alexsarll: (Default)
I'm trying my best to get into the Fyfe Dangerfield solo album but...it's just not as interesting as Guillemots. I think we have to conclude that, in the new terminology, he has 'done a Cheryl'.

With so much good TV restarting this week, I suppose it makes things easier that, its Fast Show pedigree notwithstanding, Bellamy's People is rubbish. The broad-brush caricatures - of a fat man, the Mitford sisters, Andrew Loog Oldham - lack any spark of life, and even when they have a target which is rich in comic potential and really deserves the mockery, a 'community leader', what ought to be funny is not.
Similarly, How Earth Made Us has some stunning footage - especially of a crystal cave deep beneath Mexico - but I'm saved from the need to persevere by the presenter, who is essentially Peter Capaldi playing a prick.

"in a real revolution - not a simple dynastic change or mere reform of institutions - in a real revolution the best characters do not come to the front. A violent revolution falls into the hands of narrow-minded fanatics and of tyrannical hypocrites at first. Afterwards comes the turn of all the pretentious intellectual failures of the time. Such are the chiefs and the leaders. You will notice that I have left out the mere rogues. The scrupulous and the just, the noble, humane, and devoted natures; the unselfish and the intelligent may begin a movement - but it passes away from them. They are not the leaders of a revolution. They are its victims: the victims of disgust, of disenchantment - often of remorse. Hopes grotesquely betrayed, ideals caricatured - that is the definition of revolutionary success."
So wrote Joseph Conrad in 1911's Under Western Eyes, and could the last 99 years have done more to prove his point? Of course, he does not deny that the Russian autocracy against which his revolutionaries strive is itself a grotesque and incoherent tyranny. Similarly, we cannot really claim any better for the deranged kleptocracy which still dares to call itself capitalism and which holds the modern world in so firm a grip. But nor can we realistically believe that a revolution would make things any better when, almost without exception, history shows them making things basically the same, yet slightly worse.

Have also been reading Tokyo Days, Bangkok Nights, a collection of two Vertigo Pop miniseries from 2002-2003. At the time I only read the London one by Peter Milligan which, like so much of his work, remains uncollected (but wasn't that great anyway). These two are by Jonathan Vankin, a writer whose name still means little to me, and on this showing that's no great omission. Both stories have Americans coming up against cultural strangeness and institutional corruption in the relevant cities, and while I've quite liked Giuseppe Camuncoli's Hellblazer art (a gig for which he was blatantly auditioning with his portrayal of the one Brit here), he can't make Bangkok anything more than the sort of clunkingly obvious middlebrow culture clash story which, on screen, would be in with a good chance of an Oscar or two. So why did I bother reading this, or talking about it? Because Tokyo has art by Seth Fisher. I've only been getting into his stuff recently, but it's amazing - he's one of the very few artists to have anything like the sheer physicality of Frank Quitely, but instead of Quitely's hyper-realism it's paired with a cartoonish sensibility somewhere between Philip Bond and manga. It's gorgeous. And there's hardly any of it because, for reasons I've never seen properly explained, Fisher went off the roof of an Osaka club in 2006 and died having never really done any work with a decent writer. So we have to sift through what he could accomplish on a script by Vankin, or Zeb Wells, and wonder what he could have accomplished paired with Milligan or Morrison. Rest in peace, Seth.
alexsarll: (bill)
Monday night at the Salisbury: I am the first member of my quiz team to arrive. At the bar is a top financial pundit of my acquaintance, in the same position. We spot two adjacent tables and grab both, sat on the bench, chatting. I realise this is slightly irregular, but what comes next is still a shuddering breach of all canons of boozer behaviour. Three peons* turn up, and attempt to sidle into the end of one of the tables.
Us:"Sorry, we've each got a team coming for the quiz, we're going to need both tables."
(True: we ended up with 14 people between the two)
Peons: "This is our table, we just went out for ten minutes for a fag."
(Untrue: I had been there at least ten minutes by this point, m'learned colleage for 15)
Us: "Well, you can't just all wander off, then come back and reclaim your table."
Peons: "I beg to differ, but hey, I don't want to get in a fight about it."
Exeunt peons, muttering.
Now come on, that's not how pubs work, is it? Later I was briefly left minding both tables, while one lot were smoking and another buying drinks. But I was there, and so were various tokens of table taken-ness: drinks, books, coats. On Friday, after accidentally walking out of London, when I decided that I needed some food as well as a pint, I did leave my table unattended to order - but that was in a beer garden with spare tables a-plenty, and I left my 2/3-full pint *and* my book on the table, just to be clear.

