Tuesday 8th July 2025
Blog Page 1258

Milestones: Edward Bond’s Saved

0

The Royal Court Theatre has a long history of breaking new theatrical ground. With John Osborne’s Look Back in Anger in May 1956, it crystallised the sentiment of a generation into one character: Jimmy Porter, the original ‘angry young man’. In January 1995, it produced Sarah Kane’s infamous Blasted, which features explicit scenes of rape, suicide and cannibal­ism. It was in November 1965 though, with Edward Bond’s Saved, that the Royal Court truly made its mark on British theatre.

The critical vitriol Saved received was scouring, and it was largely directed at one particular scene. Scene VI to be precise. “My only emotion was cold disgust at being asked to sit through such a scene,” The Telegraph proudly confessed, pointing to its stiff upper lip. “One of the nastiest scenes I have ever had to sit through,” muttered Punch. “A systematic degradation of the human animal,” said the Times, try­ing to act all clever.

Come on, admit it. You want to know what happens in that scene. Okay, I’ll tell you, but be warned, it’s pretty horrible. The scene depicts a group of youths in a park, with an abandoned baby in a pram. Out of boredom, the boys begin to harm the infant. In an masterfully conceived atmosphere of escalat­ing horror, they progress from spitting on it, to pulling its hair, to punching it, and ultimately, to stoning it to death. Yeah, grim, I know.

Yet to characterise Saved purely by its ability to shock and disgust would be inappropriate. That same attitude was prevalent in the critical reactions to Kane’s Blasted three decades later and look how stupid it seems now. It’s much more impressive to pretend that you ‘under­stand’ it.

Saved is a play about violence. It depicts the appallingly unimaginative lives of a group of working class south Londoners and, although the baby-stoning scene is the most horrendous example of their emotional barbarism, it is the everyday life of these people that offers the most thought-provoking social comment. It is a life entirely devoid of sentiment or affection. The play’s true violence is in the ceaseless arguments, the meaningless conflict between characters.

Bond’s play was not revolutionary in this. It did what many good plays do: it pointed out a problem in society and directed the public’s attention towards it. What Bond’s play did was lift the physical horrors of Greek tragedy and, much later, Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus, and prove that they had a place on the contempo­rary stage. There was bound to be friction, as there would be with Blasted, which took things to another level entirely, but ulti­mately, dramatic integrity sides with Bond and Kane.

Attitudes at the time were far from Cherwell-levels of enlightenment, however. Initially, Saved was denied a license by the Lord Chamberlain’s Office, who deemed it unfit for public consumption and The Royal Court was prosecuted when it tried to find a loophole. The debacle exposed the absurdity of censorship law and provoked a long debate that eventually led to its abolition in September 1968. So, good on you, Ed. Top stuff.

Saved is rarely revived. The Royal Court brought it back in 1984 and the Lyric Ham­mersmith did so in 2011. It was even on at the BT Studio back in 2013 (odd how a London revival is so often followed by an Oxford one), when our very own Francesca Nicholls stated that it had “absolutely no meaning”. Oh FFS, Francesca. Come on. 

Frankenstein, Godzilla and now Norman Foster

0

If you found yourself in Pyongyang, there would probably be more immediate things running through your mind than how re­pellent the skyline is. The North Koreans may not be all that concerned about it, given all the other pressing concerns of being a North Korean. Like the lack of food. And water. And, I suspect, the overbearing presence of an apocalyptically militant dictatorship.

But if you took a glance around you, walk­ing down Pongwha Street, you’d see the ugli­est building ever made. In fact, probably the ugliest man-made thing ever: the Ryugyong Hotel. It is remarkable to think that the building was designed by someone with eyes. It’s cer­tainly no friend to those blessed with the gift of sight. Critics have said it looks like a super­villain’s crack at a Holiday Inn, but it more closely resembles how a five-year old draws mountains; one massive triangle surrounded by two smaller ones. It rends the Pyongyang skyline asunder by virtue of being clad in a particularly annoyingly iridescent glass and by being 800 feet taller than all the other buildings in the city. It looks like an arrowhead, which should point to a massive neon sign floating in the sky reading, “I was a dreadful mistake.”

