Monday 9th June 2025
Blog Page 916

The super-societies beneath our feet

Existing all around us, but disregarded by most, are the greatest societies the world has ever known. Dating back over 100 million years, they have influenced our climate and drastically engineered the environments in which we live. No, these are not some laser-shooting invaders from space hell, but the humblest of conquerors, going about their day to day lives in the shadows. These are the social insects—the ants, termites and bees, unique in their ability to form colonies numbering into the millions of individuals.

Though genetically diverse, the social insects are grouped together due to their similar societal structures, centred around a single reproductive ‘queen’ who serves no other functioning role except to produce the brood. In most cases, all the other individuals in a colony are the queen’s offspring, called the ‘workers’. They raise the brood, forage for food, and act as the colony’s defence force. In some species the workers are divided into different role-based ‘castes’, ranging from large ‘soldiers’ which act as the first line of defence with their powerful mandibles, to the tiny ‘minims’ which carefully tend the brood. Such specialised division of labour allows optimisation of both colony resources and time.

Bees, like us, are primarily visual creatures, having compound eyes sophisticated enough to sense coloured light. They use their vision to locate flowers, the source of their food, but then must relay this information back its colony-mates back at the hive. It does this by performing an elaborate routine colloquially known as the ‘waggle dance’. The bee will dance in a figure of eight, and as it crosses over from one side to the other it will ‘waggle’ its abdomen, releasing various pheromones according to the type of food to be found. The direction of the food source from the hive is conveyed by the direction in which the bee is waggling. The dance is also able to express the distance of the food through the exact duration of the waggle portion.

Such modes of communication are sufficient when the hive is composed of perhaps only a few hundred individuals, but in some insect societies the population can exceed that of humanity’s greatest cities. Termites, for example. Termites set themselves apart due to their unique success in architecture. Across vast swathes of the Australian and African savannah stand imposing mounds up to seven metres tall and 30 metres wide. If the average length of a termite was one centimetre, and we take the average human height to be 1.65 m, this would be equivalent to humans building a structure well over a kilometre high. But writing off these chimneys as mounds of dirt would be terribly naïve. Termites’ towers are meticulously constructed ventilation systems designed to keep the actual colony conditions, located deep underground, at a perfect temperature and humidity for termite life. Termites are the greatest architects on the planet, and success on this scale could never be achieved without their ability to communicate and co-operate.

It is easy to be unsettled by the ‘mindless’ efficiency of these insect super-societies, in which each individual is willing to sacrifice its reproduction, independence, and even its life to preserve the colony as a whole. Could our society be heading in a similar direction, prioritising efficiency over individuality?  Our never-ending scramble towards greater productivity, from intensive agricultural techniques to increasingly rapid mass communication, means that with each passing year we may ever more aptly be described as a super-society.

For more like this, pick up the Communication Issue of Bang! Science Magazine in fifth week

Third week news summary

0

Cherwell Broadcasting presents a summary of the news from in and around Oxford in third week.

Rebels, romance, punk and fashion houses

3

In 1926, Coco Chanel revolutionised women’s fashion when she published her famous sketch of a simple black dress in Vogue magazine. Favouring simplicity over superfluity, she transformed a colour that had previously been part of strict mourning uniform into a symbol of practical elegance and style. Since then, the little black dress has become a staple in every modern woman’s wardrobe. It’s classy, understated, and slimming. More to the point it’s safe. In Karl Lagerfeld’s words, who took on the Parisian fashion house in 1983, “if you’re wearing black you’re on sure ground”. No matter what happens, black will always be ‘in fashion’.

Our style obsession with the colour has more to it than its uncanny ability to make you appear two sizes smaller though. Rather it stems from black’s duality, changing status, and symbolism. For black can be traced throughout history to have represented both authority and humility, wealth and austerity, rebellion and conformity. It’s a highly powerful colour, with strong subversive tones. In fact, when Chanel rebelled against the melancholy social restrictions on women’s fashion by reinventing black in womenswear, she was joining a long line of non-conformists who had utilised the colour before her, and would continue to do so over the course of the next century. It is this rebellious quality that has ensured the colour’s status as timeless.

