Wiwipedia

I am Pleased

2012-01-19T05:46:00.001-08:00

Interview with Paul McGann (8th Doctor)
You’ve also been working with Carole Ann Ford as Susan again.
I’m enjoying going back – you can’t really say that in Doctor Who, can you? – going sideways to the stories involving the great grandson and granddaughter. I’m fascinated by the history, the idea that Bill Hartnell first appeared with a granddaughter.
When one stands there on stage on your tod, yakking to 300 serious Doctor Who fans, sometimes it’s electric because you ask these questions about the mythology and there’s people out there with degree-level knowledge about such matters. I’m always amazed that people out there have timelines, essays in their head about what happened when and to whom. I never understood it to start with and was never a fan anyway as a kid, I just watched the other channel, I watched the football! But I’ve really grown to be seriously fascinated, as much by the people, by its adherents, as the stories themselves. I’m kind of a newfound… I don’t know if I can call myself a fan, I don’t know about anything, I couldn’t even get an O level in it, let alone a degree in it! But the last couple of years in particular the penny’s really dropped about it.

This really pleases me. Paul McGann has always admitted he was not a Doctor Who fan. He never really watched Doctor Who when he was young, nor did he ever understand it. However, over the years, since he started (I am saying “started”, because actors taking up the part never really stop playing the Doctor, maybe except for Christopher Eccleston.) he started to get more interested, even fascinated, by the characters and the stories in the Whoniverse. For me that’s a big reason why I love Doctor Who (the series) as much as I do. Of course I’ve got also a fascination with the Doctor, but never mind that… Anyway, I am so pleased because he (Paul McGann) now understands a great part of why fans love Doctor Who. And the fact that he hung in there with us crazy fans only receives bucket loads of respect.

Source: Interview in Big Finish Vortex Magazine August 2010

Doctor Who - the New Movie

2011-11-21T04:24:00.001-08:00

So they want to make a new Doctor Who movie? As a good traditional Doctor Who fan I cried: “No!” when I first heard it. Some time has passed and I thought about the possibilities. There’s a lot possible, all of the possibilities equally exciting and dangerous. Just like most Whovians, I’m scared. David Yates, the man who directed the last four Harry Potter movies, said he wanted to start from scratch. You could hear the teeth gritting and the fist clenching. I must be honest; those sounds might have been my own.

And to keep in the process of being honest, nobody knows yet what that means. Does it mean he wants to reinvent the character the Doctor? Does that mean he wants to reinvent Doctor Who as a franchise? Or does that mean that he doesn’t want….? What!? Either way, it sounds like it’s not going to be canon, or will it? In most of the possibilities listed above, it sounds like it won’t be. Not necessarily a big problem, but I can tell you that I don’t usually enjoy works much which are canon-questionable or not canon at all. It takes the art of letting go of the reason why we, or at least I, love Doctor Who so much. I know why I am a fan and I’m not very likely to let that drift for the sake of a freakin’ movie, which to my ears sounds like ‘cashing in’ anyway.

And even when they decide to make it canon? Now I get even more scared. I can easily disregard a work that isn’t canon, but it’s hard to get over a work that says it is canon, but plays with the canon so much it brings tears to, well, my eyes. I’m still not over Paul McGann claiming he’s half-human, no matter how much I love his portrayal of the Doctor. I know certain aspects that popped up in the TV-show are hard to fit in the canon, but usually they could be filed away as one of the many lies of the Doctor, or time in flux, or some alternative timeline. It can be done, but still hurts a little. Things like the Doctor claiming he’s half-human, on his freakin’ mother’s side, just hurt so bad, nobody wants to even talk about it, but the scar tissue is there.

They could chose to fill in some gaps, like the Doctor’s life before it got well documented. I’m talking about the time before he kidnapped Ian and Barbara. That creates the risk of abandoning the Doctor’s mystery. Right now we don’t know much about the Doctor’s origin. We’re not even sure if he got born in the traditional way, got loomed into life, or even had a life before that. The uncertainty of his origins allowed a lot of writers to play with it. Make suggestions and turn ideas about who the Doctor is on its head. Always exciting, but never more than a tip of what might be. We might even run the risk of finding out what his real name is, though I hope David Yates is at least smart enough not to touch that.

Or, they could try to film the Last Great Time War. How that would work? Probably not very well. The Last Great Time War has grown so mythical and most fans have already envisioned such great scenes and ideas about that war, it can almost only disappoint. On the other hand, they could let Paul McGann come back and let him show what he can do with the character. And maybe, they can also show the regeneration from McGann to Christopher Eccleston. Oooh!!! But still, trying to capture that period of time in the Doctor’s life is very dangerous. Also, it doesn’t sound like that’s what Yates wants to do.

How will the movie be placed within the franchise anyway? The TV-show is still running and doesn’t really need a reboot, does it? And with the movie probably not being canon, I don’t see much of a place for it at all. Just like the Peter Cushing films, the ones made in the ‘60’s, the movie will then be snowed under by the canon Doctor Who stuff. Why would you make a product like that? Even if it is to pull in new audiences, as if that’s really necessary, how would that work? Those new fans then just have to drop in in the middle of the TV-show? Sure it can be done, but with no cooperation between the two, how is that ever going to run smoothly? If anything, the chances of alienating the existing fanbase is incredibly big. Is it worth a leap like that?

What about the casting? Yates said no-one ever involved in the series will be involved in this new project. Or did I understand that wrong? God I hope I did, cause this way it sounds even worse and less likely this movie is going to be about the character I love. It almost sounds like a bad biographical documentary by someone who was looking from the sidelines. Oh hold on, David Yates is looking from the sidelines.

*Hyperventilating*

I’m going to stop now; I don’t want to end up like Davros and be in a constant state of nervous excitement and blood pressure. Though on the other hand, I then could send the Daleks and exterminate the project.

Doctor Who and Violence - Part 3

2011-08-18T05:17:00.000-07:00

In a documentary Peter Davison, who played the 5th incarnation of the Doctor, said it didn't bother him, the violence. LOL. Go figure.

So there you have it, the 5th incarnation of the Doctor is the most violent one.

Doctor Who and Violence - Part 2

2011-08-09T03:05:00.000-07:00

Death counts per episode doesn't mean it's because the Doctor was particularly violent. However, so far I've found 2 avid Doctor Who fans (of which one is an anorak) who pointed out the 5th Doctor really is quite violent. Also the TARDIS index files site claims the 5th Doctor the most violent of all of the Doctor's incarnations.

Still laughing, though.

Sources:
Doc Oho's Big Finish Blog
the Anorak reviews
TARDIS Index Files

Doctor Who and Violence

2011-08-03T02:44:00.001-07:00

This is an interesting subject, especially when discussed in combination with Doctor Who.

The show started as a children's (boys aged 8-15 and the occasional nerdy girl) show and grew out to be a family show. It's a science fiction/adventure (/fantasy/etc) show. The combination of the abovementioned soon sparked into discussions about the violence showed in the ...uh...show.

It's also said that the Doctor is a pacifist. Hmmm, yeah...Not quite true, he has been known to punch/fire/blast creatures out of the sky or in the face.

Interest in this subject and the fact that I'm setting up to write my first Doctor Who fanfic, I'm doing some research. Here's the first fun fact. Let's first look at the overall death count per episode.

I took this from The Big Doctor Who Death Count.

This made me laugh, because the top 3 stories are all 5th Doctor stories. The sweet, amiable 5th Doctor. Not sure the death count is so high because he's more violent, or less able to prevent death, or because he apparently doesn't go as far to prevent death (cares less?) than his predecessors and successors.

May I also point out there's no 6th Doctor story present, while this incarnation of the Doctor was always regarded as the angry/most violent one.

The research goes on.

Ressurrection of the Daleks (5th Doctor)
The Caves of Androzani (5th Doctor)
Earthshock (5th Doctor)
Spearhead from Space (3th Doctor)
Dalek Invasion of Earth (1st Doctor)
Seeds of Death (2nd Doctor)
Remembrance of the Daleks (7th Doctor)
the Tomb of the Cybermen (2nd Doctor)
the Ark in Space (4th Doctor)
Carnival of Monsters (3rd Doctor)

I'm like...

2011-08-01T03:16:00.000-07:00

Hehehe...I must admit that sort of pleases me. I never know who my favourite Doctor is, but I did figure that I would probably get along best with the 5th or the 8th Doctor. So yes, very pleased!!!

Number 3 does worry me though and is incorrect if you ask me. 1) I'm not a tin dog 2) I suck at maths 2) I can't scream propperly (cigarettes and all which is also not Mel at all) 3) and once again, I'm not of tin making!!!

the Nathan Barley effect - Analysis 2

2011-05-23T05:26:00.000-07:00

More intriguing thoughts:

“At the other end of the spectrum is Dan Ashcroft (Julian Barratt), a journalist who writes about the “idiots” and their fallacies. Much to his chagrin, he is a big hit with said idiots, Barley among them, who can’t seem to grasp the fact that he is writing about them. It’s not hard to see Dan as a stand-in for Morris: a world-weary writer who can’t quite believe that his work has been embraced by the very people that he set out to criticise. In fact, and argument can be made for Nathan Barley being the Charlie Brooker to Chris Morris’ Dan Ashcroft.”

To me it seems a little unfair and a bit of a weird stream of logic. What I get from that piece of writing is that the author doesn’t find Brooker’s work as worthy (if at all) as Morris’ with also the question what Brooker has done outside online stuff. I realize this was written pre-Screenwipe, but even then Brooker had done work in the media (comics and reviews in magazines and a radio show). Another problem I have with this piece is that it makes me wonder very hard, if Morris’ criticizes his followers of which Brooker is one and he finds Brooker an idiot, why does Morris choose to work with him on a series? I genuinely believe Morris liked Brooker and his work enough to try and make that series together with him.

I have to admit I’m a little surprised about Morris’ involvement and specifically about him willing to work with Brooker. I also think Brooker’s work is nothing compared to Morris’ work. But to say Brooker is Nathan Barley to Morris’ Dan Ashscroft goes too far.

On the other hand, like many others have noted, Ashcroft realizes he might be another idiot. If Morris’ is Ashcroft and realizes he’s another idiot, he might also find fewer objections in working with Brooker. However, looking back on the line of people Morris used to work with (the brilliant Armando Iannucci, Peter Baynhem, etc) I think it’s more to the point Morris’ saw potential in Brooker and the character Nathan Barley. I ask you, why would an idiot opt for another bigger idiot when he once knew brilliance? Even Dan Ashcroft doesn’t do that wilfully.

“With all the scene-setting out of the way, let’s move on to the merits of the show itself as a piece of entertainment. How much you get out of it will depend on how familiar you are with the sub-culture being satirised, because, when it comes down to it, there isn’t much else in the show.”

Besides dodgy punctuation, that piece is not true either; there’s more to it then the eye meets…apparently. At first sight it’s about the young trending media crowd. Look again and realize the weird hairdo’s and obnoxious gadgetry is not the aim. Like the author said before the aim are the unoriginal followers who quote while missing the point. Earlier on he wrote:

"If all this sounds familiar, then it should. In a sense, this would appear to be precisely the cult that have latched itself on to Morris’ work, proclaiming him to be a genius and the saviour of television. For many people, his work on The Day Today and Brass Eye was appealing simply because it was filled with off-beat, non-sequitur humour and controversial subject matter. In turn, these people tend to believe that, by parroting the same material, they too are being original and thought-provoking, completely missing the subtler political and social comments that Morris was making."

And now he says if only you know these types you’ll enjoy it, because the aim is so narrow. If you are willing to look beyond the superficial decorations you will find a richer base on which ridicule is made. If you find it funny is a different question.

Source: Home Cinema: DVD review

the Nathan Barley effect - Progress

2011-05-23T02:33:00.001-07:00

Last Friday I spent a great deal of time reading reviews, articles and comments about "Nathan Barley". The general consensus is so confusing and ripped up in groups, it's almost incomprensible and therefore hard to keep up; I forgot most of what I've read. I do remember finding a lot of interesting views and analysis; we might be on to something.

I still don't think "Nathan Barley" is as good as Morris' and Brooker's other works and I still don't think it's a brilliant series, cause it simply isn't. I do think however, that the idea and the way they tried to do it was admirable and adds value. I believe this project holds value, but I can't quite pinpoint what it is. I can't help but see it as a bit of a failure and yet as an important piece of work.

I probably research on for a bit more.

the Nathan Barley effect - Analysis

2011-05-23T02:29:00.001-07:00

Nathan Barley makes me laugh. Not the series or the character, but rather the aftermath to which I was late.

To me it seems the series is like the article written by the character Dan Ashcroft in the series. In a viewer’s comment I read an interesting observation:

“Before I watched this series on DVD, I was wondering why there were so many bad reviews by fans of Chris Morris. But now I kind of understood the reason why. Because the story is pretty much about Chris Morris himself; a caricature of what he has achieved and people who appreciate his comedy. Chris Morris's followers are all despised in there.”

Source: IMDB User reviews

I don’t completely agree with the conclusion, but I can see how Chris Morris could be regarded as the Dan Ashcroft figure. I don’t think however, that it’s specifically his followers who are despised in the series. I think it’s rather about those trend following media types, and I base my opinion on what I remember Charlie Brooker (the father of the creation Nathan Barley) saying in an interview. He said there was this kind of media type who followed the latest trends, which included wearing stupid clothes and gadgets, that he despised. Nathan Barley was created as the character despised by a narrator in the fictional not existing program Cunt which was thought up for the fake TV-listings on Brooker’s site TVGoHome. Basically, Cunt was Brooker’s outlet of frustration and irritation with those idiots.

It doesn’t say anything about Chris Morris’ intentions with the character though, but since the TV-series didn’t steer away from the trend following media types; those are still the people being portrayed. I still don’t think the series was aimed at specifically the Morris/Brooker following, but more generally at the quote-spouting spoon-fed pseudo intellectuals missing the point.

The brilliance in Nathan Barley lies in the parallels between fiction and reality. Without realizing it everybody, that includes me, contributed to the comedy of Nathan Barley, because the series is the article ‘the Rise of the Idiots’ complete with publication and reaction.

The yay-sayers, who most likely will quote lines like “That’s well Mexico” or “Keep it foolish” are very like the character Nathan Barley; oblivious to the fact they’re ridiculed while jumping on the trendy Nathan Barley wagon.
The nay-sayers are not quite like Dan Ashcroft; they’re rather the one character supporting Ashcroft while shaking the head; namely Sasha the receptionist.
That leaves the writers Morris and Brooker to fulfil the Ashcroft part; opposing the idiots while incidentally enjoying the occasional game of cock-muff-bumhole.

Nathan Barley sneers at a broad scale of potential idiots, it might even sneer at itself.

The series is skilfully written as in that we all fell in the trap including the writers/creators. The series however is more an accurate observation than a laugh-out-loud comedy. It might have failed in making most people laugh, but in the aftermath it turns out to be a cleverly set-up affair hence all the reactions and discussions between yay- and nay-sayers.

the Nathan Barley effect

2011-05-16T04:12:00.001-07:00

This is effectively throwing someone’s words back into his face and I like it

The truth of this took a sadder turn recently with Brooker’s wrongcast, Nathan Barley, a sitcom he co-wrote with Chris Morris. Charlie Brooker and Chris Morris write a sitcom! How could it possibly go wrong? I don’t know, but it did. It had its moments, but after some of the poorer episodes, to nick yet more of Brooker’s images, I felt like sewing my eyelids shit with fishing wire, slicing the top of my skull off, and scooping the memories out with a spoon. A couple of good gags were stretched out into a complete Bo Selecta of a series. Not completely terrible, and better than most, but when Brooker and Morris get together, anything less than genius is a crushing disappointment.

Source: readysteadybook

Te stolen Brookerism is really funny, especially since it’s this time about him.

the Nathan Barley effect

2011-05-16T03:37:00.000-07:00

The effect of the series, not the effect of the blithering idiots portrayed in the series.

The whole Nathan Barley thing and all the movement around it completely confuses me.

First of all is there the collaboration between Chris Morris and Charlie Brooker. How did they meet? How did that collaboration came about? Unfunny fact is that I already found out by reading the “Chris Morris biography” (I’m not sure I’m allowed to call it that, that’s why I put it in quotations, which seems a weird way to put it). Weirdly, even after reading about how they met and started working together, the fact that Charlie Brooker worked with Chris Morris still boggles my mind. I don’t know why.

Then there are the many negative reactions to the series opposed to the very few but passionate positive reactions. That I understand; it’s just regular online bickering and bitching. Though on the other hand, especially the negative reactions tend to bewilder me beyond comprehension. Here’s one (semi-negative reactions on a possible 2nd series):

Nathan Barley trundles on

According to Media Guardian’s Media Monkey, Chris Morris wants to do a second series of Nathan Barley, which surprises me. What’s not surprising is that Kevin Lygo doesn’t want a second series of Nathan Barley. Who said ratings weren’t important to Channel 4?

Personally, I’d rather have a speedy DVD release of Nathan Barley than a second series.

But Media Monkey continues:

“Just who, exactly did Morris base “self-facilitating media node” Nathan Barley on? Step forward Andrew Newman, a regular collaborator with Morris on the likes of Brass Eye and now head of entertainment at Channel 4.”

I think I saw Andrew Newman on Channel 4’s 50 Greatest Comedy Sketches last night, and he does seem a bit odd. Not necessarily Barley-esque though. That’s all by the by though. You see, Chris Morris didn’t create Nathan Barley. Charlie Brooker created Barley years before Morris got his hands on the character.

Source: doctorvee.co.uk

It’s funny how both authors get things a little wrong. The doctorvee author is correct in noting that Chris Morris didn’t create the Nathan Barley character as such, though he had a big hand in making TV-Nathan Barley the way he turned out in the series. And to say Morris got his hands on the character sounds like he took it off Charlie Brooker’s hands, which he didn’t; they created the TV-series together.

Yes, I know; I’m a pedant.

Just keep reading; as much as it is confusing it’s also funny. Well, I laughed.

More later; Nathan Barley keeps creeping back into my life (like a real cunt/prick/idiot does).

Giant Charlie Brooker Terrifies London

2011-05-03T08:09:00.001-07:00

April 13th, 2011

Breaking News: Minutes ago, Minister of Defence Liam Fox gave a stuttering, panicked statement to the press attempting to allay fears for the safety of Londoners after popular TV commentator and writer Charlie Brooker was reported bursting out of his home, glowing and screaming in pain, before growing to over 450 feet in a matter of seconds and cutting a savage path of destruction across central London.

Nuclear scientist Professor Royston Biggs-Hoson explained that the broadcaster’s long-term viewing history of banal television shows had exposed him to the unprecedented and highly volatile level of gamma radiation, causing a dramatic change to his cell structure. Brooker is currently sleeping in Hyde Park, giving experts a brief respite to assess their options.

“Make no mistake, an irascible pundit of this size could endanger us all,” Mr Fox continued, “but we are doing everything we can to take control of the situation.”

“RAF fighters have been scrambled to keep a presence in the air. We are advising anyone who has appeared on or auditioned for a reality show in the last 10 years to remain in their homes. A cordon of military vehicles is being mobilised around Shoreditch, and the offices of Sky News and Channels 4 and 5 have been evacuated.”

The minister was then barraged with questions about what the government intends to do to resolve the crisis.

“We’re looking into various options and asking for help from our allies in the US and Europe,” he said. “We considered a tranquilizer dart, but there is simply not enough available to subdue him.”

“We’ve been advised that a distracting book might prove an antidote to such damaging levels of gamma exposure – though unfortunately they’re now all too small for him to read. Right now we are assembling a large PA system on a helicopter so that someone can fly by and read him The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.”

As the situation continues to change, the minister had to admit that other TV pundits are also showing alarming levels of radioactivity.

“Currently our worst-case scenario is the same fate befalling Harry Hill, who then storms into Brooker territory to claim supremacy. Who would pose the greater threat? Unfortunately there is only one way we are going to find out.”

Source: the Poke

Speaking My Mind

2011-04-29T03:20:00.001-07:00

My mother has beaten good manners into me when I was a child. A great deal of these rules were communication based. I’m glad to tell you I’ve forgotten most of these lessons and can now delight in pissing people off.

It’s not really I’ve forgotten about those lessons, it’s just that I can’t be bothered. The self-righteousness of those people, those communication experts, those people who do social for the joy of it, they seem to get off on telling me how it looks to other people and how awkward I am communically (communicational and comically combined). As if I don’t know. I had my fair share of communication breakdowns. I’m perfectly aware of my short comings in communication. And now they seem to have infiltrated in my system, I’d like to tell them I can see what they’re doing and I know how I am contributing to it, but that won’t stop me from making a total and complete ass of myself.

The thing is I think I know better than a lot of people about communication and how to do it properly. I do, because I paid attention when I walked into these walls and I pay attention when I do. I’m fully aware of the effect it might have on them, on me, on anyone. It’s not my lack of knowledge about communication that makes me stumble; it’s my disinterest in communicating.

I never liked it for exactly the reason communication goes wrong so often. No matter how well you communicate, people will always have a different interpretation than you have of the matter. That’s not a criticism; it’s just a simple fact. I hate communication, because I’m always entirely sure that what I meant to say will be interpreted differently. I know the differences are often so slight it won’t harm the case, but to me it just almost feels like a waste of energy to try and be as exact as possible.

Yet, I can’t seem to stop being as exact as possible in word. As in non-verbal communication, then my dismay with the whole concept shines through.

And they, them, seem to think I don’t know and keep telling me the things I heard a million times, the things I already know. Knowing doesn’t equal action; those are two different things. There are barriers, problems and objections in place that will keep me from putting the knowing into action. My communication faults have more to do with other problems than me not knowing how to. What you people, communicating people, have to understand is that many a soul has tried to teach me about communicating, I did learn a few things over the years it’s true, but they fail to see the real problem; my lack in confidence of humankind.

