Tuesday 1st July 2025
Blog Page 1030

Review: Melted Butter

0

I’m always hesitant to go to any showcase of Modern Greek culture here in Britain. I’ve always tactically avoided all my family visits to the North Manchester greek orthodox eklesia, where the light of the candles flickers against cloudy skies rather than the lilac sunset of my grandmother’s village. I believe it stems from a stubbornness to keep ‘Greekness’ as something that is exclusively my own, to maintain the vibrant allure of my childhood memories rather than settle with bland replicas of my homeland over 3000 km away from their original.

It turns out, however, that amidst Oxford’s dreaming spires, I wasn’t as successful as I’d hoped in keeping my two separate cultures as distant from each other as I’d thought. I’ve missed the hybrid culture that I had at home, where we would in very British fashion over the pettiest detail, all while eating Mediterranean food. Therefore, although still hesitant, I couldn’t help but be enticed by OUGS’ Praxis’ performance of Serefas’ Melted Butter.

Still, as I walking towards the Simpkins Lee Theatre, I cringed at the idea of the tweed-clad classicists who were at liberty to judge the crude clichés that often manifest themselves in such instances. What’s more, I was worried the script would be loaded with the superficial drama and histrionic acting that could be found in the 3pm Greek soap operas I watched on hot, lazy afternoons. Melted Butter was exactly that – but, to my surprise, wonderfully so.

The script stands as a melodrama, with the plot line of the small town girl longing to sing in the big city, the deceptive pseudo gent who plucks at the heartstrings of her dreams, the slow unravelling of murderous details and the voyeuristic Oxford academic. Anastasia Revis’s direction lives up to the cliche, packed with sensational commonplaces: the dancing girl in the red dress, silhouetted against a spotlight on the curtain with roses thrown at her feet as her seducer claps the rhythm, foreshadows tragedy. The performance of the actors was the kind that would cause outrage amongst fans of subtlety. And yet, it all worked, with the writing, direction and acting preventing the common themes of deceit, lust and friendship from seeming trite. Any hellenophile who still harks back to the golden age of ancient Greece would have little to judge, for Serefas’ Melted Butter was a modern classic. As he himself intimated to Cherwell following the performance, Ancient Greek Theatre had inspired his writing and this was evident in the gripping nature of his play.

As entertaining as Melted Butter was, however, the political element of Ancient Greek theatre is lacking from its modern counterpart. But that itself is the lasting impact of modern Greek theatre – the fact that it mirrors the vapid drama of soap operas, and their focus on the ever-present theme of human nature, reveals the contextual relevance of such performances. The eternal culture of this ‘Greekness’ that I have been so adamant in protecting from judging eyes has become more popular than ever to modern Greek playwrights, theatre companies and, of course, audiences – just as it has to television producers and authors.

We, as Greeks, are all struggling to preserve the vibrant allure that our country so effortlessly offers in its beautiful landscape and rich history, in a present where the very same country is crumbling both politically and economically. For me, PRAXIS, the first theatre company to translate Serefas’s work, is both brave in shamelessly exposing ‘Greekness’ to others, and skilful in implying its significance – at least to a Greek person- by doing so.

What new admissions data actually means for access

0

The release of the 2015 admissions statistics has led to the usual charges against Oxford and how it is letting down those from disadvantaged backgrounds by continuing to accept a large proportion of privately educated students. While this is true, and Oxford still suffers from this systemic problem, it is only half of the story.

Perhaps the most significant aspect to these statistics is that, on a year-by-year basis, there doesn’t seem to be much change. Around 62.5 per cent of applicants were from state schools, while 37.5 per cent came from independent schools. Of these, 55 per cent of acceptances went to state school students, compared with 44 per cent from independent schools. Around 63.8 per cent of those applying were UK domiciled, compared with 24.4 per cent from abroad; 80.8 per cent of offers went to UK domiciled applicants.

All of these statistics are useful in their own ways, in the sense that they show – despite the University’s best efforts to improve its access scheme – things are beginning to look pretty constant. However, perhaps the most useful thing that these statistics tell us is what access should focus on next.

It’s clear that the disparity between independent schools applicants and the number of acceptances they receive compared with state school applicants is here for the long haul. The 2015 statistics are roughly comparable with those from 2007, when around 52 per cent of acceptances were from state schools.

