Monthly Archive for July, 2007

Whose envoy is he anyway?

As (sort of) predicted here at First Drafts over a month ago, it looks as if Michael Williams, currently UN envoy to the middle east, will soon be returning to British government service as the prime minister’s own middle east envoy (a post last filled, of course, by Lord Levy). The Guardian, which broke the story on Saturday, suggested that the appointment could lead to clashes with Tony Blair, who is of course himself plugging away in the middle east, on behalf of the international “quartet.” It’s not quite clear why such a clash would be any more likely now that Williams will be working on behalf of No 10 rather than the UN; in fact, as pointed out in Prospect a few months ago, a turf war with Blair was more likely when Williams was at the UN, given that the UN is one of the four members of the quartet on whose behalf Blair is working.

Personality politics aside, Williams’s appointment is good news for the region, says Benny Avni of the New York Sun—but bad news for the UN, which is losing one of its most able diplomats. Avni also suggests that the idea that Williams will act as a “counterpoint” to Blair’s “perceived pro-Israel bias” is overdone.

From the archive

Evidently this is a bad week for film, as Italian film director Michelangelo Antonioni has died aged 94.

In Prospect’s March 1997 issue, screenwriter Frederic Raphael recalled meeting Antonioni and the actress Monica Vitti in Rome in the mid 1960s. In the following issue, Raphael praised the director’s last film, “Beyond the Clouds.”

What’s funny?

If, as Nietzsche put it, a witticism is an epitaph on the death of a feeling, it’s always interesting to look at where feelings are running too strong for jokes—something that has been an uncomfortably live topic for editors these last few years.

For reasons I cannot quite fathom, Prospect has recently gained a review copy of Jonathan Swan’s Man Walks into a Bar 2: the ultimate collection of jokes and one-liners. It’s cheap and cheerful, and operates in the well-worn tradition of quips alphabetised by subject from accidents to zebras (”What is a zebra? 26 sizes larger than an ‘A’ bra”), but my eye was caught by an intriguingly hesitant section near the middle marked ethnic.

It rather gives the game away that the first one-liner in this section goes, “How does every ethnic joke start? With a look over your shoulder.” In order, then, the individual “ethnic” topics are—American, Australian, Chinese, Chinese phrasebook, Eskimo, French, German, Iraqi, Irish (by far the longest), Japanese, Jewish, Mexican, Scottish, Welsh. These are hardly ethnicities in the conventional sense, but what I found striking was just how narrow and predictable a spectrum of inhabitants this joke-land has: its Americans are brash, its Chinese mangle English to comic effect, its French are cowardly (”How many Frenchmen does it take to defend France? Don’t know, never been tried”), its Germans are dull, its Irish are stupid. Arab, Afro-Caribbean and Indian categories are notable by their absence, with the dubious exception of Iraq (”What is Iraq’s national bird? Duck”). Far less of the world is thought generically amusing than it used to be, and most of these efforts smack of desperation rather than relish—surely a good thing.

Also interesting are the 53 entries under religion. According to my count, these divide into 34 about Christianity, 12 generic “god” gags, five about Judaism or the Old Testament, one about Taoism, and one about Buddhism (”What did the Dalai Lama say to the hotdog vendor? ‘Make me one with everything’”). Islam, clearly, is not remotely funny at the moment—and I’m far from convinced this is a good thing.

Finally, there are no less than 23 entries under chavs (”What do you say to a chav in a suit? ‘Will the defendant please stand’”). I remember when—unthinkable today, at least in print—that joke was doing the rounds with its butt as “a black man.” But it’s disconcerting to see that there’s still nothing taboo about pouring contempt on one’s social inferiors.

From the archive

Swedish film director Ingmar Bergman has died at the age of 89.

In our February 2003 issue, Prospect’s film critic Mark Cousins wrote how he at first dismissed the filmmaker, but came to appreciate his talent.