Also annoying me on Monday: plot holes. Primeval merely required some of its characters to be uncommonly stupid (why did Dr Ethnic not think to ask who Helen was, or mention the woman she'd bumped into in the street after her pass turned out to have been stolen by a dead man? Why did nobody else think to show Dr Ethnic a picture of their arch-enemy as part of her induction briefing?), and tried to get too many genres into one show - on top of the usual dinosaur time-travel malarkey, 45 minutes gives you time to do either a story in the style of an MR James haunted house yarn, or the one with Jason Flemyng as an acknowledged tough cop cliche, but not both. But James Blish's third Cities in Flight book, Earthman, Come Home...well, the other three are all circa 130 pages long, and this is 230, and the length doesn't suit it, and it shows. The first one's a prequel, following a couple of strands through the stagnating Earth of fairly soon and showing us how in spite of that, humanity gets into space. The second is a bildungsroman, one Shanghaied spacer finding his way around the world of the stars in the manner of an early Heinlein. This one...it has more scope, more daring, more sense of what life is like in Blish's stars. It has prescient things to say about depressions in hi-tech societies, and a communication method which looks suspiciously like Twitter. The dubious gender politics, and the heteronormativity, I can forgive. Even the explanation of why pirates died out on Earth, asinine as it looks in the face of Somalia and the South China Sea, I can overlook. But the basic principle of these stories is that Earth's cities have become spacefaring itinerant labourers, trading on their inhabitants' technical know-how, with each city propelled through space by a Macguffin called a 'spindizzy'. Whose principles are so simple that even after Earth's government tried to suppress it, it was independently rediscovered by accident.
These endlessly resourceful space-faring technologists, who can take a whole planet for a joyride, can't manage more than a short-term jury-rigged repair on their own engines/life-support/way of life.
Now, if that were intended as a comment on the world of now, where we all rely on devices so far beyond our practical repair capabilities as practically to invoke Clarke's Law, then fair enough. But if so, no hint of that whatsoever. It's just a mechanism to get the protagonists to where the story needs them, and it will not do.

I always loved Charlotte Bronte's comment that "Miss [Jane] Austen being, as you say, without "sentiment", without poetry, maybe is sensible (more real than true), but she cannot be great.'' But I was still gladdened to discover yet another writer far better than Austen demonstrating similar wisdom: '"What is all this about Jane Austen?" demanded a baffled Joseph Conrad, writing to HG Wells. "What is there in her?"' If Wells did respond with anything more than a shrug, I think I'd rather not know about it.

Finsbury Parkers - or at least those of you on the Islington side of the street - apparently our MP is an associate of Holocaust-deniers. Fun.

*Just so we're all clear here - one of them's a white rasta.
alexsarll: (Default)
I note that there was again a new moon on Monday, but what with the torrential rain, I completely missed it. Sorry, Duran Duran.

Hackney, That Rose-Red Empire by Iain Sinclair )
And what are the odds on reading two books in a row where a minor character is trying a Pierre Menard-style rewrite of works by Joseph Conrad?

Got stuck into some free DVDs from the old regime last night. I'm sure I caught some as a child, but only on Monday night did I sit down to watch Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Holmes. Everyone says the performance is pretty much definitive, and I'm not going to argue - cadaverous, inhuman, brilliant - but here's what intrigues me: having messed up and thought Casebook was the first series, I started there, with 'The Disappearance of Lady Frances Carfax' in which Holmes has a bit of an off day. More of an off day, in fact, than in the original story, and it gets to him more. The first episode of the first series was in fact 'A Scandal in Bohemia'. Now, simply because of the name and the brevity this was the first of the original stories which I read, but it is deeply unusual in that Holmes has a seriously off day. ITV was, in those days, still capable of producing decent dramas, but is this a precursor of the nasty tendency now to need to 'humanise' your leads right from the start? Which is not just an ITV thing - consider how the very first House saw him break his resolution never to speak to the patients (one reason I abandoned that show so promptly - others include hypochondria, and Hugh Laurie's accent).
Nonetheless, considerably truer to Doyle's writings than Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's The Lost World, which I also attempted, where a bunch of Australians and Yanks plus one token bumbling Brit get trapped on a plateau with dinosaurs who really make you realise how far CGI has come in the past decade, plus all manner of other nonsense - the first episode has lascivious Roman-style lizardmen who would have been right at home in Edgar Rice Burroughs or Robert E Howard, but are really not Doyle's kind of thing. Passably entertaining nonsense which is itself demonstrably superior to the sappy, try-hard gloop that is Kyle XY, one of the worst SF series of which I have ever had the misfortune to see five minutes. And to put that into context, I managed a whole episode of Merlin. If anyone wants the first season DVD of Kyle XY, it's yours, though I will judge you for that.

Theory: anyone who has seen or indeed owned a lava lamp would be significantly less disturbed by the bubbling chaos of Azathoth, Nyogha and their ilk than people of Lovecraft's generation.

December 2017

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
1718192021 2223
24252627282930
31      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 6th, 2025 06:27 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios