Time After Time (...before time, then at the same time... or something)

I'm over a week late with this. I blame time streams.

So it's half time in the latest Doctor Who series. Thanks America. Season splits are an awesome idea(!) But anyway...

I love Doctor Who. The concept is brilliant. The character is just my favourite shade of nutty. The presumably accidental idea of regeneration is such an amazing addition to character development and I imagine offers so much room to play. It must be a dream to write for.

I'd hate writing for it.

There's been something amiss with this series. Possibly, there is a part of this that stems from the fact it is a new episode of Doctor Who, rather than a new episode of Mr Moffat's other project, Sherlock; a series so good it makes Lucy Liu an unattractive concept (see thoughts on Elementary, i.e.: why bother, there's already Sherlock. Lucy Liu isn't going to make that go away). But it is more than this. There is room in my life for two awesome series, I can't see why I would exclusively want only one.

And before anyone suggests the problem may be very Matt-Smithish in appearance, don't bother. As far as I'm concerned Mr Smith, along with Miss Gillen and Mr Darvill comprise the best line up of Team TARDIS since the reboot. I can conceive of the notion that Matt's portrayal of our favourite (and only) Gallifreyan is precisely why I still watch.

And I don't think it's the writing. Moffat et al have fairly routinely produced thundering rollercoasters of enjoyment for every episode. He's definitely stretched the suspension of disbelief at times but it has tended to work out fine by the end.

This series, though. I don't know. Something is getting me rankled about the story so far. I couldn't work it out until this sub-finale that... oh. Spoilers are probably going to crop up from here on in. Fair warning.

As we said our goodbyes to the Ponds, whisked off into the past to a Manhattan made inaccessible by a highly unstable time stream, there was just one thought which totally killed the ending for me, and suddenly made all my problems clear as crystal.

Time travel is a really idiotic plot device.

As I sat there, watching Matt Smith shine in his moment of utter despair, telling us exactly what the Doctor would have felt as if it had really happened, all I could think was, 'Why did they not just arrange to be picked up outside of New York a year later?' I didn't see anything to block doing this, other than nobody thinking logically. The Doctor and River could have just got into the TARDIS, set a course for Boston, a year after the issue with the Angels and picked up Rory and Amy who would have had a lovely, year long adventure in America. At no point did it come across that this would be impossible.

And I think that this issue stems straight from how ridiculously complex time travel ends up being. It's easy to think about it, easy to picture obvious physical laws that would theoretically exist in travelling through time. But try sticking it to a narrative and, unless you are rigid, you get problems. It feels like the Doctor's writing team were working on mixed messages, or maybe were simply using differing and contradicting possibilities as it suited the story. Which is fine. An artist has got to have license and audiences will be willing to accept things like this if it makes the story compelling. But I am absolutely the most pedantic person in the world, and I will sit there and gripe when you suddenly close a door you had been prancing through, back and forth, for 5 series previously. And time travel has lots of doors. Loopholes, even. And I know that this is why I get a bit uncomfortable around time travel. It is the ultimate Deus Ex Machina (there's an ultimate problem, but who cares? We'll just go back in time and make it so it didn't happen), but you can't have it solve every problem, or there would be no tension. Thus, inconsistency is inevitable.

Yet, I have so much experience in watching and enjoying time travel stories. Aside from the good Doctor there is a plethora of stories I have experienced that have used time travel as a key feature. In fact, it happens so often I can't think of any specific examples other than Back to the Future. Oh, and Night Watch by Terry Pratchett. Well done me. They do, however, somewhat conveniently, offer me contrasting approaches to time travel. Everyone knows Back to the Future. Kid unwittingly ends up in the past and screws everything up so has to unscrew everything or he ends up having never existed. A classic grandfather paradox. He then finds out that the minor screw up that remains has altered his time and made his father a major success, before two more films happen. The point being that the story adheres to the idea that you can change the past and alter your present, retaining your old knowledge at the same time. And I hate this. The completely nonsensical detritus that remains when these stories have bulldozed through a time stream.

The other example, Night Watch, does things a bit differently. I'll try to sum it up without spoilers. And remember what happens. Let me just read the Wiki entry...

...

OK, so, essentially, the time travellers take up roles within the original passing of time, the protagonist filling the role of mentor to his younger self, ensuring that things go as recognised in history. I think things do sort of change, but it's insinuated that it all leads to the same result, anyway. It follows the logic that, if you go back in time you cannot change anything because you would already done those things in your time line for you to be where you started. If that makes sense. Its a much more solid time stream without paradoxes littering the story. Much tidier, much more comfortable to live with.

