Friday 15th August 2025
Blog Page 469

All Greek to Me: Why we can’t get enough of modern takes on ancient literature

0

Greek and Latin works have inspired literature throughout the ages – authors were, and still are, constantly riffing off one another, with even Virgil, writing his Aeneid during the infancy of the Roman Empire, following in the footsteps of his epic predecessor Homer. In turn, Dante employs Virgil as his own inspiration, and guide through Hell, in the Inferno, and as we move through the centuries we see the classical chain of inspiration continue to this day, with authors such as Madeline Miller, Donna Tartt and Rick Riordan using mythology and classical literature as the Muse to their own writing.

As a classicist, my choice of degree can be entirely traced back to my twelve year old self reading Rick Riordan’s Percy Jackson series for the first time. The books work as a perfect first dive into mythology, bringing in gods, goddesses, and monsters in a fun and engaging way, while also keeping close to the classical source material. The narrative includes many stories and details which are close to those associated with ancient heroes such as Odysseus, Heracles, and of course Perseus. As I then started to learn about the classical world in school, there were multiple occasions upon which we would learn about a particular hero and his deeds in class, and I would remember that Percy Jackson himself had completed much the same task. Attention to detail, then, is key, and I would even go so far as to say that they would still hold up at degree level. Furthermore, Riordan’s dedication to diversity and representation also shines through as a great virtue of his books – the characters represent a wide range of ethnicities and social backgrounds, specifically in a series based on ancient myth and tradition, a diversity which has often been markedly absent from the classical texts themselves, as well as their scholarly community. 

Traditionally, classics has been seen as a subject reserved for the “pale, male, and stale”, but it seems that this exclusive reputation might have provided motivation for authors to write their own takes on the classical myths and epic, bringing to the forefront those characters who have often been pushed to the side. Inevitably, amongst this number are inevitably a great number of female characters. Their ‘untold story’ is now given the spotlight, as in Pat Barker’s The Silence of the Girls, Emily Hauser’s For The Most Beautiful, and Margaret Atwood’s Penelopiad, where the writer gives their reader more insight into the ‘backstory’ of the women who have little or no voice in epic. It is precisely this reclaiming of the female voice through which these authors shine – both Hauser and Barker focus on the Iliadic slave-women, Chryseis and Briseis, who serve the Greek leaders in their camp. Chryseis is the catalyst of much of the conflict of the Iliad, and sparks the famously blazing anger of Achilles, yet she does not speak a single word in the whole epic, functioning merely as an object for trade among men. Hauser, however, gives her voice in describing her plight as King Agamemnon’s slave, showing the brutal reality of female servitude and experience in war, a theme present only on the periphery of the epic poems themselves.

Similarly, Ursula le Guin’s Lavinia centres on the eponymous daughter of King Latinus in the Aeneid, another silent figure whose highest personal prominence in the epic comes from her blushing upon seeing her prospective husband. The women’s stories are finally told in their own voice, a refreshing take in comparison to even the most progressive of Lit. Hum. modules, in which women often only figure as the focus of one tutorial. Atwood’s Penelope is recast from an already shadowy character in the Odyssey. While Homer gives us Penelope’s wily nature and calculating intelligence, Atwood amplifies this, showing us the more cynical side of a woman traditionally seen as the paradigm of the faithful wife (to an incredibly wayward husband). Interestingly, both Atwood and Le Guin give their protagonists a metaliterary awareness of their existence within a narrative, an active decision in framing their narrators as finally speaking their truths. Circe, a bewitching goddess from Odysseus’ travels, also shines in Madeline Miller’s 2018 novel. Once again, we get a backstory which goes further, describing Circe’s past before we come to the more familiar waters of her appearance in the Odyssey, with her expanded story made all the more striking through her liminal identity between the mortal and immortal planes of existence.

Miller’s The Song of Achilles has to take the cake, however, as my favourite novel of them all. A fresh take on the relationship between Achilles and his cousin Patroklos, as told from Patroklos’ perspective, Miller’s prose is stunningly lyrical and flows with the astuteness of Homer himself. I have read The Song of Achilles three times thus far, and the final chapters never fail to make me misty-eyed. 

For me, having read these books enhances the original Greek and Latin texts, as I come across them in my studies – to think that that twelve year old Percy Jackson fan can now read the texts which served as the inspiration for her favourite books in the original Ancient Greek is still mind-blowing to me. I have loved studying the Iliad at university in the original language, and seeing where the authors I have admired for so long got their inspiration from. I must still confess that on occasion the details from these books have gotten confused with text I am supposed to be studying in tutorials, but still these occasional slip-ups only serve to enrich the subject to me, and as a whole these books allow us to see the ancient literature from a crucially alternate perspective. I have certainly been grateful for their introduction to an often traditional and exclusive subject, as they break down ancient barriers and widen horizons for stories which have long gone unspoken, and voices which have long gone unheard.

Unelected, Unrepentant, Untouchable

0

Seeing the Daily Mail and The Guardian seemingly in agreement on a political scandal can only be described as a strange phenomenon. Yet this is exactly what Dominic Cummings’ actions – and the government’s response – appear to have achieved.

In case you somehow missed the news around Boris Johnson’s senior adviser and the subsequent fiasco (read: I envy you), the internet is full of detailed accounts. To briefly summarise, stories broke on Friday evening that Cummings had – at the end of March – driven over 250 miles from his home in London to his parents’ property in County Durham. Later that weekend reports arose that on the 12th April, his wife’s birthday, Cummings was spotted at Barnard Castle, some 30 miles from where he was staying.

As the reports came in, I couldn’t help but feel annoyed. Quickly, though, members of Johnson’s cabinet leapt to Twitter to defend the senior adviser’s actions. All echoed Number 10’s comments that Cummings had made the trip out of fear that, should both he and his then-ill wife become incapacitated by COVID-19, there would be no one to care for their child.

