Friday, 22 October 2010

A game of musical chairs

Capitalism is a game of musical chairs. It’s all a big game; you can make a big show out of it with the music playing and lots of nice decorations, but that’s still what it is- a game. Those in the chairs have a great time, unbeknownst to the ‘irrational’ disillusionment of those who are unfortunate enough to not get a chair and have to go out. Rats.

Socialism is everyone grouping together to buy an extra chair, so they can all sit down and cheerily listen to the music. Nobody has to go out, everyone’s ‘in’, per se. It’s no longer a game, but what good’s a game anyway? They have the music to listen to and console themselves with; they have that freedom. Freedom isn’t the ability to make a game; it’s the freedom to be able to enjoy yourself.

Excuse the analogy. But I think it’s quite apt. Capitalism is a game, essentially. If it weren’t a ‘game’ how would so many bankers who contribute nothing to society be able to manipulate it to such a degree as to make their livings off it? Or just generally, people who contribute nothing to the greater good. Anything where the primary motive is to make money is never going to be the pinnacle of morality now, is it?

And that’s what capitalism is. It’s a system made out of money, and money keeps it revolving. There’s no escaping it now. What you reap is what you sow; capitalism is such a repeating cycle that there’s no way out. All capitalism can ever produce is capitalism.

So congratulations. You’re in a game that you can’t get out of. There’s no respawns either, so once you’re out, you’re…out. Good luck with that.

Sunday, 17 October 2010

This is Not a Suicide Note; This is a Letter of Resignation

Sound, my homies. It's raw, and childish because I refuse to use anything other than ABCB* but essentially this is a poem saying a big fuck you to society and it's all about conceptualisation of ideas culminating in metaphorical martyrdom and shit. It's also probably incredibly flawed in places, but essentially life is a business. Yes.


Constructive criticism welcomed greatly.


This is not a suicide note;

This is a letter of resignation.

I grow disillusioned working here

In this lifeless corporation.


Have my notice; let me take

My chances somewhere else.

Change my expiration date

And pull me from the shelf.


I’ll take no baggage when at last

This letter has been sent.

Life; I never truly owned-

I merely paid for rent.


Forgive me this, but life transcends

The beating of my heart.

Shakespeare exists in his own words

And Van Gogh in his art.


I dare not speak these words for you

Will only tax my breath.

Perhaps it’s true, that as footprints

These notes are better left.


Good sir, you built this mind of mine;

You dare not strike me now I say

That life has such a bitter taste

And I would rather eat away.


I’m tired of imitation products;

I want to have the real thing.

I want to feel the greener grass;

I want to hear the true birds sing.


The party in the cave goes on;

I’m left alone and weary.

Good sir, I leave your presence now

You shall not notice me.


I leave behind this whisper

I write as my own lament.

This Eulogy I hope will be

An echo once it’s sent.


A final purpose; more than I

Have ever been before.

Unwanted products are nothing

Till they’re shipped out of the store.


Good sir, I’ve left. I doubt you’ll chase

This ghost of mine; I’m gone.

Echoes are not swayed by bars

And I think you’ll find I’m one.


This is not a suicide note;

This is a postcard from afar.

I’d ‘wish that you were here’

But you can’t drive here by car.


*correction made from 'ABAB' to 'ABCB' <--- my bad, folks.

Friday, 1 October 2010

Is 'free will' an illusion?

I've been studying determinism and libertarianism in Ethics recently, which has been rather brilliantly timed considering it made me think about in greater detail the thoughts that had already been in my head for quite a while. I'm on the roots to becoming a sociological determinist, essentially. And I've said previously that free will is, indeed, an illusion. It's not a wacky claim by any means; in fact it is entirely rational and a product of common sense. I shall now tell you why and develop that into a greater pondering on adjoining thought processes.

