Today I have realised something about myself, which as really come to light in this brave new world of unemployment. I need targets. I need constraints on my time.
When I was working I would always find a way of meeting my work targets and fit in the requirements of my day to day life. However, without the constraints on my time I am finding that I am fitting in less than what I would have done when I was working.
Allowing for an eight hour day at work (including lunch time) and a good eight hours sleep at night, I had eight hours for life. Eight hours to fit in what I needed to do, what I wanted to do. Now I have sixteen hours a day to do what I want, and I am finding that I am doing little with my time.
I was always looking forward forward to having a break from the nine to five after I was made redundant. The idea was to spend this break between jobs to do some of the stuff that I wanted, to concentrate on me. However, I am finding that with all the extra time that I have I am not doing so. I am now approaching the end of month two and I have not done half the things that I wanted to do.
I am reading but not as much as I could. My daily TV watching is just backing up, when I used to be on top of it. I have not been as active over the last couple of weeks, compared to how I was when I first became unemployed. I have written nothing, even though the aim was to do so.
I have realised that I am basically just adrift, wandering like the proverbial cloud. What I need again is constraints upon my time. I need to force myself to do the things that I wanted to do with my time whilst I was between jobs.
And this is what I need to now distill back into my life. I need to set myself targets. I need to focus more on what I wanted to do.
Firstly, I need to become more active again. I had done so well previously with getting rid of some weight but this as now stopped. I need to get back to doing a few hours worth of walking again. I need to get myself out and about earlier than I have been doing. I need to push myself into being more active.
Secondly, I need to pick up the speed on the reading. I am now going to alternate between fiction and non-fiction/academic books. During the day whilst I am out I am going to read a non-fiction book, and one hour every night before bed I am going to read a fiction book.
Thirdly, I need to focus on clearing that backlog of comics that I have to read. I am probably about a month and a half behind. I need to get back on top of this so that I am back to reading the weeks comic buy in the week that I buy them.
Fourthly, I need to start writing. I had an idea for a series of short stories before I finished work. I need to focus on trying to get these stories down on paper (well, computer screen anyway). This might be one of the hardest things to do. I am going to aim to have written the first of the stories within the next two weeks. Hopefully after the first one is done the others will come a lot easier.
Fifthly, I need to really focus on getting the flat sorted. I am not happy with the layout of the rooms and will needed to spend some time moving things around until I am happy. I think this will be best done after my travel pass as run out. Maybe a week of solid focus on this front will get it sorted.
Sixthly, I need to get the TV backlog sorted and stop putting off watching things. This definitely includes the new Prisoner which I need to get up the enthusiasm to watch. By the end of next week this will be done.
So, that is the plan. Six things to do. Six things to put constraints on my time. Six things to focus on. Six things to achieve.
Wednesday, 25 November 2009
Tuesday, 24 November 2009
The Aesthetic Duty
To fully understand the Aesthetic Duty it is important to understand what Beauty is, since understanding this leads to the central reason for the Aesthetic Duty.
Beauty is, above everything else, undefinable. What is beautiful to me may not be to the next person. Our relationship with beauty is very much a subjective thing. The important thing is why. Why do you find something beautiful when the next person does not?
Take a work of art as an example. It is possible to break it down into subject matter, the use of colour and shade, the way that the brush stroke captures a scene. It is possible to de-construct the final piece into its constituent parts. But in doing this we do not get to understand why something is beautiful to us. We also do not understand why it is beautiful to us but to someone else it is not.
There is no absolute Form of beauty, in the Platonic sense. There is not some overarching Form from which all beauty is distilled particular examples of. If this was the case then everyone would find the same things beautiful.
Beauty is very much a subjective thing, a very individual reaction to something. No matter the rationale that we place on it, the reaction is personal to ourselves.
The reason for the individualistic reaction to something is because the reaction in question is very much an emotional one. When we find something beautiful we are actually having an emotional response to the thing in question - whether it be a person, an occasion, a work of art.