"10 O'Clock Live"'s - Future

2011-04-29T01:59:00.000-07:00

evanrobertmarshall says:…

Something else I didn’t really read (Take Us Seriously by Steven Howe on Suit101.com)

chicalolita

"10 O'Clock Live" - the Last Episode

2011-04-28T03:13:00.000-07:00

Tonight will see the last episode of ‘10 O’Clock Live’. It’s been an interesting run if only to read all the criticism and some well meant advice. I’m guessing not many people will miss the show when it’s all over, and I’m guessing not many people are interested in discussing the possibilities for a second series. But looking back at the last few episodes, I think there is a promise we shouldn’t ignore.

It took long for the show to find its feet, if it has in the 15 episodes run at all. From start to finish the makers of the show have been trying things out, moving pieces around and pretty much stumbled to the finish line. It’s unfair to say it has been a total fail; there has been improvement and especially Charlie Brooker and David Mitchell have grown into their roles of live presenters.

You’d also think they must have learned something over the course of 15 weeks. It would be a waste of all that knowledge to evaporate. Also, a new series gives the opportunity to rebuild the show considerably giving it a new start. Maybe a personnel change could help too. They get almost a whole year to research and tweak the concept. Or for the first few months give it a rest and then return to look at it with fresh views.

Even though there are many reasons to not commission ‘10 O’Clock Live’ a second series, there are also a lot of reasons to commission a second series. If a second series is commissioned, a lot of work needs to be done, but it could grow out to be something good.

Looking back at the passed 14 weeks we saw a few things:
 What does the show want to be? A discussion program, a commentady (commentary/comedy) show or a sketch show?
 BTW, the sketches; what’s up with that?
 Why are they trying to cover the whole world every week; there are too many items in there? I don’t think we were ever granted the opportunity to enjoy a conclusive discussion, or to breathe at all.
 What’s the point of Lauren Laverne?
 It’s a lefty, Guardian writers and readers fest.
 And it’s not really a full fletched laugh out loud show, is it?

Improvements over the weeks:
 Charlie Brooker.
 David Mitchell is growing into his role of interviewer, be it very slowly.
 They shut up the audiences for an important great deal of the show.
 Charlie Brooker and David Mitchell have found their feet in the live format of the show; they’re less nervous than they used to be, or they now just think ‘Bollocks to them all’.

We’re still missing:
 A nice pace, especially for the interviews;
 Edgy comedy or if you will satire;
 The promised unashamed intelligence;
 A team that work well Together.

To conclude my ‘10 O’Clock Live’ rants series (I don’t think I will write a review for this evening’s show unless something remarkable happens which I don’t expect) I want to do a last rating of the presenters:
1. Charlie Brooker, because he’s the one who grew into it considerably and offers the most thought provoking and funny material.
2. David Mitchell, because he’s been from the start the most consistent even though his growth isn’t as notable as CB’s.
3. Jimmy Carr, because he sometimes says something intelligent at the table and he did at least 1 or 2 funny sketches, though overall he’s been sort of insufferable.
4. Lauren Laverne; just lost in translation. Such a shame.

Dig

2011-04-20T05:00:00.000-07:00

Lately, I've been obediently obsessively trying to find out how Charlie Brooker got to work with Chris Morris (and even ends up being quoted in the closest thing that can be called a Chris Morris biography).

This blog is not about that, but rather about misconceptions and misperceptions easily made, observed and put down rather crudely:

Chris Morris a clown? Davina McCall a good sport and, what's more, "incredibly nice"? Brooker is definitely losing it.

Source: Scotland on Sunday's Brooker Prize guy - Charlie Brooker interview.

Or maybe the writer's perceptions of this world aren't as accurate as he (check: can't quite tell if it's a boy or a girl) thought.

"10 O'Clock Live" - General Progress

2011-04-15T01:45:00.001-07:00

What number episode was it last night, 13? I must admit that I’m not following very strictly anymore. I do remember every Friday to read up on what happened and so far every week at least something happened that made me make a note to find the episode online and watch it, though I have to admit that I’m now 2 episodes behind (that’s including last night’s episode).

It seems I’m not the only one who ran out of steam concerning well meant analysis and advice. At the start of the run and 3 weeks in, there was so much to read I could easily fill a whole Friday reading up. There was also a lot to say about it, because everything they tried to do was new to them and for us, with our viewer excellence, expertise, knowledge and experience, a good reason to dump a shit-load of advice on them. After a good 10 weeks, after only minor improvements, there’s nothing new to say; you can only repeat so many times. Besides that, most people have lost interest and stopped watching all together.

Even though the show seems weaker than many a soul expected it to be, it’s been a run with fair quality, maybe even enough to have a 2nd series commissioned. I certainly hope a 2nd series will get commissioned, if only to give it the chance to let it mature. You’d think after 1 season they now have the experience under their belt to make it better, though that’s what we’ve been thinking after the 10th week as well. Just keep in mind it took ‘the Daily Show’ a few years to properly settle in as well. Maybe a change of personnel good do some good.

Two more weeks to go (I just counted and I was right; last night’s was episode 13) and then we and they will have about 7 months to breath and reflect.

And on....

2011-04-04T04:46:00.000-07:00

By now you, reader, should have caught up on how I stumble upon new interests, usually in the entertainment business. I go from one person to another, most of the times linked in some way. The link only needs to exist; there’s no need for a close relationship between the two different persons for me to jump bandwagon. For instance, I got deeply interested in Alan Rickman, because John Sessions did a stellar AR-impression and AR was in ‘Truly, Madly , Deeply’. I came to watch that specific QI-episode because someone posted a link on the Dutch Jason Mraz forum. That’s how I jumped from Mraz to Rickman.

It happened again. My latest interest flow has been an incredible rollercoaster ride. I went very quickly from Alan Rickman to David Mitchell with a Steve Coogan impromptu to Charlie Brooker to Chris Morris with more Steve Coogan impromptu’s. It’s been a hot ride.

I was talking about how links were made. This particular jump from CB to CM has been an interesting and mind blowing one. Let’s just say that yesterday evening I spent a great deal of my evening (the whole evening) watching the first series of ‘the IT crowd’ in parts and bits and in every break from clip to clip I thought: “Fuck that’s hot,” referencing to the CB/CM link and had not that much to do with ‘the IT crowd’ even though I did develop a bit of a crush on Katherine Parkinson who plays Jen Barber the Relations Manager.

But that’s beside the point.

Just so you know how my mind has been boiling, I watched 5 episodes (1 I couldn’t find) in clips no longer than 2,5 minutes which results in every episode being watched in separate 10 mini clipped sessions. In between every clip I thought the above mentioned which resulted in me thinking “Fuck, that’s hot!” 50 times. Remember the link CB/CM. Yes, that.

I’m not even sure where in my brain things go wrong. Neither CB nor CM really attracts me physically. I can’t even point a finger on the reason why I think that or feel that way about, in this case, CM. Big difference, by the way, is that with CB I wasn’t even bothered about it. I always thought ‘that’s how it is, deal with it’. I can’t approach it like that with CM for some strange reason.

In some strange way it’s those long limbs. Or the slick back combed hair with stubborn curlies in his neck. Or the sneery, insisting bossy way of interviewing. Or the dominant bullying way of treating people. Or the absurd way of pushing people’s faces in stupidity. Or his arrogant I’m-above-you intellectual way of rubbing people the wrong way. Or the fact that all this is just an act in the name of comedy.

“Fuck, that’s hot!”

Now I come to think of it, the reason why I think the same about CB is shrouded in even thicker mists. CB has no long limbs. CB’s sneering tends to be more superficial. CB is actually quite a nice person. CB tends to be a bit lazy and single focused. CB’s sneering only carries that far. CB’s work is not as edgy as CM’s though he makes up in absurdness.

CB does have interesting hair with a life on its own though. Only his hair waves on top of his head prominently present instead of being slicked down in a vague attempt to rule it except for some mutiny in the neck. His hair is mutiny all over and he’s not even trying to rule it in.

That’s hot in a whole different way.

Maybe it has something to do with curlies. Jason Mraz had curlies. When his unruly hair grew a bit long it tended to curl up in his neck. Lovely. Steve Coogan has curly hair which supplied him with some pretty shoulder length curly wurly. It’s his face mainly though; those eyes and that utterly helpless look which makes his mouth drop open in a slight ‘oh’. Or that annoyed look with the pursed lips. And then we have a CM/SC link.

I love the scene from ‘the Day Today’ in which CM asks SC’s alter-ego Alan Partridge something to which AP guesses an answer. Don’t ever guess an answer around CM, cause he will call you out on it. AP gets seriously flustered and does that helpless look not knowing how to react or how to move away from that situation.

And there’s the scene in which CM, after announcing AP, throws a ball at AP and hits him in the neck causing AP to get annoyed (cue narrowing eyes and pursing lips) and straining to move on with his announcement. SC can pull brilliant faces. But what hit me as brilliant about it is that you know AP has the ability to go off in immature annoyance and behaviour, but he will think twice of doing that in front of CM.

Oh, hold on, I think I love Steve Coogan too. Hello impromptu!

Anyway, had to get that off my chest.

:-O

2011-03-31T06:29:00.000-07:00

This is disturbing: Comedy Chippendale Dance

Bit O Rant-O-Rant (13 Minutes Rant)

2011-03-28T07:41:00.000-07:00

…because it’s Monday....and because I haven't done a '13 Minutes Rant for 2 years'.

Some comment on some article about Keith Allen (Lily’s daddy) slagging off Charlie Brooker. Utter uselessness, so I won’t go in on that.
Under the article is a comment I like to react to:

”i quite like some of charlie brookers stuff like newswipe etc tho too be fair,Chris Morris got there 1st with Brass eye & the day today.”

Quoted with bad punctuation and all.

First of all, apparently, Charlie Brooker is not worth being written with first capital letters, but Chris Morris is. Ah, well…

The point this person is making (or trying to make) is completely lost on me. We know Chris Morris was there first; what’s your point? Because Chris Morris was there first Charlie Brooker is not allowed to do it? Strange logic which if we apply it to the rest of life on earth would mean not many people should be allowed to do anything anymore, because most things most people do on a daily basis has been done by others.

Even if the point is that what Charlie Brooker does has already been done BETTER by Chris Morris, then I’m still mystified about the point. So what? Because Chris Morris did it already and did it better doesn’t mean Charlie Brooker can’t do it anymore. Even applying this theory would lay still most of life.

What exactly is this commentator trying to say?

The rest of the comment doesn’t clarify anything to me either. The only thing I’m getting from it is that this person is not a big fan of CB, prefers CM, and thinks Lily Allen made a credible addition to pop music. I don’t think that was what the article was about.

Source: Radio Times article

a Walking Contradiction

2011-03-28T04:03:00.000-07:00

There’s another issue concerning an item in ’10 O’Clock Live’ I think I should address, if only to stay consistent with what I said a few blogs ago. It’s just that I grew so tired with tackling this issue that I didn’t really feel like it.

Anyway, one(!) of Brooker’s monologues was about the whole Twitter/Rebecca Black debacle. His monologue took a turn scowling at the tweeters who left negative comments on Black’s twitter feed. Brooker seems to think those people work in Burger King (stores) and are scum. Ewww, what a contradictions.

If I read right Mr. Brooker himself worked most of his twenties in stores. If he hadn’t been lucky he would probably still working in stores. Working in computer store is hardly any better than working in a Burger King, if it is at all. Also, wasn’t he a paid critic who spew quite a bit of bile about all kind of programs and other stuff in a fucking nationally published paper off and online?

Maybe he has seen the light (which I doubt)?

I think it’s now my turn to receive some hate mail/posts.

His column about it is nice though: my Monday Happiness disguised as a column by Charlie Brooker for the Guardian, somewhat...

Reminds me, I have a Twitter account.

"10 O'Clock Live" - Response to Mr. Smith

2011-03-28T03:37:00.000-07:00

I have to address this, because this is too funny to ignore it.

1. BCG
2. Chortle
3. There’s also an article on Digital Spy which I cannot access at work.

First it is admitted that all means, illegal viewing maybe too, have to be included to be able to say a reasonable amount of viewers watch the show. I can tell you why we don’t watch it live; because we can’t be bothered.

Then it is said that’s the reason why the show is broadcast live. My belly aches from laughing and my cheeks are wet with tears. Yes, Mr. Smith, it’s very exciting to watch them stumble and fluffing lines and the spontaneity, especially of the fucking audience, is very much appreciated. I really wanted to see on a weekly basis all the bits, which in a pre-record get cut out for good reasons. It’s such a shame most of the spontaneity makes me and a lot of other people cringe beyond reason. And I’m not even watching it live. What’s the point?

Can you imagine how cheated I feel? I'm watching a recorded piece and it's shit. Exaggerating here

"10 O'Clock Live" - Response to Review

2011-03-28T03:21:00.000-07:00

Read this piece first before reading the text below.

It’s funny how different people have different views of the same thing. This is the first time though, I found someone thinking this was becoming ‘the Charlie Brooker’ show. Most criticisms have been that there’s not nearly enough Charlie Brooker. I don’t agree with either.

Charlie’s contributions have not been more or less than that it is now. Charlie’s contributions haven’t been more or less than the contributions from the others, except for Laverne’s. I think it’s also not fair to say that Charlie’s contributions have been more (or less) in quality compared to the others. When Charlie’s on about technical stuff like the Ipad or Twitter, he’s spot on. He’s not so much spot on when it comes to pure political analysis; that seems to be more David Mitchell’s area and sometimes Jimmy Carr says something sensible. (I’m just completely going to ignore Laverne for now).

David Mitchell, even though not a natural interviewer, has been quality wise quite strong. He’s learning too (Why do I seem to be the only one who sees that?). He stepped out of his comfort zone to do something new; Charlie hasn’t. He doesn’t even seem to be attempting to. Even Carr has stepped out of his comfort zone with doing these sketches (which I still absolutely hate, though I feel it is getting a bit better).

I don’t think this is turning into ‘the Charlie Brooker’ show. I also suspect that after Charlie did his thing, he mentally logs off. Around the table Laverne has to drag him into the discussions which usually only seem to go on between Mitchell and Carr. Even when they’re doing the headlines for the next days Laverne has to poke him in the ribs to lift up his cardboard fake of a front page. A few times she even lunged, grabbed and held the cardboard up herself (which made me laugh, to be honest).

Charlie Brooker is not naturally interested in politics and it shows, very clearly (lazily leaning cheek/chin in hand while not participating in discussions). That’s why ‘10 O’Clock Live’ will never turn into ‘the Charlie Brooker’ show as long it wants to be a ‘current affairs’ show.

Also people have to really use the correct name; it's '10 O'Clock LIVE', not the '10 O'Clock show'. Or are they trying to tell the producers of the show something?

the New Era of Wars

2011-03-28T02:58:00.000-07:00

Today is a typical Monday.

It’s quiet in the office. Not because people stayed out of the office to enjoy the first sunny days of the years. They’re all here. They’re all silently typing and clicking away on keyboards and mice (does this plural also go for the technical devices we click away many an hours with?). Even though the first spring sun is happily out and about, the faces in here are characteristically down with concentration and the typical Monday blues. It’s good in a way; I tend to get things done on a Monday.

Last weekend I filled most of my days with lazing, cleaning and revising. I’ve been catching up on “10 O’Clock Live”; I’ve got a handwritten piece waiting. I’ve resumed reading the book I bought during my last visit to England; ‘In Europe’ that handles about 20th century Europe. I’ve been taking in a lot of politics; Second World War and the whole mess in Libya and other Arabian countries. I’ve been thinking about the new era in which wars are fought from a new angle. Europe is still almost constantly at war, just not on their own grounds. I can see how people see that as ‘meddling’.

I think we are learning be it quite slow. What do you expect? Human kind is not known for their rapid understanding and planning in new situations. We learn through faults, mistakes and personal dramas. We learn through genocide, fuck ups and economical collapses. We only move our arses when we think we have something to lose or something to gain. We usually don’t see the bigger picture.

I am all for the UN intervention in Libya. Maybe not in the form it worked out, but I can see some progress. I remember, vaguely Kosovo. I definitely remember Afghanistan and in a less involved way Iraque. I remember Sarkozy’s tactic for the Libya situation. You can say a lot about this mission, but he had the latest interventions lodged in his head when he called on the various partners to intervent in Libya. He said: “We’re not going in by forcing our way in shooting. We’re not going in to overthrow Gadaffi; we’re going in to protect the Libyan people, but we will not intervene further in the Libyan politics.” That sounds sensible enough.

The question is where to draw the line. If you see a fight in the street, are you going in with your fists clenched and ready to hit, or are those fists only to protect the attacked? When does hitting someone become supporting one party or self defence? Or are we going to stand aside, maybe call the police, but do nothing further?

In my mind only watching what was happening in Libya was never an option. You can’t stand aside watching, shrugging and moving on with your life while someone else, innocent, is being beaten senseless. How do you protect someone? By taking away the stick they were hitting with and then watch how it becomes a fist fight? Can you step in just standing there merely only being an obstacle? When is it all right to step in?

I lost sight a bit of what is happening in Libya. I think the UN is only shooting and bombing artillery of Gadaffi. The actual fighting between Gadaffi’s troops and the rebels is left to these two parties. The only thing I read about it in a paper is that some people think UN soldiers have given weapons to the rebels. This was denied by an UN spokes person.

I’m still all for the intervention, but I am also dubious about it, like so many people, because at some point it does become ‘meddling’ if we do too much. When is it too much? You don’t want something like Srebrenica happening again. Dutchbat, the Dutch troops, witness thousands of people being captured and killed under the term ‘ethnic cleansings’. So they should have stepped in? But what if they did and shot a few people? Then that would have been called ‘meddling’?

It’s a fine line to tread. It’s the new era of wars. As soon we get the hang of it, we’ll be entering a new era again. Maybe at this rate we might achieve world peace in 3384, if the world still exists, that is.

Charlie Brooker - the Product

2011-03-23T09:31:00.001-07:00

Little children will grow up and some will be big and successful. I have to admit I tend to be attracted by people who are still doing their thing in a dark corner, or who at least don’t attract as much attention as other more ‘successful’ colleagues. Jason Mraz before he became big. Things got a bit crowded and weird when he was suddenly Mr. I’m Yours. That’s all good; he deserved all that success, but it made me feel a little uncomfortable.

And now Charlie Brooker. I was late to the party, yes. The reason I was attracted to him (his work, really) was that he was quietly doing his thing in a corner of entertainment during his Screen-, News- and Gameswipe period and earlier. He was genuinely observant, witty and brutally honest. He hardly had to adhere to boundaries, because hardly anyone (sensitive) was paying attention to him. I loved that; it can’t get more real and true than that. Now he’s Mr. Big Shot and I’m a little lost.

These days his words are quoted as if he’s a prophet. These days people feel he has a lot to answer for. People also feel he became too main stream. Charlie Brooker is no longer an individual doing his thing in a dark corner hardly being heard or seen by anyone. No, Charlie Brooker is now public property, property which anyone who feels like it can piss over or put on a pedestal. Whatever you like, because Charlie Brooker became a product.

I don’t quite understand people saying he’s got a lot to answer for. For instance the Zeppotron productions like ‘8 Out of 10 Cats’. He’s not Zeppotron, he’s only one of the founders. He doesn’t even run Zeppotron, he’s only one part of it. You can’t expect him to answer for the mess other people within Zeppotron make. The only Zeppotron production he’s in that makes me frown and grimace is ‘10 O’Clock Live’ and even there, he’s not the only one working on that show and his pieces, even though a bit shallower than I would like them to be, were quite good. All other Zeppotron productions his name bear were at least of a reasonable level of quality. So that shouldn’t be the reason he has to answer for anything. What is? I have no idea.

Then his work opposed to his marriage. I still haven’t worked out what the 2 have to do with each other except that Charlie’s involved in it and in some points Konnie was and still is. Except from that, we’re talking about two different things. And like I said before in another post, Charlie is not responsible for Konnie’s work. That he’s married doesn’t mean he can’t say anymore some show is shit; it’s just probably not the best thing to do.
Also the fact that Charlie bites the hand that’s feeding him is not entirely true. I’m still convinced that Charlie was only bitching about certain shows because of his love for the medium TV, and those shows should have been better or hidden in a closet behind some old stuff that’s never get used anymore.

The whole discussion about his hair. What the hell is that all about!? What does his hair have to do with anything of his work? Charlie Brooker never was a looker. Charlie Brooker will probably never be a looker. Charlie Brooker was never and shall never be promoted as a looker, because that’s not the point of his work. His hair, being a part of his looks, is of no importance. Can we now stop talking about his hair?

And finally the Charlie Brooker lovers. I am one, I confess that readily. I will not however, put him on a pedestal. If he screws up, I will be one of the first to point that out, as I have in the past. Yes, Charlie said things that sounded fairly true, but so have wiser men than Charlie, more often than Charlie about subjects that really matter. Charlie’s not stupid, no, but he’s not the wise, half-god prophet some people seem to hold him for. He’s just another man who appears on TV quite a bit (much) lately. That’s all fine and he deserved all the success, but let’s not overreact; there’s no need, really.

I realize I sound a bit angry in this piece. I am not. I am actually quite amused. I am also very confused, but still more amused than confused.

"10 O'Clock Live" - Some Praise...

2011-03-22T04:51:00.000-07:00

Ironically, this here article goes to show how '10 O'Clock Live' attracts the young(ish) people with no brain cells.

To be fair, I can't directly reference dumbness from this writer's piece. It's just unfortunate she recognizes smartness and intelligence where it's only available in sparse quantities. This in contrary to her not recognizing why most people don't like '10 O'Clock Live' me included. If they want my attention, I need more substance and with substance I mean political observations and analysis, not just what people look like.

Nobody Really Cares

2011-03-21T03:45:00.000-07:00

How much do we really know about Libya?

This is an important question since everybody seems to have an opinion about what is or is not happening in Libya at the moment and since justifications for military interventions are now based on what we think we know.

Last weekend a resolution for a no-fly zone over Libya has been agreed on. It is said it’s agreed on to protect the Libyan people from Gadaffi’s army. That is what the European leaders say. That was what some Arabian partners agreed on. That’s not entirely what people believe is happening. Some of the Arabian partners have protested against the military actions executed over the weekend, or so they reported. Also China is now protesting against the current actions.

