Twitter and the modern age

February 5th, 2010

Ooo.  It’s been a while since I’ve blogged one out.  I’m just going to have a shake down…limber up….stretch the ol’ literary muscles…open a tin…laugh at a brilliant radio advert that isn’t over-acted, isn’t conceptually defunct and isn’t at all embarrassing or patronising to the listening audience…draw a face on a mushroom and then leave it in the fridge for my beloved to find.  She won’t find it even vaguely amusing, but it will tickle me.

That’s better.  I am well limbered.  I can feel the oxygen of creativity running through my veins.  Actually, that’s probably caffeine.  Hang on.  Something missing.  Talking of caffeine, I need a cup of the ol’ liquid brown to provide sustenance to my reflection….

 

 

                            …there.  That’s better.  Right.  We can begin.

Picture, if you will, John Humphries.  You are at a petrol station, filling up, and he has just pulled up to the adjacent pump.  You didn’t think it was him at first, because he has arrived in a Vauxhall Corsa with lowered suspension and tinted windows.  The booming bass of his drum and bass audio shakes the very foundations of the petrol station.  Even more surprising, when Humphries steps out of the car, you see he is wearing a Nike baseball cap, a skin-tight pullover and jeans that do not even cover his rectal cushioning.  You can see his boxer shorts, in to which his pullover is conscientiously tucked.  He is wearing more bling than you think appropriate for a man of his years and dignity.  A chain-link necklace adorns his chest and he has large gold rings on his fingers.  He wears an earring in one ear and his hair has been shaved around the sides, leaving a wispy white plateau on the top of his head.

When Humphries flips open his petrol cap, he arrogantly leaves the car door open and the loud bass-driven music floods the forecourt of the petrol station.  You can see Humphries’ “ho”sitting in the passenger seat.  She is a pretty girl, but wears way too much make-up.  Her hoop earings are massive and could be used as a makeshift harbour, were they laid horizontal.  You are unimpressed by Humphries’ arrogance and his disregard for those around him.  Your irritation mounts when he pulls out a mobile phone from his pocket, wihle filling up with petrol, and answers the phone thus:  “Yiz, mah main man!  Ah’ll be dere when ahz got me petrol, bro”.  The manager of the petrol station comes on the tanoid and tells Humphries to put away his phone, to which Humphries returns his middle finger and calls the manager a name that, for the sake of modesty, we will say rhymes closely with the word runt.

So.  What is wrong with this picture?  Well, in short, Humphries is behaving like a teenager.  His whole appearance, his manner, his attitude is incongruous with the years and status he has achieved.  Humphries ought not to behave this way.  We know it instinctively.  We just wouldn’t expect it from him.

It is for this reason that I cringe every time I hear John Humphries tell me to go to the Radio 4 blog.  And I cringe when he talks about Twitter.  When news reporters refer, journalistically, to what we can learn from forums, and tweets and MySpaces and Facebook….I put my head in my hands.  How many times, these days, does a news report end with the vox pop, as provided by a sample of Tweets?  I actually heard a reporter the other day, in an interview with a politician, use the phrase:  ‘fess up.  Which means, to confess.  A serious adult would say “confess”.  A teenager would say, “fess up”.  Politicians and journalists are now talking regularly about Twitter – too regularly.  Like so many adults trying to be down with the kids, they think they have found the Philosopher’s Stone of hip culture.  Talk about Twitter and you are there, man.  It won’t be long before we hear John Humphreys using phrases like LOL, PMSL and FFS.

I don’t mind admitting, it embarrasses me.  I work with the armoury of latest online technologies, every day.  Due to the industry in which I work, I am part of the adult culture working to bring these technologies to young people, in order that they can fully these new media genres.  But seriously – it doesn’t mean we need to embrace it, or engage with it.  Young people understand these new media.  In fact, it is more than that.  Young people have grown up with interactive web technologies and they are native to this technological landscape.  Great.  Let’s make sure they have all they need to grow in this brave new world, and to make the most of it.  But as adults have done through the years, something tells me we should allow these digital natives to colonise their world for themselves.  You didn’t get adults trying to be part of the youth culture back in post-war Britain.  Adults in the 60s did not scream and faint over the Beatles;  there were not geriatric punk rockers in the 80s;  it was uncommon (and was distinctly uncomfortable) to see grandparents blowing their whistle at raves in the 1990s.  And yet the adult world of the twenty-first century has not been able to resist the pull of Twitterdom.

The thing is, the internet per se is great.  It is democratic and there is space for everyone.  But as with any media, different cultures can be pervasive in different areas.  An analogy would be the 33rpm vinyl album.  This was a technology available to everyone and yet different people enjoyed different aspects.  So in 1964, on a basic level, a man in his forties may have had, in his collection, some Pat Boone and some classical music; while a child would have the latest Merseybeat offering.  Same media – different cultures.  By the same token, the internet offers a way for users to inhabit different rooms in the same house.  We wouldn’t expect an 11 year old to access porn.  And conversely, should we expect sophisticated adults to inhabit the linguistic landscape of the teenager?  No.  Why?  Because it is theirs.  Leave the poor bastards alone.

An argument levelled at this view, I know, is that the internet allows different cultures to come together in the same space.  For adults to engage with young people, on their level, means that adults will understand young people.  And vice versa.  And so the internet facilitates cultural harmony.  And this is the case not only for age groups, but for the sexes, for religion, for demographic cultures, for international understanding, etc.  I don’t disagree with this.  The internet does facilitate cultural harmony.  That is what is so great about it.  But in our enthusiasm for this, we forget that the exclusivity of culture is what makes it so special, and is what leads to such great cultural diversity.  And cultural ownership, by natives to that culture, is key to this.  The current trend of “serious” adults jumping on the cultural property of young people is seriously buggering up the young people’s ownership of their own culture.  And it really isn’t fair.

Look at it this way.  The social world in which I grew up was one without the internet.  Without mobile phones.  Without texting.  Without online social networking.  Because of this, I am comfortable writing at length, and picking up the phone and talking.  To this day, I prefer communication to happen in one of two ways - through structured writing, or in face to face dialogue.  The new modes of communication, while I see the benefits, are foreign to me.  Young people, on the other hand, have grown up in a more diverse, more shorthand social environment.  To a teenager now, texting is as natural as talking;  adding to Facebook or Twitter is as unthinking an act, as it was for me and my mates to gather at the Tilehurst Triangle, as a way to meet and mingle.  The thing is, I would not have expected loads of adults, when I was a child, to join me and my friends at the Tielhurst Triangle, in an attempt to engage with our culture.  It would have pissed us off.  It would have inhibited us.  It would have caused us to look elsewhere for our own cultural space.

And this, to my mind, is what is happening.  When John Humphries and the barrage of journalists and politicians start talking about Twitter as though they are part of that culture, they are invading the space of a new generation.  They are Sid Vicious’s mum coming down to the local bus shelter, where the punks hang out.  They are all of the members for the local school PTA deciding to head to a local rave, so that they can understand the kids better.  They are dad standing in the middle of his daughter’s 18th birthday party, talking about who he would marry, snog and avoid.

It is often said that politicians and journalists are still learning how to harness new technologies.  How are new technologies relevant to the way these bodies communicate?  Well to my mind, they are not.  Not really.  The new Web 2.0 technologies will come in to their own when the new generations start to make their mark in their world.  It will be an evolution.  The young people that have grown up with these technologies know how to use them relevantly.  When these people start to enter politics, take control of the banks, filter in to business, take over leadership of the education system…then the Twitteresque technologies will be used, organically, at the centre of culture.  It won’t be thought out, planned, scoped.  It will just happen, naturally.

Look at how TV filtered in to the popular culture.  Early politicians did not know how to use it, because they hadn’t grown up with it.  They tried to harness something they didn’t understand, to tap in to a culture to which they simply didn’t belong.  Compare a video of Harold MacMillan talking to the camera, with a video of Tony Blair being interviewed.  As time went on and politicians became men and women that had grown up with the TV culture, then we moved in to the slick TV-based PR culture of New Labour and new politics.

