No acquisitions
Books read (8)
BOTM: G. Greene, A Sort of Life
B. Bryson, Neither here nor there
G. Greene, A Gun for Sale
G. Greene, The confidential agent
P.S. Fichtner, Maximillian II
C. James, The Remake
J. Steinbeck, Tortilla Flat
Waterfield, Xenophon's retreat
I liked the reading this month, but I don't think anything has been world shattering. Lots of Greene, and the best was his volume of autobiography, which - apart from a overpresent humility - was engaging, interesting and warm. Though, flicking through my previous entries,
I overpraise these kinds of books - I feel I was born a few decades too late. Nonetheless, it pushed into a string of novels by the same author, which are reliably excellent, albeit lacking compared to his various masterpieces.
Thursday, 3 December 2009
Saturday, 14 November 2009
Bibliography, October 2009
Books bought (0)
Books read (10)
BOTM: B. Bryson, A Walk in the woods
I. Asimov, The Caves of Steel
I. Asimov, The Naked Sun
I. Asimov, Robots of Dawn
B. Chatwin, What am I doing here?
T. Heald, Village Cricket
S. Leys, The wreck of the Batavia
L. MacNiece, The Strings are false
Malammed, Heretics or Daughters of Israel
Virgil, The Aeneid
Some real rubbish this month - Malammed's study tedious, Heald's cricket memoir facile and devoid of charm. And I spent a long day rereading whole string of SF that while nostalgic and imaginative, cannot claim literary merit.
However, MacNiece's unfinished autobiography was a flawed masterpiece. Reading it, one is constantly drawn back to that world which has gone. It's beautifully written, but suffers from its lack of editing and finishing, as well some mid century absurd intellectual pretension. The contrast with Bryson, who takes BOTM this time, is striking. Here, we have a writer who really has polished every seemingly throwaway sentence. And it's a better book for it.
Books read (10)
BOTM: B. Bryson, A Walk in the woods
I. Asimov, The Caves of Steel
I. Asimov, The Naked Sun
I. Asimov, Robots of Dawn
B. Chatwin, What am I doing here?
T. Heald, Village Cricket
S. Leys, The wreck of the Batavia
L. MacNiece, The Strings are false
Malammed, Heretics or Daughters of Israel
Virgil, The Aeneid
Some real rubbish this month - Malammed's study tedious, Heald's cricket memoir facile and devoid of charm. And I spent a long day rereading whole string of SF that while nostalgic and imaginative, cannot claim literary merit.
However, MacNiece's unfinished autobiography was a flawed masterpiece. Reading it, one is constantly drawn back to that world which has gone. It's beautifully written, but suffers from its lack of editing and finishing, as well some mid century absurd intellectual pretension. The contrast with Bryson, who takes BOTM this time, is striking. Here, we have a writer who really has polished every seemingly throwaway sentence. And it's a better book for it.
Brief technical excursus
One of the fun things about my job is that - just occasionally - I can do pointless things and pretend they are 'interesting' findings. This archive site is great example. I was looking for old versions of the BBC site yesterday - just type that into the Wayback box - and it's fascinating. We're so used to the current versions of things that we forget how recent it all is. I pulled up the BBC site from 1997, when I went to university - and it's mind boggling how bad it is (here's the news site from 1998). The first site at all I can find is from 1996, though I've since seen the 1994 version
Yet I don't remember this being the case at college, and if pressed would have said it was only a bit worse and clunkier than now.
On a second note, and one that I find amusing, the Internet also proves splendidly corruptible. This blog, wonderful though it is, is not an original phrase, but named for the injunction in Paul and in later councils that he who acts / believes otherwise be accursed. Here's Paul in Galatians 1.9: If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. So, it's a good biblical phrase with history, it's then picked up by the early church.
And if you search using Microsoft's Bing, this is what you find. Actually you find
1. Wikipedia's artcicle on the subject
2. Something about a band
3. An article about the Latin term and Greek origins
Tellingly, if you - like everyone else - search on Google, you get:
1. A blog, about how using human embryos is bad
2. Brilliantly, this blog
3. Amazingly, this blog again, highlighting the May 2009 bibliography (BOTM: Phineus Redux)
Yet I don't remember this being the case at college, and if pressed would have said it was only a bit worse and clunkier than now.
On a second note, and one that I find amusing, the Internet also proves splendidly corruptible. This blog, wonderful though it is, is not an original phrase, but named for the injunction in Paul and in later councils that he who acts / believes otherwise be accursed. Here's Paul in Galatians 1.9: If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. So, it's a good biblical phrase with history, it's then picked up by the early church.
And if you search using Microsoft's Bing, this is what you find. Actually you find
1. Wikipedia's artcicle on the subject
2. Something about a band
3. An article about the Latin term and Greek origins
Tellingly, if you - like everyone else - search on Google, you get:
1. A blog, about how using human embryos is bad
2. Brilliantly, this blog
3. Amazingly, this blog again, highlighting the May 2009 bibliography (BOTM: Phineus Redux)
Google own blogger.com
Friday, 13 November 2009
Saying sorry
For the limited (i.e., no) people who miss this blog, for the long silence, I apologise. But, brilliantly, not as much as the Sun has had to apologise for misspelling the name of Jacqui Janes on their website.
On this affair, they've behaved disgracefully, manipulatively and unfairly on the whole issue. While I share their general scepticism of the dregs of the Labour regime, picking up the outrage of a grieving mother to attack the Prime Minister on this is wrong. He had written a letter personally; he did make time to speak in person to the Ms Janes. There (and even before) it should have rested, given it is over a simple spelling mistake - unfortunate yes, but not a scandal.
This should teach them to refrain in future, but sadly, of course, it will almost certainly affect them only trivially. But we can hope.
On this affair, they've behaved disgracefully, manipulatively and unfairly on the whole issue. While I share their general scepticism of the dregs of the Labour regime, picking up the outrage of a grieving mother to attack the Prime Minister on this is wrong. He had written a letter personally; he did make time to speak in person to the Ms Janes. There (and even before) it should have rested, given it is over a simple spelling mistake - unfortunate yes, but not a scandal.
This should teach them to refrain in future, but sadly, of course, it will almost certainly affect them only trivially. But we can hope.
Tuesday, 13 October 2009
Manufactured outrage
I always think it's bad when po-facedness wins, even when there are cheap points to be made. I'm equally keen on people not taking all this very seriously.
So, well done Jack Straw for this response to a question about the hours worked by his Special Advisors:
As working for me as a Special Adviser is, I am told, pure pleasure and stress free, my Special Advisers work exceptionally long hours, often at weekends and late into the evening without complaint, and have not therefore felt the need which they otherwise might to complete timesheets to show that I was sweating their labour
I thought it was funny (for it is). And poor form for the right in pretending to care.
So, well done Jack Straw for this response to a question about the hours worked by his Special Advisors:
As working for me as a Special Adviser is, I am told, pure pleasure and stress free, my Special Advisers work exceptionally long hours, often at weekends and late into the evening without complaint, and have not therefore felt the need which they otherwise might to complete timesheets to show that I was sweating their labour
I thought it was funny (for it is). And poor form for the right in pretending to care.
Wednesday, 7 October 2009
We're in this together
Anna's furious with George Osbourne's speech at conference for his 'patronising' use of the first person plural in his speech. What really riled her was 'we all borrowed too much'. Amusingly of course, the papers and the Today programme have been highlighting Osbourne's reaching deep into his children's DVD collection for the phrase 'we're in this together', apparently a key policy line from the makers of High School Musical (though as Disney spent a lot of the mid century fighting furiously with various Unions, there is a certain irony about that).
They're both wrong though. HSM cannot take credit for 'we're in this together.' It's a generic phrase. Perhaps Osbourne was really focusing on the Nine inch nails song of the same title (I've heard neither). Equally, A's quite wrong to complain that Osbourne's wealth makes him somehow unqualified to comment. Let's be clear, he's keeping the stupid 50% tax, and imposing a cut on MPs and ministers, as well as exempting the lowest paid public sector workers from the freeze (and the front line military - nice touch).
Crucially, and I cannot stress this enough, he's right because we're fucked. We have no money and a debt with more zeros that High School Musical sales. So of course we need to cut jobs and freeze pay and work harder. Labour has been poor in response claiming:
a) they'd cut harder because they've promised to halve the deficit (just as they promised to abolish boom and bust)
b) the Tories would hit the middle class. It's a long way from Labour when people earning over £50k are the class they worry about
I think it's good stuff. The public sector workers being banned from earning more than the Prime Minister is nonsense, and their caps on pension just absurd. Were they to come into force I'd have to move out of the Public sector, but they won't.
Roll on May.
They're both wrong though. HSM cannot take credit for 'we're in this together.' It's a generic phrase. Perhaps Osbourne was really focusing on the Nine inch nails song of the same title (I've heard neither). Equally, A's quite wrong to complain that Osbourne's wealth makes him somehow unqualified to comment. Let's be clear, he's keeping the stupid 50% tax, and imposing a cut on MPs and ministers, as well as exempting the lowest paid public sector workers from the freeze (and the front line military - nice touch).
Crucially, and I cannot stress this enough, he's right because we're fucked. We have no money and a debt with more zeros that High School Musical sales. So of course we need to cut jobs and freeze pay and work harder. Labour has been poor in response claiming:
a) they'd cut harder because they've promised to halve the deficit (just as they promised to abolish boom and bust)
b) the Tories would hit the middle class. It's a long way from Labour when people earning over £50k are the class they worry about
I think it's good stuff. The public sector workers being banned from earning more than the Prime Minister is nonsense, and their caps on pension just absurd. Were they to come into force I'd have to move out of the Public sector, but they won't.
Roll on May.
Sunday, 4 October 2009
Bibliography, September 2009
Bought (o)
Read (6)
G. Tremlett, Ghosts of Spain
A. Christie, Murder is easy
M. Druon, Le Roi de fer
J. Lovegrove, The Hope
A. Tabucci, Requiem: a hallucination
A. Trollope, The Duke's Children
I'm far to busy to read much this month. Other than holidays I have barely read anything this month. The best though was Tremlett's (the Guardian's Madrid correspondent) book on post-Francoist Spain, which I have had for some time and never quite got round to reading. It's fascinating, insightful and very well done.
Read (6)
G. Tremlett, Ghosts of Spain
A. Christie, Murder is easy
M. Druon, Le Roi de fer
J. Lovegrove, The Hope
A. Tabucci, Requiem: a hallucination
A. Trollope, The Duke's Children
I'm far to busy to read much this month. Other than holidays I have barely read anything this month. The best though was Tremlett's (the Guardian's Madrid correspondent) book on post-Francoist Spain, which I have had for some time and never quite got round to reading. It's fascinating, insightful and very well done.