There are two aspects to human development or characteristics: nurture and nature. Before we are born, genes incline us towards certain things, or perhaps restrict us. After we are born, society nurtures and builds our character and (here lying the difference between determinism and libertarianism) our moral self. That is my belief, anyway. And bearing in mind from the moment we are born, and even before we are born in the case of genetics, we are externally built as an individual in both of these senses, how can we have free will? Our entire character has been built and shaped by society and to what I believe is a lesser degree, our genes.

I'd rather ignored the genes side of this argument, focusing more on the sociological side, which is what made me a sociological determinist, briefly. But there is an incredibly interesting article I read that focuses largely on genetics and free will. For instance, you know when you're just sitting down doing nothing of interest and just decide to tap your finger on the desk, randomly? Scientists can observe brain patterns and would be able to know that you were about to tap your finger on the desk before you'd done it, or thought of it. That presents the idea of us being products of our genes; and our actions being products of our genes further from that.

I'm less convinced by that whole segment, largely as I believe nobody knows enough about genetics to commit to an argument the exact implications they mean for the person we will become, or more pertinently the character we will go on to represent. I like to focus on the sociological side of things, really. I believe that free will is to a great degree a complete illusion as it is decided by our character. And this character has been built through exposure to external influences within society its entire life. It is the most inherent and pertinent influence on our being and it shapes, eventually, every action we will make.

I kind of extended this idea past ethics to a more socialist view on things. I already believed that society is irrelevant to any moral outlook, and no morals lie in society, and also that the role of society should be to ensure nobody is disadvantaged before they even have the chance of entering it. This is a very socialist view, I'm saying that as morals do not themselves lie within society; they are priori concepts made to be reached with the mind, the least a society can do is give everyone an equal playing field at the time someone is born into it, to give everyone an equal chance of achieving their potential; whether that be morally, or in any other sense of the word. I'm not condoning full blown communism here, I'm not saying that everyone should always be equal as we must reap the products of our actions, but I'm saying that nobody should be disadvantaged before they are born or have a chance to do otherwise.

Now, a hard determinist would say that things are always destined to be as such. They would say that due to the inherent chain of causation of the universe, which also applies to humans and human actions, external influences would destine a child from a family of smokers to always smoke, and (this is the political extension I made) a child from a poor family to always do worse.

Now, let me defend the hard determinist for a second. Of course the child from a family of smokers does not always smoke. But the cases in which they don't end up smoking would have to be due to another internal chain of causation; essentially to be a hard determinist you don't need or have the ability to predict things that will happen, but you recognise that there is and always will be a cause to everything- including human actions.

I am saying as an extension that whilst a child from a poor family will not always do worse in life, they are far more likely to. This is because society sets up a chain of obstacles that aren't present for the richer families to make life and fulfilling their potential far more difficult to do. Now clearly the child from the poor family will not always fail in life. Clearly not. But they are more likely to. Society disadvantages a child that should have equal rights at birth by throwing unnecessary obstacles in its way that it doesn't throw in the path of others. Not only is society the bane of all morality, it also irrationally screws people over.

Now really I'm a soft determinist as I'm saying that there isn't a definitive path and timeline laid out in front of everything. I'm saying that things are far more likely to happen, but they needn't necessarily happen. Either way, free will is the product of a character developed by society and thus is nothing more than a brainchild and will always have its limits. What is free will? Am I free to fly? I'm certainly free to have a go; but is the freedom of having the choice the concept of free will in itself?

This all presents itself rather nicely in John Locke's locked door analogy, where there is a man in a locked room that he does not know is locked, but chooses to stay sitting in the room and the question is asked of whether he is free to leave at that moment. He is certainly free to choose to leave. It will inevitably turn out that the door is locked, but he entirely has the free will to choose to leave. The external circumstances of someone locking the door are restricting him; like the external circumstances of me not having wings are restricting me from being free to fly and the external circumstances of a worse environment and financial disadvantage will restrict the poor child. Now the latter of these would be the one argued as not definite. In a way, yes. But it's surely undeniable that it is as disadvantage to not have these luxuries? Even if we're not saying that not having these luxuries definitively brings you a destiny of failure; nobody is saying that. The fact is that it is a restrictive external circumstance.

