Tuesday 5th August 2025
Blog Page 341

What Makes A Great Writer: A Biblio-Biography

What makes a great writer?

Practice, of course, and undoubtedly that unique spark called talent or inspiration. But as every writer, great or otherwise, knows, the whole business of writing is built on reading. I have ambitions of being a published author, and every story I’ve ever written can be traced in some way back to the fiction I love. Consider, then, this article as a little trip into my mind—a list of the books that played the biggest role in helping me to become the writer I am now.

As I write this, the book that inspired me to be an author is sitting in a bookshelf just a few meters to my left. I wish it had been something weighty and literary by Flaubert or Faulkner, since that’d make for a more dramatic beginning—but the unromantic truth is that it all started with How A Book Is Made by Aliki Brandenberg. It’s a children’s book which explains the process of publishing through  illustrations of anthropomorphic cats and, well…that’s all. But once I read it I knew, in that uncomplicated way in which very small children are very certain of themselves, that I wanted to be an author, and that conviction has stayed with me for as long as I remember.

Fast-forward to my early teens, and I was still a bad writer. I wrote rambling pastiches of Riordan and Rowling, cribbing some metaphors from Ray Bradbury’s short stories if I was feeling particularly inventive. But then I had the bright idea of looking further afield in my school’s library, and I discovered Hemingway. His concise prose, which valued subtext over verbal flourishes, was exactly what I needed to trim my writing into something worth reading, and I learned the rigorous process of editing, cutting down on unnecessary words and passages. The Complete Short Stories of Ernest Hemingway still takes  pride of place on my bookshelf, and while I’ve moved away from the stark minimalism of his style, I owe him an unmistakable debt.

I was about fifteen when I moved from studying in Hong Kong to a boarding school in England. My parents did so in part to support my interest in English, and soon after I began my first term in this foreign land, I made my next discovery. An older student in the school’s creative writing society (over-generously) complimented a description in one of my poems by comparing it to T.S. Eliot, leading to me  stealing  a pocket-sized volume of Eliot’s Selected Poems from an English classroom and reading it until the pages literally fell out. What really captivated me, however, was Eliot’s philosophy of writing. His essay “Tradition and the Individual Talent” argued that authors should draw on the writers before them, with new works critiquing and expanding on older ones, and in this I saw my lack of originality become a strength. During quarantine, I wrote a web novel that was a response to the tropes and themes which I disliked in YA literature, and I accompanied it with a blog post explaining the story’s nature as a critique of existing fiction. This post was titled “Tradition and the Lack of Individual Talent”—I may not be very original, I reasoned, but at least I can be honest about it.

Now, I may love slow-paced, ambiguous literature, but what I also crave are gripping plots and exhilarating drama, and Raymond Chandler does all of that, nowhere better than in The Big Sleep. Chandler codified the tropes of the private eye novel, with convoluted plots, unscrupulous detectives, and even more unscrupulous femme fatales, which later writers would imitate and never quite be able to match. I first read his novels in preparation for writing a mystery story, and The Big Sleep—despite having a plot so complicated that Chandler literally didn’t understand all the details—was exhilarating and clever, and is my benchmark for the entertainment value that my works aspire to. I suspect that my penchant for filling my stories with manipulative men and femme fatales owes something to Chandler’s work- that, and I just like scenes full of tense dialogue.

Speaking of dialogue (pun intended), this was something I struggled with for years. The stories I wrote during high school were novel-length exercises in awkward, grating conversations, and I knew that I would have to train myself to do better—especially since I am not blessed with the gift of the gab in real life, giving an extra thrill to the idea of showing off dazzling verbal wit in my stories. I began reading through the plays in my school’s library, examining how they conveyed layers of meaning in conversation, and editing my stories based on what I’d learned. Of all the plays I studied, David Mamet’s Glengarry Glen Ross, with its sharp, profanity-laden, infinitely quotable lines and rich subtext about the nature of masculinity within American capitalism, was the most transformative influence on my style, helping me craft the fast-paced exchanges that now fill my stories. Writing conversations remains something that is difficult and exhausting, but at least now, I can be proud of the results.

That said, I still have my share of weaknesses as a writer (and person), one of which being  the tendency to take myself a little too seriously. My earlier works sagged under the weight of their ‘Important Social Themes’, trying so hard to be great literature that they forgot to be good entertainment. But when I feel at risk of having my head disappear up my own backside, Terry Pratchett’s Discworld novels are there to keep me from vanishing in a puff of ego. Pratchett’s ability to blend truly hilarious scenes with heartbreaking and thought-provoking ones, from exploring revolutionary politics in Night Watch to faith versus dogmatism in Small Gods, act as a reminder that wisdom and self-seriousness rarely go together, and that to convince someone of a point, the best way isn’t to preach or harangue, but to find common ground—and what’s more universal than a good joke? And with one of my more successful stories so far being one I wrote half-seriously, beginning it as a way to stay entertained over quarantine and then adding more depth and richness as I went along, I think that reminder has helped.

That brings me to the present, and the last book on my list, Zadie Smith’s White Teeth. It may surprise you that I’m not including it because Smith’s writing style influenced mine,although the way she navigates social commentary, humour, and deep empathy for all her characters is something I do hope to learn from. I’m writing about it because of the hope that it represents. Smith finished this novel while studying at Cambridge, and published it soon after to incredible acclaim… and even though I can aspire to a career like hers, I’m also aware that Smith’s commercial success is the exception and not the rule, that all this work and more may never land me a book deal, that my dream career may stay a dream.Should I, as the UK government so controversially suggested last year, look for my next job in ‘cyber’? Or bear down a path that could end in failure? In a few months I’ll have to decide between getting a summer job and/or devoting my time to working on the novel that I hope to finish by the time I graduate. I think that story (a more cerebral—and semi-autobiographical—twist on a YA romance) will be successful, but I’ve been wrong before. Whichever choices I make, this story will have to continue some way or another, its ending impossible to know.

