Friday 15th August 2025
Blog Page 656

Recipe: Chocolate Tacos

Emma Hawkins
-
0
Recipe: Chocolate Tacos

Makes 10

Time: 90 minutes

Ingredients

For the shells

  • 100g Plain flour
  • 100g Caster sugar
  • 2 tbsp Cocoa powder
  • 2 Large egg whites
  • 2 tbsp Melted butter
  • 60ml Whole milk

For the filling

  • 50g Milk chocolate
  • 100g Chopped hazelnuts
  • A few scoops of chocolate ice cream
  • Double cream (or squirty cream)
  • Fresh fruit (I went for bananas and strawberries)

Method

1. Begin by making the taco shells. Put the flour, sugar, and cocoa into a large bowl and whisk together.

2. In another bowl put the egg whites, melted butter, and milk and whisk together.

3. Pour the wet mixture into the dry mixture and whisk to make a smooth batter.

4. Place a small frying pan over a medium heat. Lightly oil and then add about 1 tbsp batter to the pan. Smooth the mixture around the pan to make an even layer.

5. Cook for a couple of minutes and then flip the taco over and cook for another couple of minutes on the other side.

6. Cover a rolling pin in cling film (or another long round object). Take the taco shell out of the pan and carefully fold it over the rolling pin. Hold it in shape for about 10 seconds and then leave to cool whilst you repeat with the rest of the mixture.

7. Once all your mixture is used up melt the chocolate for the filling in a heatproof bowl over a pan of gently simmering water.

8. Dip the edge of one of the tacos in the melted chocolate and then dip the edge into a bowl of the chopped hazelnuts. Leave on a plate to set.

To include the excluded: An interview with Baroness Royall

Fin Kavanagh and Abby Ridsdill-Smith
-
1
To include the excluded: An interview with Baroness Royall

First opened to women in 1879, Somerville can hardly call itself old as Oxford colleges go. It can however boast to be the only remaining college to have hosted all-female principals. Baroness Janet Royall is the latest to join those ranks.

Her predecessor, Alice Prochaska, came from a radically different background of historical cookery books and archiving, while Jan’s careers is rooted in Westminster. Chief whip of the House of Lords during the Blair years, she makes no attempt to hide her politics. Not an Oxbridge graduate herself, unlike the majority of principals and deans, she provides a breath of fresh air to the college – though far from a quiet one.  

Her latest crusade, removing octopus terrine from the freshers’ welcome dinner, in an attempt to create a more inclusive environment, proved to be a goldmine for the broadsheets. While Giles Coren, Rod Liddle, and the gammon brigade in The Telegraph’s online comments were quick to accuse her of pandering to us snowflakes, the move was well received by students – not to mention the cephalopod community, who have since requested their own JCR officer.

Arguably, the worst thing about “Terrinegate” was the way it overshadowed Somerville’s other attempts to become more accessible. The college gave 72.6% of its UK offers to state school students in January, significantly more than the Oxford average. Like many other colleges, it’s also committed to radically increasing access and outreach spending, in response to the admissions report of May last year.

“Access [ensures] that young people who got the ability to come to Oxford University, and enjoy everything that is brilliant about Oxford [also] have the ability to do so,” Jan explains:

“One of our founding principles was to include the excluded and that ethos continues to this day. We want to include everybody who has the ability to get here.”

“We want to ensure we maintain academic standards…just like everyone all over Oxford. But there are many young people who live in disadvantaged areas, and have difficult family backgrounds. Through no fault of their own, they may have never thought about Oxford. But Oxford is for everybody.”

All colleges have committed to change since May. However, there is a great difference between promising and creating change. Jan explains that Somerville has committed to participating in UNIQ, along with 22 other colleges this summer, in line with the programme’s expansion. She also refers to Target Oxbridge and Somerville’s own “demystifying day” – which aims to make the University less intimidating to prospective students before their interviews.

She also notes the effectiveness of the college system in improving access, explaining:

“It should be an opportunity, as there are well evidenced Oxford wide initiatives – like UNIQ. It enables many different [access initiatives] to be tried, tested, [to] see whether or not they work. It’s very important now that colleges are coming together more to work in a more focussed way in different areas of the country.

“As long as colleges cooperate and collaborate when and where necessary, it’s good to have the collegiate system”.