What's interesting is that I argued the libertarian perspective when this issue was raised. I'd argued that he was free. That just because the door is locked doesn't mean it will be locked when he gets up and decided to open it. So long as he has the illusion of a choice the choice is still there and there is still the chance of the door not being locked. Just because every time I drop a ball gravity brings it to the ground doesn't mean it will the next time I do it. I think he is free. This is all rather strange, of course. And doesn't combine my two beliefs to any degree.

So how can I argue free will is an illusion? Who knows. I can't believe it's an entire illusion, but I do to a large degree. Our choices are made by a character that is built by external circumstances. The inevitable chain of causation is ever more inherent and pertinent in this context. I believe that morality lies outside of society; so one can always be free to reason and as long as they reach beyond society then they can always be free in one sense. But the man in the room wasn't even doing this. So it's all very confusing.

Yes, I have many tangents to spring off from but I think I best restrain myself. In summary, and to justify myself:

Free will is, to a degree, an illusion as our character is built by a series of external circumstances and this is what makes our decisions.

Good day, one and all.

Saturday, 18 September 2010

Education

I decided to blog on education, because - why not?

I've recently been thinking how utterly barbaric a concept it is that such a simple basic human right such as education is somehow a commodity to be bought for the best price. It's disgraceful that somebody is entitled to more learning because their parents can pay the price for it. Education is a right which should not be inhibited in any way at all by the wealth of your parents, quite simply. It's ruthlessly unfair that somebody is unfortunate enough to be less likely to fulfil their learning potential due to the fact that they are born into a poorer family.

Of course, this isn't entirely the case. All humans have a basic right to a GOOD education. If the state can provide this, then that right is fulfilled and really the private sector can be left alone to its own business. Still, it irks me greatly that people are so much more fortunate than others, but as long as the state fulfils its duty to give every child the potential for a good education then it's irrelevant, really.

I don't agree with faith schools. I went to a COE primary school, and I loved it. It was and still is a brilliant school. Faith schools have no place in society, though. I was given a Bible reading every week and combine that with my parents taking me to Church every Sunday from a young age, grew up a Christian. This is all well and good, until I later realised that I couldn't justify the existence of God. I accepted him; I didn't believe in him. Essentially, I was brainwashed. Because God was an idea placed in front of me just like the things I can see with my eyes. He was presented as an empirical idea - a fact. I can entirely understand Christian parents wanting to save their child from eternal damnation, it makes sense. But it removes the concept of free will, thus belittling their own concept of God; we weren't given free will to be programmed as robots to believe in God anyway. God gave us free will to reason his existence, if he wanted us to merely be his robots and believe in him then he would have not bothered to give us free will. So nobody should have this concept removed as a child. Quite simply, as a child the idea of God was put in front of me like 2+2=4 would be put in front of me; I accepted it as such. This is wrong.

Society programmes us, in many senses. Supposedly this is a 'sociological determinist' perspective, but I won't conform entirely to those ideals. We will never have complete free will as our character is built externally - by the society we are brought up in. Faith schools allow God to be a prominent part of this society. Now, the failure here is that society is an entirely empirical concept, and the very idea of God is one that needs to be from priori reasoning. You can't present God as a fact, you need to encourage reasoning from within the mind to try and obtain faith. Faith schools brainwash in many senses because they put God as an empirical concept - part of the whole society a child is raised up in. From either a religious or atheist perspective I disagree with it. School is a huge part of your environment, and your environment is a huge part of the society which builds your character as a child. Faith schools place the idea of God as an empirical fact before a full choice is foreseen. As a 5 year old child, there's no way I was ready to produce an internal dialogue of philosophical debate to reason the existence of a divine being. This talent should be developed, rather than inhibited. The concept of God is priori, and placing him as an empirical concept in a child's environment is belittling to both religion and reason. Of course I'm sure all this is more relevant to the younger years of faith schooling - perhaps I harbour serious cynical reminiscences of my memory of faith school. I disagree with the concept, at any rate. Perhaps this should just apply to faith primary schools rather than secondary schools though; I just don't want to see 5 year olds having their development impinged like that.

