Tuesday, May 20, 2025
Blog Page 1077

Is this the end for Rhodes Must Fall?

0

It would be extremely easy to paint this story in pantomime terms. Rumours are confirmed that the university would lose a £100 million donation if the statue were to fall, and simultaneously Oriel confirms that removal of the statue is no longer an option. They have stated, of course, that this is solely due to unrelated ‘overwhelming’ opposition to the idea, but it’s clear how else this could be seen: mysterious rich white donors pressure university from the shadows, peppy student activists raise a whirlwind that ends up being no more than a load of vainly expended hot air.  

Something may well smell rotten here, and not just Rhodes’ character. It is essential that we remain sceptical and do not mindlessly believe every statement that we are presented with, but nonetheless a black and white approach to this question is only going to be a disservice to the university and to Oriel’s Governing Body. More importantly, though, it would be both misleading and counterproductive 

As imposing and dystopian as the term ‘Governing Body’ frankly does soundand as unrepresentative as our University administration is  remember that Oxford has one, that is one full time black don – the college and university have a complex set of responsibilities, and it would be naive to ignore the importance of funding, even if Oxford does have the fastest growing endowment of any university in Europe. 

Oriel’s declared plan was to hold a six month ‘structured listening exercise’ to decide on the fate of the statue, something that does make the sudden change rather surprising, if not suspect. This exercise has now been downgraded to a space for discussion of other questions concerning it, primarily contextualisation and how this could be done. ‘Contextualisation’ of course means nothing more or less than what it says on the tin, the act of providing additional information or context to visual elements. It might seem unexciting and rather like a non-action, but in fact goes to the heart of the debate. 

What really stirs up members of the RMF movement, and what should stir us all up, is our collective failure to recognise the atrocities committed under and for the furthering of the British Empire (and colonialism more widely). To put it brutally, Churchill – was implicated in colonial policies of subjugation, famously claiming he had not become the King’s “First Minister to preside over the liquidation of the Empire.” But today, for good or ill, these aspects of his political career are simply not part of our everyday picture of Churchill. Whatever your political views, that is simply unacceptable (though do feel free to reject the example; there are plenty more). Equally unacceptable, however, would be to see him as nothing more than that: we have to engage with all aspects of our history. 

Contextualisation, then, is not necessarily a cop-out. Done well, it can have a transformative power and achieve something along the lines of what both Vice-Chancellor Louise Richardson and Mary Beard have called for: a world where the statue of Rhodes is a memorial to every aspect of our history rather than only to the benefits gained by white people, and where that façade does not exclude BME students and applicants but reassures them that this university is aware of and pointedly inquisitive about its past. 

If Oriel is to achieve anything close to this, they must be painstakingly transparent about their proceedings. Colonial history is as complex and misleading as this sort of thing can get, and contextualisation of the statue would sit at a highly charged point of interaction between these complex histories and the current national and international state of racial injustice. Racism is simply not dead, even in the UK, and so it is essential that this transparency work together with a simple and honest humility. 

But what are Rhodes Must Fall in Oxford to do? They are taking time to regroup and strategise, sensibly, and their options are extremely open. Their focus on that lump of sandstone has been enormously successful at provoking debate, and they would do well to celebrate that victory. There is naturally the option of some guerilla vandalism and a shift into some 1968-style radical methods, but this would of course be rather dangerous, from both an ethical and a pragmatic perspective. Further campaigning about the statue is unlikely to lead anywhere, at least in the foreseeable future, but there is no reason why they should not embrace the hard work of OUSU’s Campaign for Racial Awareness and Equality and reshape into something new, maintaining their commendable mindfulness of the legacy  or perhaps continuing presence – of colonialism. 

Oriel announces Rhodes will not fall

1

Oriel College has ruled out removing its controversial statue of industrialist and colonialist Cecil Rhodes following a meeting of its governing body, purportedly due to pressure from donors.

The Telegraph claims to have seen leaked documents that confirm that Oriel’s considerations and previous statement that it might be amenable to removing the statue have resulted in the cancellation of more than £1.5 million in donations, and “the College now fears a proposed £100m gift” might be in jeopardy.

The college has not confirmed that financial pressure was a major factor in the decision taken. The Guardian has claimed in an article published on its website last night that, “Oxford University confirmed that it had been warned of the possibility that it would lose £100m in gifts and bequests should the statue be taken down but a spokesman said the financial implications were not the primary consideration.”