Image Credit: Jonathan Kim (CC BY-NC 2.0), via Flickr.

Manchester, football and the Glazers: the background to the Manchester United fan protests

0

Old Trafford, the Theatre of Dreams, has seen many iconic moments of footballing history. And yet, fans flooding onto the perfectly manicured pitch in protest against the clubs owners, the Glazer family, and the now defunct English Super League shocked many in the footballing world.

Hours before the largest fixture in English, and arguably European football, Manchester United vs Liverpool, fans congregated outside Manchester United’s home stadium. Spurred on by the fallout from the European Super League, United fans met to protest the ownership and governance of the club by the Glazer family, whose takeover 16 years ago was highly controversial at the time and has remained so ever since. Fans arrived wearing green and gold, the colours of United’s ancestral club, Newton Heath, and carried banners expressing their desire to see the introduction of the 50+1 model of governance in place in Germany, which sees fans hold a majority of shares and votes. Protests quickly progressed, however, from a largely peaceful demonstration outside Old Trafford and the team’s Salford hotel, the Lowry, to a storming of the stadium and, at times, violent confrontations with the police. Sunday’s fixture was eventually cancelled, and rearranged for 13th May.

The Glazer family took over Manchester United in June 2005, but in doing so unloaded over half a billion pounds of debt on the club. Over the next sixteen years, the Glazers drained over £1 billion from the club and have garnered criticism from fans for failing to invest their earnings back into United. Manchester United Public Limited Company (PLC), formerly fittingly registered at Manchester’s Sir Matt Busby Way, but now registered in the notorious tax haven, the Cayman Islands, pays the six children of the late former owner, American businessman Malcolm Glazer, a yearly dividend, amounting to nearly £100 million since it was introduced in 2015. Even during the Covid-19 pandemic, as revenues declined and the club made a loss of over £20 million, this dividend continued to be paid. Their business model at the takeover in 2005 also included disbanding the now-revived Manchester United Women’s Team, claiming it lacked profitability.

This financial model, of extracting revenue from the club, as opposed to investing and reinvesting, has drawn fans’ ire over the years. Speaking as Sunday’s fixture looked to be falling apart, former Liverpool player and Sky Sports pundit Graeme Souness claimed that fans’ discontent was linked to the trophy drought of the post-Ferguson era and that the Glazers had become a “focus of their anger”, which was “slightly misdirected”. However, Souness is mistaken in that fans have been voicing their dissatisfaction with the ownership since the takeover and for the 16 years since. FC Manchester United was formed soon after the “Malcolm Glazer’s hostile takeover” of the club in 2005. It describes itself as a “not-for-profit community football club…owned and democratically run” and as “committed to delivering affordable football to as many people as possible”.

Attempts to express frustration within the club have been embodied by green and gold scarves, which have become synonymous with anger towards the owners. These scarves have been visible at Old Trafford since shortly after 2005, as part of a campaign coordinated by the Manchester United Supporters Trust, which represents and organises fans. Most notably, David Beckham donned a green and gold scarf, when returning to Old Trafford as an AC Milan player. In an image that has now become somewhat iconic, Beckham tapped into fan’s anger to make a powerful visual statement against the Glazers. The slogan ‘Love United, Hate Glazers’, along with the colours green and gold, have become symbolic in the footballing world: they are emblematic of a desire to return to the original principles and values that football was founded upon.

The dramatic protests ahead of the Liverpool fixture were merely the culmination of several years of deep-rooted dissatisfaction with the United ownership and governance of the club. Contrary to what Souness claims, staunch opposition to the Glazers has been constant since the trophy-laden era of Sir Alex Ferguson’s management, which concluded in 2013, through to the bumbling difficulties of the succeeding managers. Discontent with the Glazers and anger towards the governance of the club is not a new phenomenon.

In tandem with financial mismanagement and the proposals for the now failed European Super League, there has been enduring criticism that the Glazers and the ownership of the club have not engaged with fans. In a letter to fans in the aftermath of the fall of the ESL, Joel Glazer told fans that events had highlighted “the great passion which football generates, and the deep loyalty our fans have for this great club”. The issue for the past sixteen years, however, has been that the Glazers have treated fans and their “passion” flippantly and failed to meaningfully engage with them. Glazer promised that, in spite of the “raw” wounds, he was “personally committed to rebuilding trust with our fans”.

These words were clearly interpreted as empty and insincere, though, as several protests, including a storming of the United Carrington training ground complex and Sunday’s dramatic events, have continued to spotlight fan anger and discontent. Following the protests outside and inside of Old Trafford, Joel Glazer issued a second open letter attempting to engage with the Manchester United Trust (MUST) and their demands for a restructuring of the club. Glazer acknowledged “the need for change, with deeper consultation” with fans and claimed to “recognise the importance of fan and football interests being embedded in key decision-making processes at every level of the club”.

But, based in sunny Florida, the Glazers and their world could not be further removed from the realities of the situation in Manchester. Unlike many more ‘modern’ club owners, the Glazers are very rarely seen at Old Trafford supporting the team and, as such, are interpreted as alien to Manchester, Mancunians and Manchester United fans. We must remember that football and football clubs are often more than mere sporting teams, but are widely perceived as cultural and community institutions, having huge importance to the local area and region. Manchester United’s success has transformed a somewhat rainy post-industrial northern city into a global tourist attraction, a world-renowned hub of football and competitive sport. Within and outside of Manchester itself, football is one of the things most associated with the city. This is a legacy that many Mancs are incredibly proud of, but one that the Glazers have undeniably ignored and failed to engage with in the sixteen years since they took over one of Manchester’s most important institutions.