Thursday, 3 September 2009
Bibliography, August 2009
Acquired:
still haven't counted
Read (13)
BOTM: A. Burroughs, Dry
J. Binns, Ascetics and ambassadors of Christ
B. Bryson, Made in America
R. Carver, Where I'm calling from
D. Dales, Light to the Isles
R. Grant, Colony
G. Greene, A burnt out case (probably read earlier but not recorded)
G. Haigh, Silent Revolutions
A. Lebor, City of Oranges
G. Morgan, AD 69. The year of four emperors
A. Proulx, Brokeback mountain & other stories
P. Roth, I married a communist
H.H. Scallard, From the Gracci to Nero
Cracking month this - barely a bad book, but Burroughs the best. I was very pleasantly surprised by the honesty and the wicked humour of what is fundamentally a depressing litany of alcohol abuse and terminal illness of one's best friend. Uplifting in the end, but very well written. Couple of honourable mentions worth going to Scallard's excellent textbook on the end of the republic and Gideon Haigh's collected essays. A peerless collection from the best cricket writer active today.
still haven't counted
Read (13)
BOTM: A. Burroughs, Dry
J. Binns, Ascetics and ambassadors of Christ
B. Bryson, Made in America
R. Carver, Where I'm calling from
D. Dales, Light to the Isles
R. Grant, Colony
G. Greene, A burnt out case (probably read earlier but not recorded)
G. Haigh, Silent Revolutions
A. Lebor, City of Oranges
G. Morgan, AD 69. The year of four emperors
A. Proulx, Brokeback mountain & other stories
P. Roth, I married a communist
H.H. Scallard, From the Gracci to Nero
Cracking month this - barely a bad book, but Burroughs the best. I was very pleasantly surprised by the honesty and the wicked humour of what is fundamentally a depressing litany of alcohol abuse and terminal illness of one's best friend. Uplifting in the end, but very well written. Couple of honourable mentions worth going to Scallard's excellent textbook on the end of the republic and Gideon Haigh's collected essays. A peerless collection from the best cricket writer active today.
Tuesday, 1 September 2009
It's an odd boy who doesn't like Sport
In one of their odder tracks, the Bonzos recorded a ditty where they reminisced about sport, more specifically, about the odd boy who doesn't like sport. It's an odd song that cannot quite make up its mind about whether to parody the hale and hearty public school vision of sport or the miserable child who has no desire to play. I always remember school as a time when I didn't like sport, though on calaculating reflection I appear to have done a lot of it - all badly. Then, I rather stopped doing and following it for some years at university, and was rather dismissive of those who saw it as important.
Anyway, I'd meant to do a quick sport round up, but time appears to have caught up with me. So very briefly
Anyway, I'd meant to do a quick sport round up, but time appears to have caught up with me. So very briefly
- I now do think it's important, and smugly spent two days at the Oval watching us win in glorious fashion, before being very hungover the following day
- I am appalled by what Harlequins have done. It's as bad as football and they should be relegated. They were underservedly not banned.
- Football appears to have started; before then end of the cricket season, and seems to be injuring both their own fans (who cares) and indeed members of the England cricket team (much more serious)
I think the reason I dislike football so much is that they appear to have missed the point. It is always meant to be a game, a game taken seriously, but a game. The serious part is the playing. And football forget that long ago. What saddens me is the rugby looks like doing it now; especially my own team. And then there is no point watching. I loved the fact last year that when Harlequins played Stade Francais, fans mingled, fun was had and everyone went back on the same train. Cheating at blood replacements isn't the beginning of the end, but in some ways it the end of the beginning and we can only hope the gutter doesn't beckon.
For to follow football, that would be anathema indeed.
Tuesday, 4 August 2009
Books that matter to me
The preamble:
Don't take too long to think about it.
List 15 books you've read that will always stick with you. They should be the first 15 you can recall in no more than 15 minutes. Tag 15 friends, including me, because I'm interested in seeing what books you choose:
1. S. Rushdie, Midnight's children
The first really adult book I read and loved. I reread it a few years ago and while it was diminished over time, it's still a great novel.
2. L.N. Tolstoy, War and Peace
I reread this recently too, but found it enhanced. F.R. Leavis called Tolstoy 'transcendentally great.' This is why.
3. G. Elliot, Middlemarch
Another monster, but a magisterial anatomisation of life
4. J.M. Coetzee, The Life and Times of Michael K
Spare and simple, but enourmously powerful. Probably the best modern book I have read in ages
5. J. Gillingham, Richard I
A great retrieval of Richard I from the assaults of the revisionists, pugnaciously and logically argued. For me, it was the defining book of my historical approach, helped by the fact I probably read it at the turning point of my degree
6. H. Chadwick, The Early church
A slight volume, but perfectly formed, which as well as being lucid and comprehensive, gave me an enduring interest in the early church
7. The Bible
Which leads me here. I resent having to put this down, as I don't exactly read it for pleasure, but it is lodged both in the fabric of society as well as my own personal worldview
8. J.J. Rousseau, The Social contract
As is this. I don't agree with it (or not all of it), but it's hugely influential, well argued and - I was delighted to discover when I got round to reading Rawls - still a powerful engine in modern political theory
9. J.J. Norwich, Byzantium (the trilogy)
Modernity - or at least the Byzantine establishment - has been less kind to this, but it's a great book / trilogy. It's wrong on a lot of the detail and lacks sophistication, but it rattles along, and it made me be a Byzantinist.
10. P.L. Fermor, Mani
This on the other hand made me want to read travel literature. PLF's books are generally brilliant, but this is exceptional, being also both travelogue and the capture of a vanishing society at a point before transition. I think it's his defining work
11. G. Grass, The Tin Drum
As is this. It's magical (in both senses) and fizzes with energy and invention in confronting the Nazi era. It's also a fantastic read.
Don't take too long to think about it.
List 15 books you've read that will always stick with you. They should be the first 15 you can recall in no more than 15 minutes. Tag 15 friends, including me, because I'm interested in seeing what books you choose:
1. S. Rushdie, Midnight's children
The first really adult book I read and loved. I reread it a few years ago and while it was diminished over time, it's still a great novel.
2. L.N. Tolstoy, War and Peace
I reread this recently too, but found it enhanced. F.R. Leavis called Tolstoy 'transcendentally great.' This is why.
3. G. Elliot, Middlemarch
Another monster, but a magisterial anatomisation of life
4. J.M. Coetzee, The Life and Times of Michael K
Spare and simple, but enourmously powerful. Probably the best modern book I have read in ages
5. J. Gillingham, Richard I
A great retrieval of Richard I from the assaults of the revisionists, pugnaciously and logically argued. For me, it was the defining book of my historical approach, helped by the fact I probably read it at the turning point of my degree
6. H. Chadwick, The Early church
A slight volume, but perfectly formed, which as well as being lucid and comprehensive, gave me an enduring interest in the early church
7. The Bible
Which leads me here. I resent having to put this down, as I don't exactly read it for pleasure, but it is lodged both in the fabric of society as well as my own personal worldview
8. J.J. Rousseau, The Social contract
As is this. I don't agree with it (or not all of it), but it's hugely influential, well argued and - I was delighted to discover when I got round to reading Rawls - still a powerful engine in modern political theory
9. J.J. Norwich, Byzantium (the trilogy)
Modernity - or at least the Byzantine establishment - has been less kind to this, but it's a great book / trilogy. It's wrong on a lot of the detail and lacks sophistication, but it rattles along, and it made me be a Byzantinist.
10. P.L. Fermor, Mani
This on the other hand made me want to read travel literature. PLF's books are generally brilliant, but this is exceptional, being also both travelogue and the capture of a vanishing society at a point before transition. I think it's his defining work
11. G. Grass, The Tin Drum
As is this. It's magical (in both senses) and fizzes with energy and invention in confronting the Nazi era. It's also a fantastic read.
12. A. Trollope, Barchester Towers
Really this should be the whole sequence, but this is the best, and, well, it's Trollope.
13. L.Durrell, The Alexadnria Quartet
I edited this from Lolita, which, though brilliant (and the first half is simply the best passage of writing I have read in fiction) but this is more significant for me - evocative and cleverly done, even if it does get a little silly towards the end
14. G. Greene, Monsignor Quixote
Simply charming, and funny, and the best exposition of the Trinity that I have ever read (with jokes).
15. H.U. Von Balthasar, Dare we hope that all may be saved? (with a short discourse on hell)
Fewer jokes, but I believe this. And the coda to the title is ace.
Sunday, 2 August 2009
Bibliography, July 2009
Books acquired (TBC)
A number of these, but technical issues (the house is a mess) prevents them being logged.
Books read (9)
BOTM: J. Barnes, Cross Channel
J.M. Coetzee, Youth
G.M. Fraser, Flashman & the mountain of light
R.H. Haggard, She
J. Heller, God Knows
A.Miller, The Kinks are the Village Green Preservation society
R.P. Jhabvala, Get ready for Battle
F. Stark, Ionia
A. Wilson, Hemlock and After
One of the problems with reading only the books I already own is that the quality dips. This is inevitable assuming I don't simply read books at random, as I will have read the best options before now. This year's selection has simply not been as good as last years. Nothing disastrous, but simply average. For example, this month, while Cross-channel was a delightful set of short stories, it doesn't really compare For a start I read 20 books last July - though I did go on holiday. Actually, now I look at that list they weren't brilliant, but two, possibly three, were better than Barnes, while some of the other books on this list were a real slog (Does Heller know his books overstay their welcome, I wonder?). I have a feeling that this is going to get worse as I churn through the unread pile*. Time for some throwing out I feel.
By the way, this shouldn't put anyone off reading Barnes, which was a good, if not entirely substantial, book of short stories about France, some of which were delightful. And is an excellent example of the short story writer's craft (now increasingly rare).
*It's not literally a pile. There are over a hundred books in it and they are all on shelves
A number of these, but technical issues (the house is a mess) prevents them being logged.
Books read (9)
BOTM: J. Barnes, Cross Channel
J.M. Coetzee, Youth
G.M. Fraser, Flashman & the mountain of light
R.H. Haggard, She
J. Heller, God Knows
A.Miller, The Kinks are the Village Green Preservation society
R.P. Jhabvala, Get ready for Battle
F. Stark, Ionia
A. Wilson, Hemlock and After
One of the problems with reading only the books I already own is that the quality dips. This is inevitable assuming I don't simply read books at random, as I will have read the best options before now. This year's selection has simply not been as good as last years. Nothing disastrous, but simply average. For example, this month, while Cross-channel was a delightful set of short stories, it doesn't really compare For a start I read 20 books last July - though I did go on holiday. Actually, now I look at that list they weren't brilliant, but two, possibly three, were better than Barnes, while some of the other books on this list were a real slog (Does Heller know his books overstay their welcome, I wonder?). I have a feeling that this is going to get worse as I churn through the unread pile*. Time for some throwing out I feel.