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%10842%%[/mm-hide-text] 

No other word can describe it than ‘mon­strosity’; the architectural counterpart to Godzilla. Indeed, our modern context of what ‘monstrosity’ means has moved from the pages of literature to the movie screen, and now to the buildings that surround us. The monsters of the modern age are chimeras of glass and steel, that rise hundreds of feet into the air. They scrape the sky, and our reti­nas. They impress upon the way we think and feel. Why else do you think all the Somerville freshers look perpetually shell-shocked? It would be impossible to feel any other way if you had to live in Vaughan accommodation, a building that boasts an exoskeleton made of concrete and regret.

Vile skylines are a global issue. London gets off comparatively lightly. The Shard is actually stylish, though balanced by be­ing woefully small. It needed to be taller, because now it seems like a remembrance monument for expectations not quite met. Dubai went the other way with the Burj Khalifa, the world’s tallest build­ing that also uncannily resembles the equipment used in IVF.

Could you describe what the Tokyo cityscape looks like? I don’t think anyone could. It’s difficult to know what would be worse; to be affronted by a few very ugly buildings, or sur­rounded by many mildly ugly ones. Tokyo sits in the latter category. It has a skyline so bland and non-descript that I can imagine that’s what it must be like to live on a Monopoly board.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%10844%%[/mm-hide-text] 

Psychogeographers would say that what surrounds us has tremendous influence on our minds. They’d have a field day with the Ryugong. Enclosed as we are by droning towerblocks, or one-off ar­chitectural aneurisms, it is hard to feel any­thing but hopeless. There’s very little to find inspiring or uplifting in a building called the Walkie Talkie, which looks exactly as confusing as its name suggests. Did anyone ask for a building resembling a handheld, two-way radio transceiver? I refuse to believe anyone has ever looked at a walkie-talkie and thought, “I’d like to live in that.” But what if we flip the question around. What do our buildings reveal about our own collective psyche?

Moral degeneracy. Our crumbling societal standards have clearly echoed into the bricks inside which we live, producing the mon­strosities of our modern architecture. What with £1.99 two-litre White Ace ciders, over two-thirds of marriages ending in divorce, dropping church attendance and this new-fangled electronic pornography, no wonder our buildings have become repellent. We became the monsters, and our buildings simply followed.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%10845%%[/mm-hide-text] 

Oh, to hark back to the days of the Empire State Building. They don’t make ‘em like that anymore, all solid and reliable, smelling of law and order from 1931. That’s what a self-respecting building looks like – a monolith of dependability, caked in 200,000 square feet of limestone. It only took two weeks to draw the building designs as well, from the foundations through to the Art Deco-inspired top 16 floors. It’s not like these modern sordid buildings, with their prurient pro­trusions and their voyeuristically transparent glass walls.

The skylines of today are amal­gamations of fear and wonder that pervert our minds and transform the human race into the immoral rogues we now are. Powerless to resist their perni­cious auras, we now worship diligently at the phallic shrine of the Gherkin. I remember the days when architectural mar­vels were something to be proud of, a reassuring sign of humankind’s in­genuity, and not a perpetually wail­ing reminder of how far we have fallen from the heights of our prelapsarian, pre-Norman Foster days of architectural innocence. 

Oxford’s most-loved Japanese

0

We hit up Oxford’s favourite authentic Japanese eatery for its first Sushi Thursday of term. Put off by college’s stodgy-sounding offering of beef bourguignon, we found a delightfully fresh alternative in Holywell Street’s Edamame. The early evening sushi night on a Thursday seems, from the size of the queues, to have become an Oxford institution, and rightly so.

On arrival at Edamame – the restaurant takes no bookings and has limited space so an early arrival is advised (we arrived at 17:30 and by 17:45 there were queues out the door) – we were promptly given a menu of the evening’s fare.Thursday night’s menu is restricted to sushi or sashimi, yet there is an impressive variety of styles to be tried. As a party of three, we decided to share a selection of the sushi on offer and picked five sushi dishes and three sides.

We began our feast with the eponymous edamame beans and went on to choose a Gunkan set (mixed fish sushi wrapped in seaweed), a more classic nigiri set, a tuna and salmon sashimi dish, and a Makizushi special set. This selection gave us the chance to try different sushi styles, as well as a variety of fish–the Gunkan set included salmon eggs and the nigiri featured octopus for the more intrepid gastronomes.

