Wednesday 13th May 2026
Blog Page 3

Hail Agnes full of grace: ‘Hamnet’ and the perfect mother figure

Ruya Oral
-
0
Hail Agnes full of grace: ‘Hamnet’ and the perfect mother figure

A couple of days ago, I saw an Instagram reel (in the Friends tab, no less) regarding Jessie Buckley’s recent Best Actress win at the 2026 Academy Awards. The reel was praising Buckley for the apparent embrace of her most important role as wife and mother, highlighting her talking adoringly of her months-old baby, addressing her husband and exclaiming “I want to have 20,000 more babies with you!” in her acceptance speech. The caption on the reel recalls Michelle Williams’ Best Actress acceptance speech at the Golden Globes in 2020, wherein she discussed how her abortion allowed her to advance her career, as if to say ‘look how far we’ve come!’ It is impossible not to be reminded of that meme, which has now been played for irony, depicting two clipart-style women with one holding a trophy and crying, “I won!”, while the other swaddles a baby and retorts, “No, you didn’t.” If not claiming that a successful career and familial bliss are mutually exclusive, it seems clear that within this narrative, one is being valued far over the other.

The discourse surrounding motherhood is a strange one. The cliché that the left’s weakness is its inability to reach a consensus certainly holds some truth, and the issue of reproductive rights is proof of it. For decades, feminists have oscillated between pro- and anti-natal stances, and the crackdown on access to abortion services in recent years has shifted people both ways along the axis. At the same time, the right has unfailingly tokenised the mother figure as a paragon of Biblical femininity, lamenting how she has been cheated and let down by those supposed women’s rights activists, whilst they themselves simultaneously strip her of her essential rights and prohibit her from taking on any other label. As a result of this dichotomy, depictions of motherhood in film occupy an equally strange space in the mediascape.

Buckley swept this year’s award season for her performance as Agnes in Hamnet, Chloé Zhao’s adaptation of the Maggie O’Farrell book of the same name. The film centres around Agnes (more commonly known as Anne Hathaway), a magical healer, and her romance with the then unknown town tutor William Shakespeare. The crux of the film comes when Agnes and William’s 11-year-old son, the titular Hamnet, passes away. The remainder of the runtime explores how each parent deals with the grief as it threatens to tear them apart, both from each other and their own senses of self. It seems unbelievable that even this – a historio-fictional account of Shakespeare that centres not him, but a woman in a relationship with him, which has led not to the hunky white-boy-of-the-month lead receiving accolades, but his relatively less-talked-about co-star – can be milked for ‘tradwife’ content. Yet it is not the tragedy of the plot or even Buckley’s vast success as a result of her performance (one that, by virtue of her gender, she could not have taken on in Shakespeare’s time) that people are ooh-ing and ahh-ing over. 

Whether by chance or by Freudian fate, I have ended up watching every recent blockbuster concerning motherhood (of which there have been, perhaps suspiciously, quite a few) with my mum. When we watched Lady Bird (2017), which consensus dictates is Greta Gerwig’s magnum opus, I remember both of us shifting awkwardly in our seats and sniffling as we lamented our failure to understand what all the fuss was about. I managed to get through most of Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022) by myself before she wandered in right as the gorgeous final montage was playing on screen. It took her at least 15 minutes to stop pattering about her day and notice the tears streaming down my face. I hadn’t seen her in four months when we sat down to watch Hamnet together, one of the longest spans of time we’ve been apart, and I could anticipate the pain I would feel in my chest in roughly two hours before we even hit play. 

On the one hand, I sympathise with the kind of cognitive dissonance showcased in that reel about Jessie Buckley. I, too, want to see my beliefs platformed by individuals with influence, and I, too, want people with the power to do so to speak out for the betterment of society. It is maybe a simple matter of chance that I’ve escaped the logical fallacy of using Buckley as a defence for wanting women to return to their rightful places in the domestic sphere, though she is anything but exemplary of that in practice. But the pathos to which these movies appeal by depicting the complicated but ultimately incomparably rewarding relationship between a mother and her child, along with Buckley’s dedication of her award to the “beautiful chaos of a mother’s heart”, makes me momentarily wonder whether it is a necessary part of my journey through womanhood to experience that dynamic on the other side of it. It makes me question whether I am a worse feminist for not wanting it. 

I am my mother’s only child. She had already been in the workforce, earning a steady income for ten years before I was born. She was financially independent even before that – together, she and my father paid for their wedding by themselves, having saved up a small portion of the stipend they received as government scholars while doing their Master’s degrees here in the UK. In her career spanning three decades, she has achieved more success than most, if not all of the mothers in the films we’ve seen together. Though I am biased, I can make a strong argument for her doing a fine job at balancing her professional growth with her role as a mother. I am certainly a better person for having been raised by her, and I believe she would agree that our relationship is mutually beneficial. However, I think I would be doing her a disservice if I placed myself at the centre of all that makes her a valuable member of society. 
In the final scenes of Hamnet, Agnes attends the first performance of her husband William’s new play Hamlet at the Globe Theatre. The film conjectures that Shakespeare wrote his masterpiece as a way of processing and dealing with the grief of losing his son. The credits roll to the sound of Agnes’ laughter, as she is finally able to experience catharsis and let go. Her story is as much about loss as it is about overcoming, about reconciling the complexities of your identity before and after tragedy strikes. Ultimately, a mother is not nearly all that Agnes is. I bet Jessie Buckley, a woman who has been pigeonholed rather than appreciated for her multifariousness, would agree with me.

Going to prison during the vacation: The secret lives of Oxford students

Anonymous
-
0
Going to prison during the vacation: The secret lives of Oxford students

The question of “So, how was your vac?” often comes up in hall after a vacation, always from those you didn’t have time to message over the break. “I spent it in prison” is perhaps not the expected response amidst stories of ski chalets and exam lock-ins. But we Oxford students take pleasure in over-burdening ourselves, and those of us who worked during the vacation have much better stories to tell than those who spent it cruising down a black run.

Over 150 hours of my Easter vac were spent inside the sturdy walls of one of His Majesty’s most secure men’s prisons – though fortunately I was able to go home at the end of the day. My job is a varied one: I help to facilitate daily family visit sessions by serving refreshments, supporting family work, and organising activities for children. Many of these children are told that their dad lives on an oil rig or that they’re visiting him at work, and my job is to make the whole establishment – with its search dogs, handcuffs, locked doors, cameras, and austere-looking guards – seem a less daunting place to visit. Wrapped up in a university that provides a college family in addition to my own real one, it is easy to forget that there are those who might only see their dad for two hours a month.

