Thursday 17th July 2025
Blog Page 736

Review: Brave New World

‘Community, identity, stability.’ This is the motto of the dystopian London conceived by Aldous Huxley in his 1931 novel Brave New World. It is with an emphasis on this dogma that the audience is introduced to Four Seven Two’s production of the novel, adapted for the stage by Miranda Mackay.

Six hundred years in the future, London is a city that has been transformed as part of the totalitarian ‘World State.’ In the quest for ‘civilisation,’ the State’s authorities monitor a strict regime in which its citizens are genetically engineered and kept ‘happy’ through a regular dosage of the euphoria-inducing drug, soma. For a world that sounds like nothing could go wrong, the resulting atmosphere is suffocating, with happiness proving unrelenting. Any diversity of feeling is considered unnatural.  

The plot focuses on two contrasting citizens: the popular Lenina Crowe (Amelia Holt), an ideal example of the regime; and Bernard Marx (Patrick Orme), an outsider who is defined by his dissatisfaction with the seemingly perfect world he inhabits. The two are brought together by a shared sense of curiosity and a visit to the ‘Savage Reserve,’ populated by the ‘uncivilized’ humans who remain tied to the human traditions of religion and history, brings the pair in contact with Shakespeare-reciting savage, John (Lucy Miles). John is unusual in that he was born to World State parents – his mother, Linda (Esme Sanders), having been lost in a storm during a trip to the savage reserve years earlier. John and Linda’s eventual return to the city of London allows for Huxley to juxtapose human consciousness across these parallel worlds, which forces the audience to question which is better: to live in a world of constant happiness where your identity is chosen for you; or the ability to experience a world of complexity where one must experience the plethora of human emotion, including immense pain and suffering? The critical choice put to us is between stability and feeling – as the Director (Marcus Knight-Adams) remarks of the savages in the introductory scene, ‘they felt strongly, and feeling strongly, how could they be stable?’

For this production at the Keble O’Reilly, the audience are thrown into the workings of the World State with a vigour that leaves no audience member falling to the wayside. This was aided by a very well executed technical design that proved near hypnotic. It is evident that director Georgie Botham, a self-confessed Berkoff enthusiast, has a definite clarity of vision for this production. The ensemble erupt onto the stage as the play begins, bringing with them a heightened physical and visual presence that is simply a joy to watch.

What makes Botham’s approach so appropriate when embodying the story of Huxley’s novel for stage is her ability to highlight the dichotomy of the individual and the collective – a dichotomy that feels as much a problem of the human existence now as it would have done to Huxley in 1931. This dichotomy is made immediate through a constant back and forth between tight choral work by the ensemble, and the heightened exploration of relationships between individuals. The overwhelming power of the collective is also emphasised by vocal layering, with the recurring motif of laughter communicating the constant anxieties of societal judgement characteristic of the World State.

A production with such an emphasis on stylised characterisation and choral movement demands discipline and commitment on the part of actors. This production did not disappoint – far from it. Performances across the board were met with considered detail and embodied with a level of control that I think is rarely found on the student stage. In particular, Marcus Knight-Adams was a delight to watch – so much so that a brief cameo he had as a seagull meant I was momentarily stolen away by intense laughter. Knight-Adams, as administrator of the Central London Hatchery and Conditioning Centre, i.e. the birthplace of ‘civilised’ humans in London, brought to the role such heightened physical consistency that meant that, toward the end of the play when he engages in a debate with the savage John, a momentary flicker of human vulnerability felt particularly poignant.

This scene between John and the Director was a highlight for me, as the two (who oddly happen to be father and son) clash over whose world is better for humanity. The scene ends with John insisting that he is ‘claiming the right to be unhappy.’ As John, Lucy Miles demanded audience attention at all times, and spoke with commendable diction appropriate for the eloquence of Miranda Mackay’s script.