The Telegraph added that Sean Power, Director of Development at Oriel College, told Governing Body that the college’s decision to remove a plaque with Rhodes’ name and consider the statue’s removal could be immensely damaging to Oriel’s long term finances.

According to the publication, Power said, “Pride in the institution is major currency when it comes to fundraising, and this has already been severally diminished. “The fact that Rhodes was the College’s most generous benefactor only compounds the issue; ‘is this how we treat our donors’ etc.”

The Telegraph wrote that as a result, “Oriel is now preparing to make redundancies among its staff because of the collapse in donations. And it has cancelled an annual fundraising drive that should have taken place in April. It could now make an operating loss of around £200,000 this year.”

Complicating the issue is that the Trustee Act 2000 imposes a duty of care on trustees of a charity, one of the most important of which is that the trustee avoids “exposing the charity’s assets, beneficiaries or reputation to undue risk” and makes “balanced and adequately informed decisions, thinking about the long term as well as the short term”. Accordingly, Oriel would be found to be breaching its duties if it did not follow through on those responsibilities.

Nigel Biggar, Professor of Theology at Oxford, told Cherwell, “Oriel’s Governing Body have been wise to stop pandering to the shouty zealotry of the Rhodes Must Fall group, and their unscrupulous manipulation of history. Maybe RMF’s claim that Oxford’s curricula should contain more non-Western material has merit, but the charge that Rhodes was South Africa’s Hitler is sheer fabrication.

“RMF needs to stop posturing and start learning the discipline of responsible argument. The rebuff that is Oriel’s reversal could help to teach that.”

The Rhodes Must Fall in Oxford (RMFO) movement has argued that the statue is both symbolically and literally exclusive and creates an unwelcome environment for ethnic minority students, especially South Africans. They have claimed that the statue represents how the University of Oxford and is littered with vestiges of colonialism, for instance in its syllabi and the racial makeup of its staff.

When reached for comment, RMFO said, “We are not responding to media requests for now. We as a group need time to reflect on our strategy moving forward, and will respond when this decision has been made collectively.”

In a statement, Oriel said, “Over the past few months, there has been intense debate about how Cecil Rhodes is commemorated in Oxford, and particularly about the Rhodes statue on Oriel College’s High Street frontage. Oriel believes that this issue needs to be addressed in a spirit of free speech and open debate, with a readiness to listen to divergent views. The College’s intention, by releasing its statement in December was to open debate and listen to the response.

“Since that announcement we have received an enormous amount of input including comments from students and academics, alumni, heritage bodies, national and student polls and a further petition, as well as over 500 direct written responses to the College. The overwhelming message we have received has been in support of the statue remaining in place, for a variety of reasons.

“Following careful consideration, the College’s Governing Body has decided that the statue should remain in place, and that the College will seek to provide a clear historical context to explain why it is there.

“The College will do the same in respect of the plaque to Rhodes in King Edward Street. The College believes the recent debate has underlined that the continuing presence of these historical artefacts is an important reminder of the complexity of history and of the legacies of colonialism still felt today. By adding context, we can help draw attention to this history, do justice to the complexity of the debate, and be true to our educational mission.”

With additional reporting by Dan Sutton and David Lawton.

Preview: Heavy Petting (Oxford Revue)

0

Here at Cherwell we tend to prefer hochkultur – transcendent themes, the dramatic that reaches for the divine – the sort of art that transports you from a grotty rehearsal room towards heavenly truth. Thus, It was with a degree of trepidation that I opened my email to find an invitation to a preview of the Oxford Revue’s new sketch comedy show. The world of student comedy doesn’t tend to reach those hallowed themes which are constantly on the minds of the Cherwell stage team, but my co-editor is too lazy to check our the shared email account with any frequency, so I pinched my nose, and took the plunge into sketch comedy.

Heavy Petting is a four-man sketch show coming to the BT in third week – it’s the revue’s flagship this term, so I was a little surprised when I arrived at the preview to find only Jack Chisnall (Revue president), Chesca Forristal, and Dom O’Keefe present. It quickly transpired that their fourth man, Alexander Fox, had abandoned his artistic scruples before the show even started, and was currently pursuing a lucrative internship at an advertising agency. The loss of Mr Fox, did, unfortunately, somewhat narrow the repertoire of what the principled remaining trio were able to perform with me – he’s very central to a lot of the sketches, they said with no small degree of hand wringing.