The sushi itself was excellent, and the freshness of the fish, particularly the tuna and salmon sashimi, was evident. Edamame makes all its sushi on site and this certainly comes through in the food; this said, the homemade nature of the nigiri resulted in a lack of cohesion between the rice and salmon, causing some crumbling issues. The Makizushi set was a special – be sure to check the walls for these, they are not made obvious on the menus – and the strongly flavoured seaweed wrapping, as well as the crunchy pickled radish in this dish, provided an interesting taste not to be found in high-street sushi chains.

As well as the edamame beans, we had side dishes of spinach and sushi rice. While satisfying and delicious, these dishes were a little overpriced at £3 each, given their size. Those seeking a more authentic experience should try fish flakes on the spinach, something we were too cowardly to do. The sushi rice had the perfect sticky texture and tones of vinegar and it provided a good dose of carbs to thicken out the otherwise light meal.

To kick off Hilary in style we ordered a tokkura (150ml jug) of sake, which is served in small, traditionally painted ceramic cups, as well as cups of green tea and an oolong cha. While sake is most probably not to everyone’s liking, it once again made our experience more authentic and was a nice touch.

Overall, Edamame offers a great eating experience conveniently located in the heart of Oxford. While there are cheaper restaurants to be found, Edamame does not compromise on quality or freshness for what is essentially a well-priced meal. A great find for sushi lovers and ‘shinnichi’, but be prepared to queue.

Bar Review: Wadham

0

Walking in through a sea of Nike Roshes, ironic sweatshirts, and pictures of Beyonce, I wasn’t really sure what Wadham bar would be like at all. Entering through the front quad, I thought the bar, like most college bars, would be tucked away in some underground cavern just off the main quad.

Alas, 15 minutes later, I was still lost in the complicated maze that is the back end of Wadham. Having finally found the right staircase, I walked in through a quad which had a somewhat tragic resemblance to a Floridian retirement home.

Walking in, the place essentially looked like a corridor which, as if by accident, happens to have a bar. To be honest, the whole thing looks a bit like an accident and this is not helped by the sparse number of blades above the bar and the random assortment of old photos hanging on the walls.

With the bar on the right-hand side and the booths on the left, the weird chasm in between initially made me think that this was a bar for the most hacky of hacks who were paranoid that someone would overhear their conversation. However, there isn’t actually glass between the booths, so you can hear the next table’s conversation on the politics of dildos.

It also means that the acoustics are a bit odd and so it’s easier to hear others’ conversations than your own. It was also fairly small and it not particularly full (even on a Tuesday), so I guess even Wadhamites themselves aren’t that fond of it. On the bright side, the bar was admittedly very well stocked and had an excellent range of liquors. Approaching the bartender, who was reading the paper and looked a bit bored, I asked if Wadham had a signature drink.

Looking somewhat confused as to why I was talking to him, he told me that it was a tequila and pineapple juice. Being both a fan of pineapple juice and tequila, I was looking forward to what I expected to be some kind of variant of a tequila sunrise (especially since I paid a decent amount for it).

I have great memories that all involve tequila sunrise, so the pressure was on. What I got was a shot of tequila which had a chaser of a shot of pineapple juice. It was alright, but realistically, for the price I paid, the tequila should have been better quality.

There’s nothing exceptionally terrible about Wadham bar but it just feels like no one really cares, like it’s a little bit too much of an effort to do anything really well.

Rating: ★☆☆☆☆  (1/5)

Every page of The Sun is toxic

0

Presumably a number of JCRs were yesterday rushing down to newsagents to re-subscribe to The Sun, thinking Page 3 was no more, when The Sun announced it was staying. Whatever would have replaced Page 3 it would have been one more page that The Sun could fill with the rest of their vicious poison, and applauding it for dropping one of its least offensive pages would have been the political equivalent of playing ‘Blurred Lines’ because Robin Thicke had agreed to skip the first verse.

Far from being a misogynistic blip in an otherwise well-meaning and liberal publication, Page 3 is by far one of the least pernicious and toxic parts of that paper and we should focus on the whole of its politics, which have always been incredibly reactionary.