The development of the access scheme in the coming months and years will hopefully address the disparity between applications and acceptances from state schools and those from independent schools. As recognised by the University on its report, ‘state school’ as an indicator of social disadvantage is ineffective; a more sophisticated model is needed in order to truly gauge what Oxford and other Russell Group universities are doing to improve diversity within the student body.

Yet, I would contend that even using Government indicators like Free School Meals and Pupil Premium poses the risk of ignoring students from equally deprived backgrounds as those eligible for such schemes. To venture into anecdote, I was an applicant from a single-parent family whose mother was working for around about £16,000 per year at the time of my application, and who was in receipt of Working Tax Credit and Housing Benefit. This immediately disqualified me from receiving FSM or Pupil Premium. I’m sure there are many others from relatively deprived backgrounds who, because of quirks like this, are not visible on the University’s radar when it comes to measuring the number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds being accepted. That is why I believe that an access programme that takes other factors into account, rather than simply those used by the Government, would be more effective in improving the socioeconomic diversity of students at Oxford.

Within the UK, there is a clear North-South divide in applications and acceptances to Oxford. Again, however, this is already on many access workers’ radars, and my own college – Pembroke, where I’m the JCR Access Rep – performs a lot of work in our partner region of the North West (Cheshire and Greater Manchester) to not only encourage applications to Oxford but to develop Sixth Formers’ critical faculties so that they even consider higher education at all.

There is still work to be done on this, including a more co-ordinated response to access work in different parts of the country between colleges. OUSU is taking its first steps in building a database of committed access workers, noting the regions from which they derive, so that each college has a pool of people from their ‘catchment areas’ who can then go to schools and represent the university in those regions. The most effective way in getting the attention of an assembly hall of Sixth Formers is to have someone who you can relate to – from the same area, with the same accent – giving a talk, and so these are definitely steps in the right direction.

The highlight of the 2015 statistics in my view is the disparity between UK domiciled students and international students applying and accepted into Oxford. I suppose this is unsurprising considering that, from my experience of friends who have come from abroad, only a select few schools are given the chance to apply to Oxbridge. Equally interesting with the EU referendum on the horizon is that the number of applications from within the European Union seems to be increasing at a slower rate than applications from outside the EU. Despite this, both figures are dwarfed by the number of UK domiciled students accepted into Oxford, and shows a need – in my view – for programmes such as the Reach Scholarships provided by OUSU to be pushed even further and to a wider range of schools in other countries.

The statistics present relatively little that’s new, but affirm the need for Oxford to continue its commitment to access and perhaps call for new approaches towards access, particularly involving international applications and ways for colleges to keep in touch with their partner regions. While the statistics aren’t a cause for celebration, they do show that – with a bit of effort – the University through its many ccess programmes could improve further the diversity of the student body here and lead the way amongst other top higher education institutions.

If OUSU wants to be taken seriously, it should let us see what its up to

It was Otto von Bismarck who declared that there are only two things in the world you should never see being made: laws and sausages. And if you believe the rumours about our Prime Minister’s time here, there’s more than enough pork flying around at Oxford.

But at a much-awaited OUSU meeting on 28th April, in which delegates from Oxford’s thirty-eight colleges came together to decide whether we should be granted a referendum on our NUS membership, the gristle-grinding of democracy in action happened behind closed doors.

Having been sent by Cherwell to film the debate, we and our cameras were voted out of the room because of the sensitivities of a small minority of audience members. An erstwhile OUSU delegate suggested to the meeting that filming might break a rule of the council – a rule that, as it turns out, doesn’t exist. Having spoken to the Chair and President of OUSU council in the meantime, Cherwell learnt that nothing at all equips the chair to prevent filming, apart from general standing orders which require them to ensure that “council fulfils its functions” and that “everything is carried out in an appropriate manner”.

Yet the unfortunate Matthew Collyer, harangued by audience members sitting behind the camera, told us that if a single person in the room felt uncomfortable with filming, regardless of whether they appeared on tape, then we wouldn’t be allowed to film at all. A handful of audience members – who we had no interest in filming – wanted us to stop, so we left the room. Democracy in action indeed.

Delegates from across Oxford had gathered to discuss whether OUSU should hold a referendum to disaffiliate from NUS. Calls for the vote had been triggered in the wake of the election of controversial new president Malia Bouattia who stands accused of making anti-Semitic remarks. After hours of debate, the motion was eventually passed, and Oxford students will be given the chance to vote in sixth week on their University’s membership.