But that's probably the only tidy way of doing time travel: whereby, you aren't changing anything. The problem you get then is 'Why bother time travelling at all?' This is why I don't want to do time travel. It rarely adds to a story's cohesion, and that clearly matters to me far too much. I'm very willing to see people try but I think I know too much about time travel now to be as able to disconnect myself from what I see as glaring paradoxes.

Obviously, hating the concept of time travel and loving time travel stories is a bit weird. But at least it's not a paradox. I can take comfort in that, at least.

Sycophancy

It's not often I post blogs. Even less do I blog about "what I'm feeling." Certainly not since escaping the teen years.

But no thing can maintain itself forever. Which is a shame.

My recent absence I will shamefully put down to my concentrating on 'proper writing,' which is a ridiculous excuse, I know, but such is my mind that it can, as yet, only focus on one of a type of thing at a time.

Something that has inadvertantly come about from a new found determination to finally get some shit done has been an almost sub-conscious thought experiment, an ethereal by-product that grows with every word I add in futility to what ever page I am unblanking. This is the worry of what to do with the results.

But I know the answer. Or, at least, I know of an ideal solution.

I may have mentioned this before but I habour an ever-expanding and unfathomable admiration for Penny Arcade and the empire that now hosts it. I imagine, to normal people, these efforts may not be all that extraordinary but I find myself struck down in awe by their progression from fledgling, Internet-based comic strip to a now fully fledged Goliath of Humour that is still based, primarily, on the Internet. This is something worthy of emulation.

But, a business is worth nothing if the "product" is worthless. Conveniently, this is not the case with the Penny Arcade strip. Now, while I appreciate the quality of artist Mike Krahulik's work in the strip, especially recently, I can't draw. I have no knowledge of drawing or the skills that go with it. I could as much tell you how Krahulik stacks up against other artists as I could rate a partiular ninja against other ninja. I confide myself in just acknowledging the ninjaship. He ninjas well. I think the analogy is beginning to fall apart.

(This is where the feeling-y bit starts. Brace yourselves.)

Being a writer, however (not the most prolific one, I grant you), I can comment fairly coherently on the wordsmith of the comic, Jerry Holkins. And I will. I will do so with much enthusiasm.

I love the man's writing. His abilities in pacing and structure can be masked by the very jokes they work to construct or the visual comedy from the art but, having spent as much time staring at his web page and gorging on the literary feasts in the news posts that accompany the strips, I could quite happily wax lyrical about the almost melodic quality in his sentence structure, the extensive and often gorgeous vocabulary like the ornamentals of one of Bach's fugues. And he does this talking about video games.

I don't really talk about inspirations. I think maybe my instinct is to be intimidated instead of inspired. That was certainly true with music. The bands I respected most scared me off as I believed I could never amount to that.

With writing, I don't seem to get that. Words are a much more intuitive concept for me. I can see almost straight away how the combination of letters and commas arranged in front of my works. There's a degree of intimidation but I can see the path up the mountain. Jerry's writing: his words, his measure, the images and insights he conjures; It's like Everest. But his writing is so well crafted, so graceful. It's hard to feel anything but inspired, to aim for that peak. Jerry hypnotises like a piper, leading the way up the mountain path.

I try to temper my enthusiasm as much as I can when it comes to literary idols of mine. I worry that I might end up simply mimicking their style rather than infusing it into my personal style. I always look over my writing and worry that it may as well be Terry Pratchett fan-fiction. I once considered writing a series of blogs regarding my thoughts on modern attempts at hedonistic living but discarded these as they looked like a sequel to Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. But the lust for language and description that Holkins exhudes in his writing is a state I am quite willing to live in solidly, at least for a little while. A shift in focus from the long arc of the story to the sensual immersion in the shorter moment might just be what I need to produce an improvement in how I write.

This relies, of course, on an improvement in frequency. I should probably work on that too.

The Games Parade

It’s fairly painful even thinking about games at present. Due to a fairly restrictive income and a general inability to make any assured decisions with what to do with my free time I feel like my current relationship with games is akin to them being the shiny thing that came to be in my possession inside a locked glass cabinet for which I was not given the key.