Whilst I’m sympathetic to a father wanting to care for his child, this raised more questions than it answered. Was there really no reasonable childcare in London? Why drive across the country when you suspect both you and your wife may have the virus, when government policy was to immediately self-isolate? Crucially, it made me think: did Cummings believe these guidelines didn’t apply to him?

Lockdown has been hard for us all. Missing the communal components of Ramadan, forgoing all the incredibly fun experiences older years said Trinity term had waiting for us, and the subduing of Eid celebrations was all tough. But, for the most part, these sacrifices were relatively easy. They were luxuries that I knew many were missing, ones I’d hopefully go back to experiencing next year.

The hardships that we didn’t expect were the real adversities. The families missing funerals, the patients dying alone in hospital, the fathers who missed births; all these people sacrificed some of the most important moments of their lives for the wider benefit of this country. For all these sacrifices, there is no ‘next year’.

One of my closest friends went through enormous hardship when he lost a parent around the same time Cummings made his trip up north. The one thing I yearned for more than anything was the option to visit him, to be there for support. But I couldn’t, the lockdown made it clear that was off the table. I cannot begin to imagine how difficult it must have been for him or the thousands of families across the country who faced similar circumstances.

What I could imagine, however, is their outrage.

Why did they have to sacrifice so much for these restrictions? Cummings’ hypocrisy, given he helped draft these rules, is not just offensive to the principles and standards we always hope to hold those in power to. In these extraordinary times, this hypocrisy is a middle-finger to the millions of Britons who kept to the regulations, despite moments of hardship, under the notion that ‘we are all in this together’. Yet, it appears, we are not. Behind the smokescreen of unity lies a dichotomy; one set of rules for them, another for us.

In a press conference on Sunday, Cummings gave his answers to many of our questions. Remember the trip where he – on his wife’s birthday – drove 30 miles, wife and child in tow, to a picturesque castle and riverside? He claimed this drive was exclusively to test his eyesight and roadworthiness before driving back to London. I could discuss how this strikes me as questionable at best, but that would miss the bigger picture.

The bigger picture pivots around the global crisis we find ourselves in. Lockdown measures have been difficult to police efficiently, and Britons have been trusted to abide by them. This trust works both ways; there’s a reason why so many cabinet ministers stood before the podium chanting the same mantra of ‘we are all in this together’. Trust in our executive is paramount.

This trust was built, in a ‘rally-round-the-flag’ type fashion, when Boris Johnson delivered clear instruction to all of us in late March. This image of a decisive, steadfast leader was one the PM had been trying to build for years.

Thus, the perception of Cummings’ trip matters, not its legality, and the majority of Britons did not see it as responsible. Musician Tim Burgess tweeted a poll asking if people agreed with Johnson saying that ‘most people would accept and agree’ with Cummings’ actions. The result? 92% ‘No’, with over 360,000 votes cast.

This blow to public perception came as the ‘rally-round-the-flag’ effect had already been fading, as perception of the government’s handling of the crisis waned, and that trust slowly faltered.

By May, the UK was revealed to be the second-worst hit country for COVID-19 deaths, topped only by a nation of five times the population and led by a man who implied his citizens could ingest bleach to kill the virus. Johnson’s new ‘Stay Alert’ slogan had been shunned by the other home nations, leading some to title him as the ‘Prime Minister of England’ and not a supposedly United Kingdom. The PM’s approval ratings were already dwindling before he announced Cummings was to stay.

The net effect of keeping Cummings is a dangerous one. If the British see their government as treating them with contempt, the public will start giving lockdown similar treatment. Stephen Reicher of the government’s advisory group on behavioural science (SPI-B) commented that, by backing Cummings, Johnson had ‘trashed all advice… on how to build trust and secure adherence to’ the lockdown.

It’s not hard to see why the PM is frightened to let go of his senior adviser, even if he should. Dominic Cummings is arguably responsible for paving Boris Johnson’s path to premiership, with 2016’s Vote Leave campaign bringing Johnson back to front-line politics, and his help ever since leaving the PM indebted.

I disagree with Cummings’ actions, but it’s hard to refute the man’s competence. As the same cannot be said for the Cabinet, the Prime Minister is unlikely to let go of him without a fight. Make no mistake, if Johnson wishes to salvage a vestige of trust with the British public then Cummings must go. Yet with Johnson held firmly by the balls, Cummings may well be untouchable.

Review: The Globe’s Macbeth

Touted as one of their ‘relaxed performances’, the Globe’s Macbeth seeks to “break down walls to cultural access and empower teenagers to develop their creative curiosity”. At a juncture where many of us are reconsidering the platforms and media employed in theatrical staging, this take on the play contributes to a highly contemporary conversation. We can overstate the democratic potential of the online availability of theatre productions. Yet, combined as this production is with an audio-described version and guides to the performance (also available online), and various provisions for barriers to viewing the performance live, there arise at this moment new avenues for exploration. As we are all confined to our homes, we can perhaps become a little more attuned to the possibilities for widening cultural access.

Though Cressida Brown’s Macbeth is pitched to a younger audience, it remains disturbing viewing for all ages. At the play’s opening, the scene is set with a stack of corpses; as a figure clad in rags mounts the putrefied pile and gnaws at fruit from the wreckage, we are accosted with an uncomfortably humanising depiction of the first weird sister. As a scavenger, who also acquires the “pilot’s thumb” by ravaging his body with her teeth, the supernatural figure is not so removed from the material needs of those in the human realm. In this, she alludes to the cannibalistic predation and gory projects of survival which haunts the scenes to come.