My favourite thing about work is our monthly Family Days, day-long visits where the men get to be dads again: they can get up and play with their children (rather than stay stuck in lines of dull grey chairs), they can eat lunch with their family, and they can finally spend some time relaxing. Seeing a little one yell “Daddy”, running across the visitor’s hall to be scooped up in her father’s arms brings a tear to my eye every time. I will always remember last Christmas, when Santa Claus (played by one of the officers) asked one of the older children what presents he wanted. He said: “I just want Dad to be at home again.”

Those are the highs, though, and I see the lows in equal measure: I see men who are high, unable to speak a coherent sentence. I see children coming to the play area because their parents are ignoring them. I see children who have had no male role model in their lives, children who have suffered. Just this past vacation, I was spat on, punched, kicked, and grabbed by children who know no better, whose parents sit, watch, and silently approve. Seeing this world – one so different from my own childhood – is just as unbearable to watch. Being but a cog in the machine, I can’t help but wonder whether they will grow up to imitate their dads. For the inmates’ loved ones, the worst part is the “second sentence”, the sentence that families have to bear through loss of income and community judgment. And the suffering that families have to bear makes it all the more likely that the cycle of addiction, violence, and neglect will continue.

Most days at work involve living a double life: to the officers, I am the diligent colleague who spends his breaks reading Beowulf (collections revision), but to the residents, I am just another part of the establishment. Not allowed to reveal any personal details (not even my surname), I am simply the “Sir” (or “Miss”, if they’re feeling cheeky) who serves the refreshments. For those who have been there long enough to remember me from the Christmas vacation, I do have to admit that I’ve been at university: “Yeah, I do maths at Bristol mate” is my normal response, dreading the day someone asks me my opinions on Fermat’s Last Theorem or expects me to solve a Sudoku.

But working with the men is the most interesting part. Speaking face-to-face with the people whose headshots have appeared on the news is an intimidating experience – dare I say worse than a one-on-one tutorial – but it does pop the Oxford bubble. From arguing with those who are adamant that university is a waste of money or “just for toffs” to having a serious conversation about a book they picked out from the prison library, I am (or at least I hope) able to have just a little impact on their road to rehabilitation. And though many are happy to have a roof over their head, three hot meals, and all the friends they could need, an equal number are desperate to get out and see their children grow up.

When I’m deep in an essay crisis during term or stressing about an upcoming exam, it is both helpful and humbling to have a reminder of the lives lived outside of Oxford. And, in the world which we inhabit, so full of hate and loneliness, I find some inspiration in my experiences in a prison: somewhere that should perhaps epitomise these emotions. One that sticks with me most is a card written by one of the eight-year-olds: “Dear Daddy, I know you’ve been a little bit naughty this year, but that will never stop me from loving you.” 

Oxford needs a women’s college

Lucy Pollock
-
0
Oxford needs a women’s college

Naturally, I loathe to say that Cambridge does anything better than Oxford, but I can’t deny that there is one thing I will always respect them for: Newnham and Murray Edwards (and, up until 2021, Lucy Cavendish). 

In the 1970s, mixed colleges were the way forward. They embodied a progressive attitude. One of the main justifications for mixed colleges was to increase the number of female undergraduates at Oxford. As Florence Smith showed, the admission of women to Hertford, Brasenose, Jesus, St Catherine’s, and Wadham was complex – amidst the progressive ideology, a misogynistic and unequal reality remained. Crucially, the biggest consequence of men-only colleges admitting women in 1974 was that, only five years later, former women’s-only colleges St Anne’s and Lady Margaret Hall admitted men. By 2008, there was not a single women’s-only college left in Oxford.

Mixed colleges are a wonderful thing. Having been at an all-girls school for seven years, I don’t think I would have accepted an undergrad offer from a women’s-only college. We can all agree that it is healthy for men and women to socialise, and for women to understand and participate in environments which aren’t exclusively female. However, single-sex spaces, especially for women, and in particular women’s colleges, are important. Research has concluded that girls do better (academically) at single-sex schools. It would, therefore, be unsurprising for this to continue to be the case at a university level. I’m sure many female readers are able to relate to the experience of being spoken over by a male tute partner at least once in their time at university. 

Women’s colleges can also, crucially, provide funding to women. Despite women often outperforming men at an undergraduate level, academia in Western nations has a significant gender gap – particularly within STEM – and a significant barrier to academia is funding. Cambridge colleges like Newnham and Murray Edwards provide not only places for women, but also funding, awards, and prizes. For further study in History at Oxford, an MSt will cost you approximately £17,000, whilst a DPhil will cost you around £14,000 annually (roughly £42,000 – £56,000 for the full degree). Women’s colleges help to address this gap. 

Crucially, women’s colleges retain their feminist foundations. I believe that my own college (Somerville) is a progressive place, and I’d argue it has retained its values and principles better than any other former women’s college. Yet I have heard plenty of sexist ‘jokes’ in the college bar. Casual sexism is something almost every woman is forced to confront; a women’s-only college would give women a reprieve. Somerville is the only college to have had only female principals – something I was very aware could change when our principal stepped down in 2025. Female principals are often one of the best examples young women have for a woman in a position of clear authority, particularly in an institution like Oxford, which for so long was associated with only masculinity. Whilst I do not advocate for total feminist separatism, I believe that there is real value in women’s-only spaces. Having spoken to women who attended former women’s colleges in Oxford for my undergraduate thesis, the difference in atmosphere is almost palpable. Women’s-only colleges were often described as peaceful, empowering, calm places of learning and guidance. I love my college, and indeed I love Oxford, but I think that that atmosphere has faded. 

When Somerville went mixed (amongst great protest from students), former Principals Catherine Hughes and Daphne Park justified the change by arguing that they had always taught women to be feminists; now they were doing the same for men. If that was the goal, they failed. Men who identify as feminists, and men who fight for women’s rights exist within Oxford, as they do everywhere, but this is not because of any college environment. Women’s colleges were once a place in which women could learn to take on a male-dominated environment; though various environments have remained male-dominated, the safe space for women created by these colleges, a space in which women could exploit every and any opportunity, has been lost. 

Women’s colleges don’t appeal to everyone. When the first five colleges went mixed, they admitted 100 women. How many more applied? There was a real demand for a mixed-sex environment – rightfully so. There are real advantages to coeducation – and also to cohabitation between the sexes. There were plenty of women at LMH who were delighted about the arrival of men, and many went on to marry the men they met at college. But others missed out. There are plenty of reasons women might need – not just want – a women’s-only space. I know plenty of women who chose to attend London universities – or not attend university at all – because London universities would allow them to live at home while studying. Some women also preferred this because they did not want to live in mixed dorms with men on campus, due to their religious beliefs. Colleges in Oxford do try to be accommodating for the most part, but a mixed college will never be as good at providing spatial separation as a women’s college. 

