...apparently(!), here's what's been on my mind in the planet's final moments.
Starting with a serious note, it seems that the latest gun atrocity in the States has been sufficiently shocking that, finally, there may be some real debate on gun control. The President is openly supporting a ban on assault weapons which, while hardly a cure-all, would at least be a start and suggest the conversation was beginning to happen. Let's hope some small good comes out of what has been an unimaginable horror for those of us detached from it.
But turning to the forthcoming apocalypse (as I write there are just a couple of hours to go). It seems there are now two mountain redoubts built by aliens to shield the believer from the end - one in Serbia, one in France. The small French village at the foot of one of them has had so many visitors (over 10,000!) that they've had to seal the area off and the Mayor had called for people not to go there. This raises questions:
How are people supposed to get into the hideout once they get there? How does one enter a mountain? Is there a door? Some sign, invisible to those of us who think these poor souls are deluded nincompoops, pointing the way?
What do they think they'd emerge into? I've read tales of the end coming about in various ways, from another planet hitting us, through rapture to zombie apocalypse (which plenty of people seem positively itching to happen). What exactly do those, assuming they'd got in, think there'd be left to come out to? Would you even want to?
Anyway. I was thinking about all this in the Post Office queue the other day, as you do. I was waiting to collect a parcel that they'd been unable to deliver, and it being near Christmas - why are people bothering? The world's going to blow up. - there was a bit of a wait. So I perused the various posters etc., adorning the walls. One of them, helpfully, informed one that the little cubby-hole from which undelivered parcels could be collected would be open extra days and longer hours in the build-up to the festive period, in order that people could 'collect there parcels' (sic).
This at the Post Office. The very deliverer, at least until recently, of the written word no less. Makes me wish I were sealed in a mountain sometimes, it does - fair gives me the shivers.
Happy apocalypse, all.
Friday, 21 December 2012
Monday, 10 December 2012
Consequences
I've had to leave this one a couple of days because it made me so angry that I couldn't trust myself to write about it either coherently or, frankly, within the bounds of the libel laws. So I hope that what follows is at least vaguely cogent.
I've always hated prank calls. Always. That whole type of comedy escapes me completely, and hasn't been funny since it was new, Candid Camera style. But that was basically sixty years ago. All the modern incarnations of that type - Fonejacker, Dom Jolly, Gotchas and the like - I can't stand them. They irritate, humiliate people, get their laughs at others' expense and, worst of all, simply aren't bloody funny.
Or at least, worst of all up to now. Now, of course, as part of the fall-out from such a 'prank', a nurse is dead at her own hands and two DJs in Australia find themselves suspended, vilified worldwide and accused of having blood on their hands. Called murderers, even, by some of the more hysterical posters on the website, Twitter feeds and Facebook page of their employers. Advertising suspended as sponsors rush to pull out. Threats against the two DJs and the digital security of Austereo. They've paid a high price for this phone call.
Not as high, of course, as the now bereft family of Jacintha Saldanha. It may well be that she was suffering with mental health issues beforehand. It may well be than any other person answering the phone would not have reacted in anything like the way she did. The tragic outcome could not possibly have been foreseen, 2Day FM's owners said. No, no they couldn't. But, quite apart from the fact that they're not funny, they're tasteless and they're unoriginal, that's exactly why you shouldn't do these things in the first place. You don't know who you're dealing with. You don't know how they'll react, what sort of trouble they'll have to deal with in the aftermath, when you've got your laugh and hung up.
All you can do, if you go ahead anyway, is accept the consequences. 2DayFM may rightfully claim that the extreme consequences couldn't have been predicted, but it's not inconceivable that anybody falling for their jolly jape could have lost their job. They must have known this would cause a very large fuss - this is the Royal family, for fuck sake.
Their protestations that they couldn't know what was coming ring pretty hollow, regardless of how truly they may mean them, especially in the light of their previous in this regard. Their licence has twice been placed on probation under threat of closure, and another of their efforts went horribly wrong when a 14-year-old girl revealed live on air that she'd been raped when she was just twelve. Then there's Kyle Sandilands, responsible for that poor girl's revelation, who has a string of misogynist, hateful and generally unpleasant incidents behind him - calling a journalist a 'fat bitch' and the Australian Highway Patrol 'scum' live on air among them. So I don't think it's being unreasonable to expect a modicum more care from the radio station when they're considering something like this.