Although this production was executed pretty phenomenally, the only thing I could say was that there were times where ensemble members could afford to go even further with characterisation and physicality. Certain members of the ensemble, particularly Esme Sanders, achieved such impressive contortions of the face and body that in an odd way she stuck out. Whilst of course I do take into account first night nerves, I would encourage all members of the ensemble to push it to that level, and I believe the result could be even more effective.

I would urge Oxford’s theatre-lovers to head to the Keble O’Reilly to see this frankly brilliant production.

No, Labour did not lose the local elections

It seems that the momentum Labour had around the general election has faded, basically stagnating in the polls, a point or two behind the Tories.

Indeed, we’ve seen essentially the same result as that of the 2017 general election, with both parties tied on 35% of the national vote. But let’s be clear about the facts.
Labour did not do badly in the 2018 local elections. They gained 78 councillors and saw a better result than Miliband did in 2014. Where Labour did go wrong is here they would hope to be doing better, and they set their expectations substantially higher than they should have.

Warren Morgan, leader of Brighton and Hove Council, said that while he did not wish “to dismiss successes in places like Adur and Worthing, and the increased vote share in London”, ultimately “Labour needs to be doing much better in towns across the North and Midlands if it is to secure a majority at the next election”.

He echoes the thoughts of many Labour activists, who see the Tories’ shambolic Brexit strategy and their handling of the Windrush scandal as a sign Labour should be up hundreds of seats. From these results, the BBC has predicted that Labour would be the largest party in Parliament, but only by a margin of 3 MPs. Other parties seem to be spinning this line too, with a local Oxford Lib Dem councillor Stephen Goddard saying “It was a disappointing night for Labour” because “against a shambolic government, the official opposition should be doing a lot better than this”. Labour are at the peak of their membership and activism, and they should be able to mobilise that movement to win larger than they did.

What is significant about this election is that despite the collapse of UKIP, which many assumed would immediately head over to the Tories, Labour made gains. The situation that Miliband was working with in 2014 was a mass exodus of working class Labour voters leaving the Labour Party and joining UKIP.

It seems that a substantial number of these voters have returned to Labour, or at least had their places filled by more metropolitan voters. The latter is most likely true, with most of the areas that Labour did worse in being marginal seats in Brexit voting areas. This is indicative of a general shift throughout the country, as Labour slowly becomes a more metropolitan party, with working class voters being evenly split between Labour and the Conservatives at the most recent election. Class no longer seems to decide how an individual will vote, in stark contrast to Labour’s history.

Alex Bruce, leader of the Oxford Union Conservative Association said the same: “The Conservatives had a solid but not exceptional night, and took control of Basildon, Peterborough and Barnet despite Labour predictions of a wipeout.” Expectations were clearly set too high. While Labour would like to be winning councils like Westminster, it’s not realistic with the current state of the polls.

People are obviously disappointed, but this is a lesson to Labour that if they want to be setting their expectations to winning big, they need to actually put the work in place to do so.

But we should remember that local elections are not simply a poll for the general election. Turnout is incredibly low, and Labour was already in control of plenty of councils around the country, so there was a local backlash against the incumbent councils, which is natural. Issues like bins, homelessness, and road were often the centre of debate, not Brexit or Windrush. Of course, national issues do matter, with Labour’s current anti-semitism scandal being attributed as the reason for their failure to win Barnet.

However, it seems discouraging for Labour that they weren’t even able to win the council where the Grenfell Tower stood, despite serious blame being thrown at the Conservative Party for the tragedy.

However, other Labour activists are taking a more hopeful attitude. Local Oxford councillor Linda Smith said: “We had a goodresult in Oxford, increasing Labour’s majority on the council by one, despite the sad defeat of our colleague Dee Sinclair in Quarry & Risinghurst. This fits the trend which has emerged for Labour nationally since the General Election, with Labour consolidating support in university towns and London”, but even she goes on to say that Labour “needs to develop messages and policies which will appeal to voters in the postindustrial towns of the Midlands and North of England if we are to hope to win the next general election.”

