Monday, 10 June 2013

Wild About Harry

This story is rather interesting, because a lot of people who have gut-reaction dislike of gays are also gut-reaction royalists.
A gay former soldier has claimed that Prince Harry saved him from homophobic intimidation by members of a rival regiment.

Trooper James Wharton said the Prince stepped in when he told him six soldiers had threatened to "batter" him during a training exercise in Canada in 2008 (...)
"Harry climbed out of the tank and started having a go. I worried he was about to make the whole thing worse, but he wasn't holding back. Prince Harry was sticking up for me and putting a stop to the trouble. I had been on track for a battering and had been rescued."

And I didn't realise Harry and Wills were gay icons, but apparently they are. Amazing what you miss out on when you're a boring old straightypants.

Meanwhile, the anti-gay brigade continues to prove that they're a bunch of swivel-eyed bastards, really. It's so obvious that there's a right side and wrong side in this one.

Dead Writers

Two writers whose work I've enjoyed died recently. Iain M. Banks, science fiction and mainstream Scottish author, died from cancer on the weekend of June 8-9th. Not long before, on May 26th Jack Vance, the American science fiction and fantasy author, died.

The one obvious thing they had in common was that they were genre-jumping authors. Jack Vance began as a pulp sci-fi writer in the Forties, but he was also an award-winning mystery/crime writer - indeed, Vance often asserted that he wasn't really a science fiction writer at all. (The only TV adaptation of a Vance story, Bad Ronald, is not science fiction, but does emphasise the power of fantasy.) Iain (M.) Banks enjoyed mainstream literary success but also wrote popular science fiction, something many 'serious' critics obviously found hard to deal with.

Vance influenced Banks in obvious ways. The sheer flamboyance of the former's invention is apparent in the latter's Culture series. Vance was not the first sf writer to create a consistent future universe (that of the Alastor Cluster and the Demon Princes series) but his was one of the biggest and brightest. Banks' Culture and various rival powers were just as flamboyant as Vance's galactic realms.



Both men were strongly atheistic in outlook, and often cast a sceptical eye at the way religion prompts people (and other beings) to do bizarre and brutal things. And both had a wry sense of humour - neither was at all po-faced. There's a sense of the absurd about many of their invented cultures (as well as in The Culture), and there is an emphasis upon games, gambling, sport, and related matters. These recreations often have a lethal side: there's Banks' game of Damage, which can burn out the brain, while in The Dirdir Vance depicts the hunting of humans by aliens in an enclosed ecosystem called The Glass Box. It's worth noting that in both cases people volunteer to take part.

They were very different, though, in other ways. Vance was essentially conservative in outlook, and his books reflect traditional attitudes towards gender roles - not surprisingly, as he was born in 1916. Banks' Culture novels depict a world where genetic and other biological modifications are normal and desirable, and his post-war Scottish origins led - not surprisingly - to his embracing feminist and generally progressive views.



Vance's invented worlds, for all their bizarre customs and beliefs, are often modified forms of 'traditional' civilizations, based on a money economy and fairly familiar social class distinctions. On the few occasions when he describes a highly governed or socialistic society it is clear he doesn't think much of it. In Wyst: Alastor 1716, for instance, an 'egalistic' society is depicted as economically hopeless. (Vance is just as hard on stratified cultures propped up by religion, a stance taken to extremes in the excellent Emphyrio.)

By contrast, Banks' Culture is techno-socialist and run - most of the time - by extremely intelligent machines, and in The Player of Games he sets it against an alien space empire that embodies all the worst traits of modern Britain. He was clearly fascinated by militarism and the paraphernalia of warfare at all technological levels, but often describes militarists with a kind of jovial contempt.

One very obvious common thread in the books of both men is the way that (again, very traditionally) they tend to focus on the saga of one key individual to illuminate the worlds they invent. In Vance there is usually a quest to set out upon or vengeance to be wrought. Things are not always so clearly defined with Banks, but damaged or marginalised characters are more likely to set things in motion. The authors were both civilized, generous men who offered their readers bizarre, dangerous worlds and ruthless heroes: they will both be missed.

Sunday, 9 June 2013

Iain Banks, 1954-2013

The writer was somewhat opinionated.

So they're back (The axe falls on the poor, 21 October). The last time the Tories were in power I used to think of them as the hyena party, because they tended to pick on the most vulnerable members of the herd: the young, the weak, the old. Now, after flat-out lying about the inescapability of cuts and the reason we're in this mess, this bunch of upper-class landed louts, this cabinet of share-portfolioed millionaires, this gang of Greedists – along with their willing chums, the hopelessly deluded, now credibility-free Lib Dems – have returned to cut and butcher their way through our society again, picking on the young through picking on their parents, picking on the poor and the vulnerable, the disabled and disadvantaged, running down precisely those least able to help themselves, the very people any decent society ought to be doing most to help, while the bankers and the City boys sip their Cristal and drool over their upcoming bonuses. 
A little has changed; the grey vote has held off direct attacks on today's pensioners, but even that is temporary; the old too will miss the buses withdrawn from service and the police removed from the streets, feel ignored and cut off when their local library closes and the remaining post offices turn into charity shops; and the old will suffer most as a hyper-stressed NHS tries to cope with the trauma of yet another needless privatisation-inspired reorganisation. The hyenas that lope and crunch their way across the plains are blameless; just animals behaving as evolution has shaped them, quite free of morality, ethics or guilt. We might have expected better from our own species, but no; the snarling horrors have returned, and we'll rue the wasted years that let all three major parties swing so decisively to the right and present us with so little real choice at the last election. 
Iain Banks 
North Queensferry, Fife

Search William Hague's House, He Might Have Something To Hide

It's just a suggestion. After all, if William Hague, our weird-voiced-slap-head-failed-Tory-leader Foreign Secretary, has nothing to fear, he couldn't possibly object to the police rummaging through his private possessions. Or indeed those of his family. Could he? I mean, if it's okay to randomly trawl people's phone records and emails looking for badness, then randomly searching people's homes is equally good, if not better. After all, it's in their actual homes that all the baddies keep their guns and bombs and drugs and stuff, not on their iPhones! Am I right?