In the meantime, I suppose that the fuddy duddies of today – myself included – will continue to think we understand these new technologies, when in fact, we haven’t got a clue.  And so we will continue to have news reports that end with what people have said about the news on Twitter.  How trendy is that!  Embedding Twitter in the news.  How dynamic!!  As if a day-old newspaper referring to some Twitter reports from yesterday is relevant…

Errour

November 25th, 2009

…his glistring armor made,
A litle glooming light, much like a shade;
By which he saw the uglie monster plaine,
Halfe like a serpent horribly displaide,
But th’ other halfe did woman’s shape retaine,
Most lothsom, filthie, foule, and full of vile disdain.

And, as she lay upon the durtie ground,
Her huge long taile her den all overspred,
Yet was in knots and many boughtes upwound,
Pointed with mortall sting.  Of her there bred
A thousand yong ones, which she dayly fed,
Sucking upon her poisnous dugs; each one
Of sundrie shapes, yet all ill-favored:
Soon as that uncouth light upon them shone,
Into her mouth they crept, and suddain all were gone.
        - The Faerie Queen, Edmund Spenser

I woke up this morning and Spenser’s description of Errour was playing in my head.  I have been troubled over the past few days.  It’s astonishing how the unconscious will work diligently behind the scenes on a problem, and then will present you with its conclusions, albeit often in allegorical form.  Spenser’s portrayal of Errour immediately made sense to me when I woke up this morning, and has helped me to clarify my situation.

The conclusion is plain.  I find the idea of being one of a thousand yong ones, sucking upon anyone’s poisnous dugs, absolutely repellent.

The humble oblong…

November 24th, 2009

What, in the sweet name of all that is holy, ever happened to the oblong?

I learned about oblongs when I was but an infant, sitting cross-legged on the carpet of Grovelands Infant School on the Oxford Road in Reading.  I remember it.  I actually remember it.  Mrs Barlow, a teacher defined by her vast plumpacity, sat on the seat at the front of the class and expounded the properties of the oblong, while holding up a laminated white card decorated with the shape in question.  To my tender ears, the word “oblong” had a friendly edge to it.  It was both comfortable and exotic  -  like a well-worn pair of jewel encrusted slippers.  I liked oblongs.  I decided there and then, that oblongs were a shape to which I could relate.  More than this, the oblong was a shape to which I could swear my true allegiance.

Well, time is a voracious beast.  Grovelands Infant School was eaten by progress.  It bit the dust in the late 1980s, to make room for a new buildings development.  In the very spot where I once learned how to spell my name, someone is now making a cup of tea or watching the TV or romping lustily ‘pon waves of passion.  Or, knowing my luck, taking a dump.  As for Mrs Barlow, I do not doubt that she has moved on to some greater plain and now expounds the virtues of the oblong from some fluffy white cloud, while playing lazy dirges on her golden harp.  But along with Grovelands School and Mrs Barlow, the glorious oblong itself seems to have taken its final bow and retired from the stage of public celebration.

It occured to me just a few days ago.  In accordance with Mrs Barlow’s hallowed teaching, “oblong” was just a very cool name for a rectangle.  Everyone called them “oblongs” back then.  It is what they were.  But somewhere along the line, the humble oblong has drifted towards extinction, as the shape in question has become exclusively known as the rectangle.  The rustic charm inherent in its more colloquial name has been lost.  And what does it mean for the social status of the shape?  Who wants to swear allegiance to a rectangle?  Who can boast pride in a rectangle?  Who wants to call a rectangle “friend”, and fight for it, to the death?  Not me, I can tell you.

There’s something of the plight of the red squirrel in the oblong’s tragic demise.  Not too long ago, the red squirrel held squirrelistic dominance over the UK.  The red squirrel inhabits the same sentimental plain as the oblong.  Indeed, in a parallel dimension, where the victims of extinction live on in the eternal gloom of collective memory, it is not uncommon for the red squirrel and the oblong to brush past eachother in the local corner shop, each holding a shopping basket filled with such sundry items as bread, yoghurt and a branded medical cream for the treatment of athlete’s foot and bunions.  Today, when we think of squirrels, we think of the grey variety.  But, like the rectangle, grey squirrels mounted an invasion from overseas and spread across the land like a cultural plague.  I am not sure that rectangles came in on Canadian trading vessels, but the analogy holds fast.

A quick trawl through the dubious wisdom scattered across the world wide web brings forth a variety of different opinions as to what an oblong actually is.  Some say that it is simply a rectangle.  Others say that it is a rectangle with rounded corners.  Others say it is of a more angular disposition, and that a coffin would be a good exampe of an oblong.  Ye gods.  In such ambiguity, we witness the success of the rectangle in deposing its predecessor.  No one knows what an oblong is anymore.  Except for Mrs Barlow – and she is no longer around to fight its corner.  The oblong has become a thing of myth, a concept with fluid parameters.  The rectangle suffers from no such uncertainty of meaning.  It has usurped the oblong not only on a linguistic level, but on the level of the shared geometric psyche.

It’s enough to give one the hump.  I have the hump, I don’t mind admitting.

I wonder if I was one of the last generations to inheret the wisdom of the oblong.  Mrs Barlow, I can now see, was more than a teacher.  She was a sage.  She was the keeper of a secret greater than those who care for it.  She knew the oblong.  She understood it.  It may be hyperbolic to say that she lived oblong, but I don’t think so.

And where does that leave me?  I have inhereted geometric wisdom in a time when the very nucleus of that widsom has collapsed and fallen in to extinction.  Is the truth to die with me?  Or did Mrs Barlow intend, when the time was right, for me – and my fellow warriors sitting crosslegged upon that carpet – to bring the truth in to the light and expose the rectangular evil of linguistic tyranny?  I have always felt that my life lacks meaning, lacks purpose.  Well perhaps this is why.  Mrs Barlow ensured that my meaning was to fight for the reinstatement of the oblong.  And now my time has come.

Unto the breach…

Who Was Jack The Ripper

October 8th, 2009

Having had my posterial lobes kicked by proxy (Meena sent the kick, my beloved delivered) for not writing for a while, I hereby swoop down low on the cyberscape and put metaphorical pen to paper.  Having just spent the afternoon in Berwick-Upon-Tweed** fighting crime, rescuing hapless individuals from untimely fates (I plucked a baby from the path of a combine harvester, pulled an old woman from a torrential river and saved a man from being mauled by his cat) and officially opening a local shop, I have not had time to change out of my superhero costume.  I thus pen (met.) this missive in underpants and a cape.  For this assault to  the sensibilities and the death of good taste, you can thank Meena.

*                              *                              *

Predestination is such that in truth, Jack the Ripper was never going to be a glowing member of society.  Anyone born in to the world and given such an evocative moniker is going to grow within the stark behavioural parameters defined by the name.  Thus it was with Jack The Ripper.  He was either going to be a world champion at tearing up telephone directories; or he was going to be a vicious serial killer with a penchant for butchery.  The year was 1888.  The telephone had only been invented some twelve years before and there was, at this time, no such thing as a telephone directory.  Jack’s murderous destiny was sealed.

One has to question the wisdom of the parents in giving their offspring such names.  Eddie The Eagle Edwards, while no doubt having been given that name to ensure he soared as an individual, through the highest eschelons of the social stratopshere, demonstrates the danger of giving names designed to enhance personal qualities.  Instead of soaring through the deep blue skies of social success, he became a notoriously bad ski-jumper with a dodgy moustache and freaky glasses.  Eddie The Eagle Edwards became a name weighted with irony and therein, predestination was satisfied.

Then there was Vlad The Impaler.  With a name like that, he was never going to be the sort of man you would take home to meet your mum.  As soon as his mum and dad lumbered him with that gruesome name, bang..!  They had ensured the sadistic deaths of thousands of Turks, but a generation down the line.  As parents, they should be ashamed of themselves; as members of society, they should feel  the weight of responsibility crushing down on them.