Black clothing has been appropriated by many subversive political groups in western history. During the Renaissance, black was adopted by the rising orders as a symbol of wealth and authority. The mercantile and banking classes of the Northern Italian city states had been banned from wearing any garment of colour under measures known as the Sumptuary Laws. Black was the second best luxury, and so they welcomed the tone into their outfits as a sign of their underlying power. The colour’s luxurious reputation was reversed upon the eruption of the Protestant Reformation in Europe though, as Calvinists donned black robes in a demonstration of austerity. The sombre shade once more became a symbol of opposition, this time to the rich colours of the Catholic clergy’s vestments.

18th century political revolutionaries in France would later too adopt black clothing in retaliation to the pastel palette of an enlightened elite, demonstrating their humility. Whilst the paramilitary wing of the Italian fascist party came to be known as the ‘blackshirts’ after the attire they wore in the 1922 March on Rome, asserting their subversive political authority in the colour of their uniforms.

Black has also been the colour of choice for non-conformist social and intellectual movements over the last two centuries. The Romantic poets Keats and Byron assumed the colour into their melancholy identity, using it to set them apart as a movement. And in the 1950s, black came to symbolize intellectual individualism in New York and San Francisco when the Beatniks donned their famous black turtleneck sweaters, berets, and dark glasses as a mark of identification for the academic subculture.

Perhaps most famously, black became the uniform of the London youth culture of the ‘70s and ‘80s. Goth and punk sub-cultures assumed bondage trousers, biker boots and heavy eyeliner in an act of teenage expressionism, rebelling against the brighter colours worn by their parents’ generation. Rei Kawakubo famously cemented black’s rebellious reputation then in her 1981 debut of label Comme des Garçons. The dark, ripped, and hole-ridden outfits paraded down the runway were the epitome of anti-fashion, serving as a reminder that black has long been the colour of expressionism and subversion.

No other colour could conceivably unite punks and Calvinists as black has done. But black has a uniquely versatile history, and deep founded associations with individuality that means it will continue to be appropriate for years to come. As long as we have reason to evolve and rebel, we will always come back to black.

Second week news summary

0

As ever, Cherwell Broadcasting is here to bring you the latest news from in and around Oxford in second week.

Head to Head: The future of Arsène Wenger

0

Karl Frey for ‘Wenger out’

Some of the things Arsène Wenger has achieved with Arsenal Football Club are extraordinary. Nevertheless, I believe Arsène Wenger has had his time to be a hero and should resign as the manager of Arsenal Football Club.

Wenger is stubborn and football is constantly changing. The Premier League has introduced a plethora of international players over the last decade and the style of play has evolved. Teams have made transitions in personnel, formation and tactics, while Wenger is stuck in his 4-2-3-1, trying to find a way to accommodate the players that he should not have purchased.

We have to give Wenger credit for some of the great players he has signed in the last few years: Mesut Özil, Alexis Sánchez and Shkordan Mustafi have mostly been fantastic. Nevertheless, his transfer policy is criticised by a lot of football fanatics around the world. Wenger sells his best players and doesn’t replace them adequately. Van Persie, Adebayor, Nasri, Fabregas, Cole, and Alex Song were all sold by the Frenchman.

In return he has signed players of the likes of Gervinho, Chamakh, Yaya Sanogo, Flamini, Debuchy and Bramell. Over the years, Wenger has put blind faith in some players without any reason. For many years, he relied on Per Mertesacker as the first choice centre-back, despite him simply being too slow to face some of the fastest strikers in the game. Similar things have happened with the likes of Olivier Giroud, who, considering the playmaking quality he has behind him, isn’t prolific enough. In the 2016 summer transfer window, Wenger promised to sign a world class striker. After unsuccessful talks with Benzema and Lacazette, Arsenal ended up signing Lucas Perez, from Deportivo la Coruña, who is simply not good enough to start for Arsenal and doesn’t even play as an all-out striker.

Teams all over the world adapt their style of play to face particular rivals; Wenger seems to have the world’s worst team management. Following last week’s home defeat to Watford, a furious fan stated on Arsenal TV: “Walcott scores a hat-trick (against Southampton) and gets left on the bench. Welbeck scores two and gets taken out of the squad completely. Our first choice Right-Back [Bellerin] is fit and he is benched for f***ing Bambi [Gabriel]!”

