Wednesday 30th July 2025
Blog Page 1097

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.

It’s not them, it’s their…

0

Sister. It’s their sister. Don’t get too excited, folks. This may sound like the beginning of some deservedly cheap erotic novel but unfortunately it is not quite as excitingly Freudian as that. His sister was in my year. We were both 16. I was comfortable knowing only this about her and nothing else, but we were forced into association through dissatisfying circumstance. We were in the same biology class, but I desperately avoided trying to speak to her. She was not exactly what one would call normal. She would always sit in the back making small paper voodoo dolls out of the pages of her notebook and read/write fan fiction on her laptop. Naturally, this didn’t make the other members of the class like her any more. She did her thing on the back row, and we did our thing…avoiding her on the back row.

A boy, her older brother, had asked me to come to his birthday party. To a 16-year-old, this was an offer that just couldn’t be refused. He was 18, and the idea of older boys at a party was too exciting to decline.The cute little mole near his lower lip was a surprisingly attractive feature to a younger girl. The opportunity of merely being close to an older guy stimulated my romantic imagination enough to tempt me into accepting an invitation. But his sister was much more excited than any of us were. She ended up inviting most of our year group to come and observe all of her brother’s hot friends in action. Sadly,we had all been a bit repressed and the opportunity to view the male sex in their natural environment was far too inviting for us to resist. 

So at this party, this endearingly mole-faced boy began to kiss me in the hallway. As our lips locked, I looked up, not to find Cupid with his bow and arrow, but his sister filming the moment on a camera. But she wasn’t using her phone to film. She was using the family video camera. I knew because it was the same one my dad used to film my fifth birthday. It was the kind of camera that flips open on the side, and it had a piece of tape on it with their family last name. The kind you’d associate with happy family memories of opening Christmas presents or riding a bike solo for the first time. No doubt, when his whole family is sitting around on his 21st birthday and decides to whip out the old family video camera to look at some old, vintage, cinematic moments, they’ll find me, sucking the lips off their son. For some reason I feel his sister made 15 copies of it and keeps them buried in different areas in case the house burns down.

I had no desire to become such a hugely noticeable part of family history. As I prised my face off of his and stared into the abyss-like lens of the video-camera, I caught a deeply horrifying glimpse into my own future. I immediately worried that this video would be some tame version of a Kim Kardashian sex-tape, following me around for the rest of my life and prevent- ing people from ever taking me seriously. The reality of what would happen was much, much worse.

As if these video-camera shenanigans weren’t disturbing enough, arriving at school the following Monday, I was ambushed by his sister’s joyful shout. “Now we’re sisters!”, she shrieked to the everyone within hearing dis- tance. She declared our new relationship status to the entire common room. Since we were now practically kin, she would walk me to class, clutching my arm with a vice grip, and wait for me at the school gates at the end of the day. She even invited me on their family holiday. The endearing mole boy and I had only kissed once and had never gone on a date. 

The only thing she seemed more interested in than our relationship was Justin Bieber. I seemed to have somehow gained the world’s worst sister-in law, and we hadn’t even been on our first date yet. I knew that were I to date mole boy, the situation would just keep getting worse and worse. Would she hide under the bed and film us during all our make-out sessions?

Would she keep photos of us in a locket under her pillow and look at it every night before bed? With these images in mind, when the date finally came, I took it upon myself to end everything with him halfway through the dinner. When he asked me what had gone wrong, I proceeded to abort all further attempts at conversation and take a very long trip to the toilets in which I rang through all the recent callers on my phone asking for advice. Every- one told me to eat the rest of my meal as quickly as possible and get the hell out of there. I did handle everything with him pretty poorly, I confess, but I console myself that it wouldn’t have worked out anyway. It turns out that his decision to play tonsil hockey with me may have been a very convincing attempt at appearing to be a heterosexual male. By his next birthday party, he was in a relationship with my ex-boyfriend. If we had ended up going out, I think it’s more than likely that he would have ending the relationship saying, ‘It’s not her, it’s her vagina’. 