Have some compassion for the DJs, I've been told. They didn't wake up that morning intent on killing somebody. They're distraught, beside themselves at what's transpired. Well, yes. Perhaps in time I'll feel some compassion for the two, who must indeed be feeling absolutely terrible. But just at the moment, rightly or wrongly, I think that's exactly how they bloody well should be feeling. And, but for the fact that it would only put people out of work who had nothing to do with it, I'd be pretty pleased if their wretched radio station closed down as well.
I've always hated prank calls. Always. That whole type of comedy escapes me completely, and hasn't been funny since it was new, Candid Camera style. But that was basically sixty years ago. All the modern incarnations of that type - Fonejacker, Dom Jolly, Gotchas and the like - I can't stand them. They irritate, humiliate people, get their laughs at others' expense and, worst of all, simply aren't bloody funny.
Or at least, worst of all up to now. Now, of course, as part of the fall-out from such a 'prank', a nurse is dead at her own hands and two DJs in Australia find themselves suspended, vilified worldwide and accused of having blood on their hands. Called murderers, even, by some of the more hysterical posters on the website, Twitter feeds and Facebook page of their employers. Advertising suspended as sponsors rush to pull out. Threats against the two DJs and the digital security of Austereo. They've paid a high price for this phone call.
Not as high, of course, as the now bereft family of Jacintha Saldanha. It may well be that she was suffering with mental health issues beforehand. It may well be than any other person answering the phone would not have reacted in anything like the way she did. The tragic outcome could not possibly have been foreseen, 2Day FM's owners said. No, no they couldn't. But, quite apart from the fact that they're not funny, they're tasteless and they're unoriginal, that's exactly why you shouldn't do these things in the first place. You don't know who you're dealing with. You don't know how they'll react, what sort of trouble they'll have to deal with in the aftermath, when you've got your laugh and hung up.
All you can do, if you go ahead anyway, is accept the consequences. 2DayFM may rightfully claim that the extreme consequences couldn't have been predicted, but it's not inconceivable that anybody falling for their jolly jape could have lost their job. They must have known this would cause a very large fuss - this is the Royal family, for fuck sake.
Their protestations that they couldn't know what was coming ring pretty hollow, regardless of how truly they may mean them, especially in the light of their previous in this regard. Their licence has twice been placed on probation under threat of closure, and another of their efforts went horribly wrong when a 14-year-old girl revealed live on air that she'd been raped when she was just twelve. Then there's Kyle Sandilands, responsible for that poor girl's revelation, who has a string of misogynist, hateful and generally unpleasant incidents behind him - calling a journalist a 'fat bitch' and the Australian Highway Patrol 'scum' live on air among them. So I don't think it's being unreasonable to expect a modicum more care from the radio station when they're considering something like this.
Have some compassion for the DJs, I've been told. They didn't wake up that morning intent on killing somebody. They're distraught, beside themselves at what's transpired. Well, yes. Perhaps in time I'll feel some compassion for the two, who must indeed be feeling absolutely terrible. But just at the moment, rightly or wrongly, I think that's exactly how they bloody well should be feeling. And, but for the fact that it would only put people out of work who had nothing to do with it, I'd be pretty pleased if their wretched radio station closed down as well.
Friday, 7 December 2012
Scouts' honour
A welcome bit of news to update a piece I wrote a few weeks ago about George Pratt, the eleven-year-old thrown out of the Scouts for being an atheist.
It seems the Scouts are reconsidering their position, and are thinking about amending their pledge to recognize that some kids have no religious affiliation. I applaud their willingness to at least talk about it, and can only hope the change is pushed through. I'd be very happy to withdraw my criticism of any organisation that shows right-mindedness in this regard, and open their doors to everybody. Fair play to them.
Let's see if it actually happens - perhaps Master Pratt would do them the honour of rejoining, if, ironically enough, he can practice one of what is supposed to be the main tenets of Christianity, and forgive them what they've done.
It seems the Scouts are reconsidering their position, and are thinking about amending their pledge to recognize that some kids have no religious affiliation. I applaud their willingness to at least talk about it, and can only hope the change is pushed through. I'd be very happy to withdraw my criticism of any organisation that shows right-mindedness in this regard, and open their doors to everybody. Fair play to them.