We might look at other examples.  Fatima Whitbread.  As the name, so the lady;  look at the size of her.  Bono.  Sounds like a biscuit, looks like a pratt.  Dr Who.  An identity crisis from the start, as perfectly realised in his inability to remain one person.  From Wurzel Gummidge, through to Tom Baker, through to Tristan Farnon from All Creatures Great and Small, here we have a man with no idea of his true identity.  For this he can thank his parents and their complete lack of imagination in naming him.  And it doesn’t end there.  Alex Hurricane Higgins was destined to live his life as a whirlwind;  Fats Domino had obesity thrust on him from the earliest age;  Mad Frankie Fraser was the unfortunate recipient of a nominal predestination by which his very sanity was sacrificed;  and The Unknown Soldier had anonymity thrust over his head like an old shopping bag.  I could go on.  Big Daddy…Giant Haystacks…The Yorkshire Ripper…Mistress Whiplash…God…in each of these cases, with their name came their destiny.  There is much parents can learn from this. 

However, I am keen to use this little chunk of cyber space to explore the true identity of Jack The Ripper.  There has been so much speculation as to who this most infamous of murderers actually was and conclusions have been as diverse as the lampshades that he used to drape intestines over.  One school of thought asserts that it was no less a person than Prince Albert who lurked the streets of Whitechapel, seeking out his next victim.  This theory has largely been discredited on the grounds that a pierced penis simply would not have the wherewithal to wield a knife, let alone perform crude surgical operations.  Other suspects have included Walter Sickert, Lewis Carrol, Sir John Williams and Jeanette Krankie.  Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, on being asked to evaluate the evidence of the case, came to the novel conclusion that Jack the Ripper had dressed up as a woman to move about the streets of Whitechapel unseen.  This theory had much to commend it until Conan Doyle expounded further and suggested it was probably a rogue fairy with a personality disorder and a bitter vendetta against ladies of the night.

So who was Jack The Ripper?  The evidence speaks for itself.  There were five confirmed killings in all – Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes and Mary Jane Kelly.  The murderer operated at night, in the thick city smog.  He preyed on the vulnerable – the lowest class of society, living outside of the guiding light of the law, beyond the succour of the law.  He was both vicious and calculating;  uncontrolled and exact;  animalistic and coldly human.  He butchered his victims mercilessly with a savage ferocity – and yet such was his skill with the knife, few could believe that he was not a surgeon, a butcher or a high quality biscuit manufacturer.

Crucial to his modus operandi (Modus was the company name for the Austin group, before the merger in 1914.  The Operandi was the precursor to the Allegro) was the dangerous game of cat and mouse that The Ripper liked to play against the police force.  The murder of Elizabeth Stride took place in Dutfield’s Yard and a passing policeman was drawn to the murder scene after hearing scuffles in the yard.  He missed The Ripper by no more than a minute.  Jack then went on to kill Catherine Eddowes in the same evening, leading to the crass headline in Ye Sunne the following day – “Cor Blimey – Wot a Scorcher!”

Further evidence of The Ripper’s flirtation with the police was seen in written messages that he left scrawled on walls at the scenes of crime; and the various letters he wrote to the police force.  It was in one such letter that he gave away his name as Jack The Ripper.  Once the police had this, it should only have been a matter of time until they caught him.  However, public records in Victorian England were not as they are today and even with a name, the police force were unable to trace the offender.

Thanks to modern technology, we are able to re-visit the evidence available to us from the case and can now draw conclusions that are based on a great deal more than speculation.  So let us just draw together the evidence, of what we do know about Jack The Ripper:

1)   He was vicious and without mercy
2)   He was skilled with a knife and had surgical knowledge
3)   He enjoyed playing with both his victims and the police
4)   He preyed on the vulnerable
5)   He liked soup
6)   He had a pet tortoise
7)   He didn’t like piccalilli
8)   He enjoyed a game of whist
9)   He kept getting punctures on his bike
10)  He didn’t understand the concept of carrot cake;  it seemed like a oxymoron to him
11)  He suffered from peladophobia
12)  He liked the feel of varnish
13)  He could never open a tin of corned beef without breaking the little key thing
14)  He had a high-pitched voice
15)  His feet splayed out when he ran

And so the mists clear and the answer becomes obvious.  We are clearly describing a weatherman here – and needless to say, this leads to three possible suspects.  The first, is Wincey Willis.  We know though, that it couldn’t have been her.  She did not have the strength to enact such powerful attacks and did not have the expertise with a knife that was so essential to the crime.  Admittedly, had she boasted Rusty Lee as an accomplice, her place as a suspect would have been more feasible.  Rusty Lee, however, was suppressing a factory workers’ union strike up in Preston at the time, and her alibi is secure.

The second suspect has to be Ian McCaskill.  We know that McCaskill could claim both the expertise and the temper to have committed the murders.  He also had the motive, for he wanted to frame a rogue fairy with a personality disorder and a bitter vendetta against ladies of the night.  The fairy in question owed him some money for a number of milk teeth that he had left under his pillow as a child.  Relations between McCaskill and the fairy had been strained for some time and so framing the fairy for murder would have satisfied McCaskill immensely.  However, we can discount Ian McCaskill from our suspect list.  Many near-witnesses to the murders spoke of “heavy footsteps running away”.  It is well documented that Ian McCaskill is an ardent slipper wearer (he even wears them when reading the weather – FACT) and simply would not have caused any sound above a soft tread, should he had taken flight.

This leaves us with only one suspect.  I have to say, it gives me no great pleasure to expose him in this way.  But knowledge must ne’er come under private ownership.  It is my duty to expound.

Jack the Ripper was none other than John Kettley.  And talking of predestination…John Kettley truly is, when you think about it, very reminiscent of a kettle.

 

 

** To this day I am not sure I picked the best approach in forging my empire as a superhero.  While Underpant Man definitely has what it takes – and, true to form, is ever on the alert for the call of justice – I think my idea of picking an area to build my reputation in, and then branching out, was less than wise.  I have been operating (incognito) now for two years, in Berwick-Upon-Tweed.  I just don’t seem to be able to break out of the place and frankly, it is an unglamorous place to exploit my super powers.  The thing is, I have become something of a folk-hero there and they keep getting me to open shops and stuff.  It is not as easy to extricate myself as one might think.  I feel certain I am the only superhero in the world with such a small geographical patch.  It’s pathetic.

Paul McCartney

September 4th, 2009

It is true.  I’ve just had a flick through and my articles are getting longer.  Too long.

I am going to rectify it (a crude biological alchemy, by which one renders one’s subject a rectum).  This post will be short, to the point and wholly profound.

Paul McCartney is a pie faced git.  Were a pie to take human form, it would look like Paul McCartney.  Were Paul McCartney ever to be interpreted as a particular foodstuff, it would be a pie.

Why does no one ever draw attention to this?  The man is a pie.

Paul McCartney has a face like a pie

Paul McCartney has a face like a pie

The Capesiad

September 3rd, 2009
World's Strongest Man, long-term shotput world record holder, budgie breeder

World's Strongest Man, long-term shotput world record holder, budgie breeder

Geoff Capes.  Few can truly say that he hasn’t touched their life, in one form or another.  Whether single-handedly pulling double decker buses up steady inclines; lifting hefty concrete orbs on to chest-high plinths; or breeding budgies to within an inch of their life; Capes is a man that pushes boundaries, leaving us astounded and humbled, aware of our own mortal limitations.

It is well known that Capes has held world records for shotput throwing and has been crowned the World’s Strongest Man on more than one occasion.  Indeed, metaphysicists have strongly argued that Capes has acquired archetypal status and that he remains to this day, the World’s Strongest Man.  Naturally, as an archetype, the title will never leave him.  All strongmen that acquire the title, from here to eternity, will merely be lending physical form to the archetype.  They will be the loaf of bread to which Capes will lend the infusion of taste.  Nominally, strongmen champions become the World’s Strongest Man; but in fact, they reach a higher achievement than the acquisition of a title.  They become fully at one with Capes.  It is in this, that they find their achievement.