Jan’s comments are at odds with some other commentators. Lord Adonis recently called for colleges to be built for disadvantaged students. David Lammy also recommended that the admissions process be centralised. The University remains highly skeptical about both proposals, though we wanted to see if she had given them any thought:

“I think it’s interesting to hear other people’s ideas, but I think this is up to Oxford, because we have to determine what is best for the University, and best for our students throughout the country. What worries me is that some people from outside of Oxford think we are wanting to bring about change for PR reasons, and that is not the case. The reasons we at Somerville, and I’m convinced all colleagues in all of the colleges, what to bring about change is because it’s the right thing to do…for the University, and for society as a whole.”

Doing the right thing for the university, and for society, was inherent in Jan’s decision to remove octopus from the menu. We approach the subject and the wider question of tradition, and whether that played a role in her decision:

“I personally like tradition, and I think it’s great we are rooted in some traditions. The thing about the ridiculous octopus story is its not about dumbing down as some people have suggested, it’s a way of ensuring that when people first come to Somerville they think it’s a place which feels okay, I don’t want students to feel like they can’t be themselves here, they must feel able to be themselves, but I also want them to feel comfortable.    

“After day one, let’s have lots and lots of octopus, but on day one, lets have things that people feel comfortable with.”

A Public Health Emergency

Zahra Farzanekhoo
-
0
A Public Health Emergency

In 2013, a group of doctors declared in the British Medical Journal that food hunger is a ‘public health emergency’. Often when thinking about food scarcity, we tend to think about developing countries and famine. We forget that food hunger is present on our doorstep. We come face to face with it every day without even realising; perhaps whilst walking down Cornmarket at night or in the supermarket aisles where a mother may be visibly conflicted as she decides how to make her last £2 feed four people that evening. It is an issue that should not exist anywhere, but especially not in one of the world’s largest economies, where supermarkets are packed to the brim, full of food they will throw out at the close of business.

As a result of the 2008 Financial crisis and the subsequent austerity measures introduced by David Cameron and the coalition government, the use of food banks has grown drastically.

Furthermore, a 2012 study undertaken by Netmums found that 20% of mothers missed out on meals so they could feed their children instead. More and more children are showing up to school malnourished and underweight and whilst many see school holidays as a much needed break, for many families it is a very stressful time because they cannot afford to feed their children.

The first step to alleviating this issue is acknowledging that it exists. The Conservative government has to realise the severity of this is- sue and how deeply it runs through the country. In 2017, Jacob Rees-Mogg notably commented that “inevitably, the state can’t do everything, so I think that there is good within food banks”.

There aren’t. There is one simple reason: Conservative government policy has caused so much strain on low-income people that they have resorted on charity to fulfil their own and their families most basic needs. The government needs to stop brushing it under the carpet and its reliance on food banks and charities to address its shortcomings and inadequacies.

Once the government recognises the reality of the issue, they need to reform the current benefits and universal credits system.

In particular, they must work harder to en- sure that there are no delays or gaps in income. Even a lag of one day can be too much. It is important to note that some people even lack access to food banks or are unaware or embarrassed to use them.

We need to have a system which understands the context of the issue that it is attempting to be solved. In fact, we already have a welfare system that has the primary aim of reducing poverty, a system that those who are on the boundary of survival rely heavily on.

Therefore, it would make sense and it would be reasonable to expect that this system also has a solution built in which addresses the issues that will inevitably arise if payments are delayed. This can only happen if there the government initiates a cultural shift and changes the approach currently employed and exhibited by local councils.

The first would be to limit the use of benefit sanctioning in only a few exceptional cases and have a greater understanding and respect for the people who are appealing for help.

The government needs to rethink its harsh austerity measures that are disproportionately affecting low-income people. It needs to stop making the most vulnerable in our society pick between keeping warm or eating. It needs to stop making parents choose between feeding themselves and feeding their children. And it needs to recognise that this issue exists and it needs to stop tolerating it as just a by-product of economic security. If the only way this government thinks it can achieve economic security is by starving its poorest, then it confirms what we always knew about the Conservative party.

Until then, people in Oxford and across the nation will continue to suffer from nutritional poverty without any hope of a solution in the foreseeable future.