Let's see if it actually happens - perhaps Master Pratt would do them the honour of rejoining, if, ironically enough, he can practice one of what is supposed to be the main tenets of Christianity, and forgive them what they've done.
Thursday, 6 December 2012
Countdown to the apocalypse
This handy countdown clock has been set up on the interweb for those wanting to keep tabs on how long Earth has left. It seems the world is to end, as 'predicted by the Mayans'™ at 11.11:11am on 21st December, so any plans you had for Christmas you'd better not pay for up front, people.
I have questions, of course. Why such a specific time? Were the Mayans getting their predictions mixed up and confusing the end of the world with the Armistice? How's it going to happen? Does that time represent merely the start of the end of the world, or is everything simply going to blink out of existence at that precise second? Does anybody really believe that's going to be it?
The answer to that last one is, of course, regrettably but rather inevitably, yes. Check this page out. It brings news that the Russian government has had to make official announcements on the matter, and various cults around the world are no doubt preparing for the end. Among my favourites, though, is this lot. Their enigmatic leader 'AB' suggests he doesn't necessarily believe in this end of the world, of course, but he is preparing for an inevitable something. He does acknowledge, though, that some of his group do indeed think that 21.12.12 is it. How exactly those members are preparing to survive the end of the world, one can only guess at. What I imagine is the usual assortment of kit for survivalists – tinned food, water, a gun, an underground shelter and some warm weather clothing – are not going to get you through the planet exploding.
Anyway, with end of the world dates piling up (remember Harold Camping, whom I wrote about earlier this year? He's finally knocked it on the head, but others will no doubt be along in his stead in due course.), pretty soon we're going to have to count down to pretty much any date you care to mention if we gather them all together.
I'll see you, if not before, on the 22nd. :o)
I have questions, of course. Why such a specific time? Were the Mayans getting their predictions mixed up and confusing the end of the world with the Armistice? How's it going to happen? Does that time represent merely the start of the end of the world, or is everything simply going to blink out of existence at that precise second? Does anybody really believe that's going to be it?
The answer to that last one is, of course, regrettably but rather inevitably, yes. Check this page out. It brings news that the Russian government has had to make official announcements on the matter, and various cults around the world are no doubt preparing for the end. Among my favourites, though, is this lot. Their enigmatic leader 'AB' suggests he doesn't necessarily believe in this end of the world, of course, but he is preparing for an inevitable something. He does acknowledge, though, that some of his group do indeed think that 21.12.12 is it. How exactly those members are preparing to survive the end of the world, one can only guess at. What I imagine is the usual assortment of kit for survivalists – tinned food, water, a gun, an underground shelter and some warm weather clothing – are not going to get you through the planet exploding.
Anyway, with end of the world dates piling up (remember Harold Camping, whom I wrote about earlier this year? He's finally knocked it on the head, but others will no doubt be along in his stead in due course.), pretty soon we're going to have to count down to pretty much any date you care to mention if we gather them all together.
I'll see you, if not before, on the 22nd. :o)
Thursday, 29 November 2012
On the response to the Leveson Report
After months of investigation, interviews with hundreds of witnesses, and a pretty thorough investigation into the practices of the press in this country, the Leveson report was predictably damning. Also predictable was much of the response to it, particularly from within Westminster. To, very, very briefly summarise the report's 2000 pages, the stuff which seems to have been picked up for highlight is:
A new regulatory body, entirely independent of the government, of serving newspaper editors and of business, should be established.
Some politicians have been much too close to the press.
Press behaviour has, at times been 'outrageous' (see below).
The report is critical of the relationship between John Yates (former Assistant Commissioner at the Met Police) and some elements of the press.
Interestingly, possibly anticipating much of the likely response to his report, he also suggested that legislation should enshrine in law the obligation on the government to protect the freedom of the press.
There are also, of course, ongoing criminal cases with regard to some of the practices that have been uncovered recently, which could add further context to anything Leveson says.
