Friday, 21 April 2017

Snap Snap Snap (election)

Image result for general election 2017It's election time in the UK, even though we only had an election two years ago, and the Fixed Term Parliaments Act is meant to make sure that politicians can't manipulate things to their advantage (so you can't call an election in the middle of an economic boom, for example). I think that the decision, this week, to hold a general election shows exactly how much that particular Act is worth... about as much as a piece of soiled tissue paper.


I suppose it is an indication of the continuing crisis that engulfs our politics, highlighting the need not for an election but for someone to be brave enough to state the obvious. The political architecture of our country is no longer relevant, it just doesn't work. It's been outdated for decades and nobody has done anything about it apart from try to move more and more power to the Government and try to find more ways to bypass Parliament. The election results in 2010 were a warning sign of this, one that was ignored by Westminster and which they doubtless feel confident that they can continue to dismiss after the swing to the Conservatives in 2015. In part that was caused by the electorate's desire to punish the Liberal Democrats over their perceived betrayal, but the promise of a referendum over our EU membership and a fear of 'Red Ed' becoming Prime Minister (though I would contend that was more to do with his inability to eat a bacon sandwich than his policies). This year, we seem to be back to the level of disillusionment that blighted the 2010 election, both parties are led by weak leaders who have failed to capture the country's imagination and who are more concerned with the potential for revolt in their own parties than what is good for the country. Both are pandering to it, Corbyn by inclination, May out of necessity. As a result both are hampered and neither looks good. Corbyn seems to be a petty tyrant, sending letters of disapproval to MPs that defy him and buck the whip, while May simply looks scared that the Right of her own party will turn on her.

To be fair, the Conservatives have been a tail wagging a dog for a long time, hence the repeated lurches to the right and the internal war over Europe that they've been fighting for at least 30 years. Labour, in comparison has seemed united over the issue, but their current ideological zeal (which is pretty similar to the lurch to the left in the 1980s) has left them blinded. I suspect that they believe, as many people do, that leaving the EU will cut back on immigration, but more importantly they associate it with neoliberalism, ignoring the fact that British governments have enthusiastically supported. They believe that by leaving the EU the manufacturing jobs will come back, ignoring the power of the Corporate world (which we might call the Fifth Estate at this point) and that it is cheaper to make things in places like China, increasingly with robot workers. Their opponents, of course, welcome this move and are already talking about removing constraints on the way business operates, which seems wrongheaded to me. I find it bizarre that in both Britain and America we assume letting big business do whatever it likes is good when the evidence shows that strong regulation makes businesses innovate).

Europe will lie at the heart of this election, don't be fooled, May has set it at the very centre of her agenda, even though she has no need to and this is just another example of her tendency to throw a tantrum (see the New Statesman's analysis here). This is as much a second referendum as it is a chance to change the government. In some respects I suspect May is trying to wash her hands of Brexit without announcing it. In many respects she has more to lose by winning than she does by losing, in what feels like a perverse twist of logic. Brexit is a poisoned chalice, and it will likely destroy the career of any politician who carries it through. I would have more respect for Corbyn if he hadn't so enthusiastically fallen into line with the current hegemony that says we must march out of the EU, post haste. A line of demanding to know what the plan was, early on, would have actually made a difference, I think.

Of course, this is dangerous game to play, since the credit crunch (from which the country still hasn't recovered, and it looks like we probably won't for a long time if ever), there has been a slow, downwards spiral as austerity sucks the vitality out of the country in the name of maximising profit for the few. As a result, even if the economy looks like its doing well, that's only on paper, or rather, a screen, and hasn't affected most of the country. In places like Nottingham, Liverpool and even Birmingham, if you strip away the facade of prosperity in the city centres, you'll find a lot of poverty and worse, people who feel useless. As a species we can handle poverty, but we need purpose and its going to take a hell of a lot more than leaving the EU to give people that. This election runs the risk of seeing a massive lurch to the right, simply because thins aren't moving fast enough for the hardcore Leavers, I can only hope that a more united opposition to Brexit can muster enough people to the ballot box to oppose this tendency. The evidence so far is that lots of Millenials are registering to vote which can only be a good thing.

It isn't enough though, we have to start facing up to the fact that the old game is over and there's no going back. Nostalgia is a trap, one we see in every walk of life as culture, economics and politics relies overused ideas to promote a way of life that is obsolete. In the UK our political architecture (by which I mean how the state is run) desperately needs an overhaul and we need to look at how we live, the expectations that living longer places on us and the technology that we have access to, to shape the world in a more realistic fashion. With the rise of automation those manufacturing jobs won't just not come back, more jobs will be lost because machines will do them better. We're at the stage where the old joke about the factory that only employs a man and a dog (the man to feed the dog, the dog to stop the man touching anything) looks incredibly true. How do we square that with the human need to have a purpose, to feel that our lives have a point? Our current politicians don't really have an answer, though Corbyn's pledge to build a green economy is more promising than May's more of the same and downplaying of environmental concerns.

In short, this election is a bad idea and a sign of how damaged our politics is. The cathedral must be ruined and started again. There must be actual, cogent, reform of the institutions we rely upon for laws and economic policy.

But there won't be, because that's not  sexy and it doesn't involve people.

Wednesday, 19 April 2017

Review: Children of Time

Adrian Tchaikovsky's award winning Science Fiction novel is another brick, and another of his arthropod based tales. Set in the far future it is a story book ended by savagery and civilisation and by the essential question of what intelligent life is, and how helpful technology is.

Tchaikovsky starts the story out with a chillingly prescient moment in which a situation very similar to the one we're seeing in the real world occurs, with the rejection of knowledge in favour of 'purity' which destroys everything humans have established away from Earth, plunging the species into a new dark age. This results in an act of sabotage that destroys a science experiment in uplifting and sets the story on its course. The interesting thing here is that he avoids the urge to overly exalt technology, instead preferring to show that time takes its toll on everything.

The rest of the book is divided into alternating chapters that split the narrative's perspective between the uplifted creatures of the planet (all arthropods, with spiders forming the reader's perspective characters) and the survivors of Earth, now destroyed after both its flirtation with purity and the eventual destruction of a livable habitat. Now, after 2000 years of space travel, their ship the Gilgamesh is heading towards a fateful day, their arrival at the world seeded in the prologue.

So, as the spiders' chapters detail the growth of their civilisation and the travails they face on the way to being the dominant species, the human narrative goes in the opposite direction, detailing a descent into hostility and barbarism. To be fair, the latter only occurs from desperation and from many failed attempts to put strategies into action. Throughout the book the spiders grow and thrive, co-opting opposition and bringing it into line with their hegemony, while the humans become increasingly divided, even creating new divisions in their pursuit of authenticity and purity. Eventually, when the two groups clash it is a clash of these two ideologies and Tchaikovsky makes a strong case of the divergent neurological qualities of each species being driving factors in their actions.

The characters are interesting, not least because the human protagonist is not really heroic, or even much of a protagonist. He performs the role of being our primary point of view character but he doesn't really have a story of his own. He is a bystander rather than a central part of the action, and while he does things that are integral to the story, he is very much a hostage of fortune.

