I am an aspiring author.
By that I mean I aspire to write a novel. I've got this idea. And it's brilliant. But it's massive and long and complicated and requires three main characters to tell the story properly.
I'm sure you're looking forward to reading it. I give a speculative (and optimistic) release date of March 2028.
In the mean-time I have a task. I must think of a publishing pseudonym.
It's not that I don't like my own name. In fact I quite like it. My parents named me very rationally and intelligently. David is a sturdy, ever-popular name capable of everything from elegant Prince David, to flamboyant homosexual hipster Davey to down-to-earth taxi driver Dave. It spans class and age-group
It's an every-man's name: comforting and familiar. Everyone knows a Dave. I know about ten. But David Wells isn't a name destined for stardom.
There is already a minutely famous astrologist called David Wells. And they level of fame that I might be able to garner as a moderately successful author would surely only get me oft confused with my scumbag namesake.
I should note here that we had a signed David Wells book come into our office where I work. Intrigued I decided to give him a chance rather than (as I had previously) writing his work off as brainless, malicious rubbish. I was right the first time, I'm afraid to say. And wrong to give him a chance.
His book described a process of arbitrarily assigning numbers to specific letters and then working out a mathematical equation for your name. The resulting number gives you a short paragraph about your personality.
It actually scares me that there might be people who believe this banal crap.
Back on topic.
I need to think of pseudonym.
The first name, I think, is actually a bit easier for me but it's still hard. I like names. The difficulty is not using names that I want to use in future pieces of writing. For example, I would find it impossible to name a character David, just because it would feel strange to use my own name for someone who wasn't me. Maybe I'll get over that feeling with time.
I do find, however, that it is difficult for me to completely divorce names from people I know with those names. My writing of characters is often coloured by those names.
So I have to think of names that I don't directly relate to anyone specifically, or if I do, I relate them in a positive way. Now, generally, I dislike people. So I have a negative impression of most names. And for those rare people I do like, I have other people who I don't masking my fondness for that name.
I think I've effectively narrowed my first name choice to:
Patrick or Oliver.
Fairly middle-class author-ish type names. Patrick has pleasant connotations for me, the lowest rank of which was that it was the name of my first hamster. White as snow and docile, he died of having some weird thing on his eye (I was young-ish).
Oliver is a name I've always liked: multi-syllabled for such a short word and kind to the tongue. I always feel there is something peaceful about it, despite the connotation of Cromwell or the Dickens, which are anything but.
The second name is more difficult. Patrick and Oliver are fairly pedestrian in themselves, they are fine as a pre-amble, but we need to finish on a flourish. Something eye-catching and memorable.
I'm searching for something lavish and extravagant.
I flirted with "Juneau" and on reflection it's still the best idea I've come up with. It's the name of a song I like (although not one of my absolute favourites). It's also the state capital of Alaska. The only American state capital that isn't accessible directly by road, I believe.
There is something in the excessive vowels that I like.
But I'm not really sure what I'll go for.
Wednesday 22 February 2012
Monday 20 February 2012
Was Hitler evil?
These days we think of Hitler as being the epitome of evil, right? He's like our ultimate in anti-morality and callous disregard for human compassion. It's become almost a cliche in shock value.
Even the word "Hitler" has an ugly connotation, just looking at it. You can't get any lower or morally worse than Hitler.
But I fear we are divorcing historical context just a little bit. And that's never a good idea.
Now, I'm certainly not going to come anywhere near an argument that Hitler is a tragically misunderstood good-guy, but consider it from this perspective:
At that time that Hitler was in power, Jews were generally not well liked across the world. You can bet that around and during the war that the majority of people in England would have harbored, what we would now consider, racist views about Jews. But at the time they would have been morally reasonable and sound.
I'd like to use the example of paedophiles today. There is a lot of hatred towards paedophiles in our current society.
But imagine if in a hundred years time, the distinction between childhood and adulthood has become blurred and the new moral code doesn't really see anything wrong with a relationship between a 30-year-old and a 13-year-old. By today's standard the idea is morally reprehensible, but it's the same idea with Jews.