I really want the shiny thing. I just don’t trust in it enough to smash open the cabinet. Besides, I might need the cabinet. Cabinets are important when you’re supposed to be an adult, right?

But there it is. What with one thing and another, I have kind of stepped out from the games machine for now and, slightly distressingly, maybe forever.

But games are still very shiny. More than ever, perhaps.

And this weekend has been the annual parade of shiny things, E3. I’ve not often paid much attention to it but I always appreciated the announcements and the inevitable awkward and embarrassing moments from the Big 3 consoles as they make their presentations. But, for those not connected enough to actually be there in person, the real attraction of E3 is the plethora of trailers and game play footage that get brought out for the occasion. Quite frankly, what I have seen from this year’s showcase has been almost incandescent.

If you haven’t seen the trailers, there are plenty of ways to do so, so I won’t give any transcripts or anything. But, as I’m sure you can imagine, they were typically shiny and alluring. However, I couldn’t help but notice that, with my cynical sunglasses shielding my eyes, there was just the slightest hint of forced lighting behind the glow. As is the way of trailers, I guess.

Now, I know trailers are, when all is said and done, the worst indicator of whether anything will be worth your time. They are marketing tools, engineered so as to appeal to as wide a scope of demographic as it can. They can, conveniently, cut out all the bad that might exist within a game and completely camouflage what type of game you’ll end up playing. They are aloof, mysterious creatures, dancing in the light, singing from the rocks and telling us absolutely nothing.  Or telling us too much, at least in terms of story. My biggest issue with the Tomb Raider trailer was how much of the story was just nonchalantly spilled out to us. It’s annoying and something I know has been bugging film viewers for years as well.

Tomb Raider is proving to be a real puzzler for me, personally. The original games I missed out on due to not getting a Playstation until five minutes before the Playstation 2 came out but I’ve witnessed them through friends and the action/puzzles/adventure mix that I saw was enough to pull me in and drag me to buy some of the later games on the later generation consoles. They hold a place in my heart, even if the ridiculousness was gradually escalated with each new instalment. I totally accept the need for change. This new game is looking like a serious change. For once, Lara actually looks like a real woman. This is definitely change.

The quite-astonishingly-large-elephant-in-the-room surrounding the game, though, is that, well, it’s very sinister. Now, alright, running around long-lost tombs shooting tigers and finding world ending artefacts to add to your collection is also very sinister. But the footage released so far is looking for a new scale in terms of sinister. This search is being carried out alongside The Last of Us; a brutal survival-fest through fungus afflicted zombies and roving bandits. Typical game scenario. But, like Tomb Raider, the content so far has been intense, to say the least.

I’m not coming out against the portrayal of such subjects. I view video games as an art form and, as such, should be allowed to present whatever they want if done so in the interests of art. And these games are definitely doing what they are doing for a reason. I can definitely see that. Additionally, this dark ‘realism’ is nothing new. Remember Saw? But I didn’t see those films. Never wanted to. I just didn’t feel that spending my free time watching two hours of hyper-real violence was a good way of stepping out of real life for a bit. I worry that the more I see of these games as more and more trailers and game play footage is released, the more I will worry these games are eschewing art for violence.

Inversely, I also worry that as more footage is released it will ruin the experience of playing the game. Both these games have taken much effort in showing the world and horror that you as the player will be submerged in that they are actually taking away some of the horror. The publishers have certainly succeeded in piquing my interest but I’m definitely a bit sore that I’ll miss out on the suspense and shock from the game play experience. I guess, in that respect, this is a no-lose situation for the publishers.

It is this reason that has kept me from seeing the new footage of Assassin’s Creed 3. In fairness to Ubisoft, they tend to do well at keeping secrets but I just don’t need to take that risk. I definitely want to play their game, they have thoroughly hooked me. I don’t need to see anymore until release day. To the other extreme, I took a look at the trailer for The Unfinished Swan, and learned very little at all. It sounded intriguing but I really will need to see more to know if it’s worth playing. Considering this was E3, you’d feel this was the weekend to have a bit more than an arty teaser for those not able to go there and test it. It doesn’t pay to be uninformed.

Obviously, trailers play a role in marketing and the lustre they generate obviously succeeds. But E3 is fairly unfulfilling in this way. It’s very hard to hear about what the game is. Penny Arcade has made an effort in bringing back information behind the scenes and the returns have been really interesting to me, at least. I can watch trailers whenever. What I want from E3 is more news about the real quality of the game; to hear how it plays, how gripping the story is (without spoilers, obviously), what plans the company has in its further development up to release. I’m tired of just looking of shiny things.