Generally, the production relies on minimal staging – in an effort, perhaps, to encourage younger audiences to engage with the intricate psychological spaces opened up in the dialogue. Visual cues, however, helpfully flag changing allegiances, notably in Scottish and English insignia, posters which name Macbeth a tyrant, and some strategically placed helium balloons. In the first Act, King Duncan holds a party celebrating the military victories of Macbeth and Banquo, for which the set is adorned with balloons which read ‘congrats’; in the disarray of the party’s aftermath, ‘rats’ remains the header emblazoned across the subsequent scene, in which Lady Macbeth impels her husband to murderous action. The ‘rats’ are hidden, after all, in plain sight, prophesied from the outset.

The cast at large appear in various shades of Scottish blue, which on the pregnant Lady Macbeth acquires a particularly Madonna-like quality. Without wishing to labour the pun, this unborn child offers a fruitful addition. The visible bump, protruding through a boiler suit and combined with the lady’s hardy boots signpost corrupted femininity: this is the belly Lady Macbeth cradles as she calls on the fates to “unsex me now” and indeed when she professes the casual indifference with which she would dash out the brains of “the babe that milks me”. There is a measure of artistic license, certainly, but as Act IV reveals that Macbeth is childless, there is some implication of a lost child in Shakespeare’s text which drives much of the abortive action. Equally, of course, this pregnant figure attends to Macbeth’s infantilization at the mercy of his wife.

Famously the shortest of Shakespeare’s tragedies, Macbeth is here marginally abridged for a 90-minute performance. The result is pithy, maintaining the key action and driving imagery. There is perhaps one regrettable omission: the porter’s scene. True, the production maintains the comic interlude: the porter stumbles on, casts himself as hell’s gatekeeper, and conjectures on what manner of devil may be knocking. With the inclusion of a more readily intelligible knock-knock joke—coupled with an intertextual reference to Hamlet, at that—the scene remains the sole comedic punctuation of the play. But, in this edit, we also miss the play’s most explicit take on equivocation, a major theme throughout, complementing the witches’ ambiguous apparitions and Macbeth’s uncertain loyalties, not to mention the fact that the drunken porter may know more than he lets on. Oversimplification, however, is no major fault in this production. In all, the Globe’s more accessible Macbeth does justice to its legacy: it is simple, yet effective.

The Globe is actively encouraging donations from its audience, as it has warned it may not survive the financial impact of the global pandemic.

“I don’t want realism, I want magic”: NT Live’s A Streetcar Named Desire

“Don’t you just love these long rainy afternoons […] when an hour isn’t just an hour—but a whole little piece of eternity dropped into your hands—and who knows what to do with it?”

As the nationwide lockdown drags on, this oft-quoted line from A Streetcar Named Desire has taken on a new painful resonance for many of us. If, however, you do find yourself with a long rainy afternoon to spare this week, watching Benedict Andrews’ fantastic adaptation of Tennessee Williams’ most famous play will make an hour feel like a minute and a day all at once.

Gillian Anderson gives the performance of her career as the fading Southern Belle Blanche DuBois, who seeks refuge from the collapse of her family estate in the cramped New Orleans apartment of her sister Stella (Vanessa Kirby). In the events that ensue, the conflict between the romantic delusions of America’s moribund Southern past and the unapologetic realism of its burgeoning capitalist culture takes on an all-too-human dimension, as the already fragile Blanche becomes locked in a bitter confrontation with Stella’s no-nonsense, blue-collar husband Stanley Kowalski (Ben Foster).

The four walls of this claustrophobic, sparsely furnished space are completely stripped away in this National Theatre production, set upon a slowly-revolving platform that leaves both audience and cast with nowhere to hide as temperatures rise, pressures build and initial tensions spiral into explosive violence with devastating consequences.

Anderson’s dazzling portrayal of Blanche is worlds away from Vivian Leigh’s. Utterly vulnerable and yet brazenly fierce and sensual, she resists her descent into insanity until the play’s (very) bitter end. The raw humanity and nuanced complexity Anderson brings to the role leaves you vacillating between deep dislike and profound sympathy for the play’s duration.

The mere presence of Foster’s Stanley is suffocating. Rough around the edges and dripping with sex appeal, if his electric chemistry with Kirby isn’t enough to take your breath away, the almost animal brutishness he displays in his numerous violent outbursts most definitely will. He too taps masterfully into his character’s more vulnerable side, unveiling the suppressed insecurity that lies behind the macho posturing and his hell-bent desire to uncover the truth of Blanche’s elusive past.

Kirby slips perfectly into the role of the conflicted Stella, exploring the toxic interplay between sex and abuse that shapes her marriage, whilst Corey Johnson’s Mitch offers us moments of much-needed light relief from the otherwise unrelenting tension. For a play where little actually ‘happens’, the pace is dizzyingly intense. We, like Blanche, feel as though we are on a streetcar hurtling headlong toward disaster.

Alex Baranowski’s chillingly haunting score complements the action beautifully from start to finish. As the lights go down steamy jazz and blues permeate the set, immersing the audience in the sensuous atmosphere of Elysian Fields. As time passes and Blanche’s demons draw ever nearer, the increasingly dissonant sounds of the varsouviana work perfectly to externalise her psychological deterioration. The addition of songs such as Chris Isaac’s Wicked Game and Cat Power’s Troubled Waters are equally well-chosen, serving as fitting emotional punctuation between the play’s eleven lengthy scenes.

These elements come together with powerful force on stage, turning the Young Vic (or in this case your living room) into a pressure cooker of lust, brutality, delusion and desperation. By the time the three-hour production reaches its tragic finale, you are left disorientated, emotionally shattered and mildly motion-sick. When you see it for yourself, you will understand why Anderson found herself “hanging onto reality by a thread” by the end of its run.