Although of little importance to anyone outside the Oxford bubble, the move will have profound implications for our students. In any democracy, no matter how small, it’s imperative that we know what our representatives say on our behalf.

You’d think that a student organisation like OUSU, an insular community that attracted a measly 14% turnout at the last university-wide election, would be begging for the coverage. After all, the number of people interested in student politics here could barely fill the table at an elite dining society. When invented council rules are used to keep the lid on proceedings, you can understand why the turnout figure is so low.

In this case, our union chose to prioritise the discomfort of a small number of students over the openness and transparency of an organisation that is meant to represent us. The increasing prevalence of ‘safe spaces’ in areas which ought to be hubs of debate and free speech is typical of the way that student politics has become more concerned with its own moral righteousness and the avoidance of offence than with making itself accessible to the average student.

Oxford students can sleep well at night knowing that the freedom of the press in the real world lives on. Perhaps Bismarck was right to keep laws and sausages secret. But the privacy of pork has been breached – we’ve seen what goes on. It wasn’t a pretty sight.

See Cherwell’s broadcast report on the vote below:

Rewind: Let It Be

1

On May 8 1970, The Beatles released their 12th, and final, studio album Let It Be. It came after the White Album, and its ensuing arguments, taking its toll on the group and their cohesiveness.

Paul McCartney seemed to be the only member keen to continue, spearheading a return to ‘back to basics’ and hoping that the traditional group recording would reinvigorate the other three unenthusiastic members. This idea worked, with a return to their musical roots greatly appealing to John Lennon and George Harrison.

However, this apparent harmony only lasted until rehearsals and recordings as McCartney took on the role of leader. With The Beatles’ fight gone, Lennon became more devoted to making music with his soon-to-be wife Yoko Ono. Lennon’s disengagement and McCartney’s controlling streak caused Harrison to quit, the first crack in the façade, only to be coaxed back several days later. Evidently The Beatles weren’t committed to this album; it was a product of the fragmented and empty shell of the once great band.

Rehearsals took a turn for the worse, with Lennon running out of ideas and showing disinterest in any offering brought by McCartney or Harrison. This caused their minds to shift further away and they became unprofessional due to their lacking enthusiasm.

Despite all of these bumps in the road, the album was eventually released. With many fans still swept up in continued Beatlemania, with the album going on to top the charts around the world and selling over 4 million copies in America, many critics didn’t see the hype.

Instead, they could see the lack of care that seeped out of the album: NME’s Alan Smith wrote at the time “If the new Beatles’ soundtrack is to be their last, then it will stand as a cheapskate epitaph, a cardboard tombstone, a sad and tatty end to a musical fusion which wiped clean and drew again the face of pop.”

Even the seemingly immortal refrain of this album, ‘Let it Be’, evokes this sense of mindlessness in its listeners. It implores them to take up a mantle of passivity and let events wash over them like a wave. In many ways, this title perfectly epitomises the end of the Beatles era – dying embers of a creative fire that had once burned so brightly, now left untended by lacking commitment and enthusiasm.

Representing The Impossible

0

Post-war art seemed to reflect Theodore Adorno’s dictum, that ‘poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric’. But, perhaps through the passing of time and distance, we became ‘able’ or ‘ready’ to see more accurate artistic depictions of the Holocaust. In terms of cinema, the epic scale Spielberg’s Schindler’s List (1993), then Polanski’s The Pianist (2002) illustrate this trend. Yet Nemes’ Son of Saul differs significantly from these grand-historical-narratives of horror. It powerfully identifies the futility of ever truly representing horrors of the Holocaust through art, while simultaneously providing the fullest and most human realisation of the inner workings of concentration camp life.

Son of Saul forces us to comprehend the internal anti-logic of a death camp through the eyes of a Sonderkommando – prisoners who gained ‘privileges’ if they helped oil the mechanic process of killing. The depiction of camp ‘order’ is both shocking and thought provoking. The Internal hierarchies among prisoners (between Jews, ‘politicals’, and POWs), the inmates’ de-sensitivity to mortality, the repetitive working day, reducing horror to mundane routine – all are complexities of camp life usually overlooked by directors.