Regardless, I was treated to a sample of very inventive, and occasionally bizarre sketch comedy – presuming they can maintain the agility, the wit and the joyful passion for the full 60 minutes of Heavy Petting, you’re in for a particularly funny evening from a very strong Revue line up (presuming that Fox isn’t very much the weak link in the chain – hidden from my sight on the pretence of a phony internship, to improve the chances of a positive preview). 

Once the comedy was finished, we sat down to talk about the drive for this sketch show, their inspiration and their influences. The consensus amongst the comedians was that the star of sketch comedy has very much been on the wane in the last few years. An overreliance on hackneyed themes, and the overuse of choppy blackouts – in part to desperately engender applause from the audience, and in part the progeny of television sketch shows, has forced the form to concede to the jagged self awareness of student stand up, or lean on gimmicks to prop itself up. This trend in sketch comedy has built up a barrier between the comedians and the audience, which the Revue intend to smash down with a flowing, organic and engaging show – drawing you into the often ridiculous world of these sketches with a very earnest smile on its face. If you want a laugh next week, then you will be guaranteed one by heading down to the BT to be Heavily Petted. 

Preview: Amour

0

The New College Ante Chapel will be hosting a concert by the International Rameau Ensemble (IRE) at 8.30 PM next Saturday evening, performing excerpts of Jean-Philippe Rameau’s famous Les Indes Galantes and a selection of other Baroque pieces based on the theme of love, such as Lambert’s “Ombre de mon amant, Vos mepris chaque jour” and Charpentier’s “Celle qui fait mon tourment”.

The IRE will be accompanied by acclaimed soloists Katherine Blumenthal and Lawrence Olsworth-Peter, respectibely soprano and haute-contre, who sung the title roles in the 2012 premiere of a revisited production of Rameau’s Acante et Cephise at the Bloomsbury Theatre, in London. The flautist and Birmingham Conservatoire PhD student Lisete da Silva will equally be present among other specialised musicians, to let the audience discover the intricacies of 18th century French court music.

Founded two years ago, the ensemble aims to bring Rameau and his contemporaries’ works back and out into the open, demonstrating how much potential the complex music writing techniques and conventions followed by these composers still have, and making it accessible to curious musicians of all ages by organising their annual International Rameau Summer Schools with the talented harpsichordist Christophe Rousset. Previous performances of this formation include a successful concert at St George’s Hanover Square, where the IRE played Rameau’s Grands Motets. The ensemble has also been featured in BBC Radio 3’s In Tune programme with Sean Rafferty.

About a week before Valentine’s day, this concert should make for an interesting evening for the un-initiated to delve into a world which is rarely presented to the public, and allow anyone already acquainted with Baroque to enjoy the IRE’s programme.

Spooky Sets and Stuffed Cats: Ben Travers’ Aldwych Farces

0

The whole secret of farce is that it’s about ordinary people in extraordinary situations: if it happens to a bunch of clowns it isn’t funny at all”. So said Ben Travers in 1979 during an interview with Alan Ayckbourn, and any director would do well to heed his advice.

Long before Brian Rix thought of dropping his trousers, Ben Travers was packing out the Aldwych Theatre with a series of hugely popular farces. Written between 1925 and 1933, some of the best of them were turned into films. Madcap comedies like Rookery Nook, Thark and Plunder immersed audiences in a Wodehousian world of well-meaning chumps, formidable wives and buck-toothed vicars. But best of all was his dotty dialogue that led characters to utter lines like : Don’t bend like that, you look like a prawn.”

To enter Travers’s world is to go back to a time when any mention of sex was considered saucy. This isn’t surprising when we remember that Travers was born in 1886, and as a child recalls seeing Charlie Chaplin strut his stuff, and William Gillette take Sherlock Holmes to the stage. Travers served as a pilot in the First World War and worked in RAF Intelligence in the Second. A genial-sounding fellow, he loved cricket, chorus girls and pipe-smoking, and even into his nineties liked to stand on his head to lift his spirits. When asked by Roy Plomley on Desert Island Discs in 1975 what he’d most like to get away from he answered: ”I’m 88. My feet.”

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%12730%%[/mm-hide-text] 

Over the years there have been some revivals of Travers’ work – most notably Plunder at the National Theatre in 1978 – but generally his farces were regarded as charming but antiquated. Yet on my first reading of Thark I couldn’t stop laughing. As the critic Michael Billington so neatly put it: Travers’ farce remains as gloriously and sublimely irrelevant as it ever was.” I could see my job as director would be to lift Thark from the category of quaint revival, and help reveal it as the comic masterpiece it really is. 