Fundamentally, it’s not really about whether mixed or single sex colleges are better. It’s about having the ability to choose. Women applying to Cambridge can choose. Women applying to Oxford can’t. Perhaps instead of a new graduate college every five years, Oxford could reintroduce a women’s college. One women’s college would not do the University any harm, but it would be of colossal benefit to its students. 

Access to Canvas temporarily suspended by University following cyberattack

Mercedes Haas and Hattie Simpson
-
0
Access to Canvas temporarily suspended by University following cyberattack

Access to Canvas, the virtual learning platform used by the University of Oxford, has been temporarily suspended by the University today as a precautionary measure following an external breach of Instructure, the third-party supplier of Canvas. 

ShinyHunters, a criminal hacking group, has claimed responsibility for breaching the platform and has threatened to release sensitive data, including “students’ names, their personal email addresses and messages sent between teachers and students”, unless ransom payment demands are met by 12th May. In an email sent to all students by the University, it was confirmed that “some Oxford user data is affected” and that this “may include names, email addresses… and messages exchanged between users within Canvas”. 

In the email, sent on 6th May, the University said that students could “continue to use Canvas”. On 7th May, “Instructure briefly placed Canvas in maintenance mode while it dealt with the second incident; service was restored overnight”, according to a University spokesperson. 

In a comment to Cherwell regarding the current suspension of the platform, a spokesperson for the University said: “The University has temporarily suspended user access to Canvas, its virtual learning platform, including Panopto recordings accessed through the platform, as a precautionary measure. The decision follows notification from Instructure, the third-party supplier of Canvas, of two incidents of unauthorised access affecting many universities internationally.

“Instructure is investigating and the University is working closely with the supplier. There is no evidence that University authentication systems, University accounts or Panopto itself have been compromised. The University recognises this disruption will be of concern to staff and students, particularly during the examination period, and is exploring measures to support access to teaching and course materials. As a precaution, staff and students are advised to remain vigilant for phishing or scam emails and to report anything suspicious to the University’s Information Security team.” 

Access to Panopto, the platform which shares lecture recordings, has also been suspended. However, in the notice placed on the Canvas login page by Oxford, the University emphasised that “there is no indication that University systems or Panopto have been compromised”.

The suspension has had a significant impact on students across the University, especially for those who are almost entirely reliant on Canvas to access all materials for their course. An Engineering student told Cherwell: “Being only a week away from exams is quite frustrating, since I no longer have access to the past papers.” 

A Material Sciences student told Cherwell: “It’s literally preventing me from doing any degree work as all my tutorial sheets, lecture recordings, and reading list are all exclusively on canvas”. They added that they have yet to receive any communication from their faculty regarding plans to mitigate the impact on students.

A PPE student added: “Given the pressure of a weekly deadline and the heavy reliance on Canvas for certain elements of the course, being unable to access content for several days has created needless stress.”

Some faculties have contacted their students to warn of the temporary suspension, but many remain affected and without contact. In the email sent by the History faculty to undergraduate students, they told students that “the University is putting in place measures to support access to teaching and learning materials and will seek to restore access as soon as it is appropriate to do so”, but did not expand on what these measures would involve or how long the suspension is expected to last.

The hack has affected universities across the world, with ShinyHunters listing more than 8,800 educational institutions affected, across 10 different countries – including Harvard University, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania. ShinyHunters also claims that it has 275 million individuals’ data from across these institutions. Instructure has yet to release an official press release confirming these numbers. WIRED has suggested that never before has “a cyberattack against a single software platform so thoroughly disrupted the daily operations of thousands of schools”.

On Monday 11th May, a University spokesperson confirmed that access to Canvas had been restored following “further investigation and monitoring over the weekend” and “fresh security assurances” from Instructure. The University told Cherwell there remains “no evidence that University authentication systems, accounts or Panopto itself have been compromised”, but advised staff and students to remain vigilant for suspicious emails or messages. The spokesperson also acknowledged the disruption caused during the examination period and said that users had been “directed to welfare and academic support”.

Oxford Union town hall HT26 re-run: Meet the candidates

Cherwell News
-
0
Oxford Union town hall HT26 re-run: Meet the candidates

A re-poll for the Oxford Union Presidency for Michaelmas 2026 is set to take place on Monday 11th May, after President-Elect Catherine Xu was found guilty by tribunal of electoral fraud. The candidates running to be President in Michaelmas 2026 – Liza Barkova, Hamza Hussain, Gareth Lim, and Victor Andrés Marroquín – spoke to Cherwell about the current state of the Oxford Union, including recent controversies, their vision for their presidency, and their reasons for running.

Introduce yourself briefly. Why are you running to be President?

Liza: Hey, my name is Liza and I am a second-year PPE student at Christ Church. I have served on the Union Committee three times, including Junior Appointed committee, Secretary’s Committee, and Standing Committee. Why I’m running – I come from a country where free speech is often suppressed by the government regime. The Union was the first place where I found that people truly believe that their opinions can matter on an international scale. That experience made a profound impression on me. The Union has an extraordinary platform, but its success ultimately depends on how well it serves the members who use it today. For me, this election is about INSPIRING a culture that genuinely welcomes all opinions.

Gareth: Hello! I’m Gareth Lim, former Chair of Competitive Debating at the Oxford Union and third year Law student at St Peter’s College. I have only ever run in one Union-wide election (the one that we are re-doing). Before this cycle, I exclusively spent my time in the Union managing consistent budget surpluses, coaching debate, and participating in debates. I believe my skill, character, and commitment make me the best candidate.

Victor: My name is Victor Marroquín-Merino. I read for the MSc in Latin American Studies at Oxford, and since graduating in 2024, I have worked in political consulting after co-founding a public affairs and political strategy firm. Over the past year, my life took me away from Oxford and back into the realities of political life in Peru. I never expected to find myself standing in this chamber again as a candidate for President of the Oxford Union Society. But returning to Oxford during one of the most turbulent periods in the Union’s recent history convinced me that the institution needs leadership capable of restoring confidence, competence, and seriousness. I am running because I believe the Union deserves a clean slate – and a return to the standards that once made it one of the most respected debating societies in the world.

Hamza: Hi, I’m Hamza, a final year History and Politics student. I previously served on the Union’s Standing Committee. I am running to be President because I believe the traditions of free speech and debate upheld by the Union are worth defending.