Wenger has had a tough time with injured players every season, but I think he must be given much of the blame for this. Players such as Diaby, Wilshere, Welbeck, Mertesacker, Ramsey and Debuchy have all suffered from several long term injuries. No one can say for sure, but in my opinion Wenger over-strains players during training and doesn’t focus enough of their fitness. I also believe that the medical staff management must be poor. I find it illogical that a team could suffer from injuries so severely every season—there surely is an underlying problem.

Don’t get me wrong. Arsène Wenger has achieved incredible things with Arsenal Football Club. If he wants to be remembered as a legend amongst fans and in the world of football, he should resign from management before he gets sacked. There are simply better options out there for Arsenal. As a fan myself, I would love to see a manager with strong character signing this summer. Massimiliano Allegri, Diego Simeone, Carlo Anchelotti, I’m ready to embrace you with open arms.

Sam Pace for ‘Wenger In’

Arsène Wenger has managed Arsenal since 1996, and has taken the club from indifference to being the most consistent team in the Premier League during his time in charge. In the 16 years that he has been at the helm, Arsenal have won three Premier League titles (1997-1998, 2001-2002 and 2003-2004), and six FA Cups, two of which have come very recently, in 2014 and 2015. Additionally, Wenger has won six Community Shields.

His win percentage at Arsenal is one of the best from the Premier League era (57.4 per cent), and consistently, year on year, for 16 consecutive seasons, Wenger’s Arsenal has finished in the top four, guaranteeing annual performance in the Champions League, Europe’s elite competition. He has also navigated Arsenal successfully from the League’s group stages every single year to date, finishing above the French champions, PSG, this year.

Accolades aside, Wenger has been attributed as the defining factor in the development of some of the best players of the 21st century. Great players, like Bergkamp, Viera, Henry, Fabregas, Van Persie, Pires and Ljunberg all became world-class players in large part thanks to Arsene’s stewardship.

Thierry Henry said that he left Arsenal because he “did not know if Arsène would be staying”. A similar sentiment has been echoed by the current Arsenal crop of talent, with Sánchez and Özil demonstrating caution about signing a new contract. Özil has sited the uncertainty surrounding Wenger’s future as the cause for his hesitance in committing his future to Arsenal.

A look at the Premier League table tells another story. Arsenal sit in fourth place, just three points behind Spurs and two behind Manchester City, but above both United and Liverpool in the standings.

After every Arsenal defeat, the ‘Wenger Out’ brigade start brandishing their garish., Wenger-hating posters, but such displays of animosity and anger are not applicable to Spurs, City, Liverpool or United fans, who all sit similarly out of reach of Chelsea, thanks to the Blues’ stunning run of form since Arsenal’s 3-0 thrashing of them earlier in the season.

A look at Wenger’s current nurturing of the Arsenal youth reveals hope for fans. Alex Iwobi has been in scintillating form this season, with three goals and four assists in the Premier League, taking him to Nigerian Player of the Year, over talents like Iheanacho.

This rapid rise would not have been possible without Wenger’s management. Another glance can be taken at Héctor Bellerin, arguably the best offensive right back in the Premier League, and his rapid rise to form, after a disastrous debut against Dortmund, is directly related the confidence Arsène has instilled in him. Bellerin has in fact rebuffed any claims of moving back to Barcelona, stating Wenger’s loyalty to him as a key factor in this.

Wenger should not leave Arsenal, not just yet. He has created a legacy, and has helped in producing some of the greatest talents to have ever plied their trade in European football. Any ‘Wenger Out’ cries from supporters of Arsenal should be accompanied by ‘Mourinho, Klopp, Guardiola and Pocchetino Out’ calls from every other club in the top six.

“We will not go away— welcome to your first day”

0

It was the end of the day, the early evening hours of 21 January in Washington, D.C., and as the sky darkened I left the Ellipse, the park by the White House, and soon arrived at the U.S. Capitol. It was a bit of a deconstruction site, with bleachers and shelters erected for Inauguration Day still partially standing, but beyond the remnants was the Capitol Building itself. I gazed at it, drained after a day of my emotions running high, feeling a sense of gravity and sobriety when I felt anything at all. It was tall and white, elegantly domed, looking just as noble as it did all the days I walked through it this past summer.