This critically-acclaimed adaptation remains the Young Vic’s fastest-selling production for good reason. And, thanks to the National Theatre, the live stream is free for all to view on YouTube until May 28th. In Blanche’s famous final line, she admits she has “always depended on the kindness of strangers”, and we too should be grateful to those at NT Live for providing us with such fantastic theatre in these trying times.

Being True to the Book

Adapting books for the stage or screen seems to be completely irresistible. We are compelled to take words on a page and transform them into a visual, tangible form; it is so common that it is an unsaid assumption and expectation that an acclaimed book will be adapted. By watching, we agree to abandon our own imaginations – our private, personal visions of and connections with the book – for a couple of hours, in order to take part in this shared experience of someone else’s. We excitedly accept the invitation, out of curiosity: what will the story be like when the characters are physically there before our eyes? Will it match our vision of it? And, crucially, will anything be different?

These questions were running through my head when I watched the trailer for the TV adaption of Sally Rooney’s Normal People and then waited with eager anticipation for it to appear on BBC iPlayer. I was happy that it had been adapted, that I was being offered more from a book that I loved. But why did I need more? What Sally Rooney wrote is far from unsatisfying, but evidently what we are still left with is a desire to see it taken further and an urge to do so.

Original novels are often adapted to do just this: to further explore their meaning, sometimes to push their apparent boundaries or conclusions. Yet the most common compliment of an adaption is “it’s true to the book”. Candice Carty Williams wrote that the Normal People adaption is “sublime”, that, despite her biggest fears, it did the book justice and did not disappoint because Rooney herself wrote the script. Most people I know feel the same way. The lingering shots and slow pace do capture the intensity of the novel and the sense of Rooney’s intimate, evocative sort of writing.But as I watched the first episode, I couldn’t stop thinking about Rooney’s original writing. About how it creates a particularly intimate relationship between the reader and the characters, and therefore the reader and writer. It has such a strong impact on the reader’s mind and holds a profound, personal place there. So I wondered how this connection could possibly survive when a director, and then actors, and then a screen, were placed in between.

Maintaining this connection is the challenge with taking original writing and reimagining it on stage or screen. All the questions of how to interpret it, what to do with the script, how much freedom to give actors, how faithful to be to the original and how to make it good, can often be resolved by answering one: what will make the audience connect with it? The key to a successful adaption might be this simple. But achieving it isn’t. Different people connect with different stories, and likewise people’s reactions to adaptions vary so wildly – according to connection, as well as taste – that it seems that whichever approach is taken, there will be criticism.

Whilst “it’s true to the book” appears to be the most flattering reaction, often audiences actually seek something new. Innovative or experimental plays, with a “fresh approach”, are often the most highly celebrated. This tends to be the case with texts that have been adapted over and over again, with directors all wanting to have their say in interpretation: the most distinct adaptions are the best. They are often more engaging and enjoyable, tearing away from nostalgic expectations of the original.Though it was actually written for the stage, Hamlet is a perfect example of this. It has obsessed directors and actors and seen countless adaptions, no doubt with plenty more to come. Classics like Jane Eyre, Frankenstein and an endless list of others have been reimagined innumerable times. We keep on doing it and keep on watching them, because it is guaranteed that each one will be different, at least subtly.

Robert Icke is a theatre director known for reworking classics and adapting them to modern times. His production of Hamlet stood out as ‘good’ and ‘successful’ because it took the original and explored its most captivating ideas in a novel way. If he had stuck rigorously to the text it would not have shocked or amazed. And isn’t this how we should feel as an audience?And then there is the question of accessibility. Perhaps the most important of them all. Transferring books to TV, film or theatre means some of the best stories ever written can be told to more people. Literacy levels vary, as do preferences and interests. Not everyone loves books, not everyone loves films. And not everyone – in fact, only a small minority – can afford sky-high theatre prices.

So, adaptions make stories more widely accessible, present and prevalent in our culture. Important, marginalised, intelligent and funny voices, and stories that need to be told and heard, are given a bigger and better platform through adaptions. The question of why we adapt original books and what makes a successful adaption can perhaps be answered by questioning why we write and tell stories: to share, to entertain, to educate, to express and explore the human experience so that others may understand or feel less alone, to give a voice to the voiceless.

We all deserve to enjoy and benefit from these things, in whatever form the story takes, and through a variety of experiences. And we deserve to have the choice, to have an option. Adaptions liberate us and expose us to more. They allow us to be faced with 1,900-page classic novels and have the delightful alternatives of a West End production or a film: I really don’t know of anyone who, given the choice, wouldn’t opt for settling down in front of the screen or stage.

Live Album Review: Vulfpeck at Madison Square Garden

0

Madison Square Garden, NY, late 2019. A packed house. We see a stage, empty save for Woody Goss at the keys and a lone clarinetist serenading us with an exotic melody. Cheering erupts as band leader Jack Stratton emerges, crawling onto the stage and putting on a show of immense physical effort. Eventually, he leaps to his feet as Goss launches into ‘Tee Time’: ‘Ladies and babies, big children, little children, even the gentlemen, every single one of them – are you ready for tonight’s show of the Vulfpeck?’ Each band member is introduced in turn and runs onstage to wild enthusiasm from the audience. ‘No Xanax! No beta blockers! Fully adrenalised! Everything 20 per cent faster tonight! Are you ready?!’

       Released in December 2019 as both a live album and a YouTube video, the Madison Square Garden live show was the culmination of a buildup of nearly a decade of cult-like enthusiasm surrounding the funk band. Vulfpeck – an imagined German equivalent of the classic American rhythm sections of the 1960s and ‘70s, like the Funk Brothers and the Wrecking Crew – emerged in 2011, formed by Stratton and some friends from the University of Michigan. The premise is bizarre, yes, but bear with me. Not only is the band invested in a wacky quasi-alter ego of itself, this is abundantly backed up by genuinely astonishing musicianship, with several band members switching freely between instruments, and fan favourite Joe Dart producing bass solo after incredible bass solo (find the track ‘Beastly’ on YouTube for more of this).