So, what we've got is a call for regulation to punish press excesses, but a recognition that the press freedom which is so long-standing and so valued in this country is to be protected. And a bit of a bollocking for their conduct, of course:
"There have been too many times when, chasing the story, parts of the press have acted as if its own code, which it wrote, simply did not exist. This has caused real hardship and, on occasion, wreaked havoc with the lives of innocent people whose rights and liberties have been disdained. This is not just the famous but ordinary members of the public, caught up in events (many of them, truly tragic) far larger than they could cope with but made much, much worse by press behaviour that, at times, can only be described as outrageous."
I entirely agree that the freedom of the press, so easy to take for granted when it's such a fundamental part of our culture, must be protected. But it's possible to rein them in without damaging that freedom. It would not be difficult to frame some kind of legislation compelling retractions and apologies to be published on the same page, at the same size, as the original story if that story turns out to be false, for example. This would still leave papers free to publish the stuff in the first place, but would perhaps make them more careful to check their facts (a sadly forgotten old journalistic habit anyway) before they ran something. Or perhaps moderate their tone when they run something which basically calls an innocent man a murderer before any trial has been conducted, to cite just one of their recent shameful episodes.
Anyway, needless to say, the politicians have been prompt to respond. Cameron, in typical Tory fashion, has been chief among them in urging caution in implementing legislation. God forbid a Tory government ever had to actually be responsible for something. To be fair to him though, he's accepted most of the report's findings and called for prompt action, as have all the major parties. But he said in his Commons statement that statutory regulation would make the country 'less free'. A glib generalisation, for me, though it's very gratifying to hear politicians of all stripes arguing against regulation of the press - the debate in the Commons this afternoon was pretty intelligent and reasonable by their usual standards, which goes some way to showing how importantly this issue is viewed by all sides of the House.
Clegg, a Liberal in both senses of the word, felt sufficiently differently from the PM to make his own statement, rather than let Cameron speak for the coalition as a whole. He felt the proposals for legislation were workable, and that the press had gone too far to be trusted to act responsibly in future without them.
If I've understood the proposals correctly, it seems that any legislation would only underpin the authority of the new, independent regulatory body, it would not regulate the press itself. For me, the press have pissed away the rights and privileges of 300 years of complete freedom by using those freedoms as an excuse for some of the most outrageous, immoral and apparently illegal practices in the hunt for sensationalist bollocks. With digital media threatening the printed press much worse than any legal responsibilities ever would, that behaviour is not likely to change if it isn't forced to. It's time to do something - like Clegg says, the 'worst thing would be to do nothing'.
Leveson's lessons must be learned, for the good of our society as a whole. Let's hope they are.
A new regulatory body, entirely independent of the government, of serving newspaper editors and of business, should be established.
Some politicians have been much too close to the press.
Press behaviour has, at times been 'outrageous' (see below).
The report is critical of the relationship between John Yates (former Assistant Commissioner at the Met Police) and some elements of the press.
Interestingly, possibly anticipating much of the likely response to his report, he also suggested that legislation should enshrine in law the obligation on the government to protect the freedom of the press.
There are also, of course, ongoing criminal cases with regard to some of the practices that have been uncovered recently, which could add further context to anything Leveson says.
So, what we've got is a call for regulation to punish press excesses, but a recognition that the press freedom which is so long-standing and so valued in this country is to be protected. And a bit of a bollocking for their conduct, of course:
"There have been too many times when, chasing the story, parts of the press have acted as if its own code, which it wrote, simply did not exist. This has caused real hardship and, on occasion, wreaked havoc with the lives of innocent people whose rights and liberties have been disdained. This is not just the famous but ordinary members of the public, caught up in events (many of them, truly tragic) far larger than they could cope with but made much, much worse by press behaviour that, at times, can only be described as outrageous."
I entirely agree that the freedom of the press, so easy to take for granted when it's such a fundamental part of our culture, must be protected. But it's possible to rein them in without damaging that freedom. It would not be difficult to frame some kind of legislation compelling retractions and apologies to be published on the same page, at the same size, as the original story if that story turns out to be false, for example. This would still leave papers free to publish the stuff in the first place, but would perhaps make them more careful to check their facts (a sadly forgotten old journalistic habit anyway) before they ran something. Or perhaps moderate their tone when they run something which basically calls an innocent man a murderer before any trial has been conducted, to cite just one of their recent shameful episodes.