By forcing those persecuted to participate as a small cog in a ruthlessly efficient, evil machine of genocide, the fascists tried to erode their humanity. Having studied the period and read many memoirs by Holocaust survivors, I’m all too familiar that they were often successful in this endeavour. The surviving Sonderkommando Paul Steinberg wrote, “We were the beasts they had made of us.” Son of Saul is one man’s attempt to retain his humanity, as he struggles to search for a Rabbi to perform a burial for a young boy. This act of defiance is an attempt to preserve both his humanity and his religious identity in a world stripped of hope. Saul’s resistance is on a personal level, in contrast to the armed resistance his inmates plan for. Over the course of the film these two types of inmate resistance frequently collide and disrupt each other. This moral dilemma has the audience involved until the last.

Son of Saul doesn’t appropriate the Holocaust for grand cinematic imagery. This is a very personal, internal story, focusing on one individual and the moral complexity of his situation. The shallow focus and close camera-work maintain an engaging sense of claustrophobia throughout, making for superb dramatic intensity.

Art will never be able to truly express such horrific human atrocities. The unbridgeable chasm between the screen and the viewer make cinematic representations of the Holocaust inherently inadequate. Once the credits roll, the viewer can leave the hush of the cinema pews and return to the comfort and safety of their normal life. However, what Son of Saul does offer is a sensitive and unflinching exploration of the intricacies of concentration camp life, allowing us a poignant window on a world of trauma we’ll never be able to truly comprehend. We’ll never be able to truly represent the Holocaust, but Nemes’ power comes in expression precisely this inability to represent the Holocaust.

Review: the OBA Easter Projects

0

The Oxford Broadcasting Association (OBA)’s Easter Projects debuted five shorts from Oxford’s student filmmakers, made at pace over the vacation. At the UPP, the energy was electric as directors, writers, producers, editors and actors gathered to see their creations come to life.

The first was the charming Monitor. It used conventions of the archetypal rom-com as a template for exploring modern love and its dangers. Behind the laughs, it posed questions about the compatibility between ‘true love’ and social media, and how Facebook stalking encourages unhealthy monomania. Maddy Walker was impressive as our tragic hero’s cynical co-worker.

Next up was Bench. It starred Imogen Allen as a girl with mental health problems who, after chatting to a stranger, is given a reason to leave the safety of her flat. Credit must be given to Bench’s refusal to play into common stereotypes concerning mental illness. The approach to autism was sensitive throughout. This film best exemplifies why the ‘Easter Projects’ were endorsed by the organisation ‘F-Rated’ – which seeks to further women in film. Bench gives us hard intersectionality, while retaining a tenderness that is moving and thought-provoking.

The Tie, about a man mourning his late brother, showed flashes of brilliance early on. Characterised by a dark gallows humour, it provoked the most lively audience laughs of the screening. Its flaws – lingering transitions, or the flippancy between cutthroat comedy and melancholic grief – are not reflections on the writer and directors. Instead, they remind us the Easter Projects are the OBA’s annual endeavour to encourage amateur filmmaking: choosing deliberately inexperienced crews to foster indie cinema. The intelligence and shrewdness of The Tie was powerful enough to look beyond its mistakes.

Moving the tone from bereavement to a complicated LGBTQ love triangle was Ensemble. Script revision turned it from heteronormative to female same-sex heartache, as teacher and student battle their way through the minefield of power-relations and love. The premise was interesting, and the performances strong, particularly from Rebecca Hamilton and Seamus Lavin (who dazzled as a clueless drama student), but the loose plot disappointed.

For me, last certainly wasn’t least with Shannon Britton’s The Arbor standing out. A colourful, violent piece on youth in revolt, this enthralling dystopia took ambition to be realised on the big screen – and boy, did it pay off . The striking visuals and slick style made for an intense experience. Praise is due for Rosa Garland, whose harrowing, energetic performance as the flawed heroine was a promising debut and should not go unnoticed.

These OBA films highlight the power of creative ideas communicated via cinema. On top of this, all five short-films featured female directors, highlighting an active and self-consciously feminist approach to film-making. The film industry should take note.

Review: Pripyat

0

Veronica is an obituary editor. Her girlfriend, Percy, suffers from Cotard’s delusion, a form of psychosis that makes her believe she’s dead. It’s not a narrative one is likely to encounter just anywhere, but Verity Bell’s new play – a sharp, authentic exploration of mental illness whose only characters are queer women – is a vital one.