Emotions are very much a private thing, something which is personal to us. We may share similar emotional responses with other people, but the actual emotional response is very much individual and personal. No two people will have the same exact emotional response to something. We may have a similar broad-category emotional response (like being happy) but the actual response will be different.
When we say something is beautiful we are having a positive emotional response to something, as opposed to a negative/ugly response.
And this is the key to the Aesthetic Duty. Positive emotions are better than negative ones. When we have positive emotions we feel good, as opposed to feeling bad from negative emotions.
It is better to feel good than it is to feel bad. Positive emotions can put a spring in our step, can make our world seem brighter, can give us a positive outlook upon life.
If this is the effect of positive responses to things then it follows that it is important to surround yourself with beauty. Whether it is things, people, places, sounds, smells is unimportant. The important thing is that we are exposed to things that give us positive responses.
Surrounding ourselves with beautiful things means surrounding ourselves with things that give us positive emotions, which in turn make us feel good within.
Sometimes we must be exposed to negative emotions. An everyday example could be our working life. Presuming that we do not get a positive reaction from our working life, then it is important to try and turn it into one. This might be something which we enjoy about our work. It might be something which we can add to the working day which helps us endure the negative. Whatever it is, if we can identify the positive response we can help combat the negative.
The Aesthetic Duty is, therefore, to surround our lives with beautiful things, the things can give us positive emotional responses, which will make us feel good within. It is too easy to put up with the negatives and the things that make us feel bad within. In embracing the beautiful things we can combat this. We can strive to survive the negatives and live a life full of good things. Where possible we need to remove the negative, ugly things in our lives and replace them with beautiful things. Where we cannot do this we must try and find the hidden beauty within it so to try and make the ugly experience as beautiful as possible.
In removing the ugly things from our lives we can start to live a life where we feel good within, rather than having to put up with lives were we feel bad.
Beauty is, above everything else, undefinable. What is beautiful to me may not be to the next person. Our relationship with beauty is very much a subjective thing. The important thing is why. Why do you find something beautiful when the next person does not?
Take a work of art as an example. It is possible to break it down into subject matter, the use of colour and shade, the way that the brush stroke captures a scene. It is possible to de-construct the final piece into its constituent parts. But in doing this we do not get to understand why something is beautiful to us. We also do not understand why it is beautiful to us but to someone else it is not.
There is no absolute Form of beauty, in the Platonic sense. There is not some overarching Form from which all beauty is distilled particular examples of. If this was the case then everyone would find the same things beautiful.
Beauty is very much a subjective thing, a very individual reaction to something. No matter the rationale that we place on it, the reaction is personal to ourselves.
The reason for the individualistic reaction to something is because the reaction in question is very much an emotional one. When we find something beautiful we are actually having an emotional response to the thing in question - whether it be a person, an occasion, a work of art.
Emotions are very much a private thing, something which is personal to us. We may share similar emotional responses with other people, but the actual emotional response is very much individual and personal. No two people will have the same exact emotional response to something. We may have a similar broad-category emotional response (like being happy) but the actual response will be different.
When we say something is beautiful we are having a positive emotional response to something, as opposed to a negative/ugly response.
And this is the key to the Aesthetic Duty. Positive emotions are better than negative ones. When we have positive emotions we feel good, as opposed to feeling bad from negative emotions.
It is better to feel good than it is to feel bad. Positive emotions can put a spring in our step, can make our world seem brighter, can give us a positive outlook upon life.
If this is the effect of positive responses to things then it follows that it is important to surround yourself with beauty. Whether it is things, people, places, sounds, smells is unimportant. The important thing is that we are exposed to things that give us positive responses.
Surrounding ourselves with beautiful things means surrounding ourselves with things that give us positive emotions, which in turn make us feel good within.
Sometimes we must be exposed to negative emotions. An everyday example could be our working life. Presuming that we do not get a positive reaction from our working life, then it is important to try and turn it into one. This might be something which we enjoy about our work. It might be something which we can add to the working day which helps us endure the negative. Whatever it is, if we can identify the positive response we can help combat the negative.