The Long Con: The fine art of deception

-
0
The Long Con: The fine art of deception

One of the most powerful tools available to the artist is the faith placed in them by those wishing to experience their art. The artist not only has the ability to direct the gaze, guide the eye and foreground wherever they wish, however they are trusted to do so. Rarely do we hear, save in revisionist criticism, about accidental exposition, the unintentional genesis of theme and discussion; the faithful reader adopts a highly attributive view.
This invites a much wider discussion of authorial intention, which must arguably be undertaken by all who wish to engage in any form of criticism. But more importantly, it empowers the artist to construct a complex of layers and semantics, over which only they appear to have control. The willing follower will happily walk on whatever path they are directed, a motion eerily reminiscent of the continuous turning of pages, or the unfaltering, steady progress one makes through an art gallery.
This participative view of engagement with art highlights the potential for illusion on the part of an artist, affording a false autonomy or conception of a piece, only to undermine it swiftly after. When discussing the deliberate use of illusion by creatives then, it is perhaps here where we should start; the illusion of choice under which we operate. Netflix special Bandersnatch, discussed in a flurry of recent articles across various platforms, highlighted how rare it is for us to be forced to take an active in our consumption of media by taking the ‘choose your own ending’ format to television for the first time. Bandersnatch’s exceptionality is a useful reminder that we do not often consider the role of the reader in the formation of a text, or the equivalent process in visual and auditory arts. It is very easy to be lulled into a false empowerment by the critical process, believing that the role can be as creative as can be observational.
One reads into a text, we bring what we wish to and see it as almost a mathematical function; processing input in a certain manner so as to render a creative product, comprised of both authorial and reader contribution. However, this common conception of the process, whilst not necessarily flawed in a theoretical sense can be of almost redemptive power for a creator. They may become separated from their work, or at least, have their original agenda concealed by the hubris of a critic. As the Union discussed on Thursday, this separation can have a variety of effects, but the most worrying is the distraction from original intention and bias. The very process of critical engagement is often regarded as so empowering, that it may act as a political smoke screen behind which genuine partisanship may hide. A natural example would be the ‘discovery’ of misogyny and racism in old texts. The new interpretations are often attributed to ‘Feminist critics’ or unnamed ‘professors’, rather than the original author themselves. Terming any form of reader response an ‘illusion’ is a little dismissive, but thankfully this discussion relates more to presentation of the process in the media. The delusional aspect is the idea that we may lay the blame for products of the hermeneutic process at the door of the interpreter, not the author themselves. In a similar vein, a common resort of the artist with obscurative designs is the adoption of a nom de plume. J.K Rowling’s Robert Galbraith, Eric Arthur Blair’s George Orwell and Mary Anne Evans’ George Eliot are amongst the most famous of this recurrent feature in modern publication, the existence of each being accredited do a separate motivation.
Rowling wished to overcome her fame and association with Harry Potter, as the novels she wrote as Galbraith departed entirely from her previous successes, Orwell wished to avoid social scandal and defend the family name, whilst Eliot faced the still present task of avoiding classification on the basis of her sex. Despite these fairly admirable and entirely understandable motivations, the adoption of a pseudonym is still an illusion, the fabrication of a false persona in order to distract from a reality which may discredit the author, or have negative repercussions. We may compare this process to the use of the dramatic monologue, especially in Modernist poetry. Despite their inclusion of their own names, poets T.S. Eliot and Ezra Pound wrote some of their best known works through personas, as J. Alfred Prufrock and Hugh Selwyn Mauberley respetively. The construction of character and the deployment of a then distinctive voice is effectively synonymous with the use of a pen name, as well as the impact and notability that the work may gain. Another layer of detachment is placed between author and text, the illusion of proximity to the progenitor is augmented.
In comparison to the more obvious uses of illusion in art, such as the optical and auditory disturbances of Natalie Fletcher and Gesine Marwedel (a German bodypainter who uses the human form like a canvasm to striking effect), these two forms of illusion that surround the compositional process are perhaps more potent and worthy of our attention. We must consider the separation of a piece and its creator, whilst considering the spectral illusions of complete knowledge and understanding that so often haunt artistic engagement.

#Cancelled: Disillusionment in the age of Twitter #MeToo

Reem Sultan
-
0
#Cancelled: Disillusionment in the age of Twitter #MeToo

The overlap in the sets of ‘Good People’ and ‘Famous People’ seems to diminish every day. Chip by chip veneers of morality in the film and music industry are fragmenting to reveal the darker reality of the human capacity to cause pain. It’s this process that reminds us that bad words and actions are ubiquitous, with the entertainment industry only serving as a zone of magnification for how temporary illusions of virtue are.

This is not to say that we are inherently bad, but rather an acknowledgement of the fact that, unavoidably, all of us have said or done bad things of a different scale- the mistakes of the rich and famous just have a greater staying power. In many ways, the deconstruction of the notion of artistic genius that obscures much judgement of problematic or criminal actions is a blessing.