In contrast, Portia, the common name for the spider protagonist, is an integral part of the development of her culture, even if there are actually many spiders who all have the same name and the book details a lineage rather than the actions of one individual. Again this is interesting, because it suggests a stronger chain of personality and identity being passed down the centuries than would be found among humans. Her actions shape the society she lives in, and she can justifiably referred to as a heroine in many respects. The spiders are, initially, very dependent upon inherited knowledge, 'Understandings', as they are called which helps to strengthen the feeling that the characters are actually different iterations of the same spider.

Tchaikovsky's world building is excellent, he ably envisages a world that's true alien, but at the same time not so alien that we can't grasp it. He creates a powerful vision of cities made up of trees, of silken walls and of technology that is metal light. At the same time the elements of the human world are also well realised, including the failed terraforming project that has rendered a world no more than a host to a grey fungus.

All in all this is a fascinating book, a little dense in places, perhaps, but still a good read. I wouldn't recommend it if you're an arachnophobe though, and have had to warn Eve off reading it. However, the world building is excellent and I would suggest it should be read on those grounds alone, as well as for the philosophical ideas within the text.

Friday, 7 April 2017

Five Gifts of Death

Today I want to return to the subject of death, that great spectre that so casts its shadow over society.  We seem to be so focused on it as a tragic event that we miss the positive side. I know that seems like a funny thing to say, how could death be positive? But it can and we're going to explore how.

1) A Release from Pain

While we all dream of a quick, painless death the reality is that most deaths are long, lingering affairs. Few of us will die at home and the causes of death mean we are more likely to die in pain. Things like dementia cancer and heart attacks are far more likely to be causes of death than simply passing away in our sleep. Most of the time, we will feel pain and death, therefore, is the end of that, a release.



2) Closure

One thing I've found is that a death can be a weight off one's shoulders. My Grandmother, as I've said before, suffered from Alzheimer's at the end of her life and the effect on the family was devastating. There is nothing like watching your loved one vanish before your eyes, stolen by memories and time. By the end, there was nothing left of her and the person who died was effectively a stranger. The stress and strain this placed on my Mother was lifted from her shoulders and meant she could mourn and move on; she had closure.

This is a blessing, being able to step forward into a new day without the dread that today is the day your loved one will go wandering the streets, that you won't be phoned at four in the morning because they don't know where they are. In the case of things like cancer, the end of the never-ending dread that the cancer will have spread to a new part of the body, and so on. It lets the living, live.

3) Appreciation

One thing I noticed last year was that many people got upset over the deaths of movie stars and singers, writers and personalities. I was intrigued by this because artists are lucky, they probably are the closest things to immortals that we have, in the sense that the art they leave behind still touches our lives. Consider Imagine by John Lennon which even though he's been dead for the best part of four decades still touches our lives and still stands as a powerful anthem for peace. Or think of Orson Wells and the powerful effect his work still has. With singers and authors, in particular, we step into their thoughts every time we listen to one of their songs or read a book by them. They're never really gone.

So it was odd to me, getting upset over the deaths of these people but I hope that what will happen when someone who has touched our lives in this way passes over, is that we see their work in a different light and learn to appreciate it more. I hope we notice things we missed before because we watch, or read, or listen, or look, more closely, seeking to squeeze the essence of the person from what we're consuming.

And of course, it doesn't stop there, reminding ourselves that one day, we will pass over allows us to appreciate the living world more, to see the things that become so much wallpaper under normal circumstances because we're so used to them. We see the trees, the birds, the animals in our neighbourhoods, notice the little things and this can connect us to the living world in a powerful, satisfying manner.

4) Societal Growth

A more macro societal benefit of death is that it allows our culture to change, to grow. As the champions of old ideas and concepts die, new work is published and old orthodoxies are challenged. As a result, human understanding grows and we develop new theories to explain things. There's always an element of 'dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants' it's true but without the deadlock that an ageing population might impose on a society, it is easier for the newer work to be seen and to pose legitimate challenges to the mainstream of whatever disciplines are seeing the new work.

5) A Deadline

This feels a little flippant but bear with me. In the Middle Ages up to the Victorian period, it was common for people to have a skull on their desks (if they had desks), to remind them that time was pressing on and as a motivator to get things done before death claimed you. The practice seems to have died out after World War One, possibly as a result of the huge numbers of death during that conflict, and as a result of the Spanish Flu.

Nowadays, we have enough time that the days seem to stretch out ahead of us without end, but that's not really true and we run the danger of hitting middle age having done the things that we have to do, but never having actually lived in the sense of achieving our personal goals. A skull, death, may be what we need to give us a metaphorical boot to the seat of our pants and get us moving.



This is what we call a memento mori.

This is mine, though it doesn't live on my desk


There may be more gifts death gives us

Thursday, 6 April 2017

Review: Ghost in the Shell

I should say that I approached this film with caution. I love Ghost in the Shell, it's probably my favourite anime both film and series (including Stand Alone complex) and while I was initially excited by the idea of a live action film, I was also very wary. It's not just that Hollywood speaks a different language to the Japanese, it speaks a different language to everyone, but that I was unsure that the soul... ghost, if you will... of the franchise would transfer to a Western interpretation. The concept of the 'ghost whispering to you' seems to be something that's so intrinsic to the Japanese view of the world that I don't think it carries across into a dualistic culture, such as the Christian one that still dominates the West, where flesh and spirit and technology and nature are held to be opposed to each other. Part of my trepidation was also driven by the fact that although the trailer was stunning to watch, it seemed to repeat pieces of the action and to focus on the fight scenes. I realise that the best way to get most SF nerds attention is to offer them something exploding or something but I actually found it off putting because it resembled the other action film trailers so much.


So, yeah, I was a little worried that it was going to be awful and had already decided to console myself with the anime if I didn't enjoy it. I should probably start, then, by saying that it was a much better film than I feared, so lay your worries to one side. The film is nowhere near as bad as the controversy on the internet suggests, and I think that the writer and director did get what lay at the franchise's heart. Visually, the film is stunning, though the city's panoramic shots felt more Bladerunner than Ghost in the Shell, to my eye at least. That being said there were shots that had been taken from directly from the anime and served the film very well indeed. In fact, where images or sequences had been adapted directly from the source material they were executed with skill and precision. I shan't spoil what's been taken but if you know the anime you'll recognise them easily. The film runs the gamut between clean, futuristic shots and a grim, grimy world where people jostle and 'all of life is here'.

The film presents both the cyber and the punk elements of the genre it inhabits in equal measure and does so in a relatively uncompromising fashion, not fearing to show either the effects of cyberisation or the squalor of the world outside the corporate one. Upgrading your body is a matter of course, to the extent that Ichikawa tells the rest of the team that he's had a cybernetic liver put in so he can drink more, which I thought was a nice touch because so often Cyberpunk throws in lots of enhancements that would only be suitable for specialist roles, most of them involving fighting. So I always like it if a leisure or purely educational device is introduced. This being said, I was slightly disappointed the film didn't feature anyone with a cybernetic arm that flipped about to become a giant metal claw, as that's iconic to the franchise. Cybernetics come in a large variety of guises, presenting the idea of a market that offers many different options.