While the opening monologue was slightly heavy-handed, and the wilful destruction of the fourth wall doesn’t always work, the characters and their story (told in disjointed snapshots intercut with Percy’s medical history, from the amusing aftermath of a DIY piercing gone awry to weightier accounts of depressive episodes) are undeniably compelling. Given their situation, it’s understandable that the two talk a lot about legacies – both their own and humanity’s, as embodied by the eponymous Pripyat, a nuclear city evacuated following the Chernobyl disaster which the surrounding wilderness has gradually subsumed. In a telling moment, Veronica says that the animals there must be happy, while Percy points out that they’re almost certainly “cancerous as fuck.” And then, the question that looms over the play itself: does that matter in the absence of a diagnosis? How much does a disease, or more specifically our awareness of it, affect our experience and sense of self?

Like its characters, Pripyat is keenly aware of the works that have come before it (complete with meditations on Sarah Kane), the conversations it hopes to start, and the tropes that it comes perilously close to but ultimately, thankfully, subverts – rather than falling into the easy “hysterical woman” narrative, Bell treats Percy’s illness and Veronica’s helplessness in the face of it with respect and compassion. The back-and-forth between the two is witty and quietly devastating by turns; their relationship is understandably fraught but ultimately deeply loving.

The two-woman show asks a great deal of its leads, but they quickly prove themselves up to the task: their chemistry is apparent from the outset, and Anushka Chakravarti shines in the scenes depicting the early days of their relationship, lending Percy a kind of humour and charm that makes the toll of her illness all the more heart-wrenching in contrast. Imo Allen is exceptional as Veronica, with a range and emotional intensity rarely seen in student drama that becomes particularly apparent as the play reaches its tragic end.

Most facets of the play work well. The set design makes the space feel intimate and lived-in; the lighting is more inventive than that of most BT shows, including instances where clinical records are superimposed over the pair as they are read out. The script itself is occasionally overwrought, and its self-awareness doesn’t quite rescue it from a few stilted speeches and moments that seem to be checking off a list of buzzwords, but ultimately these shortcomings can be forgiven. Granting representation to people and issues that go ignored all too often is clearly close to Bell’s heart, and the result of her efforts is well worth a watch.

****

The Big Referendum Blog – 1

In the lead up to the Referendum, Cherwell has decided to try and gather a lot of information in one place and keep you up to date with everything happening in Oxford. We intend to be as impartial as possible and to provide enough information on both sides to help you feel just a tiny bit informed when you make your decision on June the 23rd. So without further ado, welcome to the Big Referendum Blog! (I know, as if you hadn’t heard enough about Europe already)

Opinion

We are all a little tired of hearing about the EU referendum. Cataclysmic predictions from both sides insult the intelligence of the British public. Whatever happens, the nation will manage. The truth is that we simply don’t know exactly what will happen if we stay or go. There is no point in making a decision based on utilitarian calculations about the economy or immigration. This referendum is about much more than that: sovereignty. We must not be complacent about where political power lies, and it matters to all of us how political decisions are made. As good citizens of a democracy it is our duty to be interested, and to make an informed decision, about the sort of polity we want to be a part of. This is the defining political moment of our age, a moment that will shape the future of Europe. In the debate we must discuss what matters, and not waste valuable time on comparatively trivial matters.

Leo McGrath (LMH)

Facts and Information

In 2015 the UK government paid £13 billion as a membership fee to be part of the EU. The EU spent £4.5 billion on the UK.

The EU is responsible for trade agreements with countries outside of the EU, so the UK cannot negotiate its own.

Fully controlling immigration may likely mean leaving the single market as well as the EU.

EU regulation ensures that all Europeans get four weeks of paid holiday per year.

Upcoming events

  • On the 4th of June the MP Damian Green and MEP Sajjad Karim will be giving the Tory case to remain:

https://www.facebook.com/events/127535744322660/

  • Lord Ashdown will be talking about the referendum in the blue boar lecture theatre on the 6th June:

https://www.facebook.com/events/279267662411634/

 

Sir John Vickers on capital buffers and why they matter

0

In early February, Sir John Vickers was called back into action. Around that time, the Bank of England released a consultation on systemic equity buffers, an element of banking sector reform developed in response to the devastation of the 2008 financial collapse. A consultation whose suggestions, according to Vickers, are dangerously unambitious.