A year on from Rebecca Hall, Timothée Chalamet, and Selena Gomez’s denouncement of Woody Allen and declaration that they would donate their salaries from his (now shelved) film A Rainy Day in New York to more formal campaign movements such as Time’s Up, we can begin to recognise the force of good that public scrutiny can be in amplifying the voice of survivors like Dylan Farrow.

With our words we don’t hesitate to condemn abusers, promoting #MeToo posts on social media and tweeting ‘Sis, you’re cancelled’ when we come across celebrities’ offensive Facebook statuses from 2012. It makes us feel like we are pulling our weight in the march for a more equal society, and I think it is fair to say that most people find satisfaction in being perceived as morally dignified. Nevertheless, we still engage in the artistic creations of abusers and those accused of morally reprehensible statements and actions- the $650 million worldwide gross of Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald is a testament to how our principles don’t always align with our patterns of consumption.

J.K. Rowling, a writer who captivated generations with illusions of the latent magical power that every child possessed, polluted the enchantment of the wizarding universe for many with her relentlessly active social media presence and poor casting choices. Her ‘likes’ on Twitter of transphobic posts scorning trans women of not occupying a proper place in the supposedly accepting community of womanhood last autumn provoked a fierce outcry from social media users, and for good reason. The Harry Potter franchise taught many the values of compassion, loyalty, and empowerment of the underdog, which is why the perceived transgression of these lessons elicits so much disappointment. To what extent should we ‘cancel’ her for this action? Is complicity as harmful/ morally reprehensible as active participation?

Luckily, Rowling has taken the liberty of entangling herself in a range of moral discussions to help us inform our answers to these questions. Her penchant to retroactively represent minority groups in her franchise has sparked much criticism; empty and unsubstantiated statements like ‘Dumbledore was gay’ or ‘There were plenty of Jewish people in Hogwarts’ or ‘Hagrid is a practising Sunni Muslim’ (the latter a prediction) are blatant attempts to continue to capitalise from a pretty white-washed franchise using an increasingly intersectionality-minded audience. However, a questionable piece of representation that Rowling actually delivered on was the almost comical ‘The huge snake in Chamber of Secrets was actually an enslaved Asian woman’ in The Crimes of Grindelwald. Whether Rowling’s publicists are enamoured with her genius brain or perhaps at this point too far gone to question her decisions is not our issue to discuss. However, what is interesting is Rowling’s choice to defend this casting decision, justifying it through citing the ‘Naga’ as inspiration for Nagini. This is probably sincere, yet indicative of a cultural sensitivity yet to be learnt by many, regarding the portrayal of already woefully underrepresented groups.
More sinister is Rowling’s defence of her choice to maintain the casting of Johnny Depp as Grindelwald as not only being ‘comfortable sticking with the original casting, but genuinely happy’. Despite Amber Heard’s accusations of physical and emotional abuse, this unapologetic endorsement of Depp by both writer and audience is emblematic of the fact that we live in age where we maintain a facade of social justice online whilst simultaneously fuelling an abuser-ridden box office. ‘Wokeness’, initially a term referring to self-awareness among African American communities, has now become a key constituent of the self-righteous illusions we perform on social media. What use is empowering rhetoric if it changes our minds but not our habits?

Perhaps a while ago, a great amount of people would have insisted on separating the ‘art’ from the ‘artist’, yet now, with a greater appreciation of the fact that the two will always constitute each other, it becomes harder to engage in what once would have been great pieces of media. The hands with which Depp so convincingly gestures could have been the same to have purposefully caused physical harm, and the issue is that as a society, we selectively choose forget the latter.

Watching Weinstein movies like Pulp Fiction, or as more recently discussed, listening to music by R Kelly, in a way are acts of undue forgiveness. Through perpetuating the cultural hegemony of the artist by virtue of their art is to grant artists clemency that we do not have the authority to grant. Recent tides have shown that our behaviour has changed towards the consumption of media produced by abusers and that social media outcry has had an impact on the visibility of victims that cannot be overstated.

However, there are still blurred lines between what we consider redeemable and irredeemable. We cannot overestimate the harm that ‘cancel culture’ can cause, through retroactively punishing people for ideas they have now changed, or holding celebrities to standards of consistent perfection that we would not expect of ourselves. After all, who are we to judge people’s past actions when we might find similar content upon scrolling in the unforgivable depths of the accounts of our online infancy?
We could perhaps find a balance between maintaining expectations of celebrities to uphold the common moral virtues, and being willing to concede to the fact that nobody in the history of fame, or indeed the world, has been perfect. We are, after all, ultimately all human beings. But to what extent do we refuse the works of people who have ruined lives of other human beings through their actions? Do we stop singing along to ‘Ignition’ in the club, or stop going to see the next installment of the Fantastic Beasts series in the vain hope that Rowling is going to adequately follow up Harry Potter?