There's a clever use of mirroring throughout the film. The first and third acts start with pretty much the same shots, and the relationship between the two protagonists, Major and Batou, is cemented through mirrored pieces of banter. This fits well with the idea of the ghost and with the idea of pieces of the past catching up with the Major, and serves to ground the film.

The actors, who ironically, given the complaints of whitewashing, are actually a more diverse cast than the original anime's, play their roles well. The focus is firmly on Major, Batou and Arimaki. The others are there, but aside from Togusa they are barely introduced and don't fulfil much of a role outside of being back up. They aren't well developed, which is a shame but understandable. You only have so long and can't afford to focus on Saito or Boma so much. As it is, it's interesting to watch Scarlet Johannsen's movement and stance as the Major, and the way it changes through the story. In a similar fashion, it was interesting to see how her inability to relate to animals changes as she grows. In a similar fashion, though to a lesser extent, we see how Batou adapts to his new eyes (spoiler).

This being said there's a lot of stiffness in how the characters are portrayed, and the film feels like a study in alienation at times, with Johannsen wearing a look of confusion for a lot of the film. There are moments where she has a real camaraderie with Batou but then that vanishes again, and given the revelations of the film, it may be that the moments where her ghost is whispering to her are the ones where she seems more connected to the world.

The film isn't perfect, there were moments in the plot where I felt the characters had taken an idiot ball, and sometimes the action scenes are confusing. There are moments, too, where the transition from Japanese to Western property feels a bit strained, including the Major's origin story which left me scratching my head a little, though not as much as the central homily of the piece which seemed at odds with the story in the film.

This being said, I feel that the live action movie is a worthy addition to the franchise. It isn't the anime, but it was never going to be. Worth seeing, in my opinion.

Thursday, 30 March 2017

FALLEN

Hello!

My serial with Fiction Vortex has launched this week and it's up at the link. The first part is free to view, so check it out!

http://www.fictionvortex.com/catalog/free/fallen-ep1/

And there's a playlist to listen to as you read, too! https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLoQMkZp9vOLX1EOlVsSsKSaZAe8eje4i4, so check that out and enjoy!


Monday, 27 March 2017

Urban Fantasy: The Superhuman Crew

Cities change things, that's just the way it is. Old ways fall away and new ways rise up, usually while the past and the old ways of doing things lose their original meaning and become idolised without a proper context.

Urban Fantasy is more or less based on this idea, along with the obvious 'things are not what they seem' angle that's common to the genre. Monsters, which in horror would have single-minded and rather shallow motives (kill humans, possess humans, feed off humans etc, etc) suddenly are part of communities and have to deal with issues like politics, or love... Or paying rent on a space to live, Other issues become prevalent as well, can a werewolf really risk hunting and killing prey inside a city's borders, can vampires rely on nightclubs for their blood when there's a shortage of virgins to go around? They change and new priorities arise as they interact with other communities and with protagonists (who may or may not be monsters themselves, but we assume given the genre are aware of the superhuman crew and the places they hang out in the city's 'backstage'. Monsters can play many roles, as a result. In Urban Fantasy's close cousin, Paranormal Romance, the Byronic and moody/angsty elements are emphasised though never to the extent that a plucky heroine can't step in and save the day through the power of true love. In many Urban Fantasy novels, the politics and intrigues of monstrous communities come to the fore, with vampires plotting against each other or wizards acting as a sort of arcane police force. This brings crime into UF's purview, which is a natural fit not only because cities and crime go hand in hand (sheer population numbers dictate that) but also because if you have vampires, werewolves and so on engaging in their own private affairs, there's bound to be some overspill into the human world. If there isn't, arguably we don't have a story.

The other thing we must realise is that, as a result of the tonal shift from horror to something else, whatever that is, the nature of monsters has to change. A vampire who could destroy a party of protagonists in a horror story will be scaled back to give UF protagonists a chance. In the same way, werewolves are cut back in strength and have more complexity added to their lives. We're not so interested in the horrible things they can do, but instead in how they interact, the stories of treachery and so on that almost inevitably arise out of monster politics.

And yes, politics. I don't mean the bland or idiotic stuff that dominates the mortal world but the sexy intrigue type of politics where vampires jostle for position in court and faeries stab each other in the back. It's integral to Urban Fantasy, especially in a more kitchen sink setting, the sort of thing that Dresden Files or The Hollows books provide. In worlds where Masquerades and Veils have been abandoned in favour of monsters living out in the open, such as Mike Carey's Felix Castor books, you have the added issue of how human authorities deal with the presence of inhuman monsters, which can mean anything from Ministries of Magic to sanctioned hunting teams that go around killing monsters for fun and profit. The question of how mortal governments deal with monsters is one fraught with problems though, and most authors shy away from the issue in part because nobody wants to read books where there are a lot of bureaucratic meetings and not a lot of adventure (well, unless you like the Laundry Files books which handle the horror of administration work very well indeed).  My point is that the monsters become more human and take on more human concerns as a result of living in cities and having to deal with members of their own species, as well as members of other monstrous factions. This is one thing that UF does extremely well and which reflects the nature of minorities in the real world, giving the genre a foot in reality. In terms of adding flesh to the bones of what are often one-dimensional beings, it's pretty obvious that adding a civic element is a good way to go.

Adding to that, the nature of the city allows monsters to have normal lives (or as normal as they can be when you turn into a nine-foot tall war beast every full moon), adding more depth to characters. As a result, they can become well-rounded and fascinating to read about. This isn't to say that the characters in horror are blank, many are well conceived and written, but there is a limitation to what you can do with them when all they are is the opposition. As most contemporary fantasy works present more slippery 'shades of grey' worlds that have less well-defined boundaries, it stands to reason that your more human monsters have more scope.

Probably the most popular monster of our times, the vampire finds itself adapted to a series of new roles, from seductive madames to stealthy assassins. The traditional role of nobles lords lends itself well to CEOs and the idle rich, whose wealth derives from suspiciously obscure sources of old money, of course. Vampires are perhaps the most easily adapted monster to our modern world, we can picture them strolling through the city at night, drawing crowds, finding willing victims who long for the sensation of fangs in their neck. Failing that, modern resources allow vampires to get blood from blood banks (if they have the right sort of clearance) and to do little harm. Louis, in the Vampire Chronicles series, need not simply feast on rats, he can get a pint of type o from the local blood bank. Everything that we picture humans do, we can picture vampires doing, just more easily. They are the 1% of Monster World.

In contrast, werewolves seem to be doomed to blue collar work, mechanics and the like. The importance of pack is often emphasised in the genre, in a direct contrast to the solitary loup garou you often find in films. This is not a lonely curse anymore, but one where you're almost haunted by the fact that there are others like you, often seeking to establish who's stronger in the most violent fashion. The problem is no longer that you can't trust yourself around other people because you might flip out and hurt them, but that an unwillingness to fight may be construed as weakness. This can be a double-edged sword, on the one hand, a pack is useful, it gives you people to rely on, comrades and allies. On the other, well, it can start to feel rather cheap as a reader when everywhere you look there are more lycanthropes and the curse isn't just limited to wolves (how many kinds of changer do we need, one for every creature?) Call me cynical but when you have werebuffalo or whatever, I feel it's a bridge too far.

