Wednesday, May 14, 2025
Blog Page 664

Stephen King’s It: the horror novel that sparked a love affair

-
0
Stephen King’s It: the horror novel that sparked a love affair

This time last year, everyone was talking about It. Cashing in on a wave of Stranger Things-led 80s fever, the 2017 adaptation of Stephen King’s horror novel took cinemas by storm. So like any good, pretentious English student, I went to read the book first. Drowning in renaissance plays, I was hoping for nothing more than a quick break. I haven’t been able to put King down since.

The compelling, lucid and effortless prose had me devouring It. There’s no stylistic snobbery; no qualms about what shouldn’t be explored, even in fiction; no chance to catch your breath as you’re plunged through tale after uniquely-unsettling tale. This is a book that embraces its monsters – both the fantastical, and the depressingly mundane.

It’s also a monster of a book – lets admit that, first. Pushing 1300 pages, this isn’t one for the commute. King has a story to tell, and he’s more than happy to handcuff you to the desk until he’s done. But his mastery makes it manageable. It is divided into sections-within sections, a turbulent journey with mid-sentence time jumps of thirty years. If you’ve seen the film, this will be the main difference; while the 2017 adaptation will have a sequel to show the gang’s adult exploits, King shows the two stories concurrently.

This may sound overwhelming. In most books with multiple perspectives, there are sections that feel like a slog, a sentence that must be served before you can get to the really good bit. King doesn’t give you the chance to feel this way.

Not every section contains blood-curdling screams or cosmic confrontations, but they are no less chilling for this absence. The hard-hitting villain in It isn’t the multi-faceted creature hiding under a sleepy town in Maine. What stays with you is King’s unflinching look at the darker side of human nature. In one of the first encounters with Pennywise, homophobia is as much the enemy as the eerie clown. The harrowing history of racial persecution in Derry is more upsetting than any incongruous balloon. And for much of this book – where the main characters must return to their childhood to have any hope defeating their demons, and kids are distorted and damaged by the adults who should be protecting them – there is a real sense in which grown-ups are the true threat.

But in the spirit of Hallowe’en, let’s talk about the literal monsters. King provides a kaleidoscope of them. The joy of having a creature that shifts to fit its victim’s fears is a potentially endless cast of gruesome opponents, including characters from recent horror films. ‘The Teenage Werewolf’ appears, ‘Its muzzle wrinkled back and yellowish-white foam seep[ing] through Its teeth’. King doesn’t shrink from excruciating descriptions of his subjects, unconcerned with creating intellectual detachment or psychological trickery. He truly embraces his genre of all-out horror, and in doing so, creates a novel infinitely more enjoyable than much of the canonical drudgery I’ve put up with for my degree.

This is one thing that makes King such a compelling author. There’s a sense throughout the book that he writes exactly what he wants. For some people, this might seem indulgent; if lore isn’t your thing, there may be sections you’d mark for the cutting room floor. But to me, it’s a rewarding sign of a writer in love with his craft.

You wouldn’t come to King looking for Nobel-winning literature, and he makes no pretensions as such. In his introduction to Salem’s Lot, he remembers his editor mentioning a concern with its publication: “You’ll be typed as a horror writer,’ he said. I was so relieved that I laughed. ‘I don’t care what they call me as long as the checks don’t bounce.” This captures the essence of It: a bloody, good read.

One year on: England’s Young Lions

Cal Flintoff
-
0
One year on: England’s Young Lions

He scores the third goal and suddenly England lead in circumstances that would have been unfathomable just half an hour earlier. Then he scores the fifth goal, the score now 5-2, and a wave of raw emotion washes through the England Under-17 team as they wheel away, unsure where they’re running or who they’re saluting; the realisation hits that they have won the World Cup. The jubilation hits fever pitch. The final whistle blows moments later: right here in this moment, Phil Foden is on top of the world.

The diminutive Stockport-born playmaker stands a world away from home on a balmy night in Kolkata, clutching the World Cup trophy in one hand and the Golden Ball trophy in the other. His sticky England jersey is turned around so it bears “Foden 7” to the cluster of lenses gathering; ticker tape engulfs the presentation stage erected as the 66,000 fans begin to spill out of the Salt Lake Stadium and into the night.

This week marks one-year since that famous triumph in India and what felt like a seminal moment for English football: a second youth World Cup in the same (Indian) summer, decades since the last youth tournament victory in the 80s. To grasp the magnitude of the occasion is requisite to understand the sacrifices another outstanding young England player has made to be so prominent on its anniversary. Just months earlier, the same two teams – England and Spain – had done battle in another final – The European Championships – and in a comparatively discreet affair it was Spain who had then come from behind to defeat the Young Lions from the penalty spot.

In England’s quarter-final game versus the Republic of Ireland, just 879 fans filed into a downbeat Croatian second division stadium on the outskirts of Zagreb to witness Jadon Sancho – a flamboyant winger on the Manchester City books – fire his side to a 1-0 victory.

In the final, with a 2-1 lead to protect and tired legs the first to be jettisoned, Sancho is substituted in the 83rd minute and can only watch on in despair as La Roja equalise three minutes later: powerless to mould extra time with his pace, trickery and pure unpredictability. Sancho picks up a consolatory Golden Ball, visibly a level above his peers, but it is at the World Cup where the true extent of his forfeit becomes evident.