Most importantly, to what extent do we perform righteousness to ourselves and the world by condemning the art of these people? Whatever the answer, the truth remains that in order to limit the power of hurtful actions of ruinous people, we must wake up from the illusion that artistic genius is exclusive to the rich and famous.

Power Up

Cherwell Fashion
-
0
Power Up

In 2016, part-time receptionist Nicola Thorp was sent home by her supervisor after arriving at work in flat shoes. She was told that anything below ‘two-inches of heel’ was ‘unacceptable.’ When she refused to comply with such rules, she was sent home from accounting firm PwC without pay.

Since Nicola’s story broke headlines, the issue of workwear – particularly womens’ workwear – has gathered momentum, with Nicola and 150,000 women petitioning for a law against compulsory gendered uniforms. The UK government rejected a change in the current legislation, but did propose to change dress code guidelines. Regardless, Nicola’s story has stirred up huge backlash. Women took to Twitter, posting photos of their alternative workwear that defied gendered regulations.

At a quick Google search of ‘workwear,’ all results apply gender labels to the word: ‘Women’s workwear’ and ‘Ladies Smart Clothing’ flash up in large block letters.

Google’s algorithm may not have caught up yet, but workwear has been pushed beyond the confines of the suit, blazer, pencil skirt, high heels, and so on. As students, we are poised as the next generation to enter the workplace. Whilst the familiar office-wear silhouettes are far from disappearing, the movement in breaking down gender barriers has already begun. The style and form of power outfits is already changing: Captain Marvel, due for release this April, sees the distinct, tight-fit silhouette of the superhero suit reappropriated for Marvel Studios’ first female lead. This January, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez became the youngest woman to join the United States Congress, often recognised as an embodiment of anti-corporate politics and previously-overlooked female power. Hopefully, this will be a ripple-effect that extends into everyday office-wear. In a nod to these prospects, Cherwell Fashion explores androgynous workwear in a celebration of its liberating and empowering potential.

Flattering fashion: fiction or reality?

Sophie Grapentin
-
0
Flattering fashion: fiction or reality?

‘Black slims you down. Tall girls shouldn’t wear heels. Ruffled bikini tops balance out small breasts.’

Disguised as friendly advice, the mantras go on and on. Every magazine, online blog, Instagram page or YouTube channel that is in some way related to fashion has potentially done something on ‘flattering fashion’ or dressing for your body type at some point. This is undergoing a drastic intervention.

The magic words are now ‘body positivity.’ A popular little comic BuzzFeed posted on Instagram shows a girl getting dressed while instructing: “Step 1: Put on whatever the fuck makes you happy. That’s it!”. Cosmopolitan articles are explaining which fashion rules should be broken. From every side it seems that the rules of fashion we grew up with have become grossly outdated.

But they certainly aren’t entirely bad. What I love about fashion – and I am sure most people do too – is the power to transform, to create illusions. I adore that a perfectly placed seam can make me seem taller, that shoulder pads give me an edge I don’t normally have, that a belt accentuates my waist.

What is more important than the effect these rules teach you to achieve, is how they force you to get to know your body. Do you know your measurements? Your skin undertone? Your proportions? Most people do not. And this makes them victims of an arbitrary sizing system, colour trends and cuts they do not understand. Did you know that the sizing system is updated every few years? Have you ever noticed how drastically they vary from brand to brand and country to country? I’m a 38 in France, a 36 in Germany, a XS in the US and a size 4 in England. In a German pattern from the 70s, I’m a 42. Is any of these numbers more true than the rest? No. They do not mean anything. Centimetres or inches however, those are precise and stay the same everywhere.

The problem is not in knowing the basic facts of your dressing canvas – your body – the problem is in the rhetoric these makeover stories employ. Breasts are suddenly breasts that are ‘too small,’ thighs that are ‘too big,’ stomachs that are ‘too wobbly,’ arms that are ‘too flabby.’ But what are these comparatives measured against? And by whose standards? In calling for one norm, they fail to appreciate the diverse range of body types and the different forms of beauty in each.

Whatever fashion guidelines and tips you’re reading, whether it is gently suggesting that this top will make your arms look more ‘toned’ or straight up telling you to avoid shorts, they always make it seem as if something is wrong with your body. That there is a problem which the ‘right’ clothes can fix.