Anyway, needless to say, the politicians have been prompt to respond. Cameron, in typical Tory fashion, has been chief among them in urging caution in implementing legislation. God forbid a Tory government ever had to actually be responsible for something. To be fair to him though, he's accepted most of the report's findings and called for prompt action, as have all the major parties. But he said in his Commons statement that statutory regulation would make the country 'less free'. A glib generalisation, for me, though it's very gratifying to hear politicians of all stripes arguing against regulation of the press - the debate in the Commons this afternoon was pretty intelligent and reasonable by their usual standards, which goes some way to showing how importantly this issue is viewed by all sides of the House.
Clegg, a Liberal in both senses of the word, felt sufficiently differently from the PM to make his own statement, rather than let Cameron speak for the coalition as a whole. He felt the proposals for legislation were workable, and that the press had gone too far to be trusted to act responsibly in future without them.
If I've understood the proposals correctly, it seems that any legislation would only underpin the authority of the new, independent regulatory body, it would not regulate the press itself. For me, the press have pissed away the rights and privileges of 300 years of complete freedom by using those freedoms as an excuse for some of the most outrageous, immoral and apparently illegal practices in the hunt for sensationalist bollocks. With digital media threatening the printed press much worse than any legal responsibilities ever would, that behaviour is not likely to change if it isn't forced to. It's time to do something - like Clegg says, the 'worst thing would be to do nothing'.
Leveson's lessons must be learned, for the good of our society as a whole. Let's hope they are.
Monday, 12 November 2012
Doing your bit
That most unseemly of modern-day phenomena, trial by tabloid, has plumbed new depths this past week. A certain Phillip Schofield somehow managed to make himself look like a complete tit and make David Cameron look good with his utterly ludicrous effort to ambush the PM on TV. He is, obviously, being heavily criticised for it from most quarters, but the damage may already have been done. "Paedo Tories outed on TV," screamed the Star, in typically measured tones.
As a result, senior politicians have been forced to defend themselves against this worst possible accusation from a man who freely admitted he'd just got the list off the internet. The same man who, when equally baseless rumours circulated around a decade ago that he was Jason Donovan's partner, dismissed them as 'just rubbish you find on the internet'. How times change, eh, Phil?
Cameron's response was admirably restrained, to be honest. In hitting out at the move, he urged people to think very carefully before making such accusations about people without evidence, and of course, that such accusations should be made to the police.
With the Leveson Inquiry now formally closed for new information 'except in exceptional circumstances', it's a pity Schofield and/or This Morning's editor can't be dragged in front of it to explain themselves. It was a horrible, base and idiotic thing to do, which could have ruined the lives of anybody unfortunate enough to find themselves on such a list. Schofield and the editorial team should be utterly ashamed of themselves.
I would never usually advocate such a thing, but there is a demonstrable need for legislation to stop this type of gutter journalism. It's particularly outrageous from a publicly funded organisation, by the way. The Beeb's DG has resigned this past week in the swirling scandals generated by Jimmy Savile and a subsequent piece on Newsnight which made similar, if probably better-worded accusations about a senior Scottish Tory. He, perhaps alone in this, has acted honourably - it's time for others in the press to follow his example and have a look at themselves.
As a result, senior politicians have been forced to defend themselves against this worst possible accusation from a man who freely admitted he'd just got the list off the internet. The same man who, when equally baseless rumours circulated around a decade ago that he was Jason Donovan's partner, dismissed them as 'just rubbish you find on the internet'. How times change, eh, Phil?
Cameron's response was admirably restrained, to be honest. In hitting out at the move, he urged people to think very carefully before making such accusations about people without evidence, and of course, that such accusations should be made to the police.
With the Leveson Inquiry now formally closed for new information 'except in exceptional circumstances', it's a pity Schofield and/or This Morning's editor can't be dragged in front of it to explain themselves. It was a horrible, base and idiotic thing to do, which could have ruined the lives of anybody unfortunate enough to find themselves on such a list. Schofield and the editorial team should be utterly ashamed of themselves.
I would never usually advocate such a thing, but there is a demonstrable need for legislation to stop this type of gutter journalism. It's particularly outrageous from a publicly funded organisation, by the way. The Beeb's DG has resigned this past week in the swirling scandals generated by Jimmy Savile and a subsequent piece on Newsnight which made similar, if probably better-worded accusations about a senior Scottish Tory. He, perhaps alone in this, has acted honourably - it's time for others in the press to follow his example and have a look at themselves.