In the off-season period bookended by two major tournaments, Phil Foden and Jadon Sancho take divergent paths. The duo have been so impressive dovetailing in the Manchester City Academy that it catches Pep Guardiola’s eye and they are both invited on a bumper pre-season tour to the US with the first team.

It is Foden that boards the flight across the Atlantic – shining in Houston, labelled a “gift”- whilst Sancho queries his game-time behind such a stockpile of high-grade talent and is omitted from first the tour, and then the club: he signs for Borussia Dortmund in lieu of a new contract. It is here that a history of personal sacrifice and burdensome decisions manifest yet again for a boy who left home at the age of 12 to live in digs at Watford and then at 15 left his family behind altogether to make the move north to Manchester. By 17, Sancho’s Instagram regularly shows off Dortmund’s leading stars cleaning his boots.

It is Dortmund’s executives who hand him the prestigious 7 shirt vacated by the departing Ousmane Dembélé, but, by the same hand, they abruptly decide to recall Sancho from the World Cup after dazzling in the Group Stages. So as England dismantle a strong Brazilian side, Sancho skulks quietly back to Germany and makes his debut for the club against Eintracht Frankfurt.

Now in the present day, Sancho’s rapid ascension barely needs retelling: he leads the assist tables in Europe’s top 5 leagues; has signed a new bumper deal at the Westfalenstadion; has become England’s first 2000-born international player and according to the reputable Transfermarkt is the second most valuable 18-year-old of all time. Number one? Kylian Mbappé.

So when you read the rumours this week of a glorious return to the Premier League, a warming reunion back in Manchester, allow yourself to pour scorn on believing it might be about to happen. The circular narrative is tempting, but why would Sancho sacrifice everything in life, forgo his shot at standing on top of the entire World, simply to return home and re-join the queue, his expectations heftier but his path no clearer?

The closest Foden has come to recreating his Indian summer a year ago? Just down the road in fact, at the Kassam Stadium. There, he gives a virtuoso display capped off by scoring at the car park end in front of a pocket of canny fans trampling the roofs of television vans to catch a view. For now at least, the Oxford shade is all Foden can raise to Sancho’s yellow wall.

The two may have sketched very different journeys so far; as football fans, you hope someday they may conquer the World together.

Greta Thunberg – “we need both individual and systemic change”

Libby Cherry
-
0
Greta Thunberg – “we need both individual and systemic change”

The last few years have been characterised by poor climate policies from countries that have traditionally been seen to lead the way.

Trump has pulled the US out of the Paris Agreement, the UK has recommenced with fracking, and Germany and Poland continue to engage in dirty lignite mining. Given this, targeting Sweden for environmental protest seems a bit misplaced. Within the EU, which already considers itself the bloc leading the way on climate action, Sweden is one of the more vocal and has pledged to be carbon neutral by 2045. The country appears a model of reform.

This is the myth that 15-year-old Greta Thunberg is trying to dispel.
“Sweden is one of the top ten countries in the world with the highest ecological footprint.
“We need to start reducing emissions by 15% every year, and in 6-12 years we need to have zero emissions. But emissions are increasing.”

Greta Thunberg’s project is simple: to force the Swedish government to align with the Paris Agreement and to “treat this crisis as a crisis.” At the moment, the EU bloc as a whole is set to exceed the emissions permitted for two degrees of warming – let alone those for 1.5 degrees limit prescribed by the Paris Agreement.

When I speak to Greta, she is preparing to go out on protest as part of her #FridayforFuture campaign. Instead of attending school on Fridays, she will be sitting outside the Swedish Parliament – “unless I am sick or something like that” – until they implement a suitable climate policy.

Yet for all Greta’s detached analysis of the situation, illustrated with statistics quoted in flawless English, there is a palpable frustration. When I ask her about the inexplicability of politicians’ seeming inertia on the issue, she pauses before saying, in a worryingly world-weary way for a girl of 15, “I just don’t know.”

Risking her own future to help safeguard others is a noble aim, but how does she deal with the unfairness of the whole situation? Why should politicians expect a student to change a country’s cultural attitude for them?

“Sometimes I am angry but mostly I am sad,” she says. “I try to think that maybe they [the politicians] don’t know, and when they know they will do something and soon something  will happen. But I need to do what I can. That is my
moral duty, and this is something I can do.”

Greta’s whole campaign is couched in this language of morality: she speaks of richer countries “stealing” from poorer countries and future generations, and of these same countries needing to make “sacrifices” to save our planet.

“It’s such a serious problem because what we are doing now, if we don’t change, we might reach a tipping point, a point of no return, and then there is no going back.” Activism can only do so much. “We need both individual change and system change,” she emphasises.

While her own way of life may seem extreme – she is vegan, refuses to fly, and actively avoids buying any new goods – it is clear that the only way for humanity to continue to have any semblance of normality in the coming decades is for this, and more, to become the norm.

Greta pinpoints the global population’s inability to grasp how urgent and widespread these reforms are as being caused by structural ignorance. Climate change is still considered a fringe issue, and it is often only due to localised weather disruption that any mention of it reaches national news. The first thing we should all do to be successful activists, Greta recommends, is to “read about the climate crisis so that you understand it
better and how important it is.”

It is this lack of education, and the utter absence of climate change from national discourse, that Greta finds so concerning. Indeed, her own discovery of  the dire consequences of climate change was almost by accident. She was fortunate enough to have a teacher at school that was interested in climate change and discussed it with their pupils. “I know not every teacher is like that,” she admits.