Of course, in contrast, Faeries are so diverse that you can pretty much throw a shoe and hit whatever you want, whether that be shape changers, blood drinkers, or something else.The nature of the Fae is basically so diverse that you could pretty much build a ten part series using nothing but them and not run into repetition, or risk boredom from overuse. Perhaps, hypocritically these are my favourite monsters, I think they're beautiful and their nature is one that seems so at odds with humanity, not in the form of predator and prey but in the sense of the Fae almost living a completely different life to humans.

I feel that we're using monsters as metaphors even more, it's just that vampires are no longer just a metaphor for bestial sexual hunger, but also for the ease that the rich pass through life. Werewolves are a metaphor for the rage that men can feel, and for territorial nature of gangs. And it's pretty cool, that we can use these creatures to talk about the issues we have.


Thursday, 23 March 2017

Introvert

I am an introvert. It's something I've felt growing in importance in who I am and how I define myself. Last year I actually started looking at the Myers-Briggs system, via a website called Personality Hacker which I've found interesting and helpful in coming to understand myself (I'm an INFP, which Personality Hacker label as 'introverted exploring'  and for good and ill seems to fit me to a tee). It was particularly interesting to learn that INFPs are heavily focused on authenticity, and also (possibly vexingly) very much devoted to being 'unknowable' as in there's a desire to keep people at arm's length a lot of the time. As a consequence, my MBTI type may have a little more to do with the next statement than I care to admit, but I feel I have to say it.

I hate the stuff I see on Facebook about introversion a lot of the time, it seems devoted to making introverts feel their difference even more than many of them do. I see stuff about how making phone calls is hard or that all introverts are so quiet they just don't talk but these are very individual things. I have no issues with making phone calls, though I admit I prefer to communicate in text, and well while I'm quiet in groups and find it hard to put myself forward a lot of the time when you get to know me and if there are only a few people around, I barely shut up.

Also, when I'm alone I can be all yak yak yak, unpacking the ideas and thoughts that other people just don't seem to grasp (believe me I've tried).

But, to see a lot of the memes and images on the internet it seems as if introverts are almost being encouraged to use the dismissal we may feel in society and use it as a defining quality that's almost entirely negative. One introvert group, I joined on Facebook was full of depressed people who were only really united by the alienation they felt from being introverts. There was no joy to what they saw in their situation only the fear of being seen a weird, which I believe the echo chamber of the group only added to. Likewise, when questions were raised there were no attempts to find solutions, just a pity party. In the same way that other groups can become a focus for negative reinforcement, it was pretty harrowing to read the constant 'I don't fit' posts; even though that's often exactly how I feel, that I don't fit in and that it sucks. There's only so much complaining that can happen though before you have to do something, it's your own responsibility to live a life that fulfils you, and if that means striking out on your own (something you'd think introverts would be good at), then that's just what you have to do.

So, I wonder how helpful these things are, sure they may be things where we go 'oh yes that's so me', but that might just mean that we see the trap we're backing into without actually doing anything to save ourselves from it. It's no good saying that you're an introvert (or anything really) if you're just using it as a way to punish yourself. It's a sign that you have to step outside the box, look at your life and find a way to navigate yourself to a good place. That probably, for introverts, means learning to avoid things, jobs, events, and so on, that are going to drain us and leave us feeling hollowed out, or as a friend of mine does, biting the bullet and diving in but having 'buffing' time alone to restore that balance.

I do think we need to burst out of the echo chamber and accept that while we may be a bit cracked, that's how the light gets in (to use a hideously mixed metaphor). After all, there's nothing we can do about being introverts, so let's find ways to make it work to our advantage.

Monday, 20 March 2017

Review: War of the Oaks by Emma Bull

An Urban Fantasy classic, War of the Oaks was first published in 1987 and has now be rereleased by Penguin with a foreword by Naomi Alderman.



The novel is set in Minneapolis, in the 1980s and centres on Eddi McCandry, a guitarist and vocalist who at the start of the novel makes a fateful decision and ends up in a situation that's beyond her wildest imaginings. Chosen to be a champion of the Seelie Court, purely to bring death to the battlefield in their war against the Unseelie Court (their opposites). Burdened with a phouka bodyguard and without a practical way to make money, Eddi is forced to start another band and the novel focuses on the development of that as well as her involvement in the war. Her relationships also fall under the novel's scrutiny, as she becomes more a part of Faerie and her involvement in their conflict spreads out to include her bandmates.

The book is very much about passion and growth, Bull takes pains to reflect the messy, but growing, nature of human lives against the perfect stasis of Faerie where everything is wonderful but, as Bull takes pains to point out, there are only copies. No Faerie can create, only imitate. Even the mavericks among their kind are bound by this inability, endlessly recreating things, in sharp contrast to Eddi's ability to innovate and make things that are genuinely new, and genuinely felt. This is further underlined by one of Faerie characters in the novel who is obsessed with finding out the deeper meaning of love and death, acknowledging that he can only play at humanity. This being said there is a beauty and wonder in how the faerie and magic are represented. There is a lovely whimsy to much of the magic, paper aeroplanes are used to deliver messages, faeries are summoned by pushing blood into a cake. The traditional tricks are explored and developed and it all makes sense. More, because the story is a stand alone and it is focused purely on this area and group there is no sense of the world being crowded by supernatural beings and the reason that the Faerie war isn't covered on the evening news makes sense as a result, even when battles are fought in the middle of the city.

This, along with the reason for Eddi being drawn into the conflict in the first place, underscores the theme of living, and the meaning and reason for living, in the novel. Rock music is used not just as a metaphor for this but as an illustration, Bull uses music to punctuate tone and, as Naomi Alderman notes in her foreword, you could easily build a playlist from the songs she references.

The characters are likeable, if not especially deep (but that's okay this is fiction, not literature) and the reader will feel a real sense of affection for them as they develop and their lives intertwine. Presented as a group growing into a family, the characters come to depend upon each other more and more and there's a real sense of loss when the inevitable happens and one of them dies.

The narrative is a little predictable, there's some heavy signposting with some of the characters but that doesn't seem to matter so much here. It was almost pleasant to be able to work out some things about the characters without, or before, having their secrets explicitly revealed.

All in all, if you're an Urban Fantasy fan, I'd argue that this is a must read. You owe it to yourself to reach back an earlier work and experience one of the works that laid the tracks for Dresden, Anita Blake and all the other characters we know today.  If you need a touchstone, think Charles de Lint, as this book very much reminded me of the Newford novels.

Wednesday, 8 March 2017

Late to the Party: Trump and the Press

Okay, I've been meaning to write this for a couple of weeks, ever since the White House revealed that 'hostile' press agencies would no longer be able to attend White House press briefings, but life got in the way.

It was a move quite unprecedented, as far as I'm aware there has never been a moment in American history where the President exiled the press. Indeed the majority of commentary has always pointed towards the relationship between the first and fourth estates being too cosy in the USA. From a British perspective where the press is often too happy to collect politicians' scalps to keep the stories interesting, or honest, the marriage of President and Media has often seemed as if there's too much mutual backwashing going on. This, then, indicates a change in tone, a sea change that will have further ramifications.