It is commonly believed that when he is not hurling shotputs or pulling buses along with his teeth, Geoff Capes devotes the bulk of his time to breeding and showing budgies.  While Capes does indulge in this hobby when the opportunity allows (you don’t find Capes’s level of success in breeding recessive pieds by neglecting them!), he is in fact an archtype in more than one area.  In tandem with being the once and future World’s Strongest Man, Capes is also a personification of man’s journey through life.  As such, much of his time is spent questing upon an allegorical odyssey, in which he seeks exotic treasures, faces demons, overcomes obstacles, resolves conflicts and comes to understand his own strengths and weaknesses.  The Capesiad, as his odyssey must one day come to be known, makes it necessary for Capes to defer to his close friends and family for the daily maintenance of his budgies.

A shotput.  The essence of Capesian Theology...

A shotput. The essence of Capesian Theology...

The Capesiad is well documented in a number of reliable sources.  A glance through various editions of the monthly magazine Cage & Aviary Birds, from the last two decades, will uncover invaluable glimpses of Capes’s role as a questing archetype.  Conversations with local residents of Capestown will also help to build the picture of our valiant hero.  Only last week I spoke with a shop worker in Capes’s local Co-op, who described how Capes was chased through the shop by a nine-headed hydra.  Apparently, Capes used his shotput skills to hurl tins of beans at the hydra and through such means, gained the advantage and escaped through the back door.  I have little doubt the hydra will meet the same end as some of Capes’s early budgies, who were crushed by his tender ministrations before he realised his own strength.  At this time, the hydra and Capes, between them, are clearly demonstrating the fallability of man and so Capes must remain on the back foot for a while.

Another excellent source for picking one’s way through the Capesiad, is Capes’s personal diary.  One does find one’s self amazed at how Capes finds the time to write a diary.  If I spent my days hurling shotputs, pulling double decker buses up steady inclines, heaving vast concrete orbs on to plinths, breeding budgies and battling with allegorical seepages from the bowels of man’s collective unconscious, I am pretty sure I would defer the diary-writing until things had calmed down a bit.  But this isn’t Capes’s way.  He writes his diary often and through prose that perfectly captures his beardy stillness and the knowing glint in his kind eyes, one is acquainted with a world that lies far beyond the ken (or Kenneth, if the acquaintance is more formal) of ordinary folk.  I have managed to read the diary on a number of occassions, having gained access to Capes Manor, through cunning subterfuge (I once pulled up in a double decker bus and informed the butler that it was a delivery for Mr Capes, and could I use the toilet while I was there;  on another occassion, I disguised myself as Fatima Whitbread and claimed that I was there to talk about old times).

What is fascinating about The Capesiad, is the matter-of-fact way in which Capes deals with his trials and tribulations.  For most of us, the situations in which he finds himself are to be found only in fairy tales.  But for Capes, they are a way of life.  In the same practical way that I would catch a train in to London, Capes will hunt down a giant spider, fight with it, suffer being wrapped and tangled in its web before chewing his way out, and will then drive a golden sword through its abdomen, triumphantly watching it writhe its eight-legged death of doom.  On a personal note, having commuted in to London for some six months last year, I much prefer Capes’s trial, despite my pronounced arachnophobia.

One example of Capes’s natural stoicism, when faced with uncommon situations, can be seen in his altercation with the Minotaur.  According to his diary, he had to find his way to the centre of a maze, to retrieve the mythical golden shotput.  The maze stands deep in the middle of The Desert of Reckoning – a sandy plain, deep within the folds of a thousand dreams.  As it happens, there is a bus that stops at the maze – the Number 29 – and Capes took this bus.  Unfortunately old habits die hard and instead of boarding the bus and accepting the ride, Capes did what came naturally to him, hitched a rope to the front bumper and pulled the bus there with his teeth.  Consequently, his journey to the maze took longer than needed to be the case.

Guarding the maze – and the golden shotput – there is a Minotaur.  This creature is a fearsome beast, with the head of a bull, the body of a man and the flatulence of of an old dear after a piss up in a curry house.  As soon as he reached the entrance to the maze, Capes found himself being stampeded by the creature.  As he describes it, “the monster flatulated with every bounding stride and I was grateful to note it had a dingly dangly, as ‘twould have been poor shame upon any woman that expressed herself thus”.  Not only a man of great strength and avarian skill, Capes is also an accomplished diplomat (is there nothing this man can’t do?).  On being charged by the vicious Minotaur, he found it within himself to attempt a cunning dilution of the conflict.  As he writes in his diary, “I tried to look casual as it charged towards me.  I scratched my beardy chin and waggled a finger in the air, in a display of being pleased to see the rampant beast.  I leaned towards it with polite enquiry and asked if it knew the way to the local library.”  We can see here, a clever use of tactical psychology as Capes attempts to put his adversary on the back foot.   Not for the first time, we are pleased that we never have to come up against Capes as a foe.

As was obviously Geoff’s intention, the Minotaur lost momentum under this unexpectedly subtle assault, and staggered to a halt.  It asked Capes what he wanted with a library – and surely, he was here to steal the golden shotput.  Capes feigned horror at such a notion, and assured the Minotaur that, as a breeder of budgies, he wanted to investigate an infestation of mites that was affecting his birds.  Hence the need for the library.  It was a gamble; but it paid off.  The Minotaur let down its guard as it began to outline Cape’s best route through the soulless plain, to reach the local library.  Seeing the Minotaur with its guard lowered, Capes seized the initiative.  At the very moment the Minotaur had its eyes closed, as it uttered the words “or should that be left…?”, Capes sneaked past it and made his way in to the maze.  Using his keen sense of direction and his superhuman memory, it didn’t take him long to retrieve the golden shotput from the centre of the maze.  As a further demonstration of his brilliance, he passed the Minotaur on his way out and, with the golden shotput well hidden beneath his loin-cloth, he took the psychological initiative once more and chastised the Minotaur for sending him the wrong way.  As he puts it, “I even managed to elicit an apology from the hapless beast!  It admitted that it was very poor at giving directions, and was sorry to have sent me in to the maze.  As a post-script, it hoped that my budgies would be fit for showing in the near future.”

Capes is well known for his interest in pulling buses along with his bare hands

Capes is well known for his interest in pulling buses along with his bare hands

Capes was no less resourceful when he confronted the snake-haired gorgon, Medusa.  Anyone with a cursory familiarity of classical literature will be aware of this frightful woman, whose stare has the capacity to turn all things to stone.  It was this fatal ability that Capes turned to his advantage in defeating the deadly crone.

According to a recent interview with Cage & Aviary Birds, Capes had to confront Medusa in order to acquire The Silver Rope of Destiny.  This was actually part of a larger quest, in which Capes had to pull The Double Decker Bus Of Hope from the River Styx.  The only rope strong enough to bear such a weight, enabling Capes to free the bus from its stygian depths, was the Silver Rope of Destiny.  And this was closely guarded by Medusa.

Capes, undeterred by the perils of entering Medusa’s lair, did a very clever thing.  He slipped in to the lair, holding a huge inflatable beachball.  He used this as a way to shield himself from Medusa’s petrifying stare, in order that she would not be able to turn him in to stone.  But with the tactical brilliance of a natural hero, Capes knew that the beachball would serve a double purpose.  Boldly, he moved through Medusa’s crumbling palace.  All around him were the statues of men and beasts that had befallen Medusa’s cold stare.  Capes was particularly affected by the small stone carcus of a bird in mid-flight, which lay cold and lifeless on the ground.  It reminded him, he told Cage & Aviary Birds, of Brutus, his green and yellow parakeet budgerigar.  He was also shocked by the number of flies that Medusa had turned to stone.  They littered the palace like petrified rabbit droppings, we are told.  Clearly, Medusa has a more effective way to deal with flies than a novelty swatter and a halogen lamp.