This whole concept is a bizarre perversion of priorities. Clothes exist to serve your body, and your body never has to change for them. But being aware of the body as a canvas for self-expression through fashion is incredibly empowering. So, use all the advice you’ve read or been told as a chance to learn about yourself – with no judgement but gentle curiosity.

But please, there is no use in wearing yellow just because it is in fashion. If you absolutely have to, at least keep it away from your face and choose yellow wellies.

 

Review: House of Improv presents: I’m an Improviser Get Me Out of Here! – ‘relentlessly silly’

Katie Knight
-
0
Review: House of Improv presents: I’m an Improviser Get Me Out of Here! – ‘relentlessly silly’

Upon walking in to the Pilch, I’m pleasantly surprised to find a blank sticky note waiting on my seat. As part of the dreaded ‘audience interaction’, I can suggest any name I fancy, which will promptly be turned into one of the six contestants on the reality show we are about to watch. I can, unfortunately, confirm that audience suggestions are taken into account, as my ruthlessly unimaginative ‘Bluebell McButtercup’ made it into the running as a pyrotechnic PTA member (handled well by Kilian Lohmann, who did the best he could with my shoddy prompt). So begins I’m an Improviser Get Me Out of Here!, House of Improv’s latest venture into a fully improvised, one-hour performance.

Having been fortunate enough to watch House of Improv’s Family Secrets last term I’m familiar with the format – but what strikes me most is how much this troupe have refined both process and skills in just a term. In large part, this is due to the new engaging reality-show theme, but also due to a switch-up in logistics– taking names from the audience pre-performance is far more efficient than inventing (and re-inventing) them mid-flow, and the sticky label prevents cases of forgotten identity. I believe the whole affair has been shortened as well – a snappy 60 minutes – which zips along at a fair old pace, with only a few scenes which start to drag.

Most importantly, the troupe have picked up on what they do well – character tropes – and brought them to the fore. It’s something which is handled brilliantly by the new format: a short ‘audition tape’ from each of the characters introduces some backstory from the get-go (and probably gives the actors time to think), while a live vote-off introduces an impetus for drama – an impetus, at least in tonight’s President of the Moon competition, which was duly filled.

As might be expected, there are some undeniable scene-stealers. By far the best tonight is Augustus, knowingly played to the audience by Emma Hinnells, who plays the man-spreading, “yes-of-course-I-know-how-to-roll-a-cigarette” ‘Stus’ with absolute aplomb (“I went to a difficult inner-city comprehensive called Westminster” gets a laugh from the get-go). Equally effective is Eliza McHugh as ‘Sebastian the Angry Vegan’, who lives up to the incredibly specific prompt with eye-watering intensity. Such was the blossoming romance of the two on this particular night that some secondary storylines fell into the background – to an extent it may be a true case of you get what you give, since we’re the ones who provide the suggestions, but some characters aren’t quite developed to their fullest extent.

As usual, Will Jefferson (in a very literal, pyrotechnic, take on ‘Mr Burns’) is on hand to steer the plot in some kind of coherent direction, even remembering to shut the ‘door’ and turn off the ‘tv’. The whole thing is underscored with remarkably subtle skill by keyboardist Matthew Kemp and with lights by Jake Shapter; part of their talent is in hardly making you notice they’re there, but they underpin the whole thing beautifully. There’s still a lot of bugs in the running of the show which shouldn’t be there, and sometimes it falls a bit flat, but it’s great to see some new blood in the troupe, and a call for audiences to attend their workshops at the end is a welcoming touch.

The nature of improv means, of course, that every night will be different – which makes reviewing for a potential audience no easy task. What I can confirm, however, is that the whole thing is relentlessly silly, and it’s refreshing to see a show and cast which doesn’t take itself seriously – both troupe and audience genuinely seem to be having a good time throughout. It’s not the most polished piece of work, but it never claimed to be – what it is is a piece which, while still not quite there yet, seems to be having an amazing time on the journey.

Satiating Sá-Carneiro

-
0
Satiating Sá-Carneiro

When we think of Modernism, we tend to think of T.S. Eliot, James Joyce and Virginia Woolf. Marcel Proust or Miguel de Unamuno might come to mind, if we are familiar with Modernism in French and Spanish contexts. What is perhaps less well known is that Modernism thrived in Portugal, the most famous writer to fall into this category being Fernando Pessoa, about whom much has been written and debated.