“They told us to turn off the lights, to save paper, and so on, and I wondered why. They said because there is something called ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ – that humans were changing the climate.

“I found that very hard to believe because if humans were able to change the climate of the Earth, that would be our top priority – everybody would be talking about it all the time but no one said anything and we didn’t do anything about it.”

In the face of such lack of education on the issue, Greta explains, individual action is the only solution. Across Europe, hundreds of people have emulated Greta in sitting outside their local government buildings, and her international media coverage has garnered the support of thousands more. Politicians from a variety of different parties have come to speak to her at her home in support of her work, and she has had a number of invitations from climate change activist groups. Just this week, she took the long overland road to Parliament Square to join George Monbiot, Molly Scott-Cato, and Caroline Lucas to address 1,000 environmental activists. She has reached international acclaim and was nominated for the Young Climate Activist of the Year award.

Yet Greta firmly points out that, however much it may look like a mass movement, the formation of a group is not on her agenda.

“It started as an individual, and I will continue to do it as an individual. I haven’t organised this at all – people do this as individuals, not as organisations or groups. I think this is what makes this so special – that one person did it by just sitting and it got international [attention].”

This is true. Although Greta makes videos for her 20,000 Twitter followers, their aim is less to attract likes and re-tweets for the sake of it, than for raising awareness. There are no flashy effects or action: they are filmed simply on a phone, in the Sweden woodland. She may segue into a rhetorical call-to-arms – “Why should we be studying for a future that soon will be no more and when no one is doing anything whatsoever to change that future?” – but most of her speech is educational. Urging the global population to “live within the planetary boundaries”, she is less a charismatic leader of a movement, than a too-easily-ignored pigtailed Cassandra.

Although the lead-up to the Swedish elections proved the formative period in taking Greta to international fame, as her protests helped to raise the issue of climate change nationally, she admits that her campaign probably didn’t alter their outcome.

However, this is nothing to do with any flaws in her campaign. She was unable to endorse any party – even the Greens – because none of them had policies drastic enough. Instead, there are were merely “better and worse alternatives.”

“Politicians, they need to win elections and win votes, and you don’t win votes by having a radical climate policy,” she sighs.

This complete lack of representation means that, while Greta speaks of herself as representative of the “future generations”, her movement is not primarily made up of similarly fresh-faced teenagers. On her Friday strikes, it is the office workers on their lunchbreak that join her outside the Parliament. The absence of climate change from any
kind of political debate means that it is not just those too young to vote that find
themselves disenfranchised.

After all, it was Greta herself that first emphasised the issue as one of dire importance to her parents. “I read about it more and more and maybe when I was about 11 years old my parents started reading about it with me. They became very aware of the climate crisis.”
She was lucky, she adds, to have their support, and she had “a very good childhood.” While her mother toured Europe as an opera singer, she and her father – a “housewife”, she says in a rare moment of giggly childishness – followed in train. Yet it is worth noting that she talks of these former carefree times firmly in the past tense. Waking up to the burgeoning nightmare of climate change she herself refers to as a seminal moment, perhaps signalling the end of youthful innocence.

She has certainly demonstrated a very adult grit. For all her social media popularity, there is no getting away from the fact that Greta’s campaign is primarily physical. Publicly protesting on the street, and unshielded by the computer screen, there is no avoiding the truth of how vulnerable she is. Has she had any bad experiences with climate change deniers?

“Yes,” she says matter-of-factly. “Some of them start screaming, and get aggressive, some of them are just shaking their head as they walk past.” She isn’t prepared to dwell on the subject. “It happens less than I thought.”

What seems more frustrating for her are less the angry and dogmatic, than those who are simply ambivalent. When I ask her about whether she has had any support from her peers, she answers flatly “No.”

Her teacher’s response was more mixed. “She supported me as a friend and as a human being, but not as a teacher.”

Nor do the outcomes of the Swedish elections seem particularly promising, as the major parties focused their campaigns mostly around their immigration policies. When Sweden does surface in the British media, which is rare, the narrative has focused around the rise of far-right, populist party, the Swedish Democrats.

Surely populism – with its simplistic, short-term solutions to complex problems – is the antithesis of the self-sacrificial, long-term plan required for effective climate action?

“I used to be scared of them, yeah,” Greta says. “But I’m not anymore because now I know about this climate crisis – and they don’t have a position on that, they don’t care about that…I don’t know, I haven’t thought about that much.”

And Trump? She pauses. “Some people say that Donald Trump is the best thing that could happen for the climate and for the environment because he’s so extreme, people rise against him. So, I don’t actually know. Maybe it can be good.”

It is this single-mindedness and tempered hope that characterises Greta’s campaign. Her own future may be uncertain – “sometimes I want to be a scientist, sometimes I want to be a politician” – her indecisiveness indicative of the endless Catch-22 that has defines any climate action. Be a scientist, researching climate change explicitly, but unable to convey your seriousness of your findings; or be a politician with a voice, but burdened with the distractions of short-term fixes that parties find rewarding in the election cycle.

But for the next few months at least, her fate is sealed. “I’m going to sit here and do what has the most impact. If that means recruiting people or just sitting here – I don’t know,” she ends, modestly.

Greta doesn’t claim to have all the answers. But her model for individual change can not only be emulated by us all, but is fundamentally necessary in a political climate where the most critical issues, both domestically and internationally, remain obstinately ignored by the parties meant to represent us.