Labour shouldn’t be too disappointed about these results, since they definitely have time before the next election to make progress. But neither should they be complacent. If the election was held tomorrow, it seems very  likely that they wouldn’t get a majority, and may even see Tories get into power with a coalition from the Lib Dems. While the momentum has faded, it seems possible that Labour can resurrect for a successful win in the next election, but there clearly needs to be serious changes within the party to get to that place.

The weekly chopper: fourth edition

0

With less than two weeks until Eights, things are heating up. Crews are beginning to take shape, and plenty of colleges are practising those crucial starts to get them off the start fast.

WORCESTER WOUNDED

Injuries seem rife on the Worcester Men’s side, with plenty of posts on rowing gossip pages asking for subs on every side. Having looked strong going into Torpids after posting a surprisingly strong time at an IWL, it seems these boys have hit rough water this term. Will they be able to repair the damage seen over the last few years?

TURL STREET TRIUMPHS?

Exeter have continued to look strong on both the men’s and women’s sides. The men look like they’re in for an interesting week with Pembroke M2 in their tracks on Wednesday. However, Thursday will be a different day: they’ll likely chase Merton, who they bumped on the first day of Torpids, and who in turn are chasing what is looking like a very weak Brasenose crew. A big rise is certainly on the cards.
Their women look in for an easier start to the week as they chase Worcester W1, a crew which has appeared to struggle this year, on Wednesday, and then Linacre on Day Two. Both crews look like they are more than deserving of Blades, but as well all know, bumps racing is never fair.

CORPUS CRUISING

Looking into Men’s Division Three, things could be worth a watch with a bit of a showdown between Oriel M2 and Corpus Christi M1. Our money is on a greatly-strengthened Corpus, as they chase a very weak St Anne’s crew.

CATZ-ASTROPHE

Things down at Longbridges are heating up. After a respectable showing at Torpids, St Catz men have lost much of their crew to revision for the
dreaded finals, and are set to struggle when Eights Week gets underway. A strong Teddy Hall crew will chase them on Wednesday as they seem unlikely to catch Magdalen.

HUDSON, WE HAVE A PROBLEM

Rumours circulate that Mansfield have acquired a new shell with carbon riggers. While it might sound like a good plan on paper, this is a bad idea if New College’s experience is to go by, who give St Peter’s a run for the most abused Hudson on the river.

ATHLETES NOT EYE CANDY

After countless Oxloves aimed at college rowers, one OxRow contributor got fed up of objectification. “While we are flattered, we are also athletes. I am not here to look pretty, I am here for the BOAT SPEED,” they said.

The weekly chopper, Cherwell’s new college rowing column, is brought to you by the teams behind The Isis Chopper, the Radley Chopper, and our own team of informants.

An epitaph to Stoke’s Premier League stay

0

At around 2.15pm last Saturday afternoon, as Patrick van Aanholt swept Crystal Palace’s second goal past Jack Butland, our greatest fears became a reality.

I looked into the eyes of those around us: Simon and Alan in the row in front, Colin and Keith behind, my Dad to my right. No one said anything; there was no need. We all just knew.

One of the joys of having a season ticket is the camaraderie that you build up with those who sit around you every fortnight. We’ve experienced a lot together – many ups, just as many downs – but this was the lowest ebb.

As the away end partied and thousands of fellow Stoke fans headed for the exits, reality finally dawned: it was over. Relegation. The dreaded “R” word.

It’s been coming for a while, and it is fully deserved after what has been a woeful season. It is not an injustice and certainly not unexpected, but until that moment on Saturday there was hope. Tenuous, flimsy hope perhaps, but hope nevertheless. Not after van Aanholt scored. That was it. Ten years of watching our team in the top flight, dealt a fatal blow.

As it happened, I had to dash immediately after the final whistle to catch a lift. It was only because of this that I didn’t have time to wallow in pity or to stare out into space contemplating the end of the ten-year journey we’d enjoyed so much. Consequently, I didn’t feel like crying. There wasn’t the time. But as I looked back over my shoulder at my seat and those in the adjacent ones, I could see grown men fighting back tears, and that isn’t a sight I’ll ever forget.