In the 1940's Jews were considered inferior and unpleasant, not just by Nazi's but by regular people.
Jump back to present day. I'm sure you'd be able to find quite a number of normal, British people these days who would advocate a death penalty for paedophilia. Maybe they don't represent a reflective, educated person's views but they are likely to be widely held nevertheless. I concede you could argue with me on this point, but for argument's sake let's say I'm right.
So, knowing that some people think paedophillia is a just cause for the death penalty, it can't be a stretch of the imagination to suggest that there must be some people who would take that to it's logical conclusion: put all paedophiles into concentration camps and gas them to death in batches.
Note I would also accept that there is a very strong difference between a religious belief and being a paedophile (although the mischievous Atheist within me would argue that both are mental illnesses).
I'm just trying to make the point with something that general moral opinion says is bad (paedophilia) with something that the 1940's general moral opinion said was bad (being Jewish).
So, Hitler is extremely evil, we would agree certainly. He brought about the deaths of millions of Jews.
Imagine today if we learned that Germany was placing paedophiles into concentration camps. There might be outrage among some parts the Left, and intervention would be talked about. But there would certainly be a relatively strong contingent of the opinion: "well, maybe it's not such a bad idea".
Likely the outcome would be the same, however. But the point I'm making is that Hitler is only unmitigatedly evil by the terms of our modern morality (of course there are extremists who would tell you Hitler was onto a good thing, but there are always going be extremists).
But I'm not talking about extremists, I'm talking about out-of-the-mill bigots. My generation is more naturally liberal in terms of race, sexuality and religion. But would we take the same stance on paedophiles? I imagine the morality would be much more divided.
And so in a hundred years time when relationships between adults and children are morally accepted, they would look back on the German paeodphile concentration camps with horror, and they would imagine the perpetrators as the worst evil they can think of.
But by our standards a killer of paedophiles would certainly be less immediately reprehensible than, say, someone who kills black people.
Hitler is only the ultimate evil in our modern context. He was a product of his time, and was just somewhat more extreme than a majority who may have, in principle, agreed with him.
I should maybe also note that I do think Hitler is evil and will always be considered evil. I'm just using this as an example of evil could be a lot more subjective that we think.
Even the word "Hitler" has an ugly connotation, just looking at it. You can't get any lower or morally worse than Hitler.
But I fear we are divorcing historical context just a little bit. And that's never a good idea.
Now, I'm certainly not going to come anywhere near an argument that Hitler is a tragically misunderstood good-guy, but consider it from this perspective:
At that time that Hitler was in power, Jews were generally not well liked across the world. You can bet that around and during the war that the majority of people in England would have harbored, what we would now consider, racist views about Jews. But at the time they would have been morally reasonable and sound.
I'd like to use the example of paedophiles today. There is a lot of hatred towards paedophiles in our current society.
But imagine if in a hundred years time, the distinction between childhood and adulthood has become blurred and the new moral code doesn't really see anything wrong with a relationship between a 30-year-old and a 13-year-old. By today's standard the idea is morally reprehensible, but it's the same idea with Jews.
In the 1940's Jews were considered inferior and unpleasant, not just by Nazi's but by regular people.
Jump back to present day. I'm sure you'd be able to find quite a number of normal, British people these days who would advocate a death penalty for paedophilia. Maybe they don't represent a reflective, educated person's views but they are likely to be widely held nevertheless. I concede you could argue with me on this point, but for argument's sake let's say I'm right.
So, knowing that some people think paedophillia is a just cause for the death penalty, it can't be a stretch of the imagination to suggest that there must be some people who would take that to it's logical conclusion: put all paedophiles into concentration camps and gas them to death in batches.
Note I would also accept that there is a very strong difference between a religious belief and being a paedophile (although the mischievous Atheist within me would argue that both are mental illnesses).
I'm just trying to make the point with something that general moral opinion says is bad (paedophilia) with something that the 1940's general moral opinion said was bad (being Jewish).
So, Hitler is extremely evil, we would agree certainly. He brought about the deaths of millions of Jews.