Funny how that worked, with all that’s happened between then and now. Last summer, D.C. bustled: home to the Obama Administration and all the young and naïve progressives who came along with it, it vibrated like a cello string in anticipation of our first woman president. Now, the city’s very DNA had mutated. Passersby eyed each other, pink hats versus red ball caps, trying to decide who they could trust. The D.C. spirit of neighborliness that I’d so loved in the Obama era felt nonexistent. And yet, there was the Capitol Building, still stand- ing proud. Everything was the same, and nothing was the same.

The half-moon was luminously bright. “No matter what happens, the sun will rise in the morning,” President Obama told us on 8 November. He was right, but I hadn’t really wanted him to be.

Walking on, my friends and I picked our way around litter and discarded cardboard signs. A couple sat in the grass, gazing silently at the Capitol Building like it was a fireworks show. It was eerily quiet. A man crossed the street in front of us and said D.C. looked like a war zone. I knew what he meant; it felt surreal to me, too. But it reminded me more of photographs of the aftermath in Rio in 2016 or Beijing in 2008. Maybe the Olympics aren’t such an odd metaphor for what actually happened in D.C. that day. When else in recent years has there ever been such a day of cathartic, sweeping patriotism?

‘Dissent is patriotic,’ read many of the signs I saw at the Women’s March on Washington, and it gave voice to the feeling I’d had ever since I heard that there was going to be a march at all. The feeling that as an American—a feminist American, a politically-minded American, a justice-demanding American, but mostly just as an American—I needed to be there or I would never forgive myself. Although I’ve been involved in feminist and racial justice activism in high school and college, I’d never been in a march before. I arrived at my university in St. Louis, Missouri, less than a month after the murder of Michael Brown by a police officer in the city of Ferguson, which was only about eight miles away. Eighteen years old at the time, I was terrified of the Ferguson riots I saw on the news, and I steered clear of the protests that year, to my continual shame. I promised myself I would not make that mistake again.

I never labored under any assumption that my one additional body would make such a difference, but ever since the election I had been wracked with guilt over how far I am from my friends and my communities that are suffering so existentially. The election pushed me from feeling blessed to feeling selfish by spending a year at Oxford. I can still donate money from afar, and I can call my representatives, but when the Women’s March began to take form, I knew I needed to be there in body as well as soul. So I found cheap tickets and I went.

Walking around that evening was a surreal end to an unreal day. I’d woken up that morning to a house full of people—I was sleeping on the apartment floor of several friends who hosted people (including a boy who’d just spent a day in jail for his involvement with a Marxist protest the day before) for breakfast and sign making before the March. It was unseasonably warm; all I needed was my sweatshirt, emblazoned with ‘USA.’

We packed peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and walked to the rally, bypassing the metro (a friend of mine was immobilised in a metro station for two hours, unable to push past the throngs of protesters converging on every side). On our way, several little old ladies stopped us to say thank you, and as we passed a group of empty-handed young women we gave them some of our signs. We’d brought extras; it felt like a good day to share.

As half a million people poured into the streets around 10am to listen to the speakers, it became apparent that this was bigger than anyone had bargained for. The crowd was so massive that it extended all the way back to the White House, where the marching route was supposed to end. The protest was too big to suddenly turn around and start marching. For about an hour, organization disintegrated as some people grew impatient. The March had been modeled after the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, but it differed significantly in that its leadership was grassroots, lacking a clear, MLK-type visionary. The protesters around us, much like the Fourth Wave of feminism and every Democrat in America for the past several months, wrung their hands anxiously for a while, trying to decide what to do.

But I believe in the power of stories, and I was mesmerized by the speakers. I cried when six-year-old immigrant rights activist Sophie Cruz spoke about fearlessness and God. As the Mothers of the Movement led the crowd in shouting their children’s names in a gospel-esque and not entirely irreligious rhythm, I let my heart crack open and sent them silent messages of love through the cloudy atmosphere, trying to affirm, ‘Black lives matter to me.’ And when newly minted Senators Tammy Duckworth and Kamala Harris, either of whom could become our first woman president, gave speeches exhorting young women to run for office, shivers of exhilaration traversed my body.

“Are we marching for everything?” my friend’s mother asked as another speaker representing a cause took the stage.

“Yes,” we replied. It’s what makes sustained activism so hard.