Football is a very simple game. Two teams of eleven, each trying to kick a ball into the other’s net. It’s not particularly nuanced, not particularly complex. You could argue that there’s far more intrigue involved in the framework and intricacies of golf, or tennis, or cricket. But as much as I love those games, they will never mean as much as to me, or to the wider population, as football.

Football is very special because of the emotions it inspires. There isn’t an emotion I haven’t experienced in relation to or in response to football. Joy, check. Sadness, check. Anger, check. Anxiety, by the bucket load. I could go on and on.

But amid all the gnashing and wailing of teeth from certain sections of our support – and I do not, by the way, begrudge them that at all – the emotion I was most consumed by was nostalgia. Nostalgia tinged with pride.

Stoke may have been the club that gave the world Stanley Matthews, as well as the club Gordon Banks came to call home – but success and glory aren’t part of our DNA. Failure is. Abject, sometimes comical failure. The second oldest professional club in the world and, in all those 155 years of existence, the one thing we’ve done better than anything else is being absolutely rubbish. That’s what we do; what we’re about. Stokies feel most
comfortable when we’re rubbish; that’s the comfort zone, the norm.

And that, ultimately, is why the last ten years have been such a ball. Because for a decade, on the whole, we haven’t been rubbish. It’s been refreshing beyond belief, and fantastic fun. So as I sat in the car back to Oxford mulling things over, I couldn’t help but smile.

Even for a supporter who has lived through a relative golden age, the last ten years have been remarkable. I’ve seen us beat every team in the league at one point or another, seen us win at White Hart Lane, Villa Park, and many more. Walking through Stanley Park in falling snow after winning at Everton on Boxing Day 2014 to the sound of Delilah ringing out for seemingly miles around was unbelievable. We’ve ruffled Arsenal’s feathers, beaten Liverpool 6-1, won 5-0 in a cup semi-final at Wembley and taken 6000 fans to Valencia in a European knockout round.

We’ve been dubbed “Stokealona”, pioneered a long throw renaissance; we’ve even played with a false nine for crying out loud. Stoke, playing a false nine. Just let that sink in. It’s been hilarious, inspiring, and beyond our wildest dreams.

The last time Stoke got relegated from the top flight, it took us 23 years to return. Who knows how long it will take this time. I’m not optimistic, and fear we could be in for a real shock when the reality of Championship football sinks in. Half-empty grounds, big, ugly target men, taking a few hundred away to Ipswich on a Tuesday night. Success is by no means guaranteed.

Whatever happens though, I will look back and smile: I will smile knowing how lucky we’ve been since 2008 and I will cherish some incredible memories. As Dr. Seuss once said, “Don’t cry because it’s over. Smile because it happened”.

Life Divided: Royal Wedding

For: Juliet Martin

Whether you love the tradition and ceremony of the British monarchy, or whether you think that it represents all that is outdated and unnecessary in our society, this particular royal wedding gives everyone something to celebrate.

For fans of the Queen and her pals, the 19th May will be a chance to break out the bunting, or take to the streets of London hoping to catch a glimpse of a royal wave and a ridiculous hat. For those who are less keen to reach for the union jack tat, the marriage of Prince Harry to Megan Markle, an American, mixed-race divorced, feminist, surely represents a step in the right direction for the royal family. She will not be the traditional princess dictated by the old-fashioned Disney stereotype and the stuffy royal conventions of the past. If the royal family is irrelevant or unrepresentative, this marriage makes it a little less so.

The royal wedding is the perfect occasion to rally and express some British pride at a time of certain political dissatisfaction. It is a day to wear red, white, and blue without worrying if they clash. It will also not be a state event this time around, and to this end no political figures, not even Theresa May, have made it onto the guestlist. This makes it a rare and refreshing occasion for some national unity which escapes political discourse. Instead, among those invited are British heroes, including a young survivor of the Manchester Arena bombing. Its an opportunity to acknowledge those deserving of national admiration.