A friend of mine and a disabled people’s rights campaigner put it quite well, saying, “I don’t want to scrap Page 3, I want to burn every copy of The Sun that tells me I’m a scrounging waster who lies to get her sick pay handouts from the government, I want to burn every copy of The Sun that tells my immigrant friends that they’re ruining the country and don’t deserve basic human rights.”

This is the paper that smeared the victims of Hillsborough, libelling the dead with accusations of urinating on other supporters. This is the paper that attacked a transgender parliamentary candidate, writing, “being blind, how did she know she was the wrong sex”. This is the paper that runs endless stories about disabled people ‘scrounging’ the social security that is their right. The campaign for students’ unions to boycott The Sun purely on the basis of Page Three always had this problem: after ‘victory’, it would still be full of misogyny, victim-blaming, lies and anti-immigrant rhetoric.

Look out your window at a country with over a million people using foodbanks, two million people having had their benefits stopped by a draconian sanctions regime, and one in five people, over thirteen million, living in poverty. This is the austerity Britain moulded by papers like The Sun.

Let’s not pretend that the absence of Page Three would have changed The Sun in the slightest. It’s a reactionary publication and the JCRs like Teddy Hall which do without The Sun are better off without its poison polluting our spaces.

We need to change our views on BDSM

0

I met Tina in a popular pub which is usually busy by night, but during the day we were the only ones there. Tina is in her mid-twenties and is currently completing a Master’s Degree. She also happens to be in a ‘Daddy relationship’.

Most of us tend to associate BDSM with the stereotypes of PVC, whips and masks, but we don’t tend to focus on the actual relationship aspects. Daddy relationships involve a ‘Daddy’ and a ‘Little’. In simple terms, the Daddy treats theLittle as a child and the Little treats the Daddy as a parent. This can involve the Daddy choosing the Little’s clothing, having the Little do the chores, and the Daddy financially supporting the Little, although this is not always the case, unlike in ‘Sugar Daddy’ relationships.

Tina lives with her boyfriend, Hugh, and they have been together for about three years. A typical day for her involves getting up at six, making a full cooked breakfast and a packed lunch for him, getting dressed in clothes he picked out for her the night before and then, after he has gone to work, working on her thesis for her master’s and doing chores (such as cleaning the house, doing the grocery shopping, and doing the laundry). After Hugh returns home she makes him dinner.

Although this sounds a bit like a day in the life of a 1950s housewife and not that of a BDSM practitioner, Tina calls her boyfriend “Daddy”, acts like a child around him and they engage in ‘age-play’ which is when she roleplays being an actual child.

Tina began our interview saying that she absolutely did not want to be named (Tina is a pseudonym) because of the social stigma still surrounding BDSM practices. She says she once revealed her sexual lifestyle to a friend, who immediately told her she was mentally ill and needed psychiatric evaluation. This fear of persecution seems to be very common among practitioners of the more intense parts of BDSM.

And whilst some might find this behaviour disturbing, Tina argues that she has never felt happier. Before this current relationship, she felt that she was bored of sex and considered herself to be “asexual”.

She met her boyfriend through mutual friends and after a month of dating, he suggested a Daddy relationship. Tina decided to give it a go and currently enjoys sex significantly more than before. Identifying as a feminst, she says, “This relationship helped me feel far more confident in both my personal and work life. Before I met Hugh, I would never have considered even applying for an MA but now I’m studying the thing I love and I’m getting better grades than ever.”

Because of the rise of books such as 50 Shades of Grey and the popularity of stores like Ann Summers, people seem to have become more aware of BDSM.I personally think it’s sexist that the only media depictions (and I include this article in that) are of submissive women and there are barely any of dominant women. However, I really don’t think that Tina’s lifestyle encourages misogyny, because it makes her feel happier and more confident in her life, allowing her to achieve her goals. What can be wrong with that?

Debate: should actors play characters of a different race?

0

Yes

Tom Posa

When Exodus: Gods and Kings was released in December with an all-white cast playing ancient Egyptian and Hebrew characters, there was a predictable outcry over the ‘whitewashing’ present in the film. In the entertainment industry, white people, and particularly white men, are disproportionately represented. This is indisputable.

No one would advocate for a return to Hollywood of yesteryear, when white actors frequently acted in ‘blackface’ (as did Laurence Olivier in a screen adaption of Othello) or adopted racial caricatures to play characters of different races. But this does not mean that actors shouldn’t be able to play characters of other races.