Which manifesto commitment are you most passionate about?

Liza: I am most passionate about the pledge for financial revival. I have a number of ideas for strengthening the Union’s financial structure so that our events have generous budgets while also remaining financially sustainable. This is not a simple task and we cannot perform miracles overnight, but there are realistic steps we can take. One of the most important is building stronger long-term relationships with Union alumni. The Union has an extraordinary network of former members across politics, business, media, and academia. By reconnecting with that network we can both raise funds and create new opportunities for speakers, mentorship, and engagement with current members. Strengthening those connections would be a reliable and sustainable way to support the Union financially.

Gareth: In the last interview, I stated that I was most passionate about expanding member participation in debating. Given additional time for consideration my third manifesto commitment returning intellectual rigour to the Union is, to me, of the widest relevance. Lots of terms often choose to focus on political or IR issues, but I believe that we can expand ourselves to debates about Art, Science, or even the more than occasional comedy debate! 

In some ways, the Union has limited its selection of guests to those involved in politics. The problem is a lot of these guests are often deeply controversial, unavailable, and often not so interesting to members who would prefer a low-cortisol experience. Oxford is a city with a great deal of potential with regards to guests who are deeply intertwined with a great deal ointellectual pursuits and it is a great opportunity to bring a sense of curiosity back to the Union. This allows the average member to participate again, something that I believe is crucial if it is to remain fit for purpose. 

Victor: What matters most to me is restoring confidence in the Union’s leadership and direction. The Union should be known for the quality of its debate, the calibre of its ideas, and the seriousness of its institution – not for constant controversy and constant internal strife. I want members to feel that the Union represents the very best of Oxford again.

Hamza: I am most passionate about my commitment to see greater transparency in the invitation process. I would like to see a common invitation policy introduced to ensure consistency in the process across terms. This would clearly set out how committee members should identify potential speakers and conduct due diligence. 

What do you admire most about your opponents?

Liza: I have a great deal of respect for everyone running in this election. Victor Andrés Morroquin has impressive professional experience. He entered the presidential race at a late stage but has always shown great commitment to the Union. Gareth Lim is an exceptional speaker and an extremely skilled debater. Hamza Hussain has a clear sense of purpose and has devoted a great deal of time to charitable work, which is always important in someone who wants to hold a position of leadership.

Gareth: I’ve said it before and I will say it again – their time management skills. Running for election is exhausting and I’m having so much trouble fitting the rest of my priorities while campaigning. I have no doubt that the other candidates are among the most high-functioning people in the world. 

Victor: Anyone willing to stand for the Union presidency during such a difficult moment clearly cares deeply about the institution, and I respect that commitment. While we may disagree on direction or leadership, I believe everyone running wants to see the Union move forward.

Hamza: Their commitment to the Society and the courage they have shown in putting themselves forward for the Presidency. 

There has been controversy over the past few terms relating to Union disciplinary procedures and tribunal decisions. Do you believe procedures have been misused? What steps will you take to restore faith in Union disciplinary procedures? 

Liza: I am not aware of any outcome of disciplinary procedures to have been improper. I strictly condemn any attempt to rig or misuse these proceedings. More importantly, I am saddened that the previous successful candidate for the Position of President-Elect has chosen to commit fraud during the Hilary election meaning that honest candidates have to repeat this process. As President I will look to ensure that the people in charge of disciplinary processes are chosen in a more transparent way.

Gareth: Short answer – yes. Candidates are incentivised to use the Union disciplinary procedure as a replacement for campaigning. This has led to a culture of fear regarding getting ‘tribbed’ and toxicity within the Union. It is not my place to comment on the results of recent tribunals at this time. It would be highly irresponsible of me to make specific comments that I am unable to back up. But I definitely believe that we have become over-reliant on the disciplinary process. 

To answer the second question – candidates make big promises regarding the restoration of faith in the disciplinary process. Personally I believe that we should stick with following the rules rather than our constant obsession with reforming them. I believe that a president who is running independently, with no ties to slates and who has no reason to stick around after his term, is a good start in removing the culture of fear that surrounds the disciplinary process. 

Victor: I believe the deeper issue is that many members have lost confidence in the consistency, transparency, and legitimacy of Union governance. Regardless of where individuals stand on specific decisions, that loss of trust is damaging for the institution. As President, I would prioritise procedural clarity, transparency, and communication with members. The Union cannot function effectively if large parts of the membership feel disconnected from or distrustful of its internal processes.

Hamza: While I am unable to comment on individual disciplinary hearings where I was not a party, I do believe there are legitimate concerns about how these proceedings affect those involved. I believe the only route forward is to implement the relevant recommendations of reports commissioned by the Union on disciplinary proceedings. 

Do you support the decision to invite Tommy Robinson to the Oxford Union?

Liza: While I believe that the Union should not shy away from controversial topics and it is at the discretion of the President to invite speakers they want, Tommy Robinson has come to the Union in the past and did not contribute anything worth listening to. His stance is based on hate rather than reason which has no place in a debate. I would not have invited him. 

Gareth: No. But I suspect you would like me to elaborate. One side of the argument states that we are a free speech society and should therefore platform important voices in debates. The other side states that Tommy Robinson has a history of endangering the safety of the marginalized. I think the pro-invitation side has missed the point. It is not just that Tommy Robinson causes a culture of fear, but also that he has been invited to the Union before and that I genuinely do not believe that he would add much to our history of reasoned discussion. 

Free-speech is important, but as the Oxford Union, we must use our institutional power responsibly, inviting Tommy Robinson did not fulfill our responsibility to our members. Presidents should publish clear criteria of who they would invite. I would consider the following: First, do they have a history of inciting violence or criminal charges? Second, how influential are they in our society? Thirdly, how beneficial would their invitation be to advancing useful dialogue? Lastly, how interesting will their speech be? While these criteria must be balanced against one another, Tommy Robinson meets none of these criteria. 

Victor: In my view, inviting Tommy Robinson was the wrong decision. I do not believe it contributed meaningful intellectual value proportionate to the level of controversy and division it generated within the membership and across the wider university community. I absolutely do not support this invitation. But I also believe the issue extends beyond any individual speaker. The Union has a long tradition of defending free speech and hosting controversial figures, and that principle matters. However, free speech also requires judgement, responsibility, and serious consideration of how invitations affect the institution and its members.

Hamza: I would not have invited him. I support the Union’s right to invite controversial speakers for scrutiny, but whether individual invitations are wise should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Tommy Robinson already has a platform and has previously spoken at the Union. No individual has the right to an invitation by the Union, and the President should always act in the interests of the Society, its members, and with due regard for the impact of their decisions. 