 

Alongside Pessoa, there existed a small but prolific network of writers and artists, known popularly as the Orpheu Generation, committed to reworking and revoking nineteenth-century received wisdoms about cultural and literary convention and practice. One such writer was Mário de Sá-Carneiro who, though still celebrated in his country of birth, has today a relatively small, if devoted, readership beyond its borders.

 

Sá-Carneiro was born in 1890, as Europe looked towards the arrival of a new century. With the death of his mother coming when he was just two years old, Sá-Carneiro was raised by his grandparents at their home near the Portuguese capital, Lisbon. By all accounts, he was a precocious young man; by the time he was a teenager, he was translating works by authors including Victor Hugo and Goethe into Portuguese.
From there, he went to study Law at Coimbra University, Portugal’s oldest and most prestigious higher education institution. He left, however, without taking a degree. At that point, he decided to travel to Paris, then a beacon for intellectuals and creatives from all over the world, where he attended lectures at the Sorbonne. He returned to Portugal, where he met a man called Fernando Pessoa and the rest, as they say, is history.
Sá-Carneiro and Pessoa struck up a very close friendship, writing to each other constantly up until the former’s death by suicide at the tender age of 26. They wrote to each other about their work, and most probably read parts of it before it was published. And it was during this period, in the early 1910s, that the bulk of Sá-Carneiro’s literary output was published. Said literary output comprises one novella, A Confissão de Lúcio (‘Lucio’s Confession’), published in 1913, and a collection of short stories Céu em Fogo (which, translated into English, means ‘Sky Ablaze’), published in 1915, as well as some poetry.
His writing shows influences of Decadence and Symbolism, two movements which flour- ished towards the end of the nineteenth-century but had started to fade as the new century dawned. Modernist principles, such as explorations of the unconscious and the concept of the city, are also evident. His characters deviate from the social, sexual and cultural norms of the period and have urges to discover three key realms: the realm of the otherworldly, and the realms and experiences of the ‘Other’ and non-normative desire.
In Céu em Fogo, the reader encounters a plethora of characters who think, quite simply, that life is not enough. As the depressed protagonist of the short story ‘The Fixer of Moments’ declares: “You cannot touch life, it is all glitter, a fleeting image”. He is far from the only character in these stories who is desperate to venture beyond the boundaries of life and the living, to experience the otherworldly, even death. As one character in ‘The Man of Dreams’ states, “For me there are always new panoramas to explore”. He narrates his journey to an “extraordinary place” whose beauty, he repeats, cannot be expressed in words, because “what I saw was the darkness.” Decadence’s emphasis on social and moral degeneration is clearly at work in this particular short story.
Equally important for Sá-Carneiro’s curious characters is their urge to explore life as other. We experience moments and emotions as we experience them; what many of Sá-Carneiro’s characters seem determined to find out is what it is, or would be, like to inhabit the body and mind of another human being. Chief among these characters is the protagonist of the short story Eu-Próprio o Outro (‘I Myself the Other’), whose title alone indicates the importance of the juxtaposition and interrelatedness of self and other to its plot.

In it, the protagonist experiences what can only be described as an overwhelming existential crisis after meeting a stranger, who quickly becomes an object of painful fascination for him. He exclaims, “I have run aground inside myself” and, later, “I am too much for myself”, with the image of him overflowing his bodily borders suggesting that his understanding of the self is not compatible with society’s. The short story ends with the protagonist, terrified, claiming that “I am another…I am the other…The Other!”. Just as before, it could be argued that the influence of fin-de-siècle literature, and specifically its fixation with foreignness – exemplified in such works as Bram Stoker’s Dracula and Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness – has found a place in Sá-Carneiro’s text.

 

The third and final urge on the part of this array of characters is their desire to explore and experience non-normative forms of love and lust, gender and sexuality. What the feminist poet and critic Adrienne Rich famously described as “compulsory heterosexuality” is railed against in Sá-Carneiro’s work, especially in ‘Lucio’s Confession’, in which the eponymous protagonist narrates the story of how he ended up serving a jail sentence for murder. His best friend, Ricardo, returns from Paris married, but Lucio soon notices that Ricardo and his wife, Marta, are rarely, to be found in the same room together at the same time, if at all. Lucio commences an affair with Marta, which is discovered by Ricardo who, in a fit of rage, shoots Marta dead in front of Lucio. At this point, the climax of the novella, Lucio tells us that before him lay the bodies of Ricardo and Marta; in shooting Marta, Ricardo shoots himself. Whilst he thought he was having an affair with Marta, it becomes clear to Lucio that he was actually having one with Ricardo, introducing the possibility of queer readings of the novella. Through a variety of guises, it’s clear not only that Sá-Carneiro’s characters seek to satisfy their urges, bodily as much as psychological, but also that the influences of a range of literary movements can be found in his writing. In many ways reflecting the urges of Modernism to break the creative mould, the Portuguese modernist’s presentation of queer subjectivities and his questioning of socially-sanctioned desires is surely as bold now as it was in the 1910s.

