Tuesday, May 6, 2025
Blog Page 1582

Oxford JCRs to save £300,000 on Sky TV

April Peake
-
0
Oxford JCRs to save £300,000 on Sky TV

A new agreement between Sky Business and OUSU means that Oxford common rooms will no longer be charged the commercial rate for Sky TV, provided it is not aired in areas of commercial activity, such as in a college bar. It is estimated that this deal will save over £300,000 across the University.

Previously, some common rooms were being charged the charity rate (c. £1000 per annum) whilst others were forced to pay the full commercial rate (c. £6000 per annum) after failing to gain access to the lower charity rate. Subsequently, colleges such as Worcester and Balliol decided not to have Sky in their JCR, on the grounds that it was too expensive.

At the start of this academic year, OUSU’s Common Room Support Officer, James Raynor, organised a boycott of nine common rooms, each of which threatened to either cancel their existing subscription, or not to subscribe to Sky TV until all common rooms were offered the charity rate. This move came after OUSU and common rooms claimed to be “fed up with this unfair inequity”, and was supported by Domestic Bursars across the Colleges.

Raynor commented, “I’d been trying to solve this problem for the duration of my time at OUSU; and as my term as Common Room Support Officer was drawing to an end we made the decision to step things up a little. Through OUSU support structures I was able to assemble a boycott which gave us the leverage to contact some senior figures at Sky – this meant we could finally open up a constructive dialogue.” 

Jack Matthews, Raynor’s predecessor, compiled evidence for a year in the hope that OUSU would be offered a better deal by Sky, and claimed to have received positive support from common rooms in Cambridge, Durham and St Andrews.

Raynor, on behalf of OUSU and the other parties involved in the boycott, negotiated the new arrangement with Sky, which allows all colleges to access charity rates provided that they do not profit from the subscription through commercial activity.

Fergus Imrie, JCR President at LMH, told Cherwell, “Our JCR had no intention of getting Sky outside of the bar, but we were more than willing to support the proposed boycott. I think it is a fantastic result for Oxford University and in particular the common rooms, but quite frankly no less than we deserve. The colleges are registered charities and thus should receive the charitable rate. I think James did a fantastic job and this highlights the collective power the common rooms have.”

Regarding his success, Raynor said, “Getting the result we wanted and saving hundreds of thousands of pounds for Oxford colleges was really fantastic news. It felt especially good considering how long this has been on the agenda for common rooms. I’d like to thank the common room presidents and bursars in particular for their help.”

OUSU President David J. Townsend said, “The question of whether common rooms should be paying the charity or the commercial rate for Sky has been going round and round for donkey’s years.

“I’m proud that James has worked with common rooms and Colleges to build and deploy this boycott, and that we’ve achieved such a massive saving across the University. This is proof that OUSU can do what no individual common room can do on its own: deliver a huge win for everyone.”  

Sky representatives were unavailable for comment on Monday.

One Nation under Miliband

Tom Perrin
-
0
One Nation under Miliband

Much of the media frenzy about Ed Miliband’s ‘One Nation’ speech has centred around immigration – an important issue but one that nonetheless falls wide of the bigger problems Britain faces today. A divided society of haves and have-nots, institutionalised social exclusion, and limited opportunity for many are all part of the reality of our politically disengaged and economically fragmented nation.

These are brass tacks that our politicians have thus far failed to come to terms with. David Cameron has done more than most and Ed Miliband is certainly striking the right notes, but it’s not clear that either one has fully addressed the problem.

Britain may be facing one of its greatest economic crises, but it is also in the thick of a social crisis. As our economy has become more complex we have failed to recognise the needs of our most vulnerable. Of course, welfare dependency is a significant concern and the government is right to identify it as a cause of social exclusion, but it is not the only cause. That one half of those in poverty are from working households shows this, while the fact that in the 21st century a quarter of children in the UK are affected by poverty at some point further demonstrates the fact that British governments have been getting something badly wrong.

Such economic deprivation has created a social underclass. The distance between the advantaged and disadvantaged in Britain is arguably greater than ever. Ethnic minorities, single-parent families and those born in social housing are all examples of groups in society that have been isolated by the strengthening of social barriers. We are a country where 47% of black children are in poverty. One Nation has been abandoned for ‘little platoons’ that are Burkean in nothing but name; we are weaker alone, instead of being stronger together.  

This crusade for individualism in Britain and for free markets for free markets’ sake has meant that our elite no longer embodies the values of duty, unity and compassion that it once did. The new aristocracy is of the super rich, of hedge fund managers, investment bankers and financial tycoons. Our new order has detached itself from society altogether, rejecting any sense of duty to those less privileged and seeing government through the narrow, anti-statist eyes of self-interest and tax thresholds. Money may equal power but for the new upper classes power certainly does not equal responsibility. 