When the symbols of our past are gone

0

Whenever I log onto social media I always see the same things. I see videos of cute animals falling over, photos of smiling people standing awkwardly in front of cars holding certificates celebrating the success of their third driving test and a string of celebrity rants and status updates, none of which I truly care about. Then, every so often, I find something else. Celebrities that were once internet-wide objects of ridicule suddenly become the focus of collages commemorating their contributions to culture, society and our childhoods. The actors and musicians that we grew up with remain dear to our hearts well into our early adulthood. Their sad deaths elicit an equally strong reaction in the hoards of fans that they accumulated over the course of their lives. The death of iconic stars, such as the illustrious actor Alan Rickman and the unforgettable David Bowie in the last week, have captured the attention of the media and the hearts of the public.

It’s always a strange moment learning that a celebrity you admired has died. Though we didn’t know them personally, and although their passing does not directly alter our lives, you cannot help but feel deeply affected. Perhaps this is because of the profound impact they had on us personally. Maybe they were the first singer you saw live, or the author of the first book you fell in love with, or even an actor that played your favourite role in a movie that defined a generation. No matter what they meant to other people, we feel irrevocably connected to them. Their art spoke to us and that intimacy comforted us in times when perhaps our friends and family couldn’t.

When you log onto social media over the next couple of days, everyone will be posting messages of thanks, commemoration, and grief. When you really think about, it seems weird. What are we thanking them for? Fundamentally, they were just doing their jobs. Bowie wrote and sang songs for a living. Alan Rickman simply learnt and performed the lines written by another person for our pleasure. But I think it’s more than that. We thank them for the contribution they made to our lives, for providing us with the comfort we feel when listening to our favourite songs or watching our favourite movies. We thank them for helping change our views or teaching us something new. We thank them for the happy memories associated with whatever they did. I personally remember, when I was really young, going to see Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. I was absolutely terrified of Professor Snape, with his flowing black robes and deep, threatening voice. The thing is, I associate that thrill of fear and the subsequent rush of adrenalin with Alan Rickman’s unique drawl. In a way, I suppose, we’re also thanking them for moments like that.

These people, in a way, provided the cultural background to our childhoods and it hurts when they die because it feels, in a way, like we’re losing some of that. Terry Pratchett was the author who got me hooked on books, and for as long as I can remember, there’s always been a new Terry Pratchett novel on my bedside table. It’s always been something to look forward to, a tantalising prospect of one more story, one more book, one more stroke of genius.

When he died in April 2015, the news hit me hard. There wasn’t going to be a new Pratchett novel; the era of my life which had been punctuated by these works is over. Okay, I still have all of his old stuff to fall back on, but gone is the excitement of opening up the first page of a new work, oblivious to what lies ahead. I suddenly realised that was never going to happen again. Admittedly, I was lucky, because his final novel, The Shepherd’s Crown, was released posthumously, which allowed me one final communication with the man whom I had admired so much. This, I suppose, brings me quite cleanly to my next point.

The mark of a truly great artist, whether they’re a singer, actor or writer, is that they’ll put a little bit of themselves in their work. So, when we engage with their songs, their films or their books, it can feel like we’re engaging with them and their personalities. In watching or reading their work for the first time, it’s like we’re making a new friend in a way. When we watch it over and over again countless times, it’s like we’re reconnecting with a lifelong friend. When they pass away, maybe we do feel like we’re losing that. If they truly were your childhood heroes, the odds are you’ve been following their careers for a long time. You’ve watched all their interviews and learnt some of their quirks, you’ve made jokes about them with other fans and if you’re re- ally lucky, you may have even met them. This might just sound a little stalkerish now, but isn’t all celebrity culture just an acceptable form of idol worship anyway? When you get down to it, the whole point is that you are engaging with these people on something far more than a commercial level. They leave an impact on you, they mean something to you. It can feel like a real and significant loss in your life, and whoever they were and whatever they meant to you, it is obvious that they will be greatly missed.