Imagine today if we learned that Germany was placing paedophiles into concentration camps. There might be outrage among some parts the Left, and intervention would be talked about. But there would certainly be a relatively strong contingent of the opinion: "well, maybe it's not such a bad idea".
Likely the outcome would be the same, however. But the point I'm making is that Hitler is only unmitigatedly evil by the terms of our modern morality (of course there are extremists who would tell you Hitler was onto a good thing, but there are always going be extremists).
But I'm not talking about extremists, I'm talking about out-of-the-mill bigots. My generation is more naturally liberal in terms of race, sexuality and religion. But would we take the same stance on paedophiles? I imagine the morality would be much more divided.
And so in a hundred years time when relationships between adults and children are morally accepted, they would look back on the German paeodphile concentration camps with horror, and they would imagine the perpetrators as the worst evil they can think of.
But by our standards a killer of paedophiles would certainly be less immediately reprehensible than, say, someone who kills black people.
Hitler is only the ultimate evil in our modern context. He was a product of his time, and was just somewhat more extreme than a majority who may have, in principle, agreed with him.
I should maybe also note that I do think Hitler is evil and will always be considered evil. I'm just using this as an example of evil could be a lot more subjective that we think.
Friday 17 February 2012
Religion under attack?
Joining the debate a little late, but there has been some talk recently about religion. I believe the issue was that a court had ruled it was unlawful to enforce prayers on the agenda of a local council meeting.
A councilor who was consistently referred to in the press as an "atheist" won a high court ruling to say that prayers on the agenda of a council meeting were unlawful. Unlawful, by the way, is a very key word here.
It's not that the prayers have been decreed to be "unwelcome" or even "unnecessary", they have been ruled as "unlawful". It's against the law to put prayers on the agenda on council meetings. I think that's quite important in this story.
Eric Pickles, the communities secretary waddled into the affair claiming that "Christianity plays an important part in the culture, heritage and fabric of our nation."
Can't argue with that, although while Pickles is suggesting this is a positive thing, I would claim otherwise. But that's a different debate entirely. However, Pickles went on to say:
"The right to worship is a fundamental and hard-fought British liberty."
Now that is a hideous piece of linguistic prestidigitation if ever I've seen one. Who exactly is claiming that the "right to worship" should be rescinded here? No-one.
Our laws are secular laws and faith is a personal thing. No-one has even come close to hinting that the "right to worship" should be removed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Church of England's primary place of worship is not St. Paul's Council Meeting Room.
If you want to believe in religions (my own views notwithstanding) then feel free to do so in your own time. But don't impose your insane faith on grown-up political matters than are actually important.
A councilor who was consistently referred to in the press as an "atheist" won a high court ruling to say that prayers on the agenda of a council meeting were unlawful. Unlawful, by the way, is a very key word here.
It's not that the prayers have been decreed to be "unwelcome" or even "unnecessary", they have been ruled as "unlawful". It's against the law to put prayers on the agenda on council meetings. I think that's quite important in this story.
Eric Pickles, the communities secretary waddled into the affair claiming that "Christianity plays an important part in the culture, heritage and fabric of our nation."
Can't argue with that, although while Pickles is suggesting this is a positive thing, I would claim otherwise. But that's a different debate entirely. However, Pickles went on to say:
"The right to worship is a fundamental and hard-fought British liberty."
Now that is a hideous piece of linguistic prestidigitation if ever I've seen one. Who exactly is claiming that the "right to worship" should be rescinded here? No-one.
Our laws are secular laws and faith is a personal thing. No-one has even come close to hinting that the "right to worship" should be removed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Church of England's primary place of worship is not St. Paul's Council Meeting Room.
If you want to believe in religions (my own views notwithstanding) then feel free to do so in your own time. But don't impose your insane faith on grown-up political matters than are actually important.
Monday 13 February 2012
My ideal partner...
It's Valentine's Day tomorrow. I wrote a blog on Valentine's Day last year, and it's still extremely relevant, as I'm sure it will be for the rest of my life. This year I thought I'd do something different.
Given that Valentine's Day is a day for romance and I will be spending it partner-less and alone, I thought it was worth taking a look at exactly what I might want from a partner: my ideal partner, as t'were.