There is clearly artistic merit in being able to cast characters of a different race. It can lend an interesting interpretation to a classic play: look at the Royal Shakespeare Company’s staging of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar with an all-black cast in 2013. By using an all-black cast, the RSC was able to stage a modern interpretation of the play set against the background of an African state in turmoil.

This kind of cross-cultural interpretation is partially what helps to keep classical literature relevant, as well as exposing audiences across the world to the other cultures.

But I don’t really think anyone would dispute the value of permitting the kind of case above, even though the real life characters depicted in the play were explicitly European. Nor, I think, would most people disagree with Idris Elba being cast as the next Bond, which has been widely speculated recently, even though there is no particular artistic reason for having a black Bond as there was for having a black Julius Caesar.

The real issue under discussion here is whether we allow white actors to play non-white characters, in cinema, the theatre, and on television. To return to the example of Exodus, it seems that the problem is that Western actors of ethnic minority backgrounds are underrepresented compared to their share of the population in Western countries. But barring white actors from individual casting decisions on the basis of this systematic problem (if you do believe it to be a systematic problem) seems misguided at best.

If you want to address the systematic problem, there are much better, and fairer, means of addressing the underlying issues. Fund special programmes for drama students and young actors of ethnic minority backgrounds. Directors can make special efforts to seek and cast black actors more often. But saying to an aspiring actor that, on the basis of their race, they are going to be excluded from even being considered for the part amounts to no more than racism. The problem of underrepresentation will never be solved by excluding white actors from some parts due to a logic of increasing minority representation.

I am not suggesting by any means that we have a white man play Nelson Mandela in the next biopic of his life, or that we have a black Reagan. There are obviously some cases where it is absolutely imperative to have an actor of the same race as the character, if solely in order to provide an accurate depiction of historical persons. But the relevance and value of characters like Moses, Bond, or Julius Caesar in cinematic depiction does not come from their race, and so there is no imperative that the actor portraying these characters be of any specific race.

 

No

Tom Robinson

I cannot argue that it is never acceptable for actors to play characters of a different race. An actor’s performance can be so compelling that, regardless of their race compared to that of their character, the person was just made for the role. Morgan Freeman excelled as Ellis Boyd ‘Red’ Redding in The Shawshank Redemption despite the fact that in the book from which the film is adapted, Red is a redheaded Irishman. You will never hear me say that Freeman shouldn’t have starred in Shawshank.

However, as the 2014 film Exodus: Gods and Kings proved to me, there is a tension in my beliefs. The film, detailing the exodus of the Jews from Egypt, saw all the lead roles played by white actors, which riled me (and plenty of others too).

When such ‘whitewashes’ occur, I do sometimes find it unacceptable for actors to play characters of a different race. While I am happy to endorse cross-race casting in some instances, I am less than happy in others. The liberal in me begs for the colour-blind approach – that matters of race are completely irrelevant. But another part of me, that which believes in social equality and justice, decries the bias towards Caucasian casting.

It might be argued that the most annoying thing isn’t a distinction between Caucasian and non-Caucasian actors, but the fact that historical characters are being played by people of the wrong race.

It could be said that my indifference, encouragement even, of Morgan Freeman playing Red is because the character is fictional. On the other hand, because we consider Moses and Joshua to have actually existed, it is, in fact, the factual inaccuracy that annoys me.

I would not be annoyed by a black casting of James Bond or Annie Bennett simply because in these instances it does not matter. They are fictional characters. But would I find it odd if Idris Elba were cast to play Harold Wilson or Winston Churchill? Perhaps.

While this may explain some of my unease, however, I think my inconsistency stems from something deeper. To me, Exodus’ casting choices are symptomatic of a system that unfairly discriminates against, intentionally or otherwise, black and ethnic minority actors in Western films. That not a single nonwhite actor was nominated in the four major categories of the Academy Awards this year is outrageous. Perhaps there were no standout black performances this year, but that seems to be more because nonwhite actors did not get the airtime and opportunities they deserved, rather than bad, or inferior, acting.