Shut Up and Take My Money

The vast and unyielding demon of procrastination that is The Internet has always proven itself to be an almighty leveller. In an instant; the well respected and admired can be dragged down into disrepute through YouTube just as some loser, 12-year old Canadian with a dorky haircut gets catapulted into stardom on the next link over. Twitter has helped topple dictators and derailed legislation. The internet community has turned ruthless, unforgiving and does not take previous history into consideration.

And so, The Internet has made itself a remarkable example for meritocracy. For every person that is ostracised for a reprehensible act, there is an untapped talent drawing in a very devoted audience. The world of comics, for example, has changed dramatically with the works of Jerry Holkins, Mike Krahulik, Scott Kurtz, et al creating a huge online school of independent cartoonists with a huge following that has begun to rival the devotion to the physical side of comics, dominated by the Marvel and DC Universes. Holkins and Krahulik’s joint creation, Penny Arcade, has evolved into a powerful member of the industry as a whole, with their own convention, PAX, becoming comparable in popularity to the more prolific comic conventions like SDCC. Additionally, the internet has provided a platform for physical comics by independent creators to gain a higher platform through both cheaper and wider advertising mediums and pure word of mouth. By providing a window into every other part of the world, the internet has totally changed the playing field, let alone the goalposts, in terms of media distribution.

The improved influence of the internet has led to the advent of a potentially world-changing concept; crowd funding, the most prominent of these projects being Kickstarter. Since its birth in 2008, the Kickstarter project has been making headlines by showing just how far the rules have been altered. The delightfully reaffirming concept is this: Creators sign up to present a concept through Kickstarter in the hopes of raising money to fund the creation of their project, offering certain perks for various levels of donation. The general public can then peruse these projects and donate to the ones that seem most appealing/deserving. It has garnered overwhelming success. Up to April this year, the site had collectively raised over $170 million with over 20,000 successful projects. One project in particular really started to make people take notice, reaching some incredible landmarks along the way. It reached its set target in just nine hours, managed to raise over $1 million dollars in one day before eventually raising over $3 million by the end of its run. Of course, it may have had a helping hand from the fact that the man asking for the money was this guy called Tim Schafer.

Now, I have an awareness of Tim Schafer. I don’t have the extensive knowledge of his portfolio of work that those who generously donated would likely have but I’m slowly schooling myself to catch up with respected society. However, I have enough experience of his work to know the man is to be admired, having grown up on the Monkey Island games and then finally uncovering Psychonauts after seeing it for cheap on Steam (a common trait with Schafer’s games that has probably been the cause of his turning to Kickstarter). He started out as part of a highly prolific LucasArts games division until they gave up creativity to milk the Star Wars franchise for all it was worth, after which he went on to found Double Fine Productions, following Schafer’s tradition of creating unique concepts and ladling on heaps of absolutely surreal humour. A fantastic combination for enjoyable games, sadly it isn’t so much in terms of marketability. Double Fine’s most notable gaming offerings; Psychonauts and Brütal Legend, both failed to make much of an impact in terms of sales figures, leading to support for Schafer’s future projects becoming difficult to come by. The games have, however, gained a significant cult following. Smaller games have been produced since including the highly regarded Costume Quest and Stacking but these obviously were able to be produced with a much lower budget and were handled pretty much independently.

With this new project, Double Fine Adventure, Schafer is going back to his game-making roots with a point-and-click adventure game. By using Kickstarter, Schafer can raise the investment required without the ‘significant strings attached that can pull the game in the wrong directions or even cancel its production altogether,’ whilst letting the general public into some of the secrets of game production. A more democratic approach to games creation. The original target was a somewhat modest $400,000, at least in terms of the type of funding games usually require. The subsequent and overwhelming success of this fundraising, gaining over 85,000 backers to amass his highly impressive total, suggests he wields a significant audience that thinks Schafer is on to something good.

This presents an interesting question. What is the limit of Kickstarter fundraising? Another project, the E Paper Watch from Pebble, has recently broken the $10 million mark, 100 times more than the original goal set. Granted, the base price for the product and the various reward levels for Pebble were much higher than Double Fine’s and, thus, the average pledge was also much higher; $148 for Pebble, $38 for Double Fine. But this just means that if a good idea is presented attractively enough, people will put forward money for it to be made real. This isn’t too odd a concept, really. People always offer money for goods. Only, in this case, the money is paid first.