I'm going to break it down into two basic categories: personality and appearance.
First off, I should say that my ideal partner, ideally, would be female. Not least because the concept of having breasts is much more attractive on a woman than it is on a man.
So, personality-wise, what am I looking for?
I once said that my ideal girlfriend would be exactly like me, but could not remind me at all of me. In realistic terms I think that would mean they should be bright, but don't need to be extremely smart, they just need to be fairly wise to make up for my shortfall in this area. They shouldn't be arrogant or pretentious. They should be relatively confident within themselves, but they need necessarily need to be confident on the outside.
She would probably have to be reasonably innocent or naive, but should also be fierce and curious.
Funny seems to be the universal quality everyone is looking for. It strikes me that perhaps people don't realise how much funnier someone appears when we find them attractive. I suggest that the attraction, might often come before the funny, rather than after it. I'm not saying you'll be attracted to everyone you find funny, however.
After funny, it seems that the way someone looks is the chief principle. People often refer to eyes unaware perhaps that, broadly speaking, eyes are identical. It's what surrounds the eyes that is attractive or otherwise. I don't really take eyes into consideration, personally. Eyes are generally pretty. Bigger is better naturally, but that isn't actually the eye, it's the opening. I'm ambivalent about eye-colour. Deep brown is very attractive. Bright green is beautiful. I knew a girl once with quite astonishingly ice-blue eyes. But it doesn't even need to be a particularly defined colour. More pale colours are equally attractive, and often compliments the face a lot more. (The girl with the ice-blue eyes for example: her eyes completely dominated her face, the result was very pretty eyes, but not very pretty otherwise).
When it comes to looks, I don't know, I don't think they are too important. I mean, obviously attraction is requisite, but I don't think I'd be able to explain exactly what I find attractive in anyone.
Body shape isn't really an issue. I know some people who imagine very skinny girls as the ideal in beauty, and some who think too skinny is ugly. Once again, I find myself sitting on the fence.
I find some very thin girls very attractive: their fragility perhaps, suggests a femininity not afforded too specifically by their physique. On other girls I would concede that there is a 'too skinny' category, but then again some girls who I find myself most attracted to are just about as skinny as it's possible to be for a healthy person.
On the other hand, the other end of spectrum is a little clearer. Certainly there is a limit at which people become too fat to be attractive, but I wouldn't say my boundary is particularly limiting. I find some slightly larger girls very attractive. Curves are a natural in what men find attractive about women.
Perhaps the point is that any weight within the perceived limits of what can be considered healthy, places them in a very good place to be attractive.
I remember reading a quote from an old book that I agreed with. It was a man commenting on women said something along the lines that it is rare to find a woman who doesn't have something beautiful about her and it is impossible to find one without flaws.
Hair colour and style are of little importance. I happen to think short-hair always looks good on girls. But literally any length can be attractive. I'm not too fond, generally over over-elaborate hairstyles. But I think that's mainly because of what I think it indicates within the personality.
Skin colour is interesting too. I know some guys who tell me that they simply don't find non-white girls attractive. I grew up and live in a primarily white-dominated part of the world, so perhaps that has something to do with it. I must say, however, that not even trying to pretend I'm some sort of super-liberal, all-loving, all-accepting king of political correctness*, I simply do not make the distinction. Attractive is attractive, simple as that.
I have even been accused, by friends, of only finding non-white girls attractive (although I believe it was in jest), which I can categorically state is not the case.
But I think I made a fairly important point a second ago.
I know what I find attractive, but I can't explain to you what it is. Attractive is attractive.
In conclusion, I think that my ideal partner can be summed out in a single word: unobtainable. So, instead I must think of something else to do tomorrow. Maybe I'll get back to writing.
* Which I am, by the way
Given that Valentine's Day is a day for romance and I will be spending it partner-less and alone, I thought it was worth taking a look at exactly what I might want from a partner: my ideal partner, as t'were.
I'm going to break it down into two basic categories: personality and appearance.
First off, I should say that my ideal partner, ideally, would be female. Not least because the concept of having breasts is much more attractive on a woman than it is on a man.