The play’s setting is the eponymous Thark, an isolated country house in deepest Norfolk. Reputed to be haunted Thark’s owner, Sir Hector Benbow – a lecherous old toff – arrives from London to investigate. He’s accompanied by various family members, all of whom are enmeshed in a series of romantic misunderstandings of their own making. The plot-line is as creaky as the house itself, and the ensuing bad behaviour threatens to bring the set crashing down around the actors’ heads.        

Travers’ farces were originally written for a company of well-known comic actors, so much like Shakespeare he wrote with certain performers in mind. The fact that Tom Walls, his leading man, always insisted on his girlfriend being given a part kept Travers on his toes, particularly as the girlfriend in question kept changing. So when it came to casting our production, I wanted to make sure the roles fitted our performers as seamlessly as a Saville Row suit.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%12728%%[/mm-hide-text] 

Auditions kicked off last Christmas, and producer, Claudia Graham, and production manager, Charles Pidgeon, were as excited as I was at the calibre of actors who made their way to LMH. By the end of the day we had bagged ourselves a splendid cast of matrons, shop-girls and chinless wonders. The only part we’d failed to cast was Death, Thark’s aptly named butler, whose lugubrious presence lends the play its only existential chill. With minutes to spare, in walked George Fforde, and we knew by his spooky steps and sinister hisses that our day’s work was done.

Like all the best farces there is a frenetic momentum to Thark, which modern interpretations like to emphasise. So with the help of our dramaturg, James Watson, we kicked off our early rehearsals with improvisation and spontaneity exercises. It wasn’t long before Lord Benbow (played by Adam Diaper) and his nephew Ronny (played by Barney Shekleton) were cuddling up on an imaginary double bed. The best farces may appear Brylcreem slick on the surface, but there’s a lot of energetic paddling going on down below. 

The newly opened Michael Pilch Studio in Balliol’s Postgraduate Annexe has proved the ideal space for our production, enabling us to establish two domains on stage. Production designer, Chris Page, sees the audience seating plan as key to raising the energy and comic pace of the whole piece”, while Georgia Crump, the production’s talented costume designer, is working to evoke the aesthetic of rich people fooling around”.  Spooky weather is central to the play’s atmospherics, and technical managers, Catrin Haberfield and Noah Rivkin, are pumped” to experiment with the Studio’s state-of-the-art effects.

Freud believed that laughter was the release of anxiety. While farce isn’t to everyone’s taste, we hope even its fiercest critics will find our production of Thark a therapeutic experience. Some of England’s finest playwrights – Michael Frayn, Tom Stoppard, Joe Orton – were farceurs, but Ben Travers got there first. His only weakness as a writer was that he wasn’t great at endings. So channelling his spirit, we’ve come up with a new Tharkian twist. We hope that he wouldn’t have told us to Thark Off, and would’ve been tickled to see his work revivified for a new generation of Oxford audiences.  In farces, everything must go wrong, but in exactly the right way. It is towards this truism that we have been working. In the words of Hook, Sir Hector’s put-upon manservant: “I’m afraid we’ve made a bit of a mess.”

Bexistentialism: HT16 2nd Week

0

Bexistentialism, once a self-indulgent space for a carefree self, has become a very painful weekly experience. I muse over the interesting events of the week, realise there are none, and then proceed to frown and rub my temples. I got so caught up in the thrill of my return, I forgot to wave around the heavy disclaimer that I am a finalist. An important disclaimer, for being a finalist means fear, misery, and actually being awake in time to see the scout in the morning every now and then.

However, thanks be Lord and Lady of Fate, this week I actually did something relatively interesting. No, really! I didn’t anticipate it either. Last night I found myself in an intimate antechamber of the Union, interviewing David Hasselhoff. “Hurrah”, you may be thinking, “something actually interesting to read about”. You would, of course, be wrong. Because, despite the joy that writing an actually interesting Bexistentialism may bring, I can’t talk about it. I have to save that slice of salvation for another article. So what does one do, when they can’t talk about the only interesting thing that happened in their week? There are two options. Either I keep talking inanely until I reach a word count that is passably adequate, or I fill the space with something suitably miserable from a time gone by.

