock'n'roll. Martin Amis, on the other hand, at the MA at Manchester. Well, perhaps if it were 1979 and we in the Bursa Kebab House on a Friday afternoon. But it's  2009. I think I'll stick with hysterical realism, maximalism, recherché postmodernism and, when I'm doing something in the kitchen, the occasional listen to Scouting for Girls.

    Monday
    06Apr2009

    "David Gower at Belitha Villas..."

    "...was glad to see me." Robin Farquharson that is. Not sure how I how came across Dr F, probably via a reference in an article about Iain Sinclair. The Weasel ordered up Farquharson's Drop out! It is some ways an extraordinary document ("Traveller in a transcendental world, or psychotic homosexual in a manic phase," according to the blurb), exactly the kind of book for which secondhand bookshops were invented, the kind of thing that one would probably in the old days have never known existed until encountered on Charing Cross Road. Of course, we live in a very different world these days, and the kind of confessional material that Farquharson produces is the stuff of a thousand newspaper columns and a million blogs fifty years. Nevertheless, he certainly doesn't outstay his welcome (the book is barely more than 100 pages long and set in something like 12 point on 14 point; at one point Farquharson himself says "Anthony said 25,000 words, my first estimate was too short and putting in London every time does pad it out a little. I'm joking, of course.") and the publisher's note and Farquharson's preface make it clear that this is the record of a manic phase presented (more or less - the reproductions of the posters and graffiti reminded of Len Deighton's cookstrips and 1960s copies of Which?) as it was written, which gives the account of a particular  (and peculiar) persons encounters with a a particular cross-section of metropolitan life at a particular instant in time, both power and interest (historical and sociological).

    The Weasel's edition is the 1971 Penguin with a plain, rather dull, very vaguely op art cover. The spine is faded, but unbroken, the front and back covers fairly bright: I would guess the copy has on a shelf for nearly forty years and possibly not read until now. R0.50 in South Africa, although it is hard to imagine that Penguin SA had many (if any) copies shipped over. The original Anthony Blond hardback cover had a characteristic Alan Aldridge ("the graphic entertainer "of the 1960s and 1970s) cartoon of Farquharson in a psychedelic setting. I wonder why it was not reused, although then as now, it was not usual to reuse cover art from the hardback for the paperback; Aldridge was no stranger to Penguin, indeed he was their art editor at one point, so it seems as though the missed a trick. Drop out! cries out to a new edition with an elaborate apparatus of annotations, along the lines of John Lahr 's edition of The Orton Diaries. (It is hard to imagine that Farquharson did not encounter Orton on his peregrination.) Such an Atomic Razor Press version would have to have the Aldridge cover, although I might have to reconstruct the interior illustrations using something like PSTricks and METAFONT. It would explain who David Gower was (presumably not the future England captain, who was only ten at the time, but perhaps a close or distant relative), where Belitha Villas is (Barnsbury; Sir Ian Holm lived in the street), provide detailed historical information on the British, South African and international telephone systems (Farquharson was a self-confessed telephone head - it's pretty clear that he was born about forty years too early and that he would have loved modern communications technology - an obsession that was inherited: his father had nearly crashed the Pretoria telephone exchange when it was automated in 1937 by "dialling madly before they gave the word" - and what exactly was a Post Ofiice telephone credit card? Farquharson had the Telephone Users' Association raise a question in the House about the failure of the GPO to provide him with a credit card) and include a brief digression about Subud (it is unclear to me if the "Subud Hall" that Farquharson mentions as being "quite near" the Joyboy on the north side of Westbourne Grove is the Amadeus Centre, where V worked; I hasten to add that she herself was not a member of Subud and was involved in the administration of the centre as a venue for (mainly classical music) rehearsals ).

    Farquharson's bizarre (for instance, supposedly he was denied a Fellowship at All Souls after calling the Warden to the telephone on the grounds that he had a message for him from God; R.D. Laing of all people described him as "a strange guy, very intelligent and totally out of his fucking mind" and kicked him out of his "household" for psychotics at Kingsley Hall for making a 40 minute telephone call to Canada at five in the morning in the days when international calls were... expensive) and ultimately tragic (he died of the effects of third degree burns suffered in a house fire started deliberately) life was, as the old saw goes, stranger than fiction. There are surely hundred novels waiting here to be exposed by the intrepid sojourner (Robbe-Grillet gets a name-check and there is much intercourse with Jim Haynes's Arts Laboratory on Drury Lane - surely J.G. Ballard was not far away). I suspect that if one started on this excavation, there would be no end (it will surely serve though as a piquant seasoning).