Honestly, I had a wonderful time at that school. So it's funny how I can argue faith schools are such a horrible concept. I think it's the fact that I had such a wonderful time that is the bitter punchline to convince myself; I didn't have a wonderful time because of the prominent Christian intrusions, those were something totally unnecessary.

Thus ends my rant.

Tuesday, 7 September 2010

A Story I Once Wrote

Hello there. I often feel like a writer without a pen, so feel honoured that I am displaying to you the only veiled sense of achievement I have ever had in any writing I have done. I wrote this two years ago for my GCSE English Language coursework and it truly is the only veiled success I have ever had in this field; largely because I managed to complete it and ultimately achieve what I aimed to.


It's a short story, it won't take long. But I realise nobody reads this blog and thus expect even fewer than nobody to spare the time to read it. I'm not really sure how to introduce it, but if anybody does spare the time to read it then I would be grateful for any thoughts, even though they may be two years too late. To be honest I'd just be delighted you'd spared the time.


Thanks.


Tainted Justice


My name is Benjamin James and I’ve been stuck in this hellhole for 2 years now, but it feels like an eternity already. My story is not a happy one, nor is it sad, as feelings are no more than words to me now. I don’t expect you to pity me, or understand me, but this is my story, and it has been left untold and ignored for too long now.

On the 5th October 2005 I was sentenced to 5 years in jail; I may have got less had I been able to afford a lawyer. To say that that my world collapsed on that day is an understatement- it disappeared entirely. That past life of mine is gone now, and I desperately try to grasp any reminder of the happiness that deserted me, but the remorseless punch line I face is that I can barely see that world anymore. I had a family- a wife and two daughters, but their faces evade me. In dreams I chase them, but they are always too far away. This sullen cell is my cage of self-pity and sorrow, and hope is but a jest at me, enticing me to believe in the impossible. I will get out of here one day, but that day means nothing as these bars are in my mind more so than they trap my body. Angela, my wife will never forgive me, and that is my sentence.

I worked as a cleaner and the pay wasn’t great but it was enough. Angela would stay at home and look after Louise and Emily, my daughters. They were 4 years old and 2 years old when I last saw them. The girls that I remember don’t even exist anymore, they’re just figures in my mind, lost in amongst my sadness and regrets. We were happy once, but that all changed. They both looked just like their mother, blond hair and eyes as blue as a summer’s sky. I remember so little of them, and I know that I haven’t been here that long, but my soul has been tainted by this bitter air I breathe, and my mind corrupted by these blinding walls, holding me in this cell with sadness as my company, treading alongside me like an unwanted shadow, bitter from the taste of the mocking sunlight.

I remember that sometimes I would get frustrated that I could give them all so little, when I loved them so much. Angela would always calm me, she used to say that I was enough, but I wasn’t. I couldn’t afford much for Louise and Emily, but I remember I gave them a bunny rabbit before I left. I don’t know what happened to that rabbit, I hope that it is a happy reminder, rather than a dragging curse of a past memory that Angela portrays me as. She loved me once, but now I am as much of a torment to her as this place is to me.

I am so scared. Before the trial I remember how nervous I was, frightened of how everything could change. I thought of everything I would miss and leave behind, and I realised how much weighed on one decision, so complex. I was alone then, like now. My family didn’t want me as a burden after what I’d done. That night still haunts me. At the time what I did didn’t seem like a decision, or a straightforward choice- it was an impulse of love as opposed to revenge.