Changes at the top have had an impact at all levels of society. Just as our new aristocracy rejects anything remotely akin to noblesse oblige, so values of social unity and patriotism have disappeared from many of our daily lives. How many of us now know our neighbours or see where we live as a community in the proper sense? David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ at least attempted to pose an answer to this problem: it is a shame that it has now turned into a kind of national running joke.

Britain’s problem is not that it is incapable of embodying such values, but rather that they are seen as extraordinary rather than ordinary. The Olympics and the Diamond Jubilee were One Nation in action –that such togetherness could be created by an hereditary (but truly popular) institution is food for thought indeed. 

Our political parties triggered this social destruction. Margaret Thatcher ensured the downfall of liberal conservatism and her successors have only made things worst. Ideology has been supplanted by pragmatism, whilst compassion has been dismissed in favour of skewed individualism. Meanwhile New Labour, by professing to be “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich” only served to extend this idolatry of the wealthy. 

David Cameron has gone some way towards repairing the void. It is fair to say that he and his government are motivated by a core sense of public duty – no ideology rules the way for Cameron and this can be seen as a good thing. The Prime Minister is however (ironically) dogged by the past; he may have re-embraced traditional Conservative values of duty, compassion and national unity but the recklessness of past Tory governments lingers nearby.

It is funny that it has taken a Labour politician to recognise that One Nation is the way to repair Britain’s divisions and promote integration. Our economic problems are to a large extent a result of our social ones – at least that has now been properly recognised. But the idea of our political masters translating this belief into action remains, for now, the stuff of dreams.

An inevitable crisis? The bloody conflict in the Congo

Luke Samuel
-
0
An inevitable crisis? The bloody conflict in the Congo

As the world agonised over crises in Gaza and Egypt, the Democratic Republic of Congo added another chapter to its bloody 21st century history. Since 1994 over 5.4 million people have been killed in sporadic conflicts throughout the Congo.

The violence has been most acute in the eastern provinces of North and South Kivu. Known collectively as the Kivus, this region borders both Rwanda and Uganda and often suffers fallout from events in those two tumultuous countries.

On 23rd March 2009, a peace accord technically brought an end to conflict in the region, but the area has remained in the hands of a wide variety of rebel groups. On 6th July, however, the M23, named after the unenforced conditions of the peace accord, seized the town of Bungana. Despite the efforts of the Congolese Army, the UN MONUSCO peacekeepers, and tepid international condemnation, by 20th July the regionally significant town of Goma was in rebel hands.

Once it had secured a promise of negotiations, the M23 retreated from Goma, but maintained positions within clear striking distance. What is clear however is that in the East Kivus the M23 hold the military whip hand over the Congolese Army, the FARDC. Despite M23’s relative unpopularity with local people, they are able to operate with relative impunity in the Kivus.

It was a complex set of conditions that led the government’s legitimacy and sovereignty to collapse so completely in a key region of the DRC. This current crisis is not so much an individual event but part of a humanitarian catastrophe that is historical and self perpetuating.

Understanding the provenance and principles of the M23 and other rebel movements in the DRC is key to grasping the roots of the conflict. Following the spread of violence from Rwanda in 1994 into the region, a series of movements supported by Rwandan Tutsis developed in the Kivus.

Ostensibly they aimed to protect “Tutsi” Banyamulenge Congolese from both local and state oppression. Many however developed into quasi-state-like entities themselves, exploiting the rich mineral resources of the area. The M23 therefore has little incentive to lay down its arms and accept a quiet integration into the national army.

Previous attempts have resulted in the maintenance of an unofficial parallel command structure within the army for M23 units. There are various factors for this unwillingness to surrender their power. First they and their leadership have a long history of antagonism with the Congolese state. Second rebellion represents a profitable enterprise for its leadership. And thirdly, legitimacy is better conveyed through the barrel of a gun than the ballot box in the Kivus. To surrender arms is to abdicate to one of the multitude of other rebel groups in the region. 

The regional context has also played a significant role in maintaining the instability. Following the mass emigration from Rwanda during the 1994 genocide, significant groups of genocidal insurgents took up residence in East Congo and began launching raids into Rwanda. The stateless area in the Kivus has consistently provided a base for insurgent groups aimed at displacing the post–genocide Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) Government. Consequently Rwanda has interfered both directly and indirectly: by sponsoring rebel groups to weaken the anti-Rwandan insurgency.

The genocidal Interhamwe militias based in Congo have been supported by successive Congolese governments, both as a means of control over Congolese Tutsis and a buffer against Rwandan aggression. This proxy war has left a large, rich area essentially stateless. Rwanda’s interference in the region has been predicated on the need to protect its borders, the mineral wealth of the Kivus and desire for a possible Greater Rwandan project incorporating parts of the Congo. Rwanda therefore has multiple incentives to continue funding rebel movements such as the M23. Consequently the Kivus are prone to rebel insurgency because of regional interest and operations in the area.