Recent weeks have seen widespread opposition from other student societies regarding the platforming of Union speakers, including Carl Benjamin, Tommy Robinson, and Karim Khan. How would you respond to criticism from other university societies in your presidency?

Liza: In the Union all members have the opportunity to ask public questions to the President before the start of the debate. These questions may be put as concerns raised by other university societies. I would have to answer in front of the entire chamber. This would ensure accountability in a civilised and most effective environment.

Gareth: Being receptive to feedback is an important part of being a leader. However, one must also know when to stand their ground with regards to criticism, after all one is elected to serve members of the Oxford Union, not those of other societies. 

I would like to make clear that I would not have invited Carl Benjamin or Tommy Robinson to begin with. However, once decisions are made and invitations made, I believe it is worse to reverse course to rescind an invitation. That compromises the Union’s credibility with future invitations even when those guests are credible. Of course, this depends on how severe the failings of the invitees in question are – ultimately, the best guiding principle is that of preserving the credibility of the Union, now and in the future. 

Victor: The Union cannot keep existing in its own bubble, constantly at war with the wider university community. I want to rebuild those relationships through common sense, better judgement, and a more grounded approach to leadership – one that actually listens to members and brings people back into the institution rather than pushing them away.

Hamza: The decision to invite speakers should rightly sit with the President elected by the members, but this should not mean that dialogue with societies is cut off. I would be happy to sit down and talk with those concerned with the Union’s conduct so their voices can be heard. Objections should be considered on their own merits, and speaker invitations should be handled with seriousness and sensible judgement.

Anything else you might like to add.

Liza: I have stood through many things that happened in the Union and have seen its effects and consequences. What I found is that the culture of the Union is built around the people who contribute to it. Together with my team, I want to inspire a culture of integrity among its people, I hope that the institution as a whole can improve as well.

Gareth: Two things. Firstly, vote with your conscience. Read all the manifestos and vote with the candidate that you believe is going to be the best president rather than what someone else tells you. Your vote is important and if you would like to put your membership to good use, you should exercise your voice. I believe that my organisational experience, character and fresh perspective make me the best candidate for the Presidency. I hope to have your vote, but will be just as happy if you let your own voice be heard through your ballot! 

Secondly, candidates always make the point that the Union is in chaos and that they are the one to fix it. I would encourage voters to ask themselves when the Union’s troubles began, this is not a recent phenomenon that can be tied to any particular Presidents’ term. You should vote for someone who you believe has been uninvolved in any of the Union’s drama and someone who has the competence to fulfill their promises. 


Victor: This election is ultimately about whether members believe the Union can recover from the instability and controversy of recent terms. I believe it can – but doing so requires competent leadership, intellectual seriousness, and institutional responsibility. Having spent the past year working in real-world political strategy and public affairs during a national election cycle, I believe I can bring the experience and judgement this moment demands. That is the campaign I am running. #RETURN

Stubborn, devout, doomed: ‘The Anti-gone’ reviewed

Natalie Tan
-
0
Stubborn, devout, doomed: ‘The Anti-gone’ reviewed

When The Anti-gone begins, the only thing onstage is a lectern – stark in the harsh white light and terribly lonely – before Ismene (Kitty Brown) walks uncertainly down the aisle and stares, torn and lost, into the audience. This is Carfax Productions and Atelier V’s latest play in a nutshell: sparse but affecting, and bolstered by the performances of its incredibly talented cast. 

Sophocles’ original tragedy is simple, though executed with aplomb: in the wake of Oedipus’ (yes, that Oedipus) exile, his sons Eteocles and Polynices have died fighting each other for the throne. Creona, the new ruler of Thebes, has decreed that Eteocles will be buried as a hero, but Polynices’s body will be left exposed to the elements on the battlefield and be prey for the carrion birds, the harshest punishment the Greeks could imagine. The play’s opening scene lays this out for all to see: Antigone (Rose Hansen) seeks to give her brother Polynices a proper burial in defiance of Creona’s edict, but her sister Ismene, too frightened to imagine defying Creona, refuses to help. 

Antigone is a story that turns on three points – Antigone, Ismene, and Creona – and all three more than pull their weight here. Hansen is fantastic as Antigone, turning vitriolic righteousness into reluctant affection from one breath to the next whilst striking the perfect balance of anger and anguish. Brown’s Ismene plays off her perfectly as the helpless watcher staring after her wild sister, storming to her own doom. “Go then if you must,” Ismene tells Antigone, resigned, “but remember: no matter how foolish your deeds, those who love you will love you still.”

Director Marcus F.P. has reimagined the play for a Victorian London setting. It’s brought to life primarily through costume designer Rowena Sears’ impressively detailed vision: the sisters are dressed to contrast each other in every way possible. Ismene with her tightly-plaited updo, not a hair out of place; Antigone with her unbound, voluminous curls. Ismene with only a sliver of skin peeking out from between her elbow-length gloves and the sleeve of her dress; Antigone with bare arms, shoulders, collarbones. Ismene’s face pale and panicked; Antigone’s flushed with rage. They’re both in funeral black for the first scene, but when Antigone reemerges, dragged before Creona to answer for the ‘crime’ of burying her brother, she’s now in white, a sacrificial lamb with a stubborn jut to her jaw. 

F.P’s other major change is that Creon, the sisters’ uncle who has usurped the city and turned tyrant, has been made Creona (Rosan Trisic), the third point of this triangle. Statuesque and menacing, Trisic stalks around the stage in full, bloody crimson, delivering every line with crisp, forbidding enunciation. It’s an interesting change that removes the gendered aspect of the Antigone-Creon conflict to further emphasise the clash between state and family, order and justice, the human and the divine – but also has the added benefit of introducing a new dimension to the character dynamics: Creona’s tyranny is contextualised against the backdrop of the patriarchy. “A man you have always wished to be,” Haemon (Sonny Fox), her son and Antigone’s betrothed, accuses, lashing out at her upon learning she’s sentenced Antigone to death. 

At this point, it would be remiss not to mention the Chorus – played here by a choir with full musical accompaniment, piano and all. Musical director Richard Meehan oversees an impressive and well-coordinated crew that delivers interludes that are rousing and solemn in turns, mocked ironically by Lady Smythe (Sophia Lee) and Lord Fothergill (Ellie Dinning), who switch seamlessly across the fourth wall from singers to servants. 