By the way, this shouldn't put anyone off reading Barnes, which was a good, if not entirely substantial, book of short stories about France, some of which were delightful. And is an excellent example of the short story writer's craft (now increasingly rare).
*It's not literally a pile. There are over a hundred books in it and they are all on shelves
Monday, 27 July 2009
In communion
I don't really believe in swine flu. I mean, I believe there is a flu variant that is a bit nasty, but I don't believe it's a threat to western civilisation - which is pretty much the start point for a large number of other people. At work I am surrounded by gels and wipes - it reeks of disinfectant. More depressingly, I went to church on Sunday to find that we have panicked too. There is a long tedious list of detail , including some embarrassing prayers and especially here on the administration of holy communion, which essentially says 'no don't bother with the wine; the bread alone will do.' Which is nice, if you're worried about this stuff.
It's crap though. I'll preface what I'm about to say with a caveat that people in particular circumstances - pregnancy, existing conditions that make them likely to be the 30th death victim (in a week that number may change, by, I don't know, about one) - should take whatever action they need to. However, for the rest of us, and I include the bishops, this won't do.
I'm not a serious Eucharist man. I may accept that the Eucharist is the queen of sacraments, but if so, she's a constitutional monarch. I reject all kinds of silly positions that try to make everything rest on the communion. But it remains key for all the obvious reasons to the understanding and enacting of the Christian faith. And it does so in both kinds. The wine is not a nice-to-have extra. Without it the new covenant falls, the blood of Christ is not shed and indeed one could argue, the whole point is missed. It's not like this is hidden either. Even in the mind-alteringly bad prayer E in Common Worship (supper with his friends...), the text runs:
When supper was ended he took the cup of wine. Again he praised you, gave it to them and said: Drink this, all of you; this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Which presumably we don't get now. I could go on about the importance of the wine throughout the scriptures, but there's no real point. But I will say that there is long running debate about the inculturation in African churches, namely does it need to be bread and wine to commemorate the eucharist when these are unfamiliar foods. I am sympathetic to both views, but by resiling from contact at the mildest threat, we essentially destroy any case we might have that they are special, instead they simply look like arbitrary consumption on a Sunday morning.
Anathema.
It's crap though. I'll preface what I'm about to say with a caveat that people in particular circumstances - pregnancy, existing conditions that make them likely to be the 30th death victim (in a week that number may change, by, I don't know, about one) - should take whatever action they need to. However, for the rest of us, and I include the bishops, this won't do.
I'm not a serious Eucharist man. I may accept that the Eucharist is the queen of sacraments, but if so, she's a constitutional monarch. I reject all kinds of silly positions that try to make everything rest on the communion. But it remains key for all the obvious reasons to the understanding and enacting of the Christian faith. And it does so in both kinds. The wine is not a nice-to-have extra. Without it the new covenant falls, the blood of Christ is not shed and indeed one could argue, the whole point is missed. It's not like this is hidden either. Even in the mind-alteringly bad prayer E in Common Worship (supper with his friends...), the text runs:
When supper was ended he took the cup of wine. Again he praised you, gave it to them and said: Drink this, all of you; this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Which presumably we don't get now. I could go on about the importance of the wine throughout the scriptures, but there's no real point. But I will say that there is long running debate about the inculturation in African churches, namely does it need to be bread and wine to commemorate the eucharist when these are unfamiliar foods. I am sympathetic to both views, but by resiling from contact at the mildest threat, we essentially destroy any case we might have that they are special, instead they simply look like arbitrary consumption on a Sunday morning.
Anathema.
Democracy denied (update)
To be fair to Lambeth, they replied quicker than I have done on this blog, but their reply was unhelpful. I reproduce the letter here.
I desperately wanted to reply in a spectacularly offensive manner. This was my first draft:
Thank you for your prompt reply to my letter. However, I cannot thank you for the implausible case you make within it. I'm delighted to know that your phones were operational during the run up to the election. Perhaps an automatic response to emails could have indicated this. Although busy, I suspect you could have spared the 20 seconds it takes me to set up an out of office autoreply. Not, I presume that you could have done much about it if I had rung, as your database would have told you that our flat was unoccupied.
This is the substance of your preposterous letter. I have examined my house from the street and - as we temporarily have no curtains in the living room - it is pretty clear that someone lives there, as you can clearly see the books lining the walls, and the painting in the room. So, either you send people round who are incapable of making the link between habitation and literacy, or who are innumerate and cannot identify the house number, or - most likely - you did nothing of the sort. Maybe they were struggling with the out of office on the computer. Who knows.
Finally, you tell me that you cannot use the council tax database to verify occupancy. You give no reason, is that programme too difficult to use on the computer too? I would have thought that the record of who is paying you for services may be a strong indicator of who is living there.
So, clearly in your records our flat was vacant for a portion of time. I would suggest you send us the refund for the tax we paid in that period. And, most importantly, I expect a full written unconditional apology for the fact that you incompetence denied us the right to vote. This is a serious matter and I will escalate it until I have a resolution - I take voting to heart. I would suggest you do too.
Anna pointed out this would not have the desired effect, so instead I wrote them a briefer (and less violent) letter, though with the same object in mind. I await a response.
I desperately wanted to reply in a spectacularly offensive manner. This was my first draft:
Thank you for your prompt reply to my letter. However, I cannot thank you for the implausible case you make within it. I'm delighted to know that your phones were operational during the run up to the election. Perhaps an automatic response to emails could have indicated this. Although busy, I suspect you could have spared the 20 seconds it takes me to set up an out of office autoreply. Not, I presume that you could have done much about it if I had rung, as your database would have told you that our flat was unoccupied.
This is the substance of your preposterous letter. I have examined my house from the street and - as we temporarily have no curtains in the living room - it is pretty clear that someone lives there, as you can clearly see the books lining the walls, and the painting in the room. So, either you send people round who are incapable of making the link between habitation and literacy, or who are innumerate and cannot identify the house number, or - most likely - you did nothing of the sort. Maybe they were struggling with the out of office on the computer. Who knows.
Finally, you tell me that you cannot use the council tax database to verify occupancy. You give no reason, is that programme too difficult to use on the computer too? I would have thought that the record of who is paying you for services may be a strong indicator of who is living there.
So, clearly in your records our flat was vacant for a portion of time. I would suggest you send us the refund for the tax we paid in that period. And, most importantly, I expect a full written unconditional apology for the fact that you incompetence denied us the right to vote. This is a serious matter and I will escalate it until I have a resolution - I take voting to heart. I would suggest you do too.
Anna pointed out this would not have the desired effect, so instead I wrote them a briefer (and less violent) letter, though with the same object in mind. I await a response.
Monday, 6 July 2009
Bibliography, June 2009
Acquired (0)
Read (6)
BOTM: P.M. Kendall, The Universal Spider
M. Bulgakov, A Country doctor's notebook
Nowell-Smith, The legend of the master
A. Trollope, The Prime Minister
M. Yourcenar, Memoirs of Hadrian
D. Zindell, Neverness
Louis XI has always been my favourite Louis, so it was a delight to read Paul Murray Kendall's excellent, lively and enjoyable biography this month, especially when a lot else was unmemorable. It's often hard to write a really good biography of a major political figure. Kings are better than prime ministers as they stay in power for longer. But the fascinating thing about this biography was the detail on the long period of waiting for Louis - his establishment in the Dauphine and his exile amongst the Burgundians - and the importance of that experience in shaping both him and his policy. Lest this give the wrong impression, this is a book free from psychobabble and instead focused on history at it's best. The only criticism is teleological. Had Louis died a decade earlier, then his reign would have been considerably less triumphant. Like other monarchs, at least part of his gift was to outlast some of his major enemies. But this was not inevitable. Reading this book, sometimes you feel the author thinks it was.
Friday, 19 June 2009
WWOLD
I went to my church away day on Saturday. It will come as no surprise to anyone that it was not the most fun I have had on a Saturday morning. Not least as I wasn't really sure what the point was - and there wasn't enough drinking.
But the real problem was the theology. We were asked by the bishop of Ramsbury to answer - in respect of what we should do with our church - 'What would Our Lady do?' Now, the original WWJD were naff enough (and somewhat tarnished by Hansie Cronje's sporting of them), but this really was a step too far. The bishop seems a decent enough sort, but the theology was outrageous. Mary, we were enjoined to consider, was of greater interest because, unlike Jesus, she was human. Heresy, heresy. And an old heresy at that. Interestingly, I remember Jane Baun, one of my tutors for my MSt, giving a paper which argud that this same conception existed in the Byzantine popular church about a thousand years ago.
It was of course heresy then, just as it is now. Marys humanity is not different from that of Jesus. Though her role in the divine economy may be different, it is hard to see how this would affect the work of a church in an inner city. Christ's humanity is full and complete, not some imperfect 'skin' which he assumes for the convenience while the Godhead remains what he 'really'. For, in the immortal words, that which is not assumed is not saved - if Christ's only succeeds as a God, there is no route out for man.
The rest was just a bit dull.
Unrelatedly, my priest is doing a slightly barking fundraiser, which deserves supporting. I will restrain the Marian idolatry.
But the real problem was the theology. We were asked by the bishop of Ramsbury to answer - in respect of what we should do with our church - 'What would Our Lady do?' Now, the original WWJD were naff enough (and somewhat tarnished by Hansie Cronje's sporting of them), but this really was a step too far. The bishop seems a decent enough sort, but the theology was outrageous. Mary, we were enjoined to consider, was of greater interest because, unlike Jesus, she was human. Heresy, heresy. And an old heresy at that. Interestingly, I remember Jane Baun, one of my tutors for my MSt, giving a paper which argud that this same conception existed in the Byzantine popular church about a thousand years ago.
It was of course heresy then, just as it is now. Marys humanity is not different from that of Jesus. Though her role in the divine economy may be different, it is hard to see how this would affect the work of a church in an inner city. Christ's humanity is full and complete, not some imperfect 'skin' which he assumes for the convenience while the Godhead remains what he 'really'. For, in the immortal words, that which is not assumed is not saved - if Christ's only succeeds as a God, there is no route out for man.
The rest was just a bit dull.
Unrelatedly, my priest is doing a slightly barking fundraiser, which deserves supporting. I will restrain the Marian idolatry.
Monday, 8 June 2009
Democracy denied
Thoughts on results to follow, but I am more angry that I was denied the vote. This the text of the letter I sent to Lambeth today:
I am writing to complain in the strongest possible terms about the election on Thursday in which I was unable to vote due to your failure to register my wife and me.
I had diligently filled in my tedious registration form, having meditated on postal voting, and then sent it on to you. To answer your inevitable question, I always do this: I have voted in every election since I became eligible after 1997, and before I could vote, I spent time campaigning and leafleting. I never forget to send them.