The Aesthetic Duty is, therefore, to surround our lives with beautiful things, the things can give us positive emotional responses, which will make us feel good within. It is too easy to put up with the negatives and the things that make us feel bad within. In embracing the beautiful things we can combat this. We can strive to survive the negatives and live a life full of good things. Where possible we need to remove the negative, ugly things in our lives and replace them with beautiful things. Where we cannot do this we must try and find the hidden beauty within it so to try and make the ugly experience as beautiful as possible.
In removing the ugly things from our lives we can start to live a life where we feel good within, rather than having to put up with lives were we feel bad.
Sunday, 22 November 2009
Return from the rabbit hole
So we have embraced the only Truth that all we can know is that we think, and in doing so we have fallen down the nihilist rabbit hole. How can we function if we can know nothing else but this single truth?
The only way back out of the rabbit hole is through trust. If we continue to deny everything as an illusion then there is no return. We are stuck in a situation where all we can really know is that we think since everything else our senses provide us with can be denied.
We must take, in essence and for lack of better terminology, a leap of faith. We have to trust what our senses tell us. If something looks like a rock, feels like a rock, and smells like a rock then we got to be able to trust that it actually is a rock.
This same level of trust in our senses is what allows us to function in Society. All we can know is our own thoughts and what our senses present us with. We cannot know the thoughts of another. In this way, the Other is closed to us.
But if we cannot know the thoughts of the Other then what can we know of them? This comes from what our senses present us with, what we can deduct from the information gathers. We may not know what the Other is thinking but from their actions we can deduct.
This requires trust. Trust that the actions of the Other, that what the Other is presenting to our senses, is what they are thinking. We deduce from our senses and the information gathered.
But this can only function if the trust is there. We trust the Other to act in a way that is consistent with their thoughts. If the Other acts contrary to these thoughts, and we discover that they are acting contrary to their thoughts, then the trust goes.
When the trust goes, when we start to doubt the Other, then the basis of Civil Society starts to break down. It breaks down because we are left in a situation where only our thoughts can be trusted. We cannot rely on our senses to deduct since their is no trust in the Other. The Other may well be deliberately deceiving our senses. The Other could be trying to make us doubt what we know.
Without the trust that the Other is acting in up-most good faith toward us, that the Other is being honest in the information that they provide us with, we cannot interact with them. We must always remain of the opinion that they are not being honest with us, we cannot have any trust that their actions and their thoughts are in synch.
Just as we must trust our senses so too we must be able to trust the Other. But when we cannot trust the Other then they truly become closed to us, they become unknowable.
To return from the rabbit hole of nihilism we must have trust, because without trust it is impossible to function within the world in general, and within society specifically. With trust in our senses we can honestly hope to deduce true information about the world around us. But we can only deduce correctly if the information presented by the sense is indeed honest information.
We must have trust in our senses, and trust in the Other, because without either we will never leave the nice rabbit hole of our own thought.
The only way back out of the rabbit hole is through trust. If we continue to deny everything as an illusion then there is no return. We are stuck in a situation where all we can really know is that we think since everything else our senses provide us with can be denied.
We must take, in essence and for lack of better terminology, a leap of faith. We have to trust what our senses tell us. If something looks like a rock, feels like a rock, and smells like a rock then we got to be able to trust that it actually is a rock.
This same level of trust in our senses is what allows us to function in Society. All we can know is our own thoughts and what our senses present us with. We cannot know the thoughts of another. In this way, the Other is closed to us.
But if we cannot know the thoughts of the Other then what can we know of them? This comes from what our senses present us with, what we can deduct from the information gathers. We may not know what the Other is thinking but from their actions we can deduct.
This requires trust. Trust that the actions of the Other, that what the Other is presenting to our senses, is what they are thinking. We deduce from our senses and the information gathered.
But this can only function if the trust is there. We trust the Other to act in a way that is consistent with their thoughts. If the Other acts contrary to these thoughts, and we discover that they are acting contrary to their thoughts, then the trust goes.