Naturally I chose the miserable. And so I rummage through my desk drawers to find the collection of pretentious notepads I possess, and flip back to my first year days. I turned the page and it struck me. There it was. That nugget of self-deprecating despair. As I reread the miserably poor attempt at poetry, I could see myself, two years ago, sitting on the cramped but sustainably exciting balcony of my first year room, staring down at the college gym. Don’t worry, it’s short:

Bitch on the Treadmill

As I sit, stationary,

Sipping cider on the balcony,

I watch the bitch on the treadmill.

The bitch who looks like she’d kill

The bitch who gets her fill

The bitch, the bitch,

Who doesn’t lie dormant

Like a lazy c*nt

Bitch.

Pipe Dreams: Sweet Talk

0

I’ve never eaten a sweet. No joke. Liquorice, love hearts, strawberry lace. Jelly babies, cola bottles, mints. Not one of them has slithered down my gullet. Never hath a gobstopper stoppered my gob. Lollies do not make me jolly. Bon bons are not bon. And don’t even get me started on Haribo. They can’t even decide on a plural. Haribo? Hariboes? Haribi? But it doesn’t even matter when the objects in question look like the faecal matter of Nyan cat. I withdraw my palate from participation. Granted, there was some controversy over a marshmallow back in 2013, but it was all smoothed over. I’m told that my accuser will recover, eventually.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%12724%%[/mm-hide-text]

My associates have their various theories. I call them associates – there’s just no way I could form an attachment to a sweet-sucker strong enough to term ‘friendship.’ Anyway, several associates believe there must have been an early childhood trauma. Despotic health nut parents. Flamboyant allergies. Another refuses to accept it as true, as if being sans-sweeties was some improbably puritanical dystopian nightmare. Most think I maintain a state of swe-libacy simply to annoy them. Which is surprisingly astute. There is also something to be said for the pleasure of hearing cries of shock and despair when you drop the bomb at an ice-breaker session, or on a first date. But the truth is, I just have no need for sweets. Nothing Bassett’s produces could possibly rival the pinnacle of confectionary that is The Biscuit. It is by far the greatest glucose delivery method in existence.

A flatmate tried to shout me down. ‘Cake,’ she said. Her argument may have been slightly more developed, but that was the bare bones of it. ‘Have you ever tried to dunk it in tea?’ I replied. It’s just fundamentally unsuited to the task. You might as well ask Donald Trump to mediate the Middle East peace process. In fact, most problems with cake are also problems with dearest Donald. It’s too rich for its own good; there’s too much of it on TV, and it leaves you feeling mildly ill.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%12725%%[/mm-hide-text]

Unlike the sponge cake, most biscuits are rather well named. A Nice biscuit is nice. Hobnobs are useful for hobnobbing. Shortbreads and Ginger Nuts are endearingly self-deprecating. The blandness of the Rich Tea is a stroke of ironic genius. And if we are talking of masterpieces, then surely the Chocolate Digestive must be a contender for the most effective use of that ingredient ever (measuring in pleasure per gram).

But it’s not all custard creams and rainbows. Beneath the prim Victorian designs there is a bit of crunch. Biscuits breed addiction. I’m surprised there isn’t a rehab clinic. It’s the small portions, they’re fatal.  As a vice, raiding the communal biscuit tin is comforting and reasonably harmless. Like the chip you dropped on the kitchen floor and kicked under the cabinet last week. You know it’s bad, but it’s so insignificantly bad that noone will care, or even notice.

Or so you thought. Then you find yourself lying on the kitchen floor, debauched, bloated, groaning beneath a mantle of Bourbon crumbs, your face inches from a decaying mound of chip-based mould. The biscuit tin lies ravaged beside you as you read the note your flatmates have left, how they’re sorry, they just can’t take living with you any longer, they’re moving to Australia.

Oh well. I guess I’ll have to buy my own biscuits now.

Spotlight: lip service to modernity

0

If there’s one thing that really pisses me off, it’s when directors try to trick the audience, but don’t really put any effort into it. Henry IV part II opens with a speech from an anthropomorphised representation of rumour dressed in a robe painted ‘full of tongues’ (a device which sparknotes reliably informs me is singularly Virgilian in origin). In Greg Doran’s production at the Barbican, Rumour wore a Rolling Stone’s t-shirt emblazoned with tongue and lips and chastised us for not turning off our phones, only to be distracted by his twitter feed. His speech “Stuffing the ears of men with false reports” was accompanied by a variety of hashtags projected onto the wall behind him, it was all very ‘modern’ and ‘fresh’ and ‘exciting’ and ‘made me realise just how relevant the bard was in a social media age’ and ‘please don’t cut any more RSC funding’. 