I became a little concerned when no polling cards arrived, so emailed your electoral services department on Tuesday. Clearly manning such a service is not a priority so close to an election for you; raising the question what it is for during this time. Perhaps they were busy going through the unopened letters containing registration forms.
What they clearly were not doing (and should have been doing) was checking the register against either last year’s or the council tax roll. For we did vote last year and I note that the council tax system does not need updating on an annual basis. A cursory check – and given that there are only just over 100,000 households in Lambeth this would take mere minutes – would reveal that we are still resident, still paying, and still expecting to vote.
Given this, I would now ask you to write to me explain why you lost my form, failed to take any action to check my continued residence, and in doing so deprived me of my vote. I expect a prompt response within the next fortnight. Should you treat this request with the contempt that you appear to have treated my attempts, I will be forced to withhold my council tax as a matter of course.
I am writing to complain in the strongest possible terms about the election on Thursday in which I was unable to vote due to your failure to register my wife and me.
I had diligently filled in my tedious registration form, having meditated on postal voting, and then sent it on to you. To answer your inevitable question, I always do this: I have voted in every election since I became eligible after 1997, and before I could vote, I spent time campaigning and leafleting. I never forget to send them.
I became a little concerned when no polling cards arrived, so emailed your electoral services department on Tuesday. Clearly manning such a service is not a priority so close to an election for you; raising the question what it is for during this time. Perhaps they were busy going through the unopened letters containing registration forms.
What they clearly were not doing (and should have been doing) was checking the register against either last year’s or the council tax roll. For we did vote last year and I note that the council tax system does not need updating on an annual basis. A cursory check – and given that there are only just over 100,000 households in Lambeth this would take mere minutes – would reveal that we are still resident, still paying, and still expecting to vote.
Given this, I would now ask you to write to me explain why you lost my form, failed to take any action to check my continued residence, and in doing so deprived me of my vote. I expect a prompt response within the next fortnight. Should you treat this request with the contempt that you appear to have treated my attempts, I will be forced to withhold my council tax as a matter of course.
Wednesday, 3 June 2009
Bibliography, May 2009
Acquired (3)
H.Rider Haggard, The Wanderer's necklace
R. Mistry, A Fine balance
A. Ross, The rest is Noise
Read (6)
H.Rider Haggard, The Wanderer's necklace
R. Mistry, A Fine balance
A. Ross, The rest is Noise
Read (6)
BOTM: A. Trollope, Phineas Redux
A. Christie, Murder on the Orient Express
A. Christie, The 4.50 from Paddington
A. Christie, Come, tell me how you live
W. Faulkner, The Sound and the Fury
A. Goldsworthy, In the name of Rome
It's been a poor month. Silence on this blog and the relatively low numbers of books speak of a hefty work schedule. However, at the end of the month I did return to Trollope after a long absence (I read volume three of the Palliser saga in January 2007) and was not disappointed. In this age of political scandal, we forget the endemic corruption and cost of nineteenth century politics, whic Trollopse so accurately reflects. But Trollope is better than simply a brilliant evocation of his period (though he is that), but also witty, perceptive and extremely enjoyable. It feels a little like returning to an old comfortable friend - and there is little better than that.
Tuesday, 2 June 2009
Gotcha!
Beverley Hughes gone.
At fucking last.
I don't really care about the rest - in fact there is some misfortune that Darling may go for dodgy expenses rather than dodgy expediture. But I am delighted to have her out. Idiot woman.
At fucking last.
I don't really care about the rest - in fact there is some misfortune that Darling may go for dodgy expenses rather than dodgy expediture. But I am delighted to have her out. Idiot woman.
Friday, 1 May 2009
Bibliography, April 2009
Books bought (0)
Books read (11)
BOTM: J. Lees-Milne, Another Self
I. Allende,The House of Spirits
I. Asimov, The Gods Themselves
P.F. Browne, Rambling on the road to Rome
N. Gordimer, The Conservationist
K. Hulme, The Bone People
C. Maier, Bonjour paresse
T. Mackintosh - Smith, The Hall of 1000 Columns
A. Powell, Books do furnish a room
A. Powell, Temporary Kings
A. Powell, Hearing secret harmonies
Not a vintage month, partly because I had to wade through Powell, which was dull, and partly because a number of other books were tedious or flawed. Lees-Milne early autobiography was silky and luxurious and all the better for being small (and perfectly formed). Of course, Lees-Milne always write wonderfully, but this (unlike his diaries) has the benefit of being polished into its final form by him rather than his editor, revealing a touching level of amusing self-depreciation, and (much more importantly), a real hatred of communists.
Books read (11)
BOTM: J. Lees-Milne, Another Self
I. Allende,The House of Spirits
I. Asimov, The Gods Themselves
P.F. Browne, Rambling on the road to Rome
N. Gordimer, The Conservationist
K. Hulme, The Bone People
C. Maier, Bonjour paresse
T. Mackintosh - Smith, The Hall of 1000 Columns
A. Powell, Books do furnish a room
A. Powell, Temporary Kings
A. Powell, Hearing secret harmonies
Not a vintage month, partly because I had to wade through Powell, which was dull, and partly because a number of other books were tedious or flawed. Lees-Milne early autobiography was silky and luxurious and all the better for being small (and perfectly formed). Of course, Lees-Milne always write wonderfully, but this (unlike his diaries) has the benefit of being polished into its final form by him rather than his editor, revealing a touching level of amusing self-depreciation, and (much more importantly), a real hatred of communists.
Thursday, 30 April 2009
Whiff of hypocrisy
It has been enjoyable to watch this government being unable to manage a relatively simple vote on an opposition day motion. And make no mistake, this should never have happened - the reason why it is so humiliating for the government is not becuase it is a major point of principle, but because it suggests that they have lost control in the parliamentary process. Their lot no longer care, ours are brig careful and everyone is waiting and watching for next year. It makes it nigh on impossible for the cadre trying to get things though to do so.
Because the Gurkha issue just isn't major. No-one really cares. Now, I'm not saying they aren't deserving, but there is no real logic to this sudden indignation. The deal was clear when the gurkha's signed up - they weren't paid in citizenship, but cash. And it's been going on - as far as I can tell - for decades with no real fuss. The Tories certainly didn't bother to do anything about it when they in power, and it's not been a consistent item of Liberal policy (though it may have passed through their revolving door at one point in the past). It's not a great injustice though it feels a bit unfair. I doubt we'll remember it in a year.
Yet on this issue, the government however has managed to make itself hated by the right for knocking the military and the left for hating brown people. It's lovely to watch, but let's not pretend that it's really about the issues.
Because the Gurkha issue just isn't major. No-one really cares. Now, I'm not saying they aren't deserving, but there is no real logic to this sudden indignation. The deal was clear when the gurkha's signed up - they weren't paid in citizenship, but cash. And it's been going on - as far as I can tell - for decades with no real fuss. The Tories certainly didn't bother to do anything about it when they in power, and it's not been a consistent item of Liberal policy (though it may have passed through their revolving door at one point in the past). It's not a great injustice though it feels a bit unfair. I doubt we'll remember it in a year.
Yet on this issue, the government however has managed to make itself hated by the right for knocking the military and the left for hating brown people. It's lovely to watch, but let's not pretend that it's really about the issues.
Friday, 24 April 2009
Literary Geek
This is a bit of a filler post. New job has hammered me with work. Anyway, I was sent this on Facebook so I thought I would knock the answers out. The original instructions suggest you don't italicise your titles though you want to, but I will do so anyway.
1) What author do you own the most books by?
E.M Brent-Dyer, all of whose 62 Chalet School stories I own
2) What book do you own the most copies of?
Anna & I did manage to end up with three copies of Roddy Doyle's The woman who walked into doors
3) Did it bother you that both those questions ended with prepositions?
This is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put
4) What fictional character are you secretly in love with?
I never really did this; in fact I cannot really remember major female characters in recent books(though this is a function of reading Powell who has no female characters)
5) What book have you read the most times in your life
I'm sure I've read many things multiple times as a child - I've definitely read E.M. Brent-Dyer, The Chalet School in Exile (it is the best) four times.
6) What was your favourite book when you were ten years old?
I obviously cannot remember this, again probably M. Weis & T. Hickman, Dragons of Autumn Twilight (but I may a year too early)
7) What is the worst book you've read in the past year?
A. Powell, Hearing Secret Harmonies
8) What is the best book you've read in the past year?
V.Nabokov, Lolita
9) If you could force everyone to read one book, what would it be?
L.N. Tolstoy, War and Peace
10) Who deserves to win the next Nobel Prize for Literature?
It will be some obscure Asian, but probably is Roth's turn
11) What book would you most like to see made into a movie?
I just don't care
12) What book would you least like to see made into a movie?
I just don't care
13) Describe your weirdest dream involving a writer, book, or literary character.
none
14) What is the most lowbrow book you've read as an adult?
One Jilly Cooper's I suspect
15) What is the most difficult book you've ever read?
Joyce, Finnegan's wake, but I didn't finish it - because it is indulgent claptrap
16) What is the most obscure Shakespeare play you've seen?
Cymbeline
17) Do you prefer the French or the Russians?
The Russians.
18) Roth or Updike?
Roth
19) David Sedaris or Dave Eggers?
No idea
20) Shakespeare, Milton, or Chaucer?
Milton to read; Bill to see
21) Austen or Eliot?
Auten above T.S., George above both
22) What is the biggest or most embarrassing gap in your reading?
D.H. Lawrence
23) What is your favourite novel?
L.N. Tolstoy, War and Peace
24) Play?
I think you're formed by your early expriences on this: and I've never forgotten Romeo & Juliet as a kid. Still my favourite
25) Poem?
I remember barely any
26) Essay?
The first essay I really read was Berlin's What's wrong with negative liberty? which I think woke me up to the possibilities of a sustained work of that type, but I suspect I wouldn't think this on rereading
27) Short story?
I forget the title, but there is a wonderful story by Asimov about entropy and ends with the words 'let there be light'. Great.
28) Work of nonfiction?
P.L. Fermor, Mani
29) Who is your favourite writer?
P.L. Fermor
30) Who is the most overrated writer alive today?
Of the major literary fiction lot, I think McEwan is overpraised and lack substance
31) What is your desert island book?
If I could take anything at all I would take a the Talmud to really keep me busy. It's the though of running of things to read that frightens me
32) And... what are you reading right now?
I. Asimov, The Gods themselves
1) What author do you own the most books by?
E.M Brent-Dyer, all of whose 62 Chalet School stories I own
2) What book do you own the most copies of?
Anna & I did manage to end up with three copies of Roddy Doyle's The woman who walked into doors
3) Did it bother you that both those questions ended with prepositions?
This is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put
4) What fictional character are you secretly in love with?
I never really did this; in fact I cannot really remember major female characters in recent books(though this is a function of reading Powell who has no female characters)
5) What book have you read the most times in your life
I'm sure I've read many things multiple times as a child - I've definitely read E.M. Brent-Dyer, The Chalet School in Exile (it is the best) four times.