Finally, the crisis of legitimacy in the Congo represents a substantial barrier to real compromise and progress, both between regional powers and rebel groups. The November 2011 Elections aimed to create an atmosphere of trust and legitimate government yet instead they ended with substantial uncertainty, riots in Kinshasa and the opposition leader, Etienne Tshisekedi under house arrest. International observers expressed profound disappointment in the standards of the election, but were not prepared to intervene.

While fraud was significant, it was arguably not of a scale sufficient to change the overall Presidential result from Kabila to Tshisekedi. However the uncertainty merely served to further undermine confidence in central government. In essence, it widened the gap between central government and peripheral movements, as both claimed the election result validated their movements. This crisis of authority further weakened the strength of the ballot box in the Kivus and pushed further power towards those who possess the greatest military strength. Rather than earning sovereignty through the votes, the disputed elections legitimised the seizure of power by force of arms. The consequence is a continual stream of uprisings and violence in the peripheral regions of the Congo.

When news of violence in the Kivus broke in the international media, there was a grim inevitability about it. The Kivus represent one of the most unstable regions in central Africa, part of a nexus of rebel movements running from Congo, through northern Uganda and into South Sudan. These stateless rebel areas are controlled by force of arms.

Many of the rebel movements involved lack the popular legitimacy or resource base to force their agenda to the table, but central government lacks either the force or political power to snuff them out. So rebellion smoulders away with sporadic outbreaks of violence and consistent human rights abuses on all sides.

It seems as if Congo is doomed to repeat the same cycles of violence that have persisted, aided and abetted by regional and international actors, since independence. Until central government in the Congo seizes real authority and legitimacy, it is hard to imagine the cycle being broken. When rebel movements are described it is easy to imagine an active war with clear goals. The reality is much harder to describe.

Whilst the M23 has some ideology, it is also part of a chain of rebel movements stretching back into the 1990s. Rebellion is almost a way of life in North and South Kivu. In the words of Jeffrey Gettleman, “There is a very simple reason why some of Africa’s bloodiest, most brutal wars never seem to end. They are not really wars at all”. The truth is nobody has claimed sovereignty in the Kivus. As long as that is the case, people will try to claim it by force of arms.

Travel Blog: Viva la Vienna

Nastassia Dhanraj
-
0
Travel Blog: Viva la Vienna

“Vienna. Is that in Italy?” asked the lady behind the counter at Boots in Heathrow Terminal 3. “Err… umm I’m not sure, I think it’s in Austria actually…” I replied awkwardly. And so began our holiday.

The Boots lady raised a valid point though – what on earth is Vienna and why is Lastminute.com constantly trying to make me go there?

Quite simply, it’s all about the Christmas markets. Over the last few years, German-style markets have popped up all over the major cities in England around the festive season and I adore them. I never buy anything (I mean who is seriously going to pay £8.40 for a dream-catcher almost certainly stitched together by child labourers in China?) but they have an incredible atmosphere. Christmas markets have the power to make you feel nostalgic for a time that you were never a part of.  With this idea in mind, my boyfriend and I decided we had to go.

In the same way that you might decide to buy a film from HMV because it stars that man from that film with the talking dog that you really like, we chose Vienna because they spoke German and I had an A* GCSE which was currently going to waste.

Vienna is a beautiful city full of history, culture and an extraordinary selection of sausages. It is clean, it isn’t completely overrun by tourists, and they happen to be really good at making cake. It is also cold. Horrendously cold. Nothing has ever made me regret booking a holiday so much as when I made the discovery that the highest temperature we were going to witness was… 2°C. I wish I could say that after a few hours you forget the cold, but no.  What I can say is that after a few mugs of warm winter-berry-liquor-punch, it becomes a lot more bearable.

The first night we arrived, we checked into our hotel (chosen for its proximity to the Christmas markets) and went to the restaurant we’d booked after days of trawling Trip Advisor. It was called Harry’s Time, and the real attraction? For €60 you could have a surprise tasting menu.

What I am about to describe is probably the best culinary experience of my entire life. They bring out a starter, and then they ask you if you would like another starter. They bring out an entirely different starter – goat’s cheese and beetroot – and then they ask if you would like another starter. That’s right: you are allowed an unlimited number of starters. Then you move onto their pasta dishes, and guess what? You are allowed an unlimited number of pasta dishes. Then the main dishes (you guessed it, you’re allowed an unlimited number), followed by an unlimited number of desserts.