The most important thing is to realise that this gambit is actually a freeing one. Without access to the White House, the newspapers and TV stations will be forced to revert to an older practice; digging in the dirt to find their stories and uncovering the bodies that are buried. Basically, if they're looking for a Watergate moment, they now stand a stronger chance of finding it. Divorced from the spin cycle that is the modern news, with the exception of Twitter, they will develop new tools for the modern age to do that oldest of jobs - exhuming the corpses that those in power thought well hidden. There are only so many times that 'fake news' will form a decent rallying cry to rebuff the news stories exposed.

This is not to say it will be easy, we live in an age of leaks, and of supreme cynicism. The recent revelations about the CIA will be met in most quarters with a raised eyebrow and a shrug. Of course it's happening, of course, it's normal procedure. We expect the worst because that's what we've been led to expect. The leak narrative, at least when it takes the form of Wikileaks or Panama Papers is something that has been adapted to. Look at how quickly the Panama Papers died a death and turned out to be a non-story.

The other issue is that the current level of technology we possess makes it harder to be a whistleblower. Even while NASA, the EPA and the Parks Service in America continue to tweet and use other forms of social media in defiance of the Mr. Trump, the fact is that the computers they use for their activities are going to record every transaction and action performed on them. Their email servers will keep copies of every email. Basically, the revolution cannot be digitised without falling into the hands of the powers that be or becoming tainted by the dark net. The powers of the state and business are asymmetrically mighty, compared to the powers of the individual.

What I hope we will see is the return to the sort of investigative journalism practised by Paul Foot in the UK and by the Watergate journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Failing that, a bit of Hunter S Thompson might go a long way.

Or, you know, Spider Jerusalem.

Friday, 10 February 2017

Around Skyrim Without a Thune





Skyrim, how I love thee. The only game I've never grown entirely tired of playing (apart from Fire Emblem), Skyrim is still on my PS3, and this time Eve and I have undertaken a slightly different tack.

At the moment our character (a female Imperial called Helena Justina*) is level 63, she is relearning the One-Handed skill, and has maxed out Smithing, Two-Handed, Heavy Armour and only has Pickpocket below level 30. She's completed the Companions and Mages College quests and could become Thegn of Falkreath, Dawnstar, Winterhold, and Solitude if she chose to (she is the Thegn of Riften, but only because we wanted a house, Eve is passionate about loot and enjoys Alchemy much more than I). There's a large bounty on her head because I got a bit sword happy in Marketh, and went to town on the guards there in the stupid big quest - you may have gathered we don't like that particular plotline). We have raided tombs and barrows, defeated Dragon Priests, Draugr Deathlords and even ventured to the shores of Solstheim to adventure there.

So what's different? This all sounds pretty normal for the game, doesn't it?

The catch is, we haven't triggered the Dragonborn quest. Aside from the opening part where Alduin destroys Helgen, that quest has gone entirely untouched. There are no dragons at places like Mount Anthor and while we're picking the words for Thunes up as we play that's all; they can't be unlocked. We can't even undertake to weakly Unrelenting Force a bandit back a few feet if we're in danger of dying. Instead, we have been forced to rely on skills and magic, investigating thing that we do not usually make use of. For example, we have been using Illusion more than usual (it's not a favourite spell skill because a lot of the time it's simply too fiddly and seems to be more trouble than its worth) and investing heavily in the various armour spells you get in Alteration, even if we aren't brave enough to go without armour yet.

It is actually a fun way of playing, forcing us (well me, really - Eve's a bit of a back seat player unless it involves mixing potions or enchanting items) to change the way we approach things. I have a bad habit of leading with Shouts, using Fire Breath or Marked for Death in the first foray. Not being able to do that means that the character uses more stealth and sniping than usual. She doesn't charge into battle nearly as much as other characters we have played. Her skills matter more, she has to be able to strike hard and fast because there's no backup to reach for if things go wrong. Not having the Thunes has made me a better player in many ways because I use the game's inbuilt skills to buff her up and make her more powerful though magic (which means getting XP).

There's an element of humour to it too, running through the Robots, I mean Guards (sorry, my headcanon is that the city Guards are actually robots, which is why they say the same things and you barely ever get to see their faces) and hearing them make comments about dragon attacks. We both know full well that there won't be any until we actually trigger the quest, and even then they won't really start up until we trigger the Blades quest, another thing that will happen late in the game as neither of us has time for them.

The downside of playing this way is that at some point I have to undertake the main quest, which means that I'll have to face Ancient Dragons from the get go instead of progressing through the ranks of dragon kind in a nice orderly fashion. That does not seem so bad, though, it always seemed a bit odd that the game served up draconic foes in a nice, neat order to test your mettle against. This way the big guys will attack and get taken down (at which point I can turn Smithing Legendary because I'll get to make a suit of Dragon Scale Armour).

So, yeah. It's a huge amount of fun even if we have not really revelled in the many factions that dominate the game. I would definitely recommend playing this way as a change to the normal way Skyrim runs.

*The name is stolen from the Falco novels, where Helena is the Roman Private Informer's ally and squeeze.

Sunday, 5 February 2017

Again, with Purpose

By K. Steitz



When I was an awkward, bookish teenager, my favorite novels were The Blue Sword and The Hero and the  Crown by Robin McKinley. Those books are still in my collection; their pages are dog-eared, yellowed, the spines are broken. I loved them deeply and visited them regularly. The main characters in both books were these incredible young women who never quite fit in, but cared desperately for their chosen family and fought tooth-and-nail to protect them. At the time, I didn’t think very hard about why I loved them, or how I had found some of the few books in the genre that had female protagonists- I just loved them.

As I grew, as we all must, I learned that fantasy is a genre for boys. It is about strapping young men who come from modest backgrounds and save their homes/countries/etc, or save their lovers whose names never quite matter. I learned that these are stories of wish fulfillment. These stories, and women, and the world, were almost always told through the eyes of men. I heard the phrase “wish fulfillment” and I thought, “Yeah, okay, that sounds right.”

But what if this genre isn’t just wish fulfillment? Now that we have stories told by and for men and women, perhaps we’re looking at something different? What still draws us to Joseph Campbell’s hero cycle? Now, so far from my teens, I wonder if it’s something different. Perhaps these resonate with us because it is not just merely fantasy or wish fulfillment, but because these plots, these heroes and heroines represent purpose fulfillment.

We struggle day in and day out to justify our 8 to 5 office jobs that are at their core, just busy work. We spend the majority of our lives navigating daily life for systems of government and capitalism that will never benefit most of us. We have no grand destiny, and many of us have lost our purpose, but we can read novels of fantastic people and places, making a difference, finding the courage to follow their dreams, to fight the good fight. Wouldn’t it be brave if we followed our own dreams? During these times, wouldn’t it be brave to make a difference?

Steve's note

K. Steitz is a kickass poet, roller derby... player (is that the right word) and feminist. In 2013 she released her first poetry collection A Record of Night and she blogs at But ah, my foes and oh, my friends.

Thursday, 2 February 2017

The Last Refuge of a Scoundrel?

Patriotism.