       ‘Theo, kick that drum!’ The band launches into a raucous performance of the joyous and high-energy ‘Animal Spirits’, from 2016’s The Beautiful Game. From there, we are treated to a medley of some of the tightest funk imaginable (‘Cory Wong’ / ‘My First Car’ / ‘Tesla’), performed with truly unacceptable levels of groove. As the last note of this glorious melange sounds, Stratton turns to the audience: ‘Now there’s a lot of over-stimulation, a lot of loud noises. We’re getting worked up into a silly excitement. But we wanna ground ourselves. This isn’t typical but it’s… it’s becoming faddish.’ He proceeds to get his mum on stage to lead 14,000 obliging concertgoers in a slightly tongue-in-cheek ‘arena breath-work meditation’.

       And this is another aspect of the band’s appeal. The whole operation is self-contained; Vulfpeck have made waves of their own success as a self-run band with no management or major label behind them. They started out recording YouTube videos in a basement in Ann Arbor – and, in a way that beautifully symbolises the band’s homegrown quality, they had their set designer drive the furniture from that Michigan basement to New York and reconstructed the room on stage, with various band members taking the opportunity to recline on it throughout the show.

       The show now hits its soul-infused stride, featuring vocals from Joey Dosik and Charles Jones (on the heart-rending ‘Running Away’ and ‘Baby I Don’t Know Oh Oh’), and frequent collaborator Antwaun Stanley (on the unbelievably energising ‘1612’, ‘Funky Duck’, and ‘Aunt Leslie’). Now, Stratton begins to pace the stage, delivering a speech in his quasi-persona of the ‘founder of Vulf Records’; ‘I am a shepherd of greatness. […] Some say polymath, some say dilettante. I specialise in everything. I get Tony Robbins results at TJ Maxx prices.’ He goes on to recount the story of the band, as a ‘group of young mountaineers [who] set out on a trail, a treacherous path, with no rope—no label, no management’, and who had triumphantly ascended the summit of ‘Mount Madison Square Garden’. Even conveyed through the eccentric persona, it’s inspiring stuff.

       Honestly, I can’t think of a more charismatic, yet sincere, group of musicians; each member has their own engaging charm: Stratton, the ‘shepherd of greatness’; Dart, the sunglasses-clad bass virtuoso; Katzman, the feel-good showman; Goss, the buttoned-up piano man; Wong, the funky, energetic guitarist. The songs oscillate between straight-up funk (‘Beastly’ and ‘Cory Wong’), indulgent soul set-pieces (‘Running Away’ and ‘Wait for the Moment), and a kind of Vulfpeck-brand synthesis of pop, funk, and soul (‘1612’, ’Back Pocket’, and ‘Christmas In L.A.’), where the band really finds its voice. There is something slightly, and knowingly, silly about the concept. But this obvious joyousness and fun is what makes Vulfpeck endearing. It’s infectious, energising. All the eccentricities of the group can seem alienating at first – I know they did for me – but this is a band you have to take on its own terms. The wonderful thing is that everyone is invited to be in on the joke.

Debate: Is banning books ever justified?

The Case For Edward McLaren

The case for banning certain works of fiction is often understated. While we like to pretend immoral books that focus on the ‘real world’ are the only ones that can distort the mindsets of their readers, this is not so. All literature deigns for us to indulge in the author’s impression of reality, not reality itself. This goes for fiction more than the core volumes of radical ideologies. To be convinced of a system from a text depends on one’s ability to suspend his disbelief; to attribute the representation of reality to one’s own experience of reality. It is rarely the statistics that are remembered by those who read the volumes I have alluded to, but the rhetoric.

What is so pernicious about fictional works that engage in the same radical dialogues is the expectation that, because they are about a different world, they can have no impact on our own. We are sceptics towards the rhetorical aspects of political works because we take the genre seriously. They profess to be detached judgements of life and lifestyle. In comparison, their literary equivalents, which are just rhetoric, by-pass our sensibilities. We do not notice the unconscious effect which their conceits have on our ideas precisely because we view them as unreal. If a reader in the 1920s who did not consider himself an Anti-Semite read Eliot’s description of a Jewish person, without the rest of T.S. Eliot’s poem to couch it in euphemism and fantasy, he would be appalled. And yet, once placed in a fictional context, these sentiments would probably be justified by that same reader.

Christopher Ricks’ T.S. Eliot and Prejudice is a damning indictment of the poisonous effect which literature can have on our minds, such that some critics continue to justify the needless bigotry in this and other works by the same author. How much of an impact such similar works had on the rise of Oswald Mosley, and others like him throughout Europe in the 1930s, is unquantifiable. But that literature itself may have a lasting and permanent psychological effect on its readers is proven by history, old and new.

Admirers of Goethe will know all too well of the supposed impact of his novel, The Sufferings of Young Werther. Published in 1774, it told the story of a man’s romantic failure eventually leading to his suicide by gunshot. This is rather a reductive description, and yet it anticipates what came after its runaway success. It started the phenomenon of ‘Werther Fever’, which inspired men of the protagonist’s age and likeness to dress in his clothing style, wear his perfume, and, reportedly, imitate his death. According to Patrick Devitt, a writer on suicide contagion, the book was commonly discovered by the bodies of those who chose to take their own lives. While Rüdiger Safranski dismissed the effect ‘as only a persistent rumour’, the ruling of Leipzig authorities to ban the Werther clothing style still shows the extent of the anxiety created by its distribution.