Characters we love to hate

-
0
Characters we love to hate

There is not a child in Britain who did not, at some point in their early schooling, have to produce a composition on ‘their hero’. However, indulging its endless propensity for subversion, literature has produced a steady stream of individuals who take great pride in making the man in shining armour dismount.

His place is not to be taken by someone of a different gender, however; the antihero in modern literature is almost exclusively male. Whether indicative of a recurrent privileging of masculine traits or the often absurd response to women’s literary innovation, it is impossible to ignore the gender bias inherent in these figures.

Despite appearing most prominently in films and television, the antihero is not confined to cinemas. He may also be found perturbing readers from behind dust jackets. From Huck Finn, to the vampires in Twilight, the protagonist who resists unequivocal classification is a prominent one in literature.

These figures are often detached, at times quite consciously, from conventional tropes. Flitting between established roles, antiheroes afford a reader a great deal of liberation. We lose our totalising power to either elevate or disdain complex characters. When reading Portnoy’s Complaint, I feel no great obligation to embrace the kind of moral purity preached by Jean Val Jean.

In fact, Portnoy’s grotesque obsession with his own genitals is quite emancipating. Phillip Roth’s protagonist, found alien in both his religion and sexual proclivity, is obsessed with his own relief to the point of transferring it to the reader. Reading of a character who seems to understand our natural debasement and imperfection was a true relief for me.

Whilst it is all well and good to say the antihero is a closer reflection of man and therefore more relatable, it seems amiss to ignore the changing view of the individual, in both society and culture. As modernity seeps in, we are increasingly comfortable with wandering from established tradition and accepting an unstable view of ourselves. Both modernist literature and existentialist philosophy promote the cause of and highlight the presence of the decentred individual.

Just as the heroes of old were held as examples to follow, it could be said that modern writers bear their insecurity aloft. The antihero is as much an expression of uncertainty and an indictment of increased comfort in straying from convention, as it is a truer reflection of our flaws. It would be blasphemous to discuss the antihero without mentioning the king of outlaw wordsmiths, Hunter S. Thompson. A scholar on the issue, the gonzo editor-in-chief spent his days mapping the intricacies of real and literary protagonists, who were almost always disturbing and distressed individuals.

It is worth mentioning also that any form of salvation offered in his writing came with strongly narcissistic overtones of Messianism and a full expectation of sexual or narcotic compensation. Thompson professed in The Rum Diary, a heady novel heavy with the stench of debauchery, that he was ‘a mover, a malcontent, and at times a stupid hell-raiser’, learning lessons he ‘never doubted it was worth knowing’. This view of the antihero as the figure vested in both experience and individuality is a key one. Be it Hells Angels, a journalist in Havana or a Samoan accountant on a psychedelic run to Vegas, Thompson’s protagonists invariably capture the essence of what it means to be a figure both central and entirely deplorable.

These characters say and do what we cannot, expressing both base desire and the furious intentions we so often conceal. The antihero embodies both the newfound image of instability and insecurity, and the timeless desire to unbridle suppressed desires. Ginsberg’s long poems and Burrough’s Naked Lunch were met with many accusations of obscenity, and yet both have endured, due to the relevance of their nonconventional protagonists and narrative voice. Even as they call up the most obscene from within us all, antiheroes never fully depart from a narcissistic view of themselves as the true heroes of the story. They produce a literature so jarringly reflective that we may catch our own eye and shudder.

Election Review – an ‘interesting and ambitious’ look at politics

-
0
Election Review – an ‘interesting and ambitious’ look at politics

Election says surprisingly little about the 2016 US election. It’s essentially a play about friendship, relationships, and identities that are banded around in politics. It focuses on politics’ human relevance: not in the sense of exposing the results of political decisions, but instead in highlighting where politics comes from – in people’s different social identities, views, and the conflicts between them. ‘Election’ is about five Oxford students, but it’s also about how those characters reflect wider social attitudes.

The play is set in a student room, as the five characters watch the US 2016 election results unfold. We see conflict emerge as they watch, initially between all five, and then splitting the stage to expose individual clashes: the frustrated Kit (Mary Lobo) and Arthur (Joshua Portway), and the idealistic Rori (Beata Kuczynska) and cynical Shaun (Jack Blowers).

The conflict between Kit and Arthur was particularly powerful, as an immigrant woman of colour attempts to articulate to a disgruntled and confused white man why she is “always angry”. Lobo was deeply compelling and watchable in portraying Kit’s frustration at Arthur’s inability to understand her oppression, constant marginalisation, and sense of “otherness” – particularly highlighted in one deeply resonating speech about “oriental” vegetables. These mutual frustrations were interesting to explore in the context of the characters’ friendship, and were also an example of how the play seems to reflect back to the election and wider society (reflecting the resentment and miscommunication that arises from discussions around “political correctness”).

In fact, this is potentially the flaw of the production. Its strong focus on the political, on conflict, and on using the characters to reflect wider social attitudes, meant that at times it felt as though it was forcing this theme a little too hard, and taking itself a little too seriously – with its sustained intensity undermining the realism of the characters as a group of students.

Shaun (Jack Blowers) often provided an effective relief from this, with his cynical yet sharp sarcastic comments throughout the heated scenes: think Chandler from FRIENDS, but with a slightly darker sense of humour. His conflict with Rori (Beata Kuczynska) is engaging, as he resents her Christian optimism for trying to “fix” his pessimism and self-loathing (complete with some laugh out loud moments, such as angrily referring to God as “space daddy”).