I am limping forwards across the road. All I hear is the thumping of rain against the ground and my own deep breathing. Whilst everything seems so surreal, I struggle to keep my eyes open, but to my right I see my wife lying on the ground next to a battered blue car with a pool of blood around her, the taunting red not perturbed by the water rushing off the ground. The pace of my own rushing heart beat is hypnotic as I struggle forwards further, not knowing where my daughters are, or whether my wife is still alive, but assured by my mind that I know where I’m going, my impulses dragging me like a wounded soldier from battle, unknowing of the intentions or purpose to where I am going, but certain it is the correct way. My left leg is in agony, but I can’t draw the effort to scream or cry, the pain like knives stabbing at me as I force myself onwards. I don’t remember much of what happened, only the screeching of the car and a huge force crashing against me. It is then that I look forwards, my eyes struggling to focus, before I see him in front of me. He is holding one of my daughters, though I can’t tell which, as my eyes feel so weary. Mockingly he looks at her, she is not awake, but there is a wound from her arm bleeding onto his hands. Suddenly overcome with what is not anger, but an understanding that something is needed, an overwhelming lust for justice, I move faster towards him, the pain irrelevant. He looks up towards me, noticing the piercing glare in my eyes, but he still holds onto her. His eyes wander through fear before I reach him. Like a man possessed I hit him repeatedly, with no remorse or break. Everything is distorted; I can’t tell what is going on. The scene fades as my eyes close, before I hear the taunting of sirens, the wailing getting closer and closer.

That night a lawyer called John Boyd drove a car into my family and me. He was driven by hatred and revenge; his distorted perceptions inspired him to madness. Three months beforehand his wife had thrown herself in front of my car, in an attempt of suicide. She died that day. There was nothing that I could have done. It was on the freeway and there was nothing I could have changed. She had come from nowhere and had nothing on her mind but death. He had always blamed me and I don’t think he had ever dealt with his loss. I could only assume this was a twisted attempt of retribution, weighing up the scales of justice in his own sick mind. Ever since her death he sent me threatening letters and sometimes I caught him following me home from work. After he had drove the car into my family I had struggled up and hit him repeatedly. The court sentenced me with grievous bodily harm for 5 years imprisonment. I can’t remember what happened to him, maybe I’ve blocked it out, my mind has collapsed in here, but I don’t want to remember. That man is at fault for all this pain that I feel, and I blame him entirely.

I am standing in the courtroom. Everything looks grim and dull but I am not fazed, such is my trust in justice. In truth I enjoy the unimaginative nature of the room, I feel more alive in the straightforward manner of everything here. It is all so definite and precise, from the insipid brown of the bench to the verdict I face; only two words will I hear, but the implications are so severe on such a simple decision between words.

As I look down I see my perfectly aligned tie, a bleak black suit against the naïve white of my shirt. My arms are still, positioned at my sides, and my attire is so splendorous in its sombre appearance, smart against my composed upright figure. I find myself standing in an imposing manner, as if I am self-assured in my own recognition of my importance. As I turn I see a similarly smart man, dressed in another harsh black suit, and a resolute expression, calm and collected in such a nonchalant manner, returning my stare with no emotion to his face. Behind him is no one. The seats are vacated, but they only look as glum as myself. My family aren’t here, but I feel no more unconfident or dismayed, as I am at ease with the justice that I expect to prevail, like the first dawn of day against an eternity of darkness. To my left, on the other side of the court is a man, more scruffy, and his eyes painting the picture of worry and anguish he portrays. His suit is worn and grey, and he is sat in his seat alone fumbling with his hands, no doubt shaking through anxiety and fear.

I remember no more of that day. My family weren’t there to support me, and I was sent here. I broke down after that. I don’t deserve this; I have always been a good person. And now I am just a body with the life sucked out of me. I go on, but with no purpose or meaning, each day I contemplate my motive to breathe. Everything seems so dark here. There is no colour anymore, everything is so grim, and my mind only feels sorrow. Everything seems so bright outside that door, but I can’t leave. My story may be short and incomplete, but it is my story and I just need to tell it. Sometimes people listen to me, when I leave this cell for my diabetes jabs sometimes my voice gets heard. But not for long, I return here to my sadness each day and nothing changes.

I am sitting on the bed in my cell. The walls seem too bright for me; I prefer grim colours, colours that are definite and straightforward. A man is approaching the door. I can see his face through the tiny window. He is old, and wearing glasses. He looks into my cell but not at me. It’s as if he stares right through me. I can see his mouth moving- he is talking to someone, but I can’t hear him. He opens the door and he speaks to me. Everything seems so unfamiliar now, I am so used to being alone, only my thoughts understand me. But still he speaks.