So, personality-wise, what am I looking for?
I once said that my ideal girlfriend would be exactly like me, but could not remind me at all of me. In realistic terms I think that would mean they should be bright, but don't need to be extremely smart, they just need to be fairly wise to make up for my shortfall in this area. They shouldn't be arrogant or pretentious. They should be relatively confident within themselves, but they need necessarily need to be confident on the outside.
She would probably have to be reasonably innocent or naive, but should also be fierce and curious.
Funny seems to be the universal quality everyone is looking for. It strikes me that perhaps people don't realise how much funnier someone appears when we find them attractive. I suggest that the attraction, might often come before the funny, rather than after it. I'm not saying you'll be attracted to everyone you find funny, however.
After funny, it seems that the way someone looks is the chief principle. People often refer to eyes unaware perhaps that, broadly speaking, eyes are identical. It's what surrounds the eyes that is attractive or otherwise. I don't really take eyes into consideration, personally. Eyes are generally pretty. Bigger is better naturally, but that isn't actually the eye, it's the opening. I'm ambivalent about eye-colour. Deep brown is very attractive. Bright green is beautiful. I knew a girl once with quite astonishingly ice-blue eyes. But it doesn't even need to be a particularly defined colour. More pale colours are equally attractive, and often compliments the face a lot more. (The girl with the ice-blue eyes for example: her eyes completely dominated her face, the result was very pretty eyes, but not very pretty otherwise).
When it comes to looks, I don't know, I don't think they are too important. I mean, obviously attraction is requisite, but I don't think I'd be able to explain exactly what I find attractive in anyone.
Body shape isn't really an issue. I know some people who imagine very skinny girls as the ideal in beauty, and some who think too skinny is ugly. Once again, I find myself sitting on the fence.
I find some very thin girls very attractive: their fragility perhaps, suggests a femininity not afforded too specifically by their physique. On other girls I would concede that there is a 'too skinny' category, but then again some girls who I find myself most attracted to are just about as skinny as it's possible to be for a healthy person.
On the other hand, the other end of spectrum is a little clearer. Certainly there is a limit at which people become too fat to be attractive, but I wouldn't say my boundary is particularly limiting. I find some slightly larger girls very attractive. Curves are a natural in what men find attractive about women.
Perhaps the point is that any weight within the perceived limits of what can be considered healthy, places them in a very good place to be attractive.
I remember reading a quote from an old book that I agreed with. It was a man commenting on women said something along the lines that it is rare to find a woman who doesn't have something beautiful about her and it is impossible to find one without flaws.
Hair colour and style are of little importance. I happen to think short-hair always looks good on girls. But literally any length can be attractive. I'm not too fond, generally over over-elaborate hairstyles. But I think that's mainly because of what I think it indicates within the personality.
Skin colour is interesting too. I know some guys who tell me that they simply don't find non-white girls attractive. I grew up and live in a primarily white-dominated part of the world, so perhaps that has something to do with it. I must say, however, that not even trying to pretend I'm some sort of super-liberal, all-loving, all-accepting king of political correctness*, I simply do not make the distinction. Attractive is attractive, simple as that.
I have even been accused, by friends, of only finding non-white girls attractive (although I believe it was in jest), which I can categorically state is not the case.
But I think I made a fairly important point a second ago.
I know what I find attractive, but I can't explain to you what it is. Attractive is attractive.
In conclusion, I think that my ideal partner can be summed out in a single word: unobtainable. So, instead I must think of something else to do tomorrow. Maybe I'll get back to writing.
* Which I am, by the way
Saturday 11 February 2012
The gym.
I am always annoyed by status updates on Facebook or Twitter describing a successful gym visit. I know that I could delete my accounts and probably be happier for it, but then how would I do blogs with trivial stuff to get angry at?
So anyway, it starts and someone says:
"Just the gym! Gonna get in shape for the summer, can't wait to get started"
Then a day or two later you'll see:
"Epic first sesh at the gym, dripping sweat, feels great"
Then the next day:
"Two hours work on my arms today. I'd post a picture of my guns but they now no longer fit in the picture frame of my camera"
Then about a week goes by:
"Great to be back at the gym"
Then another week:
"Good 30 minute sesh"
Then nothing.