But we should also remember that Manchester United fans’ protests and demands go beyond Glazer, the controversial now-outgoing Executive Chairman, Ed Woodward, and the ownership of the club. They are aimed at fundamental change in the very fabric of modern football and the manner in which football clubs operate at every level. The 50+1 demands do not simply entail the Glazers cooperating with fans, but them transferring the majority of decision-making power to supporters, empowering the people whose love of the game drives the football world. This would represent immense change in English football, far beyond just Manchester United, and would go some way to reversing the relentless commercialisation and gentrification of the game that has taken place over recent years. Embedding fans in every level of the game and in every level of clubs would significantly reshape the power dynamics of English football. Recently, for example, Chelsea FC have moved to do so in the past few weeks with the announcement that there will be a supporter presence at every board meeting. 50+1 would re-empower fans to an extent not seen since the inception of organised football in the second half of the 19th century. This would reinvigorate football clubs and their importance as centres of community and culture.

The protests at Old Trafford, which halted the footballing world’s biggest and most historic fixture, are a sign that beyond just Manchester, English football needs to re-evaluate itself. Discontent with the Glazers is nothing new, but the perception that things are at breaking point and cannot continue in this manner any longer has grown over the past few years and months. Whether the Glazers will finally yield to fan opinion and engage with Manchester and the club’s significance remains to be seen, but what is certain is that Manchester United, and indeed English football, are at a cross-roads. With fans demanding radical, fundamental change, the storming of Old Trafford is a sign that fans cannot and will not be ignored; the club’s ownership can no longer look away.

Image credit: Little Savage / CC BY-SA 4.0

 

Preview: Varsity Channel Relay 2021

0

This summer will see the return of the Varsity Channel Relay race for the first time in 5 years. After a postponement last year owing to Coronavirus, and a failure in 2018 for Cambridge to field a team, one of the most gruelling varsity competitions is hoping to be back with a bang. This year is even more important as, in memory of Nick Thomas, who co-founded the relay and was an endless source of support to OUSC (Oxford University Swimming Club), the relay team will be raising money for Cancer Research UK, a charity close to OUSC’s and Nick’s family’s hearts. 50% of all funds raised will go to Cancer Research UK. Should you wish to donate, visit the fundraiser’s JustGiving page.

This is the team’s 12th time taking on Cambridge, after the race was postponed last year. Oxford are the current reigning champions after a victory by half an hour in 2016, and currently lead the head to head 6-3, with two draws between the two teams (two minutes are allowed between the two sides in order for the race to be declared a draw). The Oxford team is made up of 6 swimmers, 3 men and 3 women, who will race their Cambridge counterparts across the Channel from Dover to Calais. This is an approximate distance of 22 miles and will take the teams between 8 and 12 hours to complete. Tides need to be taken into account and most swimmers tackle a sort of S-shaped course. The principle is quite simple: each team will swim in a relay with only one swimmer in the water at any one time. The swimmers will be following a piloted boat for the whole route and those who are not in the water will be cheering avidly from deck. Each swimmer will swim for an hour and then they will rotate around the team, with the first team to reach France crowned the winners.

The Cross Channel Relay Competition was founded in 1998 by Nick Thomas and Martin Davies and has been running biannually ever since. The Varsity Channel Relay Race between Oxford and Cambridge Universities in 1998 was a roaring success and has become a mainstay in the varsity calendar. This event is the only university swimming race across the Channel and has generated publicity worldwide. The race has been featured in countless publications from The Times all the way to Australian national radio. It has also received extensive features in both Universities’ student media and in the Swimming Times, a national swimming publication.

If dealing with the unpredictable weather and the huge distance being swum was not already difficult enough, wetsuits are not allowed, so the only protection from the waves (not to mention the jellyfish) will be a swimming costume, a cap, a pair of goggles. As I am sure many people will have jumped into the Channel or the North Sea before, you will know how cold it can be and this will be no different. The team have been preparing by swimming in Queenford Lake and Port Meadow as they try and acclimatise for the temperatures of 15 degrees that they will experience during the swim; with a normal ‘cold’ swimming pool being around 27 degrees, it really will be a tough challenge for those taking part.

The Oxford 2018 team swam the Channel and despite not having a Cambridge team to race against, they were the 4th fastest Channel relay crossing out of 120 that year. Cherwell spoke to some of the swimmers from that 2018 Oxford team to ask about what the biggest challenges are for those who are undertaking such a huge task. Victoria Lackey said of her race in 2018: “I thought the hardest part was swimming in the dark. It’s difficult to prepare for that element.” Meanwhile, Lauren Burton told Cherwell: “for me, the most difficult part was psyching myself to jump off the boat for the first time into the utter unknown (not helped by the dark!). I also didn’t like the uncertainty of the swim and not knowing when we would get the all clear for the swim to go ahead.”

On behalf of everyone at Cherwell, we wish the team all the best in their final preparations before the race in June and hope that they will be able to beat the old foe in such a difficult and gruelling event.

To help the team in their race and support Cancer Research UK, in memory of Nick Thomas, donate to the JustGiving Page at:

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/oxfordchannelrelay?utm_term=RyZgdx73Q&fbclid=IwAR02mgBXTZ1SDzoQFA7E-zvE_6VNm8tP8ahzl5yPPMIcb9CwBr2QdFEO5GQ

Image courtesy of @oxforduni_openwater on Instagram.