It's an issue of growing concern, as it waxes in strength across the West, threatening the hard-won cooperation of the EU and America, threatening in the latter to tip into full-blown Nationalism. Defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as: The quality of being patriotic; vigorous support for one's country, I have to say I am not a patriot. Or at least I don't consider myself to be one. In the UK it is a word that is too often associated with the far right of politics, with skinheads and racists. The chant of 'two world wars and one world cup' sums up the attitude of many people and a lot of them are the sort who ask non-white citizens 'when are you going home' rather than accepting multicultural values. I feel it's an unthinking, unreasoning thing, that we're expected to adopt without considering what we're actually supporting. It speaks of exceptionalism, often held in the most myopic terms, wilfully ignoring the work done elsewhere in the world that may be of equal or even better quality. Like the appeals to a British character, it ignores things in order to make its point and spread throughout the population, relying on stereotypes. We might be proud of the British sense of humour, but what nation would admit to being a bunch of humourless idiots? Appeals to science and literature will be met with responses of other countries' achievements and they are right to do so. Shakespeare may be seen as the father of British literature, but he is simply one of many such literary giants (and it could be argued that the UK invests too much in his oeuvre to the detriment of other playwrights and poets). Of course, his canonisation as a sort of secular saint was in itself an act of patriotism, as the 18th Century country sought to create clear blue water between itself and the Papist continent. There was a rejection of Catholic values and at the same time a sort of demonisation of the 'un-English' way of life the mainland espoused. This can be seen in many of the novels that comprise the Gothic, and even in later works like Dracula, where Europeans come in two forms, positively strange or rakish and sex obsessed (even if that is through the medium of blood).

I don't see how anyone, living in the modern age, can be entirely patriotic, indeed I would argue that patriotism is not a desirable trait unless it is harnessed to a keen analytical brain that seeks to make things better for the people of the country. If that will is lacking, it is simply a desire to maintain the status quo, acting a way to shore identity up. Things might be bad here, but at least we're not French, or whatever. Consequently, aside from the Loyal Opposition version of the impulse, I am forced to agree with the idea that it is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Where I do find pride in my country's achievements it is almost always in the past, rather than as a reflection of our current character (most of which I believe to have been hijacked by international capitalism and repackaged and sold back to us in the form of tat). Even so, I feel you have to take things with a pinch of salt, so much of the history that children are taught is a form of propaganda, a way to explain how the nation arrives at the present day without paying too much attention to detail. I often find myself wondering how many patriots know about Britain's invention of the concentration camp, the Indian Mutiny, Khartoum, and the worst excesses of our Empire (which you could argue we acquired because of a mix of racism and the East India Company running up massive debts from their constant wars). 

This being said, there are things I am proud of about my homeland - it isn't all doom and gloom. Here are five of them:

1) Goth and Punk. Britain has a good habit of taking American art and reinventing it. The two subcultures of Goth and Punk are very much examples of this. The Ramones' sound crossed the Atlantic and was seized upon by disaffected youth, transformed into Punk (which in the UK was as much about class warfare, anger at elders and a desire to reject 'normal' behaviour as anything else), and that grew into Goth, which took the same energy and turned it inwards, focusing on a sartorial, graceful rebellion. They are both beautiful, wild, flowers, full of promise and cynical fervor. I consider them one of the truest expressions of Britishness. 

2) The British Invasion of Comics. In the 1980s a wave of British writers started working at DC Comics and transformed the form. They brought a hard bitten, mature tone that was a world away from the funny suits and escaping villains taht had dominated the genre before. It gave us work lilke Swamp Thing, V for Vendetta, Watchmen and Sandman, and paved the way for Transmetropolitan, Lucifer and the Invisibles.

3) Ada Lovelace and Charles Babbage/ A pair of visionaries who committed to building the first computer, the Difference Engine. They laboured for many years and ultimately failed, the Difference Engine waas a disaster. But the fact remains they had the foresight to try and pioneered the field for later generations.

4) Thomas Paine and the Rights of Man. The second book of British poltiical theory, The Rights of Man lays out the tenets of classic Liberalism as a creed, and is a book of philosophy dedicated to combating the totalitarian state envisaged by Conservates at the time. As such it is a tonic and a good reminder of what the ideology stood for. I don't agree with all of it (I've never met a rational human being, but bless Liberals for trying to push that as an idea). 

5) Britain's History of Dissent. I have a fondness for underdogs, and for the awkward, eccentric people of the country who go their own way. But I'm proud of the nation's history of dissent, of campaigning, from the Peasant's Revolt onwards. I like that we're a nation that keeps trying and which holds our leaders to account. The Borgeious perspective of an ordered society where there's a place for everyone and everyone is in their place, holds no lustre to me, any more than the stage-managed nature of politics does - I like debate, dissent, exploration of ideas. Anything that allows that is good, in my opinion and I believe we must never stop dreaming of a better way of doing things, and trying to make the world a better place. 

Saturday, 28 January 2017

Resistance?

In many ways, the new year feels depressingly familiar. The themes that dominated 2016 of death and chaos continue to grind their way across the world, scattering reason before them. Tribalism, blind patriotism and the march of nationalism are the background beat to the news reports we read, watch or listen to. What's different is that with the ascension of Donald Trump to the White House the world feels infinitely more dangerous, not least because someone who appears to have all the self-control of a five year in a cookie shop has now taken power. His first week in power has been a salutary lesson in the speed at which change can happen in the modern world and there's little doubt that many of the Executive Orders (http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/01/all-trump-executive-actions-000288) he signed this week had been prepared in advance, probably as long ago as his election victory if not before. He has an agenda and he intends to stick with it, for good or for ill.

From the perspective of a Gen Xer most of what he's doing feels like the juddering movements of a dinosaur, trying desperately to cling to a discredited ideology, making half-hearted motions towards another way, which unfortunately is equally discredited. As someone who thought that nuclear war was something long dead, as small scale warfare is cheaper, easier, and bypasses all those pesky armies and defences it is sobering to see someone ordering fresh missiles. As someone who thought that feminism was at least partly embedded into 'the system' it takes me aback to see what Trump is signing in regards to women's rights. The Standing Rock issue (which I'm not sure is getting enough airplay outside the USA) has been thrown into motion again, which will be bad for the environment and for Native American rights. In the same way I boggle at his ignorance over environmental issues and cringe, in a rare personal note, at his obscene love of gold. At present, the only thing I feel we can really say is that his Presidency will be a gift to the legal profession.