Then you see them a couple of months later and they look exactly the same.
Still, I expect it's just petty jealous: the story of my life.
So anyway, it starts and someone says:
"Just the gym! Gonna get in shape for the summer, can't wait to get started"
Then a day or two later you'll see:
"Epic first sesh at the gym, dripping sweat, feels great"
Then the next day:
"Two hours work on my arms today. I'd post a picture of my guns but they now no longer fit in the picture frame of my camera"
Then about a week goes by:
"Great to be back at the gym"
Then another week:
"Good 30 minute sesh"
Then nothing.
Then you see them a couple of months later and they look exactly the same.
Still, I expect it's just petty jealous: the story of my life.
Thursday 9 February 2012
Saying something.
I feel that one of these days I'm going to say something that I regret. Not just about one issue, about several.
I'm going to say something that is either too kind, or something that is too angry, because in the moment I'll get caught at one end of the spectrum of my thought.
If it's too angry I'll end up having to apologise and my point will be lost.
If it's too nice I'll be angry with myself for not explaining the situation as I'd like, ad that will make the situation worse.
I'm going to say something that is either too kind, or something that is too angry, because in the moment I'll get caught at one end of the spectrum of my thought.
If it's too angry I'll end up having to apologise and my point will be lost.
If it's too nice I'll be angry with myself for not explaining the situation as I'd like, ad that will make the situation worse.
Tuesday 7 February 2012
Names, but for a different reason.
I realise I've been using people's full names a little too flippantly in this blog. I will avoid it in future.
Something else for you not to watch
I watched a film the other day. I didn't enjoy it. I watched virtually all of it, but didn't see the end. I didn't care about the end. It didn't matter.
It a comedy-drama set in the 1970s written by Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant's. This is the duo behind The Office (which was good, despite the fact that it only had a single joke: David Brent is an awkward dickhead) Life's Too Short (which is exactly the same as The Office except with a midget as the main character) and Karl Pilkington (which is utterly dreadful. Right, it's funny because it's trying to make you believe that Karl Pilkington is a real person, that his personality is actually like that, which it just is not. Karl Pilkington is a character that they have tried to sell as a real person and that completely takes away the joke for me, because if you aware that this is simply a character and not a person's actual beliefs then the whole situation just becomes one where two writers are trying imagine what someone stupid might think about things, and then you laugh at that fake stupid person.)
The film is called "Cemetery Junction" which is the most pathetic, hackneyed and obvious foreshadowing technique you could ever imagine using. In my mind it would be like calling the star of an action film Jack Actionhero. Watch the film and you'll see what I mean. Well, actually, don't watch the film, that's the point of this blog, just trust me, I'm right.
I was alerted to how bad the film might be when a young man supposedly from the 1970s asked his friend "where are all the fit birds?" Fit! Now, I wasn't alive, so I could be corrected, but I'm pretty sure that the word 'fit' as a synonym for 'attractive' is a lot more recent than that. Certainly I've never heard it any old English TV and from the few people I have asked they are certain 'fit' just meant 'healthy' up until recently.
So then, that's not only a rather embarrassing show of the ineptitude of the writers but also a poor excuse for whoever edited the script or even read it.
Now there are a couple of things you could say. Maybe it's an intentional mistake. I can imagine this being the case. The central theme of the film seems to be that change and progress is a positive thing, and so the idea of using a new phrase doesn't seem too out of place, especially as it is placed next to 'bird' which seems to be more of an archaic term.
The problem is that if that is the case it is quite clumsily executed. It's said by the wrong character. Instead of being progressive, it comes across as an almost sexist and childish outburst.
The other point, however, is that maybe it's not too important. It's either artistic license, as they say, or an honest mistake. I'm not one of those people whose enjoyment of a film is ruined if someone's jumper changes colour during a scene during The Dark Knight. If you're willing to suspend your disbelief that a muscular billionaires goes around punching criminals dressed as a bat, but unwilling to accept a colour-changing jumper, well that's your own problem.