How can we really know? Some journalists are there in Benghazi, but they’re known for seeking sensation. Some people opposing Gadaffi say they’re attacked by Gadaffi’s army, but of course they would. Some people supporting Gadaffi say the bombs that killed are the European bombs, but of course they would.

By now I’m a bit mystified by all that’s happening, that is said and reported and justified in all kind of ways. I’m also not that sure about the intentions from any party involved in this mess. As usual everybody is covering up. Or that is my suspicion.

Nobody really cares about the well being of the people suffering. Gadaffi just wants his power. Europe just wants to make sure they can suck out all the oil. Russia just wants to keep selling weapons to Libya. And the Arabian countries as well as China are working on their image problems.

Maybe it’s only the people on the streets who care a little, but we are all ill-informed, lied to and deceived. And in the end, this evening we’ll be sitting eating our diner and watching the news while shaking our heads and maybe our fists, but nobody is really sure what to say or do. So we’ll zap to our favourite soap opera or panel show and forget so we can sleep in ignorant bliss again.

OMG I Found Something!!!

2011-03-18T08:53:00.000-07:00

I love searching for collecter items. This is a Charlie Brooker one:

And this one:

Meat Market of Sorts...

2011-03-18T04:19:00.000-07:00

Feel like browsing on a meat market? Yeah? Okay, go here.

It's actually a very noble kinda market. Please bid for I can't.

"10 O'Clock Live" - Last Advice

2011-03-18T03:48:00.000-07:00

This is the last advice I’m going to write to/about ‘10 O’Clock Live’.

Pre-record the show and take your cut advantages. Let Charlie Brooker do another series of Newswipe, Lauren Laverne present some straight faced show and Jimmy Carr whatever else he can screw up I won’t be able to watch and let David Mitchell tackle the news on his own maybe with contributions from others. He can still do his interviews, but he has to learn to do interviews more impartial and let the interviewees actually talk. He has to learn what a more professional approach of interviewing is. And also give the show a different name and get rid of this damn awful audience.

In short dump this pathetic foetus of an abortion and try to develop something that might live up to the expectations you created for this show.

And please stop tormenting us.

Stop the Ridiculous Accusations

2011-03-14T08:11:00.001-07:00

Normally I don’t take notice of people stating that someone doesn’t have the right anymore to say or do something, because he married someone. Yes, of course I’m talking Brooker/Huq again, but the inconsistencies and the strange way of measurement is starting to really piss me off.

This is a many heard statement: “Charlie doesn’t have the right anymore to mock dodgy presenters, cause he’s married one.”

What? Why not? I don’t think Charlie married Konnie because she’s such a fine/dodgy presenter. I think more personal reasons lead to their marriage. This is like being rejected from a job in a fish store because your partner is not a very good fisher(wo)man. Or like you’re not allowed to talk about crosswords, because your partner sucks at solving them. Or like you’re not allowed to talk about people who don’t know anything about computers, because your partner is one of them. That is bullshit!

Maybe he doesn’t have the right, because he became a dodgy presenter himself, but not because he married Konnie Huq. He’s not responsible for her behaviour, because that Mss. Huq still is herself.

I like to point out that a work relationship is not the same as a marriage. I don’t think Konnie stands besides the bed with a mic in her hand when Charlie wakes up in the morning telling him he’s watching his own marriage and today is going to be a fine day because Konnie is horny and in for experimentation, but first, breakfast.

Sure he still has the right to mock dodgy presenters, it’s just not very smart since if he wants to remain fair he, at some point, has to mock his own wife. That can be tricky.

Charlie doesn’t owe us anything except maybe the gratitude we did read and watch his work. He doesn’t owe us new work, or work in the same vain. What he wants to do in his career is his own choice and not ours. What he wants to do in his private life is completely his own choice and none of our business. Nor does his private life hold a relation to his work unless he decides to televise his marriage to Konnie which so far I don’t think he has.

Judging Charlie’s work on how his marriage goes or who he’s married to is not only unfair, but also wrong, because his marriage doesn’t represent his work. Konnie doesn’t represent his work. Charlie is not responsible for Konnie’s work. And their marriage is a different subject all together.

If you want to blame any poor quality in his work to anything, blame it to his hair. His hair has proven to be distracting.

Maybe It's Because They're Stuck on an Island?

2011-03-14T02:54:00.000-07:00

This is rather scary: Dim Brits think TARDIS IS REAL

24 Panel People and a bit of 10 O'Clock Live

2011-03-08T01:00:00.000-08:00

Last weekend I spend a great deal watching the live internet feed of 24 Panel People for Red Nose day. David Walliams set up to stay up for 24 hours playing old and current panel shows. I'm not a big fan of David Walliams. I do love watching a panel show. For me 24 hours of panel show fun, setting up new stages and warming up the audience included, was a treat to me. Yesterday I calculated I watched nearly 15 hours of the telethon.

The whole event wasn't exactly advertised very well. I found out by chance, because I was doing my 10 O'Clock Live preresearch. At work I checked if I could watch it, but I got the regular 'this is not available in your area' notification. Thanks for that. This meant, on Saturday, I was watching old episodes of WILTY (Would I Lie To You) eefectively missing the start of the telethon with, you guessed it, yes David Walliams, d'oh! I was actually going to say WILTY. I was gutted when I found out, even though the schedules told me that wasn't what happened, but I happened to know that it did happened. I was quickly distracted by the somewhat underwhelming appearance of Charlie Brooker on It's Only TV.

Catching up with the last episode of 10 O'Clock Live was pushed back to Sunday evening. Overall a level we grew used to in this show. I've already forgotten what happened, and I even tried rewatching it yesterday, but I fell asleep and now I still don't remember what happened.

Anyway, the whole purpose of this blog is to end up here, at the end of the blog to direct you to this link and say: "Imagine being not quite awake at work behind your desk wondering and dreading the things you have to do that day and being confronted by this head." I love Charlie Brooker, but seeing his name popping up everywhere makes me think: "When did he become all Mister Big Shot?" Somehow it seems weird and he seems out of place. Can't stop loving him though, which is quite annoying.

Oh, btw, How TV Ruined Your Life tonight on BBC2.

"10 O'Clock Live" - an alternative (comedy) view

2011-02-25T06:26:00.000-08:00

I wish they at least do the round table pieces like described in this alternative (comedy) view.

I pasted the whole thing here, because I don't want to lose it to corrupt links:

Lauren Laverne: It's 10 o'clock. We're live on Channel 4. Welcome to 10 o'Clock Live! This is one of the few times you'll see me this evening, so make the most of it. Get a load of my funky outfit and check out what hair and make-up have done with my look tonight!

(Cue opening credits)

LL, DAVID MITCHELL, CHARLIE BROOKER and JIMMY CARR sitting round a table, looking uncomfortable

LL: Well guys, this is the bit where you talk about all the exciting things you'll be doing tonight, and I try not to look like a spare part.

CB: I'll tell you which news item of the week I'll be having a rant about in a carefully pre-prepared segment. Actually, I could be saying burble, bibble, booble right now and you wouldn't care. You're just wondering if my quiff is higher or lower than last week, aren't you?

JC: I'll make a nervous joke because you big bullies make me go first every week and my nerves are shredded.

DM: I'm the only one of us the producers actually trust with hard news, so yet again this week I'll be talking to some Mildly Important People about Very Important Issues and getting cut off just as things get interesting.

LL: I'm off to fetch you hard-working men some tea and biscuits! Here's Jimmy with a review of the news.

JC: Yes, this is the part of the show people on Twitter love to slag off because some of the news I review is more than 24 hours old. Nobody ever says that about the BBC's "special reports", do they? Anyway, these are the stories I can be funny about. So long as I don't get too nervous and screw up my timing, that is. And so long as the audience aren't too dense or too liberal to leave big, awkward silences after the dodgier cracks. David.

DM: Thanks, Jimmy. (Clears throat) And welcome to the studio, Mildly Important Person. I'm now going to ask you a series of questions the producers have written down for me on cue cards. Which is a bit of a pain, to be honest, because it means everyone at home can see my hands trembling, so they and you know how nervous I am. (Clears throat) Also, things go so much better when I put the cards down and interject with a thought of my own. Oh, sorry, we've got to leave it there. It's time for a vaguely amusing sketch before the interval.

(Vaguely amusing sketch; during which LL brings the boys refreshments and introduces the ad break)

CB: (Waves unenthusiastically) Hello. This week, something really funny, odd and/or offensive happened. I'm here to tell you, in much the same acerbic style as my acerbic newspaper columns and acerbic TV shows, how that thing is just the tip of a hyperbolic iceberg! And now, it's time for Listen to Mitchell!

DM: I love this bit. It's just like my iPhone app, David Mitchell's Soapbox, so it's the one part of the show where I don't look like a deer caught in headlights. I get to perch on a stool and have a bit of a rant. Which is just what the audience needs after Charlie's rant. Jimmy.

JC: I also have a degree from Cambridge but I only get to interview sweet, decent, second-string guests and make fun of what they say. Well, there's no point in taking any of it seriously, is there? As soon as a guest makes a hint of a challenging statement, we have to cut to one of those excruciating sketches the producers are hell-bent on shoehorning in. Speaking of which, here's a sketch that's marginally less funny than the last one - this time starring Lauren Laverne! Well, she's being paid, she might as well do something…

(Marginally less funny sketch starring Lauren Laverne; ad break)

DM: (Clears throat) Welcome back. Joining me to discuss one of the Major Issues of the day are a Tory, a non-Tory and a token woman. No, not Lauren Laverne. Though I see what you did there. (Clears throat) Mr Tory, give us your opinion of the Major Issue, please.

TORY: Good evening. My take on all this is…

LIBERAL AUDIENCE: Boo! Hiss! (Mocking laughter)

NON-TORY: I completely disagree with everything you just said. Including "Good evening."

LIBERAL AUDIENCE: (Liberal applause)

TORY: But I didn't get to say anyth-

LIBERAL AUDIENCE: Boo! Hiss!

DM: Token woman, would you like to have your say before a pundit gets lynched or the floor manager tells us we have to "leave it there"? Oh, I'm sorry. We have to leave it there. Time for one more sketch before we go. Come on, people, don't groan. The hour's nearly up.

Final sketch (we hope)

LL, CB, DM and JC sitting round a table, looking relieved

LL: So, why don't you clever boys tell me how work was?

JC: Well, I hope some of the jokes I told tonight made some of my Twitter haters laugh. Even if they'll never admit it.

CB: I think I might have pulled my over-exaggeration muscle.

DM: I have a nice, middle-of-the-road opinion on today's Major Issue. Oh, why can't people just take the time to talk, and then listen to each other? The world would be -

LL: I'm sorry, David, I have to stop you there. And I'm afraid the extra three seconds we gave you to wind up your interview with the Mildly Important Person means we've no time to preview tomorrow's front pages. Tune in next week to see if we've ditched those godawful sketches, if David can get through an intro without clearing his throat, and if the producers finally find something useful for me to do. Good night, everyone!

(Cue closing credits)

"10 O'Clock Live" - Ed Miliband / Peep Show Piece

2011-02-25T02:20:00.000-08:00

The f-yeah-CB site is quick; they already have the piece up. Yeah, was funny; I cracked a smile.

I'll see if I can find a YT-vid for it.

*A few seconds later* Nope,nope, no such luck.

"10 O'Clock Live" - Episode 6

2011-02-25T02:05:00.001-08:00

You might have noticed I didn’t do a preview, but if you insist on reading a preview, still, you can go here. I can tell you, you’re not going to get a Twitter review from me. Yesterday around “10 O’Clock Live” time, I went to bed and played a game or two on my mobile phone.

I did however read up this morning, just to check how the show yesterday was received. So far just dark clouds and a bit of rain. Sure no sunshine. Apparently, yesterday was not much good, like last week’s show. Episode 5 (from last week), I didn’t even find in the usual places giving me the impression most people have given up on the show. I’m afraid it’ll go the same for episode 6.

The only review you can find is the Metro review. All the others have given up. Even talk on the forums are slowly drying up. Most discussion can be found on CaB and some on the BCG forum.

By the sounds of it, they narrowed their demographic down to 18-25; that’s definitely not me. I think from now on I will rest happily in my bed when the show is on. Not caring at the ill executed half-baked jokes they unashamedly dare call intelligent. I just don’t feel the need to get disappointed any more.

I will try to find the Miliband/Peep show piece. From what I read, that was ‘ace’.

'LUCKY CHUCK FUCKS MUCKY HUQ'

2011-02-23T08:01:00.000-08:00

I love this forum. The title of this blog is a quote from the forum.

Now I feel obliged to check out Chris Morris' work propperly. I feel like an incredible git for not having done that yet.

"10 O'Clock Live" - Sexism?

2011-02-23T05:42:00.001-08:00

The article given as a source for this blog tickled my fingers to explain why all the criticism isn’t sexist, but a reflection on how she has handled her role within the team.

What I think happens here is that the program makers felt that next to all the testosterone and comedy skills they needed 1) a female and 2) someone with actual presenting (live) shows skills. They figured it would be easiest to find a female with said skills; as it were a 2 in 1. That left them with the problem that she wasn’t as “funny” as the males, that she was female and that they didn’t quite know how they wanted to apply her skills to the overly comedy format. As with a lot of things, Laverne’s involvement of the show and how she is perceived has to suffer under the sum of the mentioned problems.

I have to explain, the ‘being a female’ problem has not much to do with misconceptions that females are more stupid or less “funny” and less skilled than males, but rather that the question of sexism and the phrase ‘token female’ would soon raise its ugly heads.

They really tried to give Laverne a good sensible and fleshed out part in the show. It turned out she wasn’t very funny. It turned out she wasn’t as quick and witty as the guys and she had trouble with the delivery overall, which I think has much to do with the pressure of the word ‘comedy’; Laverne seems to feel the pressure to be moderately funny. Maybe if she stops trying so desperately, she might actually make an impression; not as a funny person, but with the skills she obviously has. Her contributions so far haven’t given any reason to extent her contributions to the show.

Even the criticism I read from reviewers and bloggers alike; the point of Laverne is missed. What was missed was a clear role for Laverne. With the missing of that clear role, her skills drowned in the things she wasn’t very good at. That didn’t reflect well on her. It had not much to do with sexism, because we really wanted her to do well.

In some cases it might have been a bit of sexism, of a perceived and expected sexism, because that is what we tend to expect, isn’t it? The combination of Laverne with the gentlemen was always an odd one. It didn’t help the perception she was only there to be pretty. I think if someone else, maybe less attractive and funnier, the question of sexism wouldn’t have been raised by so many. Keeping that in mind, it does look like sexism in Laverne’s case, but is it really? I’ve seen the question raised more often than the statement; “Is Lauren Laverne the token girl?”

It’s not to say the failing of the show so far has been her fault entirely; it hasn’t. She didn’t help to raise the bar though. When we compare her contributions to the ones of the gentlemen we can safely say David Mitchell has a clear and strong contribution, as has Charlie Brooker in a lesser extent. It is also noted that Jimmy Carr’s contribution hasn’t been very successful, but he did make a few ‘ok’ jokes and a few good points around the table during discussions. Laverne has not done any of that. Not because she’s the token female, but because she simply hasn’t, whatever the reasons.

I still come away with the impression she’s a fairly intelligent person with good presentation skills. I have these impressions because of what people have said about her online. Many people have said that. That doesn’t sound like sexism, does it?
Of course there have been people making sexist remarks, but you’ll always have those, especially on a medium that is as open as the Internet. But to say most criticism towards Laverne has been sexist, I think is not true.

Though I agree, describing Lauren Laverne as ‘the token woman’ isn’t very good journalism, but so far she hasn’t done anything to get rid of that title. A lot of us just expected more from her.

Source: Sexism in Disguise?

"10 O'Clock Live" vs "De Wereld Draait Door"

2011-02-22T11:25:00.000-08:00

Today I tuned in to one of my favourite Dutch programs and I realized they are actually doing what those Brits with the "10 O'Clock Live" show are trying to do. "De Wereld Draait Door" or in short DWDD is a Dutch current affairs program that goes out every work day and is live for 45 minutes, and has been very succesful for the last nearly 10 years. They're not suffering from most of the stuff "10 O'Clock Live" suffers from. They're entertaining, amusing, informative and actually intelligent. The only thing they do also suffer from is the main left wing leaning. Still, though not as annyong as on "10 O'Clock Live".

I'd like to suggest the "10 O'Clock Live" makers should take a look at that. It might give them ideas. I'm even willing to translate.

DWDD's wiki page. The page is in Dutch, but once again, I am willing to translate. And the official website.

"10 O'Clock Live" - Episode 5 Review

2011-02-21T10:58:00.000-08:00

Nope nope, I definately lost some interest in '10 O'Clock Live'. This afternoon I decided I should watch episode 5 again to form a full opinion of my own. Concentration wise I managed to get through Jimmy Carr's News round; then I lost concentration.

I can say a few things concerning the News round. Jimmy Carr seemed even less comfortable and confident about his round this week. He stumbled through the jokes. He allowed too long pauses waiting for laughs that didn't come and even tried egging the audience on to laugh after almost every failed joke. I'm guessing the reason the audience wasn't laughing was because the jokes weren't funny and not even remotely smart.

Then on to Charlie Brooker's (first) monologue (I know I witnessed 2 CB monologues, but I can't even remember the first monologue). The one I can remember, slightly is the Berlusconi monologue, which was an easy target with even easier jokes. I'm less impressed with CB each week, it seems. Hmmm....

After CB it's David Mitchell's turn to turn my interest off. I honestly don't remember anything of his rant except that it was slightly better than CB's.

It seems Lauren Laverne's role has been even further reduced to linking a bit and spouting out unane things. However, this week she and Jimmy Carr hosted an interview with a 'Freakoconomics'. Laverne taking the lead with Carr backing her up. That was where I left off playing with the cats to write down my first impressions of ep 5.

So I blew it. I only have a very vague idea of what 'freakonomics' is. What I do know is that they let the guy talk with minimum (joke) interuptions. I did like that. Then I lost interest again.

While watching I did make some more notes, but I couldn't be arsed to write them down or remember them. The only thing I remember is that I absolutely hate the sketches. I think Carr did two and Laverne did well. So there you got it.

The ranking I did this afternoon (or a few blogs earlier) was mainly a rating based on episode 4. I'm not sure I can say anything sensible about the ratings drawn from my own experience of episode 5. But this will be it:
1) David Mitchell
2) Charlie Brooker
3) Jimmy Carr (my gawd, he was stumbling last thursday)
4) Lauren Laverne

Nearly 10 O'Clock Live related

2011-02-21T07:20:00.001-08:00

While I count the dust and cat hairs in my food while listening with a half ear to 10 O'Clock Live, other people write crap like this when the show is on.

"10 O'Clock Live" - Quick points and Survey results

2011-02-21T03:28:00.001-08:00

There’s a notable lack of articles about ’10 O’Clock Live’ on this blog since last week, sort of. Obviously, that’s not entirely true; even though I was sick I did manage to worm out a few words about the show and about how I did not catch it.

I am now up-to-date; someone very kindly uploaded the whole episode on YouTube and I watched it, somewhere in between sips of hot soup. I must admit I have already forgotten what happened. The negative sounds from the forums had left me suspicious, uninspired and uninterested. My cold might have had a stake in that state of mind as well. So, I did watch it, but I can’t yet say much sensible about it. There are a few points though:

 I get increasingly the feeling this show is not aimed at me, which leaves me feeling left out and suspicious with the current students’ level of intellectuality;
 The unbalanced political leanings are getting on my tits;
 The audience’s whooping and cheering is getting seriously on my tits;

And on a more positive note:
 They didn’t swear as much as in other episodes;

And another negative note:
 Less swearing, but more jizz jokes; Oh haha….

My dying interest results in me not as interested in rating anymore as I used to be. However, I’ve had contact with the very kind people of “Survation Ltd” who did the survey on the show. I linked you to the results of the survey last week, I think. As an answer to my questions about the respondents they very kindly sent me the full summary of the survey results. Another inquiry has provided me with permission to publish some interesting results on the question how funny the respondents found the 4 presenters.

Three measures are given; 1) the mean (average) score – adding up their ratings and divided by the number of respondents. 2) Then they looked at the extremes – those rating the presenters a ‘5’ and 3) Those rating the presenters a ‘1’. They expressed the results as a % of the whole.

In the results you can see Mitchell and Brooker can argue about who is the funniest depending on the method.
Only 3% of respondents rate Laverne a ‘5’. Carr is notably far less funny than the other males.

I absolutely loved these results and the different ways you can look at it, especially concerning Brooker and Mitchell.

Yeah all right; “I’m a complete nerd!”

So here's my rating:
1) David Mitchell: Because he stepped way more out of his comfort zone with the interviews than Brooker has. In episode 4 he even (almost) impressed me with his handling the round table discussion about 'the Big Society'. Kudos for that to Mr. Mitchell. Well done!

2) Charlie Brooker: He's just funny, though I wish he pulled his level of quality up. Not too much swearing, and not all the jizz jokes (or maybe just not talking about Berlusconi; a bit too easy a target.)

3) Jimmy Carr: Because he does more than Laverne, is less funny than Brooker and Mitchell, but never really manages to up his game to make a (positive) impression.

4) Lauren Laverne: I'm feeling increasingly more sorry for her. I never understood her presence along the three gentlemen.

Credit: Survation Ltd.
Link: Survey results

"10 O'Clock Live" - Silence

2011-02-19T04:55:00.000-08:00

You may have noticed I didn't do a preview nor a Twitter review on the 5th episode of '10 O'Clock Live'. I've been sick this week and only caught 15 minutes of Twitter feed before returning to bed.

I haven't been able to download the ep yet, so I haven't seen it. Still working on that.

I did find this though: From Bleeding Cool.

Hm, they've got Laverne and Carr interviewing the guy...Curious change.

Source: Quote hpmons on CaB

OMG!!! Are the producers trying out my suggestions!?!?!?

"10 O'Clock Live" - Left or Right Wing

2011-02-14T03:41:00.000-08:00

Last week I said I would research the whole left/right wing subject. I didn't quite start as yet, but I did read up on what was said on forums. Incidently, forummers are just intrigued by it as I am: BCG forum.