Album Review: “Great Spans of Muddy Time”//William Doyle

0

It’s been six years since the Bournemouth-based musician William Doyle abandoned the East India Youth moniker and took to releasing music under his own name. Along with this change of name came something of a stylistic regeneration. First, he moved away from the synth-pop flavours of his earlier work and indulged purely in his love for ambient music in a series of minor projects, before releasing his first full-length album as William Doyle in 2019, Your Wilderness Revisited. Here, he placed himself firmly in the lineage of British art-rock, inspired by the likes of David Bowie’s Berlin Trilogy and the early records of Brian Eno (who even featured on the song ‘Design Guide’). 

Now he’s returned with an album that shows yet further artistic development. It’s a playfully loose approach to genre that feels worlds away from the strict cohesiveness of prior works. The album’s title, Great Spans of Muddy Time, is taken from another, stranger influence on the album that of Monty Don, the lead presenter of BBC’s ‘Gardeners’ World’. Don used this phrase to describe his experiences with depression, something that resonated deeply with Doyle as he worked on the record.

It’s easy to see why Doyle would be taken with Don. Your Wilderness Revisited was a Proustian ode to the blissful greenery of suburban Britain, about as horticulturally focused as music gets this side of Mort Garson’s Plantasia. References to the British landscape still abound in his new album, whether it’s a yearning for the memory of a trip to the Pennines in opener ‘I Need to Keep You in My Life’, a song that swells from childlike, arpeggiated synths into cosmic grandeur, or his framing of ‘St. Giles’ Hill’ as a place of sanctuary. But whilst it’s impossible to separate the lush, organic textures of Doyle’s soundscapes from the verdancy of England’s pleasant pastures, it’s Don’s description of a sustained emotional state that most informs Great Spans of Muddy Time. This is reflected in Doyle’s introspective lyrics, often expressing his own struggles with depression.

Your Wilderness Revisited was the work of a perfectionist, as structurally and sonically tight as possible. Great Spans of Muddy Time finds Doyle in new realms of abstraction, with a record that can feel formless, sometimes almost messy. After the sumptuous crescendo of ‘I Need To Keep You In My Life’ and the jaunty, ironic melancholy of lead single ‘And Everything Changed (But I Feel Alright)’, neither of which would have felt especially out of place on his last LP, we come to the album’s first instrumental, ‘Somewhere Totally Else’. We’re quickly struck not just by its hauntological ambience Boards of Canada’s Music Has the Right to Children isn’t what I usually think when I think William Doyle but even more so by the subtle glitches and warped vocal samples that threaten to throw that ambience into disarray.

That disarray is realized on the subsequent track ‘Shadowtackling’, a flurry of industrial electronics that’s more Einsturzende than Eno. Jarring stylistic shifts and blends like this permeate the album in a way that the listener never fully gets used to – the shimmering synths of ‘Rainfalls’ just before the squelching drums of ‘New Uncertainties’, or late-album highlight ‘Semi-bionic’, and its mix of harsh, metallic textures with Doyle’s typically pastoral vocal melodies. The music here is raw, occasionally even oppressively so – a far cry from the pristine beauty of Your Wilderness Revisited – but it never ceases to be compelling. 

The comparative looseness in structure and sound on Great Spans of Muddy Time is, in part, due to a hard-drive crash that left many of the songs Doyle had laboured over for the past couple of years lost. He explained that this provoked him to reassess the way he worked on his music: ‘Instead of feeling a loss that I could no longer craft these pieces into flawless “Works of Art”, I felt intensely liberated that they had been set free from my ceaseless tinkering’. It’s this sense of liberation, both artistic and emotional, that comes to define the album. The penultimate track ‘Theme From Muddy Time’ is, lyrically, perhaps the most explicit exploration of the depression that made Monty Don’s words feel so appropriate to the musician, as he pleads to himself to ‘show some love for myself’. As if to answer that plea, the song concludes by erupting into a total euphoria of analogue synthesis, a musical catharsis so strong it seems to make sense of the 11 tracks that precede it. 

The final track ‘[a sea of thoughts behind it]’ serves as a denouement to the record. Perhaps the most purely beautiful of the instrumentals on the album, it’s a perfect, meditative final track that seems to provide both Doyle and the listener with some sense of emotional closure. Great Spans of Muddy Time can be a surprising, even perplexing listen at first. But by the end, it feels impossible to disagree with Doyle’s assertion that, with this newfound freedom in his approach to music-making, ‘for the first time in my career, the distance between what I hear and what the listener hears is paper-thin’.  

Image Credit: Paul Hudson via Wikimedia Commons/ License: CC BY 2.0

Review: “The Arnolfini Portrait” by Tamsyn Chandler

Online theatre is something most of us theatre enthusiasts have grown accustomed to in the midst of the pandemic. Despite the increase in production of audio plays, the challenge to produce a successful piece of writing for audio remains undeniably demanding. With the lack of visuals, the audience’s focus is shifted greatly onto the audio as we are called to explore the range and versatility of voice and sound. This piece of writing and its execution seem to do just that: the weighty topics addressed by Alexander (James Newbery) and Jean (Grace de Souza) are voiced with both boldness and vulnerability respectively whilst the play also cleverly employed an unnerving sound palette well suited to the tone of the writing.

The Arnolfini Portrait, written by Tamsyn Chandler, explores the past trauma of the protagonist Jean as she is confronted with her memories and hallucinations all within the walls of her local art gallery. Themes of self-realisation, healing and recovery, grief and memory were all explored with sensitivity and authenticity to the point where my observance of these provoking conversations between Alexander and Jean felt almost intrusive. The writing was simple yet profound. This, I felt gave the voice actors the license to inject emotion and their own sense of weight into each of the lines. A methodical structure outlined by the various options offered by an automated receptionist when a hotline was rung provided a sense of direction – a necessity when the audience is relying solely on audio. Any sense of a sporadic podcast was removed by this initial outlining.