Is a college shared a college halved?

Cherwell Comment
-
0
Is a college shared a college halved?

TO POOL:

By Zahra Farzanekhoo

When applying to Oxford, most of us had to make a decision as to which college to apply for. There are 43, including PPHs, to choose from and the choice we would make would dictate each of our respective experiences of Oxford for the entirety of our degrees.

Therefore, it would appear to be an important decision. However, most students are unaware of the inequality between colleges, especially when it comes to funding. Whilst the collegiate system of the university should continue, aspects that can have tangible effects on student experience, such as college funding, should be pooled to remedy this inequality.

Earlier this month, Cherwell revealed analysis showing the impact endowment has on how much a college invests in reading material for their library, and the subsequent effect it has on their place in the Norrington table. It is very clear that students at wealthier colleges have a different experience when it comes to exam performance but it is not surprising and unfortunately, the effect of this disparity in college endowment does not stop there.

Financial help with purchasing textbooks, choir tour costs, costs associated with student sport, travel costs to conferences, and hardship support are just several areas that vary between colleges. These are costs that can make or break a student’s experience. It can dictate whether they can fully enjoy the opportunities available to them during their short time here.

Further, low-income students are disproportionately affected by this decentralised and fractured system of college funding.Pooling resources will mean that all students have equal access to help, an outcome that is justified especially as the college choice is often arbitrary.

The burden is on the student to make sure they are informed. Except colleges do not release the information necessary to ensure this. The severity of this choice is further heightened when we take into consideration the fact that the university itself actively propagates the idea that applicants will not be adversely affected by their choice.

Pooling college funding will help alleviate the financial burden imposed on unassuming students. Students are not given the necessary information to make an informed choice and even if they were, the college pooling system has the capacity to render any choice they may make using such information meaningless.

The discrepancy between college funding is too large and the impact should not be ignored. The university ought to recognise this shortcoming in the collegiate system and pooling resources can aid in making the university more accessible and fair.

NOT TO POOL

By Troels Boesen

For nearly 80 years, Gordon Brown is the only prime minister with a university degree not to come from Oxford. Even relative to the Russell Group, an Oxbridge degree boosts your expected lifetime earnings by 12%. Since the QS world universities ranking first came out, Oxford has never dropped below 6th. This year we scored an even 100 out of 100in academic reputation.

All of this is just a complicated way of saying something really simple: we are incredibly fortunate. There is simply no argument. We have access to the UK’s largest library system, some of the best academics in the world, and a spectrum of societies and sports clubs that allow you to pursue basically any interest you could possibly have. And at this point someone raises the inevitable question: Is the playing field completely equal? Do all colleges prioritise in the same way?

When inequalities get so big that people practically no longer live in the same world, it fundamentally threatens the stability of society. When we consider the big perspective, the debate about equality is meaningful and important.

However, not every debate that makes sense in the big perspective, makes sense when applied to microscopic subsections of society too.

The system certainly is not perfect. Education at a lower level is still not as good as it should be. There are still psychological barriers to be broken down. Oxford life is stressful, and it can be difficult to adjust. Even when we take all of this into account, there is no two ways about it: If you are an Oxford student, you are resourceful in one way or another.

If it could reasonably be shown that some colleges offer so little support in the form of grants for sport or culture and prizes that students with less economic capital genuinely could not take advantage of the huge opportunity, then it would make sense for the University to provide some support as a lower boundary.

But undermining the college system by centralising funds, taking steps to homogenise colleges by removing the right to prioritise locally, all for the sake of making the world’s most fortunate young people more equal– that is frankly absurd.

It is as true in politics as in any other area of life: priorities matter. And we must consider what signals we choose to send. Everyone will sometimes get too caught up in their own issues. That is understandable.

But part of going to university, part of growing as a person, is learning how to identify what is a real problem and what is not.

Unfreedom, poverty, and war is. Inequality across Oxford colleges is not.

1...655656657...2,518Page 656 of 2,518

Support Student Journalism

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

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

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

Website by James Ashley