Either way, it's not the main issue, but it does reveal part of the problem. See films based in dreary towns in the 1970s are always going to rely on the characters. Unfortunately in this instance they are filled with cliche, and worst of all, there isn't an milligram of wit lying around.
There is a huge reliance on the word "cunt" throughout for the shocking moments. Shock value being the real lowest form of wit, by the way.
The plot has no surprise twists, no complexity. The ending (which I have since read about rather than watched) is gutless and so utterly and painfully predictable.
It a comedy-drama set in the 1970s written by Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant's. This is the duo behind The Office (which was good, despite the fact that it only had a single joke: David Brent is an awkward dickhead) Life's Too Short (which is exactly the same as The Office except with a midget as the main character) and Karl Pilkington (which is utterly dreadful. Right, it's funny because it's trying to make you believe that Karl Pilkington is a real person, that his personality is actually like that, which it just is not. Karl Pilkington is a character that they have tried to sell as a real person and that completely takes away the joke for me, because if you aware that this is simply a character and not a person's actual beliefs then the whole situation just becomes one where two writers are trying imagine what someone stupid might think about things, and then you laugh at that fake stupid person.)
The film is called "Cemetery Junction" which is the most pathetic, hackneyed and obvious foreshadowing technique you could ever imagine using. In my mind it would be like calling the star of an action film Jack Actionhero. Watch the film and you'll see what I mean. Well, actually, don't watch the film, that's the point of this blog, just trust me, I'm right.
I was alerted to how bad the film might be when a young man supposedly from the 1970s asked his friend "where are all the fit birds?" Fit! Now, I wasn't alive, so I could be corrected, but I'm pretty sure that the word 'fit' as a synonym for 'attractive' is a lot more recent than that. Certainly I've never heard it any old English TV and from the few people I have asked they are certain 'fit' just meant 'healthy' up until recently.
So then, that's not only a rather embarrassing show of the ineptitude of the writers but also a poor excuse for whoever edited the script or even read it.
Now there are a couple of things you could say. Maybe it's an intentional mistake. I can imagine this being the case. The central theme of the film seems to be that change and progress is a positive thing, and so the idea of using a new phrase doesn't seem too out of place, especially as it is placed next to 'bird' which seems to be more of an archaic term.
The problem is that if that is the case it is quite clumsily executed. It's said by the wrong character. Instead of being progressive, it comes across as an almost sexist and childish outburst.
The other point, however, is that maybe it's not too important. It's either artistic license, as they say, or an honest mistake. I'm not one of those people whose enjoyment of a film is ruined if someone's jumper changes colour during a scene during The Dark Knight. If you're willing to suspend your disbelief that a muscular billionaires goes around punching criminals dressed as a bat, but unwilling to accept a colour-changing jumper, well that's your own problem.
Either way, it's not the main issue, but it does reveal part of the problem. See films based in dreary towns in the 1970s are always going to rely on the characters. Unfortunately in this instance they are filled with cliche, and worst of all, there isn't an milligram of wit lying around.
There is a huge reliance on the word "cunt" throughout for the shocking moments. Shock value being the real lowest form of wit, by the way.
The plot has no surprise twists, no complexity. The ending (which I have since read about rather than watched) is gutless and so utterly and painfully predictable.
Friday 3 February 2012
Advice.
I have some advice. Some advice that you won't take. You won't take it for a variety of reasons, but I think primarily because no-one takes advice. And certainly not at the age that this advice is aimed at. I should also note that probably 100% who read this advice won't even be in a position to take it.
But, just in case, here it is:
Do not go to university unless you want to learn.
That sounds like a strange thing to say, because surely going to university is the ultimate testament in desiring learning. But it's not. Not these days. And I can tell you that because of the experience I went through.
I love learning. But I didn't go to university to learn. I went to university to get a degree. I had to learn things along the way to get that degree, but they were arbitrary. I don't think I'm alone in saying that. In fact I know I'm not. There were always lots of people in my classes who weren't there to learn, and a lot who were, were just learning to pass the degree.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm ashamed of it now. I have a thirst for knowledge now.