The performance of Alexander (James Newbery) was unafraid and disconcertingly provoking and it is to this which I believe credit is owed. I enjoyed the menacing tone delivered by Newbery as the convincing delivery of his lines prompted the uncomfortable unveiling of Jean’s memories. Sufficient depth of character was achieved through the intonation of particular lines and sharp contrast in delivery between on-the-surface chat and the heavier lines. Newbery’s use of a slow pace in his more controversial lines was noticeable and successful in exposing the more derisive side of his character. Praise must be granted to Newbery’s diction, which allowed for a very precise, controlled delivery of complex lines – a real treat for the ears in an audio play.

The Arnolfini Portrait explores the past trauma of the protagonist Jean as she is confronted with her memories and hallucinations all within the walls of her local art gallery.

The performance of Jean (Grace de Souza) must be commended for a diverse range of delivery appropriate to the complexity of her character. Conveying a genuine sense of vulnerability and desperation in one line, De Souza was able to quickly shift to a firmer tone conveying stronger frustration, and then to a tone of deep-rooted fear through clever use of phrasing and emphasis. De Souza’s ability to adapt her tone and intonation in accordance with both the lines and temperamental mood of such a multifaceted character must be praised. The complexity of her character, however, came at a small cost as one or two lines lacked the spontaneity and thus authenticity which they were owed. I must contend, however, that this minor detail is trumped by the sheer range of emotions the actor was able to deliver successfully.

The performance highlight of the play also happened to be the writing highlight of the play for me. The line ‘‘leave me alone, but don’t let me be lonely” spoken by Jean was incredibly moving due to its raw exposing honesty in both writing and delivery. De Souza’s ability to express emotional exhaustion here at the climax was truly memorable. On a note of delivery, I must applaud both actors’ ability to seamlessly bounce off each other – Newbery’s lines had a consistent flare for provoking de Souza’s character, his lines feeding neatly into her responses. One final nod to the use of music – it aided the script beautifully. Its hypnotic character was well suited to the theme of transportation where we see Jean moved from present to past to future. The use of eerie synth to mark Jean’s hallucinations amplified the tension already established by the lines itself. All in all, The Arnolfini Portrait was an intricate, sophisticated project with a controlled yet bold execution. Every element of sound was carefully considered, and I took great satisfaction in being guided along Jean’s journey through the various mediums of sound.

Artwork by Chloe Dootson-Graube.

Review: These Quicker Elements by George Rushton

These Quicker Elements, a one-act play co-produced by Chaos X Dovetail Productions, is dedicated more to words on stage than the stage itself. With its online premiere in the early stages of post-pandemic reopening, the virtual performance is filmed against a blank backdrop of white walls and ceiling, with few props and barely discernible lighting effects. In their stead is a fragmented life story with sporadically inserted quotes, brokenly narrated by protagonist Lana (Marianne James), a young woman who has forgotten her own name and past. As she stares directly into the camera lens, anyone who projects the recording onto their bedroom wall in the dark is sure to feel overwhelmed.

The lack of interaction prescribed by the online format forbids conversation between Lana and her audience, a blockage that’s mirrored by the cited words’ failure to offer clarity on Lana’s lost life events.

The intimate medium shot of Lana in the frame achieves a level of immediacy otherwise unobtainable in theatre, where the audience sits metres away from the stage. As she presents us with a fragmented life story piece by piece, we watch her struggle with memory and seek refuge in lines from literature that divulge snippets of key events, but in their ambiguity makes the picture of her past more blurred than lucid. James’s use of tone and facial expressions is at once playful and precise, switching expertly between Lana’s confusion and excitement, between her darting eyes in anxiety and laughters in self-mockery, and thus covering the entire scope of the troubled character’s self-conflicting emotions. The camera, referred to as “glass” in the play, absorbs the character’s intense gaze and any verbalised thoughts, most of which incoherent. In return it feeds back into her reality obscure book quotes and lyric lines, which overlap with parts of her lost memory but merely at the margins, and offer no definitive answers. This sense of helplessness is further intensified as it transcends the fourth wall and gains purchase among the audience members who, finding themselves on the other side of the same mirror, stare into their screens and see Lana’s image instead of their own reflections, but at the same time know only their life stories and nothing of hers. Despite the onstage-offstage link established by reciprocal looks on opposite sides of the same looking glass, the lack of interaction prescribed by the online format forbids conversation between Lana and her audience, a blockage that’s mirrored by the cited words’ failure to offer clarity on Lana’s lost life events.

While the conceptual complexity of the play, inherent in its medium as a speech into a sometimes see-through fourth wall made of glass, and a one-way mirror at other times, might be intentional — the textual convolutions in the monologue itself may produce a level of opacity that’s unwanted. Writer George Rushton finds his inspiration in Samuel Beckett’s one-act monologue play, Krapp’s Last Tape, as well as Umberto Eco’s The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana. Both are stories of characters trying to reconstruct their lost memories with written or audible materials. This approach of “making existing stories your own” is visibly adopted in These Quicker Elements whenever Lana leans forward and tries to read something off the camera lens, but the quoted texts themselves are not all well-known and oftentimes unclear in the context of the character’s narrative. The effort required to follow the esoteric sentences from the play’s bibliography also compromises the watching experience as a whole, as the spectator’s attention span is known to be much shorter on-screen than in reality. Since virtual theatre is on an anonymous basis, an early exit is made much easier: only a matter of closing a web window, and no mental and physical strain of stooping out of the theatre before curtains. Stage materials, as a result, would need to be more digestible to keep the audience focused, if not entertained.