If we step back and look at this from the perspective of philosophy, then Hegel's theory of dialectic development centred around the concepts of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, seems to apply. Hegel believed that History (with a capital H) did not run in a smooth line but instead exists as a series of lurches from one extreme to another, colonising opposing ends of the political spectrum. We can certainly see it in America's sudden desire to detach itself from rest of the world, Britain's longing for an imagined past when the Green and Pleasant Land was solely concerned with what happened within its own borders (the culmination of the poison we call nostalgia), or the fears of swamping from outside forces in the form of migrants from other nations. If we consider it purely from the perspective of economics and global politics we can see how it has happened, globalisation has hollowed out the first world, especially the anglosphere, because the governments of countries like the UK and the USA felt that their people wanted cheaper goods, and arguably listened to 'clever' men who said that it would be better to move jobs and production to other parts of the globe. But nothing came back to replace those jobs and, as the administrations in those countries were wary of meddling in the market - holding it to be self-correcting they did very little to foster new industries to take the place of what had left. Compare the fate of the UK's fishermen to what happened in Sweden where they were helped by government intervention to retrain as telecommunications specialists, fostering the mobile phone industry in that nation*. In mainland Europe, which as far as I know has stronger internal markets and is less dependent on imports as a result, the issue seems to be one of identity and the fear of countries losing something of their natures as a result of displacement (something that is also true of the UK, we can see that in the fears over immigration, especially in parts of the country that have yet to have many non-white people moving into them). Coupled with a lack of investment for the last nine or so years, services have run down and as a result hospitals and schools are stretched. Having bought the idea that austerity is necessary, even though a) once you look at the figures the British government is consistently missing its spending targets and b) the only way to help economies recover is to spend and built - so let's take a moment to applaud at least part of Trump's programme of works even if I do wish he was going to leave the National Parks alone and the 'magic money tree'  idea seems to be coming into effect again with little thought as to how protectionist and anti-technological innovation policies will affect imports of things like cars.

In other areas, this appeal to Hegelian dialectics feels downright insulting. How can gay marriage or equal rights for minorities be considered an extreme? For that matter how can the Fortress Europe, America, and Britain stance much of the West has taken to immigration be taken as an extreme unless we see it as extremely insulting to people fleeing Western caused poverty, climate change and wars? If we take it to be so, does that mean that at any time we see significant advances in the quality of life of people who are not white, straight men we can expect a backlash? How far does that go? Should we expect teddies to be thrown out of prams when we point out that grabbing pussies is wrong, or that gay people have the right to life, or that murdering a transwoman is still a crime?  It feels as if these things are in the centre ground and that shifting away to a position where heterosexual, white male hegemony is not only the norm but everyone else is made to suffer is a hideous aberration. While I appreciate Alain do Botton's philosophical theory, on the ground this is going to hurt and there are going to be horrific consequences as the nature of the state mutates into a new form.

This is the issue that bothers me, and I hope it will not be something that gets swept to one side. The Women's March we saw on the 21st suggests that it won't but at the same time marches only look good on TV, I'm far from convinced of the effect they have on legislators.

The question then is, what do we do to resist the blandishments of a movement that, to borrow Alain de Botton's words, seems to think that the answer to the 'extreme' of the last thirty years or so is to wind the clock back to the 1950s or even earlier? Let us begin by saying that direct, violent, action is not going to work. Even if it would be extremely satisfying to reenact V for Vendetta we must remember that as Philip K Dick put it "To fight the Empire is to be infected by its derangement" and "Whoever defeats the Empire becomes the Empire; it proliferates like a virus... thereby it becomes its enemies".** Violent disruption will only beget more violence and in the case of victory it will recreate the conditions it was fighting against (to reference de Botton's video again, see the USSR, the French Revolution, arguably even the Commonwealth period of British history). The problem is that this catches us on a cleft stick. If marches are useless, except to make a point and to populate Police databases of potential troublemakers and violence is self-defeating if we seek to resist, and to evolve the argument, then what can we do?

I feel a little strange here, because the more obvious signs of things changing are in the USA, while I'm a Brit. Despite the rise in violence towards ethnic minorities in the UK my country is managing to resist the sort of muscular rightwing rhetoric that a lot of Americans favour, the last threats to abortion where defeated and to my knowledge there is no appetite to legislate punitively against legal abortions. Similarly, gay equality, such as it is, seems safe and the arguments against sexual reassignment surgery are dwindling (at least it's a trend now, not an abomination in the sight of a fictional deity). However, these elements do exist in my country, there is a danger that someone will see the merits of striking out against minorities. All that sort of lurch to the nastier part of the Right requires is uncertainty, lack of food and purpose and someone will decide to adopt some useful idiots.

Some might say that Anonymous have the right idea, except that their video warning to the UK government a few years ago never seemed to render any results, or if they did they were hushed up by state machinery and never trickled out into the public domain. That is not to say they did not find anything, but that as the Panama Papers and the investigation into paedophilia in the British state showed last year, the current hegemony has become adept at distraction and deflection from issues that would threaten the current order. There is an argument that we need better hackers, I guess, but I'm not sure that's the answer.

We can talk to our representatives, to the parties they belong to. We can make sure they understand that their survival at Westminster or Capitol Hill, or wherever, depends on doing what we ask. Or we can debate with them, trying to win them over to our cause. Of course, many will ignore us, choosing to favour their careers or the party over their constituents. If that happens, don't forget it, vote for someone else, raise their lack of representation at another time, like during a Hustings.

One thing I hope we'll see is the rebirth of serious investigative journalism on both sides of the Atlantic. With the press corp exiled from the White House, and Trump's reaction to a question from a British journalist at the press conference he held with Theresa May, the need to dig into what's hidden and expose it to the world has gained a new urgency. While 'fake news' will become the rallying cry of those in power, as they try to shift attention elsewhere (and they will distract and deflect as best they can) a strong press can work wonders.

Beyond that, I guess we have to go back to basics. We have to talk to people, educate them (hard to do, the myths and legends of politics are harder to slay than dragons), argue openly and passionately for what we believe while keeping our heads If style. We must listen, and not turn away people who have different beliefs and we must be kind because all of us are human.

This may be a useful link to positive activism: http://www.trueactivist.com/10-ways-to-make-positive-change-in-the-world/. If you know of other good sites, please post them below, to start building a resource for anyone who needs it.

*Many thanks to Adrian Middleton for mentioning this on Facebook.
** I found these quotes in Grant Morrison's magnus opus Invisibles, I'm not Dick scholar.

Thursday, 12 January 2017

Is It Just Me?

The news stories about Rolf Harris, along with a myriad of other celebrities and their improper behaviour towards children, coupled with the revelations about what's been going on in football, where coaches have also been abusive towards minors, have left me spinning my wheels a bit, as I hate that sort of thing (obviously). I feel similarly about dick pics and men shouting abuse at women in the street. In fact, there are a lot of things we men do in this area that I don't get at all, and which I think are downright skeevy and unpleasant.

More to the point, I just don't comprehend what makes men do this sort of thing. Not at all. It's as if I'm sitting on an island looking at a huge continent of people talking and acting in a way that not only seems alien, but reprehensible.

It may be that I fall too much into the School of Life's 'nice man' category - there are certainly things that resonate with me in the video I've posted below, but I doubt a lot of XYs will feel the same way. It feels as if the internet has enabled more men to act dickishly about sex and to use it as a weapon, a way to intimidate and control people. At least I assume that's what motivates them, I can't imagine a situation where you'd send someone a picture of your bits otherwise, to be honest (I mean I know that men are sex-obsessed and that a large number think that unless we have it off regularly then we'll die or something, but come on that doesn't mean you show yourself to random strangers or proposition anyone with a pulse).