6) What was your favourite book when you were ten years old?
I obviously cannot remember this, again probably M. Weis & T. Hickman, Dragons of Autumn Twilight (but I may a year too early)
7) What is the worst book you've read in the past year?
A. Powell, Hearing Secret Harmonies
8) What is the best book you've read in the past year?
V.Nabokov, Lolita
9) If you could force everyone to read one book, what would it be?
L.N. Tolstoy, War and Peace
10) Who deserves to win the next Nobel Prize for Literature?
It will be some obscure Asian, but probably is Roth's turn
11) What book would you most like to see made into a movie?
I just don't care
12) What book would you least like to see made into a movie?
I just don't care
13) Describe your weirdest dream involving a writer, book, or literary character.
none
14) What is the most lowbrow book you've read as an adult?
One Jilly Cooper's I suspect
15) What is the most difficult book you've ever read?
Joyce, Finnegan's wake, but I didn't finish it - because it is indulgent claptrap
16) What is the most obscure Shakespeare play you've seen?
Cymbeline
17) Do you prefer the French or the Russians?
The Russians.
18) Roth or Updike?
Roth
19) David Sedaris or Dave Eggers?
No idea
20) Shakespeare, Milton, or Chaucer?
Milton to read; Bill to see
21) Austen or Eliot?
Auten above T.S., George above both
22) What is the biggest or most embarrassing gap in your reading?
D.H. Lawrence
23) What is your favourite novel?
L.N. Tolstoy, War and Peace
24) Play?
I think you're formed by your early expriences on this: and I've never forgotten Romeo & Juliet as a kid. Still my favourite
25) Poem?
I remember barely any
26) Essay?
The first essay I really read was Berlin's What's wrong with negative liberty? which I think woke me up to the possibilities of a sustained work of that type, but I suspect I wouldn't think this on rereading
27) Short story?
I forget the title, but there is a wonderful story by Asimov about entropy and ends with the words 'let there be light'. Great.
28) Work of nonfiction?
P.L. Fermor, Mani
29) Who is your favourite writer?
P.L. Fermor
30) Who is the most overrated writer alive today?
Of the major literary fiction lot, I think McEwan is overpraised and lack substance
31) What is your desert island book?
If I could take anything at all I would take a the Talmud to really keep me busy. It's the though of running of things to read that frightens me
32) And... what are you reading right now?
I. Asimov, The Gods themselves
Saturday, 18 April 2009
Underappreciated
When we come to write the economic history of the 1990s (and there will be lots of them), people will be surprised at the hostility and reputation for incompetence that the Conservative government of the time will be held. Major's personal reputation may have been slightly rehabilitated in recent years, but largely as a result of him being seen a nice chap, with interesting sidelines, rather than anything he did in office.
Reading the obituaries of Eddie George, who died today, reminds me just how unfair this is. Given where we are now (as the centre-left finally realise that it is hard to get economies to work and stay working). it is striking how little credit goes to the mid 90s Tory policy on this issue, which actually took a deep-seated problem in the UK economy (high inflation) and fixed it. This of course contrasts with our current position where we took a positive position and tanked it. Labour claimed credit for this once, but they did nothing towards achieving it, only reaping the rewards.
Eddie George gets an enormous amount of credit - it's never easy being a central banker, especially when (as in the 90s) the Chancellor can override you as Clarke did a couple of times. Yet, despite the heightened tension of a recovering, but still weak, economy, he worked better with his meddlesome master than Brown and King appeared to have done. And he got the job done, while having time for jokes, the BBC obit reprises the old one about there being three kinds of economics, ones who can count and those that can't. Few other people will note his passing today, but he deserves to be remembered and he deserves to take credit for a very difficult job well done.
Reading the obituaries of Eddie George, who died today, reminds me just how unfair this is. Given where we are now (as the centre-left finally realise that it is hard to get economies to work and stay working). it is striking how little credit goes to the mid 90s Tory policy on this issue, which actually took a deep-seated problem in the UK economy (high inflation) and fixed it. This of course contrasts with our current position where we took a positive position and tanked it. Labour claimed credit for this once, but they did nothing towards achieving it, only reaping the rewards.
Eddie George gets an enormous amount of credit - it's never easy being a central banker, especially when (as in the 90s) the Chancellor can override you as Clarke did a couple of times. Yet, despite the heightened tension of a recovering, but still weak, economy, he worked better with his meddlesome master than Brown and King appeared to have done. And he got the job done, while having time for jokes, the BBC obit reprises the old one about there being three kinds of economics, ones who can count and those that can't. Few other people will note his passing today, but he deserves to be remembered and he deserves to take credit for a very difficult job well done.
Normal service resumed
I've been relatively silent of late, for good and bad reasons. My absence abroad accounts for much of the missing time, but - and viewers of the photos will have noticed already - I've managed to break my right arm.
More accurately, a rollerblader broke it for me. So, mere days after highlighting how good cycling has been, the experiment came to a sudden stop (an irony that has not gone unoticed). It went on Monday 29th March and I won't be allowed back on bike for eight weeks. As a result, typing has been a bit difficult, but seems to be close to OK now.
So back now.
More accurately, a rollerblader broke it for me. So, mere days after highlighting how good cycling has been, the experiment came to a sudden stop (an irony that has not gone unoticed). It went on Monday 29th March and I won't be allowed back on bike for eight weeks. As a result, typing has been a bit difficult, but seems to be close to OK now.
So back now.
Wednesday, 1 April 2009
Bibliography, March 2009
Acquired (3)
J. Lees-Milne, Another Self
S. Sturlsson, King Harald's Saga
B. Unsworth, Land of Marvels
Read (13)
BOTM: B. Bryson, Life and times of the Thunderbolt Kid
J. Lees-Milne, Another Self
S. Sturlsson, King Harald's Saga
B. Unsworth, Land of Marvels
Read (13)
BOTM: B. Bryson, Life and times of the Thunderbolt Kid
J. Darwin, After Tamerlane
M. Drabble, Jerusalem the golden
H. Hesse, The Glass Bead Game
T. Mann, Death in Venice
G. Menzies, 1421: The year China discovered the world
G. Orwell, Down and Out in Paris and London
S. Sturlsson, King Harald's Saga
G. Vermes, The Resurrection
F. Wheen, How Mumbo-Jumbo covered the world
A. Wilson, Late Call
Some major disappointments this month: Hesse, like all his work I have read save Steppenwolf, was disappointing, with a good premise vanishing into absurd mysticism and a rubbish end. Vermes, sadly, is past it. BOTM was deserved, though for a fun filled romp through my favourite post-war decade (and constrasts strikingly with Drabble which I read immediately after covering a not dissimilar period). Bryson literary skills are well known, and it's a mark of how effective they are that he manages to essentially write about nothing for 300 pages or so without the reader feeling this drags at all, and to evoke that feeling of optimism and fear that characterised the 1950s, and in some ways, children of all (recent) times. There are other works here with more lustrous reputations, but Bryson was better.
Wednesday, 25 March 2009
Freecycle
In principle, I think freecycle is a brilliant idea. We have things we just want to get rid of, and we can give them to people who want them. eBay is all very well, but requires things to be useful and effort around packaging them up.
However, it falls down on the total uselessness and unreliability of individuals. I have found people's behaviour to be shockingly bad. We're trying to get rid of a plant, which at 6 foot is simply too big for our bathroom. I've put it up on freecycle and twice have arranged to have to it picked up, but once the lady in question forgot and the second time, another lady decided on the day that she couldn't wait for half an hour having moved the time of collection without giving me chance to react.
The issue is of course the discipline of pricing. Without it, people are just rubbish. Conventional economic theory argues that transaction costs should be zero, but this suggests that people are reliable - when they are not. One of the fundamental benefits of putting transaction costs on things is that people don't do this kind of stuff. And here's hoping they don't do so; otherwise it's going on eBay.
However, it falls down on the total uselessness and unreliability of individuals. I have found people's behaviour to be shockingly bad. We're trying to get rid of a plant, which at 6 foot is simply too big for our bathroom. I've put it up on freecycle and twice have arranged to have to it picked up, but once the lady in question forgot and the second time, another lady decided on the day that she couldn't wait for half an hour having moved the time of collection without giving me chance to react.
The issue is of course the discipline of pricing. Without it, people are just rubbish. Conventional economic theory argues that transaction costs should be zero, but this suggests that people are reliable - when they are not. One of the fundamental benefits of putting transaction costs on things is that people don't do this kind of stuff. And here's hoping they don't do so; otherwise it's going on eBay.
Wednesday, 18 March 2009
Two wheels good
I've bought a bike - it's very exciting: I reckon, once I stop getting lost, it will cut my time to work by ten minutes and do some valuable exercise. I'm very pleased.
Even more exciting is this little toy, which plots the places where accidents happen - most of the way along my route I discover, though there are worse routes. I am now definitely avoiding the Kings Road. I love this kind of thing and I love the people who took the data (which the government published last week). I need to work out how to plot geodata, save for the risk I may spend much of my time doing it.
Three further observations on cycling:
Even more exciting is this little toy, which plots the places where accidents happen - most of the way along my route I discover, though there are worse routes. I am now definitely avoiding the Kings Road. I love this kind of thing and I love the people who took the data (which the government published last week). I need to work out how to plot geodata, save for the risk I may spend much of my time doing it.
Three further observations on cycling:
- There's a lot of kit to buy. I've been delayed in really getting going for the lack of reflective clothing, but I now have a shiny jacket that will stop me getting killed on the way home
- Tube pricing is still going to be a problem: if only cycle in on 3 days a week (i.e. because I am going out in the evening), it will be economical to retain my annual travelcard. Surely this is bad pricing in a transport system that encourages bike use.
- And why is there no good cycle map online. TfL Directs you to order them so they can send you a pamphlet.
Saturday, 14 March 2009
Back to baptism
In one of the filler passages on the excellent BBC website (I'm contractually obliged to say that) there is a rather silly article on people wanting to be debaptised. I can never resist a good argument about baptism, and I'm on my way to Oxford at present, so can really get going.
Theologically, baptism (Christening for those who think about this in other language) seems to get a relatively easy rise in sacramental controversy. No disputes its position as second only to the Queen of Sacraments (I'll save my thoughts on whether that's out of two or seven for later), but whereas the Eucharist has been the subject of wranglings about its significance for most of the history of the church, and continues to excite doctrinal controversy, both around traditional areas - I wish I could persuade my church to revert to red wine - but in new directions as well. I find the inculturation debate around the use of bread and wine in particularly African liturgy fascinating.
By contrast, there is a brief flurry of activity over baptism in the early church around validity (hence Nicaea - Constantinople's one baptism), a gradual movement towards infant baptism, which remained rare even in late antiquity, and another flurry about that adult issue in the reformation period (note: I know this isn't a full review of the history, and I am aware of the role of baptist ministry in the US and Africa, but time, time). And that's odd, because baptism is the defining feature of Christians: good Christians take communion; all Christians are baptised.