Image Credit: Peter Todd.

Witches, Maths and Plato: Hypatia of Alexandria

0

Mainstream study of antiquity is dominated by learning about great male scholars: for philosophy it’s Plato or Socrates, for history it’s Thucydides, and for literature it all starts with Homer. It may come as some surprise, then, that the figure often associated with the so-called death of antiquity is a woman: Hypatia of Alexandria. 

Hypatia was born around 350 AD in Alexandria, one of the world’s most renowned scholarly centres. Her father, Theon, was the last known member of the museum at Alexandria. A museum had somewhat different connotations than what we think of today, as being monuments to the past. Indeed, when Alexandria was founded by Alexander the Great, the museum at the centre of the city was set up as a location dedicated to the Muses – patron goddesses of the arts, culture, and education. Theon taught here in a position analogous to the modern professor in mathematics, astronomy, and philosophy. 

Hypatia was born into a rich scholarly tradition both due to her surroundings at Alexandria and her father’s influence. Her father tutored her from a young age, and she took full advantage of the great Library of Alexandria at the museum, which housed more than half a million scrolls full of wisdom on different subjects. 

Her city would not remain a paradisiacal centre of learning for long, however. Alexandria was conquered by Rome in 48 BC under Julius Caesar, and by 364 AD it had been assimilated into the Roman Empire. The official state religion of the empire had at this point become Christianity, and in the early days of Christianity, academia in Alexandria flourished. 

Hypatia took full advantage of this, slowly overpassing her father’s legacy. She founded the Neoplatonic school in Alexandria and tutored young men from across the empire. She integrated the teachings of Plato with mystic philosophical ideas. She believed that maths was the language of the universe, and linked her mathematical lens on the cosmos to the ordered harmony of music. Hypatia also taught her students about an indivisible source of the universe transcending the reality which we see, called the One. Aside from the mystic side to her teaching, she invented a calculator called the astrolabe – used up until the 19th century.

Hypatia was greatly respected by her male students and colleagues despite her gender, with one of her fellow philosophers, Socrates Scholasticus, commenting that ‘Neither did she feel abashed in coming to an assembly of men. For all men on account of her extraordinary dignity and virtue admired her the more.’ 

Not all of her contemporaries took a similar viewpoint, however, and political and religious tensions flaring up in the city contributed greatly towards this. Hypatia was a close friend of the governor of Alexandria: Orestes, a moderate Christian. Orestes clashed greatly with the archbishop of the city, Cyril, over their spheres of influence. Cyril wanted greater power for the institution of the church, and Orestes opposed this in favour of secular governance.  

Tensions reached a tipping point when Orestes had a man named Hierax, one of Cyril’s followers, arrested for inciting violence. Hierax had slipped into a synagogue to spy on Jewish residents of Alexandria and find evidence of an anti-Christian conspiracy. When discovered by the people in the synagogue, Hierax was reported and punished on Orestes’ orders. This enraged Cyril, who in turn ordered his zealous followers to punish the Jews. 

 As tensions between Jews and Christians, and between Cyril and Orestes increased, violence became more and more commonplace. Orestes was accused of not being Christian, and as vitriol grew an all too common motif in history was played out. A woman was scapegoated as being a witch and accused of corrupting Orestes from his faith; this woman was Hypatia. 

Popular across the city and labelled according to dichotomous standards as a Pagan witch, Hypatia’s association with Orestes was fatal. A band of zealous monks who were followers of Cyril attacked Hypatia when she was delivering a public lecture at the museum. Hypatia was dragged from her chariot to a church called the Caesareum, stripped, beaten to death with tiles and the remnants of her mutilated body were burned. 

Though she may not have viewed herself as a particularly courageous woman, Hypatia’s death shows the danger associated with being a free-thinking woman even in one of the greatest hubs of scholarship that has existed. Rarely do we get to see great examples of female scholarship from antiquity, but Hypatia certainly was one – expounding and building on the doctrines of Plato, Pythagoras, Plotinus, and forerunning many modern mathematical concepts. Her death, which cast her as a so-called pagan sorceress, gave her the role of a corrupting Clytemnetra or a vengeful Medea, but her legacy should not be defined by this. Hypatia stands as an example of the power of academia and a questioning mind to foster an environment where all, regardless of gender or religion, can join in the pursuit of learning. 

The Map to Happiness: Shrek and Saudade

0

Shrek and saudade are two things that don’t usually go together. One is a heartfelt sense of longing and nostalgia, whilst the other is a children’s film about a grumpy ogre and his misfit gang of fairytale friends. However, this week, Shrek helped me understand saudade in an unexpected way. 

Saudade was defined by Portuguese writer Manuel de Melo as “a pleasure you suffer, an ailment you enjoy.” We don’t generally associate ailments and suffering with happiness, but I can see why saudade is included in the book this column is based on. It’s a word that describes the sudden pang you get for home when you’re on holiday or the wistful feeling of flicking through old childhood photos. It’s about the joy of reminiscing, but also the bittersweet recognition that these moments don’t last. 

When I spoke to Portuguese tutor Georgia Nasseh, she explained that the awareness that nothing lasts forever is an important part of saudade. As a Brazilian living in the UK, she said she found that “it’s very much linked to the idea of home and the impermanence of things”. “Sometimes saudade isn’t something you feel after the fact, maybe you’re in a situation and the knowledge that it will come to an end already creates the feeling of saudade”. 