I’ve already spoken of Morgan Freeman and Idris Elba, but there are so many talented non-white actors that could and should be playing leading roles. Oscar Isaac, Nate Parker, David Oyelowo, Lupita Nyong’o have all had phenomenal acting performances recently. These film stars deserve to be cast in high-profile roles. 

Until that happens regularly and we do not feel like blockbuster films are being ‘whitewashed’, I do think it is unacceptable for white actors to play non-white characters, fictional or otherwise.

I know my argument is inconsistent. Is it ever acceptable for actors to play characters of a different race? Yes. But is it acceptable for actors today, especially white actors, to play characters of a different race? No. Pervasive unfairness in our attitudes towards race in film means that we should not deny non-white actors the spotlight they deserve.

We should stop describing acts as being extremist

0

Following the attacks on Paris, the word ‘extremism’ has been in the news a lot recently. However, when discussing if ‘extremism’ is ever justifiable, it is apparent that this term has come to be used almost universally as a criticism of actions with which the writer disagrees. As a result, in using the word ‘extremism’, nothing is said about the act itself; all that is shown is the speaker/writer disagreeing with the act.

The first problem with trying to justify ‘extremism’ is that it is a subjective description, with different meanings for each person. Extremism can change for people over time. This can be seen in Conservative Party members’ reactions to Nelson Mandela; in 1985, a small youth group went as far as to publish posters calling for his hanging. Upon his death, however, Mandela was lauded by leading Conservatives as a hero and freedom fighter rather than an extremist. It seems that when we ‘justify extremism’, we are only justifying our version of it.

The change in perception of Mandela demonstrates another part of the problem; inherent in the description ‘extremist’ is a criticism. The difficulty is that in describing an act as ‘extremist’, what is being suggested is that that act was out of proportion to what it was reacting against. But if a tank is advancing towards your family home with the intention of destroying it, trying to stop it by violent means is not extremist, despite being an extreme act. Implicit in using the term is a judgement that we feel some acts are not reasonable in relation to what they are reacting against.
Using ‘extreme’ instead of ‘extremism’ describes only comparisons with alternative acts and says nothing about what they are in response to. It involves no predispositions. And so, a more useful question is: will any of the extreme acts in 2015 be justified?

Justification of extreme acts depends on the answers to three questions: what are they fighting for, what is it in response to, and what alternatives are there? Violent action towards another individual is generally seen as justifiable when in response to violence, when what causes someone to act in this way is the desire to stop oppression, and when it is reasonable to think that there is no viable alternative way of achieving this end. Committing an act of violence then is most likely to be justifiable if it aims to secure freedom from oppression. Without an aim, all justification is lost.

Whether violent acts can ever be justified turns on whether there are any acts, committed out of desire for freedom, which are committed both in response to violent suppression and where there seems little viable alternative. History is rife with examples of undeniable and obvious violent suppression by states. Around every recent Zimbabwean election, before the Syrian Civil War started, and in many pre-2011 Northern African countries, the states in question were involved in the deaths of hundreds of dissenting citizens.

An alternative to extreme acts is to pursue change via legal methods. Yet, even if this does work, it often proceeds at a very slow pace. The legal fights against slavery, against colonial rule and for women’s franchise each spanned a century.

While social media enables dissidents to coordinate and mobilise faster today, such avenues themselves will not cause oppressive leaders to fall.

It is easy for us to call on the oppressed to take non-violent routes, being largely free already. However, if legal routes can take longer than a lifetime, are the oppressed not justified in using violence to secure what they rightfully should have?

In 2015 there are still many cases where people are oppressed and have no ability to dissent legally and peacefully. In Mauritania, for example, ten per cent of the population are estimated to be slaves. For people across the world, where no clear alternative exists, extreme acts may not turn out to be the most successful, but they can certainly be justified.

Creaming Spires HT15 Week 1

0

So, dry spells. Hell on earth. The ultimate enemy. A deathly desert. The feeling when you’re so frustrated that your head is swimming with clichés to illustrate your pain. I’m sure you’ve been there before, but you don’t have a forum to yell it out at strangers, so just shut up and listen to my ramblings. If you’re at all sane you probably don’t want to yell it at strangers anyway, but that’s beside the point.