I think that is changing and the issue is coalescing around what it means to be baptised, and the article made me think about precisely this point, though the views of the individuals in question are absurd. However, their reaction (though they don't realise it) is against the theological position, originally in Paul, of being sealed in Christ, but he is really wrestling with circumcision and the Law here; this isn't the root of baptism - it's John (one of my favourite saints) and his sense of baptism is very different - it's a creed of repentance and of cleansing from sin, and this is clearly absurd to offer to infants. It also leads to a slightly odd position where it is clearly logical to delay baptism until death so that the value of the forgiveness of all sin might be maximised - pace Constantine - a kind of Russian roulette of forgiveness: after all, you wouldn't want to mistime that. BTW, this is easily and obviously argued against. No need for that here.
However, we have another rather important meaning in the gospel account of the baptism of Jesus, where the baptism is clearly a commission and the beginning of the ministry of Christ. I would argue this is where we must root our conception of baptism, of a commission, or as we have it in Acts 2.38, receiving the gift of the Spirit. In some sense those who argue for debaptism are right, they have - in theory - chosen to lay down their divine commission. Of course that's not how we understood and it's very unclear why they care (I've often noticed that about atheists). That's clearly wrong. Baptism isn't like a membership card you hand back. Baptism clearly does fulfill a number of overlapping roles: initiatory, soteriologically (there are massive difficulties in renouncing God's role: once in, never out), and in relation to sin as well as this sense of commission.
But it does strengthen my belief around the unsatisfactory nature of infant baptism and the inability of such a sacrament to be reconciled with either its original conception or its theological significance. Where adulthood starts in this context (and it's not 21) is harder to define and the subject of a long running argument between A and me, but some time to go before we resolve it.
Theologically, baptism (Christening for those who think about this in other language) seems to get a relatively easy rise in sacramental controversy. No disputes its position as second only to the Queen of Sacraments (I'll save my thoughts on whether that's out of two or seven for later), but whereas the Eucharist has been the subject of wranglings about its significance for most of the history of the church, and continues to excite doctrinal controversy, both around traditional areas - I wish I could persuade my church to revert to red wine - but in new directions as well. I find the inculturation debate around the use of bread and wine in particularly African liturgy fascinating.
By contrast, there is a brief flurry of activity over baptism in the early church around validity (hence Nicaea - Constantinople's one baptism), a gradual movement towards infant baptism, which remained rare even in late antiquity, and another flurry about that adult issue in the reformation period (note: I know this isn't a full review of the history, and I am aware of the role of baptist ministry in the US and Africa, but time, time). And that's odd, because baptism is the defining feature of Christians: good Christians take communion; all Christians are baptised.
I think that is changing and the issue is coalescing around what it means to be baptised, and the article made me think about precisely this point, though the views of the individuals in question are absurd. However, their reaction (though they don't realise it) is against the theological position, originally in Paul, of being sealed in Christ, but he is really wrestling with circumcision and the Law here; this isn't the root of baptism - it's John (one of my favourite saints) and his sense of baptism is very different - it's a creed of repentance and of cleansing from sin, and this is clearly absurd to offer to infants. It also leads to a slightly odd position where it is clearly logical to delay baptism until death so that the value of the forgiveness of all sin might be maximised - pace Constantine - a kind of Russian roulette of forgiveness: after all, you wouldn't want to mistime that. BTW, this is easily and obviously argued against. No need for that here.
However, we have another rather important meaning in the gospel account of the baptism of Jesus, where the baptism is clearly a commission and the beginning of the ministry of Christ. I would argue this is where we must root our conception of baptism, of a commission, or as we have it in Acts 2.38, receiving the gift of the Spirit. In some sense those who argue for debaptism are right, they have - in theory - chosen to lay down their divine commission. Of course that's not how we understood and it's very unclear why they care (I've often noticed that about atheists). That's clearly wrong. Baptism isn't like a membership card you hand back. Baptism clearly does fulfill a number of overlapping roles: initiatory, soteriologically (there are massive difficulties in renouncing God's role: once in, never out), and in relation to sin as well as this sense of commission.
But it does strengthen my belief around the unsatisfactory nature of infant baptism and the inability of such a sacrament to be reconciled with either its original conception or its theological significance. Where adulthood starts in this context (and it's not 21) is harder to define and the subject of a long running argument between A and me, but some time to go before we resolve it.
Friday, 13 March 2009
The Red Hand
I toyed with calling this No Surrender, but that might have been provocative; not that the Red Hand is immune from criticism, but its origins are older.
I've held back from saying much on Northern Ireland, not least because I'm not entirely temperate when I think about it - I broke lent within seconds of the second murder this week - and in reality I don't actually have much to say: I still can't stand Adams, never have; never will, who has not come out of this well, but I was surprised at McGuinness' use of traitor to describe the murderers.
What is more interesting - to me at least - is how atavistic the whole thing remains for those of us who aren't actually involved. Instinctively, and before reflection, I come out as a massive Tory (etymological note: not in the sense of the Irish, catholic origins of the word), Protestant leaning, Unionist (that's 1800, not 1707). In reality of course, I probably am protestant, just, but episcopal; I'm so disassociated with the Union, that I want to give Yorkshire independence, let alone Ulster. And, while I believe that the IRA are and always have been, in all and any of their incarnations, murderers, rebels and criminals, so are lots of groups, I get much less agitated about them.
I think it's to do with the party: the republicans hate Tories, and instinctively that means we hate them. There aren't actually that many good reasons for them to hate Conservatives (as opposed to the English more generally) on this issue: the partition of Ireland was a Lloyd George policy, Labour sent the army in in 1969, the criminalisation of the IRA prisoners a Labour decision in 1976 (even SF admit that), Tebbit gets some flak, but quite frankly, if any organisation paralysed my wife I would take their province apart and shoot anyone who harboured or supported the men who did it (note: this is not what we did). In reality, we - as a party - have a good record on the peace: Thatcher involved the Republic in 1985, and Major did the hard groundwork on the ceasefire. There are decisions where we look less good, but this is far from a disastrous story - it really means, Tories were in power for a long time.
Our position is more tricky, but then we've never liked rebels or the Irish more generally, and they did let down the loyalists down at the Boyne.
I've held back from saying much on Northern Ireland, not least because I'm not entirely temperate when I think about it - I broke lent within seconds of the second murder this week - and in reality I don't actually have much to say: I still can't stand Adams, never have; never will, who has not come out of this well, but I was surprised at McGuinness' use of traitor to describe the murderers.
What is more interesting - to me at least - is how atavistic the whole thing remains for those of us who aren't actually involved. Instinctively, and before reflection, I come out as a massive Tory (etymological note: not in the sense of the Irish, catholic origins of the word), Protestant leaning, Unionist (that's 1800, not 1707). In reality of course, I probably am protestant, just, but episcopal; I'm so disassociated with the Union, that I want to give Yorkshire independence, let alone Ulster. And, while I believe that the IRA are and always have been, in all and any of their incarnations, murderers, rebels and criminals, so are lots of groups, I get much less agitated about them.
I think it's to do with the party: the republicans hate Tories, and instinctively that means we hate them. There aren't actually that many good reasons for them to hate Conservatives (as opposed to the English more generally) on this issue: the partition of Ireland was a Lloyd George policy, Labour sent the army in in 1969, the criminalisation of the IRA prisoners a Labour decision in 1976 (even SF admit that), Tebbit gets some flak, but quite frankly, if any organisation paralysed my wife I would take their province apart and shoot anyone who harboured or supported the men who did it (note: this is not what we did). In reality, we - as a party - have a good record on the peace: Thatcher involved the Republic in 1985, and Major did the hard groundwork on the ceasefire. There are decisions where we look less good, but this is far from a disastrous story - it really means, Tories were in power for a long time.
Our position is more tricky, but then we've never liked rebels or the Irish more generally, and they did let down the loyalists down at the Boyne.
Sunday, 1 March 2009
Bibliography, February 2009
Bought (2)
M. Bannfy, They were found wanting
N. Gordimer, The Conservationist
Read (9)
BOTM: J. Heller, Catch 22
A. Burgess, 99 Novels
F.M. Ford, The Good Soldier
R. Kapuscinski, Shah of Shahs
V.S. Naipaul, India: A wounded civilization
R.K. Narayan, The Man-Eater of Malgudi
A. Powell, The Valley of Bones
A. Powell, The soldier's Art
A. Powell, The military philosophers
In Changing Places David Lodge has his protagonists play a game called humiliation, the object being to own up to a material work of literature that one hasn't read. The most impressive failure wins the game. It's flaw as a game is that the proliferation of literary work and the lack of a recognised canon in modern teaching means that few outside English faculties can play it without it becoming a slightly pointless game of bickering over whose massive omissions are worst - i.e. the value of the works in question. The fact I have never got round to reading King Lear would doubtless go into the mix against A's stubborn insistence that all the characters in War & Peace are called Nikolai Nikolaevitch, when - as this note makes clear - they aren't. The discussion is of course hampered by the fact that, by definition, only one of us will have read the book in question. A tighter defined canon is probably necessary, or making clear that it's really about fame, not quality.
One of my major omissions on that ground was rectified this month by knocking off Catch 22, which while clearly not of the same quality as either of the examples above, is a great and vry influentual book (for example, it comes in number 7 on this list). And it is beloved of the anti-war lot, and students who think its like Kafka, but with more sex in. It's not quite that profound, but it is funny, narratively innovative, explosively written and packs a material, and quite moving, punch. Sometimes I think it errs on the wrong side of farce - which undermine the more serious elements, but this is a minor critique. It is, of course, like many other things, a bit too long and drags a little about two thirds of the way in, before picking for the final sequences.
M. Bannfy, They were found wanting
N. Gordimer, The Conservationist
Read (9)
BOTM: J. Heller, Catch 22
A. Burgess, 99 Novels
F.M. Ford, The Good Soldier
R. Kapuscinski, Shah of Shahs
V.S. Naipaul, India: A wounded civilization
R.K. Narayan, The Man-Eater of Malgudi
A. Powell, The Valley of Bones
A. Powell, The soldier's Art
A. Powell, The military philosophers
In Changing Places David Lodge has his protagonists play a game called humiliation, the object being to own up to a material work of literature that one hasn't read. The most impressive failure wins the game. It's flaw as a game is that the proliferation of literary work and the lack of a recognised canon in modern teaching means that few outside English faculties can play it without it becoming a slightly pointless game of bickering over whose massive omissions are worst - i.e. the value of the works in question. The fact I have never got round to reading King Lear would doubtless go into the mix against A's stubborn insistence that all the characters in War & Peace are called Nikolai Nikolaevitch, when - as this note makes clear - they aren't. The discussion is of course hampered by the fact that, by definition, only one of us will have read the book in question. A tighter defined canon is probably necessary, or making clear that it's really about fame, not quality.