Prospect reads

What Prospect staff are reading:

Tom Chatfield:

I’ve just finished an advance copy of When I Forgot by Elina Hirvonen—a debut novel that was hugely successful in Finland, and that will be published here in November by Portobello Books. It’s a slim, highly charged story, told through the eyes of Anna, a woman in her twenties, as she struggles to articulate the burdens of her family history: her brother’s battles with mental illness, her father’s violence, her boyfriend’s father’s traumas from the Vietnam war. Translation often has a distancing effect on language, but here I found a slightly glazed quality in the prose combined with sudden rawness to conjure a powerful sense of the horror with which madness and violence erupt into everyday life. I also enjoyed the author’s refusal of despair, which can so often provide an easy way for writers to assert their profundity: here, there is tenderness as well as suffering, and a recognition of the love that makes all species of family violence so disturbing.

John Kelly:

With Tokyo Year Zero, David Peace has achieved a remarkable follow-up to The Damned United, his startling, atmospheric stream of-consciousness novel based on the hubris of football manager Brian Clough. Now based in Tokyo, Peace has written a complex tale of serial killings in the year following Japan’s surrender to the Allies in the second world war. This novel evokes the shame, squalor, frustration, and social and moral bankruptcy of a defeated and occupied nation which saw itself as the cultural and military centre of the earth, through the eyes of a corrupt police inspector investigating the murders of women nobody much cares about.

A good detective story is as much about the place as it is about the plot and the protagonist. Peace has convincingly recreated the hellhole of postwar, firebombed Tokyo, specifically the Ginza district, which largely survived because it housed the Imperial Palace, and uses it as backdrop to explore complex issues of identity, racism, the descent of humanity and dereliction of familial duty which results from cultural annihilation. Kurosawa and others made some great movies which described the era, but few Japanese novels, at least those available in translation, have captured this theme so well. Tokyo Year Zero is the first of a trilogy; Peace has already finished the second volume, I’m told. I confidently predict that he will be Britain’s Murakami, Japan’s premier Gaijin chronicler. And he comes from Ossett, a suburb of Wakefield. So desu ka…

David Killen:

D’un château a l’autre (translated as Castle to Castle) by Louis-Ferdinand Céline.

Is it permissible to enjoy the works of an artist whose views we deplore and who, in Céline’s case, recklessly encouraged a climate of opinion which led to the deaths of thousands? My answer is a qualified Yes. Qualified because I recognise that there is a complication in our response to Céline absent from our approach to Joyce or Proust say. Yes because I believe that ultimately the details of an artist’s life are only important insofar as they illuminate our understanding of the work.

Céline’s account of Vichy’s death throes in the chocolate box setting of Sigmaringen is a phantasmagoria of stream-of-consciousness monologue and hallucination. Revenge fantasies and wild invective collide with tragic-comic farce, horrifying violence and the most alarming descriptions of bad sanitation I have ever read. This is a world where madness seems like normality, where everyone is under sentence of death and a cyanide pill can buy you the governorship of a faraway island. Carmen Calil called this “at once incomprehensible and perfectly clear, and always hilarious” and I can’t think of a better way to describe it. In spite of the subject matter, and an almost universally loathsome cast of characters, this is a genuinely funny and moving book.

Susha Lee-Shothaman:

How I Write: The Secret Lives of Authors, edited by Dan Crowe and Philip Oltermann. It’s a coffee-table book in which writers reveal the rituals or talismans that inspire (or enable) them to work. Rather than offering any particular insight into the creative process, the book is a well-designed collection of personal idiosyncracies and possessions. Still, it is entertaining to find out that Claire Messud writes on graph paper or Chip Kidd in the desktop publishing program Quark Xpress, and to boggle at Will Self’s Post-Its and AS Byatt’s striking statue. Michel Faber and Tibor Fischer send up the whole idea in their contributions.