I should not have to explain the parallels between these occurrences and those attributed to a certain Netflix broadcast. I will just posit this: if individuals relying on censors and printing presses in the 18th century were wrought to mania, public and private, by one literary volume, what goes for the 21st century – where all is permitted and nothing is true? Surely we need to control literature once in a while, whether it be to dilute the influence of extremists, or preserve the wellbeing of the vulnerable.

The Case Against Annabel Rogers

Is it ever right to ban a book?

The short answer – no.

The long answer – who are you to decide?

When someone says the phrase ‘banned book’, the first one that probably comes to mind is D.H. Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover. (Don’t pretend you haven’t seen it in a charity shop and flicked through with gleeful curiosity to find the ‘naughty’ parts.) However, it was never actually banned in the UK. It was the subject of an obscenity trial in 1960, which its publisher, Penguin Books, won. They promptly went on to sell over three million copies of it. Its newfound scandalous reputation can’t have injured its sales – ‘any publicity is good publicity’, or so they say. The supposedly salacious parts – which caused the chief prosecutor, ludicrously out of touch, to ask if it was the kind of book “you would wish your wife or servants to read” – are not all that shocking today. Times have changed since then. The nature of obscenity has changed since then – and continues to change. Yet it will no doubt always be a concept within society. The teaching of evolution is, after all, still prohibited in many American schools – a fact that seems laughable to many of us, but a humourless reality to others. Those responsible for banning it perceive their own truth as the right one, and anything that deviates from it as bannable.

But that’s different, you might argue, if you have a modern bannable text in mind. They’re wrong.

Whether they’re wrong or not, how is one case differentiated from another when it comes to book bans? Proponents of the book ban cite different reasons for different texts – offensive language, sexual content, violence, political influence, to name but a few. The basic assumption behind all of these arguments is that art has a direct impact upon life; that immoral behaviour read about in a book will induce immoral behaviour in real life; that a scathing criticism of authoritarianism thinly hidden behind the veil of fiction will stir up revolutionary feeling in its reader – and that is not necessarily untrue. Reading makes us feel things, which is why we enjoy it so much. But they are just feelings. We cannot be compelled to act on them, brainwashed by a piece of literature. That’s not how it works.

The real issue at hand is one of knowledge. Books are vessels for knowledge. So the notion of a book ban implies that there are things that the general public should not be exposed to, that they might find in a book. This argument starts off harmless enough: protecting children from profanity, or preventing imitable behaviours being seen as acceptable. This was the motivation behind banning Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita, of course – within it there is no explicit condemnation of its notorious subject matter. It was turned down for publication by no less than five different major publishers. It was only accepted by someone who – unknown to Nabokov – had sympathy with the book’s despicable protagonist, and made no real distinction between him and its author. Its publication history is questionable, make no mistake. The presentation of its subject matter could be seen as tacit approval, simply because there is no explicit condemnation. But to ban it for this reason is to believe that one book has the power to erase its readers’ moral compasses entirely, and to shape them in its image. While many a writer would probably like you to think that, it is very much not the case. The highest power Lolita holds is to encourage those who already endorse it – and this is indeed a problem. Yet this is not a problem that will be solved by a ban. Ban Lolita because it hasn’t condemned the abuse enough – fine. What next? Where do you draw the line between approval and condemnation? Can a book be neutral, or must it always preach a moral message? Will this continue until all we are left with is a literature enforcing the ten commandments, varying only in the synonyms chosen to express them? It’s a slippery slope, littered with the corpses of masterpieces.

Dangerous books require trigger warnings, much as a news report might require an epilepsy warning. This should not be up for debate. However, to shut out avenues of thought and knowledge, which sometimes are the basis for entire branches of culture, by banning them entirely is reductive and short-sighted. The most hateful, damaging document today is just that – a document – and it will provide a window for those looking back in the future.

There is an argument that reading books about immoral things actually nurtures our own morality. We read about something reprehensible and we are one degree removed from it, unlike if we were to experience this thing in real life. ‘Immoral’ books that do not have a moral slant are test-cases, almost. They allow us to have experiences in a vacuum, into which our pre-existing moral ideas come rushing in. We can examine our own biases in the face of moral atrocity and come out wiser, better.

Literature is important, and there is a reason the image of burning books makes our skin crawl. Books are morsels of ideas, fragments of knowledge and history and personality. The ghost of a cultural moment is contained within each one. To ban a book is to kill an idea, and that’s as immoral as any murderous literary content.

The participants in the debate do not necessarily hold the positions for which they argue.

And the winner is…? International Booker Prize postponed as book sales slump

0

“Restlessness gives wings to the imagination”.

Maurice Gilliams

Dutch author Marieke Lucas Rijneveld chose this epigraph to preface their debut novel, ‘The Discomfort of Evening’, long before Coronavirus demanded a state of restlessness worldwide. Now, the quotation takes on a hopeful and poignant quality, speaking to the many acts of creativity that have been borne from lock-down. But for Rijneveld and the other five authors shortlisted for this year’s International Booker Prize, this period has been rendered more febrile with the news that the announcement of the prize-winner will be postponed indefinitely.

The International Booker prize awards £50,000 for the best novel translated into English, which is shared equally between author and translator. The winner was due to be announced on 19th May, following the announcement of the shortlist on 2nd April. Organisers made the decision to delay the award after publishers and booksellers emphasised the unprecedented difficulties posed by Covid-19 to the sales and distribution of the shortlisted novels. A new date has not been given for the announcement of the winner, but it is likely to take place later in the year. 

Marieke Lucas Rijneveld’s ‘The Discomfort of Evening’ stands out as the only debut novel on the shortlist. At 28 years-old, Rijneveld, who uses the pronouns they/them, is one of the youngest authors ever to be shortlisted for a Booker prize, beaten only by Daisy Johnson, who was just 27 when her novel ‘Everything Under’ was nominated for the Man Booker Prize in 2018. Rijneveld’s debut tells the story of an intensely religious Dutch dairy-farming family, whose lives are fractured after one of their sons dies in an ice-skating accident. The narrative premise holds a striking parallel with the author’s own life; Rijneveld’s older brother died after being hit by a bus when he was 12-years-old. 