One of my major omissions on that ground was rectified this month by knocking off Catch 22, which while clearly not of the same quality as either of the examples above, is a great and vry influentual book (for example, it comes in number 7 on this list). And it is beloved of the anti-war lot, and students who think its like Kafka, but with more sex in. It's not quite that profound, but it is funny, narratively innovative, explosively written and packs a material, and quite moving, punch. Sometimes I think it errs on the wrong side of farce - which undermine the more serious elements, but this is a minor critique. It is, of course, like many other things, a bit too long and drags a little about two thirds of the way in, before picking for the final sequences.
Wednesday, 25 February 2009
Penitent
Lent starts today - I was at 8 am ashing service (attended by 5 people, it really speeds the service up). I am giving up ranting and swearing. I've tried the former before and it ended up being very expensive - I think I racked up 40 rants at a pound a pop, including at least two for ranting about how others were not rants, but there were definitely times when I ranted safe in the knowledge that the money would be paid. This time, penalties are harsher to stop me doing that. So, here formal definitions and terms of my lent:
Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them...
So whenever you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you...
Whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret...
And whenever you fast, do not look dismal, like the hypocrites.
So I wipe it off. I think it's probably best.
- No ranting. Defined a continuous verbal argument involving high emotion and probably shouting. I am allowed to express hostile opinions - Buddhism is still nonsense - but not in a violent manner. £5 penalty
- No Swearing. I stress, the ban is on obscenity, not blasphemy or offense. I've found this brilliant report about swearing but it does confuse things. Broadly, I'll follow that list though without 12, 23, 25 and 28 in context, while 11 isn't remotely offensive. £1 a word
- Monies to a charity nominated by Anna after Easter
- And I'm also going to read all the epistles. Three a week gets me there I think.
Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them...
So whenever you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you...
Whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret...
And whenever you fast, do not look dismal, like the hypocrites.
So I wipe it off. I think it's probably best.
Tuesday, 17 February 2009
Corrupt or incompetent?
Tessa Jowell used to be our MP, when we lived in Peckham. Now we have Kate Hoey who fights for the right to take booze into the cricket (it's the most I have ever been tempted to vote Labour), who's much better.
Jowell was - and presumably still is - a shambolic incompetent who should never be allowed near policy and certainly not any financial decision. Today, her ex-husband, now officially a crook, was sentenced to four and half years in prison. Good.
Jowell's defense was always that she didn't really know about any of this income and how it worked. Given that the sums in question were $600,000 you would expect her to have paid some attention, not just sign whatever was put in front of her. Of couse, terrifyingly, it is entirely possible that she didn't know or, more likely, understand: no mystery why the Olympics budget has overrun. She did write to us once to argue that Labour had slashed inflation, when anyone who was alive knows this was a Major, Clarke and Eddie George success. And George got into serious trouble for it. She is clearly a financial illiterate (Note a more literate Gordon supporting Eddie George's position).
As a defence, the 'I am useless' justification is a poor one in politics, though they doesn't appear to have stopped Gordon (best parodied here) trying the same trick when he claimed that he had known there was a looming debt bubble so, er, ran up loads of debt and didn't change regulation. With Gordon, you know it was incomeptence. With Jowell, it could be either, but I'm betting on incompetence again. It's never a bad bet with this lot.
Jowell was - and presumably still is - a shambolic incompetent who should never be allowed near policy and certainly not any financial decision. Today, her ex-husband, now officially a crook, was sentenced to four and half years in prison. Good.
Jowell's defense was always that she didn't really know about any of this income and how it worked. Given that the sums in question were $600,000 you would expect her to have paid some attention, not just sign whatever was put in front of her. Of couse, terrifyingly, it is entirely possible that she didn't know or, more likely, understand: no mystery why the Olympics budget has overrun. She did write to us once to argue that Labour had slashed inflation, when anyone who was alive knows this was a Major, Clarke and Eddie George success. And George got into serious trouble for it. She is clearly a financial illiterate (Note a more literate Gordon supporting Eddie George's position).
As a defence, the 'I am useless' justification is a poor one in politics, though they doesn't appear to have stopped Gordon (best parodied here) trying the same trick when he claimed that he had known there was a looming debt bubble so, er, ran up loads of debt and didn't change regulation. With Gordon, you know it was incomeptence. With Jowell, it could be either, but I'm betting on incompetence again. It's never a bad bet with this lot.
Friday, 13 February 2009
Historia Lausiaca
Sometimes, it's hard to beat the early church. I've just found the following throwaway line in a description of Palladius' writings on Holy orders (R.T. Meyer, 'Holy Orders in the Eastern Church in the Early fifth century', SP 16 (1985), 46):
'A certain lector was falsely accused of fornication by a pregnant woman, who claimed he was the father. All too hastily the lector was deposed by his bishop. The lector then said: "Well, since I have fallen, give her to me in marriage, for I am no longer a cleric and she is no longer a virgin" (HL 70.2)
The account then goes on to show how the guilty woman was in pain and then confessed whence the pain miraculously stopped. And this proves the power of prayer. But I'd rather have clergy like the above without the ending.
'A certain lector was falsely accused of fornication by a pregnant woman, who claimed he was the father. All too hastily the lector was deposed by his bishop. The lector then said: "Well, since I have fallen, give her to me in marriage, for I am no longer a cleric and she is no longer a virgin" (HL 70.2)
The account then goes on to show how the guilty woman was in pain and then confessed whence the pain miraculously stopped. And this proves the power of prayer. But I'd rather have clergy like the above without the ending.
****ing Keith Vaz
Much freedom of speech fun tonight. Keith Vaz, who really is a pointless adornment in the political firmament (I can see why Bozza swore violently at him) was on Newsnight arguing that Geert Wilders should have been banned from entering the country. He did it very badly. In essence he seems to have advanced three arguments, all rubbish
- The Home Secretary had the legal powers to do so. This is true, but no-one claimed otherwise. There was a vacuous subargument whereby he tried to say that as each case should be considered on its own merits so no precedents could be drawn from previous decisions - suggesting the government just makes its decisions up with no clear principles. This may be true, but I wouldn't draw attention to it
- Then he claimed that the man incited hatred. He initially based this on the film, which he has not seen (I thought we'd trained them out of this). However, he did also highlight that the man was under prosecution in the Netherlands. This is more serious, though would have been more compelling if he had been convicted.
- (possibly the worst). When a nice Muslim, whose name escapes me - it wasn't a high quality panel - said that he wanted to debate the film with the filmaker, Keith said that he could, provided he flew to Holland. Which I think misses the point.
Of course, the arguments are useless because the case is atrocious. If freedom of speech is to mean anything, then it does mean than unpleasant things get said, people get offended, sometimes seriously and hurtfully. But it is better than curtailing that freedom along arbitrary lines - lines that do allow mass murdering communists to visit (and get state receptions), but not Dutch MPs. A freedom limited to saying nice things about each other or to discuss matters in a structured and logical way doesn't really amount to much. Deal with it.
As an aside, incitement to religious hatred has never really stood up in my book. I generally oppose the elevating of particular kinds of crime (direct or incitement) above others. If a man has incited an assualt on me for my wealth rather than my race, I fail to see why there is a different punishment.
The film itself, by the way, is crap: it's like a party political broadcast on behalf of the 'we hate fundies' party, which - come to think of it, it is.
Thursday, 12 February 2009
The end of an era
Mine and my father's house are in mourning today: John Nettles is to leave Midsomer murders. No more will we be able to sample the absurd and fantastical plots - a ranking of episodes may follow this post - and his ability to reduce the range of human emotion to approximately three expression: bewilderment, irritation, and benign neutrality. The producers say they will continue without him, but this seems unlikely to be successful.
And, he looks bit like my dad. who was mistaken for him in the bazaar in Marrakesh.
And, he looks bit like my dad. who was mistaken for him in the bazaar in Marrakesh.
Monday, 2 February 2009
Making your mind up
Not the Bucks Fizz classic Eurovision entry, but a sensible decision from the ECB on the forfeited test of 2006. While shambolic on the day, this was and remains the right decision. You cannot just sulk over this kind of thing, unless you're about twelve, in which case you have parents to step in, or a footballer, in which case you don't. And look where that's got them.
So, sanity prevails, and cricket retain a sheen of decency.
So, sanity prevails, and cricket retain a sheen of decency.
Saturday, 31 January 2009
England's Martyr, England's King
Apologies for general silence on this. It's been a busy month, with holidays, Ofcom's report and Digital Britain all out. But, rested by taking yesterday off to commemorate the martyr king, I'm ready to crack on.
I thought I would start with Charles himself. It being the cause of some discussion by various people I have seen since. It is - clearly - a bit silly to spend a day of leave commemorating a long dead monarch, who was far from exemplary in his life, though there's a good little interview in the Guardian today about how dreadful Cromwell was, which is a timely reminder that maybe monarchy wasn't the worst of the options at hand then. But none of this means he isn't a Saint.
Sainthood is one of those tricky issues that we, especially in Britain tend to get wrong. There is a deep distrust of the sanctification of individuals and tend to put impossibly high standards on those who might be considered saints. I think it stems in part from our experience of the reformation and is a reaction against our perception of the state of Catholicism (such as it was) here. Sometimes, we then take refuge in the technical procedures of the Catholic church and state that these conditions are needed; or even that Anglicanism cannot create saints.
Let's just unpack these objections:
1. Anglicanism cannot create saints. This shouldn't be confused with the perfectly consistent belief that saints are all out, which is doubtless held by many in the church. Therefore sainthood is impossible, for Charles or anyone. However, as we do accept the the status for others, it is entirely illogical to adopt a chronological cut-off for eligibility. Those made saints before 1558 are OK; those after not. The fact none (save Charles) have been considered is an Anglican fudge, not a doctrinal position.
2. The current Roman methods are needed. Again, clearly this isn't true. Firstly, they're not that old (I fail to locate how long), but more importantly it's a false legalism - catholic church, who would have thought it. Early sainthood was very much built up from acclamation and belief. Sometimes this went wrong - the fictitious Andrew the fool should be a cautionary tale - but it's a good corrective to the idea that some miracles make a saint. They have always been nested right in the heart of the community of the faithful, not imposed from above.
3. Being a bit rubbish makes him ineligible. This is of course easy - the Peter principle (not this one, but the apostle). The boundaries of eligibility for sainthood are blurred: martyrdom is not enough, nor is success in defending or propagating the church. But no-one has ever suggested that falling short is a barrier. In fact, to my mind, it is the fallibility of Charles up to his execution that makes him such a good saint. Only at the last did he stand to defend the church to death.