The directorial decision to split the stage into these two conflicts, and then later amalgamate them into one cacophonous argument is effective in developing the different kinds of relations on display here, as well as echoing the disorder of real politics. The set up particularly seems to trap Sam, engrossed in the election, and continuously reminds us of this backdrop by piercing the chaos with regular, emotionless political updates.

There was real chemistry between all the actors (particularly Arthur and Kit), and aside from some points of over-intensity, all were very believable. It might, however, have been nice for Sam to have been developed more as a character.

The design accentuated this chemistry well, with the student bedroom set working with the BT’s natural intimacy to create a feeling of domestic space. The use of lighting, to separate the external TV (broadcasting the election) from the domestic, was particularly effective, especially when subverted at the end.

Election was certainly thought-provoking, and I heard numerous people confirm it was “not what they expected”. It is an interesting and ambitious portrayal of how politics (and the framework for identities which politics creates) is entangled in our lives, and has both moving and laugh–out-loud moments. The concept certainly is intriguing, and perhaps with a little more humour, a little less seriousness, and a bit more development of certain characters, this could be a fantastic production.

Environmental damage, human rights abuses, and nukes: St Anne’s dodgy investments revealed

Havard Yttredal
-
0
Environmental damage, human rights abuses, and nukes: St Anne’s dodgy investments revealed

St Anne’s College invested in corporations associated with environmental damage and the production of nuclear weapons, Cherwell can reveal.

A Freedom of Information request made by Cherwell shows that St Anne’s invested in BAE Systems, Rio Tinto Group, and Barrick Gold Corporation – all of which have been excluded from the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund, the Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global, following recommendations from its Council on Ethics. Nuffield College also invested large sums in Rio Tinto, totalling £2.5 million from 2006 to June this year.

Together, the corporations have been accused of selling arms to Saudi Arabia, producing nuclear weapons, causing huge environmental damage, and committing human rights abuses. Despite this, St Anne’s were found to have invested in the corporations after their controversies had been publicly reported.

Oxford SU VP for Charities and Communities, Rosanna Greenwood, told Cherwell: “It is scandalous that colleges still invest in Fossil Fuels and companies with dubious ethics. We would want to see all the colleges disinvesting from unethical investments. We have seen the University make that commitment after lobbying from us and it’s time that colleges follow suit.”

A spokesperson for St Anne’s told Cherwell: “The College employs a third party fund manager to manage its investments. Both the College and its fund manager take Environmental, Social and Governance standards seriously and have recently undertaken ESG benchmarking as part of a regular review of its investments.”

A Nuffield spokesperson noted that “the transactions in respect of Rio Tinto plc were made through an investment portfolio managed on the College’s behalf by an external investment manager”, and that the college “no longer has any holdings with that investment manager”.

St Anne’s and Nuffield are two of only a handful of colleges that invest directly in individual shares rather than through pooled investment funds. Foremost among such collective investment schemes is Oxford University Endowment Management (OUem), which manages investments from 25 colleges, as well as the University and six associated trusts.

As a wholly owned subsidiary of the University, OUem – which manages a combined £3bn – is also subject to the Freedom of Information Act. However, citing a duty of confidentiality to their fund managers and the need to protect commercial interests, they refused Cherwell’s request for information about their transactions in specified securities.

OUem follows the University’s ethical investment guidelines which prohibit direct and indirect investments in “tobacco companies, manufacturers of weapons illegal under UK law, or companies whose main business is the extraction of thermal coal and oil sands.”

As part of a broader environmental, social, and governance (ESG) policy, they also evaluate investment ideas for “social, environmental, political and reputational risks,” and use the UN Global Compact to guide due diligence. The full OUem ESG policy can be found on their website.

However, there are no absolute prohibitions other than those restricting investment in tobacco, illegal weapons, and thermal coal and oil sands extraction.

A spokesperson for the Oxford Climate Justice Campaign (OCJC), Pascale Gourdeau, told Cherwell: “In 2015, after a long debate about fossil fuel and arms investments, the University Council acknowledged serious issues in transparency, requiring OUem to improve its reporting on societal and environmental impact. Cherwell’s failure to obtain information on the University’s basic investment strategies casts worrisome doubt on that promise.

“As students, faculty, and staff, we should not have to rely on leaks such as the Paradise Papers to get an accurate picture of the University’s indirect investments and to understand what our University endorses with its financial and cultural clout.”

The University’s ethical investment guidelines are also employed by a number of colleges. Of those which responded to Cherwell’s request by the statutory deadline, none had more substantive de facto ethical investment policy than the University. Several have no substantive ethical investment policy at all, instead relying on case-by-case assessments or the judgement of their investment managers. The latter is the case for St John’s, the University’s richest college, whose transactions records remain undisclosed.

A St John’s spokesperson told Cherwell: “The College’s largest investment adviser, Cazenove, operate[s] a programme of socially responsible engagement with the management of companies in which they invest and the College takes account of advice from its investment and property managers about the social and ethical dimensions of its investment holdings.”

On their ethical guidelines and transparency, a University spokesperson said: “The University has a clearly set out Policy on Socially Responsible Investment, ensuring investment decisions taken on its behalf consider social, environmental and political issues in maintaining ethical standards. The policy includes a ban on direct investment in coal, tar sands, tobacco and companies involved in illegal arms.

“We work closely with our colleagues in OUem in applying the policy, through the University’s Socially Responsible Investment Review Committee and the Investment Committee of the Oxford Funds.”