The novel is narrated through Jas, the middle child, and is quick to establish the unsettling mixture of childish innocence and profound psychological trauma that characterises the rest of the book. It opens with Jas feeling jealous of her older brother, Matthies, who sets off to go ice-skating with local children, somewhere too dangerous for the young Jas to join them. Simultaneously, Jas suspects that her father wants to serve her pet rabbit for Christmas dinner in a week’s time. Before bed that night, Jas adds a flippant prayer to her usual repertoire, asking for her rabbit’s life to be saved in place of Matthies’. The following morning, a doctor returns Matthies’ dead body to the family home. 

Rijneveld’s simple and candid tone, translated into English by Michele Hutchison, masterfully captures the interiority of a child’s mind, particularly the freedom of imaginative association that comes with youth — the warts on a toad’s back are like the ‘capers’ found in the kitchen of Jas’s mother, for example. But the authenticity of this innocent narrative voice takes on an increasingly uncanny quality as it is forced to confront the family’s trauma. In one vivid moment, Jas recalls a schoolteacher recommending that students push drawing pins into a map of the world, choosing the places they’d most like to go; Jas desires to escape the distressing world she finds herself in by folding up inside herself and disappearing, so she decides to push a drawing pin into her own belly-button. The wound becomes progressively more infected as the novel continues, serving as a gruesome marker of the passing of time.

Tactility is a major concern of the novel, allowing Rijneveldt to showcase their notable talent for transposing sensory experience into language. This starts as something innocuous and child-like, such as Jas’ experience of holding the decorative Christmas angels that lie around the house, or the feeling of sticking her fingers into the soft cheese that her mother makes from the farm’s dairy cows. It soon acquires a more sinister quality after Matthies’ death; Jas touches her dead brother’s eyelids, sensing the tissue paper that the mortician put behind them to paste them shut. In more sensitive moments, Jas mourns the loss of physical affection from her parents; she positions herself in the way of her mother in the kitchen in the hope that her mother might accidentally brush past her — the children have not been hugged or touched by their parents since the death. 

With their parents preoccupied by a potent mixture of extreme grief and religious guilt, each of the surviving children develop unsettling compulsions and obsessions. Jas refuses to take off her coat for months on end and starts to hoard a variety of objects in her pockets. Her older brother, Obbe, repeatedly bangs his head against the wall at night. These troubling behaviours are intensified by the backdrop of the family’s extreme evangelism — Matthies’ chair at the family dining table is kept untouched in its place as they anticipate his return at the Second Coming. Indeed, because the death occurs so early-on in the book, the reader finds herself questioning whether the children’s morbid behaviours were caused by this immediate trauma or were already established by their intensely stifling family dynamic. Death continues to follow the family even after the tragic accident; Obbe drowns his pet hamster in front of his sisters in a perturbed mirroring of their brother’s death, and the dairy-farm is blighted by foot-and-mouth disease (the book is set in the years after the millennium, when there were numerous outbreaks of the infection). 

This is a disturbing and unsettling read that is certainly not for the faint-hearted, but its vivid and gruesome components are in no way gratuitous. There are elements that may sit too uncomfortably with some readers, particularly its treatment of Jas learning about the Holocaust at school through her childish mind, and other visceral depictions of bodily orifices being penetrated by fingers and farm tools (Jas’ father tries to treat her constipation in a rather violent way, and later there is some difficulty with a cow and an artificial insemination device). But Rijneveld possesses a singular talent for narrating the abrasive, distressing and unnerving elements of extreme trauma when experienced through young minds. Already a bestseller in the Netherlands, ‘The Discomfort of Evening’ is a confident and provocative debut that undoubtedly deserves its spot on the International Booker Prize shortlist, if not the top-prize itself. 

‘Don’t Walk Away in Silence’: Ian Curtis Remembered

0

Monday 18th May marked forty years since Ian Curtis, the lead singer of Joy Division, took his own life by hanging himself in his kitchen using a washing line in the early hours of the morning. A quiet, scholarly boy from Macclesfield with keen interests in philosophy and poetry eventually became one of the most enigmatic figures to have made his mark on the post-punk scene in the late 1970s—and one of the most tragic.

Curtis was the archetypal “troubled soul”, plagued by mental and physical health issues. Diagnosed with epilepsy the same year that Joy Division’s debut album Unknown Pleasures (you know, the one on all the T-shirts) was released, his condition gradually worsened, coupled with depression, drug abuse and marital woes. Those who knew him describe him as a deeply contradictory figure—good-natured and friendly, but erratic and aggressive after a few drinks; a sensitive artist who championed bohemian ideas and at the same time a staunch Tory; a loving husband and father who embarked on an affair with Belgian journalist Annik Honoré. Who Curtis was as a man is shrouded in mystery, to fans and friends alike. He died before he had a chance to truly shine as an artist—just days before the band’s first North American tour was due to start. Curtis was never an especially big name at the height of his success—only in death could he become the cultural icon that he is today.