We managed 13 courses. Apparently the record was 24. I felt ashamed of my poor performance. You’d think with so many dishes that they would be poorly thought through and constitute whatever they had lying around thrown onto a plate, but every plate placed in front of me was elegantly presented, rich in flavour, and quite frankly delicious. Of course, this one meal left us bankrupt for the rest of the trip. It is true that man cannot live on bread alone, but put a massive bratwurst in that bread and it turns out you’ll be all right.

Part of our time was spent visiting galleries. But most of our time was spent at the Christmas markets. They really know how to do them in Austria. Let’s not forget that the Germanic people were the first ones to think “This is a nice pine tree. Let’s put it in the living room!” It’s no surprise that their baubles are something of a beauty.

Each Christmas market had at least five stalls entirely dedicated to the most ornate, delicate and expensive baubles you could imagine. Utterly magical. They had stalls filled with wooden toys, scarves, glass pictures of tigers and, best of all, hot punch. My personal favourite? Hot love punch. A mixture of strawberry liquor and goodness knows what else to form a warm, comforting and delightfully alcoholic drink. You even got to keep the mug that it came in for a mere €2.

I left with a stomach filled with Sachertorte, a bag crammed with overpriced baubles, and my soul overwhelmed with Christmassyness. I knew next to nothing about Vienna before I arrived, and it’s now my favourite city in Europe. Auf Wiedersehen Wien! Ich liebe dich!

Christmas Crackers: Your Yuletide Cinema Guide!

Georgina Pollard
-
0
Christmas Crackers: Your Yuletide Cinema Guide!

The catch-up TV has been exhausted, the Christmas presents are wrapped and ready to go, and your reading list is looking about as attractive as Christmas dinner at McDonalds… So in the remaining days before turkey, tinsel and too-much-alcohol – and the lethargic slump thereafter- what should you do? Cherwell Film&TV is on hand to give you a large pile of popcorn (We can’t actually do that. Logistically impractical. And we don’t have a budget. Sorry.) and point you to the right screen!

December Drama- The Life of Pi

The first film to mention is going to hit your cinemas on 20th December. Life of Pi is set to be an epic in 3D, the product of years of work in adaptation of Yann Martel’s Booker Prize Winning novel to the big screen: directed by Ang Lee (Brokeback Mountain) and featuring Suraj Sharma in his debut as the main character Pi Patel.

The story opens with Pi growing up, and the zoo run by his father, who decides to move the family (zoo animals included) to Canada, but disaster strikes, and the ship sinks. The main focus of the film is Pi’s struggle, adrift and alone with a Bengal tiger. To see a great director at work, a quality piece of 3D cinema and some (welcome) sunshine in December, this is one to watch.

Merry Christmas Musi-Comedy- Pitch Perfect and Quartet

Next on your hit-list should be Pitch Perfect, sparkling festively with an all star cast including Anna Kendrick (Up in the Air), Brittany Snow (Hairspray) and Australian stand-up Rebel Wilson (Bridesmaids). Despite its trailer being peturbingly reminiscent of Glee, I am reassured that Gleeks and Gleekophobes alike will enjoy this movie, as it doesn’t seem take itself too seriously, treating the talent-competition genre (see Bring It On, Step Up etc. if you can stomach it.) with irony and self-awareness. Rebel Wilson’s ‘Fat Amy’ (self-named ‘so twig b*tches like you don’t do it behind my back’) looks like the real source of comedy- I’m betting on ‘horizontal running’ being the next global fitness fad. The screenplay is also by Emmy-nominated writer and producer Kay Cannon (30 Rock, New Girl). With such sharp talent both onscreen and off, Pitch Perfect is a good bet for your yuletide laugh!

For those of you having post-Downton-Maggie-Smith withdrawal symptoms. Quartet, out on 1st January, should help to ease the pain: written by Dustin Hoffmann, it’s about a care home thrown into turmoil by the arrival of retired opera singer Jean (played by Dame Maggie herself) who disrupts the home’s annual Verdi concert. This is a something of a celebration of golden-oldies, featuring Michael Gambon, Billy Connolly and Tom Courtenay, but it may be the kind of light-hearted, post-New-Year fare to get you through that early January haze.

Advent Action- Jack Reacher

For the more serious action adventure fans among you, Jack Reacher is out on Boxing Day. This is the latest from Tom Cruise doing what he does best – shooting, driving cars in a reckless manner, and protesting his innocence. This film is likely to be the first of many, based on Lee Child’s ninth Jack Reacher book, One Shot. As well as established talent like Rosamund Pike, Robert Duvall and Richard Jenkins are all in there), the film presents promising breakthrough actors such as Jai Courtney (A Good Day to Die Hard).

The Director is the Christopher McQuarrie, who wrote the screenplay of The Usual Suspects and produced Valkyrie (also with Tom Cruise); he’s also written the screenplay for the new Wolverine movie, so expect to see him around a lot more in the coming months.