They added: “Breaches of confidentiality on investments could restrict OUem’s ability to make the decisions which ultimately provide an important source of funding to the University, with many scholarships, bursaries and fellowships funded by this charitable money.

“The University is confident that OUem operates entirely within the Policy on Socially Responsible Investment and has a transparent approach to its investment decisions, providing as much information as is consistent with its obligations to confidentiality and commercial sensitivity.”

When asked for further comment regarding transparency, OUem told Cherwell: “We are conducting a review of our original decision dated 18 October 2018, as requested by you yesterday (31 October). This is a request we must take very seriously, and dedicate enough time to undergo a thorough review. It would be inappropriate to make a comment for your article before we have completed the review. We will provide a response within 28 days and by no later than 28 November 2018.”

Citing concerns about severe environmental damage, the Norwegian Pension Fund Global ruled to exclude Rio Tinto Group in 2008. The company operates a joint venture with Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc to run the Indonesian Grasberg mine, which, according to the Indonesian Supreme Audit Agency, had caused $13.5bn worth of environmental as of 2017.

The mine is also controversial due to conflicts about the area’s indigenous peoples’ right to the land the mine pollutes and on which it operates. The Indonesian police and military, who provide security to the mine due to its status as “strategic industry”, have been accused failing to respect workers’ rights by the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH).

Freeport, though they defend making use of services provided by Indonesian security forces, have never been implicated in these human rights abuses.

The year after Rio Tinto was excluded, Barrick Gold was excluded on similar grounds. The Council on Ethics’ investigation into the Porgera mine in Papua New Guinea, in which the company has a significant stake, revealed substantial issues related to the disposal of mining waste in the river. In particular, the Council cited concerns over accumulation of heavy metals, which could have serious negative consequences for human life and health.

A Human Rights Watch report from 2011 revealed that members of the mine’s private security personnel were implicated in “violent abuses” including gang rape. Barrick has since taken action, and recently commissioned a human rights report which was published in September this year. The report revealed a backlog of more than 940 human rights cases.

BAE Systems is a UK based defence contractor which which has contracts with the US Air Force and the US Navy for the maintenance and upgrade of Minuteman III and Trident missiles, both purpose-built to carry nuclear warheads. The Council on Ethics argues that, along with cluster bombs and anti-personnel landmines, these weapons “violate fundamental humanitarian principles through their normal use.”

BAE has also faced criticism for supplying Saudi Arabia with 72 fighter jets used in airstrikes targeting Yemen. Saudi Arabia has been accused of targeting hospitals, including those run by the Red Cross and Médecin Sans Frontières, and a UN report published in August this year reveals that at least 6,660 civilians have been killed from March 2015 to 23 August 2018.  Most of these casualties were caused by airstrikes conducted by the Saudi-led coalition. The UN report claims that the actions of the Saudi government may amount to war crimes.

St Anne’s have conducted several transactions in the shares of these three corporations since the issues above became public knowledge. Whilst they do not currently hold shares in the two mining companies, they did as of mid-October hold £88,400 worth of shares in BAE Systems.

A BAE Systems spokesperson told Cherwell: “As a global company, BAE Systems has operations in numerous countries and it complies with all relevant export control laws and regulations in the countries in which it operates.”

They added: “BAE Systems provides defence equipment, training and support under government–to-government agreements between the United Kingdom and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.‎”

Freeport-McMoRan, Rio Tinto, and Barrick Gold were all contacted for comment.

New campaign launched to get more Oxford students active

-
0
New campaign launched to get more Oxford students active

A campaign has been launched by the university to encourage Oxford students to take part in sport and physical activity whilst studying. The ‘Active at Oxford’ campaign seeks to promote opportunities for students to take part in sport, competitively and casually.

It suggests some different ways to get active such as joining sports clubs, taking exercise classes and having active study breaks such as going for walks or cycling to lectures.

The campaign is aiming to emphasise the mental and physical benefits of an active lifestyle. This is in light of the fact that a survey of 311 Oxford students taken in June this year found that a quarter of Oxford students don’t take part in any exercise in term time with nearly a third of students believing that even light exercise could harm their academic performance. It also found that one in four students had been discouraged from taking part in sport by a member of staff.

As well as sport’s health benefits, Active Oxford wants to highlight that sport can have a positive impact on student’s academic work. The campaign told Cherwell that there is a “growing body of evidence highlighting that students who take part in sport are better equipped to cope with stress, are happier, and can even earn more after graduating”. The campaign referenced a BUCS study which found that the average salary of graduates who played sport at university was almost 20% more than those who did not and 94% of employers agree that active students have good employability skills.

The campaign has suggested five ways to maintain a good balance of exercise and study: communicating well with tutors, prioritising, being organised, getting enough sleep and asking for help to manage different pressures.

Martin Williams, the Pro Vice-Chancellor for education commented on the campaign saying, “There are huge benefits to sport and physical activity, with some fantastic clubs and opportunities across the University for students. There is always a way to balance sports with studying, and we actively encourage students to get active while they are here.

Student Kinga Nesselfield also told the campaign that sport taught her to manage her time better and that playing handball helps her reduce her stress level, allowing for a fresh perspective when she returns to college to continue working.

Active at Oxford will run during Michaelmas with materials distributed to staff and students across the University and online.