There is much more that can be said on this, but that will do for now. All together now. 'Royal Charles who chose to die...'
I thought I would start with Charles himself. It being the cause of some discussion by various people I have seen since. It is - clearly - a bit silly to spend a day of leave commemorating a long dead monarch, who was far from exemplary in his life, though there's a good little interview in the Guardian today about how dreadful Cromwell was, which is a timely reminder that maybe monarchy wasn't the worst of the options at hand then. But none of this means he isn't a Saint.
Sainthood is one of those tricky issues that we, especially in Britain tend to get wrong. There is a deep distrust of the sanctification of individuals and tend to put impossibly high standards on those who might be considered saints. I think it stems in part from our experience of the reformation and is a reaction against our perception of the state of Catholicism (such as it was) here. Sometimes, we then take refuge in the technical procedures of the Catholic church and state that these conditions are needed; or even that Anglicanism cannot create saints.
Let's just unpack these objections:
1. Anglicanism cannot create saints. This shouldn't be confused with the perfectly consistent belief that saints are all out, which is doubtless held by many in the church. Therefore sainthood is impossible, for Charles or anyone. However, as we do accept the the status for others, it is entirely illogical to adopt a chronological cut-off for eligibility. Those made saints before 1558 are OK; those after not. The fact none (save Charles) have been considered is an Anglican fudge, not a doctrinal position.
2. The current Roman methods are needed. Again, clearly this isn't true. Firstly, they're not that old (I fail to locate how long), but more importantly it's a false legalism - catholic church, who would have thought it. Early sainthood was very much built up from acclamation and belief. Sometimes this went wrong - the fictitious Andrew the fool should be a cautionary tale - but it's a good corrective to the idea that some miracles make a saint. They have always been nested right in the heart of the community of the faithful, not imposed from above.
3. Being a bit rubbish makes him ineligible. This is of course easy - the Peter principle (not this one, but the apostle). The boundaries of eligibility for sainthood are blurred: martyrdom is not enough, nor is success in defending or propagating the church. But no-one has ever suggested that falling short is a barrier. In fact, to my mind, it is the fallibility of Charles up to his execution that makes him such a good saint. Only at the last did he stand to defend the church to death.
There is much more that can be said on this, but that will do for now. All together now. 'Royal Charles who chose to die...'
Bibliography, Jan 2009
Books bought (2)R.Musil, the Man without QualitiesA. Burgess, 99 books
So far delivering on the commitment to only buy 10 books a month
Books read (10)
BOTM: R.Musil, the Man without Qualities
A. Burroughs, Sellevision
A. Christie, Curtain*
D. Lessing, The fifth child
N. Mailer, The Castle in the Forest
P. O'Brien, Master and Commander
J. Reumann, Stewardship and the economy of God
D. Sevilla, Zita
I. Szerb, Journey by Moonlight
G. Tindall, City of Gold
So far delivering on the commitment to only buy 10 books a month
Books read (10)
BOTM: R.Musil, the Man without Qualities
A. Burroughs, Sellevision
A. Christie, Curtain*
D. Lessing, The fifth child
N. Mailer, The Castle in the Forest
P. O'Brien, Master and Commander
J. Reumann, Stewardship and the economy of God
D. Sevilla, Zita
I. Szerb, Journey by Moonlight
G. Tindall, City of Gold
I almost gave BOTM to Szerb, though the protagonist was annoying, and it has striking similarities to the Musil's epic. But in the end, the sustained quality of the latter won. It could do with being pruned from its 1,130 pages to perhaps 800, given that not a lot happens, but some of it is just perfect. That said, it does require a working knowledge of the basics of Austro-Hungarian history. The early chapter on kakania is very funny, but does require a bit of k.u.k. background. Incidentally, part of it is here). Others need no knowledge, but hovering over the entire book is the sense of total pointlessness of the whole enterprise - planning for a jubilee that never happens and discussing a peace that is about to shattered by the First World War. It evokes brilliantly the world that vanishes and contains echoes of much of the tragedy of the twentieth century to come.
NB. I'm using asterisks now to indicate the rereading of books
Wednesday, 21 January 2009
(Weights and) Measures
From my younger days, I seem to remember that this call would come out at key moments in drinking games, though I forget the details. However, the value of units of measurement and particularly their pricing was brought home to me in Austria last week, when A & I spent a week in the old archduchy and spent most of it drinking wine Anna did have some beer, but I was keen to visit Heuringen having failed to notice these on previous visits; I liked this one not least because it has family tree of the Esterhazys in one of the rooms.
I digress, the most interesting thing about all drinking establishments over there is that wine is priced strictly by volume, i.e. a glass (a 125ml glass is standard) is precisely a sixth of the price of a bottle. As a result we drank far less (we would have spent less but for the exchange rate - thanks Gordon) than we do normally. This makes perfect economic sense of course: deprived of the price incentive to buy bottles, it is better to retain flexibility (assuming you expect to get served frequently enough) so rationally one orders by the glass. As a result you are less likely to overorder and end up with wine unwanted, but drunk.
So, in support of the new paternalism, I think this is exactly the kind of idea that would make a difference to drinking habits (which we're officially worried about, not that you'd be able to tell) without much effort. The government seems to be thinking about making the right measures available, but it's really the pricing that is key to this. As ever, they've never really understood that.
I digress, the most interesting thing about all drinking establishments over there is that wine is priced strictly by volume, i.e. a glass (a 125ml glass is standard) is precisely a sixth of the price of a bottle. As a result we drank far less (we would have spent less but for the exchange rate - thanks Gordon) than we do normally. This makes perfect economic sense of course: deprived of the price incentive to buy bottles, it is better to retain flexibility (assuming you expect to get served frequently enough) so rationally one orders by the glass. As a result you are less likely to overorder and end up with wine unwanted, but drunk.
So, in support of the new paternalism, I think this is exactly the kind of idea that would make a difference to drinking habits (which we're officially worried about, not that you'd be able to tell) without much effort. The government seems to be thinking about making the right measures available, but it's really the pricing that is key to this. As ever, they've never really understood that.
Tuesday, 6 January 2009
Fundamental liberties
Yesterday, we had the now familiar attack on the government for eroding liberties - someone's written a book apparently.
You would be forgiven, for wondering what the assault on liberty looks like. Here are some examples from of our fundamental freedoms:
You would be forgiven, for wondering what the assault on liberty looks like. Here are some examples from of our fundamental freedoms:
- Detention without charge
- ID cards
- Surveillance at council level to monitor littering dog fouling
- and checking children's catchment areas
Obviously, there was me thinking of the right to vote and freedom of speech (which is of course restricted). Of these, only the first is a real erosion of freedom, the last two to enforce laws and the middle one just an expensive fuss over nothing.
I generally wonder if the people who complain about this actually have done any reading / thinking on liberty at all. Here's Mill's starting point: 'Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.' Mill was concerned over the erosion of liberty and the restrictions on the individual, but his concern was around what it prevented him doing - good negative liberty; I'm a fan. We can point to these - the smoking ban is a classic example, hunting also, any of the frankly silly attempts to prosecute people for not using metric measurements etc - and this government should be asked to account for them. We should be thankful that no dreadful holocaust denial law has been brought in,* though not for the gutless refusal of the government to protect offensive material when it comes under attack. I would have had the army in.
Now, I'm more of a Rousseau man myself, in that I have a profoundly pessimistic view of humanity, the bulk of whom I largely see as incapable of making rational and informed decisions for their own good, let alone anyone else's. Rousseau's concept of the general will (warning: this is a very bad wikipedia article) goes too far in this direction, but is at least an attempt to articulate what people would want if they were not restricted by lack of education, circumstances etc. It's a better attempt than old fashioned paternalism, though the latter is more emotionally compelling. In either case, the bans can be covered, though I do not approve of them all - far from it.
In any case, these are never mentioned. On the other hand, lots of people who have never lived in an ID card-carrying country tell me (who has) how much my movements will be restricted (when they won't). Then they rant on about a police state, and how terrible it will be to have everything on a database, oblivious to the fact that central records are pretty useful: national insurance numbers & tax, driving licences, the land registry etc. Curtailment of liberty means restriction, not the (doubtless irritating and in many cases unnecessary and wasteful) requirement to fill in a form, carry a piece of paper, or have your statement checked for fact.
So, next time we say fundamental liberties, can we actually talk about them.
* For the avoidance of doubt, I am not a holocaust denier, I simply don't believe people's beliefs should be restricted in any way by law. Incitement can be covered separately if that is the state's concern. If not, they have nothing to worry about.
Friday, 2 January 2009
Some resolutions
Best to do these early, though it's doubtless dull, as it's useful to have them on record. I was also far too hungover to contemplate thoughts on the political situation - and as I reckon my friends number sizable coteries of militant pro-Arab and pro-Israeli camps among them, so I really cannot face picking precisely through the rights of the situation in the Holy Land.
So for the record, this year I'm going to aim to do:
And I might even actually do some work, rather than blogging during the work day.
So for the record, this year I'm going to aim to do:
- more cooking, with pastry and fish priorities for this year. I still have unused implements from our wedding list, including a fish poacher I am determined in break in.
- less book - buying; more rereading. DH Lawrence wrote a generation ago (I think in his surprisingly impressive Apocalypse, which is well worth a read anyway) that people were increasingly given to reading more books badly rather than fewer books well. I suspect that I have been guilty of this also, so less new material and more reconsumption of the old is in order. Given I bought over 250 books in 2008, this is a relatively low bar, but I am limiting myself to 10 new purchases a month this year, i.e., 120 + gifts for the year
- more language work on old friends. I've been seduced by Italian and Syriac in recent years, and I'll keep them up, but Greek (texts - Sozomen beckons at present) and French (novels - Anna's bought me some great ones for Christmas) will be my focus this year. I'm getting too old to remember languages, and those two are my most precious.
- the final phases of house decoration, specifically on the long overdue painting of the outside (OK, clearly I'm get someone else to do the work)
- a family tree. Hatty's wedding should be the impetus to trace some of the Garroods by May, but there is more to do, and I should have more done by the end of the year, and maybe even trace that pesky Christ Church canon
- technology. Even though it terrifies me, I need to get some things working this year for the doctorate and for work. It's slightly embarrassing that I used the iPlayer for TV for the first time on Tuesday, and then only because Sky+ had failed to record the last ten minutes of Gavin & Stacey
- exercise. I've done well since May; I'll keep this gym thing up
And I might even actually do some work, rather than blogging during the work day.
Thursday, 1 January 2009
Happy new year
This has gone rather well I think this year, since I really got cracking in April. I'll be continuing it in 2009, though I might try to cut out some of the more boring excesses, like my long digression on book reorganisation and add more flights of whimsy like the ranking of French kings. There may even be an election - and that would be great fun to blog on.
And I may even proofread things before I post, but I think that's unlikely.
And I may even proofread things before I post, but I think that's unlikely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)