Eventually we started moving—not as a bloc but more organically, with several distinct thousands-strong groups finding their own ways to wind through the streets. Some of the marchers stopped at the Washington Monument. Others diverted to shut down traffic near the brand-new Trump Hotel; I kept going until we reached the White House, which despite its new tenants somehow also looked the same. (This is helpful for me, thinking of Trump as a White House tenant, the temporary renter of a space that will someday return to the likes of Barack Obama.) Just as we arrived, a willowy woman with a guitar was leading the crowd in singing ‘This Land Is Your Land.’ A few minutes later, we were dancing in a drum circle. A girl beside me turned to her friend. “We’re dancing in front of the White House right now,” she said. Everyone grinned.

It’s an achingly detailed moment embossed into my memory: little kids, people of color, gay people, Muslim people, all holding their signs in the air like badges of honor and dancing together to the heartbeats of drums. We were there less than an hour, but during that time I had this inexpressible feeling that we were reclaiming this moment for joy.

Since November, joy has been largely phased out by anxiety and anger in my daily repertoire of emotions. As things keep getting worse, I am finding small ways to reverse that trend. When the world seems bent on taking you and your friends down, joy is radical, and it is resistance.

Most of the women who came to the March weren’t raised to be protesters. We were raised to be peacekeepers, to ease tensions and swallow our pride. The familiar phrase, ‘It is better to be kind than to be right,’ comes to mind (I’ve always been a bit obstinate), advice that I doubt is shared with little boys as frequently as it’s shared with little girls.

It feels counterintuitive for us to take up space and make our voices heard. But we are claiming our place in this resistance. Ours is a nation of protesters and hell-raisers, and I have never felt more American than when I was surrounded by 500,000 people chanting ‘Water is Life’ and ‘No Justice, No Peace,’ many of them for the first time.

In conversation with the directors of ‘Anna Karenina’

0

Maria Shepard’s musical adaptation of Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina began as a distant dream. She began writing the songs two years ago, after reading the classic Russian novel for her Oxford interview. Over dinner at a ball, a vision began to form as her friend James Tibbles persuaded her it would be possible to bring the show to life on an Oxford stage.

Maria admits that it’s been “a long process,” but it’s clear that it’s been an exciting one, too. Now taking on the role of musical director, Maria is joined by co-directors James and Suzy Cripps. As we discuss the production, the evidence of the trio’s excitement is visible on their faces.

The team have gone to great lengths to create this original musical. As well as writing the music, Maria retranslated the original book, which James and Suzy used to develop the script. After casting in November, the script was reworked further as they took inspiration from their cast.

The team takes quite a bit of license with the story. Comic elementssuch as the friendship between characters Lydia and Betsyare extended to avoid an overly melodramatic and sentimental retelling of the story. There is also a focus on character psychology, especially in Anna’s case, where her fear of being watched taps into the very modern preoccupation with surveillance. “The claustrophobia comes through in the ensemble numbers,” the directors explain. In the course of over 20 musical numbers, the ensemble characters serve almost as a Greek chorus which frames Anna’s story.

Whilst this complex love story is incredibly marketable, it was undeniably difficult to adapt. I ask the team what we should expect from this nuanced retelling, and their answer is simple: “Russian decadence”. The O’Reilly will be transformed into a large palace, with the set design is structured around grandeur, and a live orchestra accompanying the actors from the balcony. We’re also in for some moving performancesthe directors are thrilled with the way their cast have responded to their project, with Amelia Gabriel and Henry Jacobs reinterpreting the roles of Anna and Karenin respectively, aiming to make them more relatable to a modern audience.

The directors tell me that this is the most exciting production they have ever worked on: “We spend so much time after rehearsal talking about how much we love the project,” Suzy says. Although it’s the first time James and Suzy have worked together, they call it an “organic partnership,” and want to take it further in future.

Some sympathy for Anna, but mostly a feeling of catharsis, is what they want the audience to leave with. “We want people coming out not quite sure how to feel,” James explains. Ultimately, it will be a very intense story balanced by music and comic relief. I’d say this remarkably original take on a classic story is one you don’t want to miss.

Exhausted tropes and the odd jump scare: ‘Split’ review

1

Split follows Shyamalan’s clever little horror The Visit (2014), a film that delivered a chilling Shyamalan twist and plenty of dark comedy to sink your teeth into. However, does Split live up to its hype and will Shyamalan ever recapture the magic of his Sixth Sense glory days? Split begins with the sudden, somewhat frightening abduction of three teenage girls by a man we come to know as Dennis. We find out that Dennis likes to watch young women dance. Dennis is beyond creepy.

