Hilary Mantel is EVIL! Well at least that's the way The Daily mail seem to want portray her. Their recent 'story' that one person had said something about another person (whatever happened to the concept of global or national news stories having depth and meaning?) has generated a lot of publicity and a lot of Internet 'buzz'. If Twitter is the currently accepted adjudicator of these things then this was one of the most popular stories of its day and a reasonably divisive one at that.
In case you've been living the hermit lifestyle (doubtful as you're reading an online article which would be hard to access from a dank lichen filled cave in the middle of nowhere) then the basics are this, - Hilary mantel wrote apiece for the London Review of Books entitled Royal Bodies. in it she refers to Kate Windsor (Nee Middleton) as a plastic princess and a clothes horse. Hardly the most damaging or scathing attack a royal has faced. Yet the Mail chose to portray this as an attack of the worst kind, painting Mantel as the stereotypical middle aged sour-puss figure overrun with her own internal jealousies of the glamorous princess.
What they failed to do was put any of this into context. If anything the article is both balanced and fair. it even ends with a plea for the royals, Kate particularly, to be left alone, so they could perchance escape their 'gilded cage'. Remarkably sympathetic.
Unfortunately people don't seem to be capable of looking past the few brief headlines and making their judgement. Including, worryingly enough our own PM. Cameron has weighed in on the subject to defend the Princess. Not only do I believe he should have more to concern him but it betrays a worrying lack of depth in his world perceptions. If he only deals n headlines without analysing the context this is a disturbing reflection of a growing national behaviour.
Stop just absorbing headlines and going from there. Read the whole thing then make decisions. We can only have informed adult debate if all sides involved are genuinely informed and not just spitting back twitter-esque headlines and surface story lines.
Why not read the original article for yourself and make your own mind up?
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n04/hilary-mantel/royal-bodies
Wednesday, 20 February 2013
Wednesday, 6 February 2013
Social media strokes our egos
It is almost Augean to admit to ones own shortcomings and yet in reviewing ones behaviours occasionally one feels obligated to do so.
The blossoming arena of social media, areas like 'Facebook', 'Twitter' and the blogosphere presents a truly democratic arena for self-expression. Unfortunately we are not all the enlightened intelligentsia we so persuasively convince ourselves we are before committing the act of placing ill conceived epehemera into the 'e-sphere'.
The question is who are we producing such works for and why? Many are worthy attempts to create a 'better ' world or to improve some specific area of life. Others are part of noble campaigns, or in some unutterable instances far from noble campaigns that are attempts to convince others that deep seated bigotries are in fact defensible.
Then there are blogs like this one. Random discourses of little discernible worth or function. Please do not misunderstand, this is no attempt to eviscerate ones own work or worth. Merely a reflection on its lack of import.
One can become enmeshed too in the counting game. Suddenly quantity outstrips quality. My culpability here is all too real. To look at ones blog and delight that 21 people have read it. How we cajole ourselves into believing that make us important! 21 people out of the 7 billion+ of humanity have glanced at the diatribe we occasionally produce! How the world must swoon at our Oscar Wilde like influence now.
Just as bad the 'follower' count on Twitter. What is this cultish slave like devotion to counting 'followers'. They are not our apostles! Why must one take it so personally when the figure reduces?
My point is simple really. The Internet is a wonderful social tool, but please don't let it give us an overblown sense of our own public worth.
Right, now I shall bask in the effulgent glory of counting my Twitter followers - wonder if they've gone up or down?
The blossoming arena of social media, areas like 'Facebook', 'Twitter' and the blogosphere presents a truly democratic arena for self-expression. Unfortunately we are not all the enlightened intelligentsia we so persuasively convince ourselves we are before committing the act of placing ill conceived epehemera into the 'e-sphere'.
The question is who are we producing such works for and why? Many are worthy attempts to create a 'better ' world or to improve some specific area of life. Others are part of noble campaigns, or in some unutterable instances far from noble campaigns that are attempts to convince others that deep seated bigotries are in fact defensible.
Then there are blogs like this one. Random discourses of little discernible worth or function. Please do not misunderstand, this is no attempt to eviscerate ones own work or worth. Merely a reflection on its lack of import.
One can become enmeshed too in the counting game. Suddenly quantity outstrips quality. My culpability here is all too real. To look at ones blog and delight that 21 people have read it. How we cajole ourselves into believing that make us important! 21 people out of the 7 billion+ of humanity have glanced at the diatribe we occasionally produce! How the world must swoon at our Oscar Wilde like influence now.
Just as bad the 'follower' count on Twitter. What is this cultish slave like devotion to counting 'followers'. They are not our apostles! Why must one take it so personally when the figure reduces?
My point is simple really. The Internet is a wonderful social tool, but please don't let it give us an overblown sense of our own public worth.
Right, now I shall bask in the effulgent glory of counting my Twitter followers - wonder if they've gone up or down?
Monday, 4 February 2013
Richard III and the glory of science
Well it appears to be settled, the disinterred remains in a Leicester car park ARE those of Richard III!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882
Setting aside the moral dilemmas of where he should be laid to rest this is fabulously exciting. Particularly so because it will hopefully engage people with one of the less well regarded figures of our history.
Perhaps people will reassess his legacy now less from Shakespeare's propaganda, (let us not forget he wrote under the lead of the usurping family Tudor who could not afford to have the last Yorkist well remembered), and more from the perspective of the times he lived in where every man seized their opportunities and fought a bloody battle to the top and to stay there. Even if he did all the things he is accused of (doing away with the princes in the tower etc, and much of the evidence is circumstantial if strongly so, then one would contend he was no worse than his contemporaries.
Alongside this we can record a victory for science. 500+ years have passed and yet we can still find, identify and confirm this to be Richard. Historians and archaeologists alike who have collaborated on this should take a well deserved bow.
People in the media have argued about the import of this and where we should go from her. For one, i am just happy that this is a subject that can arouse interest proving once again the attractions and passions that our history can arouse.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882
Setting aside the moral dilemmas of where he should be laid to rest this is fabulously exciting. Particularly so because it will hopefully engage people with one of the less well regarded figures of our history.
Perhaps people will reassess his legacy now less from Shakespeare's propaganda, (let us not forget he wrote under the lead of the usurping family Tudor who could not afford to have the last Yorkist well remembered), and more from the perspective of the times he lived in where every man seized their opportunities and fought a bloody battle to the top and to stay there. Even if he did all the things he is accused of (doing away with the princes in the tower etc, and much of the evidence is circumstantial if strongly so, then one would contend he was no worse than his contemporaries.
Alongside this we can record a victory for science. 500+ years have passed and yet we can still find, identify and confirm this to be Richard. Historians and archaeologists alike who have collaborated on this should take a well deserved bow.
People in the media have argued about the import of this and where we should go from her. For one, i am just happy that this is a subject that can arouse interest proving once again the attractions and passions that our history can arouse.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)