While we don’t get a bank holiday for this royal wedding, it will still be a day for everyone to celebrate – with pub licenses being extended for the evening. This means that even those against or indifferent to the wedding can choose to express their disapproval over an extra beverage. There is also the possibility that the Spice Girls are set to perform, a clincher for me.

Against: Isabella Welch

Let me get this straight, I’m not against the monarchy as a concept. I’m a socialist and don’t want to be ruled by an autocratic state, but keeping a part of our history around as a symbolic gesture is absolutely fine.

What I am against, however, is how the royal wedding is treated exactly like any other celebrity wedding, just another piece of gossip to slap onto the tabloids. Our entire monarchy are literally the stars of a soap opera (The Crown, The Royals need I go on). This ultimately sullies the great tradition of our British kings and queens.

For me to be proud of our country, we need to excommunicate Charles and William (and maybe throw Camilla in there for all our sakes). Gone are the pressures and heartbreaks of former monarchs. The romance (or randiness) of Henry VIII, who ruined the entire country’s economy, security and established religion for the sake of Anne. The slow self-destruction of Henry V forcing himself to give up his happiness and accept the crown and its accompanying duties. For this shameful showing, we truly deserve to be conquered by France.

In comparison to even the slightest tidbit about former monarchs, our royals are downright boring, and we should be protesting their dullness as an insult to the legacy of all those who have come before them. At least now that both princes are getting married, there’s a chance of an affair, but it could never even trump the sheer bravado of James I building a secret tunnel to the bedchamber of his male lover George Villiers.

In this light, I urge you all not to care or follow the Royal Wedding – at least until they make their position on primetime TV justifiable.

LMH hosts Brookes ball days after bop ban

0

Lady Margaret Hall hosted an “Oxford Brookes Real Estate Ball” just days after the college banned bops for the rest of term.

The ball, hosted annually by the Oxford Brookes Real Estate Student Society (OBRESS), took place on Saturday 28th April, at the same time that a group of LMH students held a “vigil” in the college bar lamenting the bop ban.

While ball attendees enjoyed a three-course dinner and live music, students at the LMH bar observed  as the event’s description read  “a vigil for our dear bop, brutally slaughtered at the claws of the Governing Body.”

Cherwell understands that several finalists had voiced their displeasure at the decision to host the ball only weeks before their exams.

The college’s governing body made the decision to ban bops due to “a problem within college around responsible drinking and party behaviour.” The LMH deans have since ordered a “comprehensive review of JCR bops and discipline in general.”

In an email to all LMH undergraduates, seen by Cherwell, the JCR’s social secretaries said that the “rise in scrutiny and publicity surrounding LMH bops” was another factor in the decision.

Students were invited to complete an anonymous survey on bops, the results of which will be presented to the to the college’s governing body as part of the comprehensive review.

In a post on the LMH JCR Facebook page, the JCR’s social secretaries expressed their “sincere sadness and regrettable regrets” about the ban, but encouraged students to “keep [their] ears to the streets for big Bopish things coming soon.”

The college still plans host a garden party, outdoor movie night, acoustic session, sports tournament, and garden brunch before the end of term.

Cherwell has contacted LMH for comment.

The disparity in college endowments is unjust

0

Last week, it was reported that the disparity in the endowments of colleges has widened once again. Whilst all colleges saw their endowments increase, wealthier colleges have had a larger percentage increase on their portfolios. This is expected, but analysis by Cherwell has shown that it is having a significant impact on the academic results of students.

Students from wealthier colleges tend to do better in examinations than students from poorer colleges. Whilst the collegiate system generally works very well, endowments are one area where it needs to be reformed and unified.