Far from being the island of debauchery that I usually carefully cultivate, my life has recently taken a ghastly turn. There are no dirty little games and sexy nights anywhere, and I wail in a corner, alone. The reason? Bloody coursework. You don’t need a crazy student to tell you stress and sex don’t work together. After a day of hard work, it could be a perfect release, but if that day of hard work is followed by another and then another and the deadline’s coming and you haven’t started planning how many all-nighters you can do without dying, then sex is usually the last thing on your mind. People tell me that’s normal.

In our little bubble of spires, most of us have experienced the crushing feeling of utter panic and accompanying loss of libido. Well, it’s a first for me, and I don’t like it. And I started liking it even less when I tried to do something about it, and failed completely. Having finally managed to arrange an evening off furious typing, I was hopeful to get a little boost from a handsome male.

Since I had a suitable one available, arrangements were not a problem. He wasn’t a problem either; knowing me and my body well, he is skilled at making me happy. Despite all that, I just couldn’t get into it. It was impossible to relax with snippets of my essay flashing before my eyes. In the end, after reassuring my poor friend that no, he hadn’t done anything wrong, I returned to my cold bed with a strong sense of failure and disappointment. If I’m not good at my subject AND at sex, what am I good at? If I can’t control my body and its pleasure, what can I control? An identity crisis entered full bloom. I don’t think my coursework benefited from its creator’s frustration…

Of course, there is the obvious masturbation, but I’m a social beast. I can’t do it alone all the time. There are only so many ways to satisfy oneself, and sometimes all I want is a sexy someone to bite my neck. They havn’t invented a toy for that yet.

Humans need sleep, food, and sex. I’ve been having only one of them in satisfactory quantity (thank the Universe for lemon and coriander houmous), and this is the terrifying result. If you see a wild-eyed girl wandering the streets and ogling you, don’t be mean. Ask me out. It’ll be fun.

Maybe.

A tragic architectural regeneration

0

After two years of studying French and Spanish, the time had come to start planning my year abroad. I applied to teach English for the British Council in the Academy of Rouen and eventually learnt that I’d successfully made it onto the programme and had been posted to Le Havre.

However, following my initial relief that I was moving to a respectably sized town and not a tiny village in the middle of nowhere, heard conflicting accounts of the place. As it is one of the country’s biggest ferry ports, many people I know have driven through the town and described it as being uniformly grey and grim. A lot of my French friends said the same thing, which was more worrying.

Yet at the same time, tourist guides assured me that the city was in fact a UNESCO World Heritage Site. When I looked online, I started to wonder if UNESCO ever awarded heritage status out of pity; I spent about 20 minutes trying to adjust the contrast on my computer screen before finally accepting that the city was actually that grey.

Le Havre isn’t particularly exotic or far-flung, with the nearest big city after Rouen being Portsmouth, but this did mean I was was able to take a ferry directly into the town. The distance is not too far, but the night crossing isdeliberately slowed to eight hours so passengers can arrive well-rested and refreshed at eight in the morning French time.

Sleepless and tired, I watched the town appear before me and realised that UNESCO was right after all. It was true that, as far as the eye could see, the buildings were all square, sombre, and made of concrete; but somehow, instead of looking bleak, they caught the morning sun and gave off a strange golden glow.

I could see why some people would write it off as an eyesore, especially in poor weather, but in the late September light it had an austere charm. What I was looking at was the downtown ‘Perret’ quarter, named after the architect Auguste Perret who rebuilt this city in his own unique style after it was substantially bombed in the Second World War.

I had read that this had happened, but it was not until a few days after my arrival that I learnt it was the British who bombed Le Havre, something for which many older generations in Le Havre still resent us for.

I discovered this British impact on Le Havre when I was told the history of the town by Marcel, a teacher from the school where I would be working. He told me the town fell to German forces early in the war and, although the Nazis had a presence here, it was in no way significant enough to justify the extent of the Allies’ bombing campaign.

According to him, the destruction was financially motivated. Although the French were allies of the British in the war, France was one of our main economic rivals during peacetime and, as Le Havre was one of their busiest and most lucrative ports, the British bombed it heavily. The destruction was so extensive that from the train station, you could see all the way to the beach two kilometres away.

Marcel also told me that the new city was built directly onto the rubble, two metres higher than the old one. We lapsed into silence. I didn’t know whether I should apologise or not. It seemed like the British thing to do, so I did.