When Medusa slithered out to challenge her intruder, she must have been shocked to find herself confronted by a bearded giant hiding boyishly behind a brightly coloured beachball.  Her rage at the intruder – and her frustration at not being able to render him stone – was directed at the beachball.  She clearly hoped that in turning the beachball in to solid stone, it would be too heavy to hold.  The intruder would either drop it – leaving himself open to her terrible gaze – or would be crushed by it.  Either way, he would not live to see another day.

What the foul gorgon did not bank on, was that the man behind the beachball is a world champion in the rare art of heaving concrete orbs around.  Capes was ready for the metapmorphosis.  Indeed, he was banking on it.  Within seconds, the beachball went from being as light as air to being as heavy as stone.  Capes fell automatically in to his strongman stance, legs apart, pushing forward with the knees; and took the strain.  He heard Medusa’s gasp, coming from the other side of the solid orb, clearly amazed at how anyone could handle such a broad weight.  And in the moment of her surprise, our hero played out the second part of his plan.  He told Cage & Aviary Birds how he visualised Medusa as a concrete plinth, upon which the orb needed to be placed.  In a single swift move, he lumbered forward, raised the stone orb and dropped it ontop of the unprepared gorgon.  She went down, we are told, like a sack of spuds.

Having rendered the gorgon unconscious – and a little flatter than she had started out – Capes went on to claim The Silver Rope of Destiny and used it in the impressive finale of his quest, to pull The Double Decker Bus Of Hope from the Styx.

There are so many other stories that litter the Capesiad.  On their own, they do not offer a convincing narrative for why Capes does not spend the whole of his time man-handling buses, lifting concrete orbs, breeding budgies and throwing shotputs.  But taken together, one begins to see that as an archetype – as the personification of man’s life journey - Capes is simply too busy to indulge his pleasures on a full-time basis.

Fatima Whitbread and Geoff Capes - the guardians of an era

Fatima Whitbread, like Geoff Capes, is the guardian of an era

One of my favourite stories from the Capesiad is that in which we see Capes held captive along with his band of questing soldiers, in the cave of the cyclops, Polyphemus.  According to Dave, a local down at Geoff Capes’s local pub (aptly called the Bird In The Hand), Capes and his band of twelve warriors – including Fatima Whitbread, Zola Bud, Daley Thompson and Martina Navratilova – were searching for supplies on an exotic island.  They found a cave with sheep inside and concluding the sheep to be easy pickings, went inside to bag some.  Unfotunately, unbeknown to them, the cave was the home of Polyphemus, a cyclops with a bad temper and a dysfunctional past.  Arriving back at his cave, Polyphemus saw the band of warriors and trapped them in his cave with a huge boulder.  He kept them there for many weeks, eating them when the mood took him.

Capes watched on in horror as his compatriots were killed and eaten by the brutal giant.  As Dave told me, in whispered tones, the devourment of Zola Bud and Alex Higgins in particular, affected Capes deeply.  Having made the decision to eat them, Polyphemus “rapped them on the ground until they were dead like pups”.  He then ate them like cold chicken wings, without so much as a sprinkling of salt.  This terrible carnage went on for many dark weeks, with the killing of Capes’s crew punctuated only by the slaughter of helpless sheep, who met a similar end.

The escape from Polyphemus’s cave was courageous and death defying.  Even Capes was not strong enough to move the vast boulder that blocked the exit.  For this he would need the muscle of his captor.  Guile was called for, above braun.  Thus it was, as the weeks passed, Capes spent his time breeding a small but loyal flock of budgies, that he had raised from eggs found in a nook at the back of the cave.  Bringing all of his skill and wisdom to bare, Capes made the budgies loyal to him, and trained them to obey his every command.  Capes was able, through the accumulation of years of experience, to raise a small flock of incredibly well-manicured budgies.  Not only did they promise a colourful addition to any avarian show, but thanks to their Capesian upbringing, they were also an efficient fighting force.

When the time was ripe, Capes went for the kill.  One morning, as Polyphemus was rolling back the boulder to leave the cave, Geoff Capes gave his little flock the command.  “Fly my little ones,” he told them.  “Pluck out his eye, and take from him his sight”.  The budgies knew what was in it for them.  The plucking out of the cyclops’ eye would ensure a golden honey ring for each and every one of them – with a cuttlefish for afters.  And so they went.  They flew through the cave like little coloured dusters, all bent on the destruction of an eye the size of a frickin steering wheel.  And they did it.  Polyphemus did not know what was happening until it was too late.  He must have felt the prick of tiny talon;  the stabbing of brittle beak.  Budgies take no prisoners, especially when they have been raised by the World’s Strongest Man.  They pecked and ripped and tore at Polyphemus’s eye until it was a milky weeping mess.  Apparently it looked like a hard-boiled ostrich egg in a road traffic accident.  The thought of which makes me hungry and morbidly curious, all at the same time.

Apart from Capes himself, only Fatima Whitbread and Kevin Keegan were still alive.  And their days, they knew, were numbered.  Ignoring the cries of rage and torment coming from Polyphemus, as he staggered around with his eggy face, they ran from the cave and ran to the sea.  Finding their boat, they escaped from the island, unaware that they were heading towards the valley of the sirens…

But that is another story entirely.

"When Geoff brings his covered cage in to a show, we know we are in for a fight!" - Bernard Cribbins.

"When Geoff brings his covered cage in to a show, we know we are in for a fight!" - Bernard Cribbins.

So there we have it.  Geoff Capes is more than just the World’s Strongest Man.  He is more than a world record holder for the longest shotput distance.  And he is more than just a breeder of budgies.  In Geoff Capes, we have the hope and future of the entire human race.  Guile and strength are matched by compassion and ambition – and an ingrained sense of duty.  It is for this reason, no doubt, that Geoff Capes was also a policeman at one point in his career.

So let him off.  Instead of spending one’s life being complacent about Capes – as everyone is wont to do – let us appreciate the value he brings to our race.  Let us not ignore him;  let us praise him.  For surely, one day, it will be written by an authority much higher than I:

In Capesum speramus

In Capes We Trust.

The Metaphysics of Swearing

August 24th, 2009
Wellies and Bad language - not a million miles apart, upon Confucian principles...

Wellies and bad language - not a million miles apart, upon Confucian principles...

When Confucius once said, “a man who wears big wellies may yet have small feet”, he could have been talking about me.  Not that I am saying I have small feet – something I would especially like to emphasise to any female readers that may have heard various unsubstantiated anatomical correlations bandied about – but I wouldn’t be opposed to sporting wellingtons of a length and girth superfluous to my needs.

“Wherein lies the relevance?” I hear you ask.  Well, I have been contemplating the Confucian aphorism in relation to my over-zealous usage of swear-words in casual conversation.  It occured to me last night, that I swear like a Trojan.  This is not to say that I invoke the names of ancient Greek gods in vain, in moments of high temper; or that I use blunt curses along the lines of “may the forces of adversity fall like armoured manure from a wooden horse’s arse and smite thee in thy sleep”.  Rather, I invoke the speculation that Trojans, as a veteran fighting force, bristling with aggression and insensitive to niceties, must have had a tendency to curse and swear.  And my own incidence of swearing cannot be far off their achievements.

So where does Confucius come in to this?  In short, my tendency to swear (or the size of my Confucian wellies) is likely to cause some people to form an opinion of my character (or the size of my feet).  Assuming me to be ill-educated, aggressive, hostile or simply inarticulate – or, in short, to have big feet - the onlooker is deceived by my ill-fitting wellies, and does not appreciate that the wellies actually conceal small feet; the abundant swearing conceals a thoughtful and sensitive soul.  Far from being one part of an aggressive veteran fighting force, with ancient Grecian sensibilities, in fact I enjoy nothing more than a nice cup of tea and an episode of Murder She Wrote.