Despite my scathing tone there, I don’t in principle have any problem with modernising, as long as its innovative rather than dogmatic – the frankly tiresome repetition of ‘let’s put CCTV in Hamlet’ has got more than a little dog-eared. No, I didn’t have any problem with the rampant hashtaggery of Doran’s introduction, my problem is that it wasn’t build into a coherent narrative within the play. After Rumour’s speech, not a single concession was made to the ideas that this decision painted so ham-fistedly. I’m sure that Doran’s defenders will point to the speech as a useful transition from the world of phones which the audience inhabits, to the meticulous period setting of this play. That is utter bollocks, this was a lazy concession, a limp wristed attempt to make a very traditional staging look innovative and exciting, and I simply refuse to let him get away with it. 

What if?

0

The funny thing about missing out is that you can never know what it is exactly that you missed. Even if you ask around, we all experience life differently. Other people’s reality wouldn’t have been, couldn’t have been yours. So the first thing I want to make clear is that of all people’s, my perspective on the transition from high school to college is the one that you should probably least be able to trust.

Because I did the reverse of taking a gap year: I skipped my last year of high school. At some point over the summer going into my sophomore year (Year 11) I realized that I didn’t much like the schooling I was getting and did seem to like the idea of going to Oxford. And through studying a year early for the standardized exams Oxford requires American applicants to have completed, I was able to make it out of my meatgrinder-esque institution of a high school. In June, once the school year was over, I was a high school dropout and headed to university.

They say you regret the things you don’t do the most – with the implication being that given a choice between two actions, one is the “doing” action and the other is the “not doing” action. I think that is a ridiculous proposition. For one, it’s obviously not true. Whichever branch of the fork in the road you choose, you never get to go down the other one. And it is this idea, I believe, that makes the fear of missing out such an influential one.

Not only have you missed some event in the past, you’ve precluded from yourself the future you would have had had you just done differently. If I had just been there at the party, she would have kissed me and not him and we would be together now and not them. But also: if I had just stayed home, I would have aced that test and gotten that scholarship I needed. We talk a lot of win-win situations: situations in which both outcomes are good ones in absolute terms. But isn’t one always relatively better than the other? And, therefore, when we don’t get, haven’t we actually lost?

So the question of how things – my transition to college, my overall happiness, my personal and intellectual maturity – would have been if I hadn’t skipped a step in the traditional path is one I can’t help but grapple with. Not that I think I have had a bad transition, or am unhappy, or am outside the normal bounds of adolescent self-mastery. I am also fairly confident that had I stayed in high school, that year would have been a bad one. First, I perceived the very structure of secondary education to be oppressive – with its seven hours a day of sedentarily listening to nearly useless material, followed by hours of homework. Coupling that with the fact that I would have had to worry about the stress of college acceptance for up to 14 months longer than I did – well, here seems to clearly beat there.

But what if that extra year, even if it were of misery, meant that my transition wasn’t just fine or good, but great; that the build-up of anticipation eliminated the uneasiness which characterized my first term’s happiness; that I had wrinkled out some of those insecurities that constrained my character? After all, a year is a long time – I know how much I personally changed in 2015. And while there are two other 17-year olds at Balliol, and I’m sure plenty across the university, a much larger proportion of first years are actually 19, which is why I raised the gap year as a point of contrast earlier. You take one so that you can have a year for yourself; in doing the opposite, you lose a year in which you are becoming yourself.

Of course, the question of “what if?”, which is essentially what I’m on about, is not answerable. And since it isn’t, I’m never going to have the experience of having gone down the other fork in the road to compare to the experience of the chemin I did choose. Practically speaking, I have all the evidence I’m ever going to have and should be able to justify my decision off of it. So in one way, I have no regrets about my choice: I am happy at Oxford and can only see myself becoming happier. Coming was the right thing to do.

And maybe it is a waste of time to get yourself trapped in a maze of right/wrong, should’ve done/did, either/or dichotomies. Agonizing about an unchangeable past seems silly, and one might at this point remember Sylvia Plath’s fig tree and argue that being too caught up on “what if?” also paralyzes your forward motion.

But on the other hand, reflection about the structure that your life could have had seems to me just as valuable as being able to forget. It might be paralyzing, but it is also honest—and the idea that you should just keep moving, while productive, lets you elide admitting to yourself your missteps. Neither commends itself over the other; whether you remember or forget is no more than a matter of whether you are the type to remember or the type to forget.