Tom Nuttall:

A brace of articles that will make uncomfortable reading for fatties. First, Robin Hanson at the endlessly fascinating blog Overcoming Bias looks at a study published in the Psychological Bulletin that found that overweight children and teenagers were routinely stigmatised, teased or ostracised by their peers, and sometimes their parents and teachers—leading in many cases to poor performance at school, low self-esteem and sometimes depression or even suicide. The article, notes Hanson, routinely uses the word “bias” to refer to the negative judgements we make of the overweight. Yet how do we know that these are biases? There may be good reasons to believe that the overweight are on average less successful, more untidy or would make worse friends than those of normal weight. Without evidence to the contrary, these negative judgements should not be called “bias.”

Second, William Saletan at Slate reports on a New England Journal of Medicine study into the networking effects of obesity. The study found that having an obese adult sibling increased your chances of becoming obese by 40 per cent, and that having an obese spouse increased your chances of becoming obese by 37 per cent. Scientists and journalists, reports Saletan, interpreted the study to mean that we should stop stigmatising the obese; obesity is contagious and too powerful for any individual to overcome by force of will. But this is nonsense—pointing out the importance of cultural norms in influencing the rise of obesity implies the opposite: individuals need to take responsibility for removing themselves from exposure to such norms—which in many cases probably means ditching fat friends—and stigmatisation is part of the solution.

I polished off Virginia Woolf’s entertaining fantasy Orlando by the poolside in Andalucía last week. The novel’s protagonist lives through the Elizabethan, Stuart, Restoration, Georgian, Victorian and Edwardian eras, and changes sex halfway through the book, devices that allow Woolf to explore the changing of gender and social norms throughout the generations, and also, apparently, to escape censorship for exploration of lesbian themes. A little like a cross-dressing Blackadder, and almost as funny.

Ayanna Prevatt-Goldstein:

I have just read Tescopoly: Every little hurts, by Andrew Simms, director of the New Economics Foundation. Simms’s thesis is that supermarkets bring about a social and economic “culture of poverty.” He says that supermarkets are destroying jobs, diversity and communities, and that they have been subsidised by a favourable planning regime and business climate. Simms wants to see local food co-ops, farmers’ markets and other alternatives to supermarkets actively promoted. The book contributes to a growing concern about the hegemony of big business, the decline of small local shops and the destruction of the environment. It links in to the NEF’s campaign against “clone towns”—the homogenisation of British high streets.

While I am suspicious of Tesco and big business, I am also suspicious of my suspicions. It is in my local Tesco that everyone shops and bumps into each other. There are many specialist stores in the area too, and I am glad they are there. However, they are expensive and close before most people finish work; you must have money and time to shop in them, and there is therefore nothing remotely “community” about them. The complexities involved in such arguments remind me of a comment by Donald Sassoon at a meeting in our offices a while ago on the future of the left. He said that the left had not yet worked out how to deal with environmentalism. Traditionally the left has been urban and has thought globally, it has been for progress and change, for mass production, for freeing up time and creating wealth for the working class, while the countryside has belonged to the right. Now the left often seems to find itself advocating for a village life that never existed, and the marvels of a peasant economy.

I am still reading Salman Rushdie’s Midnight’s Children. Last year marked the book’s 25th anniversary, and I have a beautiful anniversary edition. But somehow, seven months later, Saleem has only just been born and I have the rest of his life and that of modern India to read.

William Skidelsky:

I was intrigued, but not entirely surprised, by the opening pages of JM Coetzee’s new novel, Diary of a Bad Year, which were extracted in the New York Review of Books: disquisitions on the origins of the state alternating with an ageing writer’s pervy descriptions of a young female neighbour. I’ve now been sent a proof of the novel, so I am looking forward to seeing how the situation plays itself out. I also enjoyed David Runciman’s diary in the latest London Review of Books about Bob Dylan, disc jockey: I’ve never really thought about what makes a good radio DJ, but, as Runciman tells it, Dylan has the perfect blend of attributes (in particular, a suitably gravelly voice). His weekly show is on BBC 6 Music: I’m going to start tuning in.