But Dennis is not alone. In fact, Dennis shares the body of Kevin Wendell Crumb (is that the best name Shyamalan could come up with?) alongside twenty-three different personalities, all screaming to get out. However, there’s actually a 24th personality that has never reared its ugly head: the Beast. This personality is superhuman and, as promised by nine-year-old Hedwig in the trailer, “has done bad things and will do bad things to you”. Most of the action comes from the heroine of the film, Casey, played by Ana Major Turner who stunned in The Witch, in her fight to escape the labyrinth apartment she’s locked in.

The most exciting, truly mesmerising aspect of Split is James McAvoy. His performance in this film is a career-defining moment. What he does in Split is rarely seen in cinema. Tom Hardy and Jake Gyllenhaal are a select few who have played two parts in one feature, but five characters is almost unheard of. McAvoy slides from an effeminate, Boston fashion designer to a frightening old lady through a simple, imperceptible eye movement, akin to Antony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs. Split is an acting masterclass to any budding thespian. Ana Major Joy equally shines, striking the balance between a quiet melancholy and violent fearlessness. The scenes between Hedwig and Casey are the most emotionally wrought, enthralling and even comedic of the film, breathing life back into Split when the momentum lags.

But ultimately, this is simply not enough to make Split a convincingly good horror film. Shyamalan relies on exhausted tropes and the odd jump scare to try to create horror, but often falls flat.

The problematic convention of one girl being more worthy of life than her sidekick scream queens—who are given contrived dialogue, and deserve to die because they like their iPhones —has no place in modern horror. The beyond troubling representation of DID (dissociative identity disorder) further begs the question of Split’s ethics, or lack thereof. And besides all of this, the truth is that Split is just not that scary.

Speaking more generally, the film never quite picks up the momentum promised by the trailers. Tension is often drained with mundane and irrelevant scenes of exposition from Kevin’s therapist, treating the audience like students in a lecture theatre—can we ever escape?

This contributes to a stagnating pace that runs out of steam by the third act. Oh, and of course there’s the Shyamalan twist. Unfortunately, it is so conceited that it is created for an exclusive select few. Indeed, the twist is smart and re-frames everything, but could mislead audiences all the way back to The Sixth Sense (1999), further muddling an already messy film. Spoiler alert: watch Unbreakable (2002) first.

This film proves Shyamalan has a long way to go to re-realise his full potential as a screenwriter and director, however I’d still recommend giving it a watch purely for the thrill of watching McAvoy at the very top of his game.

Films to cure fifth week and Valentine’s blues

Thanks to the arbitrary malice of the Oxford admin office and the Gregorian calendar, Valentine’s day this year falls in the middle of Fifth Week, and you know what that means—a double whammy of fifth week and singleton blues. So, to cheer you up, Cherwell has compiled the official film guide to curing your blues via the box:

Single? This film will make you glad you are. Gone Girl, David Fletcher’s adaptation of Gillian Flynn’s 2012 thriller, would surely win any prize going for the worst film to watch on a first date. Centred on the disappearance of Amy (Rosamund Pike), all signs seem to point at shifty husband Nick (Ben Affleck) as the source of her disappearance, but as the police investigation gets underway it becomes clear that something is amiss. If you want to watch the picking apart of a dysfunctional marriage to hammer home that all relationships are secretly fuelled by hatred anyway, Gone Girl will bring some validation to your sorrow.

For a more realistic portrayal of the perils of modern dating, you can’t go wrong with 500 Days of Summer. Zooey Deschanel plays the titular Summer, a prototypical manic pixie dream girl constructed by Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), and the film plays out the gradual failure of their relationship over the course of a year and a half. It may not be cheerful but at least it’s realistic, and it is certainly pleasing to see a film that deconstructs its own tropes—the recognition of Tom’s naïve perception of women is made manifest in the cathartic ending, in which Tom meets a girl named Autumn, proving that Summer was, to him, a phase and not a person in her own right. So, if you’re experiencing something of a winter of discontent, 500 Days of Summer could be just the one for you.

Too scared of commitment to commit to an entire film? Try an episode of Lovesick to cure your heartache. Originally billed as Scrotal Recall, Lovesick follows Dylan, a 20-something recently diagnosed with chlamydia who is tasked with telling all his ex-partners about his diagnosis. Every episode is centred on a different ex-girlfriend as the show continually jumps back and forth in time. Perfect for dipping in and out of. Cheeky.