The argument that only those with something to hide need fear having their private conservations or emails scrutinised by unaccountable (i.e. reporting to a handful of dodgy politicians) state bureaucrats is extraordinary, and revealing. It's the logic of the Stasi, the KGB, and the Gestapo. The right to a private life for the individual is casually denied by dictatorships in the interests of 'security', of course. But it so happens that in the EU, which is where we are, the right to a private life is guaranteed by law.

Respect for correspondence

Everyone has the right to uninterrupted and uncensored communication with others – a right particularly of relevance in relation to phone-tapping; email surveillance; and the reading of letters.

How soon before the rightist rhetoric starts, telling us that the evil EU is helping terrorists by trying to protect people's privacy? And of course we'll hear about all the terrorist crimes thwarted by the security services - well, we won't, because we have to take it on trust that they are doing anything at all to protect us. Oh, it's not true, like most 'hate Europe' stuff; the treaty in question does allow the state to spy on people for reasons of national security. Or, more precisely:
...in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
That 'protection of health or morals' leaps out for some reason. I approve of MI5 intercepting orders for takeaway pizzas if they come from the clinically obese. As for morals, MI5 breaking into a call from some creep to his girlfriend to tell her that 'he went and shagged that minger Shanice last night, so just dump him love' would seem a perfectly valid use of taxpayers' money.

Apart from anything else, it might give them something to do. I mean, do they fight terrorism with ruthless efficiency, or just sort of vaguely thrash about and hope the baddies trap themselves through sheer incompetence? Who knows? We're certainly not allowed to. If there are no terrorist bombings, it's because the spooks have done a great job. Give 'em some more money! If there are terrorist bombings, it's because they're under-funded and overworked. Give 'em some more money! Win-win situation for the MI5 boys and girls, methinks.

It doesn't matter if they're utterly lazy and incompetent, because - for all practical purposes - nothing can be done to bring them to book for their failings. And they can find out whatever they damn well like about anyone, apparently. Let's hope the spooks are not as keen to flog information as some police officers have been.

Hello There, Denizens of the Anglosphere!


Saturday, 8 June 2013

Tinfoil Hat Corner


Doctor, Doctor, Gimme the Polls

All the Single Doctors
Identifying Arsewits is not always easy. Certainly the people who framed the YouGov polls on Doctor Who qualify as mild cases, as they refer to the character (as opposed  to the series) by that name. Now whether he's called Doctor Who or not is a vacuum-sealed can of telepathic Denebian mindworms. Peter Cushing played a very human eccentric Doctor Who in two films, and Jon Pertwee was definitely in 'Doctor Who and the Silurians'. But its a bit silly to go around asking people 'Who's Your Favourite Doctor Who?', because many fans will be so apoplectic about the question that they can't think straight about the answer. Not that I get annoyed about that sort of thing. I've literally never written an angry letter in my life. About Doctor Who. So far as I recall. The Seventies were a wild time. Anything was possible.

Not right-wing - note Co-op affiliation. Also, most cake-y Doctor

That said, it's nice to see DW fans (or just people who have opinions about it) broken down by political affiliation. The New Statesman decided to come up with some dodgy claims about the poll, such as 'Jon Pertwee is the most right-wing doctor'. They base this on the fact that Pertwee is the only pre-revival Doctor other than Tom Baker to score above statistical 'blip' level. Indeed, Pertwee scores slightly better than Christopher Eccleston with some demographics. Which is of course FASCINATING.

Pertwee's Doctor, as any fule kno, was pretty left-wing in his attempts to forge peace between different intelligent species and his unwavering hostility to militarism. That's why UNIT and the Brigadier were there, so that a basically left-wing bunch of scriptwriters could bang on about peace 'n' stuff. Which is why, dumbass Guardian New Statesman person, in the 2010 election he had the support of 11 per cent of Labour voters and only 8 per cent of Tories. Yes, I know he didn't stand in that election, but if he had...

Indeed, one obvious point about the poll is that the Seventies Doctors - Pertwee and Tom Baker - still have 'mainstream' fans while the Eighties ones, plus Paul McGann in the Nineties are pretty much forgotten. The same goes for Hartnell and Troughton in the Sixties; too long ago, Daddy-o. And when it comes to the least popular Doctor? Oh, do you really need to ask? Poor bastard, it's not like there's even much money in it.



One rock-solid obvious factoid is that David Tennant really revived the franchise, especially with the laydeez. He wins hands down for overall popularity and scores 55 per cent among female voters. He also has an impressive spread of fans across all age ranges, and British regions. Overall the show itself is popular with all age ranges, but it's not surprising that there's a bias towards the trendy young people.

The Guardian is nearer the mark when it comes to the question of who might play the next Doctor. Dear old UKIP win the Golden Arsewit, with no less than 50 per cent of them opining that the actor should be white, because they are non-racists, obvs. For the Tories it's 33 per cent, and 14 per cent for Labour. UKIP and the Tories are also strongly inclined to a male Doctor compared to Labour and the LDs.

So, to really piss off the Arsewits the next Doctor should probably be someone like...

Andi Osho

Place your bets.

The Mail's Mandy Misogyny

So, Mandy Rice-Davies died, and the Daily Mail referred to her as a 'call girl'. This is old-time newstalk for 'white prostitut...