Friday, 9 November 2012
Can't please everyone, can you?
It seems the re-election of Obama to the Presidency in the US has not made quite the positive impression on absolutely everybody that it may have done on some of us.
Everybody's favourite bad-haired billionaire Donald Trump can only be described as less than pleased by the outcome. He didn't hang about in expressing his opinion as to the outcome of the thing, and it was quickly picked up by the world's media. An example of the response here, with much of what he said, but to pick out a couple of favourite highlights:
"Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us."
"This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy! Our country is now in serious and unprecedented trouble...like never before."
Hmmm. Those pesky democracies which, when the result doesn't go your way, aren't democracies, can rather wind up somebody who thinks that their wealth gives them the right to do what they want, can't they? Surely, since he's quite so rolling in cash, the universe should arrange itself as to his wishes. I certainly know what I'm laughing at.
The very mechanism by which the American people have decided their own short-term political future has him screaming like a spoilt child. It's quite amusing - partially stymied in Scotland by locals who didn't want a golf course, and wind farm and hundreds of homes on their doorstep, and now again in his home country by the votes which are among the few things he still can't buy. Lovely.
As for the content of his rant itself - if anything, the world is in fact, I think, drawing something of a collective sigh of relief. With all the pollsters claiming it was too close to call, the voters in the end gave Obama a reasonably comfortable victory, and a firm mandate to at least try to make some of the real change he's been striving for. With Congress and the House of Representatives so split it's difficult to see how he'll ever be able to get anything too radical through, but at least he's still there to try.
As for Romney, you have to wonder how much some of what he, and other Republicans, have been saying lately has worked against them. I've written in recent entries on some of the scandalous comments coming out of the Religious Right's mouths lately - just maybe they stirred something in more rational-minded people and got them out there to vote.
Whatever actually settled it, I'm glad it's gone the way it has. These are unstable times and the last thing I personally wanted to see in the White House right now is a right-wing religious fundamentalist on some kind of modern-day political Crusade. Let's all hope Obama doesn't squander the opportunity the voters have given him, with any luck getting up Mr Trump's nose again in the process.
Everybody's favourite bad-haired billionaire Donald Trump can only be described as less than pleased by the outcome. He didn't hang about in expressing his opinion as to the outcome of the thing, and it was quickly picked up by the world's media. An example of the response here, with much of what he said, but to pick out a couple of favourite highlights:
"Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us."
"This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy! Our country is now in serious and unprecedented trouble...like never before."
Hmmm. Those pesky democracies which, when the result doesn't go your way, aren't democracies, can rather wind up somebody who thinks that their wealth gives them the right to do what they want, can't they? Surely, since he's quite so rolling in cash, the universe should arrange itself as to his wishes. I certainly know what I'm laughing at.
The very mechanism by which the American people have decided their own short-term political future has him screaming like a spoilt child. It's quite amusing - partially stymied in Scotland by locals who didn't want a golf course, and wind farm and hundreds of homes on their doorstep, and now again in his home country by the votes which are among the few things he still can't buy. Lovely.
As for the content of his rant itself - if anything, the world is in fact, I think, drawing something of a collective sigh of relief. With all the pollsters claiming it was too close to call, the voters in the end gave Obama a reasonably comfortable victory, and a firm mandate to at least try to make some of the real change he's been striving for. With Congress and the House of Representatives so split it's difficult to see how he'll ever be able to get anything too radical through, but at least he's still there to try.
As for Romney, you have to wonder how much some of what he, and other Republicans, have been saying lately has worked against them. I've written in recent entries on some of the scandalous comments coming out of the Religious Right's mouths lately - just maybe they stirred something in more rational-minded people and got them out there to vote.
Whatever actually settled it, I'm glad it's gone the way it has. These are unstable times and the last thing I personally wanted to see in the White House right now is a right-wing religious fundamentalist on some kind of modern-day political Crusade. Let's all hope Obama doesn't squander the opportunity the voters have given him, with any luck getting up Mr Trump's nose again in the process.