While we’re on the subject of adventure- if you haven’t already seen The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, what have you been doing?! Check out Cherwell Film&TV’s Reviews for more info and discussion of this one (that way you might even be able to skip it all together but still partake in the inevitably numerous discussions you’ll be subjected to in coming weeks)! 

So stop twiddling your thumbs, turn off E4 (or Comedy Central if you’re die-hard Friends re-run addicts like we are) and get to the cinema- ’tis indeed the season to be cinematic! 

Why we love to bash the Tabs

Harriet Smith Hughes
-
0
Why we love to bash the Tabs

Even typing the phrase ‘Cambridge-Oxford rivalry’ into Google, in preparation for this piece, prompts a prickle of annoyance: why should the Tabs take primacy in the word order?

It’s indicative of the utter irrationality of the enduring Oxbridge rivalry. In historical terms, the ill-feeling sprang out of the circumstances of Cambridge’s founding, when a group of Oxford University scholars got into conflict with townspeople and were forced to flee Oxford, setting up shop in a nearby market town. Cambridge University was the result – our tumultuously conceived younger sibling, fated to that role since 1209.

For Oxbridge Freshers – indeed, for anyone not involved in University sports – the whole thing is farcical. Just another instance of the two universities’ proclivity to elitism and navel-gazing. Even if you do follow rowing, it’s hard to feel furious enmity in the Veuve-Cliquot-sipping world of Henley. And forget academic rivalry: no one in their right mind can get wound up about league tables. Most of us find it hard to care sufficiently about collections.

That was my attitude, anyway…until the Varsity Rugby match on Thursday. We were all a bit taken-aback by the hoardes of indoctrinated 12-year-olds, chanting such appropriately intelligent phrases as: “I’d rather be a leper than a Tab”. Even the little flags placed by each seat (“I’m a Dark Blue”) failed to stir ardour. But after a pint of Magners at half time, and a beautiful try by Keble’s Sam Egerton, suddenly even the most reserved spectators were screaming sentences featuring both expletives and the long-eschewed word, “Tabs”. Suddenly, we were – are – Dark Blues.

Having undergone the transformation, I find myself bearing a new and previously abhorred character feature. I really do feel ‘f*** the Tabs’.

So what is it that causes such animosity to emerge, rapidly and apparently unbidden? Why should not Durham or UCL be our partners in the fray? Partly, of course, it’s historical: the first Varsity match was in cricket, in 1827; the boat race was established two years later.

But there are deeper explanations for the continued endurance of such primal sentiments. A 2010 paper by psychologists at the Universities of California, New York and Washington, on rivalry between NCAA basketball players*, identifies “relational dependency”; essentially, intense similarity between competitors often results in a far more personal sense of rivalry. You need to beat the rival who is most like you. This can even be suggested to reflect a sense of internal competition; in some ways, it becomes a battle with an externalised self.

It’s hardly a ground-breaking revelation that the Oxford-Cambridge rivalry might, maybe, be born of similarity. In acknowledging that the competition should surely lose its visceral nature, yet the intimacy of the rivalry is so ingrained (and helpfully underscored by group mentality and identity) that rationality get lost in the mass of Jack Wills kits.

Meanwhile, in defining success as the failure of the chosen rival Oxbridge neglects competition with other top universities. The competitive binary starts to look less elitist, more pig-headedly circumscribed. Imperial, UCL, Edinburgh, LSE; they’re all fighting for turf. The steady rise of the Russell Group is accompanied by anti-Oxbridge popular feeling, for the media loves an alumni-slating-his-alma-mater piece.

And if that wasn’t depressing enough: how often do you find yourself subjected to a tirade by a non-Oxbridge student, insisting their courses are equally as demanding; equal, in fact, in every way? While they rant, a hefty wedge of your consciousness mulls on Bristol’s superior graduate employment rates. While your companion asserts their two-books-a-week workload and the tough task of juggling their social life, the dreaming spires begin to take on a nightmarish, Escher-esque aspect in your mind’s eye…

This, then, is perhaps the real cause of the durability of our rivalry with Cambridge. The damn Tabs get it. They get that “doing Dickens” for 5th week does not mean doing Bleak House; it means doing the entirety of Dickens. Or at least working yourself into an asylum in a bid to fake it. They get the whole thing about living in an environment of pressure, where your success in anything from an 8th week essay to a collegiate rugby match comes to dictate your definition of self. They get that vacations are for guilt, Park End is for guilt, sleep is guilt, and that if guilt could be aggregated, Oxbridge would hold more than the Catholic Church and upper-middle-classes combined.

Which is why they merit competition. If there’s anything a ravening Oxbridge-type loves it’s a bit of self-flagellation, and competition with your closest sibling offers just that. So whether screaming abuse at a Varsity match, or disdainfully assessing your Cambridge friends’ reading list, remember that affection runs beneath the animosity. And also that while we can at least drink our pain away, Cambridge only has, like, one bar.