But it’s the side characters that steal the show, chief among them Lady Sentry (Rachel Wadie). Clad in pale pink with a jaunty hat that trails feathers as she scurries along and affecting a querulous, trembling voice, Wadie provides a much-needed shot of levity. She’s saddled with the burden of various expository monologues – including one where she has to recount Haemon’s suicide after he finds Antigone dead – but shoulders it admirably, even dropping the act at opportune moments to hint at a hidden cunning in Sentry before re-donning it just as quickly. The other standout is Tiresias (Ali Khan), who imbues his role with an incredibly unsettling physicality, shuffling barefoot across the stage with his pupils reduced to unnerving black pinpricks. 

As a way to defuse the original’s sustained bleakness, the play’s tragicomic tone pays off – for the most part, at least. Its only stumble comes at the end, where Creona realises what she’s done as servants present her with the bodies of Haemon and Ismene. As she begins to sob wildly, Sentry hops genially over the corpses with an awkward joke, and the servants follow suit, gingerly stepping around the bodies in a moment that’s played – rather jarringly – for laughs. It leaves the audience with no time for the emotional weight to sink in or Trisic’s masterful breakdown – she’s crying in horror, so violently you can see the tears and mucus dripping to the floor. 

As the Chorus swells with a final song, Creona opens her mouth in a cry of sorrow, but she’s silent and inaudible beneath the music, a hair-raising final image that pulls the play back together. It’s anchored, ultimately, by a clarity of vision and a deftness of execution that student productions can sometimes lack. In contrast, The Anti-gone knows exactly what it should be: a reimagining of a classic with a flavour entirely its own.

Something wicked this way comes: ‘Macbeth’ previewed

Arun Lewis
-
0
Something wicked this way comes: ‘Macbeth’ previewed

Arriving at Somerville College in its full summer pomp, Stanley Toyne and Cameron Spruce, the codirectors of Cross Keys Productions’ Macbeth, walked over with me to the college chapel as we discussed the ephemeral bother of collections and the issues of trying to work amidst glorious sunshine.

Once sat in the space, with the fitting set-up of three grand thrones in the middle of the chapel’s walkway, it was easy to understand why the two have decided to stage their modern, mafia-set take on Macbeth here. There is an otherworldly feel to the chapel, a non-denominational space, shorn of ornate religious trappings yet clearly somewhere to be treated with reverence. Everyone knows the basic story beats of Macbeth – duty, pride, betrayal, downfall – but the use of a chapel was key in protecting the core of the story in a new modern setting.

Discussing the setting, Stan highlighted that, as with the mafia context, the use of the chapel was a deliberate choice, and had in fact been the cause of some difficulties in securing a location for the production, with several chapels either being too expensive or unwilling to host a mafia-themed production. He highlighted the similarities in power relations between the feudal system of medieval Scotland, where the original play occurred, and the mafia – a veneration of violence, an emphasis on family and religiosity – that allowed the play to transpose well. Chiming in, Cameron highlighted that the transverse staging of the chapel with nave, transepts, and chancel offered not just a fluid feel to the play, but an interactive feeling, placing the audience in and among the drama.

The mafioso setting of the play raised questions – how would some of the main characters, particularly Lady Macbeth and her husband, Malcolm, Duncan, and the witches, translate into this  20th-century setting? They both talked at length about how Malcolm, rather than merely being the hapless heir to the amiable Duncan, was to be portrayed as an actor in his own right, capable and willing to manipulate those around him in advancement of his own goals, particularly the vulnerable MacDuff, when news of his family’s murder reaches him. The three witches each aspire to capture an element of mob life and also allude to the Greek mythology of the Fates. Each represents something Macbeth lacks and wants at certain points in the play: authority, love, and excess, capturing the cycle of Macbeth’s character without denying him the agency of his choices. In this production, Macbeth is not solely the unwilling tool of fate – though elements of the fantastical do endure in this plot – but rather an independent agent, influenced not just by his surroundings but also by himself, and so too is Lady Macbeth.

Of note should be the ease with which the two directors bounced off each other, and how the arrival of two cast members, playing Lady Macbeth and Macbeth, did not prompt any great change of character or slip into a new persona. Instead, they genially integrated their cast into the interview, allowing me to enquire about how they found the role, the directorial approach, and their approach to the characters. Working within the setting dictated by the directors, both felt a range to explore the emotional depth of the characters, particularly with Macbeth stylised as more of a bruiser in this play, substituting swords and rapiers for pistols and knives, and Lady Macbeth made to be more than the particularly reductive versions produced in certain modern adaptations, like the Patrick Stewart-led modern take on Macbeth. They both lean into the stereotypical mob depictions of their roles, but Lady Macbeth uses it far more knowingly as a public facade, with her ability to occupy a sweeping veranda of opinion towards her emotionally complex, yet explosive, husband a core part of this rendition’s characterisation.

Both Cameron and Stanley have acted in OUDS productions before, with Cameron giving an excellent turn as Wriothesley in last year’s production of Wolf Hall at Christchurch. They spoke candidly of how their experience on the other side of the dynamic influenced their open, approachable attitude towards the actors, and how an unexpected delay over the spring vac allowed the actors to further develop their characterisations. The play’s newly composed organ score, courtesy of Peter Hardistry, functions as what Cameron described as “motivic glue”, highlighting the changing power relations and positions of the character as the play moves towards its ultimate conclusion. The production effortlessly combines the old with the new to produce what promises to be a thrilling rendition of the Scottish Play.

Oxford Labour defies national trends at city council elections

Ned Remington and Hattie Simpson
-
0
Oxford Labour defies national trends at city council elections

The Labour Party defied national trends in the Oxford local elections yesterday, with their seat count in the City Council dropping slightly from 21 to 20, against a national backdrop of major losses for the party. Multiple students at Oxford University stood unsuccessfully as candidates in wards across the city.

The Labour Party remains the largest party on the council. The Green Party gained four councillors, raising their total count to 13. The Liberal Democrats remained steady on a total of nine seats. The number of Independent councillors dropped from nine to six, with four now representing the Independent Oxford Alliance and two representing the Real Independents Group. The Conservatives and Reform UK still have no representation on the City Council.

A total of 24 councillors were up for election this year, with one councillor elected in each of the city’s 24 wards. Oxford City Council elects half of its councillors every two years, with each ward represented by two councillors overall. The Council remains under no overall control, meaning no party holds a majority. Labour previously held a majority on the Council for 13 years until the 2023 resignation of ten councillors in protest of Labour’s policy on the war in Gaza.

Holywell ward, the City Council ward with a majority student population, was held by the Green Party, with recent Oxford graduate Alfie Davis elected with an overwhelming majority of 622 votes over the Labour student candidate, Awab Kazuz.