And as a thoughtful and sensitive soul, my over-use of swear words is starting to bother me.  I remember my old nan telling me that everytime we swear, an angel dies.  If this is the case, then my name must be mud, up there.  I won’t evade the issue and so it is, relcutantly, I hold my hands up to the fact I have been responsible for nothing less than mass-genocide in Heaven.  In my short time on this Earth, I must have single handedly changed the social landscape of that cloudy Wonderland, wiping out a vast proportion of the angel population with ruthless indiscrimination.  This in itself is bad; but what is possibly worse is the fact I have unconsciously implemented a sustained regime of psychological torture.  Angels must now find themselves living on their nerves, wondering who is next to come under the shadow of Steffageddon, and who will suffer the fatal consequence of my next profanity.

Indeed, to take this analogy further, my unthinking use of bad language might be said to be the metaphysical equivalent of lamping.  Its random nature is cruel and uncompromising.  Trying to get on with their angelic existence, my prey is oblivious to my proximity until they suddenly find themselves under the glare of my barrel-mounted lamp.  Caught in the lamplight, they freeze, their wings a-quiver, their golden harp hanging limply in well-manicured hands.  I watch them, coldly, as I slowly increase the pressure on my linguistic trigger.  As I pop out a swear word, I might notice that the angel at which my lamp is directed has, at some point in recent weeks, shaped its eyebrows to enhance the look of innocence upon its face.  The effect is one more of subtle surprise than innocence.  But the observation is academic and the impact of my brutally uttered swear word brings the angel down in a lifeless heap.

In a way, if my swearing has an impact quite as sudden as this, it would be merciful.  For an angel to expire in a split second would at least ensure that there is no suffering.  But what my old nan never actually expounded to me, was exactly how the death of an angel is effected.  My concern is that on being the victim of a swear word, the angel dies a long, lingering and torturous death.  Heaven could be awash, for all I know, with groaning angels, staggering around on their cloudy terrain, wishing for the end to come and praying for that blessed final relief that will accompany their ultimate annihilation.  And all because of me.

If this is the case, it will be very bad for a whole raft of reasons.  Needless to say, for the suffering angels themselves, it will be no picnic.  Having known nothing but the ecstatic bliss of being in God’s presence since time immemorial – and having enjoyed, uninterrupted, an existence of the purest bliss – to experience the lingering pain of a slow and torturous death will come as something of a shock.  One has, therefore, to feel some sympathy with these suffering urchins.

What is arguably worse, is the impact this will have on the mental health of the other angels in Heaven.  If they have to stand by helplessly as their friends and compatriots moan in anguish, they will be affected significantly.  It will affect them, first-off, to have to watch the stark discomfort of those with whom they feel a great affinity.  They will want to soothe the pain, to remedy the hurt, but will be unable to do so.  In light of this, the sense of fear across the angelic community will be intense, as each angel wonders when its turn will come – and when it will know such pain as is being demonstrated on the Heavenly plains.

The apprehension felt by all angels – the bleak fear, the sense of helplessness - will surely unsettle those of a weaker mental constitution.  They may go stark-staring mad and there is no telling to where this could lead.  It is worth baring in mind the words to the old music hall favourite, however:  “Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the mid-day sun,/ Mad angels [author's italics] and Spanishmen shop in Boots, spending hours at the till sorting through loyalty cards and vouchers, while contemplating a history of inquistorial atrocities”.

I do feel deeply for any angel that I have killed and for his friends and compatriots that have suffered as a result of my actions.  I regret it now and hope to remedy the situation as best I can.  From here on in, the darker horizons of Stefanese will have a milder tint.  The “F” word will be nothing harsher than “fiddlesticks”;  the “S” word will be as inoffensive as “sugerflip”;  the “W” word will be the wonderfully alliterative “Willy Wonker”;  and the “C” word will be beautifully transformed in to that expostulative favourite, “caucasian hermaphrodite”.  I like to think, in line with the Confucian wellies, that I will be treated with understanding when my time comes to approach the Pearly Gates.  Hopefully, it will be understood that my only real crime was one of linguistic laziness; and that I in no way harboured the mens rea necessary to render my indiscriminate carnage upon the Seraphim plains, a prolonged act of murder.

My worry is, of course, that such understanding will not be demonstrated when my time comes.  Worse still, Heaven will be full of angels in a delicate mental state, frothing at the mouth, playing death-metal on their harps and desperate for revenge upon he that caused them to live in fear for so long.  If this is the case, I am going to negotiate a trip “downstairs” until they have all calmed down a bit.  Angry, mentally unbalanced angels with a taste for vengeance could probably make my afterlife a tad uncomfortable.

If such negotiations do not succeed then I will just have to hope that my swearing is effective at point-blank range, because I am going to come out shooting.  There will be no other way.  If the angels leave me no choice but to fight, then the wellies will come off.

I’ll go down fighting.

What Car?

July 30th, 2009

Picture this, if you will.  London, 1529.  The streets are awash with cabbage and stagnant urine.  Stray dogs wander through the landscape, picking at scraps of food and old bones that lay in the gutter.  Occasionally a  wild pig snuffles through the cityscape, searching for that ever-elusive truffle.  The Philosophers’ Truffle, as pigs have referred to it since pork immemorial, will give immortality to its eater and will bestow a wisdom truly befitting those little piggy eyes.  In the meantime, the wild snuffling pig will make do with eating the scraps of rotting peel and filthy food it finds in the streets, to lend it simple sustenance. 

The quirky houses of late medieval London are stacked high, each new floor projecting outwards so that, high above the street, the upper floors of houses on opposite sides are almost touching.  With timber frames, it poses a frightful fire hazard; in practical terms, it means that sunlight is kept from the street.  For the pedestrian, the city is a dark and gloomy place.

Though the city has a much smaller population in 1529 than will be the case some centuries later, it is still a thriving metropolis.  People live on top of one another here and the streets are alive with bustle and activity.  Richly cosmopolitan, different languages and strange fashions are brought together in a muddled, swirling soup.  The cry of trade, of social frivolity and indignation, bring a soundtrack to the city that reminds one of the chaotic humanity at its core.  In the rain, the streets are muddy and foul underfoot;  in the sun, the baked dirt is dusty and one feels as if one is choking with every laboured breath.  Regardless of the weather, the stench of the city is interminably foul.  The unpleasant cocktail of ripe body odour, open sewage, rotting food and the cloying stink of a hundred abattoirs plays about the streets like children of the damned.  Only these children wear jerkins and look a bit like The Artful Dodger from Oliver Twist.

This is a glimpse of London in 1529.  Now, if you will, glance over to the left.  That’s right.  Over there.  Where that straggly-haired woman with a pock-marked face is selling lavendar.  Do you see her?  No – not the woman talking to the fat man and rubbing his….wait a minute…oh I see.  She is rubbing an apple against his trouser leg, to get a good shine on it.  That’s a relief.  Now just next to her, you’ll see the woman selling lavend…oh hang on.  She’s buggered off.  That’s the thing about Tudor London.  Nothing ever stays still.  No matter.  It isn’t the woman I wanted to draw your attention to, anyway.  It is the building behind her.  This large timber-framed building is Griffin Place, the civil offices of Thomas More, newly appointed Lord Chancellor of England.  In here, the administrative work of perhaps the most devout Chancellor ever to grace the office, is executed.  No pun intended.

And here he comes.  The crowds pay scant attention as the beige Ford Cortina Estate swings out of Threadneedle street and on to Bishopsgate.  The Cortina has a dark brown roof – a two-tone car, denoting the subtle class of its driver.  The registration plate is TM 1 and, for anyone with an interest in detail, a rosary hangs from the rear-view mirror.  Inside, Thomas More has Ave Maria wafting gently from the stereo but no one can hear this, since he drives with the windows up.  It helps to keep the city stench out.