When the trust goes, when we start to doubt the Other, then the basis of Civil Society starts to break down. It breaks down because we are left in a situation where only our thoughts can be trusted. We cannot rely on our senses to deduct since their is no trust in the Other. The Other may well be deliberately deceiving our senses. The Other could be trying to make us doubt what we know.
Without the trust that the Other is acting in up-most good faith toward us, that the Other is being honest in the information that they provide us with, we cannot interact with them. We must always remain of the opinion that they are not being honest with us, we cannot have any trust that their actions and their thoughts are in synch.
Just as we must trust our senses so too we must be able to trust the Other. But when we cannot trust the Other then they truly become closed to us, they become unknowable.
To return from the rabbit hole of nihilism we must have trust, because without trust it is impossible to function within the world in general, and within society specifically. With trust in our senses we can honestly hope to deduce true information about the world around us. But we can only deduce correctly if the information presented by the sense is indeed honest information.
We must have trust in our senses, and trust in the Other, because without either we will never leave the nice rabbit hole of our own thought.
Saturday, 21 November 2009
The only knowable Truth.
In the classic thought experiment of Rene Descartes it is argued, through the use of a Grand Deceiver, that the only thing that we can truly know is that we think. I think, therefore I am. Everything else can be denied as being the work of the Grand Deceiver. The only thing that we cannot deny is that we think.
This is indeed very true. As individuals, all we can know is ourselves and nothing else. Our experiences with the world around us is through our senses, on which we rely to function in the world. We have five in total and through the information we gather from these senses we interpret the world that we inhabit.
But how much can we rely upon these senses? We might have a condition like colour blindness which means that we will doubt certain information that our sight presents us with. We might be deaf, at which point we gain no information from our hearing at all. In these cases, we discount the information (or lack of it) and compensate accordingly.
But what if we do not have such a deficiency in our senses? What if we feel we are able to rely upon them? What happens if we are told that what our senses are telling us is wrong?
This is a difficult position to be in. If we are told that one of our senses is giving wrong information then we can fall back onto medical science to have it checked. Could it not be that there is a deficiency in that sense that we do not know about? This will lead us into a situation where we can correct the information from this sense in future situations.
The situation is more complicated when we are told that in a situation two of our senses have failed us. Our senses are, in essence, independent of each other. Each one gives us different information, from which we build our picture of the world. If one of these senses fails us in a given situation then we have the other four to rely upon. But if two of the five fails us then what then?
How is it possible to function in the world when we cannot rely upon these two senses that, up to that point, we have always been able to rely upon? We have never had cause to doubt them before. They have always provided us with reliable information up to that point. Or have they?
And this is the problem. Doubt. Doubting of the information that we have received. If we cannot rely upon this information then where are we? We are back where we started. All we can know is that we think and that is it. We cannot rely upon anything else since our senses may well be deceiving us.
We know that we think, and that is all. We can only know our own thoughts and nothing else. Everything else can be denied. Nothing else can be trusted to be true.
The only truth in the world is that we think. Everything else is just interpretation. An opinion. A viewpoint. Nothing more.
No matter what happens in our lives, we must always be truly alone. It is the only thing that can be known. The only thing that can be held to be true.
I think, therefore I am, and nothing more.
This is indeed very true. As individuals, all we can know is ourselves and nothing else. Our experiences with the world around us is through our senses, on which we rely to function in the world. We have five in total and through the information we gather from these senses we interpret the world that we inhabit.
But how much can we rely upon these senses? We might have a condition like colour blindness which means that we will doubt certain information that our sight presents us with. We might be deaf, at which point we gain no information from our hearing at all. In these cases, we discount the information (or lack of it) and compensate accordingly.
But what if we do not have such a deficiency in our senses? What if we feel we are able to rely upon them? What happens if we are told that what our senses are telling us is wrong?
This is a difficult position to be in. If we are told that one of our senses is giving wrong information then we can fall back onto medical science to have it checked. Could it not be that there is a deficiency in that sense that we do not know about? This will lead us into a situation where we can correct the information from this sense in future situations.
The situation is more complicated when we are told that in a situation two of our senses have failed us. Our senses are, in essence, independent of each other. Each one gives us different information, from which we build our picture of the world. If one of these senses fails us in a given situation then we have the other four to rely upon. But if two of the five fails us then what then?
How is it possible to function in the world when we cannot rely upon these two senses that, up to that point, we have always been able to rely upon? We have never had cause to doubt them before. They have always provided us with reliable information up to that point. Or have they?
And this is the problem. Doubt. Doubting of the information that we have received. If we cannot rely upon this information then where are we? We are back where we started. All we can know is that we think and that is it. We cannot rely upon anything else since our senses may well be deceiving us.
We know that we think, and that is all. We can only know our own thoughts and nothing else. Everything else can be denied. Nothing else can be trusted to be true.
The only truth in the world is that we think. Everything else is just interpretation. An opinion. A viewpoint. Nothing more.
No matter what happens in our lives, we must always be truly alone. It is the only thing that can be known. The only thing that can be held to be true.
I think, therefore I am, and nothing more.
Friday, 20 November 2009
Everything old is new again
There seems to be a trend these days in the world of TV to reinvent/reboot/re-imagine the classic shows of old for a modern audience. This usually means a more glossy portrayal with better production values and effects. This also usually meets with cries that our childhoods are being raped and that the premise of the original series is being betrayed.
A good example of where this as been done well would be the recent Battlestar Galactica series. Visually, this series outstripped the original series. But in addition to this was the way it approached the story. Instead of the standalone/double-parters of the the original narrative there was an over-arching story arc. The new BSG was very much an ongoing saga, a journey following the rag tag fugitive fleet's quest to find Earth. I personally found it to be a very rewarding series.
A good example of where old and new collides would be the new Doctor Who. It is very much more stylish. The original format as been ditched in favour of stand alone episodes that form an overarching narrative which pays of with the finale. However, opinion is very much split. There are those who hate the Nu Who because it is not the old. There are those who are just fans of Nu Who and cannot stand the "slowness" of the four-part episode format of old.
For me, my heart will always belong to old Who because it was the programme of my childhood. I grew up with it. However, I can still enjoy Nu Who for what it is - which is very much entertainment. I find the episodes a joy to watch, including those that are traditionally panned by "fandom" (then again, I also enjoy Time and the Rani so what do I know).
When I look at the debate that rages within Whodom over the new series I sometimes think that some people are missing the point. For me, Nu Who is not written for me. I am not the target audience. Nu Who is targeted to the 10 years old of today, just as classic Who was targeted to the 10 year olds of my generation. I feel lucky that I am able to enjoy it for what it is. I find it entertaining. But I also remember that it is the modern generation, the 10 year olds of today, who it belongs to.
It is just the same with the other revivals. Knight Rider, 90210, Melrose Place, the new V. These are all shows for a new audience, and they are not for the audience of old. I think this is why I like the term re-imagining to describe them. They are taking the original premise and giving it a new spin, a modern spin, for hopefully a new audience to enjoy.
Now, I am concerned with this at the moment for a reason. I firmly believe in what I have said. These re-imaginings are not written with me in mind. Yes, I enjoyed the originals but these new shows are for the present generation, and I hope that they will enjoy their version of the shows as much as I enjoyed the originals.
However, there is something that I have waiting for me to watch. It is a series that as been re-imagined. It is a TV show that the words iconic, cult, and classic were made for. I am talking about Prisoner. The original was just a thing of beauty, and if you have not seen it then I heartedly recommend it. It is thought provoking. Actually, it is very thought provoking. I also consider it to be perfection in itself. I cannot understand why there was a need for it to be re-imagined.
So, I very much expect that when I watch it at some point this week I am going to be screaming at the screen that my childhood as been raped. I do not have high hopes for the "televisual event". I cannot see how it can live up to the original in any way, shape, or form. But, I am going to give it a go. I might be surprised. It might actually capture the essence of the original. It might capture the spirit and soul. I really hope that it does and that I am proved wrong. But if not I must remember that it is a new show, for a new audience,just using a premise from a TV show that I enjoyed in my youth.