“Mr. Boyd,” he says, stern enough to command my attention but soft enough to seem as if he cares.

I look up at him, as if to examine him, to see if he is trustworthy, but say nothing.

“Mr. Boyd, the doctor wants to see you,” he reiterates, before opening the door wider and staring at me, as if to encourage me to go with him.

“Is it for my diabetes jab?” I question the man, I have never seen him before and I don’t know whether or not to trust him, though I see no reason not to and there are no consequences that I could suffer.

He looks at me strangely, raising an eyebrow as if I had just said something silly, he doesn’t reply, but continues standing holding the door.

I follow the man out of my cell; he is wearing a white coat with a strange badge on the front. I cannot read it. He is holding a clipboard of papers but is clutching them to his chest. Another man steps out behind me, wearing green uniform, much younger and even sterner looking. I follow the older man down the narrow corridor, passing other doors as I go by, much similar to my own. We come to a door at the end of the corridor, the same as all the others- white to match the walls. The man puts his clipboard beneath his left arm and pushes a series of numbers on some kind of mechanism on the door. He pushes the door and it opens. I continue to follow him, the room is larger than my own, and it is squarer, with no bed but a table with two chairs in the middle. The younger man stops behind me, and stands in front of the door, as if to guard it. The older man sits down on the chair furthest away and gestures with his arm for me to sit down on the other chair. I am confused, I don’t know what is going on here, I have never seen this man before and yet he clearly wants something from me. I cautiously sit down on the chair, my hands held together on my lap and my back upright. The man leans closer, over the table and looks at me, not menacingly nor friendly, and he speaks to me once more.

“Mr. Boyd,” he states, slowly and calmly in an almost inquisitive fashion, but with no question asked.

“My name is Benjamin James,” I reply, correcting his mistake. Why would he call me that? He has never met me before so maybe he has got confused.

“No, your name is John Boyd,” he assures me, almost patronisingly, “And I would like to talk with you.”

“My name isn’t John Boyd”, I restate, my voice more stern and loud than before, though I still haven’t moved. “And I don’t know who you are. Who are you?”

“My name is Dr. Brown, we’ve been through this before.”

We hadn’t been through this before and I did not know this man. My eyes begin to wander around the room. The younger man is still standing by the door, but he doesn’t return my look. I look down at my lap, and see my hands. Suddenly they look so old and withered. I see wrinkles and they look so weak. I begin to breathe heavily, still in my seat, trying to maintain my collection.

“What have you done to me?” I say even more sternly, but as if I am just holding myself back from shouting.

“Mr. Boyd, I don’t know what you’re talking about. We haven’t done anything. I think it’s time for your jabs.”

“I don’t need my jabs, I need to know what you have done to me.”

“We haven’t done anything,” he replies, assuring in his tone but still seeming patronising. “Bill, bring the syringe,” he says more hastily, standing up and looking over to the younger man by the door. He responds and brings over a black Velcro bag. He opens it and reveals a wide range of syringes. I get up, in shock, standing petrified. In the bag I see a small mirror, I reach over the table and grab it, before staring at my own face, so old. I look at least 60, but I’m not, my name is Benjamin James and I’ve been in this hellhole for 2 years now.

It is now that I see it all. I don’t know whether it is shock or realisation, but suddenly everything makes sense. I am John Boyd. I am 60 years old and I have been in this mental institution for 30 years now. Every day I tell myself that I am Benjamin James, but I am not. I drove that car into him and his family, his wife stepped out to grab his daughters but she died in the process. He was holding his daughter when I attacked him again, more relentless in my lust for justice. He had taken her away from me, I didn’t deserve that pain, and I needed justice. Not revenge, but justice. I took them away from him like he had taken her away from me. I remember so little about that family because I did not know them. I followed him and sometimes I saw him with them. He did not earn that happiness. That happiness should have been mine. That man standing behind me in the courtroom was my lawyer, he had pleaded insanity and sent me here. I was a lawyer also, I served justice but I received none. I was young and intelligent, fair and good and I fought for justice. In this world there are two possibilities. There is black and white, right and wrong. Everything is straightforward and yet I was punished for maintaining the good and equality in this world.