As Vickers explained, one of the central questions provoked by the crisis is how significant a capital buffer banks should be required to hold as backing for their operations.

“Because what we learnt in the crisis,” Vickers told me, was that some banks were leveraged at a rate of “40 to 50 times their shareholders’ capital. So when the shock hit in 2007/8, they had a very thin layer of that buffer. And in a cascading way, a number of them got into major trouble. So everyone agrees, you’ve got to build up that buffer. The question is how much further. And a big current issue in the UK debate is what kind of extra level should there be for the major retail banks.”

In their January proposal, which Vickers discusses in an academic paper published in April, the Bank of England consider what level the add-on should be for certain, systemically important retail banks in the UK. Whilst current regulations would permit an add-on of a full three per cent of risk-weighted-assets, the Bank of England, Vickers said, are “proposing something that would average out at not even one and a half per cent.”

There is an interesting split in the economist community concerning views on what level capital buffers should be. Not along the typical right-left divide, but rather between the academic and practitioner communities.

As Vickers told me, “Almost all academic economists would want to go two, three, four times higher than we are” now, so even adding the maximum three per cent would really only constitute a small “increase on what from the academic economist perspective is a low base.”

Vickers was Chair of the Independent Commission on Banking (ICB), a government taskforce created to assess potential reforms to the banking industry in the wake of the 2008/09 crash. The Committee came to the conclusion that the two most important elements of bank reform were first, “to increase their ability to bear losses, which was exposed to be very poor in 2008. And in terms of absorbing losses, these equity capital buffers are the first line and best line of defence,” and second, the structural reform of ring-fencing to establish “a form of separation between retail banking on the one hand, and global investment banking on the other.”

The recommendation of the ICB was a package that furthered both structural reform and ability of banks to absorb losses. “It’s not one or the other,” Vickers said, “the whole point is to do both.”

But the Bank of England seems to have missed the memo. Rather than taking a firm line on capital buffers, they point to other financial reforms that were made as reason not to take the previously determined course of action. One of these reforms, which Vickers is highly unsure can work as well as the Bank hopes, is called the counter-cyclical capital buffer. It is premised on the idea that when financial weather sours, buffer levels can be raised; when there’s smooth sailing, capital buffers can remain low.

But Vickers doesn’t “think this countercyclical policy, which is completely new and untried, is agile enough, or that policy-makers are clairvoyant enough, to be sure of being able to use that in a timely way if the financial weather gets bad.”

He uses the metaphor of flood defences to explain his reasoning on why the permanent buffer needs to be raised: you wouldn’t build your defences on the assumption that weather conditions will be normal; rather, you prepare for worse scenario.

And the worst-case scenario could be exceptionally bad: consider contemporary economic underperformance relative to pre-crisis projections, the unemployment cost of the last recession, the damage to government finances, the Eurozone crisis and the implications for public expenditure.

Vickers thinks that capital buffers are an insurance policy against that kind of damage occurring again, or at least one level of safeguard.

“It is well worth paying some insurance premium to lower the odds of that happening,” he argues, especially since “this is really low-cost insurance. Many would say it’s completely free: there is little or no cost to society (though the banks don’t like it) of building these capital buffers further. For example, you could do it by saying to the banks ‘you can’t pay out such big dividends for a while, you’ve got to build up a bigger buffer, get to a higher plateau and then on we go.’”

And while Vickers believes the chance of another financial crisis occurring in the short term to be unlikely, he pointed out to me that “you can’t look at financial history” without recognising that there will almost certainly be another financial crisis at some point in the long run.

It is odd that we have “the banking system, which is fundamental to how the economy works, on this very, very highly leveraged basis,” Vickers said. “And in the next ten years,” he added, although emphasising that he was not predicting a crash, “the impact would be worse than before, or could be, because public finances are so strained now because dealing with the problems last time mean that there is less capacity to deal with a further crisis.”

“The Bank’s got an open goal before it,” Vickers lamented. Indeed, it would seem eminently reasonable to take advantage of this opportunity to raise the capital buffer add-on; and sheer recklessness not to do so.

The two parts of a poet’s whole

0

From the Latin ‘partire’ (to share), through the Middle English sense of ‘divide into two’, to the modern French ‘partir’ (‘to leave’), the concept of ‘parts’ is inextricably linked to a sense of rupture, estrangement and loss. These are all themes that Sarah Howe explores in her debut poetry collection Loop of Jade – seen specifically through the prism of race.