I did watch episode 4 and even I found the left wing leaning a bit annoying.

What else I find interesting are the typical right wing opinions on left. I suppose at some level they're right. In some other levels I'm not so sure.

"10 O'Clock Live" - Filling the Gaps

2011-02-11T07:37:00.000-08:00

I'm slowly filling in answers. Someone said this on CaB:

I do imagine this show producing something historic or iconic at some point, something that captures the mood of the nation, or is just a slick politician getting jeered (Simon Hughes managed to avoid this tonight, by dint of his niceness mainly) or maybe chinned, haha. And that is the gamble that makes it worth being live.

Good point, I'd say.

Now the makers are cleaning up the wet patches a new phenomenon is rearing its head. It's not quite ugly, but it's not very pretty either. The thing is this (I was hoping I could drag this out a bit longer, but it seems this is pretty much it): when looking at the show on the surface (?) it looks like a very left wing program. Is this really true, or are the things said just sensible? Who are saying this? I'm planning to research that, because I have trouble determining if they are right. Maybe I am more left wing than I thought I was, but I don't think I am.

So here's what I'm planning to do:
1. Starting with watching episode 4 and maybe add 2 and 3 as well.
2. Writing down the places where left wing views could be seen/heard.
3. Analyze if it really was left wing or just sensible
3a. Trying to find the right wing example of said thing.

There were a few more I can't think of now. Just like with all of my other blogs, this all comes from the top off my head...and it's windy up there.

I almost forgot the link to help me:
the Guardian: To us, it's an obscure shift of tax law. To the City, it's the heist of the century
Sometimes you have to make hard decisions for the good of the countries future. But is this one of them? (This is probably a very lefty view of it. It was in the Guardian; what d'you expect?)

Ignore that if you don't agree; I just started exploring and this might help me find the left to the right swing.

I think I'm liberal.

"10 O'Clock Live" - For Good Measure

2011-02-11T07:22:00.000-08:00

Here's 1 review I found on the last episode (4).

Metro's 10 O'Clock Live is becoming a party political broadcast

Metro, obviously.

"10 O'Clock Live" - Survey Results My Own Summary

2011-02-11T04:29:00.000-08:00

I know you can read a summary on the link given in an earlier post, but I would like to highlight a few things.

First of all, when comparing the results to what I saw on Twitter, in reviews and on forums I think those social media and articles give a good idea of how people think. Pretty much the same results came out of the survey. The big difference is that the survey's summary is a bit less extreme in its judgement. But then again, the summary averages everything out.

Here are some numbers:
Average score for the show: 5.6 out of 10

Level of Funny per presenter:
David Mitchell: 3.75 stars out of 5
Charlie Brooker: 3.72 stars out of 5
Jimmy Carr: 3.1 Stars out of 5
Lauren Laverne: 2.27 stars out of 5

Importance of presenter to show:
David Mitchell with an average score of 7.5
Charlie Brooker with an average score of 6.9
Jimmy Carr with an average score of 6.0
Lauren Laverne with an average score of 4.7

The sketches don't score very well. Average score is 4.5.
The monologues score an average of 6.3. CB & DM score same average.
The interviews score an average of 5.6 with DM's interview with 1 person as a favourite.
The Round table discussion lead by LL scores low with an average of 4.6.
Just like in the 'funny' and 'importance' questions, DM scores highest and LL scores lowest.

A worrying (or when you are as sadistic as me, funny) result is that to the question: "would you stay watching 10 O'Clock Live without the clash with the likes of Question Time and Skins?" the most answers have been 'No'. It counted only 5 more than the answer 'Possibly'.

"10 O'Clock Live" - Survey Results

2011-02-11T02:54:00.000-08:00

Call me a total nerd.

The results for the survey are there and of course I signed up to receive those results. I already took them over and there is a summary. I'm going to look at it a bit more and see if I can base my next piece on it.

Here's the summary: Survey Results: C4's 10 O'Clock Live - What Do the Viewers Think?

"10 O'Clock Live" - Nothing, really

2011-02-10T14:02:00.000-08:00

'10 O'Clock Live' should be starting by now. As you probably have noticed I started writing early this time. I'm only here to say I'm not going to write a Twitter review this week; I decided to let it rest and breath for a bit, maybe it helps. If something extraordinary happens, I probably will post something, but after the weekend. Or at least after I've seen it myself. I'm not holding my breath though.

Twitter is strangely quiet. Did we start yet?

Watched now. Just a few remarks:
- Very/Too left wing/liberal, meaning there's not a good balance between left and right
- Too many cuts to the audience
- Not enough time for the papers

"10 O'Clock Live" - Pre-broadcast Post

2011-02-10T03:51:00.000-08:00

It's Thursday again, so yeah...

In the week that was so far I've said enough to go into the next adventure of the show. I am doing my pre-research and reading up on discussions about the show. My favourite places to research are:
1. CaB forum
2. the British Comedy Guide forum
3. the Show's Facebook page

And of course Twitter: @10oclocklive / #10oclocklive.

A quote from CaB:

I think it's doing that, but simply not giving those with a 'young perspective' quite enough credit, currently.

Yes, you can put it like that as well.

This is unnecessary harsh:
Lessons in Live Shows For Channel 4

Can Anyone Answer Me This?

2011-02-09T03:57:00.001-08:00

What is being reviewed in this piece? (See link) The British Comedy Awards, 10 O'Clock Live, How TV Ruined Your Life or Charlie Brooker in general? Or was this piece supposed to do something else, like bullet pointing how the British Comedy Awards could be better?

Stage Reviews

About My Disappointment in Charlie Brooker

2011-02-09T01:31:00.000-08:00

Am I the only one thinking Charlie Brooker is losing it? I just checked Twitter and 95% of the tweets were honouring him for the “excellent” ‘How TV Ruined Your Life’ episode that went out yesterday. I’m now convinced I’ve been living and watching TV in a different Universe than those people, because I could swear I saw a lot before of what went out yesterday. Yesterday’s episode felt like a bad rehash of Screenwipe with different lines and clothes, but with the same set-up and less fresh and funny than the first time.

To be fair Brooker warned us, though he also noted it was his favourite episode of HTVRYL so far. Surely, he was joking?

Charlie Brooker: the emperor sells his clothes

Charlie Brooker is one of the most astute TV critics of the modern age. I bow at the altar of his now departed Screen Burn columns and consider Screen Wipe one of the finest television series about television to be made since Clive James turned TV criticism into a true art form. But don't look closely at the emperor of TV critics now because he's lost his clothes and got a silly haircut.

Now the problem with How TV Ruined Your Life, the latest vehicle for Brooker's rants, is not the rants themselves. Brooker is still on excellent form. The problem is that Brooker is no longer the outsider peering into the bacchanalian revelries within TV's tent and peeing into it with a scowl on his face. Now Brooker's one of the very insiders he castigates. He's doing David Frost as a hipster on 10 O'Clock Live and preparing to give Screenwipe a dust down again. And personally, he's married to Xtra Factor seat filler and auto-cutie Konnie Huq.

The emperor is still laughing at the other kings and their exposed genitals while his are swinging in the wind.

*snort*
Source: AOL Television – Scroll down till Brooker’s face comes in view

Must be said, his rants are still usually good; entertaining/funny. After hearing him going on about the same subject time and time again, and even using old jokes to try and make his point, it gets a bit tired and boring.

There’s a Screenwipe series, if I’m not mistaken series 5, in which in every episode the same commercial is being commented on. He does comically go from disconcerted and annoyed to insensitive to it; in every episode his attitude has changed a little due to the overload of seeing it. It did evoke my first angry and violent reaction at him. Actually, at a pie I was eating; I was blissfully eating a pie when the images were thrown in my face for the 4th time and I forked my pie violently.
I don’t like the recycling, but I seem to be the only one who’s bothered by that.

Another observation is that even though enlightening often, he doesn’t really do much more than stating the obvious that became so obvious we don’t notice it anymore. When he reminds us we go: “Yeah, you’re right; that’s how it is!” Of course he’s right, it’s painfully obvious he’s right, everyone can tell. It’s now that he’s running out of obvious errors to discuss and has to actually look at current affairs that he falls through. He knows nothing about politics. Gladly, he never claimed he did, but being one of the presenters of a show that has been advertised as an intelligent take on current affairs it’s only fair to expect more of him than observing someone is wearing jeans instead of a white sheet wrapped all around her body; her head included.

He keeps saying publicly the country (the UK) is in a bad state when people start looking at him for some guidance. That’s not exactly what he says; it comes more down to him not being that smart and him certainly not understanding what’s going on or how politics works. It’s safe to say he doesn’t know how politics works. I’m not so sure it has anything to do with him being stupid, because he’s obviously not. He has a good brain in that head of his, but his heart is not with politics or anything that even vaguely smells like it. And to say he doesn’t know what’s going on is not completely true either. He knows in certain cases very well what’s going on and he’s a master in explaining it to us. When it comes to politics he doesn’t as much dive into the subject, but rather into the shallow imaginary of what he can see on the surface. He’s not even attempting to analyze how it affects the country and the people in it. He’s not even attempting to understand it. If he’s not even trying to understand it, how on earth is he supposed to deliver an intelligent take on current affairs?

I’m not even touching the subject that he’s now on the inside still scowling at TV bobo’s. And his marriage to Konnie Huq and his haircut have nothing to do with anything that concerns the quality of his work.

He’s making me angry the way he used to be.

"10 O'Clock Live" - More Ideas

2011-02-08T09:07:00.000-08:00

But first...

This must be the best review so far:

So the series so far:

1. OH GOD
2. Oh wait hang on
3. Meh

Source: Cook'd and Bomb'd Forums, last message on the page

And then some more thoughts and ideas:

It has been often asked: “Why does the show have to be live?” Maybe it adds a little excitement, but right now it does nothing for the show; it only takes away. If the show is pre-recorded you can cut out the bad bits. You can do bits over to get it right. And at least 2 of the 4 presenters would feel much more comfortable.

Chuck at least 1 person off the show, probably Laverne. Why do we think we need 4 presenters? It makes it even harder to create the magic you need between people to bring over that spark to the audience. And with less presenters you wouldn’t have to deal with 4 different styles and try to merge them. Merging 2 styles can be hard enough.

Get rid of the sketches; I find them nothing but awkward and it feels like it’s breaking the flow rather than helping it. Or make it feel less like it’s a sketch.

Bring in other celebs/comics to have their say about the current affairs. It only needs 5 minutes and every week you’ll have someone else.

I’m starting to understand why I don’t find the show very intelligent. It’s the lack of passion or at least interest in politics. The presenters half of the times don’t seem very informed, apart from Mitchell on the tuition fees. This results in them talking shit we had already registered ourselves and doesn’t provoke our thinking. Or it results in mixed up or downright wrong facts stating and in infantile and lame jokes which have nothing to do with the subject. They should care, if only to pull the show up to the satirical level it was advertised with. But who can muster up care for a subject you’re only allowed to think about for 5 minutes?

"10 O'Clock Live" - Another review

2011-02-07T12:53:00.000-08:00

Mainly for my own convenience, because I haven't read this one. For tomorrow at work first thing in the morning, after coffee and some chit chat...and reading mail...and maybe doing some actual work. Maybe I'll read the papers first too. I think around noon I sure will have some time to devote to my newest addiction. After my lunch, obviously and cigarette: Tinned Goods

I Can Do Tiny URL's

2011-02-07T09:04:00.001-08:00

And yet I am blogging, rather than tweeting. I just had to tweet my blog to #10oclocklive. They should know how I feel about the show. Ugh!

"10 O'Clock Live" - (Anchorperson) Ideas

2011-02-07T08:13:00.001-08:00

Probably I think too much about this show which I can’t even see live since I don’t receive C4. I find myself caring more than I should and therefore thinking about it more than I should. Most frustratingly, I don’t have the answers to how to change things to turn the tides. That doesn’t stop me from caring, researching, reading and thinking about it. I’ve seen many suggestions for how to go about it. The most interesting and also with the most impact is the one concerning personnel and duty changes.

The two most successful in the format, and incidentally the two least fitted for live broadcasting, have been Charlie Brooker and David Mitchell. Votes have gone up to make one of the two the anchorman and have the other three revolving around him. Not literally, obviously. About which of the two it should be the votes are still being counted though I hear Brooker’s name quietly resonating in the main reasoning of this theory.

I’ve been juggling this idea around as well. My hesitation to throw any of them out has me considering all 4 of them for the role. Not all 4 at the same time, because then we should be still in the same situation. Let me see if I can make setups for all 4 situations starting with the least likely.

Lauren Laverne for Anchor..uh..woman
Laverne is the weakest link in the outfit. Having her linking the pieces together will give her enough to do, but can also take away the strain of having her do too much comedy which she just simply isn’t equipped for. She could also do an interview, but that might kill the comedic atmosphere. Yet, more in depth interviews? The 3 gentlemen can do their things.

Advantage: Less comedy on Laverne’s shoulders and yet enough to do.
Disadventage: Puts her in the maybe painfully obvious unfunny moments of the show and leaves her lingering in the unfunny ‘token female’ atmosphere.

Jimmy Carr for Anchorman
Jimmy Carr was pretty much ‘the anchorman’ in the ‘Alternative Election Night’ doing most of the linking and talking it all together. His one-liner nature is perfect for linking, if pulled up in quality level. I would grab the opportunity to steal away the sketches he has done so far. I feel a bit bad about that, but like I posted before, I really don’t care for his sketches. Maybe if the sketches felt less sketch like…
What he can do is take over an interview from Mitchell, ala Jon Stewart style. For some reason I still think he’s more suited for interviewing than Mitchell is. Don’t ask me why, because 3 episodes have proved me wrong so far. Contributions by Mitchell could be the sketches we lose from Carr. Surely he’d be better at it than Carr? Brooker can proceed as he does.

Advantage: Carr is someone who can do linking well and it could still be funny.
Disadventage: If his jokes remain as lame as they tend to be, this could be a bit of a killer to the show. I know I would zone out and forget to watch the upcoming piece. Carr tends to be a bit wooden and unnatural when reading off an auto-cue; he too obviously reads off an auto-cue. In this format, I’m not sure what to do with Laverne.

David Mitchell for Anchorman
Now I come to think of it, I’m not sure how he would do. I usually find David Mitchell reading off an auto-cue highly annoying though more natural and amusing than Carr. I just can’t picture him permanently behind a desk cracking jokes at pictures projected next to his head. But as long we haven’t seen, we can’t really judge. I’d say give it a go, unless they choose to go with another format.
Mitchell could still do interviews, but I would rather let Laverne or Brooker take over one interview from him. Every time I use Brooker’s name in combination with the word ‘interview’ I think: “He’ll be pissing himself.” Yet, still seems a sound idea.

Advantage: Mitchell can bring the funnies in the linking. You could easily fit his item ‘Listen to Mitchell’ in this format. You would have to listen to him all the time anyway.
Disadventage: Mitchell has no experience in this area, but then again, he doesn’t in interviewing either. We all know how that goes. This format leaves Carr a bit hanging in mid-air.

Charlie Brooker for Anchorman
This is the most interesting suggestion. Not only can you pretty much leave the others do what they already do, though hopefully better with the exception of Carr doing the News round, it will also give Charlie more to do which I honestly believe he can. He can do the linking in a natural and funny way. Evidence can be found in his Wipes which are pretty much a collection of links and items. I still think he should take over an interview from Mitchell, because he can do that too. He did interviews with scriptwriters for an episode of Screenwipe. He also seems to be the only one (with Laverne actually) who can deliver an auto-cue line in a natural way, and (unlike Laverne) in a funny way. I said that already, didn’t I? But surely, I don’t need to highlight that point?

Advantage: We would see more of him (and his quif) and it’s almost guaranteed laughs. He’s good at linking off an auto-cue in a natural and funny way. Proof: his Wipes. A monologue can still snugly be fitted in there; required even.
Disadventage: It would be harder/awkward to get him from behind the desk to do sketches, which he actually does wonderfully as well. Proof: several Screenwipe episodes. He’d probably be pissing himself for another 10/11 weeks.

Of course if you choose to make someone anchorperson, it will automatically push the other three back in the format of the show. They can still contribute wonderful stuff, but they will noticeably fall under the reign of the anchorperson.

Other suggestions
Watch ‘Top Gear’: How do the Top Gear presenters do it? They have 3 completely different personalities and yet they congeal.

What about doing the interviews with 2; 1 of them taking a more reserved place in the interview and 1 leading? The second man can jump in when required. I’d vote Laverne as main interviewer, Mitchell second? Or Laverne and Carr; Carr proved himself worthy in the Round table discussions/banter.

Why not take away one interview from Mitchell and have him do 1 sketch?

Have Brooker interview people. (Or maybe scratch that)

Have Laverne interview people.

Have them linking to each other. Not like: “Over to you Jimmy” but rather like: “What does Jimmy think about it?” Obviously, after the linker has done his/her say. What follows could be a sketch.
Don’t put 2 monologues after each other; it would feel like preaching by two different egos. If you want two talks by two different egos then have them talking to each other. There must be subjects were Brooker and Mitchell disagree with each other. That’s definitely cue for a funny discussion; probably with a lot of shouting.

Have them presenting different views on one subject. Or do they agree on everything? Left leaning?

Why is Laverne not doing more crowd participation stuff? What happened to the crowd participation stuff?

"10 O'Clock Live" - Proper Review

2011-02-07T06:57:00.001-08:00

Over the weekend, actually Friday, I watched the 3rd episode of ’10 O’Clock Live’. For the first two episodes I didn’t write a proper review, because the Twitter feed gave me enough information on how things were going. Beside that, there were already good reviews available by people who are more skilled in writing and program reviewing than me. The reasons I choose to write a review for this episode is that my Twitter response review didn’t really say much about the show and was inaccurate on several accounts. I feel I should address what actually happened rather than what Twitter said that happened, or neglected to say what happened.

I’m not going to review it chronological, because I can’t remember the order everything happened in and it would just be boring if I discussed every single item/piece separately. For my comfort and other purposes I’m going to review it per presenter. This will also help in giving valid arguments for the ranking of the presenters. But to keep my reviewing traditionally confusing I will start with what happened next and with who has his first piece.

The show starts with the four of them planted on and around a desk stating their names and one of them reminding you what show you stumble upon. This has been like this since episode 2 and makes me miss the start of episode 1. In episode 1 the camera was first aimed at David Mitchell sitting on a desk stating his name then moving to Charlie Brooker just walking away from his spot and stating his name to Jimmy Carr just walking away from his desk stating his name and finally ending its round on Lauren Laverne standing somewhere stating her name. When the camera zooms out the gentlemen will have arrived in a line next to Laverne and someone announced which show you were watching. Cue theme music. I loved the coordination it required, but maybe that’s just my weird mind.

Like every week they started around the table telling us what we could expect of the show this week. Lauren Laverne typically leads this conversation touching on every subject each of the presenters will present with the 3 gentlemen chipping in on their contribution with a funny line. Laverne is last to say what she’s going to contribute.

The first item always is the News round of that week presented in stand-up form by Jimmy Carr. One liners and predictable (edgy) jokes as can be expected from Carr. Usually I’m not a big fan of Carr’s work; I don’t find it very smart or funny. To me it always feels like easy shots at easy targets. His News round in episode 3 is a good example of what he does. I must admit I did laugh at his round in episode 2.

Next to the News round Jimmy usually does 1 sketch and 1 interview. Much has been said about sketches and interviews, usually aimed at Laverne (sketch wise) and Mitchell (interview wise).
Compared to Laverne Carr is obviously a comedian which you can tell when you compare his execution to Laverne’s execution of sketches. Even though he does better than Laverne, I usually don’t like his sketches much. I’m not sure it has anything to do with the lame jokes he gets to make or with his delivery; probably with both I think.
His interview techniques are less obviously bad compared to Mitchell’s, mainly because he doesn’t get to do the big interviews. It’s still not very pleasing though. What seem to be lacking is him listening and the interview going into depth. What it overbears are, once again, lame jokes. I find his jokes more bearable than in his News round, so that’s not exactly why I don’t care for his interviews. Maybe it has something to do with the interview not touching on really interesting stuff. Thinking back at his 3rd episode interview…To be honest, I don’t even remember that interview anymore; can’t have been very exciting.

Charlie Brooker was up next in episode 3. Next to his monologues he doesn’t seem to be contributing to the show much more, though in episode 3 he did a sketch like thing with Laverne which was actually excellent. In that sketch he showed what he is capable of, that he is more a performer than he always says he is. Even after watching it countless times it’s as convincing as the first time and an absolute joy to watch.
His monologues, no matter how small, are usually the funniest thing about the show. Unfortunately, it does remind us a lot of Newswipe and makes us wish he would make a new series of that rather than the small titbits he does for ’10 O’Clock Live’. Unlike in episode 1 he does all his stuff live though it did reduce his contribution somewhat. In episode 1 he had a pre-recorded piece about Sarah Palin next to a live monologue about Tunesia. The only negative about Brooker is his lack of contribution at the table when they’re sitting down together.

This morning I took part in a survey about the show. One of the questions was who I thought was the most important contributor. I answered David Mitchell, because he does the big interviews. That doesn’t mean I like those contributions. Watching him getting grilled rather than his interviewees is cringy. It could be a great part of the show if only they would figure out the balance between seriousness and comedy. It can be done, only Mitchell hasn’t found out how. Neither does he show real leadership which you have to as an interviewer. Interviewees easily run away with the interview leaving Mitchell looking lost and beaten. I’m suspecting he’s a bit too preoccupied with his questions and trying to lead the interview to be sharp and truly witty like he can be.
I’ve said this before and I repeat it here; David Mitchell is not a host/presenter/interviewer. As a panellist he’s the best you can get. He needs the freedom to run free and kick around. As an interviewer you don’t have that freedom and you can only kick around in a confined space.