That doesn't address the likes of Harris though or explain how Trump became President of the USA even after the revelations about his 'grabbing pussy' came to light (though it has been suggested that women voted for Trump because what he said was simply the reality of their lives, there was nothing outrageous about it for them; it was just normal life) but I do think the two things are linked. The more horrific men's actions online become, the more likely we are to see them in the material world. Being online is no excuse, even if it's entirely understandable that our brains don't grasp the idea of the internet actually being a public space; it's on a machine in our house or our hand so we can look at it as something private and intimate, whereas it's actually just another city albeit one composed of websites and phone wires. What we do here is public, so perhaps we should behave as we would out in public. Would we flash someone in our local park? If not, why is it okay to send a picture of your bits to a girl?


It does feel as if there is a problem around the issue of men and sex which grows right out of the culture of masculinity that dominates our society. For every dick pic there's someone saying that men are always up for it (we aren't, by the way), and a host of men agreeing with them because to deny it would be to look 'unmanly'. I don't think it's helped by the way that promiscuous men are praised, or by the way women who explore their bodies are 'brave' and 'exciting' but somehow men are meant to be satisfied with the basics. There's a stark contrast in how we treat the sexes when it comes to this subject, and the fact that society seems keen to brush it under the carpet (unless money can be made from exploiting sex) scarcely helps. A social change and more education would be a huge boon here but they're both long term things, and I think we need a fix now. No woman should be bothered by men's sexual desires unless they welcome them (enthusiastically),  No child should ever be subjected to sex at all until they're ready, genuinely ready, preferably with someone their own age.

What we can do is start taking a stand. Don't send that sort of skeevy stuff to anyone (I'm sure you don't actually as I doubt my blog attracts that sort of person) and if your friends start talking in a fashion that way, shut them down. I mean, be gentle about it but don't let them degrade women. This isn't much but it's something; if we started treating people as we wanted to be treated that would be a good thing, right?

Thursday, 5 January 2017

Death: Some Thoughts

Let me tell you a story.

Once there was a lady called Margaret Vobe, she was a kind woman, one of those women who always worries about people, who does their best to make everyone happy. She lived down the road from me as a child, a kindly old lady who was always there with a kind word and a cake if you needed it, or with rhubarb crumble. Then, one day, when she was very old, she contracted Alzheimer's. The change in her character was noticeable almost immediately. She became confused, withdrawn and difficult to predict. On good days you could still see the woman she was, and sometimes in her confusion, she would say things that were amusing - 'there's a cow on the bed', for example. But those were rare and it was more common for her to be... lost, really. And as the disease worked its course, it became more apparent how lost she was and eventually she was nothing more than a little bundle of bones, in a room with a TV.

She was also my Grandmother, so I got to see how it affected my Mum when there were phone calls at four in the morning because Granny thought her own Mum was lying dead in the hallway, or when she ran away from the home she went to because my Grampy needed a break. I saw the impact it on him, the way it hollowed him out as well.

Perhaps it's because of this, that I fail to see death as a horrible, terrible thing. Even with the famous people who died last year (and the many who died who weren't famous - and I'm talking normal deaths here, not things like Aleppo or the multitudes who died in the Mediterranean trying to get to Europe from Africa and the Middle East), I remain of the opinion that death is a good thing, a necessary thing in most cases. It can be tragic, especially if a life is cut short in or before its prime but for many people, it represents an end to pain either for themselves or for their loved ones, We should never forget that, and even in our grief we should never forget how debilitating diseases can be, or that death is part of nature, not an opt-in system.

This, at the start of 2017, is what concerns me. There's no denying that last year was a real annus horriblis for people dying, but we're at a point where a lot of famous people are dying, or have reached the age where they are going to have strokes or heart attacks and will run a greater chance of dying as a result. In fact, we may be heading into a dramatic period where a lot of people die and we, the lucky ones, will have to live through it as best we can. That doesn't mean we should be happy about things like this, but rather that we need to reassess our relationship with death.

Ever since the First World War death has been something of a dicey subject. The Victorians embraced it, to an extent, because it was ever present. In the East End, the average life expectancy was 19 years, infant mortality was high, no matter what your class was. There was a culture around death, memento mori, photographs of the dead (as seen in the film The Others). This reaches back through history, a reminder that we are all mortal.


In the last century that changed, we started to push death away as much as we could. Technology allowed us to live longer, it saved more children; as families grew smaller thanks to contraception, the necessities of urban living children and the growth of 'childhood' as an idea, children stopped being mini adults, or workers and became something else. As a result, their status changed, and today most parents would put the lives of their children before that of their spouse (as Fay Weldon said, in her youth, you would save your partner first because you could always have more children*).

We've had about a hundred years of that attitude and now, as we live longer and the things we die of become more complex, I don't think it works as well and I think it's tipped over into being unhealthy, especially when I see how upset people are that someone who's nearly 100 has died. Especially when the famous die. Admittedly at that point, I find myself wondering what we are mourning, after all, we don't know the person who's died. We have an image of them, yes, but that image has been carefully constructed by publicists and by speeches, books, movies and other art forms. And if all we ever knew them for was their work, we haven't really lost anything at all; those works are still there waiting for us to enjoy them. It's just now we might see them a little differently, might feel that absence. But that's life, you change and grow all the time and you can't dictate the way that happens. It seems awfully selfish in some ways to mourn so publicly, to clutter up social media with how sad we are in these circumstances. We are spared the messy jobs of clearing up the person's life, which must be that much harder when your loved one was in the public eye so much. Even if they managed to keep things secret in life, will someone go through the bins or the bags you sent to the charity shop, and discover something that they wouldn't want to be known? Will that colour their legacy (if for instance a dead singer was discovered to be a rubber fetishist, or a tabletop roleplayer or something that society is a little wary of because it breaks the narrative of what a good person is)?

I worry that what we mourn is ourselves, our passing and the process of getting older. Youth has become so fetishised and nobody wants to grow up. The passing of people who were key to our childhoods does reflect the passing of time, that everything, ultimately, must pass over to whatever happens next (if that's anything at all).

I'm not saying, not to mourn, not to grieve, just be self-aware enough to know what you're mourning. And don't just leave it there. If you're genuinely touched by someone's passing, convert it into action. Donate money to a charity that person would have supported, or to fund research into how they died, or to support people who also suffer from that medical complaint (and take a leaf out of George Michael's book and don't make a song and dance about it, true charity doesn't need Macmillan coffee mornings or garish pins, the act is enough by itself). Consider why they were important to you and try to step into their shoes. Sure, you might not have pull of Carrie Fisher, but you could write about the issues you've been affected by and increase understanding of them, or talk about gay rights, or whatever it is that made you look at the person who has passed and feel inspired by them.

That in part is why I'm writing this blog piece. If I have to choose a hill to die on, so to speak (outside of things like the environment, which I do think is important), it's this. My Grandmother's passing affected me deeply simply because I've always felt she was dead before she stopped breathing. Everything that made her, her, had gone and only a shell remained. It made me realise that life, or its semblance, can be more devastating than the short sharp shock of someone being snatched away. In the case of David Bowie's family, I only hope that the 18 months they lived through with David's cancer gave them enough time to say goodbye, though I suspect they will always find one more thing they wish they'd said.  I imagine the same is true for all the other families out there who have lived with something like cancer, or Alzheimer's.

In the meantime all I can say is memento mori - remember you are mortal and make your life count for something.

*Sadly I can't find the article.