And I hate the anti-intellectual world we live in, where the length of time that Kerry Katona can submerge her head in a bucket of live cockroaches passes for Saturday night entertainment.
(NOTE: this feels like a good time to say that I currently despise almost all television. I hate the throwaway nothingness of it. I hate the way that you can sit down and watch a night's worth of television and learn nothing. I watched half and hour of some program about a rich couple buying a house in rural Somerset. They walked round. They quite liked some of the houses. And they had some reservations. And that was it. You learned fuck all. People buy houses and they have to compromise. Great.)
But anyway. If you go to university, get the most out of it. And you'll get the most out of it by making yourself smarter. It's something that I never really understood. Becoming smarter at university just seemed like it would be a natural progression.
I did learn things, I had some good tutors, but I could and should have learned a lot more. I despair at the time that I could have spent reading but I spent playing Call of Duty.
Reading is the way forward, by the way. Just in case you were wondering. Stop watching television and start reading. And don't read fucking ghost-written celebrity autobiographies because they are shit. And I'm not even trying to be a pretentious arrogant dickhead. They might be entertaining, I know they are, just like TV is entertaining. But TV is only entertaining in the moment. You can sit there are watch it and it's easy. But it's stupid.
People complain about some people watching too much football, but than those people are quite happy to sit down and watch hours upon hours of witless American "comedy" and facile scripted-reality.
People wonder why their government is failing and why they can't get a good job. Well it's because we've had generation upon generation now who have shunned intelligence in preference to dumbed down entertainments and pass-times.
Why is it such a pathetic punch-line for me to prefer staying in and playing chess than it is go out and get drunk until I throw up? Why does that make me boring? I can't think of anything more boring than going out.
Well. That turned into a rant and enough.
I think the moral of the story is when I start talking, ignore me.
But, just in case, here it is:
Do not go to university unless you want to learn.
That sounds like a strange thing to say, because surely going to university is the ultimate testament in desiring learning. But it's not. Not these days. And I can tell you that because of the experience I went through.
I love learning. But I didn't go to university to learn. I went to university to get a degree. I had to learn things along the way to get that degree, but they were arbitrary. I don't think I'm alone in saying that. In fact I know I'm not. There were always lots of people in my classes who weren't there to learn, and a lot who were, were just learning to pass the degree.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm ashamed of it now. I have a thirst for knowledge now.
And I hate the anti-intellectual world we live in, where the length of time that Kerry Katona can submerge her head in a bucket of live cockroaches passes for Saturday night entertainment.
(NOTE: this feels like a good time to say that I currently despise almost all television. I hate the throwaway nothingness of it. I hate the way that you can sit down and watch a night's worth of television and learn nothing. I watched half and hour of some program about a rich couple buying a house in rural Somerset. They walked round. They quite liked some of the houses. And they had some reservations. And that was it. You learned fuck all. People buy houses and they have to compromise. Great.)
But anyway. If you go to university, get the most out of it. And you'll get the most out of it by making yourself smarter. It's something that I never really understood. Becoming smarter at university just seemed like it would be a natural progression.
I did learn things, I had some good tutors, but I could and should have learned a lot more. I despair at the time that I could have spent reading but I spent playing Call of Duty.
Reading is the way forward, by the way. Just in case you were wondering. Stop watching television and start reading. And don't read fucking ghost-written celebrity autobiographies because they are shit. And I'm not even trying to be a pretentious arrogant dickhead. They might be entertaining, I know they are, just like TV is entertaining. But TV is only entertaining in the moment. You can sit there are watch it and it's easy. But it's stupid.
People complain about some people watching too much football, but than those people are quite happy to sit down and watch hours upon hours of witless American "comedy" and facile scripted-reality.
People wonder why their government is failing and why they can't get a good job. Well it's because we've had generation upon generation now who have shunned intelligence in preference to dumbed down entertainments and pass-times.
Why is it such a pathetic punch-line for me to prefer staying in and playing chess than it is go out and get drunk until I throw up? Why does that make me boring? I can't think of anything more boring than going out.
Well. That turned into a rant and enough.
I think the moral of the story is when I start talking, ignore me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)