Davis told Cherwell that the result in Holywell represents “a profound rejection of Labour” by students and a new form of “politics for the people”. Reflecting on the significance of the result for young people, Davis added that students represent a “unique social community… that is recognised very little”. However, they highlighted that their key takeaway from the Oxford results was the “ridiculously high” turnout, over 40% in most wards, describing this as a “real sign of young people showing interest in local elections”.

The results come amid major losses for the Labour Party in local councils across England, as well as projected losses in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senedd. Speaking to Cherwell after his loss, Labour candidate Kazuz, a first-year student at St Edmund’s Hall and a member of the Oxford Labour Club Executive Committee, said he was “really proud of the campaign that we ran” and noted that the party was holding “marginal seats”. Kazuz rejected any suggestion that the night had been a “drumming” for Labour in Oxford, telling Cherwell: “We’re doing better than a lot of people expected us to do.” He also said he was “rooting for Alfie so that they can do the best that they can for the people of Holywell”.

Student candidates also stood in the Carfax and Jericho ward – Harriet Dolby for the Conservatives, and Vittorio Cuneo-Flood for Reform UK – with a candidate ultimately elected from the Green Party, replacing the incumbent Labour candidate. Student Harry Morgan stood unsuccessfully for the Liberal Democrats in Osney & St Thomas, Zelalemawee Asheber stood unsuccessfully for the Green Party in Walton Manor, and Indigo Haynes stood unsuccessfully for the Green Party in Blackbird Leys.

Speaking to Cherwell, Morgan, former President of the Oxford Student Liberals Organisation, highlighted the “disconnect between the University and local elections generally”, adding that students have seemingly been more engaged this year. Addressing the wider national result, however, Morgan warned of the rise of Reform UK for students, saying: “They don’t really believe in the climate crisis. I don’t think they have housing solutions. I don’t think they have the deep thinking to deal with any of the problems that are going to affect us.”

Reform UK has made gains in councils across England. Whilst no seats were won by Reform in Oxford, they increased their vote share across the city, and came second in three wards, all of which were won by the Labour Party.

Reflecting on the results of the night, Councillor Susan Brown, Labour Leader of the Council prior to the election, told Cherwell: “I feel we have listened to local residents. We have given a very positive program to the people of Oxford. And so I’m pleased and proud that at the end of tonight, we ended up as still very much the largest party…It seems to me that people are relatively happy with what we are putting forward.” 

Brown acknowledged that it had proved “very difficult…to communicate directly with students”, particularly in the Holywell ward, and recognised that Labour continued to lack a majority (25 seats) in the Council, telling Cherwell she was “always happy to work in partnership and collegiately” with other parties.

The outcomes in each ward were as follows:

Barton and Sandhills – Labour hold

Blackbird Leys – Labour hold

Carfax and Jericho – Green gain from Labour

Churchill – Labour hold

Cowley – Green gain from Independent

Cutteslowe and Sunnymead – Lib Dem hold

Donnington – Green hold

Headington – Lib Dem hold

Headington Hill and Northway – Labour Hold

Hinksey Park – Labour hold

Holywell – Green hold

Littlemore – Labour hold

Lye Valley – Green gain from Independent

Marston – Green hold

Northfield Brook – Labour Gain from Independent

Osney and St Thomas – Green hold

Quarry and Risinghurst – Labour hold

Rose Hill and Iffley – Labour hold

St Clement’s – Green gain from Labour

St Mary’s – Green hold 

Summertown – Lib Dem hold

Temple Cowley- Independent hold

Walton Manor – Labour hold

Wolvercote – Lib Dem hold

G for Georgian? LGBTQ+ representation in historical fiction

Elizabeth Gammaidoni
-
0
G for Georgian? LGBTQ+ representation in historical fiction

It is undeniable that LGBTQ+ representation in the media has become more positive in recent years. One may assume this trend extends across genres, forms, and time, allowing previously unacknowledged LGBTQ+ historical figures to receive recognition. The popular series Bridgerton, for example, deviates from the books to feature two LGBTQ+ main characters. However, the majority of media with LGBTQ+ main characters is contemporary and does not explore the existence of LGBTQ+ identities in previous centuries. It seems historical literature has indeed fallen behind in LGBTQ+ representation. If this is true, then why, and how can this issue be solved?

There are a few reasons to think that this could be the case. For instance, a recent talk at the Oxford Literary Festival, entitled ‘Gender-Fluid Georgians’, saw Carolyn Kirby and Anthony Delaney in discussion on their work about LGBTQ+ Georgians. They discussed the many issues surrounding the writing of texts, both fiction and non-fiction, about historical LGBTQ+ figures. There remains a legacy of concealment that many appear hesitant to deviate from, noticeable archival scarcity (meaning criminal records are the widest body of evidence remaining), and moral discomfort surrounding revealing identities that were so carefully kept hidden. 

Even if there are limitations and worries surrounding the representation of historical LGBTQ+ figures, it is possible to make up for these oversights. If they have been long under-represented, Kirby and Delaney try to undo this in their work. Kirby discussed this in her novel, Ravenglass, which centres on the life of the protagonist, Kit, whose disruption of gender norms forces him to live a life of concealment. Kit must suppress an interest in feminine fashion, and later hides in a more literal sense by living as Stella, in a fascinating exploration of gender identity. 

Delaney’s non-fiction book, Queer Georgians, explores silenced LGBTQ+ voices in the Georgian period. He details the lives of a variety of Georgian people, discussing figures mostly unknown, as well as revealing information from the archives about the undiscovered LGBTQ+ lives of better-known figures. He especially discussed archival gaps and how deep one must look to discover historical figures’ true lives, which is one possible explanation for the scarcity of LGBTQ+ historical texts. However, the existence of Kirby and Delaney’s books is evidence of the increasing recognition being given to LGBTQ+ figures of the past.

One admirable figure that Delaney discusses is Margaret Clap. Nicknamed Mother Clap, she provided a place of refuge for LGBTQ+ people. She ran a Molly House in Holborn, a “pub for homosexual men” and gender-nonconforming people, where they could socialise safely away from the rest of society without fearing the consequences of expressing themselves. Elsewhere, this fear was strong given that sexual activity between men was outlawed by the Buggery Act of 1533, which said that the “detestable and abominable Vice of Buggery committed with mankind or beast” was punishable by death. 

Margaret Clap is a fascinating part of the history of Molly Houses due to her rebellion against law enforcement and being “actively involved in legal battles relating to sodomy charges”. Her aid was selfless; she put herself in danger to protect others and was eventually prosecuted. She was fined, made to stand in the pillory, and given two years’ imprisonment; it is unknown whether she survived her prison sentence. The records of Clap’s actions emblematise the issue of having criminal records as the main source for LGBTQ+ history. Not only does it limit understanding, but it is also reductive of the humanity of these people whose lives now must go unacknowledged outside of the record of their then-criminal activity.