This, she added, is part of the appeal of carnival. “I think carnival is a really interesting phenomenon in Brazil because carnival is short. It has this sense that it’s very limited, it’s only that short period of time.” Each year millions of people across the country take to the streets for five days of drinking, dancing and just generally having a good time. The knowledge that carnival isn’t forever, Georgia explained, means that people can really let their hair down and enjoy the celebrations while they last. 

Sadly, Coronavirus meant that organising our own verison of carnival was out of the question,  but this week my household made an effort to get together for drinks in the evenings to channel the celebratory spirit. I also tried to catch up with friends I hadn’t spoken to in a while over zoom. One afternoon I met up with a friend from school and we chatted happily about disastrous dates and summer plans over a cup of coffee. I was reminded of how nice it is to touch base with people from back home, especially since Oxford can sometimes feel like a bit of a bubble. 

My household also decided that a Shrek movie night was the ultimate way to re-live our childhood experience and feel saudade. As I watched the film surrounded by friends laughing and chatting, I felt nostalgic, but also incredibly grateful for the chance to make new memories to add to old. I realised that these were the times I would treasure in future, and the words from a song Georgia had quoted came to mind. “Tristeza não tem fim / Felicidade sim”. Sadness has no end but happiness does. Moments like these wouldn’t last forever, but that just made them all the more special. 

 

Cannibal coming-of-age: Julia Ducournau’s Raw

0

Meat sweating through the pocket of a lab coat, blood dripping slowly to the floor, the sound of flesh being torn apart. Only fleeting moments in Julia Ducournau’s Raw (2016), but an accurate taste of the film’s uncompromising use of graphic horror. In the first ten minutes alone we are shown spitting, sloppy mashed potatoes, tongues, sweaty bodies, and jars of pickled animals. These descriptions were what initially turned me and many others away from watching. When confronted with such graphic and unfamiliar ways of using human flesh my gut reaction was to feel nauseous and light-headed. The idea of having to watch someone do something I have always been told is abhorrent felt so wrong to the point of producing a physical response. I have often found that, whatever I have been told I may get out of watching a graphic film is not worth the harrowing experience that I must go through to get it. Raw, however, is different. 

Raw is gross and disgusting, but it is also an important story about acceptance, about what makes us normal, and about our relationship with what we eat. Though the very idea of the film is sickening, disgust is central to the point it wants to make. Ducournau wants us to feel ill but then uses the length of the film to convert this feeling into a more productive force. It is a unique cross-genre blend of the horror and the coming-of-age drama, combining an interesting collection of ideas from both. Raw is telling what might be a familiar story about the young adult experience, but through the horrific vehicle of cannibalism – and this is what really drew me in. 

The film follows Justine, an unassuming 16-year old girl, arriving at veterinary college for her first year. On her first night she is subjected to an intense hazing ceremony that extends into a week-long induction. They are made to crawl on the floor like animals, showered with buckets of blood, and expected to worship the older years like Gods. Raw constantly surrounds Justine’s story with the story of the calculated violence of the initiations. Ducournau sets up a violence that is easy to immediately criticise as a backdrop that contextualises the story she really wants to tell. So, when Justine begins to eat raw meat, followed by her first taste of human finger, it felt justificable to me considering what she was being subjected to during her induction week. I could easily criticise the hazing, but the complex nature of Justine’s turn to cannibalism was much harder to immediately reject. This, along with the fact that I felt a huge amount of sympathy for Justine, meant that, as I sat through my first watch, the cannibalism began to feel almost normal. It seemed no different to any other monstrous taboo or dirty little secret. It was only after finishing the film that I actually noticed, despite my initial reservations, how necessary the gross stuff was. If I was so blinded by my own sympathy for Justine that I could ignore intimate scenes of human flesh being torn apart, what does that say about how I relate to Justine’s young adult experiences?

Interestingly, at the same time as cannibalism becomes more understandable to us, Justine herself is constantly suppressing these desires, actively shielding the secret from all those around her. We may be being pushed towards understanding, but Justine feels nothing but shame – in much the same way as girls are often expected to feel about their own bodies. The disgust that she feels for herself and her inability to stop wanting meat regularly extends into a physical, bodily reaction. The first time that Justine eats meat is when she is peer-pressured into it as part of the initiations. Her body goes on to reject this, shown to us through an extremely visceral (and disgusting) all-body allergic reaction. Her body’s reaction represents both the disgust she feels for herself at having eaten meat, and also her body’s literal rejection of the first attempt to blend in. Every time a piece of graphic body horror is shown,  it is cleverly used in much the same way – symbolising the changing relationships Justine has with herself, other people, and other animals. 

Some have labelled Raw as a piece of vegan propaganda, perhaps implying that quitting vegetarianism will turn you into a cannibal. Whether this is true or not, certainly Ducournau has a lot to say about our relationship with meat. Justine enters college as a vegetarian, and her feelings about animals as food are in constant focus. She also relates to the animals she works with, in many ways reflecting how she is treated as sub-human – as an animal – during the college induction rituals. When she does eat human flesh, it seems as though it is an outcome of these things, of her changing relationship with animals through how she relates to and consumes them. She begins to eat animal flesh, but then also sees herself more and more as an animal, resulting in blurred moral boundaries that mean, in her view, how is animal eating animal any different from human eating human? Ducournau weaves together these different threads, asking questions about both humanity and animality, forcing you to contemplate your own relationship with animals. 