Polaris out-bluffed

A few days ago, I noted on this blog that a poker match was taking place between two of the world’s finest human players and Polaris, the most advanced poker-playing computer program yet devised. The results are now in, and I’m delighted to say that—albeit by a slim margin—humanity remains ahead of silicon in matters of bluffing. Out of four sessions, one was a draw, one was a machine win, and two were human wins. Many anthropocentric congratulations to Phil Laak and Ali Eslami.

Perhaps most intriguingly, Polaris will soon become available for anyone to play against on Poker Academy Online - a more than formidable challenge for even seasoned pros. But what are the long-term ramifications of computers developing a talent for a game often thought to be beyond artificial mastery due to its layered uncertainties? Plenty of people make good money through online poker (although plenty more lose it) and, while the secrets of Polaris are not yet in the public domain, its very existence and the solid body of research behind it suggest that extremely able laptop-based bluffing engines can’t be far away.

Imagine. The idea of playing online chess or checkers for money is ludicrous in part because anyone could cheat by consulting a computer program for advice. As AI advances in leaps and bounds, might the massively lucrative online poker industry be crippled by the next generation of the technologies that brought it into existence?

Today’s top links (about the mind)

Heavy mental. Joseph LeDoux is a neuroscientist at NYU (subscribers can read his Prospect article on the self and the brain here). He’s also chief singer-songwriter of rock band The Amygdaloids—sample song title: “Mind Body Problem.” Salon asks him how he started singing about synapses.

Talking it over. Our associate editor Alexander Linklater explores the past of our contributing editor Kamran Nazeer in the Guardian. If you’re interested in autism or Asperger’s syndrome, I’d also recommend Nazeer’s book “Send in the Idiots.”

Now you see it. Natalie Portman’s neuropsychology research.

Sick of sic

Prompted by a Prospect correspondent who wrote in to ask why we hadn’t inserted “sic” after a misuse of the word “mitigates” in a quote used by Katharine Quarmby in her piece in the new issue, I tried to see if I could think of a word or phrase more irritating than “sic” (inserted in brackets after a quotation to indicate that it is accurate, and that any error or solecism is the responsibility of the original author or speaker, not of the quoter).

As an editor, when dealing with a quote that is important to a piece of writing but that contains a mistake, it’s not always obvious what to do. Correct the mistake and thus falsify the quote? Substitute a correction in square brackets and disrupt the flow of prose? Insert an ellipsis at the offending point and arouse the suspicion of the reader?* None of these solutions is perfect. However, in almost all cases they are preferable to the horrible little “sic.”

Some writers use “sic” to hint that a typo or minor grammatical slip on the part of their source, to whom they are invariably antagonistic, represents a general brutish ignorance or a wider flaw in their argument. The blogger Oliver Kamm is often guilty of this: here he is quoting Simon Kelner, editor of the Independent, who is responding to Tony Blair’s comparison of the media to a “feral beast:”

What clearly rankles with Mr Blair is not that we campaign vociferously on certain issues, but that he doesn’t agree with our stance. What if we had backed the invasion of Iraq (like [sic], for example, we supported the interventions in Kosovo and Sierra Leone)?

It’s difficult to believe that had Kamm not made his intervention, a single reader would have tripped over Kelner’s (admittedly slightly artless) use of the formulation “like.” By inserting “sic,” Kamm instead draws attention to himself, simultaneously asking us to recognise his appreciation of grammatical arcania and insinuating that Kelner’s sloppy prose should discredit his argument.

Another irritating usage is to insert “sic” in a quote after a claim that the quoter believes to be so risible that it is not even worth refuting directly. Left-liberals are usually the culprits here; a recent example can be found in this Guardian piece by Larry Elliott and Dan Atkinson, extracted from their anti-Blair polemic Fantasy Island:

Labour believes Britain is at the cutting edge of the knowledge economy and that Britain’s well-educated (sic), highly skilled (sic) and entrepreneurial (sic) workers are ready to kick German, American, Japanese and Chinese butt all round the global village.