Typewriters at Dawn

Nina Black
-
0
Typewriters at Dawn

Zoe Heller recently attracted attention in the literary world, not for a new novel, but for her scathing review of Salman Rushdie’s much-awaited new memoir, Joseph Anton.

Heller damned Rushdie’s grandiose style and “lordly nonchalance” in a lengthy essay in the New York Review of Books. Yet Rushdie isn’t likely to be overly fazed by this attack. He has been part of a number of high-profile disputes with other novelists and appears used to confrontation. During a 15 year long feud with John Le Carré, Rushdie described him as a “pompous ass” and following another critical review by John Updike he lambasted Updike, saying, “Somewhere in Las Vegas there’s probably a male prostitute called ‘John Updike.’”

But in a rather anti-climactic way, most of these feuds end up in awkward reconciliation at a book festival. Rushdie praised Le Carré at Cheltenham literary festival this year, whilst V.S. Naipaul and Paul Theroux, who also had a 15 year fight, shook hands at Hay festival in 2011. Naipaul had put a copy of one of Theroux’s books that had been personally dedicated to him up for sale, and Theroux later published Sir Vidia’s Shadow, a vindictive memoir describing Naipaul as a racist and an egotist. Naipaul, seemingly spoiling for a more one-sided fight, has since attacked Jane Austen and her “sentimental sense of the world.”

It seems that as far as literary feuds go, they don’t make them like they used to. Wordsworth and Coleridge’s relationship was ruined forever by a mixture of addiction and conflicting poetic ambition, leaving Wordsworth to describe his former best friend as a “rotten drunkard." Rimbaud and Verlaine’s stormy relationship ended with Verlaine shooting Rimbaud in the wrist and a subsequent two year spell in prison. Whilst no violence was involved, Truman Capote’s dismissal of Jack Kerouac’s work as "that’s not writing, that’s typing", was painful. Even worse was Ernest Hemingway’s criticism of William Faulkner’s work — "Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words?" — a line far more scathing than anything Heller said of Rushdie.

Perhaps the most dramatic modern day literary feud is between the two giants of Latin American literature, Gabriel Garcia Márquez and Mario Vargas Llosa. The two friends had a falling out that lasted for 30 years, apparently over a dispute concerning Llosa’s wife. Llosa punched Márquez in a Mexican cinema and he appeared in public with a substantial black eye. The fact that the pair never aired their dispute in public served to make it more mysterious. Yet even in this case, the two writers managed to eventually reconcile their differences.

But even if real literary battles are rare these days, those looking for snipes can always turn to the Hatchet Job Award for the most unforgiving book review. The prize is a book-shaped cake with an axe plunged into it. Classicist Mary Beard was a close contender for her cutting review of Robert Hughes’ book on Rome. She rubbished the entire second half of the book, deeming it to be “littered with howlers”. Mark Twain could have been a more worthy recipient of the award for his criticism of Jane Austen, making Naipaul look like an Austen fan in comparison. He said of the literary giantess, "Every time I read Pride and Prejudice I want to dig her up and hit her over the skull with her own shin bone." Literary insults just aren’t the same anymore.

The British Comedy Awards 2012: blasts from the past

Alexandra Sutton
-
0
The British Comedy Awards 2012: blasts from the past

Like good tea, bad weather, and even worse teeth, good comedy is something often associated with Britain, and I for one fully subscribe to (at least) the latter. Of course we’re funny – think of all the funny people we’ve produced, the funny performances and the funny writing. Britain this year might be characterised by economic crisis and a misogynistic Church, but it’s all okay because we’re still really good at the jokes and stuff.

Cue The British Comedy Awards: notoriously shambolic and frequently unforgiving, they are essentially a lock-in for Britain’s best comedians, and we lucky people get to watch the chaos that ensues. Or at least that’s what we expect when we commit a whole two hours to watching an awards show peppered with people who get paid to be funny.

Everything seemed in order this year. Jonathan Ross – check. Jonathan Ross’ questionable goatee – check. Bingo card of risqué (or merely tasteless?) jokes – check. Why then did I begin to find Channel Four’s adverts for other shows more entertaining than the program itself? (15 Stone Babies is clearly a must see; titles like that deserve their own awards show.)

The problem appears to be the nature of the awards themselves: thanks to a reshuffle of categories, it felt as though there were around three comedians and, at a push, four shows spread over all of the nominations. In any awards ceremony it is difficult to establish clear categories, and even harder to find justifications for what ultimately turn out to be arbitrary divisions between types of broadcasting. For example, Julia Davis’ macabre period piece, Hunderby, was nominated for both Best Sitcom and Best New Comedy Programme, and to everyone’s surprise scooped ’em both. Hunderby may be excellent, and is definitely new, but it isn’t a sitcom. It seems like perhaps it needed to be chucked into that category because there is no longer a category for comedy-drama. 