A good example of where this as been done well would be the recent Battlestar Galactica series. Visually, this series outstripped the original series. But in addition to this was the way it approached the story. Instead of the standalone/double-parters of the the original narrative there was an over-arching story arc. The new BSG was very much an ongoing saga, a journey following the rag tag fugitive fleet's quest to find Earth. I personally found it to be a very rewarding series.
A good example of where old and new collides would be the new Doctor Who. It is very much more stylish. The original format as been ditched in favour of stand alone episodes that form an overarching narrative which pays of with the finale. However, opinion is very much split. There are those who hate the Nu Who because it is not the old. There are those who are just fans of Nu Who and cannot stand the "slowness" of the four-part episode format of old.
For me, my heart will always belong to old Who because it was the programme of my childhood. I grew up with it. However, I can still enjoy Nu Who for what it is - which is very much entertainment. I find the episodes a joy to watch, including those that are traditionally panned by "fandom" (then again, I also enjoy Time and the Rani so what do I know).
When I look at the debate that rages within Whodom over the new series I sometimes think that some people are missing the point. For me, Nu Who is not written for me. I am not the target audience. Nu Who is targeted to the 10 years old of today, just as classic Who was targeted to the 10 year olds of my generation. I feel lucky that I am able to enjoy it for what it is. I find it entertaining. But I also remember that it is the modern generation, the 10 year olds of today, who it belongs to.
It is just the same with the other revivals. Knight Rider, 90210, Melrose Place, the new V. These are all shows for a new audience, and they are not for the audience of old. I think this is why I like the term re-imagining to describe them. They are taking the original premise and giving it a new spin, a modern spin, for hopefully a new audience to enjoy.
Now, I am concerned with this at the moment for a reason. I firmly believe in what I have said. These re-imaginings are not written with me in mind. Yes, I enjoyed the originals but these new shows are for the present generation, and I hope that they will enjoy their version of the shows as much as I enjoyed the originals.
However, there is something that I have waiting for me to watch. It is a series that as been re-imagined. It is a TV show that the words iconic, cult, and classic were made for. I am talking about Prisoner. The original was just a thing of beauty, and if you have not seen it then I heartedly recommend it. It is thought provoking. Actually, it is very thought provoking. I also consider it to be perfection in itself. I cannot understand why there was a need for it to be re-imagined.
So, I very much expect that when I watch it at some point this week I am going to be screaming at the screen that my childhood as been raped. I do not have high hopes for the "televisual event". I cannot see how it can live up to the original in any way, shape, or form. But, I am going to give it a go. I might be surprised. It might actually capture the essence of the original. It might capture the spirit and soul. I really hope that it does and that I am proved wrong. But if not I must remember that it is a new show, for a new audience,just using a premise from a TV show that I enjoyed in my youth.
Thursday, 19 November 2009
Mid-week Catch Up
Well, this should be fun. I am conscious that I have not written anything in a while but I also do not know what to write. I do not have anything specific to say or an agenda to layout. But I also feel that I should really be writing something.
Shall we see where this goes?
So, last weekend saw me in Newcastle attending a DW Convention. It was a good weekend, spent in fine company, and involving some rather nice alcohol as well. I have only done one convention this year because of everything that was happening with work and I was glad that I did it. It was slightly weird in that not many of the usual crowd were present. But this was good also since it meant that I had to socialise outside of my comfort zone, so to speak. It is always nice to meet new people.
I also bought some stuff whilst I was there as well. I have finally righted a long standing social wrong and purchased both of Anneke Wills's books - Self Portrait and Naked. I am looking forward to reading these for two reasons. Firstly, Anneke is a wonderful lady and I am interested in her story. Secondly, I do not normally do autobiographies, or even biographies for that matter, preferring fiction instead. So, I am hoping that these books will make a wonderful introduction into the world of non-academic non-fiction.