    Wednesday
    01Apr2009

    Form's Sake

    To the bowels of Waterloo station last night to recover the bag that I had left on a train at Kew Bridge at the end of January. It was lucky I did go yesterday. SWT commit to keep lost item for three months. It seems however that they interpret this to mean part of three months and that all the unclaimed January items are disposed of the beginning of April. So it was to get my ibuprofen and copies of Smoke: a London Peculiar back. Of course, I am often at Waterloo, but the lost property is open 07:30-19:00. It would seem sensible to me for SWT to shift that by half an hour and also offer some weekend opening.

    The aspect of the matter that will be of greatest interest, I am sure, to the Weasel is that the form that one has to fill in in order to claim back one's property is headed "British Railways - Southern Region", which presumably makes it pre-1965 at least (I assume it was a photocopy). Thinking about it I was rather disappointed that it did not say "Southern Railway". So what are the oldest photocopied and non-photocopied forms still in use in the UK?

    Monday
    30Mar2009

    Famously Relaxed and Liberal

    Radio 4's Book of the Week this week is Dr John Rae's The Old Boy's Network, extracts from the diaries of his time as headmaster of Westminster School. The continuity announcer described Westminster as being renowned for its "famously relaxed and liberal" atmosphere. Well, it was definitely "something" and liberal, and it seems likely that the phrase was one cribbed from the Wikipedia article, which, in turn, is quoting The Good Schools Guide. I was not exactly sure what that is supposed to mean, although the notion that sprang immediately to my mind was that it is some kind of euphemistic reference to an attitude, unusually relaxed even for one of our great public schools, towards pederasty. Westminster apparently has a reputation for tolerating "eccentricity", which would seem to confirm my original notion, although perhaps it is an allusion to Dr Rae's support for girls at Westminster, not restricting scholarships solely to British Christians, STOPP and the SDP.

    Tim Pigot-Smith unctuous tone - apparently Dr Rae did have something of a plummy voice in real life - did little to stop my class hackles from being raised. Surely after the revolution one of the first tasks of the Council of the People's Commissars will be the abolition of the public schools.

    Rae was rather catty about Keble, but smugly obsequious about Christ Church, the traditional sister of Westminster in Oxford. We weren't treated to this particular passage, but perhaps tomorrow:

    Saturday, December 15

    The dean of Christ Church telephones to say that X has not done well enough in his history papers to be offered a place but the college like him and are anxious to do well by him, especially in a year when we have sent them such a good crop of candidates. Would X be willing to read geography instead? On X's behalf I say yes, and the dean promises to consult his geographers. Just as well Roy Hattersley does not overhear this conversation.

    (After reading the Daily Telegraph extracts of which the above is just one entry, the Weasel was moved to exclaim of Rae: "What an odious sh*t he is".)  We were however this morning treated to a discussion of the various issues surrounding open and closed entrance scholarships, held at Christ Church for Oxford in Westminster's case. But this was the early 1970s, a very different world from today, and thus, one would have thought of, a matter merely of historical interest (the early 1970s probably represented the zenith in terms of both the academic standard and the Byzantine opacity of the procedures to be negotiated required for Oxbridge entrance). And yet immediately after the programme had ended, the continuity announcer stated that the Oxford entry procedures described in it had ended in the mid-1980s. This is absolutely extraordinary and quite without precedent in my long experience of Radio 4. Why was it felt necessary to issue such an editorial clarification? At whose behest was it inserted? Fair enough if it had been the editor of the diaries placing the entry in its historical context within the programme itself. I can only assume that some producer or editor heard the programme and decided that it was likely to have the tendency to bring  Dr John Rae, Westminster School in particular and the public school system in general or Oxbridge entrance into disrepute and decided to head off any potential criticism at the pass with a preemptive strike. But it attempting to do, it seems to me that the BBC have merely succeeded in summoning ancient grievances from the grave. They will not quickly be laid to rest again.