Friday, 2 November 2012
Just like buses
You wait months for these, think they're dead and buried, and then two come back in consecutive days. Flush from having a story published online yesterday, I've just been told that I've actually won fourth prize in this competition, which I entered back in summer. Or 'summer', as it's now known this year.
I can't point you to the story itself yet, as it's going to be published (in print!) in an anthology of the best entries. But I can tell you how gratifying this is, and what a spur it is to get writing again when the inspiration to do so had gone missing these past couple of months.
When the story's out, I'll point people in the direction, if anybody's interested.
I can't point you to the story itself yet, as it's going to be published (in print!) in an anthology of the best entries. But I can tell you how gratifying this is, and what a spur it is to get writing again when the inspiration to do so had gone missing these past couple of months.
When the story's out, I'll point people in the direction, if anybody's interested.
Thursday, 1 November 2012
We should all feel the loss of a good man
Some time ago, I wrote an entry about a woman I'd never met, the mother of my best friend since childhood, taken by cancer when my friend was still a teenager. Just yesterday that same friend also lost his father, again to cancer, and finds himself parentless at just 41.
I cannot begin to imagine the pointless fury I'd feel at such indifferent cruelty on the part of an arbitrary, mindless disease were the same thing to happen to my parents, but, having spoken to him, I know he'll deal with it stoically and with fortitude that would probably be lacking in my own case.
His dad was an old-fashioned gentleman (I mean that as the highest possible compliment) of the very strongest morality. Fiercely independent, private, stubborn (though always with a glint in his eye), his sense of right and wrong could be absolutely relied upon. I first met him when I was just just a kid, and his character and innate goodness were obvious even to my ignorant then-16-year-old eyes. That did not change right up to the last time I saw him, just a couple of weeks before he passed away.
He and his 90-odd-year-old neighbour, also a widower, looked out for each other right up to the point where neither of them could do so any longer, and he talked eloquently to us, the next generation down, about what he'd seen and done.
When somebody good, somebody who's left, particularly in his children, something positive to the world, is lost to it, we all lose something. I have nothing but admiration and respect for his memory, and can only pass on my sincerest condolences to his extended family. Most particularly his son - my mate - and his daughter, both astonishingly strong, exemplars of care and attention that they've been. They were both with him right to the end. He can have asked for no better company during his last few days - my heart goes out to them.
I cannot begin to imagine the pointless fury I'd feel at such indifferent cruelty on the part of an arbitrary, mindless disease were the same thing to happen to my parents, but, having spoken to him, I know he'll deal with it stoically and with fortitude that would probably be lacking in my own case.
His dad was an old-fashioned gentleman (I mean that as the highest possible compliment) of the very strongest morality. Fiercely independent, private, stubborn (though always with a glint in his eye), his sense of right and wrong could be absolutely relied upon. I first met him when I was just just a kid, and his character and innate goodness were obvious even to my ignorant then-16-year-old eyes. That did not change right up to the last time I saw him, just a couple of weeks before he passed away.
He and his 90-odd-year-old neighbour, also a widower, looked out for each other right up to the point where neither of them could do so any longer, and he talked eloquently to us, the next generation down, about what he'd seen and done.
When somebody good, somebody who's left, particularly in his children, something positive to the world, is lost to it, we all lose something. I have nothing but admiration and respect for his memory, and can only pass on my sincerest condolences to his extended family. Most particularly his son - my mate - and his daughter, both astonishingly strong, exemplars of care and attention that they've been. They were both with him right to the end. He can have asked for no better company during his last few days - my heart goes out to them.
I've had a short story published
The lovely people at Wyrd Books, who specialise in gnosis, the supernatural, the inexplicable, have been kind enough to publish a short story I sent them. The way their site handles text has made line endings, italics etc a bit awkward, but the words are all there.
If you're interested, you'll find it here.
I have short stories entered into various competitions all over the place, but this is the first I've had any kind of success with. I'm clearly some way from being of sufficient standard to actually be published in print, but I'm nonetheless pretty happy that somebody in the professional writing 'industry' saw something in this piece, at least.
If you're interested, you'll find it here.
I have short stories entered into various competitions all over the place, but this is the first I've had any kind of success with. I'm clearly some way from being of sufficient standard to actually be published in print, but I'm nonetheless pretty happy that somebody in the professional writing 'industry' saw something in this piece, at least.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)