College endowments have immense and wide ranging effects on student experience. It affects almost everything: accommodation rent, meal costs, bursaries available, sports funding, exhibitions, tutors hired, and how well stocked the libraries are, to list only a few. The library at Wadham stocks only 40,000 volumes compared to the 160,000 stocked at Christ Church. Mansfeld, which only has total assets worth £27 million (2017), unsurprisingly ranked 27th in the Norrington Table. In contrast, New College with total assets of £287 million (2017) managed to top the Norrington Table in the same period.

The quality of education should not vary this much within one institution. Furthermore, the effects of this widening gap in endowments disproportionately affects students from low-income backgrounds. The financial costs such students at less wealthy colleges have to undertake are more than their peers at richer colleges.

This is where this difference in funding really affects the university experience of students at this university. They have to spend more on vacation residence come exam time. Less support is available to buy crucial textbooks. Their meals tend to be less subsidised and so cost more. Ultimately, this issue means that two students can graduate from the same university, and one could not only have a better grade, because their college could afford better tutors, but spend significantly less doing so.

Lastly, the lack of information available on college websites and the pooling system has given students very little choice over this. Students apply to colleges unaware of the true impact their choice can have. And even then, if they do decide to do some research, they may get pooled.

When we applied to Oxford, we were told that all colleges are more or less the same; that we would receive the same Oxford education regardless. Evidently, this is simply not true. The gulf is growing, and the disparity is far too great to ignore.

WATCH: Malala Yousafzai wins charity slap bet

1

Nobel Peace Prize winner Malala Yousafzai won a lot at Lady Margaret Hall’s charity auction to slap the JCR’s Charities Rep on Friday night.

Yousafzai, a first-year PPE student at the college, and fellow PPE student Harry Lloyd, donated £400 to be split between Schistosomiasis Control Initiative, Child Rescue Coalition, Relief International, and Talans Trust.

The bidding started at just £1, but the chance to slap Charities Rep Tiger Akawin spurred students on.

Lloyd told Cherwell: “That was a very expensive slap, but it was 100% worth it.”

Yousafzai, a vocal human rights activist, who became the youngest person to receive a Nobel Peace Prize in October 2014, claimed that her involvement was intended “to save Tiger from Harry’s palm.

“My slap was only like a rose petal touching his face,” she told Cherwell, “but unfortunately Harry got to slap Tiger as well.

“It’s all for a wonderful cause though”, she added.

The charity auction was hosted by the man believed to be the world’s fastest talker, Sean Shannon.

The event raised around £1,300 in total.

LMH’s charity auction raised money for the following charities:

Schistosomiasis Control Initiative: helps governments in African countries treat schistosomiasis, one of the most common neglected tropical diseases, caused by parasitic worms.

Child Rescue Coalition: Partners with law enforcement and child advocates around the world to shield, rescue and safeguard children from sexual exploitation.

Relief International: Humanitarian non-profit that provides emergency relief, rehabilitation, development assistance and programme services to vulnerable communities worldwide.

Talans Trust: Funds two full-time Rhabdomyosarcoma (a rare form of cancer) researchers at the Royal Marsden Hospital.

The fault in our Fawlty

5

It’s a British institution, one of the greatest series ever produced by the BBC. A show etched into the national psyche, a programme that everyone has watched and loved. The prime example of British humour: cleverly crafted and inoffensive. These were the sort of comments that my friends and family made when I admitted that I had never watched Fawlty Towers before.

Thoroughly convinced that I had been deprived of something special, that my formative years were a little dimmer without the humour of John Cleese and co. at their mad-cap finest, I decided to give it a go. Yet despite the hype, Fawlty Towers disappointed me. It seemed vulgar, insular and heavy-handed. I sensed that there was darkness lurking behind the slapstick, and it made me feel nauseous.

Can we really feel comfortable watching a show where ‘He’s from Barcelona’ is thinly-veiled code for ‘he’s an idiot’ and ‘don’t mention the war’ (the most famous snippet from this oft-quoted programme) is an onscreen manifestation of the very real anti-German sentiment rife in 1970s Britain? This sort of casual, infrequent but utterly undeniable racism and nationalism surfaces often enough to cause unease.