Thomas More looks relaxed behind the wheel.  He also looks confident; a man on top of his game.  He drives slowly down the potted road and the suspension on the car can be heard to squeak gently as he negotiates the multitude of bumps in the road.  A man faithful not only to God, but to The Highway Code, he indicates judiciously as he approaches Griffin Place and pulls his car up outside, parking it alongside the uneven kerb.  He switches off his engine, climbs out of the car and retrieves his chain of office from the back seat.  Locking the car and checking that all of the doors are secure, he strides in to Griffin Place, slipping the chain of office around his neck as he goes.

So what of the car?  You may not even have noticed the anachronism, so natural does it seem for Thomas More to be driving a two-tone beige Ford Cortina Estate.  There is little doubt that had Thomas More been alive in a world dominated by cars – as we are today – then this would have been his vehicle of choice.  Consider the facts.  The understated nature of the Cortina – its simple modesty – befits a man that took office with modesty, and continued to practise humilty throughout his career.  This was, after all, the second most powerful man in the whole of England – and yet he wore a hair shirt beneath his robes, to remind him of the need for penitence.  His modesty is reflected further in the dull colour of his car – a dun, unflattering beige.  He has opted for a two-tone beige, as a way to indicate his status, while remaining aesthetically humble.

The gentle, rocking suspension that one associates with a Ford Cortina is perfect as a way to echo the humble, bowing motion of a penitent subject.  But there are other reasons why a Ford Cortina Estate is such a perfect car for Sir Thomas More.  In practical terms, it would suit him down to the ground.  The economy of the Cortina is very good; he would be able to save money on petrol, which could be distributed as alms at his leisure.  The fact he has the roominess of an estate car, too, would be a useful factor in transporting faggots for the burning of heretics.  Indeed, the design of the Cortina Estate is such that a roof-rack can be easily attached.  The transportation of a heretic’s stake would be an easy matter.  In practise, More would be able to utilise his car as a self-contained heretic-burning unit.  Though he wouldn’t need to do this – the systems were in place in Tudor England for heretics to be burned without the Chancellor actually needing to involve himself in the logistics – it would be useful as a fall-back.  In practical terms, also, it must be borne in mind that More would find it easy to get parts for his Cortina Estate.  Self-maintenance would be a straightforward affair, so More would be able to spend less time attending to his car and more time attending to matters of state.

It is interesting to consider the cars that would be driven by a variety of historical figures.  In the same way that a dog can tell us much about its owner; so a car can tell us much about the person that drives it.  Thus it is, by pairing historical figures with suitable cars, we are able to distill the very essence of the person in question and come to know them in a profound way.

Take Queen Victoria.  There is no doubt in my mind that she would drive a new-shape Volkswagon Beetle.  Despite the dour public facade by which she is popularly known, Victoria was a woman of homely passions and she would have had a doting love for a car so cheeky and full of character.  Indeed, she would have called it her “Love Bug” and would have glanced mischievously at Albert every time she referred to it as such.  No one party to this small wink of significance would have been left in any doubt that the dumpy Queen and her gallant Prince Regent had known the joys of rumpy pumpy on the back seat. 

It is a fact that a VW Beetle would have amused Victoria, greatly.  It would be her inclination to paint the car decoratively – with huge pink flowers and the like – but in the interests of her public image, she would probably compromise on this, and plump (again, no pun intended) for black.  In the flower holder on the dashboard, she would have a small lilac posey.  She would drive around her Balmoral estate, care-free and full of excited joy, while she listened to Justin Timberlake at full volume on her stereo, temporarily forgetting the trappings and the pressures of monarchy.  Like Queen Victoria, the VW Beetle is, on the surface, a dumpy object, black and understated.  But, like Queen Victoria, behind its thin facade it is frivolous, gay and full of fun.

Not all monarchs would opt for fun, when choosing a car.  George III was a deeply conservative monarch, with a great deal of respect for tradition and protocol.  As king, George III fully embraced his responsibilities as the head of state, while accepting the constitutional limitations upon his power.  He nonetheless felt that, as king, he must be afforded the fullest respect.  It was imperative that royal protocol must be strictly adhered to, in those having dealings with him.  King George is unfairly remembered for his madness which, while having a bearing on the car he would drive, is a small factor to be considered.  It is his patriotism, his sense of duty, his conservatism and his frugality that must be focused on when one thinks of him driving his car.  In conclusion, it seems a fairly safe bet to assume that George III would have been seen driving through the towns of England – he was very much a king for the people – in a Sterling Blue Rover 75.  As well as boasting a practicality and a dignity befitting so conscientious a monarch, the Rover 75 has an excellent record for safety.  If George III did, then, have a sudden moment of insanity while in the driving seat, his car would help to ensure his preservation in the face of an accident fuelled by kingly mentalism.

This brings us on to none other than the bard.  Shakespeare, of course, would have been well-suited to his Austin Maxi.  One can almost hear his words, spoken by the most resonant of Thespians:  Pon wings of Albion’s homely Leyland / I waft me o’er the potted streets / A whiff o’ pungent vinyl dost assail myne nose / And a steering wheel so angularly bent; / She handles like a camel ‘pon Winter’s icy lake / And hast the power o’ but one quart an oss.

Shakespeare’s sensibilities were finely tuned to life’s natural humour.  The whimsey of Fate is much recorded in the works of the bard.  He would, then, have been fully resigned to a car that performed badly, in both power and handling.  He would have found the clumsy shape and the badly-finished interior of the Maxi a fitting reminder of the imperfection of man, and the imperfection of the world at large.  He would have delighted in this and would have enjoyed the flippancy of driving a car so far beneath him, in class and comfort.  For Shakespeare, a car would signify a means of transport – and nothing else.  One cannot see him driving a Ferrari or a Porsche – both of which would suit a successful man of the arts.  He would have mocked himself for the ownership of such status symbols, seeing a vain social aspiration entrenched therein.  It would have been a Maxi for Shakespeare, through and through.  And I am pretty certain he would go for one in orange.

Not all historical personages would have been so self effacing.  One of the most charismatic figures ever to grace the history books has to be Richard Neville, the Earl of Warwick.  A huge player on the stage of The Wars of The Roses, Neville became known as Kingmaker, for the significant part he played in raising and deposing monarchs.  One of the most powerful magnates in the whole of England – not to say Europe – Neville was a great landowner, as well as a famous warrior, strategician and politician.  He commanded men through the sheer force of his personality and was able to shape history according to his will.  What comes across most keenly when one researches the life of this great magnate, is the arrogance he must have had, to propel him forward through the jungle of his own ambition.  It is this arrogance, primarily, which leads me to speculate that Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick would have driven a Range Rover.  He would have polluted the environment wantonly, would regularly have pulled out of side streets without looking, would have tailgated steady drivers, would have used the slow lane of the motorway to overtake and would have caused traffic chaos by blocking the road selfishly, when picking his daughters, Isabel and Anne, up from school.

Practical considerations would also have made the Range Rover an excellent work horse for the adventuring Earl.  It would have been crucial for him to have a car sufficient to transport the full compliment of his medieval armour.  By lowering the back seats, Warwick would have no trouble in getting his armour in to the car, along with the bulk of his weaponry.  Sundry weapons – such as a battle axe – would be able to go on the roof, or in the boot-mounted luggage compartment, should they prove too unwieldy to fit inside the car.    The all-terrain nature of the Range Rover, too, would have been invaluable to Warwick who would have needed to get to battlefields across the UK – not all of which would have been easily accessible by road.  When besieging castles, the Range Rover would make an excellent multi-purpose vehicle.  Whether using the car to transport siege engines around the field; or using it to push cumbersome obstacles out of the way of the siege offensive; or simply using it to keep out of the rain while having a nice cup of tea; the car would have proved invaluable as a tool of war.  It is difficult to say for sure whether Warwick would have had his Range Rover in silver or black.  What is certain is that his personalised registration plate would have read: FL4SH.

Attila The Hun would have favoured a Renault Clio, in midnight blue, with all the rude boy trappings that go with it.  But that goes without saying.

I’m going to make myself a nice brew.  All that talk of Richard Neville sitting in his Range Rover to enjoy a cup of tea has perked my desire.