Born in Hong Kong but brought up in England, to a Chinese mother and British father, Howe’s poems constantly wrestle with the knotty relationship between these two ‘parts’ of her heritage. Duality is a running theme: the opening poem ‘Mother’s Jewellery Box’, which acts as a kind of prelude to the whole collection, begins with a resonant image of “the twin lids/ of the black lacquer box”.

Hong Kong itself seems to be a metaphor for a mixture of British and Chinese ‘parts’: its “jungle-bordered boulevards” reference both its origins as a remote Chinese fishing village and its later European colonialist legacy. Howe wrestles constantly with the question of whether these two cultural components can coexist equally, or whether one inevitably overrides the other. Hong Kong has variously been designated a ‘British colony’ (1842-1997) and a ‘Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China’ (1997 onwards) – but is there a term that can express both experiences? In other words, can these two ‘parts’ be reconciled?

Howe succeeds in this attempt, up to a point. Throughout Loop of Jade, she juxtaposes elements of Chinese and European culture in an attempt to explore and unravel her complex heritage. Her poems move with agility from references to Chinese culture – the folk legends of Chang’e and ‘The Butterfly Lovers’, the psychological scar of Tiananmen Square – to the post-impressionist Pierre Bonnard and American poets John Ashbery and Peter Streckfus. Here the sheer range of influences are a celebration of her versatile, vibrant mixed-race identity.

Yet the flip side of this is also a sense of dislocation. The story arc of Loop of Jade is the same as any Bildungsroman: a journey to find one’s home and thus one’s true self. For those of mixed-race heritage, this ‘pilgrimage’ is harder than most because of the physical and cultural separation of our ‘homes’. In ‘Sailing to Guangdong’ (the title is perhaps a nod to Yeats’ ‘Sailing to Byzantium’), Howe travels in body to her mother’s homeland, but also through the medium of memory.

Although perhaps the goal is unattainable, she is inexorably led on and on:

Something sets us looking for a place.

Old stories tell that if we could only

get there, all distances would be erased.

However, she eventually concludes that her life is that of “wild geese”: she is a wanderer with a “crease-marred passport”. Being mixed-race possesses many advantages, but I’ve also felt that same sensation of not knowing where you truly belong. It’s a feeling that perhaps shouldn’t, but often will,go hand in hand with a sense of loss.

This difficulty in reconciling two distant cultures is also refl ected in the language, which forms the backbone of Loop of Jade. In ‘(k) Drawn with a very fine camelhair brush’, Howe beautifully describes the intricate pictograms that make up Chinese script:

Each one

a nest of lacquer boxes

worlds within worlds

where meaning was a garden

where you could wander forever

Howe’s poems possess such rich, breathtaking detail (“Passing fish huts perched like spindly seabirds, foaming lacework/whispering into nothing”) that they themselves seem to be “worlds within worlds”. However, the fundamental irony is that she is attempting to capture the essence of Chinese script in a different language, English. Dotted among the English lines are occasional Chinese characters – but they are only “the scraps that stay with me.” Yet again Howe struggles to give unity to her complex identity: she declares

There is

some symbol I am striving for.

The apex of this attempt is ‘Loop of Jade’, the core poem that lays bare all the ‘parts’ of Howe’s identity. The poem conveys an incredible scope of experience: the form moves between prose, verse and direct speech; the geographical location shifts from China to Hong Kong to England; Howe recounts her own story alongside those of her mother and grandmother.

These ceaseless shifts of perspective create a disjointed structure that juxtaposes with the image of a smooth ‘loop of jade’. According to Confucian tradition, jade symbolises eternity.

Thus a ‘Loop of Jade’ conveys both the continuity of family as well as being a key symbol of Chinese cultural identity. Yet, in a devastatingly poignant final line, Howe asks herself whether her dual identity has ruptured that heritage: “And if I break it now – will I be saved?”

But perhaps the fundamental question is whether these two ‘parts’ to Howe’s heritage should really be seen in such distinct terms. Loop of Jade opens with a Jorge Luis Borges quotation that describes the classification of animals in an ancient Chinese encyclopaedia; yet this kind of arbitrary classification is shown to be insufficient in Howe’s search for identity. Instead, Howe defines herself within a complex web of shared memory, language and culture: from two ‘parts’ emerges one lucid voice.