For the few readers amongst you who are yet to encounter this British institution, Fawlty Towers is an amalgamation of stereotypes. In fact, the show is so embedded in misguided generalities that its characters have become something of an archetype in the TV world, often copied by filmmakers looking for an easy laugh. The general incompetence and constant frustration of Basil Fawlty (John Cleese), the uptight, rude owner of the Fawlty Towers hotel, is the source of the show’s humour. Yet the humorous nature of his character is as much the result of his situation as the repressed husband of a domineering wife as his actual character traits. Sybil (Prunella Scales), Basil’s demanding wife, is the embodiment of bossiness. She is the one who drives Basil to exhaustion with her demands and pretensions. These sort of relationships between oppressed men and shrewish wives were the TV norm throughout the 1970s and 1980s, and can be spotted even now in sitcoms such as Not Going Out. While the stereotypes are not quite so clearly defined, the two shows are unsettlingly similar.

Basil and Sybil are joined on set by their trusty hotel staff. Polly (Connie Booth) and Manuel (Andrew Sachs) act as comic devices rather than characters in their own right. Manuel is frequently mocked for his accent, which provides many a gaff, while his grasp of the English language and British customs is continually lacking. His exaggerated ‘foreignness’ makes him the natural target for Basil’s jokes. In the face of such ridicule Manuel is shown to be continually grateful for his job and his life in Britain, a farcical, self-gratuitous depiction of European immigrants that goes beyond poking fun at ‘little Englanders’ and instead perpetuates problematic stereotypes.

On the surface, then, Fawlty Towers is a misogynistic, insular comedy that perpetuates outdated stereotypes. Yet despite all these problems, Fawlty Towers is still regarded as one of the best British TV shows. Why? I felt compelled to see what all the fuss was about. The first episode I watched was The Builders, in which Basil selects – against the wishes of his wife – an Irish builder called O’Reilly to change the location of a door in the hotel rather than the dependable English option.

My 21st century sensibilities were immediately shaken by the depiction of O’Reilly, whose laziness and dishonesty are a grotesque caricature of the genuine dislike for Irish immigrants found in England at the time. In the show, O’Reilly is a crooked craftsmen whose incompetence compares unfavourably with the reliability of his English counterpart, who does a decent job when he’s called upon to fix O’Reilly’s mistakes. This is hardly palatable today, yet it seems even worse when situated in the context of the original broadcast. At that time, Britain was in the midst of The Troubles in Northern Ireland, a period of bitter conflict fuelled by just this sort of blinkered prejudice.

The show does not just reinforce racism. It also buttresses gender prejudices. Prunella Scales’s Sybil is a horrific parody whose behaviour reads as an amalgamation of well-established bigotries. During most of her on-screen appearances, the audience see her gossiping to an anonymous friend over the phone while filing her nails, brushing her hair or putting on make-up. When she is not on the phone, she constantly snaps at her husband and makes wry, sarcastic comments. Throughout the show, she is portrayed as a nagging and irritable women whose vanity and haughtiness epitomise the Medusa-esque wife of misogynist lore.

Polly escapes the same treatment as Sybil, who is doomed to ignorance throughout the show, instead posing as the voice of reason among the slapstick chaos. Yet even Polly cannot escape unscathed. She is always at Basil’s beck and call, lured into helping him out of some sticky situations. She is obliged to be constantly available to help Basil evade disaster, while her own character is left undeveloped.

Despite the initial shock, I persisted with Fawlty Towers, and was amazed that a show dearly loved by so many could rely on humour grounded in prejudice and culturally insensitive cliché so often. Even the Major uses the N-word in a racist tirade during one episode of the show. Although more recent reruns have cut this scene from the television show, the fact that such editing had to occur in the first place illustrates the extent to which Fawlty Towers is out of date and out of touch.