Sometimes we all need to have a good old fashioned cry, and especially since it’s Fifth Week, perfect crying material comes to us in the hands of Disney’s Up. Unless you’re really into cartoons about old people exploring the rainforest, watching the entire film won’t be necessary. Just opt for the first ten minutes and the sequence in which Carl and Ellie’s marriage is summarised, to remind you that love is fleeting and ephemeral at the best of times— and if a pixelated old man can’t be lucky in love, what does it matter if that girl from Bridge the other night didn’t text you back?

Need a total and utter distraction from anything vaguely work/romance related? Let childhood classic Finding Nemo distract you with its rather ominous tale of a fish being kidnapped. It may not be high culture, but it does have some valuable life lessons for us all, so when in doubt, remember—“just keep swimming.”

Life Divided: sub fusc

For (Nicola Dwornik):

Clothed in the three-piece ensemble, I am an art project.

The trailing cape—made from black tissue paper—would cause Neil Buchanan (the Art Attack divinity) to burst with pride. Forget the absorption rates of Thirst Pocket Household Towels, sub fusc is fucking useless at sucking up your tears formed by inadequateness and non-existent knowledge. At least, then, it’s representative. The streamer-like strips that stem from your shoulders provide a pre-lash celebration for the failure that you’re about to execute.

Let’s forget about the clothing itself. In reality, it’s all about the procession: the swagger from college to Exam Schools. It’s like the arrival at Hogwarts, without the boats and Hagrid’s esteemed direction, and with the added opportunity of being run over by a bike. You may be shitting yourself about impending doom, but at least you can be papped by tourists wearing a becoming all-black outfit—that really brings out your under eyes—and be shitting yourself all at the same time.

The crowning glory of sub fusc trio has to be the mortarboard, regarded colloquially as the hat-which-must-not-be-worn. But, despite this, it’s highly multifunctional. Aside from its use as a small square umbrella to guard oneself against pathetic fallacy, its underside also functions as a badly designed clutch bag. It can even keep your pencils warm—how glam!

So perhaps sub fusc isn’t the most comfortable thing ever created. But, boy, does it allow you to perfect the ‘ceremonial strip’ as you enter the exam hall. Imagine if we were allowed to wear our own clothes to exams? How would we even begin to feel like the naked husks of men and women, that most of us will inevitably resemble by the end of our papers, without this procedure.

Sub fusc is gloomy. Exams are sombre. Let’s celebrate interconnection.

 

Against (Anoushka Kavanagh):

You’ll only truly understand the ridiculousness of sub fusc once you’ve had the experience of wearing it to eat chips with pasta, sit twelve hours of exams, and be lathered in shaving foam and glitter, all in the same wholly inappropriate funereal attire.

It may seem cool that we get to dress like Harry Potter every day, but to the average Oxford student, it’s really rather not. The only way in which sub fusc could possibly be opportune is if the gown were able to assume Potter-esque qualities of invisibility, as you sit sweating in your Prelims, furiously trying to unleash your arm from its starched white cage as you watch the minutes tick by.

I’ve never liked sub fusc, and not just because it exists as an ever-present reminder of Prelims trauma, but because I had hoped that I’d finally left the restraints of uniform behind in year eleven. Alas, upon arriving in Oxford, I found that my style choices were yet again to be dictated to me again, this time by centuries-dead men. Any individuality or style was to be replaced by monochrome garbs. Their outfit choices posed a dreary reminder that for the next three years, my life would be just as sombre.

It’s a shame, because minimalist monochrome has the potential to be quite fashionable. However, this season’s Chanel line sadly doesn’t quite seem to work with the ill-fitting blouse and—too long to be cool, too short to be stylish—skirt. Furthermore, those annoying flaps of spare material, dangling awkwardly from your shoulders into your soup at dinner, will stop you from ever resembling Karl Lagerfeld.

A splash of colour brightens up your outfit at trashings, a reminder you’re temporarily free from the monotonous sobriety of library life. But, I think the subsequent trip to the dry cleaners in attempt to remove the congealed shaving foam really sums up sub fusc.

“What exactly is that?” They ask. Yes, what indeed.