I also purchased "Love songs for the shy and cynical" by Robert Shearman. From what I have read so far I am very impressed by it but I will save a review of it until I have finished the entire book.
I also purchased two of the three Big Finish Short Trips that contain stories by a friend of mine. It as definitely taken me ages to get round to picking them up and I look forward to letting him know that I have finally done it.
After such a lovely weekend, this week as been a bit of a downer. Over the last two weeks I have been up for three different jobs. Yesterday I found out that I am not getting a second interview for a job that I should have been a guaranteed second interview for. We have been given a reason, which both me and my agent agree is a bit of a sham excuse, but it as knocked me for six really. Of all the three jobs I have been for this one should have been a guaranteed offer. Not really know why it as not happened and I am sure that someday I will find out why it was the case. Life is like that. So, of the three I have only one more outstanding. Interview was on Tuesday and I am rather positive about both the interview and the role itself. The role sounds very exciting and so I am keeping my fingers crossed.
Nothing else really to report. Had a nice shopping trip to Manchesterford yesterday which resulted in some DVDs being purchased (including but not limited to the complete Thunderbirds box-set reduced from £125 to £20. Bargain city). I'm also presently reading a book called "Teach Yourself Nietzsche". I realised the other week that my academic career kind of skipped his work so this is my way of trying to get, as a minimum, and overview of his work and philosophy. I am thinking of reading at least one of his works as well, and I am presently leaning toward Beyond Good and Evil but I will make up my final mind when I have got the overview.
So, for now, I shall sign off and will hopefully have something less mundane to blog about next time.
Shall we see where this goes?
So, last weekend saw me in Newcastle attending a DW Convention. It was a good weekend, spent in fine company, and involving some rather nice alcohol as well. I have only done one convention this year because of everything that was happening with work and I was glad that I did it. It was slightly weird in that not many of the usual crowd were present. But this was good also since it meant that I had to socialise outside of my comfort zone, so to speak. It is always nice to meet new people.
I also bought some stuff whilst I was there as well. I have finally righted a long standing social wrong and purchased both of Anneke Wills's books - Self Portrait and Naked. I am looking forward to reading these for two reasons. Firstly, Anneke is a wonderful lady and I am interested in her story. Secondly, I do not normally do autobiographies, or even biographies for that matter, preferring fiction instead. So, I am hoping that these books will make a wonderful introduction into the world of non-academic non-fiction.
I also purchased "Love songs for the shy and cynical" by Robert Shearman. From what I have read so far I am very impressed by it but I will save a review of it until I have finished the entire book.
I also purchased two of the three Big Finish Short Trips that contain stories by a friend of mine. It as definitely taken me ages to get round to picking them up and I look forward to letting him know that I have finally done it.
After such a lovely weekend, this week as been a bit of a downer. Over the last two weeks I have been up for three different jobs. Yesterday I found out that I am not getting a second interview for a job that I should have been a guaranteed second interview for. We have been given a reason, which both me and my agent agree is a bit of a sham excuse, but it as knocked me for six really. Of all the three jobs I have been for this one should have been a guaranteed offer. Not really know why it as not happened and I am sure that someday I will find out why it was the case. Life is like that. So, of the three I have only one more outstanding. Interview was on Tuesday and I am rather positive about both the interview and the role itself. The role sounds very exciting and so I am keeping my fingers crossed.
Nothing else really to report. Had a nice shopping trip to Manchesterford yesterday which resulted in some DVDs being purchased (including but not limited to the complete Thunderbirds box-set reduced from £125 to £20. Bargain city). I'm also presently reading a book called "Teach Yourself Nietzsche". I realised the other week that my academic career kind of skipped his work so this is my way of trying to get, as a minimum, and overview of his work and philosophy. I am thinking of reading at least one of his works as well, and I am presently leaning toward Beyond Good and Evil but I will make up my final mind when I have got the overview.
So, for now, I shall sign off and will hopefully have something less mundane to blog about next time.