The only possibly surprising thing is the extent to which people have chosen to buy into the rewards above simply receiving the basic product, which require much higher contributions. Obviously, the lure of the additional perks plays a part in this but it is not a given; especially in current economic conditions. But, there is a precedent for this kind of generosity. When Radiohead released In Rainbows and gave buyers the option to name their price, including paying nothing, people still paid money, averaging roughly £4 per copy and taking more money than their previous album without including sales of the physical CD when it was released. If you give people the option to take something for free and nearly half still offer to pay money, it shows that there is clearly a strong belief in effort being rewarded.

So, what is to say we couldn’t see a major project, say a Hollywood quality film, finding at least the majority of its funding through a project like Kickstarter? Admittedly, a lot of hugely commercial projects, although that is certainly not the case for all (28 Days Later, for instance), require much, much more than the highest Kickstarter project so far but if the quantities raised continues to increase it would be interesting to see how much the level of project increases as well. Could the possibility of total creative freedom in their projects be an attractive enough prospect for someone like Terry Gilliam to take a punt and put their project on Kickstarter? And would it be successful? Online fundraising projects could, potentially, spark a new renaissance, unhindered by perceived marketability. In fact, it would be direct evidence of the true marketability of a project. If you can get people to pay for it before it’s even made, there is clearly demand for it. If they come anyway, then you should probably build it.

Situations Vacant

OK, here's the skinny.

I have been working on a project and I'm kind of pleased with the progress so far. But I need help taking it further. I've been working on the words for a comic-book-esque story and the first part of it is basically done. Sadly, my drawing capability is only marginally better than that of an eight year old. So this is where you guys come in.

I'm looking for someone to, primarily, do the artwork for me. Bearing in mind that I am keen to set this story upon the general public, I need someone equally as keen to make a career out of this as I am, although I'm sure most illustrators are looking to do just that so I probably didn't need to say anything. Essentially, what I am saying is that if all you do is doodle in notebook margins, you're probably not what I'm looking for.

On the flip side, I'm not necessarily looking for really professional artists either. This is my first real writing project and I'm still working myself into a regular writing routine. This is fair warning that if you get frustrated with delays and faffing about, I will probably piss you off quite royally. Which I can only apologise for.

Above all of this, though, I'm really hoping to find someone that will not just be "an artist," but will openly collaborate and add to the project. Like I said, this is my first proper project and I am more than aware I know next to nothing about good artwork. As such, I would love to find someone who is willing to go through the script and point out any necessary changes to the suggested descriptions and even the story. I'm looking for a creative partner rather than an artistic mercenary.

I am Cambridge based and would be keen to find someone that was based within easy travel distances so we could have face to face working sessions, but I am more than willing to work via the net if I have to. For now, I'd rather not post specifics of the story online for now but I would suggest that anyone hoping to work in a manga format or do anything surreally futuristic may be disappointed. If you are interested I'd love to hear from you and check out any online portfolios you may have. I'll get back to as many as I can and for those that I think might work best I will get you to draw out a scene so I can get an idea of what kind of style you have in mind. I think my email should be somewhere on this page, but in case it isn't you can contact me on simonriley87@hotmail.com.

If you aren't interested but suspect people you know may well be, I would greatly appreciate it if you could pass this on. You might just help in the creation of your future favourite comic book (or, at least, one you kind of like a bit).

Thank you for reading.

Simon

Shaking the Rust Off.

So it's been a while since I posted on here. It was inevitable really. I lose interest in things so easily. I'm terrible like that and I'm sorry.

But this week has been strange. A whole cluster bomb of news set to divide and spark anger. All of which being the kind of thing that tends to force me to retreat. To hide from things which are too much for me to confront. But I've been doing that for a year now. I feel you deserve an explanation at some point.

What appears to have become highly prevalent in the year or so of coalition government is that people are speaking very openly about everything. Perhaps "austerity" is getting to people, causing them to find someone they can punish. This is not to say that they blame these people, because I imagine everyone knows that the people to blame are our apparent representatives on every level of the political scale but that it is beyond our ability to appropriately punish these individuals. So everyone has looked lower, back within their reach. That's where the fighting starts. From celebrities blaming their indiscretions on the devious journalists that hack their phones, to Tottenham kids kicking out at everything around them that seemed to glitter in any way. And to either side, a whole mob of vocal enthusiasts ready to tweet bile at each other about the wrongs and rights of every instance, glad for someone new to condemn. It's becoming fairly cyclical.