I don’t deny that Fawlty Towers is humorous, and the temptation to disconnect from its less politically correct aspects is strong. This aspect could be dismissed as a relic of the late-1970s, when casual racism and sexism were commonplace. The writers, the actors and the producers didn’t know any better, we might claim. However, the rhetoric of its genius, and of its inter-generational greatness, should be questioned in view of the prejudice and misogyny that pervades it.

In the cold light of 2018, Fawlty Towers seems like a fossil, an outdated work that ought to be disregarded or even discarded. At the very least, its faults should be brought to light and considered carefully. Is this the sort of show we want to put on a pedestal and praise?

Let’s Talk About: FOMO

0

Travel from one side of this university to the other, and you’d probably be hard-pressed to find anyone with FOMO as bad as mine. It doesn’t come from a fear of social pressure or exclusion, it doesn’t come from a desire to present a certain image of myself to the world. It comes from prolonged exposure to Romantic poetry and an anxiety about my own mortality.

In August 2016, I woke up one day with stabbing pains in my hands which over the next few weeks spread to my entire body. Though a year later I was finally diagnosed with an annoying but manageable and stable minor chronic pain disorder (which, readers be assured, doesn’t really stop me from doing anything), our medical system took a year before they could rule out something very serious. I lived a year in suspense, facing the very real possibility that I could be facing something that could cut my life-span or be degenerative.

From that point, I had to decide that I was going to live as much as I could, especially since years of doing nothing but sitting inside and studying made me feel I’d wasted most of my life not really experiencing life.

Even though the diagnosis is there, and I know that I’m going to be fine, there’s still that impulse in the back of my mind that tells me that every moment I sit inside is a moment wasted, every chance not taken is a betrayal. On the upside, this means I have little social anxiety, and am willing to say or do just about anything. All of my regrets lie in not being bold or confident enough in certain situations, not in any kind of public disgrace or supposedly embarrassing actions.

On the downside, even a single night in can be difficult. My subconscious whispers to me, asking me ‘is this really how you want to live?’ even if I have an essay that needs to be done for the next day. And I’ll spend my night paying through the roof for ball tickets that I couldn’t get on the first release.

This sense that every moment not spent in an attempt to seize the unknown is wasted is amplified by the kind of ideology one develops from certain kinds of (especially Romantic) literature. The idea that any moment could be a fated one, retrospectively. If I do not go out tonight, there will be people I do not meet, friends I do not make, loves I do not love.

From around the wider university, the people who mean the most to me were often found through complete chance and circumstance. If I hadn’t agreed to that one Hassan’s, if I hadn’t stayed for one more drink at the KA, if I hadn’t swiped right that one time, my life would be drastically different. Most nights, as they come to the end, I feel a sense of longing – what I was fighting for, a new epiphany, did not come tonight. But I know that if I’d stayed at home, that sense of longing would be far worse – it is a choice between the lesser of two evils.

Maybe FOMO is a problem – if we can’t slow down, if we can’t see what’s immediately around us, we end up forgetting anything but the new. There’s this great guilt that I am not spending enough time with my older friends, but busy trying to make new ones, in an attempt to see as much of humanity as I can. However, overall, I wouldn’t want to live any other way. To be driven onwards by a great sense of the unknown is to see so much of life. Pushing yourself out of your college room, out of your comfort zone means that eventually you will get to track down and befriend the people in the university as a whole who you find most interesting – as great as your college mates might be, you’re far more likely to find someone with your same niche hobby or odd interests, if you look in a group of thousands of people, rather than a few hundred.

People criticise FOMO as subscribing to a collectivist ideal of what the human experience should be – that we just want to be included and accepted in all of the ‘best’ activities that hold social status, but I think that it can also bring out the best in humanity, a kind of insatiable curiosity and a desire to do what mankind has never done before. We drive ourselves through the gauntlet again and again, and often it comes to nothing, but a lot of the time after I’ve done something stupid, or been rejected once more, it is a bittersweet feeling – there is the tragedy of the failure, but the pride in just how hard I tried.