“Listening to Closer, you think, fucking hell, how did I miss this?” Stephen Morris, Joy Division’s drummer, remarked in an interview with the Independent to mark the fortieth anniversary of Curtis’ death. He has a point—Joy Division’s second album is saturated with imagery of disillusionment, isolation and anguish, and so through his songwriting, Curtis gave the listener a glimpse into his own deeply troubled mind. Knowing that the album was written in the immediate run-up to his suicide is, quite simply, chilling. Beneath frenetic, moody melodies lie the innermost thoughts of a man plagued by ill physical and mental health, creating a unique sense of manic melancholy that defined Joy Division’s music. He was one of many to have redirected the course of alternative British music, shifting this sense of undiluted contempt away from the establishment to mankind—and, often, himself. Of all of Joy Division’s releases, their 1980 single ‘Atmosphere’—released just two months before Curtis’ death, is among the most strikingly poignant. The line ‘People like you find it easy’ serves as a haunting reminder of how Curtis was gradually consumed by his health problems and yet suffered in silence as those who knew him struggled to understand what he was fighting. The signs were all there, and yet, at the same time they were not. He went to great lengths to hide his various conditions as much as he could, and his bandmates remember him as sound of mind until the weeks preceding his death. An incredibly young, unruly band on the precipice of international success were largely oblivious to the struggles of their lead singer until it was too late. 

It’s difficult to listen to Joy Division’s work today without looking at it retrospectively through the lens of Curtis’ untimely death. Curtis’ Macclesfield home and burial site have since become a site of pilgrimage for fans, à la the Dakota Building in New York or the Père Lachaise Cemetery in Paris. But we cannot fall into the trap of deifying him as many have before with Lennon or Morrison. What set him aside from others is the unashamed, raw humanity that seeps through his lyrics. Without proclaiming himself to be a martyr, Curtis made no effort to conceal the demons that constantly haunted him. His music laid his trials and tribulations bare to listeners, a constant cry for help that fell upon deaf ears. Dead at the age of just twenty-three, Curtis did not even make it into the infamous ‘27 Club’ of tragically young ‘dead rock stars’—nor did he quite reach the status of ‘rock star’ in his lifetime. He was certainly no saint, nor should he be remembered as one—but his death marked the loss of one of the greatest talents of the past century, a life cut tragically short.

The New Music Celebrity

0

The glossy pages of the likes of NME and Rolling Stone were pored over by music aficionados in the past, hoping for a snippet of the intent of their hero’s use of a 5/4 time hi-hat on Track 6. Those unwrinkled pages were very much the landscape of music journalism in the past: a smooth grassland of domineering publications with any disturbance being minute, in the form of a fanzine or otherwise. It was a time in which scathing remarks and low ratings were very much part and parcel of music reviewing. So much so that Rolling Stone re-reviews now-beloved albums that they gave on initial release a mixed to poor review. Although these giants have wielded weighty words, many music fans approach traditional publications with scepticism and derision.

Circulation remained afloat nevertheless, with magazines fighting for exclusive interviews and photoshoots with the same musicians that they may have dismissed years earlier. Huge artists were part of a pantheon, defined by their myths and legends, and only music journalists had the authority to poke holes.

With the arrival of the World Wide Web in the early ’90s however, the internet became the meteor to wipe out the dinosaur publications. All of a sudden, fanzine (a portmanteau of fan and magazine) creators with no background in professional publishing could create blogs online dedicated to the independent music scene—crucially, with a guaranteed readership. Blogs shifted the focus away from glorifying the larger-than-life rock stars to profiling up-and-comers still playing the pub circuit. ‘Pitchfork’, now owned by Condé Nast, is heralded as a bastion of music reviewing, but it started out as a humble Chicago-based online music magazine. No longer did circulation and sales matter, but rather clicks and hits.

In an era of instant, anytime, anywhere media, video music journalism has undoubtedly become the hivemind of the internet music community. One of the early pioneers of D.I.Y videos is the eclectic, offbeat Nardwaur. The self-proclaimed ‘Human Serviette’, his work dates back as early as 1985, interviewing the likes of Courtney Love back in the heyday of ‘Hole’, and most recently interviewing industry it-girl Billie Eilish. Donning a tam o’shanter and a scarily encyclopaedic knowledge of the artist at hand, his charmingly bizarre interview style is enough to knock back any PR-curated facade. Even the previously-mentioned Pitchfork have capitalised on the visual media market, with video essays and even interviews where artists breakdown their creative process, all with a technical focus.

To talk about internet music journalism without mentioning Anthony Fantano would be impossible. His YouTube channel ‘theneedledrop’ has amassed over 2 million subscribers as of the writing of this article, and his influence has no signs of halting in the near future. ‘The internet’s busiest music nerd’ is famous for his album review videos, rounding off with a final score out of ten. This flagship content is interspersed with takes on industry news and, in the past, meme reviews The overwhelming appeal of Fantano may appear baffling to outsiders; there are few, if any, examples in history where a music critic has a clamouring fanbase magnitudes larger than many of the artists he reports on. It seems he has the perfect balance of sincerity and amusement; packaging compelling analysis in a wrapping of internet humour and distinct channel branding.

These online personalities have created enormous followings, and they have somehow become the new music celebrity. In an era where artists are more accessible than ever (see the multitude of Instagram lives during quarantine!), there is less need for journalists to brawl for the latest scoops when many artists are open to talking about their lives through social media. Nardwuar and Fantano, on the other hand, remain elusive to their fans, with appearances outside of their own content rare, which keeps interest and speculation rolling.

Nonetheless, the fixation with someone like Fantano’s music criticism can be inhibiting. I too have been guilty of hanging onto every word, waiting for the gavel to drop and the final rating to be uttered, but it has been argued amongst online communities that some fans may be forming musical opinions entirely based on the words of a few individuals. Ultimately, they are human too, and healthy disagreement is far more valuable to the discussion. Such behaviour, however, has existed since the dawn of music criticism and has simply been magnified by the lens of social media.

Regardless, the rise of independent journalism has been praised for its coverage of fringe genres and can be credited in part for expanding modern music tastes, with a face to boot. Where Rolling Stone was more concerned with the big label mainstream, niche artists with less industry backing are finally taking up their rightful space in the musical zeitgeist.