“Mr. Boyd,” the older man is right in front of me. “It’s time for your injections.”

I sit down on the chair again as the man prepares the syringe.

“Are you ready, Mr. Boyd?”

“I was ready 30 years ago.”

“Excellent. Now this won’t hurt a bit.”

I feel the syringe dig into my arm, but I don’t scowl or flinch. I sit here once more and feel nothing.

My name is Benjamin James and I’ve been stuck in this hellhole for 2 years now, but it feels like an eternity already. My story is not a happy one, nor is it sad, as feelings are no more than words to me now. I don’t expect you to pity me, or understand me, but this is my story, and it has been left untold and ignored for too long now.

Sunday, 29 August 2010

Society will be the death of me

Good afternoon, world.

Yesterday I finally finished reading Anna Karenina, which is one of six texts I promised to read over the summer for English. It's taken longer than it should have and has been tiresome at times, but it's a truly remarkable piece of work and I'm delighted that I chose to read it.

I chose it because for Literature next year we are focusing on the theme of 'love'. I know, I know, where can you find a book about 'love'; that's a bit specific, surely? But have no fear, the exam board have kindly narrowed it down to 'love over the past 1000 years', although I would desperately have liked to read the old testament as one of my texts just to be a meddlesome, pretentious prick. I like doing things like that, you see. Since I was 8 and read the word 'ubiquitous' in a book and from that decided to base my entire storyline of the story we were supposed to be writing in class around the idea of being able to fit that word in, it has been a particularly inherent aspect of my being. Not to mention the fact that my Year 4 teacher had to ward me away from my over reliance on the phrase 'nought but'; that is to say that I would compose sentences such as -

'The sun was nought but bright on that day'

'The football was nought but red'

So yes, I was a weird kid, in summary. But I chose Anna Karenina because I wished to focus on the idea of a love outside of society's bounds; a love that is somehow perceived 'unnatural' or is not conforming to convention. This is largely because I have already decided I wish to use Lolita, and the overriding theme in that is Humbert's love for small children. So I had to work around that, and after deciding that reading any more books about paedophilia would cause some very strange glances from my English teachers and no doubt society in general, I decided to go for the more casual idea of affairs. I could use Romeo and Juliet as one of my Shakespeare plays though; Juliet was only 13 in the play, I'll have you know. TAKE THAT, SOCIETY - one of your most beloved romance works is a vicious bout of paedophilia.

"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."

Or, more pertinently, the translation at the beginning of my version begins -

"All happy families resemble one another, but each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."

It doesn't quite roll off the tongue in the same manner, much to my frustration. So upon opening the book I was pissed off, but I recovered from this brutal bastardisation of the line I was expecting and went on with the book.

It's very much about society, which I loved. I was definitely in the mood for a huge slight against society; to which Tolstoy fulfils this ideal with great efficiency, precision and rather creates the image in my mind of a madman repeatedly stabbing an already dying man in the chest, whilst laughing. I realise that this analogy probably says more about my state of mind than the book, but fuck it - this is how I roll. *rolls*

Really the analogy should have related to a train station. I found the metaphor brilliant in the book of the parallels between the train station and a depiction of society; it was quite brilliant.

I don't really want to review the book too much on here, because I don't want to give away the whole plot. On the other hand, of course, nobody reads this thing so I can say what I want and there is nobody to disappoint or laugh at my understanding. Hmm.

BUT YES, it's about society. It's interesting, Tolstoy somehow manages to not only present society as a concept that is just as abstract as love; still within every one of us like some ingrained, inherent attribute, but also to present it as quite a literal place out of your state of mind. He also very much presents society as the disease and love as the cure, I feel. But of course the marriages as one can expect from the opening line are depicting largely hardship and the struggles or non-existence of love, so on the other hand society really gets the better of everyone.