The sad thing about all these divisive attitudes is it seems to be taking us backwards as a society. The war between private and public sectors threatens to return us to a culture where everything, every basic need, will come with a weighty bill attached. An apparently principled anger towards protesters points to a society no longer influenced by public needs and opinions. Racial tensions seem to be escalating again, threatening the return of Jim Davidson to television. All things I thought we had grown beyond. All things that I fear are creeping back. But then, I am ridiculously paranoid.

But this week sadly seems like part of an eventual proof supporting a historic text into the new Dark Ages. Event One was the sudden outburst by a woman in Croyden at the racially diverse set of passengers with whom she was sharing a tram. Alone, not a big deal. Crazy bint mouths off, gets caught and posted on YouTube, everyone gets the chance to condemn her and we all feel good about ourselves for being better than a horrible racist and a horrible mother. But, having delved a little into some of the reactions, I find a fair few that actually support this woman and her totally hateful ignorance. Again, this probably isn't a surprise or, indeed, anything to suggest that racism is on the rise. But it's the angry and ignorant that shout loudest and the clever and manipulative that listen to the louder shouts. If Sepp Blatter can be a racist and remain in charge of the governing body of world football, what deterrent is there for the racists?

Speaking of loud people. We come to Event Two: The public sector strikes. Now, with both parents being teachers, I bet you can guess what my opinion is of taking strike action. Unfortunately, I happened to be at work whilst my head was threatening to rip itself in two by the time the protest march parked itself outside the front door of the shop where I work, so I was mildly perturbed by the chanting and horns and whistles that I swear to any powers that will listen were tuned to the exact frequency of the pains in my head. But, some painkillers and a lunch break later and I was feeling a lot more supportive. A lot of people, it seems, are less supportive.

Now, I can understand why some people might be frustrated. Hell, I just described how my day was disrupted by the strikes. But, surely, once everything has died down, how can people not have some degree of sympathy for people who spend their entire working lives actively supporting the public, often unnoticed and even despite negative rewards, doing what they can to secure a fair life and future for themselves as well. But division has torn a great chasm between the public sector and private sector, sparking large-scale whinge-fests on both sides. Comparing wages, pension pots, working conditions etc., etc. It's just constant bickering, which makes the action to strike seem inevitable as clearly there has been no time for reasonable discussions, what with all the sniping at each other. But, through all this, I can't help but feel this divide is being crafted as a political tool and I worry where this possibility might lead us.

And, somewhat linked to this, Event Three. Jeremy Clarkson. A conflict which is, as I speak, still forming and mutating as people either defend (and more worryingly, agree with) his comments, or start constructing a set of gallows big enough to take down his ego. Now, I don't think Clarkson is totally flawless an entertainer, as this "joke" would seem to prove. His comments were callous, excessive, shallow and, more importantly for me, not edgy. In an attempt to jab deftly into the heart of whatever point he was making about the strikes or politics or the BBCs need to be impartial (which I suspect may have been his original aim, but I'm probably being insanely kind) he missed his mark by miles and, instead, flogged the dead horse of modern society's over-sensitivity with a shed-sized club. Just. Not surprisingly, then, many people missed the point and either flat out agreed with Clarkson's suggestion or began seeking his dismissal. Both of these responses are wrong, just in case you weren't sure.

The problem with "Jezza" is that, in essence, he is a very poorly constructed persona with limited scope. He is just a giant stick with which to prod people. But "Jeremy"; the sheltered, middle-class country-dweller, often peers through the paper-thin mask and offers something at least agreeable if not genuinely heartfelt. For all the Mexican-bashing and public-sector executing he spews out, there is, somewhere, the honest outpouring of admiration and respect for modern Vietnam. That's right Mr. Clarkson, I'm calling you out for the soppy lefty that you truly are!

It's a shame that, on yesterday's One Show, he was stuck in character, as he is now the hate figure for a section of society he may well hide, somewhere deep, an honest respect for. But in calling for his head, the striking unions have ensured that they will never get an apology or any support, because the great ego that he cloaks himself with can never be stained with regret. It must fly, untarnished, in order that his career, and maybe even his mental state, does not suddenly crumble.