Lauren Laverne is still a weird choice to me. Even though she might be a great presenter, in this format she has not much to offer. She’s not a comedienne and she’s not an (comedic) actress which goes to show quickly. A good example is the piece around the table about Rebranding Ed Miliband. For good measure some jokes were thrown in, in her explanation what was going on, but all it evoked were blank stares and some polite muffled laughter. Must be said that the 3 gentlemen didn’t really help; I was mainly laughing at their blank stares. It might have had something to do with the subject; any conversation about Ed Miliband seems to end up just as dusty as the subject itself.
Yet her sketches don’t go very well either. It’s simply not funny, badly delivered and just not funny. Her guidance around the table is not much funnier either. Just not funny.

Overall I think the show is slowly finding its feet. Yet the feeling remains the show is missing something. I’ve been complaining about the level of intelligence, but I think they pulled that up, though still not completely satisfied. I think the show could be funnier and I’m missing the satire. And last, the show still skips around ego’s which doesn’t seem to merge very well. The magic is not quite there. Somewhere an advantage is left unchallenged.

Still quite a crap review with all things already said in better ways by many others. Sorry for hogging your time.

In my next blog I’m going to write about some ideas to make things better.

"10 O'Clock Live" - Continues

2011-02-07T04:02:00.000-08:00

This must be the subject I most diligently or obsessively research and write about.

Guardian article: Is It Getting Any Better?"

I should really start with making the actual dossier for this show; I think I have enough material to make a fleshed out clipping.

Is (British) Comedy Dead or Just Lame?

2011-02-04T06:23:00.000-08:00

The question in the title is mine. The article posted below is not, but I think we're both asking the same question? Almost.
The British Comedy Awards: Gallery and Review (of sorts)...

I agree mucho with what is said.

Then there's also this: Comedians are taking over the world, but funnily enough, I'm not laughing
Isn't it funny how women are complaining about the state of (British) comedy? It just made me laugh. Sort of...*le sigh*

If only I was funny...

I just realized I could have tweeted the last two posts, but I don't know how to do tiny url's and too lazy to find out. Also, I prefer this corner of the Internet.

"10 O'Clock Live" - Sourcery

2011-02-04T05:30:00.000-08:00

I thought this one was pretty nice: Metro's 3rd week review.

All the different and mixed up opinions are making me dizzy. The public knows just as less what they want from the show as the makers do.

"10 O'Clock Live" - Twitter advice

2011-02-04T03:19:00.000-08:00

I didn't want to keep this from you. I don't necessarily agree on all points, but most...Yes.

Actually, I just found it sort of funny and it sums up neatly thoughts that been floating around a lot. Harsh in places, but that is what "we" are thinking.

"10 O'Clock Live" - Episode 3

2011-02-04T03:12:00.000-08:00

Yesterday evening saw the third episode of ‘10 O’Clock Live’. The novelty has gone off the ‘new’ status of the show and people got impatient and bored enough after 2 episodes to ignore the show all together. Twitter was quiet 15 minutes before the show started. Some stray tweeters were waiting for the show to start, but the floods the show has known for the first two episodes were not there yesterday.

The lack of interest from Twitter made it harder to analyse the perception and reception from the viewers. The ones that were left were going to watch anyway, because they’re Carr/Mitchell/Brooker fans or some stray Laverne fans; nothing credible to go by (as if ever…). Though there were some people there dipping in their toes before moving back to Question Time. (Obviously @bbcqt is Question Time twitter) Overall Twitter gave a very mixed, incoherent and useless commentary.

The show started late like it had the first two weeks. I think this time they were about 8 minutes late. The first reactions were about Lauren Laverne’s hair. I don’t know what was up with her hair, because that never came through on Twitter. However, earlier that day Jimmy Carr tweeted a picture of her with curlers in her hair saying she had “hair from the future”. That might have something to do with it.

As good traditions do, the observations and commentary soon turned around and settled on the old topic of Charlie Brooker’s hair. Apparently, “his quif” was exceptionally high yesterday. Some liked it, but most were scared/unsettled/uncomfortable/confused and therefore left or fell asleep. This observing of his hair went on for about 15 minutes in which presumably Carr’s News round and Brooker’s pre-recorded quip were happening. I have no reference to what was happening since it wasn’t reported on Twitter and the show’s producers haven’t decided on a standard flow of events yet.

About 15 minutes in (10.22 pm) a load of confusion came through. Something happened what sounded like a “fuck up” by Brooker. Or maybe not, maybe it was planned? All I got to see were 40 tweets filled with question marks, exclamation marks, the name “Brooker”, the words “Fuck(ed) up” and in about 20 tweets the word “fake” was added. Let’s guess what happened:

1. Brooker choked on a piece of paper, but fortunately he only ate the words he had already spoken.
2. Brooker tripped over his “quif”, but fell comically which gave away it was an act.
3. The “quif” started to threat to take over the world, Brooker told it to shut up. (It was obviously scripted)
4. Brooker’s “quif” was reaching out for Laverne’s hairdo. A few pats on the head made it settle down, relatively.

After 40 tweets of confusion we returned to the regularly schemed non-specific and non-eventful twittering (here Twitter really lives up to its name). It was time for one of the Mitchell interviews. I’m guessing nothing much changed in his techniques, which isn’t good but people ceased to report on how his interviewees ran away with the interview. I’m concluding it couldn’t have been too bad this time. A complaint was that he was mixing up his facts which he’s done before in the other runs as well. I would be one of those people who can get quite irate over that, but since I’m pretty clueless about what happens in Britain I tend to not catch the little incorrectness’s. Still, freakingly annoying.

And then this was reported, or did I dream it? For the first time some advantage was taken from the aspect of being live. Did I read right that the possibility was given to phone in to discuss science with Carr and presumably with his guest? No idea if this was true, because I didn’t read any comments on callers.

To me it sounded like the quality of the show has not gone up much since episode two. The presenters however seemed more relaxed and some people believed the show was finally finding its feet. Still the subjects still didn’t get enough time to be properly explored and especially in the first half of the show a guy in the audience with a tiger jumper on attracted more attention than the subjects at hand.

Somewhere halfway through even me got bored and was longing for bed. Even though I was only half reading the tweets at that point I was still refreshing to get the latest 20 tweets in. Thirteen minutes before ending even Twitter seemed to have given up and refreshing resulted in the message: “No nearby Tweet results for #10oclocklive”. Oh dear.

I did manage to get Twitter to work properly just in time to register that the best jokes were made in the last minutes. A shame they made us wait so long.

Based on Twitter there’s no way I can make a good ranking for yesterday’s show. However, I have a little clue for the ranking:

1. Charlie Brooker: Still consistent, but mixed reactions. His pre-recorded stuff is usually received well. This format is not for him. Call for new series of Newswipe gets stronger.
2. David Mitchell: can’t actually do a proper interview, but his ‘Listen to Mitchell’/Soapbox piece tends to be a high point for the show.
3. Jimmy Carr: Reasonably consistent though his News round was not as topical as the other two shows according to someone. I think I lifted that from the below first article. He just doesn’t stand out enough.
4. Lauren Laverne: Good presenter, but pointless in this format. She’s not very good at the comedy stuff.

I’m hesitant to put Brooker on top, but considered he’s the only one so far who didn’t make a complete twat of himself in this show yet, leaves him still at the top. Also the fact that I know ‘Live’ is not his thing adds to his points if I was giving out points which I’m not.

I bumped Mitchell up, because his soapbox thing tends to pull the quality up, be it for 5 minutes, but still. Jimmy Carr has not done such thing, though he’s rather good at the table when they come together for… what exactly?

Last and unfortunately least, Lauren Laverne can’t seem to lift her contribution from the ‘token woman’ level. I honestly feel sorry for her, because I’m convinced she’s a good presenter and reasonably smart. This is certainly not the right vehicle for her.

Leaves me to question why these four people have been selected to do this. I can half answer that: For the Alternative Election Night show that was the line-up you want. The concept was partly and obviously lifted from that night. Unfortunately for them, the elections are over and they can’t deal with a normal week’s news. (I am convinced Brooker can, but his newswipe like segments fall somewhat flat somehow)

I do have some complaints of my own: The promo said this was going to be:
“a fresh and unashamedly intelligent take on current affairs from a young perspective.”
1. It’s not fresh; this has been done in many forms at many times more successfully.
2. It’s not that intelligent; half of the time people leave feeling talked down to and it’s not as insightful and high brow to be called intelligent or satire. Might have something to do with the pace and interviews being cut short.
3. If the “young perspective” means whooping and booing I don’t want to be young anymore. It also doesn’t add to the “intelligent” -take, rather to the dumb run-along-take.
4. The “intelligent” thing really gets me annoyed for several reasons:
a. It’s not that intelligent and I’m not completely ignorant.
b. I honestly believe all four of them are more intelligent than loads of the jokes have been. They could have gotten more out of the subjects than they have.
c. Even though I don’t mind swearing, it’s not per se funny. If it doesn’t add anything I’d rather not have them swearing, cause it’s just swearing and dumbs down. Then again, the audience seems to love it. Cheap laughs.
5. The only thing it is is “unashamed”, which is not necessarily a good thing.

It seems my analysis becomes lengthier every week. I think it has everything to do with a deep fear this thing will kill both Brooker’s and Mitchell’s career. I’m not convinced it will, I think if this one fails they could bounce back from it. Especially for Brooker it’s a bit of a painful thing considered his CV so far looked incredibly pretty.
I don’t care enough for Carr or Laverne to be afraid for them. I only feel sorry for them for many reasons. And who could hurt Jimmy Carr’s career more than Jimmy Carr?

…BTW, who is Lauren Laverne?...

Here is a more coherent piece and advice:
Six Ways to Fix 10 O’Clock Live

And here’s a nice titbit about which links from external websites were used for episode 3:
Extra links: episode 3
Gotta love that picture.

"10 O'Clock Live" Suggestion

2011-02-03T07:34:00.000-08:00

It’s Thursday again. Tonight the 3rd episode of ‘10 O’Clock Live’ will go out. This means I’m reading up again on opinions and suggestions about the show. I’m getting to an interesting conclusion.

“Charlie Brooker should be the centre person and the others just contributors.”

I’m not saying that because as of today he is my favourite person on the planet (Blah! Ugh! Puke!) I’m saying it, because I’ve been counting and so far several people online suggested it, or something on the line of. (I didn’t actually count, but I read it enough times to write this piece about it)

Every time it was met by me with a: “Meh, don’t know.”. Every time I had a little think about it and concluded that they actually might be right. And here are the reasons why:

1. If Charlie was the centre person he would script the hell out of the show and with that pull it all together and it’ll be funny. This was not something I came up with; I read it actually on a forum and had to admit it sounded sensible. This wasn’t literally what I read, it’s heavily paraphrased.

2. He has been the most consistent in quality of work and most consistent in funny so far.

3. Charlie can do interviews. He’s done several interviews for Screenwipe and he did bloody well. He also interviewed cast members of the series ‘the Wire’.

And here we land at the reason I see as why Charlie shouldn’t be the centre person: “He lacks the political interest and passion.” And I think he would be too nervous. Another negative is, to me he still feels out of place in this show.

I’m still not convinced he should be the ‘Jon Stewart’ of ’10 O’Clock Live’, but I am warming up to the idea. Let’s just see how things will go tonight. Hopefully David took some interview lessons and Lauren some comedy lessons.

Why can’t I seem to get rid of that nervous feeling; I’m not on that bloody live show.

Domestic Comedy's Burning Issue.

2011-01-31T02:44:00.001-08:00

If you wonder what the current 'Domestic Comedy's Burning Issue' is look no further.

“Russell Brand, who received the Outstanding Contribution To Comedy Award, was unable to attend due to a friend's illness, though his filmed acceptance speech, mocking Newswipe presenter Charlie Brooker's celebrity wife Konnie Huq and fancy wavy celebrity haircut, showed that he is still in touch with domestic comedy's burning issues.”

Buahaha, Charlie’s hair is a domestic comedy’s burning issue.

Source: Evening Standard blogs: Bruce Dessau

To be complete, sort of, Brand wondered at Charlie: "Now you have a celebrity Blue Peter wife and a fancy wavy celebrity haircut? Come back Charlie!!!"

It looks like everybody is asking Charlie to divorce Konnie and cut his hair. I think this is the answer to Victoria Coren's question how Charlie is going to contribute to 'repeopling the globe' after apocalypse. I can see a problem with this solution.

the Oddest Thing

2011-01-31T02:00:00.000-08:00

Disclaimer: In no way do I mean to annoy or hurt couple Brooker's feelings. I believe they can take it and I'm sure they're aware of the irony themselves. Hopefully they understand why I can't stop laughing about this ridiculous on-going tredmill of rumours, confused but fascinated gazes and unforgiving slashing.

It’s curious how much stick couple Brooker get. Granted, Mrs B is probably not the best presenter this world has ever known, and that coupled with the general complaint we know Mister B for, it remains an odd story, their marriage. I don’t think they deserve to get that much crap dumped on them. Yet I can’t help laughing. It’s too paradoxal and ironic to keep a straight face. Sometimes you wonder if they are in on the joke as well, because both have fed the irony around them. Mr B decided to take a few steps back from his trademark scowl at (current) television. He’s still scowling; he’s just avoiding having to scowl at his own wife which seems fair. It’s quite a bold suggestion he leaves; Does he also think she sucks at presenting the Xtra factor? And Mrs B made a program in which she tried to become a rapper. I didn’t see it, but only thinking about it made the corners of my mouth curl downwards in a cringy embarrassment. Could be good though, just like Mr B’s new program could be bad. Or maybe they’re just moving to a level where they can meet, somewhere in the middle. And have weird, sarcastic, beautiful babies and make average quality programs. This is how TV ruined their lives, I suppose.

"10 O'Clock Live" - Episode 2

2011-01-28T02:08:00.001-08:00

Yesterday the second episode of “10 O’Clock Live” went out. Just like last week I didn’t watch, but I followed the movement on Twitter.

Pre-show tweets were mainly questions about who were going to give the show a second chance, or tweets about people wondering if they should watch “10 O’Clock Live” or “Skins”. The expectations were a bit deflated after last week’s (slight) disappointment. Things almost only could look up.

I’m not sure, but I think the show started late again, like last week. For about 10 minutes into the 11th hour tweets were about how it was time for the show and how it wasn’t on yet. No big deal, might have been the delay with which Twitter shows new tweets.

The first tweets were rather positive; though compared to last week’s introductions anything else was almost impossible. Only a few sour tweeters still found the show ‘shite’. Other tweets were commenting on Jimmy Carr’s suit. If you take with that Charlie Brooker’s hair from last week in account, you start wondering what Twitter will complain/go hot over next week.

Just like last week Jimmy Carr started off with the first segment; the news round. According to Twitter a 100% improvement; some even laughed. Then it got a bit quiet on Twitter. It was hard to make out what was happening. What was happening was David Mitchell’s interview with Alistair Campbell, the former Labour spin doctor.

Mitchell didn’t make as good an impression as last week. Campbell apparently ran away with the interview; Mitchell was not sharp enough. Other complaints were that he kept interrupting. I’m not sure that was during the Campbell interview though. A big improvement about the interview was it was allowed to run for longer giving the interview the chance to develop into more depth.

Next up was Charlie Brooker? I’m not sure, because people were watching the show instead of reporting what was happening. Only a few tweets came through saying Brooker was ‘brilliant’ once again. And for the first time people were happy it was live, or else one joke wouldn’t have made it through the cut.

At some point Jimmy Carr did an interview, but apparently that was not very interesting to tweet about. So nothing to report there for me, because I have no clue what happened then or how it was.

Remarkable Observations
1. Jimmy Carr’s News round has improved considerably. He even managed to claw his way back up to the top 2 presenters of the show.

2. The audience was a bit quieter than during the first episode, though still a bit of a ‘panto’ atmosphere.

3. Lauren Laverne was still underused (note the absence of mention in the above piece).

4. They took more time to explore subjects, particularly notable for the interview with Alistair Campbell. Though the rushed feeling remains, though in a milder manner.

5. David Mitchell’s interview techniques didn’t seem to please Twitter as much. It caused his ranking as top presenter of the show to decline.

6. Swearing on the show seems to be an important ingredient in the show which is not appreciated by all.

What I noticed last evening was how at some point a great deal of the tweets were about the subject instead of about how bad things were going. I think that's a clear sign of improvement. That is what you want people to discuss, not how bad David Mitchell's interviewing techniques are.

Overall the show improved enough for people to be positive. If their reactions had something to do with their expectations after having seen the first episode, I don’t know. Still, I had the feeling the “10 O’Clock Live” team has listened well to the reactions and acted upon it. From what I gather still a long way to go, but certainly on the right way.

Something I planned to do last week, but neglected to do was ranking the presenters. That’s why I’ll do the last week ranking this week on top of this week’s ranking. This week’s ranking is a sum of last week and this week.

Episode 1: 20 January 2011
1. David Mitchell (for his interviewing)
2. Charlie Brooker (for his pre-recorded piece and monologue)
3. Lauren Laverne (ranked 3rd, because her presenting was all right, though her jokes fell flat)
4. Jimmy Carr (last, because his News round felt uninspired and uncomfortable and his Tunesia skit was utter bullshit)(Note: I don't think my blog is a family blog; swearing is a okay, for a bit)

Episode 2: 27 January 2011
1. Charlie Brooker (because he was good last week and this week. He seems to be the most consistent of the four)
2. Jimmy Carr (because after last week’s wobbly start he clawed back wonderfully)
3. David Mitchell (because his interviewing leaves a bit to desire, but last week’s ranking saves him)
4. Lauren Laverne (someone, give her something substantial to do!!!)

Secretly I'm very proud of Charlie for being not as shite as the others. Sorry for the favouritism.

If I was handing out points, which I’m not, I would have to deduct points from all three male presenters (and the production team) for discussing sexism in the media, but not doing anything about it themselves. Lauren Laverne shouldn’t be the ‘token female’ and if she can’t do it, which I can’t tell because she doesn’t get a chance to properly show her abilities, she should be replaced by a female who can do the presenting and the funnies. Victoria Coren still seems a more suitable choice. She wouldn’t let them bully her into a minor role.

For a proper review go to link below:
1. Telly Talk

To Charlie Brooker

2011-01-27T03:05:00.000-08:00

What is this whole “sell out” accusation about? If those comments are based on how he wears his hair, then I misunderstood the meaning of “sell out”. I’m just as baffled about the hair discussions as Charlie himself is. It’s his hair and he can do with it whatever he wants to.

If the “sell out” accusations are based on him doing the “10 O’Clock Live” show, then I’m still confused. I’m not sure that’s what “selling out” is. They threw him a bone and he accepted it. It would have been impolite if he hadn’t, wouldn’t it? Unless he has a good reason, like he’s on a diet. I’m not sure bones are fattening though.

The only situation in which I would call him a “sell out” is when he decides to join Konnie on the “Xtra Factor”. But that might just be marriage counselling. Not that they have a bad marriage, I don’t think. Just a weird one. I can already hear Simon Cowell commenting on it, the bastard!

It’s not that I’m still in arse licking mode what Charlie Brooker concerns. I do think, like many others, his works from the past two months have left a bit to desire. His “2010 Wipe” was half a rehash of video material and jokes, which was disappointing. I can see how that happens in a news based program so I accept the same video’s, but still, reusing old jokes is just lazy.

Last Tuesday I watched his new program “How Television Ruined Your Life”. Even if the quality compared to a lot of other programs was better, it was below Charlie Brooker’s standard quality. Once again he rehashed old video’s and even old jokes. Charlie, you already did the whole ‘alone in the house’ gag. And the first time it was way funnier and fresher. Tell me, it really was “Screenwipe” in disguise, wasn’t it?

Maybe my expectations were too high and wrong. Maybe not getting what I expected ruined my joy. Tonight you get a new chance. Could you please try to raise the bar and not repeat what Jimmy Carr has already said, albeit he was less funny than you.

Do you think Charlie Brooker googles himself?

"10 O'Clock Live" Response to the Response to the Twitter Response

2011-01-24T01:50:00.000-08:00

Don’t get me wrong with this blog, because I find the article given as a source below a refreshing and reasonably sensible article. However, there are few things I would like to address.

For the sheer joy of confusion I’m going to start with the last paragraph of the article.

The writer says:

10 O’Clock Live gives politics a vibrancy that simply just doesn’t exist on any other political programme

I was in many occasions under the impression a great deal of excitement concerning politics often lay in the subject or in the situation the economy is in. Granted, the credit crisis is the least sexy crisis I have ever experienced. However the current status Great Britain is in is an interesting one. Just like in many other countries due to the credit crisis. I’ve never been more interested in hearing whatever politicians cooked up this time, if only to see if the current Government, be it the British one or the Dutch one, can work it out and keeps standing. That’s why I’m watching and listening more closely than I ever have.

Beside that, what 10 O’Clock Live is trying, I’m using the word ‘trying’ deliberately because it doesn’t quite work yet, is not new. Political comedy shows are as old as TV is, almost. The writer should have realized that with all the comparisons which are made. For instance, the most obvious one, the Daily Show, is one and happens to have come up more than once or twice. So to say they’re trying something completely new is not completely true.

One paragraph earlier the writer talks about how people were complaining about the ‘left wing’ leanings. I agree a lot of the things said were simply sensible and should have a positive response, though there’s no need to cheer and whoop on every occasion a silence or no silence occurs. The audience was a bit too happy for my liking and they put off the presenters a few times which resulted in awkwardness. Even David Mitchell himself referenced to the atmosphere as ‘panto’, which was, I think, not necessarily a positive note. Also, I happen to know for the Alternative Election Night show the audience was selected on political conviction. But that was another show all together in another situation, so let’s not bring that up.

Then the third paragraph from the bottom. Here the writer assumes all tweeters are “people with increasingly short attention spans” and with “dull brains”. That’s not completely fair. I followed tweets all night long when the show was on. What I saw often was that people were actually disappointed certain subjects weren’t explored any deeper and that people were wishing they weren’t skipping through subjects so quickly. What I remember is that people were excited about David Mitchell’s interview with MP David Willetts about the tuition fees. To say that Twitter’s discontent had to do with their short attention spans is a downright lie.