Citizenship Review – ‘witty, thoughtful and true-to-life’

-
0
Citizenship Review – ‘witty, thoughtful and true-to-life’

Ask any bisexual what the main struggle they face is and they will likely say ‘visibility’: the impression of being neither seen nor heard, often invalidated in a world where a binary is the norm, where things are either black or white; gay or straight. Mark Ravenhill’s play, Citizenship, brings to light the complex and nuanced nature of bisexuality, tracing the main character Tom’s complex journey in the exploration of his identity, from adolescent naivety and insecurity to a final, defiant yearning for belonging. Nightjar Theatre Productions succeeds in a sensitive yet witty portrayal of the growing pains of burgeoning sexuality, which holds resonance for a new generation of teens.

Knowing that Citizenship spoke on an individual’s struggle with sexuality, I was expecting a cliché exploration of the main character’s difficulties in ‘finding himself’: a narrative that LGBTQ+ individuals know to be a far cry away from the often painful process of reconciling one’s sexual identity with the unfortunately omnipresent anti-LGBT discourse. But where Citizenship shines is in its direct yet deft handling of bold subject matter – not limited to self-harm, sexuality and teenage pregnancy – and in its sensitive and considered portrayal of the unique struggles of not fitting neatly at one end of the gay-straight spectrum. Indeed, the full-to-the-brim BT Studio on opening night seems to be a testament to the perennial importance to a new generation of such questions of sexuality and identity.

I was entranced by how effortlessly Waddon inhabits the persona of the ambivalent, endlessly anxious Tom. He and Wayze have a natural rapport on stage, contributing to a natural and candidly open portrayal of Tom’s struggles. His nail-biting, hand-wringing nervous tic contributes to the anguished view of naïve adolescence that is so central to Ravenhill’s drama.

This impression is built on, through the sexual tension and awkwardness perceived in so many teenage interactions, portrayed candidly through the messy friendship between Tom (Henry Waddon) and his best friend Amy (Olivia Krauze). Krauze brings this loving yet insecure character to life through delicate physicality, defensively crossed arms and sardonic eye rolls, as she shrugs off the comically ridiculous hollow mantras she is instructed to repeat to herself to cure her of the mental health struggles she faces.

At the heart of our understanding of the play is Tom’s patronising and agitated schoolteacher De Clark (Harry Berry), who is implicitly gay. However, De Clark’s reticence to help Tom explore his sexuality seems to be Ravenhill’s plea for a shift in the don’t-ask-don’t-tell culture commonplace in schools. Indeed, if Tom’s citizenship teacher is unable to help him explore questions of sexuality, then this begs the question: who is Tom to turn to? In this sense, Ravenhill accurately captures the acute sense of isolation inherent within this questioning of one’s identity: the distinct feeling of being on the periphery, an outsider looking in. Here, what Waddon and Berry do so well is portray the strangely awkward intimacy between two strangers who connect in a shared divergence from a heterosexual identity, but who are unable to talk about this freely together.

Citizenship made me feel understood and validated; I saw my own struggle in the acceptance of my bisexual identity reflected in Tom’s initial confusion, in his gradual realisation of the inadequacy of the narrowly defined, restrictive labels which didn’t describe him, coupled with his growing confidence and expression of his sexuality. It encapsulates perfectly the paradoxical fragility of the pursuit for a fixed, concrete identity as reconciled with the ever-evolving identities which are a natural part of adolescence.

It is a credit to the cast, director (Anna Myrmus) and producer (Tracey Mwaniki) that the rapport between characters is so effortless on stage, meaning the authentic, witty repartee – which stands out as a particular highlight of the production for me, often eliciting full belly laughs from the audience – allows the piece to tackle such sensitive subject matter in an approachable and relatable way.

The pervasive pressure to the very end of the play to ‘decide’ on a fixed identity is compounded by Amy’s insensitive insistence that Tom has “gone gay” despite his assertion of his enduring attraction to her, highlighting perfectly the sexuality binary that Ravenhill is protesting. The production finishes on a poignant note as Tom wrestles with his unfulfilled desire for genuine emotional connection, moving closer to an understanding of what he wants whilst remaining uncertain.

Citizenship doesn’t afford its audience any easy answers about a conclusion to Tom’s journey; instead, it encourages deep, internal reflection which stays with its audience long after leaving the theatre. A witty, thoughtful and true-to-life piece which grapples with topical subject matter, Citizenship is a must-see for anyone seeking to gain a greater insight into bisexuality and the modern teenage condition.

Drunk Enough to Say I Love You? Review – ‘genre-crossing and well-executed’

Katie Knight
-
0
Drunk Enough to Say I Love You? Review – ‘genre-crossing and well-executed’

From the moment we enter the claustrophobic Pilch, the audience is confronted by a massive, overhanging projection of a sleeping face – always a disconcerting start. It’s only when I sit down that I realise that this is of a couple sprawled on a mattress, and only when it’s picked up by the cameraman (‘played’ by Luke Wintour) that I realise it’s in fact live. It’s an unusual start to an unusually named play. Drunk Enough to Say I Love You? is a show which takes the phrase ‘politicians in bed together’ and runs with it.

It’s a performance that will best be appreciated by those with a working knowledge of the American political system, although this is hardly a requisite as a painful, chaotic, and curiously intimate relationship unfolds on stage and screen. A flurry of references and statistics are flicked around in pinball-motion, many of which go over my head; however, as we move forward in time to 9/11, torture, and climate change, the audience inevitably becomes more familiar with the events discussed, building the tension up beautifully for a powerful, heart-breaking final montage.