Fuck it, I'll stop writing here. Peace out, motherfuckers.

Tuesday, 24 August 2010

Lord of the fucking rings.

Ladies and gentlemen, today has been a day of victory. As a child, I very much enjoyed playing Top Trumps. This might shock you, due to my inherent and overpowering coolness that you no doubt perceive now, but it is true. I especially liked Lord of the Rings Top Trumps; I remain undefeated in 2 player action with any of the LOTR decks. I love, and still love, Lord of the Rings. It was probably my favourite book in childhood and contrary to popular culture and society would expect, I even read the trilogy before I saw the final two films. This is quite an achievement considering the second film came out in 2002; when I was 8.

2002 was also the year that, naturally, the Two Towers deck came out. After playing with it for a while, and knowing the deck statistics mostly of by heart, I became confused and vaguely disillusioned with this card - The 'Beserker'.

Now this seems like any other card in the deck at first notice, if you were playing I would encourage you to use 'Ferocity - 59' which to my memory only Gandalf, Aragorn and King Theoden can surpass. (Eomer and Uglúk can match it).

I realise that this is all too cool for your brains to take in at one time. But I beg of you; bear with me. BEAR THE FUCK WITH ME. It also says that it has a Height of '5'1'. I've seen the films; it looks fairly tall in those, so this is slightly odd.


It looks even more odd when we read this and see it referred to as 'largest of the Uruk-Hai'. Now everyone (and by 'everyone', I mean everyone who within a certain coolness range; the ultimate level, naturally) knows that Uruk-Hai are taller than Orcs, and this is taller than Uruk-Hai. Hmm.


On the left is your average Orc; standing at a pitiful 5'3 - taller than the Beserker.
On the right is Uglúk, the fiercest of the Uruk-Hai, who is 5'9.

Now, bearing in mind The Beserker is supposedly taller than the average Uruk-Hai, this appears very wrong indeed.

Especially when this source backs me up, saying:

'Beserkers were larger, even more fearsome versions of the Uruk-Hai, standing about seven feet tall'

OMGWTFLMAOROFLZOMG‽ (*is slightly chuffed that the interrobang works on this site*)

So this is a clear error, right? Someone at the Top Trumps company has fucked up. Now, being the 8 year old I was, I wrote to the Top Trumps company and complained about these very, blatant, inaccuracies, naturally. I don't have the letter I wrote, but I do have the reply they sent me.



Upon receiving this reply, I remember being very angry that she had completely missed my point. (Lol at my 'enthusiasm', hah). After having the sheer insolence to misspell 'Tolkien', she then argues that The Beserker is an Orc; I know that Orcs are a small race, that's merely irrelevant. We know it's not an Orc, all you need to do is look at the card (picture at the top) to see it twice referred to as an 'Uruk-Hai'. I shouldn't really be complaining at her, it was very polite and nice of her to reply to me, though I'm sure they had a laugh around the office about an angry 8 year old writing in to complain. Like Junior Watchdog. But yes, she merely works in customer services and it was very nice of her to actually ask the marketing department, though clearly they're largely at fault and should be better informed if an 8 year old can pick up on their mistakes. I very much doubt the Tolkien Society would be that stupid, so I blame them.

So, yeah. I win basically. Fuck you, marketing department. This further enhances my position as the coolest 8 year old ever to walk the face of the earth.

I realise this whole blog-post makes me look like a supreme nerd. I'm half proud of this, and the other half of me has intentionally tried to exacerbate these 'symptoms' because I like to appear 'inversely cool'. So yeah; one last 'fuck you' to the marketing department, get your facts straight. Let this be a lesson to marketing departments everywhere - there is always an 8 year old kid waiting to trip you up on your inaccuracies BITCHES.

Lots of love, a person who never blogs any more.

TOODLEPIP, MO'FUCKERS. (*apologises for unnecessary amount of swearing in the blog post*)