The fourth and fifth paragraph from the bottom lead up to the third paragraph from the bottom. Here it’s quite obvious the writer based thoughts about the average tweeter on 1 tweet. One tweet hardly represents a whole population where every single member has a voice. Please do a proper research before spewing your impressions and opinions into the world or at least phrase them with more care the next time.

What I think the writer misinterpreted is why the tweeters generally weren’t happy with the show. The tweeters applauded the idea, just not the execution of the idea. With that said I have to agree the average tweeter was unnecessary harsh since they were complaining about a new show which is also live. Where I think a great deal of the twitter society went wrong is; their own patience. The word ‘fruition’ doesn’t seem to exist in their book.

Someone on twitter said (paraphrased): “Charlie Brooker could probably fill a whole episode of Screenwipe about this show”. He probably could, but I think if he hadn’t been involved, he would have had the decency to let the show run for a while before shooting it down and he would only shoot it down if the show didn’t improve after the first run. Twitter made me wish Charlie would make a Screenwipe. Not about how bad 10 O’Clock Live is, but about how hard it is to put a new (live) show on its feet.

Source: ATV Networks 10 O’Clock Live: The Twitter Response

"10 O'Clock Live" According to Online Community

2011-01-21T02:34:00.000-08:00

This is not an actual review, because I didn’t watch it. What I did during the whole run of the show and now at work is working through as many comments and reviews as I can to get a bit of an idea how the online community feels after the first 10 O’Clock Live news broadcast. I think it should give a good idea of what people liked and disliked and I think it could even make clear where the show went well and where improvement is (desperately) needed.

I like to kick off with noting it was a first run of a new show with at least 3 out of the 4 hosts with minimal (just 1 show) live presenting experience. Of course the show wasn’t going to get to its feet and run off. Just like any baby it fell flat on its face a couple of times, but got up and made a new attempt. What I’ve been saying is, give them a chance to get used to this new vehicle of entertainment; there’s definitely a promise of a good show.

I read Twitter throughout the whole run of the show. The show was reported every second by someone giving the reader a clear view of what happened and how people (not in the studio) experienced it.

The start of the show was very wobbly and not appreciated much and downright disliked by many. I don’t think I read 1 positive comment about Jimmy Carr’s standup routine, if you can call it that. Can I call it that? From that point on people were complaining about how unfunny it was. About how wooden it seemed and how no subject was given enough time to be properly explored. This went on for 30 minutes. It wasn’t all negativity; some Mitchell and Brooker action spawned some positive reactions, but it couldn’t hold the attention of many. Unfortunately, the show only turned around somewhat around the 30 minutes mark; unfortunately because many viewers had just left around the 20 minutes mark to turn over to bbcq (not sure what that is).

Around the 30 minutes mark the C-bomb fell. From that point on suddenly everything started to speed up again (on twitter that is; the pace in the show had finally settled I believe) opposed to the slow down from 10 minutes into the show to the 30 minutes mark. Both Charlie Brooker and David Mitchell did something, I don’t know what. Because Twitter feed sped up it was harder to keep up and to remember what was said; I only know it definitely felt like the turning point. I think, if I remember right, Mitchell did quite good in his interview with MP David Willetts. Brooker did something good, but I honestly can’t remember what, because at that point I was getting excited again. Something about a monologue he did?

All in all, I went to bed a pretty contented little twitter sniffer, thanks to the 30 minutes turning point. It has to be said though, Twitter (and that is people who tweet) tend to exaggerate; when things don’t go as expected it’s called “shite” and when something better happens it’s a “show saver”. I’m not sure how much value I should give it. The reviews seemed milder.

Remarkable Observations as in that everybody seems to agree with the below points:
1. Jimmy Carr’s standup routine was not found successful due to the feeling he was doing jokes that had been circling on Twitter for the past few hours. It also felt like he was trying too hard to show he followed the news.

2. There was no cohesion in the show since the format kept jumping around between the 4(?) hosts.

3. No time was taken (in the first half) to explore a subject properly. Too many subjects were too old to be called news in the week that was. Too many subjects were introduced for a more in depth and informative show.

4. Even in the longer subject handling not enough time was taken; they kept having to cut because time was up.

5. Lauren Laverne was terribly underused. If you want her on the show, give her something of substantial to do.

6. There was too much audience. They were too loud, too frantic and eager to laugh hysterically at anything (probably drunk?) and too many (view) cuts to the audience.

Those were the 6 main negative points I see returning in almost all comments and reviews.

Overall not a bad start for a live show with 3 inexperienced presenters and the token female who doesn’t get much to do, but be the token female. There’s definitely a promise.

Online reviews
1. The First Post
2. The Guardian
3. The Independent
4. Beehivecity
5. New Statesman
6. the Telegraph
7. publicservice.co.uk

"10 O'Clock Live" New C4 Show

2011-01-20T03:00:00.001-08:00

A lot of noise has been made about this new program that will be broadcast live on C4 this evening. Especially, since it hasn’t been on air yet. It is described as “a fresh and unashamedly intelligent take on current affairs from a young perspective.” A series of 15 episodes of an hour long over 15 weeks is planned for this show, and it’s live.

The show has its origins during the British Election Night last year. That evening it ran for 4 hours and was presented as “the Alternative Election Night”. The show proved such a success; soon rumours were going around about a series sprouting from the show. Only now not just politics will be subject, but other interesting things as well like “How Wayne Rooney looks like a potato”.

There will be interviews, discussions and critical and satirical elements. It has been reported politicians have already agreed to be guests. All in all an exciting outlook; though still expectations are mixed.

Many times this new show has been compared to the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and it will be up against Newsweek and Question Time. It has yet to be unfolded how things will go down for this new satirical news program.

The show is a production by Zeppotron, an Endemol company and is commissioned by C4’s Darren Smith, the lead commissioner for this series.

It will be presented by the same group of hosts that presented the Alternative Election Night, namely Jimmy Carr, David Mitchell, Lauren Laverne and Charlie Brooker. And it’s called “10 O’Clock Live”.

The first broadcast will be this evening.

<>

Okay, that was really just an exercise in writing. I suppose not too bad, but not exactly great either. Reading back I realize it’s really a mishmash of facts and other nonsense. All true however and some free advert for the show.

I won’t be watching; I don’t receive C4.

The Most Depressing Day of the Year

2011-01-17T07:53:00.001-08:00

Today it was brought to my attention someone declared this day, January 17th, the most depressing day of the year. Apparently that was news, because it was something that could be read in a paper.

I do agree this is not the most cheerful day I’ve ever experienced. It’s dark and misty outside. It’s also a Monday, which never helps, apparently. And all the festivities have come to an end for a while.

I must admit, I have felt better. I have experienced days without a headache and with floods of sunshine and days that are not Mondays or days on which we are celebrating something. And yet, I have the feeling we can’t yet say this is the most depressing day of the year. I’m even sure more depressing days are ahead of us. Maybe not for you, but certainly for a lot of other people. Fact is, no one can tell yet, unless they have the ability to look into the future which they don’t.

Why is that news anyway? If you don’t have anything worthwhile to say, why do you feel the need to air a depressing unfact? Who even put energy in justifying why this is the most depressing day of the year? You don’t know and nor does anybody else. Why depressing yourself and everybody who was unfortunate enough to read it or come across it in some way?

This been an irritating day, to me. Yes, it could have been better. It also could have been worse. Overall, this was not a too bad day. I was stuck at work, like so many other days, and tried to wrestle my way through incomprehensible problems. No, not the most inspiring or motivating way to spend a day, but at least I’ve got some work done. Actually, I’m pretty contented with how today things went (apart from the whole ‘Alarm Clock Affair’).

Today I brought a few bags of candy to work, which resulted in hilarity. I had some funny and rather tense relieving conversations with a colleague. I handed in a few documents which I could tick off as finished (for now). Also a few incomprehensible problems turned out to be not as incomprehensible as expected, which was good.

So, I’ll be going home with an OK feeling about today. Nothing more, nothing less.

Good day!

WHAT NOT TO SAY - the Alarm Clock (Britain) Affair

2011-01-17T02:25:00.000-08:00

Good Morning!

Yes, a good morning to you ‘Alarm Clock’ people. As if...

This morning I had the misfortune to wake up to two, yes two, ‘Alarm Clock Britain’ columns respectively by two of my favourite columnists/comedians. Unfortunately too, I am not a member of ‘Alarm Clock Britain’ and even if I was, this whole ‘Alarm Clock Britain’ affair leaves me incredibly baffled. I suppose that was the point of both columns; so they certainly didn’t miss their points.

Neither did Nick Clegg, the cause of the whole consternation. They, CB and DM, wrote about it. I am writing about it. Unfortunately (it’s a real unfortunate choice of words resulting in an unfortunate situation), he misses his goal. What the hell or rather who the hell is he talking about? I can only conclude this is the start of the apocalypse.

I am not willing to discuss the choice of words any further. Go read Charlie Brooker’s and David Mitchell’s columns for that; they said it all.
Sources:
1. David Mitchell's column and
2. Charlie Brooker's column

I am going to be sarcastic about it though.

I woke up, sort of, to my alarm clock. Like on every Sunday evening I set my alarm clock to 7 am. Not with the intention to wake up or something, rather with the intention to pretend I’m going to be a good girl and get up at the first sounds of a blaring alarm. I don’t think my zombie kind of state qualifies as getting up. Beside that, the only thing I do as a reaction to the alarm is turning it off for another blissful 9 minutes to repeat the procedure. Around 8 am thoughts start to form in my head that I really should get up or I’ll be fantastically late at work.

This morning was an exceptional sleepy affair. Unlike many other mornings my mind registered the whole ‘Alarm Clock Affair’. For good measure I’m now going to explain what an ‘Alarm Clock Affair’ is.

An Alarm Clock Affair is the affair of reaching some level of consciousness, due to a blaring alarm clock, and getting into an upward position out of the bed to make my way to the alarm clock and turn it off for 9 more minutes, then I return to the bed. This procedure is repeated till 8 o’clock am. This whole procedure, from 7 am to 8 am, is the ‘Alarm Clock Affair’.

Anyway, registered but not as much as awake. I realized I needed to clean out my cats’ lavatory (or lavalibdem in this case *snigger* ergh...) which meant I needed some extra time before leaving the house for work.
Only now I reached a higher level of being awake. Nothing special, but I was very quickly aware of the dodgy state of mind of this day.

Does that make me an ‘Alarm Clock’ person? I suppose it does, yet I feel it has nothing to do with me. Not only because I’m not British, but also whenever Mr. Clegg uses that phrase I feel strangely alienated from whatever he’s trying to express. I wish he knew what he was talking about; I have the daunting suspicion he doesn’t, like no one seems to know.

I now go laugh/cry/scream in a corner.

If I had said something like ‘Alarm Clock Britain’ at work I would have received my resignation letter.

This whole 'Alarm Clock' Affair made me angrier than I should have become! That's why half of the title is in capitols.

I did however edit this piece a mere 7 times for your enjoyment. Not that I was actually counting.

Hello Charlie

2011-01-14T07:53:00.001-08:00

There are quite a few new programs aligned to get broadcast this year. All in all quite exciting, especially since Charlie Brooker is involved. I wanted to say “people I like”, but I quickly realized it really mainly were Charlie Brooker “projects”.

However, it seems the Bubble is not going to return, because David Mitchell choose the 10 O’Clock Live live thing over the Bubble. Maybe a shame, but I was not that big a fan of the Bubble. I felt it would get boring quite quickly with all the (fake) reports. Also, how many more times can you put the same people in a house for a week while they have busy schedules?

Look how ably I steered this blog post away from Charlie Brooker and “new programs”. I’m almost proud of myself, but this lame paragraph shot my pride in the eye and now it’s dying.

For the first time in a long time I’m excited about what’s coming to us on the airwaves of television. Right while I’m at the point of losing the ability to watch TV at all. My ex wants the TV and I get almost anything else. And even though I really want “anything else”, I’m really going to miss the TV in this time and age. Not that I was able to watch 10 O’Clock Live as it is happening live; I don’t receive C4. Another Brooker project is going out on BBC2, which I do receive. So yeah, that sort of sucks. Or I have to buy a new TV which I think I’m going to, because I really don’t want to be without at this point in this spring.

I’m still a bit deflated over my friends not liking Charlie. As usual, in my direct surroundings, no one likes him or knows him which leaves me alone to celebrate and it’s a lonely party this way.

Here’s a piece I wrote earlier, but didn’t post because it doesn’t really reflect my feelings and I felt Charlie didn’t deserved to be shouted at for handing over the Screen Burn Column. I just like the flow of words.

Hello Charlie

For years you observed the (TV) world and described it in bold capital letters, scolding people and breaking down programs, games and news items alike to the core of what things were and had become. Not in it to make friends, but to point and groan. Maybe pointing out all that is wrong and went bad made you wary and despising mankind even more than you did.

Soon people thought of you as profane, rude, crude, angry and maybe even aggressive. You started to feel bad for some people you gave a beating. You became confused by how people saw you. You thought it all went slightly worse with your own contribution, so you decided to stop.

Turns out the worse thing you’ve done so far.

Extra instructions:
Ignore the spelling and grammar mistakes.

Grace Dent took over the Screen Burn Column; Go Read It!
Screen Burn
Loads of Screen Burns of Grace Dent and Charlie Brooker alike. (scroll down for Grace)

And some more randomness:
Could have gone on Twitter (yes yes, I have a Twitter account)

I See

So that is how it all works?

And another one for Twitter?

Holla

For a while now, I have been wanting to fly.

And...

He stops Screen Burning and I saw that as the perfect sign to start following him. Bollocks!!! Another regular fixture down the drain. What am I supposed to do on Monday mornings now?

The last one is actually too big for Twitter. And Charlie-related...like I'm not, WAHahahe..ehumm...

Right. That's said.

the Online Society

2011-01-07T07:52:00.000-08:00

This has to be said.

I am one of the many people inhabiting this online society. I have met many people online since I've been born on here. Some are good people, some are bad apples. Isn't that just how life works?

I remember hearing and reading several fame inflicted people complaining about the comments sections on YouTube or below paper articles and columns. I suppose the advice not read it still stands for them famous people. However, I have to stand up for the occasional normal person with some intellect and the ones with wit. Even though I believe a lot of those comedians operate on a high level, I do also know I have laughed sometimes even harder at online comments.

It's there. Just like I endure some (self acclaimed) artists to get to the good bits, I do endure the many stupid comments to get to the good ones. Thing is, it's all there and like with everything good in life you have to search for it and it never lasts very long. But it's there and I wouldn't want to miss it.

What does scare me about those online comments is; These all come from people living somewhere in real society. Isn't that frightening?

Just a pet peeve. *off soapbox*

State of Bewilderment

2010-12-20T04:47:00.000-08:00

There are days I’m scared to death of life. Today is one such day. The nervousness is cropping up in my throat. I feel like I’m being choked, not quite to death, but swallowing sure is a bit harder than usual. My appetite is absent, though the nausea suggests my stomach is in need of food. I think I’m also dehydrating.

I’m not sure where this fear came from. It might be the tasks that have been set at work. It might have been Charlie Brooker’s column, which I read this morning. Or David Mitchell’s answers to some questions from Guardian readers(?). Either way, it didn’t help my state of being.

Also the cold is so through and through it’s pressuring on my temples and residing in my bones. It causes muscle failure in the arms and a thumping headache....and the loss of knowledge of several words. I feel quite inapt to write anything today, or read for that matter. And in my state of falling apart, it doesn’t help my confidence. Ironically, this morning I woke up with the song Confidence out of the Sound of Music in my head.

What was this about the British education fee again? Going from ‘Litter society’ to ‘Farmyard society’? Or did I dream it? I can however inform with some confidence that I forgot entirely what David Mitchell wrote in his column. Oh wait, something about nuclear weapons being paraded through the city in a golden carriage.

Anything of it all seems so far from my life. My life lately has been white, cold and sort of busy; white with a glowing centre of blackness. I refuse to believe there’s more ‘Bah’ to come, no matter how persistent the papers keep stating the opposite. Some day something should be fine again, shouldn’t it?

With my personal dictionary draining, new words and phrases should be invented. So far I came up with ‘litter society’ as used above, and with ‘fuckery’ which I have not used yet except in some internal conversation as a reaction on some situation.

I feel this blog should have a rating?

Sources: Charlie Brooker's How To Cut Tuition Fees
David Mitchell under the spotlight and David Mitchell's Catchy Titles and Nuclear Security Rant

To Mr. Charlton Brooker

2010-12-08T05:01:00.001-08:00

It’s not that I wanted to, I just had to. It’s really just a salute to you, Mr. Charlton Brooker, also known as Charlie Brooker. I suppose this outcry is really the echo of my fears of you not creating quite enough new stuff to keep me entertained. Mr. Charlie Brooker, you are my ghetto blaster of observation and opinion. We just agree on most things and you never cease to make me laugh. But what especially strikes me about you is you seem to try to be fair....sort of.

What’s up with the whole 10 O’Clock Live thing? Have preparations begun? What’s your part going to be? I was thinking, you could do news items like you do on Newswipe, though I’m not sure what that would mean for Newswipe as a separate series; wouldn’t want to lose it.
Also I feel you should get a bigger part than you had in the Election night special. You are a good host, sir. And I think we could do with less Jimmy Carr reading off, obviously, auto-cue. And then maybe we could let go of the ‘panic room’ organization. That would safe time and money and would provide a bit more variation (20 minutes of Jimmy Carr prescripted quips and head movements without breaks was a bit much for me).

I did read Screenwipe and Newswipe are going out on BB2 this Christmas and the coming year. Especially to me, that’s good news, since I don’t receive C4 nor BBC4.
What about You Have Been Watching? Is a new series commissioned? Even though I love to watch you, Mr. Charlton, a bit of variation of faces could be refreshing. And the proof you can actually smile is a sweet one. Beside that, I just love the idea of the TV-club.

I hope to see much more of you the coming year (and on).

My fave forum quote of the week (a quote with a reaction added, really):
“’I had a Bounty on my head.... I was showing off in the newsagents.’ Wahey!!”
Source: UKFF Forum

Take That

2010-12-03T04:49:00.001-08:00

Not so long ago I wrote a blog about the return of Robbie to the returned boyband Take That. I was complaining about how I couldn’t and didn’t want to go back. It turns out I was partly wrong. I still don’t want to return to 15-20 years ago, but I find myself feeling the same sentiments being on the edge of... whatever. Take That turns out to be a cornerstone in my life. Whenever I find myself on a crossing of life and I have to make new choices to move further to a new phase of my life, Take That simply appears. I’m being pulled toward it and into it. I have no choice but to follow. I am following again.

A few weeks ago Take That released a new album and single and with that the return of Robbie. About two weeks ago they announced a great tour through Britain and a few cities throughout Europe. My mom told me to get a ticket really.
Then the whole promotion for the single, the album and the tour started with them doing interviews throughout Britain and Europe. Suddenly they were everywhere again, like 15-20 years ago. Since I was curious I caught all the things they did in and for Dutch tv and then I was back in. Ever since I’ve been searching the Internet, googling and youtubing. Yesterday I even retrieved my scrapbooks from back then.

What really did it for me was the new documentary ‘Look Back, Don’t Stare’. It embarked on Robbie’s return and recording the new album, Progress, right up to the preparations of the announcement of the tour. I love that documentary, because for the first time the other side of the story was told. All that happened, but only a little bit made it out to the world. It turned out the 5 years in the 90’s were a bit of a commercial lie. I never knew how things really were. I never knew about the tensions within the band. I never heard about how they experienced their time in Take That. It was heart breaking. I never wanted them to hurt and hate each other, or being indifferent to the others feelings.

I love that documentary, because it’s such a sincere, brave and honest retelling. It was refreshing to see how frank and open they tried to be about then and now. It was all kind of emotions and feelings in one to see how much they struggled to make it work a second time, especially concerning Robbie. So much had happened. So much is still going on. They’re fighting really hard to make things right. It’s heart warming to see how much they enjoyed working on Progress, with each other, including Robbie.

I hope this is true. I hope things won’t fall apart like they did before. I have faith, yet I am scared. There’s no escaping for me. Let’s see what’s happening next.

Source: Wiwipedia: Robbie rejoined Take That

Age of Technology

2010-11-12T01:50:00.000-08:00

This was an old piece I wrote in September. I left it in my 'Work in Progress' document, because I thought it wasn't quite ready to go out. After having read it I decided it was actually good enough to see the light of day. So there ya go. Obviously, that piece in the paper you're not going to find; sorry for that.

* * *

More and more I see articles about what the new technology, we’re speaking Information technology here, is doing to our brains. Everything goes faster; we’re offered the possibility to do more things at the same time while they keep flashing suggestions of other ways to turn into our faces. Even though our brains are processing faster than mankind’s grey mass ever has, we’re on the brink of overload. Our long term memory is deteriorating, our attention span is decreasing and privacy is something historical. (I made up the last one, but it is generally true.) Also we’re not as good at multi tasking as we thought, and the youth is performing worse than their seniors. Yet, the progressing technology is not bad; it’s the way we cope with it.

I remember being taught our ancestors wouldn’t be able to cope with our fast paced world. I still believe that’s true. However, now I’m wondering if the same doesn’t apply to us too. There’s so much possible and yet we don’t know how to deal with all these possibilities. We’re like little children in a candy shop with a pushy salesman. All the colours and promises to our palates make our eyes grow bigger and our fingers itching to grab. And we grab till our head starts to spin with a sugar rush and our stomachs are trying to rid itself of the overload of sugar and preservatives. In the end we go back home too sick to join for dinner and going straight to bed to nurse nausea and a pounding headache.

I work in IT. I know what’s possible (about everything) and I know how unproductive you can get with all these toys in your hands. These days you can do research in your bed with your laptop hooked up to the Internet. You don’t need to leave the house to find out your ancestor bought one of the first motor bikes. And if you don’t need to leave your bed it automatically means you don’t need to leave your office to do research. You can research, for instance, the perils of progression in your boss’ time. Or you can do that and work at the same time as well. It’s all possible.