Most annoyingly, the Entertainment Personality award had solely male nominees. This meant that brilliant comics such as Sue Perkins were defined by their panel show appearances, rather than their own creative contributions. What’s more, Jonathan Ross had the audacity to make a joke about it. Yes, these are the comedy awards, and yes, they should be edgy, but pissing off the entire room was not a great way to start. Even the painfully predictable Savile jokes got more laughs than that. Equally, the clips of British Comedy Awards past was a screaming reminder of how hopelessly inadequate this year’s offering really was. Smart move, Mr Director. 

But Wossy’s eternally irritating presence, along with the almost non-existent structure, didn’t make the evening a complete waste of time. There were some bad bits, but there were also the bad-but-brilliant bits. One of my favourite things about the awards was the increasingly bizarre parade of presenters they draft in. Though nothing will beat the pairing of Vivienne Westwood and Pamela Anderson in 2009, producers this year certainly tried, with Cuba Gooding Jr (bored? low on cash?), Joan Collins and characters from Facejacker taking the stage. 

One of the nominees for Best New Comedy was Steve Coogan’s Welcome To The Places of My Life. Don’t get me wrong, we’re all happy to have Alan back. I was even happier when (after losing the award) Coogan still had it in him to lead the audience in a classic AHAAAA. Yes I did join in, but any character with a catchphrase so ‘classic’ probably shouldn’t be up against new comedy. 

In fact, the awards didn’t really seem to be about new comedy at all: the highlights of the show were the moments which featured comedians we grew up with, the ones that my generation probably shouldn’t have been allowed to watch (I am eternally grateful for lax parenting). Reeves and Mortimer received a thoroughly well deserved Writers’ Guild Award; the montage of their work showing everyone how playful surrealism should be done, and their acceptance speech bringing silliness and fun back into the program. 

In keeping with this focus on comedians from long ago, and perhaps most memorable, was the recipient of the Outstanding Achievement Award. How I have missed that beard, that bling and those bloody awful sunglasses. It was Ali G who brought the show to its close, and watching a classic character take on current affairs was a huge treat. However, it says a lot that the final note of this year’s show was a ten-year-old creation. 

Though many newer comedies were overlooked, Cuckoo and Fresh Meat to name only a couple, it appears that if British comedy has anything, it is longevity, or at least a tendency to wait a good long while before celebrating its best. But I’ll let you know in ten years time if Jonathan Ross starts being funny. 

The 2012 Winners

Best Comedy Entertainment Programme
Harry Hill’s TV Burp

Best Sketch Show
Cardinal Burns

Best Sitcom
Hunderby

Best New Comedy Programme
Hunderby

Best TV Comedy Actor
Peter Capaldi – The Thick of It

Best TV Comedy Actress
Rebecca Front – The Thick of It

Best Male Television Comic
Lee Mack

Best Female Television Comic
Jo Brand

Best Comedy Entertainment Personality
Charlie Brooker

Best Comedy Breakthrough Artist
Morgana Robinson

The Writers’ Guild Of Great Britain Award
Vic Reeves and Bob Mortimer

The British Comedy Academy Outstanding Achievement Award
Sacha Baron Cohen

The 2012 King/Queen of Comedy
Jack Whitehall

Professor inspires wave of charitable donations

Rowan Borcher
-
0
Professor inspires wave of charitable donations

The charity Giving What We Can has inspired hundreds of people from around the world to pledge charitable donations totalling 62.4 million pounds since being founded in 2009 by a professor at Oxford University.

Dr Toby Ord, founder of Giving What We Can (GWWC) and a fellow at the Department of Philosophy, pledged in November 2009 to give away everything he earned over £20,000, targeting the charities which could do the most with his money. He started the organisation to encourage others to donate part of their annual income.

The organisation, which now has 296 recorded pledges, gained support quickly with philosophers Peter Singer and Thomas Pogge signing up within months. Supporters pledge to “give at least ten per cent of what they earn to whichever organisations can most effectively use it” for life.

In 2013, GWWC expects another busy year. William Crouch, Vice-President of GWWC and a DPhil student at St Anne’s College, said, “I think that GWWC will thrive. 1000 members and half a billion dollars are two big targets in my mind, and I think that both are achievable in the next few years.”

He added, “It was inspiring to see someone doing so much, and being so enthusiastic about it. No other charity I knew of was motivated by the question, ‘how can I do the most good?’

“GWWC draws on the latest research from health and development economics in order to make its recommendations. Economists do randomised controlled trials, to work out how different interventions compare in terms of the benefit to human wellbeing.”