(As an aside, Elliott and Atkinson recently responded on Prospect’s website to Julian Le Grand’s “Blair’s golden age” piece.)

Nine times out of ten, using “sic” simply draws attention away from the quote and towards the quoter, and, to this reader’s eyes at least, reduces the quoter to a smug, insecure attention-seeker, more interested in advertising their own knowledge than in adding to the sum of the world’s. So writers, think twice! — put a sock in sic.

* I first became aware of these difficulties 20 or so years ago, when as a child I enjoyed watching Jimmy White at the snooker table. In a television interview conducted after a particularly stinging defeat, White said something like, “I should have taken advantage of his mistake and I never.” The next day, reading about the match in the Daily Mail, I was surprised to see that the quote had been touched up to read “and I never did so.” Initially shocked by the Mail’s snobbery (I was only 9 years old), after a moment’s thought I realised that it would look odd if the paper had simply reprinted the quote verbatim. If these were slightly eccentric concerns for a nine year old, it was at least useful early exposure to the editorial challenges that would face me a couple of decades hence.

Prospect’s new issue—the rise and fall of the recording industry

cover_big.gifBy the end of the summer, over 450 large-scale music festivals will have been held in Britain (I’m off to the Big Chill next weekend). And while the somewhat apocalyptic weather will have led to weekend washouts for some, the British festival scene is undeniably in rude health—tickets for Glastonbury sold out within two hours of going on sale, despite a cumbersome new pre-registration system, and at the other end of the festival spectrum, smaller “boutique” events are sprouting up across the country.

This boom time for festivals is part of a general flourishing of live music in Britain. Demand for pop performances has rocketed in recent years, and so have prices—for £25, the cost of a programme at Barbra Streisand’s recent Manchester concert (top ticket price: £550), you could have seen the Rolling Stones play Wembley in 1990. Last August, as Robert Sandall points out in this month’s Prospect cover story, a decent seat at the Stones’s Twickenham gig would have set you back at least £150.

Yet while concert promoters and venues rake in the cash, record companies the world over are slashing both prices and staff, because the recording industry is in major decline. In Britain, HMV recently announced that its yearly profits had halved, while the discount chain Fopp recently shut its doors for good. Not even the explosive growth in sales of downloaded music can offset the damage—the total value of music sales across all formats in the US fell by 6 per cent last year.

What this all means, Sandall argues, is that the economics of pop music have been totally upended in recent years. Artists now make their money from live work and the accompanying merchandising opportunities rather than from recordings. Record companies now ensure that the deals they make with artists include shares in the profits generated by tours. And while bands used to tour to promote their latest album, often at a loss, it’s now the other way around. The CD is dead; long live the gig.

Read the piece and let us know what you think here.

What should we do about the super-rich?

Britain’s financial services sector is booming, as everyone knows. It generates jobs, provides vast amounts of tax revenue, contributes a surplus of nearly £20bn to the trade balance and helps make London one of the most vibrant, cosmopolitan cities in the world.

But the runaway success of the City also means that Britain is increasingly dependent on a largely foreign-owned sector, that London is experiencing explosive house price growth, and that income inequality is on the rise, despite this government’s redistributive measures.

There seems to be something in the air. In recent months we have seen the usually secretive heads of private equity firms given a rough ride in the Commons, papers like the Telegraph and the Mail issuing objections to the tax privileges granted to the super-rich, and increasing calls for a rise in capital gains tax. In the new issue of Prospect, editor David Goodhart and economic consultant Harvey Cole explain why the super-rich pay so little tax, and explore some of the options for squeezing more out of them without frightening them away from Britain.



Gift Subscription

Bad Behavior has blocked 1000 access attempts in the last 7 days.