I’m involved, side ways, in a large project called “het Nieuwe Werken” (the New Working; what a crap translation). The project mainly tries to implement even more electronic ways to work and offer employees possibilities. It might sound wonderful, but in the greater scheme you can see where this is going. Now we do know about these “perils” and I believe we should act upon it. We have to go from reactive working to proactive working. We have to learn to work again. We have to learn to cope with technology.

I read in the paper that only the notification of receiving an e-mail already costs us 3 seconds. That might not sound like much, but in the end it adds up. Firstly, I think I’m now mixing Charlie’s column up with that paper article. Never mind. Secondly, so what? Does the writer even consider the time lost when getting and drinking coffee and when chatting to colleagues? Even if we exclude all the external disturbances, the fact we do need taking breaks doesn’t seem very important. Of course it is. I think I lose more minutes drinking and chatting to people then I do noticing emails coming in. In the end when I look back, I often do think I had a productive day even though I received many mails and read them. It’s a point of variation that we need. Let’s not forget that.

Sources:
Dutch paper: de Pers, page 12 from Monday September 13th.
Charlie’s column

Leap Into Same Ol' Same Ol'

2010-11-08T09:04:00.000-08:00

Here's a mishmesh of feelings and insights... (Sorry for all the spelling and grammar mistakes; I just couln't be bothered to spell check)

My mind seems to be poisoned with anger. It's just between these walls I want to scream and abuse several objects. I'm not a violent person, usually, just rude, but back in the world of common misconception and misguided optimism I want to bang my head repeatedly against something hard. I can't for my life figure out why everything keeps going wrong here. It seems so simple to do the right thing, yet they manage to lead is into new potentional failures of reorganization and inactivity. I don't think I have seen any plan come into fruition in this organization. Whenever we dig the spade into the ground to build the foundation they change plans and we have to cover up the concrete floor with soft sand. That's how we keep sinking in the floor knee deep till we hit something hard which can't be broken away easily so we build foundation on foundation without actually building anything. Our basement is now 2 stories high and we're in danger of falling off.

Anything today brought me back to the state where I could burst out into tears any moment. Within the course of less than 8 hours my body had forgotten it suffered a lazy holiday with too much food and too less exersize. I should be happy to get back to work, but I'm not. I feel less productive than when I spent the whole day watching QI on my computer in my bedroom. I feel deprived of fresh air more than I would after having spend all morning in bed with the window tightly shut. Even the fresh shot of columns by my favourite people ticked me off. Not that I understood what they were whining about, but after reading I felt I should be mad and I can't stop thinking that's an unjustified feeling.

When did everything stop making sense? How come everyone and everything seems to be spinning in an endless circle? It's like we're orbiting around our own faiths and beliefs and we're never really getting to the core. Moving out seems to be an option, but I lost faith it's any better anywhere else. Isn't that what we do; fool ourselves? For the richer count themselves richer at all times and the poorer keep losing time and therefore money. Hasn't it always been like that? That security is just an illusion, because in the end, we'll all go? That we all end up with more delusions than dreams fullfilled?

I think I was lucky. I'm not saying I have less delusions or that my planning wasn't altered somewhere along the way. I'm saying looking back it all could have been worse. I could have gotten into serious trouble with my big mouth. I might have won the lottery if I ever bought a ticket. That's not the point. The point is that I am able to bang my head against something hard for something maybe very futile. Or I can choose to indulge it all and see my next turn out. That's my luck; I've still got places to go.

Bully <-> Victim

2010-09-27T03:26:00.000-07:00

Looking back at my childhood, I realize I never fitted in any group. I wasn't the most popular girl at school, neither did I ever get bullied. If there was anything wrong than it was me being pretty much invisible. I never seemed to get noticed, and the moments I did scream or was stubborn and cheeky or aggressive, the teachers were so shocked, they just moved on not knowing how to react.

For some reason the worst and most violent boys were always protecting me. My mom told me when I was in Kindergarden, one of the boys always wanted to be around me and defended me saying I was not a girl. Amusing. Then when I was in highschool the boy with the most problems was always incredibly nice to me and involved me into the school activities. He was of all the scholars the nicest person to me.

I wasn't into sports, but I am a fanatic which means whenever I'm forced into doing some sports I at least give it my best. That in combination with me being invisible and not quite weak enough resulted in me skipping a bit through those gym lessons. Beside that, I'm someone who's not very willing to let the bullies have their fun, so when they picked on me I acted as if I didn't understand and just ignored them. After a while they gave up. I do remember taunting quite a bit older girl, because I'm just not having bullying, and we had to run cause I angered her quite a bit by bullying her back. Thinking back at it, it probably wasn't the smartest thing to do, but we were close to home so the girl didn't dare to follow us up into the appartment where my friend lived.

That's the thing with me. The bullying always left me unimpressed or I just bullied them back in such way it left them shocked, cause no one expects a tiny wee little girl going into it full force.

I don't have the illusion I can win a fysical fight. I know I've been quite a bit lucky for quite a few of these times I simply taunted them back or beat them in their own games. I only have my mind and the will to always win and the passion to detest being bullied.

No one bullies me and gets away with it.

This Thing

2010-09-27T03:05:00.000-07:00

This morning I spent a great deal laughing. First at Alan's message to David. When I managed to control my laughter I read David's reply and lost control again.
I'm not even sure why it amused me that much. Is it because Alan suggested a fictional character 'menaced' a real life person into plugging a show the alter ego of the fictional character had written? Probably. And the answer accordingly just as irrational, or the fact that I can't see Mark Corrigan nor David Mitchell ever accepting crack from Super Hans? Probably. I don't know.

I think I really only tricked myself this morning into believing everything is questionable.

I Can’t Say I Care

2010-09-10T07:08:00.000-07:00

My world has been revolving around catch phrases. I have a few even though I don’t acknowledge them as such. First was an episode of QI I hadn’t seen before. Stephen Fry told us the show hadn’t had a catch phrase up till that episode, but that was going to change that particular episode. Every panel member chose his own catch phrase:

Alan Davies: “Has your mother sold her mangle?”
Clive Anderson: “Who are you?”
Rich Hall: “You’re dumber than a bag of wet mice.”
Reginald D. Hunter: “Do what you do best.”
Especially Reginald put his catchphrase to good use.

At some point Stephen Fry came to talk about the Duke of Wellington’s trousers, because once the Duke was refused to enter a club because of the trousers he was wearing. This leads to Stephen making up his own catchphrase: “I can come in any trousers I like”.

After a while they get to talking about the word “Saurus”, which is Greek for “Lizard” and was ancient Greek slang for “Penis”. “Thesaurus” means a treasure house – in the case of the book, it is a treasure house of words. Alan claims you could refer to your backside as a treasure house, which leads to Stephen coining a new catchphrase: “My bottom is a treasure house!”

Brilliant, but way more information about the catchphrasy episode of QI than I intended to give. It still makes me laugh though.

Last night I stumbled upon a stand up show of Sean Lock. He was also saying a few things about catchphrases, but I can’t remember what. I should look that up.

The reason I decided to write this little piece has everything to do with how I express my level of care concerning pieces I read; it may be blogs, columns or separate messages. Usually I skim through the comments to conclude: “I can’t say I care” meaning every word of it. It usually also means the end of the reading or even thinking about it. Today I realized that’s actually my catchphrase.

I realized it after reading a few comments on Charlie Brooker’s latest column. I already had some trouble getting through his piece, but it was during reading the comments I lost interest completely.
I realized it today when I realized I was thinking the exact same words the day before when reading through some of the comments made on David’s soapbox. Neither did David’s rant really interest me, even though I was pretty much disagreeing with him; it just didn’t seem worth it to even say anything about it. I just didn’t care.

So there, I have a catchphrase; “I can’t say I care.”

(Side note: I really don’t, I just felt like writing a blog and this seemed a suitable subject.)

Sources:
QI’s Comedy Guide Page Series F, Episode 8 (Fashion)
Charlie Brooker’s Phone Hacking Column
David’s Soapbox about Kid’s tv

My Peep Life Continued

2010-09-08T02:55:00.000-07:00

This morning I had two dreams, because I kept drifting in and out of sleep. The first was the most curious. I was "celebrating" my birthday and some family were attending. I didn't pay too close attention to who was there; I honestly have no clue. Thinking back in an awake state of mind it rather felt like strangers pretending to be my family. The two most surprising visitors were Robert Webb and David Mitchell. They were both quiet and almost not even present. I did get to talk to Robert on my mother's garage's floor. Why the hell we choose to sit down there is beyond me, as is the fact I'm celebrating my birthday in the summer; it felt like summer in my dream. The conversation was rather pleasant; it took me less effort to talk to Robert than to David. I don't think, once again, I exchanged a proper word with David. I do remember trying to get closer to him and in the end the words we exchanged were only greetings for he and Robert were leaving. I think I thanked him for attending. That was it, then I woke up.

The second dream was about a friend who I planned to go on holiday with telling me she actually didn't like going to the theatre and therefore decided to cancel on me leaving me with a spare ticket. I told her about this dream this morning during our smoke break. She assured me she was looking forward to it and there was no way she was going to cancel on me.

Even the weirdness of my dreams are sort of boring, annoying and incredibly uneventful. I gained two new "friends" and I lost one. What the hell am I supposed to do with that. The real friend laughed in my face this morning when I told her those two from the DVD boxset were on my birthday party. By now she must think I'm a crazy obsessed lunatic, which is accurate.

Tonight I'm going to look into getting Charlie Brooker to my house. We could watch tv and he could add stupid comments to our watching tv agony. Or if I want a steady laugh I could try to get Alan Davies do a standup routine or play with the cat I haven't bought yet. Or I could have Charlie reviewing my *peep* life and Alan poking fun at it. That sounds more like my traditional dreams, though in my dreams they would both go incredibly silent. I might just as well invite Robert and David back for a cold silent night in my mother's garage.

Peep Life

2010-09-03T03:08:00.000-07:00

Two blogs in one, because I can't be bothered to do 2 posts.

J&M and the Vending Machine
A load of bullcrap is going on in my life. In the meantime I keep up the diligent daydreaming and obsessive fandomming. I had a crap day yesterday. People sick, workload I can’t reduce and a mind that’s confused and tired. Yesterday I could cry. I didn’t. Instead I dumped it all over people I work or don’t work with, but who happen to work on the same floor as I do. I spent the whole afternoon talking. I haven’t done anything constructive since yesterday morning. I feel a bit useless, inactive and not very efficient. I don’t know how these words go together, but they do.

Today I checked my twitter account, which I also started doing quite diligently since I started following Charlie. The happiness came from Robert Webb though. He only retweeted a picture one of the writers of Peep Show tweeted. It was a picture of the new season of Peep Show of Jez and Mark standing in front of a vending machine. I don’t know why, but it made me incredibly happy. I love those sorry bastards and they nearly made me cry. That’s the paradoxal world of Peep Show. That’s the paradoxal world of me. No wonder I feel so at home with them.

DM Fandom Unconscious Acceptance

Tonight, or actually this morning, I remembered my first DM dream. Not that it is such a big deal, but it always seems to be a very significant point for a new fan; it launches you into the deep depths of fandom of the particular person and generates sympathy, or agony, with your fellow fans. I think it’s fairly innocent; it’s workings of the brain you don’t control. Apparently, something about it keeps your brain occupied and you need to work that out. Mine was really just wistful thinking.

I dreamt I had to go to work so I left for the metro station like I do every morning of every weekday. When I arrived at the station I noticed something unusual and weird was going on; the metro station was rebuilt into a swimming paradise for a day. It was some kind of event with big publicity. The weirdest thing about it was it had presenters presenting something; one of the presenters was David Mitchell. I have no clue what the hell he had to say, because I wandered around the station trying to find my way wondering if I should go back to the main area to see his part. In the end I was too late. Neither did I go to work, instead I decided to go back home, because it seemed impossible to get into a metro. Also, the possibility to meet David was too tempting.

When I was leaving the station people were already cleaning up the whole swimming pool and waterfall area which caused me some trouble getting back down and out of the station. I managed in a flurry of dizziness and met up with some people who were involved in the whole organization and I found out David was about to leave and he should join us to leave to wherever. He did, I saw him, even managed to get to walk right beside him. He seemed nice, a bit quiet and timid, distant even for all the right reasons. I understood and only tried to make some funny comments which only made him smile politely. Even I recognized I failed miserably. We really didn’t talk, and I think, if that was real, by the time he would drive away in a bus to the airport, he had already forgotten about me. Then I woke up.

The weird thing about that dream is, it almost could have been true. Not the swimming paradise bit, but mainly his reaction to me. To him I’m just another stranger/fan who tries to connect. I didn’t even try that hard to connect and neither did he, and why should he? What I remember to my shame is me checking out how fat/thin he was. Strangely, he was something in between fat and thin, but not really either. That was too confusing so I decided not to look too much at him anymore. Just talk a little and sense his presence next to mine. I couldn’t believe my luck I managed to leave at the same time as he did. I hate how I couldn’t think of anything funny to say and said something incredibly lame instead; I don’t remember what I said, it were only fleeting comments. I realized quickly he was not really into starting a conversation with me so I let it go. I was just happy to have met him.

What To Say Too

2010-08-30T07:07:00.000-07:00

Sometimes it seems the Universe revolves around me. Previous week I blogged about words that get molested into carrying negative connotations and how it annoys me. Unbeknownst to me some other words with the same fate were presented in game format. With new interest new programs come in my line of view and with that a whole catalogue of new irritations. This game was part of a radio panel show. I love the radio show and the game within. The game was; find the connection between a list of given words or persons. One list was as follows: manhole, stewardess, ugly, lazy, stupid. The connection was that for all these words other politically correct words existed. Of course that annoyed the crap out of me.

The word “manhole” has a bit of a sexual sound to it, doesn’t it? It makes me laugh, really. No harm intended, surely. In California they were cautious though. They renamed all their “manholes” to “maintenance holes” out of concern for the equality of both genders. Bollocks. As if a manhole is something everybody wants to have permission to go down in. Not that kind of manhole.

According to wikipedia a “flight attendant” is historically known as “steward/stewardess” or “air hosts/hostesses”. Hahaha, "historically". I fail to see how calling a steward/stewardess is offending. Apparently, they felt their job was more stylish or glamorous than the job title suggests. Wikipedia also tells us the word “flight attendant” (replacer of steward/stewardess, because of its gender neutrality) is now slowly being replaced with the word “cabin crew” because of their role as members of the crew. As if we doubted they were members of the crew. For as far as I know, we passengers still call them stewards/stewardesses.

“Ugly“ and “cosmetically challenged” bear the exact same meaning; displeasing to the senses. Sure you can tell someone he’s “cosmetically challenged”. He will probably figure it out thinking: “Wait a minute, she just called me ugly.” Same thing, isn’t it? How is changing the word going to change the use or the meaning? It means what it means and should in all cases used with care. The only advantage the word “cosmetically challenged” has is that it takes people a little longer to figure out what exactly was said; you might be out of the way by the time they have.

The word “lazy” has loads of synonyms, all sounding as tiresome and negative as “lazy”. The only reason to use another word for the meaning “inactive or sluggish” is to have some variation. I’m not quite sure why this word was included in the game.

“Stupid” equals “unintelligent” and means “lacking in intelligence”. Not a very creative description, but the stupid people have to understand it as well I suppose. I don’t know, but I think it doesn’t really matter if you call someone “stupid” or “unintelligent”, the message is clear and will usually result in a negative response. Why bother using a bit fancier word?

This stupid (or unintelligent) way of dealing with words doesn’t help us nor our language. Like I said before it only results in fancy words we can’t write and almost no-one is sticking to the new rules anyway. Why bother with polluting our language like that? Use of these "politcally correct" words won’t make anyone more important or more right; it will only make our communication less clear. In the end we will all sound like politicians and enrage each other, because we’re assuming everybody is saying something bad about us.

I lost the lust for ranting. Charlie's language column is way more fun than mine: Buzzwords for Blowhards

What To Say

2010-08-26T05:48:00.000-07:00

This does belong in my “Things You Shouldn’t Say” series though this will be a bit of a different entry. Just as much things people say annoy me, also the things people don’t say annoy me. The meaning of the word ‘connotation’ is very important.

The term “cleaning lady”. I don’t know about the countries outside the Netherlands, but inside, at some point we were not allowed anymore to call the “cleaning ladies” “cleaning ladies”; they were now to be called “interior carers”. That makes me laugh, still. My mom was a cleaning lady and was told she was not to be called a “cleaning lady” anymore, but a “interior carer”. In return my mom asked: “Does that mean I get paid more or that I have to do other things?” to which the answer was a sounding ‘No’. And my mom said: “Then call me a cleaning lady”. Gotta love her for that.

The word “nigger” is a special one and shows how wrong things can go for words. Initially it meant “black” as derived from the Latin “niger”. Unfortunately, through the consensus of environment and time, the word collected a negative connotation. These days a lot of people will take offence if you call them a nigger, especially when you’re not “black”. So the word “negro” was adopted, meaning the same and even being derived from the same Latin word “niger”. But this word went the same way as its older brother/sister? These days I’m a little confused of what to call them, but then again, I usually don’t use anyone’s ethnic background to refer to them. Most people have names, you know.

I saw a header in paper requesting the word “allochthonous” become forbidden. The equivalent Dutch word “allochtoon” is a word we use a lot in the Netherlands to refer to people who don’t have the Dutch nationality. It’s an old Greek word meaning “from another country”, which is what these people are. Forbidding usage of this word is ridiculous, because all you’re saying is “this person who is not from this country”. The person can be from a Western country like Germany, England, Italy, Spain or America. The person can also be from an Eastern land like Turkey, Greece, Russia or one of the Asian countries. The reason this person wanted to forbid the use of the word “allochtoon”, because it had a bad connotation for the Moroccan or Turkish people. Bollocks! Sure we can keep to saying “Moroccan” or Turkish, but for a lot of people the bad connotation stays. It’s not about the word, it’s about the people. It’s about how people regard each other and treat each other. If both groups, allochthonous and autochthonous, would learn to tell people apart from groups and judge behaviour per case, a lot of the bad connotations would evaporate. There wouldn’t be a need for a change of usage of words all the time.

I do understand those connotations became more important than the actual meaning of words as stated in dictionaries all over the world, but aren’t we going a bit crazy here? We’ve got plenty negative words to refer to people, objects, events and other things. Why do we have to keep raping words? In the end, if we carry on like this, we will end up with more forbidden words then speech needs and with not understandable positive words. Cocking them up won’t make life sweeter. Can you imagine the amount of beeps on our tv sets if we let this happen? Life is what is, deal with it.

Mob Development

2010-08-25T02:29:00.000-07:00

I set myself a bit of a writing challenge. I read Charlie Brooker’s and David Mitchell’s column and decided to write something based on what they wrote ending up talking about something else entirely. I have no idea how that’s going to pan out.

Charlie wrote about the Ground Zero Mosque wondering what, according to the protesters, would be acceptable. David talked about the school/Uni system and how that is valuable for life experiences. I agree on what Charlie said, I have trouble with David’s column, though I can’t really put a finger to what I have a problem with.

How scary can mobs be? I’m seriously freaked out by a lot of them. Brainless violent protesters throwing around irony in their actions and accusations. Who are these people and where did they come from? Where and why did they pick up such contradicting ideas and opinions? Where does it stem from?

I remember in school, everybody was trying to fit in, except for me. It naturally resulted in me being an outsider and sitting alone during the breaks with the backs of others as my view. It gave me the opportunity once more to observe. I just don’t understand. I learnt to think for myself resulting in turning my back on certain ideas and finding new ones and the contacts according. It took me high school and college to get where I am now; still reasonably alone, but with more inspiring people than ever before.

I forgot a lot about my teenage years. I only remember them being uncomfortable. I feel like, when looking back, I could have missed classes more than I have. I do know I couldn’t talk nor write English properly at the time. Or so I thought. I graduated on my good grades for English; without I would have lost another year in high school. As if it mattered, there was not that much substance to pick up. Now I am wondering what would have happened had I left for a year to travel the world. I would probably have myself killed. I’m not a survivor; I’m a twat. I know I wouldn’t have it in my heart to join a radical group, but in the year loose, I might have changed so much, anything could have happened, that made me think foreigners are weird, dangerous and most of all, wrong about their convictions and therefore should die.

To me it seems, youngsters living in some sort of community have the bigger chance to end up in a radical group. Their minds are constantly fed with the foul information, especially outside school. If there’s anything or anyone who could steer them back to a more respectable and less violent life, it would be school and its teachers.

Allowing some A-list kid to go travel with her A-list famous movie star mom might seem innocent, but don’t you think it may wreck the world from its current axes and swirl into another path of destruction? It sure didn’t do Paris Hilton much good. What you have then is another brainless idiot contaminating society with its out of control life and views trying to convince the people that is what life is and their behaviour is the model to live by. That scares me to no end.

I’m sure Emma Thompson, the A-list movie star mom, has sense and will teach her daughter the goods of life in all its diversities outside of school. I just hope to god the young kid won’t meet the angry mob trying to kill everything with a darker tone of skin than theirs. She might see something in it. She might also understand how dangerous that is, but do children of 10 really? Have they lived long enough to make certain sensible choices, or should they rather go through their puberty first and get a bit more acquainted with how life also can be in a more controlled and graduate pace? All I know is, most of those kids are still so impressionable, it’s dangerous to force certain life lessons onto them already. You never know which way they will turn.

I know there will at a certain time in future again be another mob threatening society. I’d just rather not feed them with my offspring. I’ll probably keep my kids in school till they’re 18 and can consciously make their own mistakes.

Sources:
David Mitchell's "It's the only way to train for life"
Charlie Brooker's "The reality is less provocative"
I don't mean to abuse their titles, but they tend to be too long.

An Apology Of Sorts

2010-08-25T01:59:00.000-07:00

A new source of things sent me into a paradox once again. This morning I was thinking, how weird it may be, Charlie Brooker inspired me to write. This morning, in an empty attempt to write something professional and therefore not interesting and certainly not funny, I decided to check out whatever else constructed and ordered words have left Mr. Brooker’s typing fingers. There was one article about writing. Ironically Mr. Brooker sometimes has problems coming up with the order of words to make up an article and he told us how useless he is in giving advice about writing. Yet he did give an advice in the article. I understood and recognized the problem of fleeting inspiration and effects and consequences it forced.