Clap’s form of allyship to the LGBTQ+ community is one that clearly had a great positive effect. However, it is somewhat foreign to forms of allyship today in that it required her to hide those she aligned herself with, rather than championing them openly. In modern society, the latter form of activism is often more prominent because of the increasingly accepting attitudes towards LGBTQ+ people, at least in certain parts of the world. Perhaps it is this tradition, and the lack of source material that comes from this need to hide, which leads to fewer stories being told about LGBTQ+ people of the past, even whilst they are gradually gaining greater acknowledgement in contemporary pieces. We have inherited a legacy of both internal and external suppression, which has such power that it feels more natural to continue this than to break bounds.

Despite the excellent work of these authors, as well as others, there remain difficulties in countering the issue of LGBTQ+ under-representation. Perhaps it does not feel truly possible to celebrate these people, given the need for any author to place themselves in the same position as the law enforcement who cruelly exposed their identities. 

Even with the best intentions and in a much more accepting climate, it may feel uncomfortable to profit off of revelations about identities that were kept so carefully hidden, and for such good reason. It is difficult to celebrate their humanity when LGBTQ+ figures of the past were not perceived (and therefore not documented in the archives) as such, and their stories rarely end happily. However, whilst this may be the case, the books written by Kirby and Delaney, as well as their invitations to speak at the Oxford Literary Festival, are proof of at least some forward movement. 

Therefore, it is possible to overcome the struggles of writing about historical LGBTQ+ figures and responsibly represent them. It may be necessary to spend extra time searching the archives, but this is not an impossible activity. Delaney discussed the limitations of writing a non-fiction text about figures who are often seen solely through the lens of a criminal in the archives. If a piece of information has not been reported, if no humanity has been given to these figures in the records, then no humanity can be recorded in a history book about them. Such limitations do not, however, apply to a novel. A careful amalgamation of historical accuracy with the gift of humanity in a work of fiction could be the answer to this issue of responsible representation of lives once gone despised, who now have the retrospective opportunity to be celebrated.

‘Technologies of capture’: Ben Lerner’s ‘Transcription’ Reviewed

Ben O'Brien
-
0
‘Technologies of capture’: Ben Lerner’s ‘Transcription’ Reviewed

CW: Disordered eating.

As an Oxford student, I often think it would be nice to have fewer screens in my life. No more phone, no more tablet – I’d rid myself of these pointless objects and live life to the fullest, rapturously taking in every note of birdsong, every tree, every tiny vein on every leaf of every tree. I’d be fully engaged with the world instead of aimlessly googling whatever happens to come to my mind at any moment of the day. Most importantly, I might even finish my degree. I’d become a productivity machine.

On the other hand, maybe it would be a kind of living hell. This is a possibility that Ben Lerner’s short new book, Transcription (2026), raises. The book opens with the unnamed narrator travelling to interview his academic mentor and 90-year-old intellectual superstar, Thomas, for a magazine. In the hotel he’s staying in, just before he’s due to meet Thomas, he knocks his phone into the sink. Cue lots of panicking about how he’s not going to be able to record the interview – FOMO of the very worst kind. And yet he’s too embarrassed to simply say, “I knocked my phone into the sink and so I can’t record you”, and instead thinks up a semi-elaborate lie as to why their first meeting should merely be a preparation for the real interview. Not only that, though, the narrator’s lack of a phone makes him less attentive, not more. “Shamefully unresponsive to the old media that surrounded me”, as he puts it. “Paintings, analogue photographs, a vinyl record spinning somewhere in my mentor’s house.” He has the opportunity to engage with all these things, but all he wants to do is check his emails. A bit like me when I’m ‘working’.

Lerner, who is somewhat of a literary superstar, at least in the US, is not afraid to take on the big themes. In Transcription, we find not only the question of “technologies of capture”, in the narrator’s words, but also, in no necessary order of importance: paternal abandonment, dementia, anorexia, suicide, Covid, the generation gap and euthanasia, often all mixed into the same page. It’s a lot to take on, and it’s not always entirely clear what each of these elements is doing, other than to add a certain seriousness to proceedings. And yet there’s something hypnotic about Lerner’s trim and often surprisingly hilarious prose, which keeps you reading on.

And the question the book raises is an interesting one, even if everybody has been asking it for a long time now. Are our screens good for us – an infinite source of knowledge which I’d once have had to traipse to the Radcam and read actual books to get – or are they gradually destroying our souls and our ability to connect with the world and even with each other? One of the strengths of Transcription is that it doesn’t give a definitive answer to this. It’s not a coincidence that Thomas’s anorexic granddaughter only finally starts to eat food once she has the distracting, soothing effect of as much screen time as she could possibly want. “Dad, I want you to cut me an apple”, she says one day as she is watching endless ASMR unboxing videos on YouTube. For her and also for her highly privileged parents, screen time is the greatest of blessings, far more so than books, a university education, and all the organic berries and grassfed beef their money brings them. 

In complicating rather than answering the question, the book is very much a work of fiction, and indeed, fiction is another of Lerner’s themes. People experience different technologies in different ways, some good, some bad, some in between, but one idea the book raises is that there’s a parallel between our screen-dominated lives and fiction. When the narrator is accused of falsifying what becomes his famous interview with Thomas, the charge against him is that of turning the interview into fiction, as a “defence against the reality of losing” his mentor. Fiction as escape, fiction as a kind of reconstructed, mediated reality. Thought of in this way, it’s not clear how much difference there is between fiction and our permanently online world – or whether the one can really be that much worse than the other.

Not unrelatedly, the book also suggests that maybe there isn’t that much difference between a life which is mediated by screens and one which isn’t. Screens have constructed an alternate reality, one in which we quite literally live online, in the same digital house as millions of others, relating to each other in seemingly peculiar ways, hating them, loving them, completely misunderstanding them. But even when the people in Lerner’s book aren’t connected to one another via their phones or tablets, their world is a messy, incomprehensible place. People talk past each other, people forget who it is they’re talking to, people constantly worry about how others are perceiving them. In other words, the ‘real’ world isn’t any more appealing than the online world, precisely because it isn’t all that different. Where exactly this leaves us on the screen question is difficult to know. And what it means for my degree, I’ve got no idea. But I think that I’ll stick to my devices for now.

1234...2,586Page 3 of 2,586

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 Jamie Ashley