Raw is undoubtedly a disgusting film. It uses graphic body horror in many of the flesh-eating scenes, with varying degrees of visual gore and sickening sound design. But, though gloriously grotesque, they do not cheapen the experience nor make the film unwatchable. Raw is brilliant because of how necessary these moments of the gruesome are, not despite them. The horror does not lose its power by being manipulated in unusual ways, but is in fact enhanced and expanded beyond the traditional confines of the genre to tell new stories in new ways. And it is because of these things that I, a newcomer to the world of horror, have become such a big fan of the film in such a short space of time. With that in mind, as I sit down to watch Raw for the fourth time in two weeks, I would encourage you to put aside any reservations and embrace the power of the disgusting. 

The Epic Highs and Lows of Riverdale

0

Teen dramas have been ridiculous for years. We’ve seen Chuck Bass’ dad fake his death only to fall off a roof while dramatic orchestral music plays in Gossip Girl. We’ve seen the ever-mysterious ‘A’ put five girls in a huge fake dollhouse in Pretty Little Liars. We’ve seen teenagers pray to a grilled cheese sandwich that happens to look a little bit like God in Glee. Until recently, however, we’d never seen a girl talk to her twin brother’s taxidermied corpse. We hadn’t seen a villain called the Gargoyle King kill people through a game that’s basically Dungeons and Dragons. We definitely hadn’t seen a plot about tickle porn, or organ farming. 

Riverdale is the teen drama to end all teen dramas. What started off as a fairly standard show about a teen murder mystery has evolved into essentially a parody of itself. The dialogue has to be heard to be believed, with real lines including “you can’t have any of my bodily fluids, you succubus!” No, I’m not kidding. Let’s do a quick recap – spoilers incoming, although with this show there’s no way I’ll ever be able to cover more than a brief outline so there will still be literal shocks at every corner.

Based on the Archie comics, the first series of the TV show follows a group of high school students trying to solve the death of their classmate Jason Blossom, and also looks at love triangles, teacher-student relationships, and gang clashes. Season 2 focusses on a serial killer called the Black Hood, but also features conversion therapy and fake siblings. Season 3 centres around a cult called The Farm which is revealed to be for organ donation, as well as Gryphons and Gargoyles, a deadly rip-off of Dungeons and Dragons. Season 4’s main plot is clearly based on The Secret History, about a murder plot at a rich private school, while there is also a story about a ‘voyeur’ who has been sending residents of the town videotapes of their front doors. Season 5, so far, jumps forward seven years to see the original characters trying to save their town. If it sounds like those things can’t possibly all be in the same show, that’s because they can’t. It’s impossible. And yet Riverdale does it anyway. 

Riverdale is pure chaos. None of the plot lines make sense together, and most of them are completely unrelated. The dynamics between the characters are endlessly confusing, with secret siblings and pseudo-incest galore. The dialogue, as I’ve mentioned, sounds like it absolutely can’t be real. And yet, the show is undeniably a success. It’s on it’s 5th season already, ratings are still high, the cast are all stars, and it doesn’t look like it’s stopping anytime soon. So, frankly, how? How is a show so categorically bad doing so well? Like the characters themselves, we’re going to do some investigating.

First: the genesis of Riverdale. A creation story to rival that of Adam and Eve. The way I see it, there are two key elements to Riverdale’s birth. The first, of course, is the comics. The series starts off with characters that already exist, and are quite familiar to some, and pretty much everyone under the sun has heard the song ‘Sugar, Sugar’, which is by the characters’ fictional band. There is existing lore, as such, and dynamics between characters that make sense. Familiarity is always helpful to get people to start watching a series. The second component is a person: Roberto Aguirre-Sacasas. RAS, as fans refer to him as, has a long past with the Archie/Riverdale universe: in 2003, he wrote and staged a play about the comic characters grown up, in New York, where Archie is gay and mixing with real-life serial killers. He was issued a cease and desist order by Archie Comics, but went ahead with the play anyway, just changing character names, such as making Jughead into Tapeworm and making Veronica into Monica. Yes, really. He also spent a few years writing for Glee, because of course he did. When you think about it, this creation story makes perfect sense: take iconic comic characters, combine them with a writer known for the weird and the camp, and you get Riverdale

RAS’ Glee past also explains one of Riverdale’s most random elements (okay, maybe not most random, that’s highly contested): the musical episodes. The show has now tackled Carrie, Heathers, and Hedwig and the Angry Inch, managing to squeeze an ungodly amount of songs into these 40 minute episodes. They’ve become internet-famous, but for bad reasons: half of the cast literally can’t sing. There are also random musical numbers in other episodes, and have been since the beginning: they’re a key element of the show now. A particular recent classic is the Riverdale cover of ‘Midnight Radio’ from Hedwig. It is a classic purely because it is terrible. At the same time, however, the musical episodes are some of my favourites. We’re a generation of musical theatre lovers, and it injects fun into the show, even if it also makes your ears bleed. Who doesn’t want to see a high schooler initiate a threesome in her auditorium while singing ‘Dead Girl Walking’ from Heathers, or a girl group singing ‘Milkshake’ on the literal roof of a diner? Don’t pretend you don’t. 

There is so much joy to be found in terrible art. Riverdale is, I would argue, the singular worst piece of television in the last couple of years, and yet it’s also one of my favourites. It’s impossible not to enjoy watching it. While the dialogue is unfalteringly abysmal, there does also seem to be some skill and craft going on behind the scenes. The show clutches on just about tightly enough to some semblance of plot, so the end-of-episode cliffhangers do leave you wanting to find out what happens. The character dynamics, while obviously bizarre, are easy to get invested in, especially as we’ve been following the same small group of friends for five seasons. Riverdale walks – or rather, totters – on the line between conscious satire and just poor writing in a way that’s unfailingly captivating to watch. I for one can’t wait to see what they do next – although I doubt they’ll manage to outdo the time Archie fought a bear.