On the other hand, however, those berating the unions for their inability to take a joke should surely question why they consider what he said to be funny. Yes, saying that strikers should be "taken out and shot" is an exaggeration intended for comic effect. But it's not funny. You could see it in Matt Baker's eyes after he said it. He wasn't laughing, he was cringing. It was a twisted thing to suggest, even if it was an exaggeration. But there are people laughing. People saying he is right. I assume Jeremy would, in secret, disagree with these people. But this is what people need to remember as they scream "Freedom of Speech." (It's funny how a lot of people who claim freedom of speech in defence of Clarkson would probably support banning the strikes and protests.) Yes, you have a right to say what you want, but it doesn't exempt you from criticism and it certainly doesn't free you from the responsibility of the consequences of what you say. Clarkson has a responsibility, if he truly was exaggerating, to quell whatever anger has risen against the Unions thanks to his remarks. Another reason, then, not to have him fired.

In the end, Clarkson's punishment should remain the knowledge that he has further fuelled the anger against a public sector that, in secret, he more than likely supports. If Unison force the matter further, they could end up making him a martyr for a movement that could quickly smother and isolate the public sector's cause.

This has been very rambly and poorly constructed. I apologise. Hopefully I will get better with practise.

Peace.

UPDATE: Jeremy Clarkson has since apologised, in that mildly reluctant way that TV personalities always seem to do, and I would suggest that what I sort of hinted at above, that his joke was aimed at the BBC's requirement to be impartial and the reactionist habits to attack the striking workers for purely selfish reasons. Whilst I believe he was exaggerating greatly and did not wish to offend, he still did and I think it would serve him well to make his next article a more honest, genuine approach to the strikes. Assuming I am right (which is a big assumption, granted) and that Jeremy is in some way supportive of the strike action, a pro-strike piece would be a fantastic step towards making amends as well as taking responsibility for how his comments might be taken by his own supporters who may now be even more unsupportive of the Unions and the strike action. Of course, this may just be wishful thinking and that the truth is that Jeremy is just that ignorant of the general public. On reflection, that may be more likely.

I'm a Consumer...

I was so hooked. The sleek, gleaming curves and the ever so simplistic designs. I wanted to hold the shining monoliths in my hand, behold the intrinsic wonders each structure held and manipulate the world at the slightest touch. I had fallen for the sweet promises and for the lily-white innocence that oozed from every unit of its presence. I would have brought down the very mountains to gain access to the secrets they held, broken through the gets of heaven to claim its divine powers. I was, for all intents and purposes, theirs.

That was so long ago. Another lifetime, maybe. Now, the sparkling veneer has been tarnished; ruined by the stains of its own power. What shine remains is now a blinding curse, catching all in its wake and manipulating them to its deceitful process. Once we were promised freedom, and that promise now bites down like the snare it has become. The silvery towers that stand watch over the streets, drawing in the public like an electro-magnet more powerful than any Sun and parading the latest line of portable starlight available for them to take for their own. I have stood inside these galleries, just like they are now. I even made an attempt to rise above my station and become one of the annointed who stalk among the common-men, spreading the word so that they may be saved. How lucky it was that I was overlooked.

Now I know what is really true. These empowered and privileged few, so welcoming and resourceful, are simply herders. Shepherding the unworthy to a new life under the dominion of their masters. Pressing them to the new collective that resides under the spell of the unquestioned leader. Cosying those stronger in spirit so that they too may break. I have seen the darkness behind their eyes; the true intents that lurk beneath such good intentions. And I ran, slipping from the chain I had so nearly bound me to what I know now to be inevitable. The curse that can never be broken. Of this I know all too well.

For I am not truly free. Noone ever can be. But I was lucky. For some, it is far too late. They are tied for life to their masters' whim. Drained of their souls in exchange for each new upgrade, each step of progress that is made, each new vital enhancement that embeds itself into the everyday lives of those caught up in its wake. Each of us are now dependant. Each of us needs its influence in order to survive. Even now I am out of its mental hold, I am not free of its grip on my life. I am sure I never will. It is this that pushes me to fight against the shadow that has fallen over the glistening Ivory temples that once seemed like a new way of life. I can only hope that, one day, my cause will win out and I can rid myself of the plight that has such a strong hold on my life. But I do not hold such hope too strongly. The reach of the Apple spreads far and wide and its gaze can peer around any corner.


(Events have been exaggerated in the interests of entertainment. Hopefully.)