The organisation works out which charities are most productive, and recommends them to its members. Noting that “some charities are up to 1000 times more effective than others”, GWWC researchers find out the number of “quality adjusted life years (Qalys)” per pound for each charity.

At present, the charities recommended are the Against Malaria Foundation, the Schistosomiasis Control Initiative and Deworm the World.

Originally launched in Balliol College, GWWC’s largest branch is in Oxford and has since raised £15 million.

According to Ben Hoskin, manager of the Oxford chapter, “As the movement was founded here, virtually all the early members are from Oxford. This strong community is self-perpetuating.”

The organisation aims to be accessible to thrifty undergraduates: over 40 per cent of those who make pledges are students. GWWC have a special pledge designed for students, which commits only one per cent of income until graduation.

Stephanie Crampin, the organisation’s Communications Director and an undergraduate at St Hugh’s, emphasised the importance of students: “Even though students might not have an income, Giving What We Can thrives off the creativity, energy and time that they put in. The organisation has been very successful here in Oxford because of students’ receptiveness to our ideas and their genuine passion to do as much good as they can.”

Most of the organisation’s branches are affiliated with universities. After Oxford, chapters were founded in Cambridge, Rutgers, Princeton, and the University of California, San Diego.

Despite the high number of Oxford students involved, not everyone has been so keen to get involved. Guy Ward, a first year lawyer at Corpus Christi claimed, “It seems risky to commit to a lifetime of giving – you never know when you could hit on hard times.”

But Rebecca Hannon, a first year physicist at Balliol, said “It’s a really generous idea. It would be good to know you’re making a difference.”

 

Review: Aladdin and the Magic Lamp (North Wall)

Thomas Brookes
-
0
Review: Aladdin and the Magic Lamp (North Wall)

★★★☆☆
Three Stars

Upon taking my seat for Creation Theatre’s production of Aladdin and the Magic Lamp, my expectations were low to say the least. Childhood memories of pantomimes replete with excruciating slapstick, ageing TV actors in drag, and ruthlessly enforced audience participation, had lent the form a hefty stigma in my mind. Thankfully Creation Theatre were able to alleviate my prejudices and, most importantly, stage an enjoyable two hours of pantomime.

The success of Aladdin and the Magical Lamp lies in its simplicity. The small but strong cast of seven are afforded roughly equal stage time and thus divided the jokes, melodrama and songs between them. Consequently, the stale parade of pantomime stereotypes such as the hero, dame, village idiot et al is avoided; instead each character is given a little freedom to develop. Refreshingly, familiar characters assume new depths: the Genie of the Lamp remains mystical but is also hilariously deadpan, the Sultan is regal but also quaintly camp and Aladdin himself begins the play as, by his own admission, “a wretch, a good-for-nothing and a murderer”. The comedy too is effective in its subtlety; time after time the melodrama is escalated by extravagant language and overblown theatricality, only to be brought sharply to Earth by a witty, deflating punch-line.

The production’s musical numbers, often used successfully to aid the run-up to a punchline, are generally successful but work best when the entire cast is involved: the Princess and Aladdin’s duet strikes a rare bum note. Both actors were flummoxed by the suddenly empty stage and sterile melody, substantiating the Sorcerer’s subsequent remark that “love is a cheap illusion”. Indeed, as is often the case, the villain’s role is the most intriguing and Timothy Allsop seizes this opportunity with aplomb. His Sorcerer dominates the beginning of Act Two as a deranged megalomaniac, expressive eyes radiating insanity.

This delectable darkness, however, was swiftly curtailed in favour of a prolonged conclusion that consists of a farcical sequence of betrothals, reconciliations and predictability. We all knew a happy ending was imminent, but surely that should have encouraged a short and sweet finale, rather than this sugary overdose? In particular, the “abject poverty” of the Sultan’s subjects, as sung about in Act One, was instantly forgotten once Aladdin had ascended the social ladder himself. In one significantly ironic blow, both genies are freed from their magical slavery whilst the wage slavery of the peasantry is perpetuated.

Perhaps pantomime is no place for a critique of the feudal system and anyone who expects to find one has clearly just completed eight weeks of his English degree. Nevertheless, transcending that boundary between maturity and simple entertainment is something that Aladdin and the Magic Lamp does well. Yet it raises an important question: who exactly does Creation Theatre think their pantomime is for? The subtlety of its characters and humour was admirable but would probably stretch a primary school-age audience too far. Conversely, whilst an adult audience would enjoy elements of the production, its status as a pantomime is surely enough to discourage a significant number from purchasing tickets in the first place. A pleasurable and unadulterated experience it certainly is, but whether it makes commercial sense is another question entirely.

Aladdin and the Magic Lamp runs till 5 January at the North Wall Arts Centre

1...1,5811,5821,583...2,491Page 1,582 of 2,491

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by James Ashley