The script is at times more poetic than conversational, and I can’t help but wonder what would happen if the conversational turns were made a touch sharper. But, at the same time it’s this careful pacing which gives weight to each word, making the whole thing feel slightly surreal despite the intimacy of the two actors. Pelin Morgan as the British ‘Guy’ and Charithra Chandran as the American ‘Sam’ both give exceptional performances with startling chemistry. Despite the warning signs you can’t help but be drawn towards this convulsive relationship as they cuddle and kiss, discuss the bombing of cities, and recount the numbers of civilian deaths. It’s a terrible thing to be drawn towards, and yet that’s what makes it so compelling. Chandran’s character is clearly in charge, charming both audience and counterpart. She is at times genuinely frightening, but there is a clear sense of direction from both and something to be said for Morgan’s quieter, emotive performance. At times the performance edges into dance, the two using the full breadth of the stage to create a genuinely boundary-breaking performance.

It’s clear, however, that the focus has been on the technical side of things, with an incredibly talented crew. The show is a multimedia extravaganza, with a soundscape as overwhelming as the projection which is constantly pinned to the back wall. Though initially sceptical of what a cameraman can bring to such a personal dynamic, its value within the piece soon becomes fully apparent. Every facial expression is able to be captured from the perfect angle, something which a three-sided stage alone is never quite able to do. Snapshots of pre-recorded film both take centre stage and play unobtrusively in the background, ladled with symbolism– I’m not sure what the significance of a bathtub of black water is, but it certainly made me feel uncomfortable. At times the whole thing feels more like a film than a traditional play, but a play isn’t something this show ever claimed to be. It’s genre-crossing, innovative and well executed, making the most of every medium it involves to genuinely impressive effect – it’s the type of thing I’d be interested to see more of in the future.

At times it gets a bit too caught up in its own symbolism – I was unsure if the exposed cameraman was meant to imply political surveillance or was just a physical necessity, and references to in-universe family and to Trump and May complicated what the two characters were exactly meant to represent. Yet even when you don’t fully understand it, the effect is undoubtedly compelling. The combination of visual media and emotive performance produces beautiful moments of tableau which stick in the mind, and each scene brings something different, whether it be a condemning news report, an intergalactic journey, or a frightening full-screen interrogation. It’s clever and bold, and all the better for it.

Rugby blues suffer narrow loss to Canada

-
0
Rugby blues suffer narrow loss to Canada

The Men’s Blues rugby team faced Canada on Wednesday, losing 20-26 at the final whistle, their first loss all term.

Canada are set to play three very important matches this month as they seek to gain the last remaining place in the 2019 Rugby World Cup in Tokyo. They will have to play Hong Kong, Germany and Kenya in order to qualify for the last spot in the ‘group of death’ alongside South Africa and New Zealand. With Hong Kong currently ranked 21st in the world and Canada in 23rd place, they will have to deliver their best rugby to get through. From their performance on Wednesday night Canada appeared weak for an international side, with Oxford keeping the game in Canada’s half for the first 40 minutes, and pushing back with aggression in the last 15.

There was an impressive turnout at Iffley road with Oxford supporters excited to see how the Blues would fare against a national team. From kick off Oxford attacked the game and seemed to be bursting with energy, they went 3-0 up after five minutes with No.10 Tom Humberstone clearing the first penalty of the night. Canada then appeared to go on the offensive, gaining their first try shortly after but Oxford responded with a try from Jasper Dix and seemed to be gathering momentum. At half time the score was 13-14 for Oxford and from the standard of their play it seemed like the win was well within their reach.

Oxford appeared to slump in the second half whilst Canada attacked right from the re-start. Oxford’s scrum half George Tresidder was injecting needed pace but after 53 minutes Canada scored their third try and converted, bringing the score to 21-13. Canada stayed in Oxford’s 22 and with Oxford allowing the North Americans a large overlap it was only inevitable that Canada’s fourth try came shortly after. Shane O’Leary, Canada’s fly-half, missed his first kick of the night and with twenty minutes to go it seemed impossible for Oxford to make a comeback.

Oxford wanted to win for their own pride and to demonstrate that they are a strong and developing side as they come close to the height of their season. Whilst the Blues showed that they had skill and speed Canada appeared to have their missing asset, composure.

In the last 15 minutes of the game Oxford made a spell of substitutions and they appeared to be regaining some ground after a disappointing twenty minutes. In the closing minutes a successful line-out for the blues got them close to the try line, with Flanker Charlie Posniak putting in an impressive performance in the line-outs all game. Captain Dom Waldouck put in a last minute push and Oxford gained another chance to boost their point score. With a member of the Cambridge rugby management leaving the ground at the 78-minute mark shouting to someone in the stands “the Blues are stuffed”, Oxford went on to prove their worth. A triumphant penalty try was award to Oxford in the 80th minute as they collectively pushed over the line, meaning that the final score came closer to reflecting the quality of Oxford’s play.

It was a disappointing end result for the Blues who at first seemed to rise to the challenge of playing a professional, national team. If Oxford are to win at the all-important Varsity match at Twickenham in a month’s time they will need to work on playing in an intensive atmosphere and in maintaining the attacking quality that they are capable of, for the entire game. The Blues will also have to bolster their defence who weakened under pressure in the second half. The Blues have three games left before the Varsity match on the 6th of December, including the Major Stanley’s match against Cardiff RFC and a fixture against Trinity College Dublin next weekend.

1...663664665...2,494Page 664 of 2,494

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