Thursday, 12 November 2009
V (2009)
Last week saw the launch of the re-imagining and updating of V, the classic early 80's mini series, on American TV.
The premise of the original series was very simple. Aliens arrive offering peace and hope but with sinister motives. It is a story of resistance, as a rag-tag team of humans fight against the alien "invasion".
The original mini series, whilst very good, was definitely a product of its time and based firmly in the tradition of fear. There is the fear of the things that are not like us, of ways of doing things that are different to our own. Different philosophies, different cultures. Or to put it in the traditional way, fear of Communism.
For me, this is what the original V was about. The hidden menace of Communism. Communists can look like us but believe in things alien to us, and to work toward their own ends which are fundamentally opposed to our own. This is very much a 50's view but it does seem to resonate in the original series.
But that was then. We are now in 2009 and Communism was defeated by Capitalism. The Soviet Union collapsed and the Berlin Wall came crumbling down.
The new V is very stylish in design, but the basis of the original series is still there. We have the Visitors coming in peace and offering technological advancement in return for some natural resources which we have in abundance. The Visitors look like us, albeit very attractive, but we also know as an audience that beneath that attractive exterior lies something truly alien in nature.
The new series also works on the paranoia that was present in the original series, but just updated for a modern generation. In the first episode there are a lot of reveals. One of the chief ones is that The Visitors have not just arrived but they have been here for a while, working in the background and positioning themselves into position within Society.
It is this that leads to the paranoia. If this Visitors can look like us then who can you trust? If you do not know who you trust then all you can do is trust no one.
One of the main players on the human team is Erica, an FBI agent and therefore very much part of the establishment. However, from what she learns in the first episode she goes very much from being part of the establishment to being a loner within the machine, unable to trust anyone in case that person should turn out to be a Visitor in disguise.
Like BSG before it, the new V is not just a redoing of the original series. It takes the toolbox of the original series but it then puts a spin on it so that it fits into the modern world. Just like the original mini series was a product of its time, so the new series is a product of our times.
It will be interesting to see where it goes from here but I do think that we will be in for an enjoyable ride with it.
The premise of the original series was very simple. Aliens arrive offering peace and hope but with sinister motives. It is a story of resistance, as a rag-tag team of humans fight against the alien "invasion".
The original mini series, whilst very good, was definitely a product of its time and based firmly in the tradition of fear. There is the fear of the things that are not like us, of ways of doing things that are different to our own. Different philosophies, different cultures. Or to put it in the traditional way, fear of Communism.
For me, this is what the original V was about. The hidden menace of Communism. Communists can look like us but believe in things alien to us, and to work toward their own ends which are fundamentally opposed to our own. This is very much a 50's view but it does seem to resonate in the original series.
But that was then. We are now in 2009 and Communism was defeated by Capitalism. The Soviet Union collapsed and the Berlin Wall came crumbling down.
The new V is very stylish in design, but the basis of the original series is still there. We have the Visitors coming in peace and offering technological advancement in return for some natural resources which we have in abundance. The Visitors look like us, albeit very attractive, but we also know as an audience that beneath that attractive exterior lies something truly alien in nature.
The new series also works on the paranoia that was present in the original series, but just updated for a modern generation. In the first episode there are a lot of reveals. One of the chief ones is that The Visitors have not just arrived but they have been here for a while, working in the background and positioning themselves into position within Society.
It is this that leads to the paranoia. If this Visitors can look like us then who can you trust? If you do not know who you trust then all you can do is trust no one.
One of the main players on the human team is Erica, an FBI agent and therefore very much part of the establishment. However, from what she learns in the first episode she goes very much from being part of the establishment to being a loner within the machine, unable to trust anyone in case that person should turn out to be a Visitor in disguise.
Like BSG before it, the new V is not just a redoing of the original series. It takes the toolbox of the original series but it then puts a spin on it so that it fits into the modern world. Just like the original mini series was a product of its time, so the new series is a product of our times.
It will be interesting to see where it goes from here but I do think that we will be in for an enjoyable ride with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