I was looking for inspiration so a minute or more I would be feeling the racing touch of my fingers on my keyboard pounding out sentences and the pride of thoughts on paper. Instead I felt incredibly drained and never before so uninspired, it made me want to kick myself in the knees, as suggested only in a different variation. My brain transported into the other wise suggested, but yet not recommended state of nowhere and look there, two paragraphs. Admitted, the conversation evolving in between had me staring with glazed-over eyes while my brain went into overdrive to make sense of the words aimed at me. I tried to explain my unresponsive behaviour, but I couldn’t. I was sure I just lost it.

The irony keeps striking, because the two paragraphs was all that was there. Rereading it I felt satisfied, just not yet enough to call it okay to turn into a blog. Problem is, I’m stuck now. There’s not much more I can think of to write, except for the irony dangling in my face as I think of the two unfinished articles I have in my can waiting to receive an end and the send off to blogger. One belongs in my “Things You Shouldn’t Say” series and one inspired, or would be inspired, on something else Mr. Brooker has released not too long ago. I don’t know how to proceed with either one of the pieces of text so instead I’ll blog this dribble.

In the meantime I’ll try writing my business documents and finishing my last set challenges and raising my plastic cup to Mr. Brooker’s inspiration. See you next Monday, Mr. Brooker. Or maybe tonight on YouTube.
Source: If you want to write, get threatened

The New Cycle

2010-08-20T07:55:00.000-07:00

Like it always does, it goes around in circles. This phenomenon came to my conscience when I was somewhere in my teens. I realized I arrived in a very important stage of my life. I was supposed to make life depended choices and act accordingly; pick an education and start living like your whole life depends on it. In this age there’s nothing more a lie than that.

My first choice was a very old one on my side. I always thought I wanted to be a nurse, I let that one go, but my mind was still in the social sector of business. It was a trick set by all the grown ups. They ask you at very young age what you want to become and frankly, you don’t know. You think you do, but you don’t. Since you know you do, you model your choices to what you think will lead you to your mistaken idea of what you want. My first post-high school attempt was at the Social Pedagogic Service. I flunked the first year gloriously.

After that I was quite lost and did an interest and skills test which resulted in an advice to try Information Management and Services. Even though the study was interesting and laid a broad basis for my further life, I sometimes wonder how I ended up in ICT.

I can do the job, the area I’ve been roaming around in for the last four years. I worked as a developer and grew on to being a functional designer and maintainer to a project coordinator. Most of it quite fun, apart from the developer role. Thing is, you hardly get to see anything of the end users. It almost feels like you’re only doing it for some outside blob, unseen and unheard of. That is not how it should be, but yet is the way it often is.

Working in office bears the danger of collecting dust in your lap and a fog before your eyes. It also resets your idea of what is fashionable and sexy. No wonder the IT-crowd got its own tv show. I’m just not one of them and yet I sit with them and understand the gibberish they’re talking day in day out. I feel like the dust found its way to my brain and my perception ability. What I do has almost nothing to do with living, not even with surviving. It’s life inside a cave only now we’re drawing 0’s and 1’s.

Just like anyone I need some fresh air from time to time and the feel of a sunray on my face. Rain will do too. Just the feeling I’m alive, that the world around me is alive. That there are still colours, many I may never have seen, instead of all the tones of black and grey and white to yellow.

I am back where I started. I am looking beyond what is inside the known circle. I want to try new circles. There’s so much to choose from. I might still be young, but it does feel like I don’t have as much time anymore as I used to. There’s more on the line; my surviving depends on it. I can choose safe and be sure to earn a decent living and go mad slowly, or I opt out to go chase my dreams and starve to death. Neither one is as appealing as it used to be. Just like so many, I reset my mode from ‘Living’ to ‘Surviving’. Surviving on my own without a safety net is a bit too exciting to my liking, though I’m not quite ready to bring forth the geraniums.

To Be Continued...

More "Old Holmes" Musings

2010-08-20T06:04:00.001-07:00

Here are some more musings about that last sketch:

It felt misplaced. While Blackadder was a great situational comedy show that built up to the ending so that it felt appropriate. There was the one sketch in one episode prior to the last one with them talking about the meaning of that last scene of Blackadder. There was no proper built up for that sketch, it stood apart from the other sketches in that episode. It came unexpectedly.

It also seems to suggest it’s an end to the series, like the Blackadder scene. Another sketch in that same last episode had them talking about “branching out”? and moving on, because Peepshow was not going to be forever either. It sounded like they were slowly drifting apart to do things on their own.

It seems a quite logical choice. They’ve been working together for a very long time and they always made it quite clear the comedy part, the job part was the main reason to not blow it apart. Now they’re established, they finally can go their own way. I’m just guessing here.

So that Old Holmes sketch had a bit of a build up. The one sketch in ep 5 or 4, and that one sketch in ep 6. When Holmes was talking to Watson about “...not being able to clear the fog...” was he, David, talking about not being able to work together anymore?

TM&WL - Sherlock Holmes sketch

2010-08-18T07:34:00.001-07:00

I feel compelled to say something about TM&WL’s last sketch aired yesterday. It was about an aging Holmes suffering from dementia. Watson was visiting him and a string of things happened as they do when you’re visiting someone with dementia. Watch here:

The reason I’m blogging about this is, because I feel the people who feel offended and the people who are not sure what M&W were trying to do don’t quite understand what happened or what M&W’s intentions were. Obviously, I too can only guess, but my take on their reality makes me see the good in that sketch.

First of all, that sketch wasn’t only designed to make people laugh, or as some offended said ‘...to ridicule dementia...’ Especially the ending was merely designed to make people think, or to at least leave an impression. They sure succeeded in the latter. Comedy is not only to laugh. Comedy is also there to provoke to think about things.

Secondly, like some other people said, they were rather ridiculing themselves, like so many times before. I have to rewatch to say something sensible about that though.

Thirdly, it seemed to be designed to end up in the last episode of this series and with some intent. I’m not quite sure what they intended to do, but if I grab back to a sketch in the penultimate episode of this series, their intent seemed to aim at a poignant ending á la Blackadder, last episode of the last season, season 4. This is the only point where I disagree. The ending of Blackadder was this poignant, because not only the viewer understood there was something big and inevitable going on, it was also a very definite goodbye to characters we learned to love over the course of 4 seasons. Oh, wait, I think I’m getting to the root of the Holmes sketch. Now I need to rethink.

Fourthly? When I play back the sketch as it’s cemented in my memory, I only saw a conversation and reaction in such way conversations tend to go with people suffering from dementia. It is funny sometimes. Painful, but still funny. I remember laughing at my grandma because she did or said something weird. What was I suppose to do, cry? Sure I’ll cry, just not the whole day through. I need to get through life just as much, so let me laugh from time to time. The best we can do anyway is our best.

Fifth: That, in my opinion, wasn’t crass, offensive nor tasteless. It was what it was. It was how life can be. Holmes was not ridiculed, he was pitied. No-one came in pulling his pants over his head, nor did Watson try to make a fool of him; he was cared for.

That’s why I refuse to be offended and choose to be very grateful. It might have been an eye opener to some people. It might have been a reminder to others, including me. That sketch teaches us to deal with life as it comes. I’d say kudos to Mitchell & Webb for that one.

Dangerous choice though.

Peepshow

2010-08-17T03:33:00.000-07:00

I thought it was only fair to update the latest in my quest that is checking out what and who Mitchell & Webb are.

Yesterday was themed 'Peepshow'. It started with me concluding that I was Jez @ Mark's work. That's Freaking depressing thought. I might have tweeted that, but I'm not sure. Memories of yesterday are a little hazy.

In the evening I had to decide what to do; 1) Turn on telly to conclude nothing interesting was on or 2) Turn on PC (yes, PC not Mac) and watch Peepshow since that's the only thing I haven't seen all episodes of. I finished watching the first season a few weeks ago and wasn't thinking anything of it. Must be said, I watched it drunk. I knew I ventured somewhat into the second season so I picked one episode I was sure I hadn't seen yet and watched from there on.

Low 'n behold, I was laughing my ass off at some point and started to develop a weird kind of liking for both Mark & Jez.

So my advice: If you tried to watch Peepshow, but didn't like it; Try Again. Make sure you have a steady and sensible head on. The show is actually quite funny and Mark & Jez are endearing in their own weird ways.

So now I'm a Peepshow convertee. I think I tweeted that today, I'm not sure though. Today is even hazier than yesterday.

My first M&W related blog

Interviewers, what to do with them?

2010-08-16T04:07:00.000-07:00

Aren’t they listening? Are their brains turned off? Some people don’t get subtle reactions. Why do these people have to be interviewers?

Why does he keep asking questions he already got an answer to?

One thing can be said, she keeps making the same mistake; she’s consistent.

Comedians, what to do with them?

2010-08-13T07:18:00.001-07:00

On a lighter note...

There are a few of them I love, because it’s mandatory: the Pythons, everybody who appeared in Blackadder, a bit (more) of Fry & Laurie (they should be regarded as part of the Blackadder family and as a separate unit).

Then there are the others.

Comedians I indulge: Jimmy Carr and Charlie Brooker. They’re annoying in their own special ways. Jimmy Carr’s face just seemed to be glued to my screen and Charlie Brooker is ridiculously outspoken. What’s not to like....?

Comedians I like as a person: Dara Ó Briain, Rob Brydon, Clive Anderson, Sandy Toksvig, Reginald D. Hunter. They can be funny, but more often I only think of them as nice people, though I suppose I find Reginald D. Hunter more (deadpan) funny than a nice person....Robert Webb.

I warmed up to: Lee Mack. He's, to my irritation, actually quite funny.

I feel for: Alan Davies. I want him as my puppy dog so I can hug him when he’s puppy dog eyeing me and punish him when he’s ripping apart a paper or chewing off ears from unfortunate tramp dolls.

Last, but far from the least, I utterly love and am devoted to David Mitchell. Anything you want, dear. Well, not really anything, but y’know...

My Flat (Less Eloquent Version from a Fan)

2010-08-12T07:49:00.000-07:00

This made me ache:
“As my mum excitedly said to me: "You'll be like a normal person!"
David Mitchell Observer Column

It reminded me of my mum saying to me: “Why aren’t you normal!?!?”

She didn’t mean to make it sound so harsh, she was merely wondering why I couldn’t fit in, be like other people. I just don’t, because I’m not ‘other people’; I’m me. Honestly, if I had any choice in that, I would be more like anyone else, because being me even puzzles me. I don’t want to be ungrateful, and I’m not. I only wished my head and heart weren’t filled with so many paradoxes.

I’m afraid of ‘being normal’, because I’m not sure what that is. To me it is a very personal idea of what anyone thinks something is or should be. Everybody has his own ideas, so I don’t think telling me to be normal is justified.

I love that column, because it is like my mum/me relationship. She keeps telling me to clean the kitchen and paint the balcony door. In my opinion the kitchen is clean enough and the colour of my balcony door doesn’t really bother me. I don’t even notice the walls or windows in my house anymore. Just like David, as can be read in his column, I don’t really care much for repairing, replacing, repainting and redecorating. It’s the kind of fuzz I’m not willing to go through if I don’t really need to. Even changing a light bulb is not something I’m likely to do. My bedroom is dark and so is the toilet. I’m not bothered.

So, to my mortgage advisor; “Yes, I did think about what I want in my new house. I want a living room, a kitchen, a bathroom (maybe toilet apart), some storage place, a bedroom and maybe one extra room. That’ll be less than what I have now, but frankly, I’m only using my kitchen, bathroom and dark bedroom and toilet...and some storage room.”

And to mum, I’ll try to make things right when I have to anyway, but that’ll be it for the coming years. Stop whining about the colours and my unmade bed; you know I’m not going to change it.

So, David, you’re not alone at all. It took me my own house and a year to find out that I actually couldn’t be bothered what my house looked like or how messy it was. It’s home to me, and that is what counts.

P.S.: I don’t even use my wardrobe anymore; I hang everything on my bedroom door or on chairs.

Freedom of Speech (Things You Shouldn’t Say)

2010-08-10T06:54:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I started a bit of series about 'Things You Shouldn't Say'. I'm not sure if after this blog I'm done (don't think so), but this certainly qualifies as an entry to this series.

~Part 2~

It gets more sensitive when the content of our speech reaches over boundaries like in subjects about religion, traditions, and countries; in short all subjects with a subject in humanity. We almost all agree, in the West, that freedom of speech is very valuable and should be maintained. We also agree you shouldn’t offend people. It automatically raises the question ‘What is off boundaries?’ Can we really just say anything we think? Cause if we do, we’re bound to offend people. And does the location, where you say certain things, count? Should we allow a foreign preacher saying things to his flock in our country? Is that off boundaries? Maybe we should not mingle? Or should we, because this is our country, not his, though it is his flock? What about the position a speaker is in? Should we limit what public figures say and does that mean the man on the street can get away with more?

Take for example the Dutch Wilders who plans to go to New York to speech against the build of a Muslim meeting/prayer(?) place on Ground Zero. Should that build be stopped? Maybe it’s good integration and it will bring the Muslims and Americans together? Who’s to say? Certainly not Wilders? Dutch cases might be his concern, if any, not American cases. Yet he uses the ‘Freedom of Speech’ argument to justify his support in New York dismissing possible danger he causes for the Dutch people, because now a lot of Americans and Muslims think that is how the Dutch people think about the Muslim society. He also dismisses the emotions of the Muslims who do want to integrate, but also like to be able to do their things in New York, and the possibilities the build can create. Casually, because he hides behind the ‘Freedom of Speech’ argument.

Yesterday I watched pieces of a British discussion program. They discussed if Jimmy Carr, a British comedian, went too far with a joke about military men who lost limbs and possibly would form a strong Paralympics team. Did he go too far or were people over-sensitive? Dissecting what he said it doesn’t seem that offensive. Those military men are strong, trained individuals and expecting them to excel in their sports if they make the Paralympics team is a compliment. Or isn’t it? The fact is, people were offended, but more people didn’t seem to be that offended. Did he cross the boundary? So how much ‘Freedom of Speech’ is Jimmy Carr allowed?

Those two are public figures, the former in politics and the latter in the entertainment. The man on the street has his opinions as well. Those opinions often translate into public opinions, whether it’s justified or not. In New York there’s obviously a group of Americans who are against the Muslim build on Ground Zero. I know of groups of people who hate an entire ethnicity and use their ‘Freedom of Speech’ to air their opinions. We can’t accept just anything from then, can we?

So what does ‘Freedom of Speech’ really mean? What Shouldn’t We Say? Can we draw a line? Can we brush aside a minority of people who are offended and let the general public have their laugh?

To Mitchell - Things You Shouldn't Say

2010-08-09T00:53:00.001-07:00

The first thing you shouldn’t say is the title of this very blog. The problem I have with that phrase is that I seem to think I can say what anyone else should or shouldn’t say. Still, there are things that irk me. It’s not even the potentially offensive stuff or swear words. It’s things that seem blatantly wrong to me or presumptuous or based on people’s own opinions.

To give a simple example: “It’s not funny”.

You shouldn’t say that, because what you find not funny someone else might find funny. When you state ‘it’s not funny’ you imply someone has a wrong sense of humour. You can’t have a wrong sense of humour; you might have an offensive sense of humour (if that even exists), but it can’t be faulted, because what is funny is not defined. There’s a good reason for that: ‘Everybody is different and therefore might think of different things as funny’. This is once again partially aimed at David Mitchell, because he said something about a sense of humour that made me think ‘You Shouldn’t Say That’. Of course I forgot what. I don’t seem to be able to remember anything he or Robert Webb said. They really are going to hate me.

It just annoys me that opinions are passed on as facts and people get judged based on those opinions.

I’ll try to come up with a better list; my brains are like a sieve right now; it holds nothing.

ETA: Of course he tweets this one day before I burst:

To Mitchell&Webb - Commercial Thing

2010-08-09T00:27:00.000-07:00

This keeps coming up and it annoys me enough to finally put my two cents in (I’d like them back afterwards, btw).

I do agree it was not betrayal or selling out. I even thought those Mac commercials were quite charming and sometimes I even cracked a smile. But M&W (that is Mitchell & Webb) defend it by making assumptions on why people were against it concluding it was not because they thought it was “betrayal” and/or “selling out”, but because of some other reason I conveniently forgot. Maybe I should shut my mouth about it, because I would be the third party pointing and making assumptions and that’s exactly what I’m aiming not to do. Beside that, I really did forget what they (M&W) thought it really was; something about a baby killing machine (edit to wink: ;-), I did get what you were saying M&W).

Here’s my view on the subject. I don’t find celebs very cool for putting their faces on a product. By doing that you pretty much say: “Buy this, because I support it.” It takes your innocence off of the business side of things. It does indeed say you’re going for the big money. Sure, almost no one would decline it, would they? It’s just not charming.

That was hardly a good defence or attack or whatever it even was anyway. It’s just that it’s something I wouldn’t do as quickly and I’m not very likely to approve of such choices. I don’t wear logo’s. I refuse to do advertising for anyone. I only advertise myself and I don’t understand the concept of money enough to say I’d go for the big money.

I suppose we prefer our favourite artists to be clean and innocent. It has something to do with the soft side of art being it is all on principle and not for the money. It’s something we believe is having heart for something doesn’t go along with money making. It’s something like going for the money makes you less believable about your art. It’s like your heart is not really in it, and that we don’t appreciate. Art is about emotions, money is not.

I had to get this off my chest. The things said on both sides seemed wrong to me and especially to M&W I wanted to explain where they went wrong....twice.

They’re going to hate me.

In the Office

2010-08-09T00:14:00.001-07:00

Why do those artists keep making these condescending and annoying assumptions in public about what they think an office job is? Even though I agree with them an office is not the most inspiring environment, it still can be quite exhilarating. There’s a lot to be done in an office; exciting things like projects, building and creating things, making things better, things that have actual substantial, more than art often has.

I remember Jason making such a remark about how lucky he felt he wasn’t stuck in an office. Maybe good for him, but there are people who are really happy in an office. He can’t say anything like that, because he doesn’t really know how it is to work in an office. I think lots of people working in an office have way more to be proud of than he has.

I was watching Stephen Fry, no I was watching QI with Stephen Fry hosting. He said something to the effect that working in an office is not inspiring. Admitted, the buildings are usually grey and boring. It’s not the buildings matter, it’s the people inside them. And excel is actually a very interesting piece of software to burry yourself in for a day. I mean, call me boring, but when I’m bored at work and I want to do something fun, I’m very likely to start making some excel tool thing with all kind of fun functionalities. Excel is not just typing in numbers and maybe put some things together. Excel is logic thinking, it’s creating and making things easier to enter and do with what you need it doing. It's brain training in the truest sense.

Then again, I am aware of the fact that when you work in an office and especially in IT your idea of what is sexy and good looking does change a little. I must admit I get quite excited at a working excel with smart functions in it. Just don’t go saying my career can never be exciting. Yes, my heart is with art, but when I’m in a project trying to make things work, or creating and building things, that can be thoroughly satisfying.

Let’s Call it Religion and Start a War

2010-08-03T03:41:00.000-07:00

Like always I’m reacting on reactions. The reaction I’m reacting on is a comment made on a column in the Guardian by David Mitchell. I promise, for today that will be the only mention of DM. I want to share a few thoughts about our beliefs on our environmental habitat.

Some of the commentators made good points. I especially like this one:
“You say to me "prove it!"
Is my answer of "you prove otherwise!" sufficient?”

Let’s put a few facts together (in no particular order):
- The earth exists for a very long time (how long is beside the point);
- The earth has seen many life forms blossoming and going extinct already due to bad surviving techniques or environmental issues;
- We, the human beings, been on this planet for a relatively short time;
- People tend to break things, but so does Mother Nature (think volcanoes, earth quakes, a bit too strong breeze);
- The earth is in constant movement pulling things apart, putting things together and breaking it again to sprout something else;
- The earth is very powerful;
- We people think we’re very powerful, but are we really?

Now our beliefs:
- We think we’re God. Admit it, you know you do;
- We’re wrecking the earth, but do we really?;
- The end is near. We always believe that; we just set another date if it didn’t happen.

Now I’m going to ask you a few questions:
- How powerful do you think we are to be able to create new stuff, repair and save or for that matter break down, wreck and kill? Of course compared to how powerful you think Mother Nature is to do all above mentioned. (Don’t forget about the volcanoes, earth quakes, etc.)
- What makes you say what you believe is true?
- Couldn’t it be possible the other one is true?

See how vague this is? I agree with the whole theory that this is a scientific astrology idea of what is and what’s not. Some say it is us who are the main offender. Other say we’re not able to match Mother Nature or the Universe or which other creation or event causes the climate to change. To me it’s all beliefs; the word of one man against that of another man. It’s like a religion; we’re having ideas and act accordingly. Believe and fight. And like in religion, we’re all only just a little bit right. The question is; "Now What?"

Thus far, I didn’t take a stand in my blog. I have in real life and I’ll tell you my believes:
I believe all the above mentioned with on top:
- People tend to break things, but so does Mother Nature;
- Whatever is happening to earth is only for a little bit in our control; we’re only a cog in the wheel;
- It’ll take its time (it always has. Think evolution);
- And yet we seem to be running out of time, and go back to the second point;
- Since I believe we’re a cog in the wheel, I also believe that we should play our parts and pay respect where it is due. This means repairing the damage we made and trying not to wreck too much. Though living doesn’t really come without wrecking, hence the repairing. In more handy recommendations: Try to recycle as much as possible. Don’t overuse anything really, only take what you need. Though the repairing thing is really hard.

I also like a lot of Jason Mraz’s ideas about how to do it like the local shopping. Unfortunately, like always, our own cultural existence stands a lot of these low key solutions in the way. And beside that, trying to care really isn’t that fun, because it would mean we have to return to our uncomfortable lives.

Life really is hard and living creatures really are scared, hungry and miserable. Human beings just happen to be the best at making themselves comfortable.

Source: DM Guardian column