Clockwise - William Shakespeare, Sir Thomas More, King George III, Queen Victoria, Richard Neville

Yoda versus Inman

July 27th, 2009
Two great adversaires...but which would hold aloft the cup of triumph?

Two great adversaries...but which would hold aloft the cup of triumph?

It is surely the greatest film never made.  And the greatest fight scene never to have been choreographed.  But one is compelled to wonder what the outcome would have been, were the intergallactic jedi knight, Yoda, and popular 1970s actor, John Inman, set against each other in the ring.  It would have been an historical combat, which would have sent shockwaves through society, leaving none untouched by its bloody outcome.

Needless to say, there would be the keenest irony in such a combat.  Despite his martial prowess, Yoda is the embodiment of Eastern Vedanta Philosophy.  He embodies the transcendental aspirations of peace and meditation; he strives for physical and spiritual harmony, frowning on confrontation and discord.  Inman, on the other hand, personifies the very essence of all that is camp.  He minces through life like a pair of pink trousers, bringing gaiety and excess wherever he goes.  His martial style can only be imagined – and would probably be called something ludicrous, like “The Squealing Monkey”.

So what would it have been like, had these two iconic proponents of non-violence been cast together in vicious, bloody combat?  Of course, it would be imperative to steer them both from their natural sensibilities, in order to create within them, the desperate will to fight and defeat.  A catalyst would be required to turn each, violently, on the other.  For Inman, I suspect it would suffice for a rumour to be cast, that Yoda had called him names.  If Inman could be persuaded that Yoda had called him a bitch (“a bitch, he is“), then he would roll up his sleeves and step in to the ring.  For Yoda, it would be effective to cast aspersions upon his Jedihood.  If done in tandem with cruel mocking of his height (“Hi Yoda.  Inman tells me you can’t be a Jedi knight because you are too short.  And they don’t let bald people in to the ranks, either.  Or green people.  Or people with webbed feet.  Or muppets..”), this would rile him sufficiently for him to want to get in to the ring and kick Inman’s arse.

Once in the ring, the two of them would be oddly matched.  Inman would have the advantage of height and a certain lithe buoyancy (as perfected through years of mincing) and would also have youth on his side.  At approximately 900 years old, Yoda is no spring chicken.  Conversely, Yoda would have Eastern martial technique on his side and with his unnerving ability to manipulate The Force, would be able to bring powers to bear upon Inman’s person that would shiver the Camp Crusader’s very timbers.

It would by no means be a foregone conclusion though.

By my calculation, the fight would start with a gentle circling in the middle of the ring, as the two combatants sized each other up.  The audience would watch as the two titans prepared for bloodshed.  Their inner rage would be well concealed by their relaxed attitude and meditative expressions.  In their posture, however, the informed observer would see two coiled springs ready to fly.

The first move would be made by Inman, who would lunge forward and direct a nasty slap at Yoda’s head.  Yoda’s reaction would be lightning fast.  He would dive forward, using his compact size to throw himself between Inman’s legs.  Inman would be disorientated for a few moments, while he accustomed himself not only to the fact he had missed his target; but that his target had disappeared with a speed virtually incomprehensible.  Inman would spin round just in time to block Yoda’s flying kick.  His block, a well-positioned reposte of the arm, would knock Yoda off course and Yoda would skitter across the ring like an old bucket.

At this point, Yoda would flip himself on to his feet, facing his adversary.  He would frown, his eyes becoming sly little windows, and would utter a meditative “humph”.  A bead of perspiration would trickle down Inman’s face, knowing that he had put Yoda down once; but that he would be hard-pressed to do so again.  He would remain still, keeping a safe distance between himself and the vertically challenged jedi.  And then, like a force of nature, Yoda would launch his attack.  In a single bound he would be across the ring, his shoulder down, his hands held tightly together before him, in the pose of a classic rugby tackle.  Making direct contact with Inman’s legs, he would bring the Camp Crusader down hard on to the canvas.  So quick would it be, that Inman wouldn’t have any idea what had happened before he found himself pinned down with Yoda stradding his weedy chest, holding him down forcefully.

For many, this would be the end of the road and defeat would be conceded.  Not for Inman though.  Inman won’t go down until Mrs Slocombe sings.  A clever upper-body move would extricate Inman from beneath his Yodic foe, and he would spin the tiny jedi round, landing him on the canvas with a mighty thud.  The wind would be knocked out of Yoda and Inman would thrust his leg over Yoda’s sorry form, clamping him in place.  Yoda would wriggle and groan, trying desperately to free himself from the stranglehold of the camp brute, but to no avail.  Inman would, at this point, hold the advantage.

Unused to physical exertion of this magnitude, Inman would be sweating profusely.  His hair would be plastered across his forehead and he would be trying to catch his breath.  His eyes, though, would be like the very pits of hell and regardless of how exhausted he is, Yoda would know that the fight is not out of him.  Realising that defeat is soon to be upon him, Yoda would know that it is time to bring out the big guns.  And so he would relax, forget the violent, mincing, maddened fiend bearing down on him.  He would close his eyes, and slow his breathing.  He would think of all that is around him, in him.  He would know that he is one with all that exists; that he is the force, just as the force is he.  He would feel it, rippling around him, running through him…

Inman would not expect the washing machine to come sailing out of the sky and land on his head.  But that is exactly what would occur.  Close to defeat, Yoda would be playing dirty at this stage and would use The Force to his own advantage.  Inman would be knocked clear of the anarchically syntaxed muppet, and would be sent sprawling across the floor of the ring.  Blood would be running down his face at this point and it would be visible to the audience that Inman’s head has been partially caved in by the force of the washing machine.  Inman would be hardly conscious, gazing out of heavy-lidded eyes, no longer even knowing where he is.

Yoda would take no chances, though.  His rage would be a huge pulsating organ within him – something Inman would have a great deal of empathy with.  Seeing his adversary laying almost unconscious on the floor, Yoda would scuttle over to him.  He wouldn’t even bother to stand up; he’d just crawl across the canvas on all fours, like some kind of discoloured poodle.  Reaching Inman , he’d raise himself up and kick him, repeatedly, in the ribs.  His kicks would be violent, untempered.  Inman would be heard moaning, crying out for mercy.  But things will have gone far beyond that.  Tired of kicking Inman in the ribs, Yoda would sink to his knees and begin punching Inman squarely in the face.  He’d then do that thing they do in all good police films, where he’d grab Inman’s hair and use it to bang his head repeatedly against the canvas.

The violence wouldn’t stop until Inman was a limp and bloody rag, the ugly manifestion of Yoda’s temper.  Yoda would stand up, unconcerned as to whether Inman has been left alive or dead.  He would back off, a few paces, glaring down at his camp combatant.  And he would fold his arms, in the posture of a jedi knight requited.

From Inman, there would be no sound.  Yoda would stand triumphant.

That’s what I think, anyway.

Dear Bill Gates

July 24th, 2009

Dear Bill Gates,

I hope you are well.

I am writing to clarify the situation with regards to my expertise of the Microsoft Office suite.  You seem possessed of the misconception that I have a profound expertise of the MS applications (in particular, Word and Excel).  I want to make it absolutely clear that while I have a sound working knowledge of these applications, I can in no way be considered an expert.  Please refrain, therefore, from further contacting me to ask my advice on how to use the software.

It has surprised me that your own grasp of your own applications is so poor.  Your recent request for me to walk you through a mail merge in Word left me staggered;  your query as to how add footnotes, more so.  While I was able to help you with these matters, I regret to inform you that I have been unable to solve the mystery of how to convert a paragraph of capital letters in to lower-case, after you have inadvertently left the CAPS-LOCK on.  It might be something you want to query your developers about.

In truth, Bill, it has baffled me as to why you do not interrogate your developers – or indeed, any of the technical staff at Microsoft – for answers to your queries.  They, after all, are likely to know the applications intimately; they will undoubtedly be able to give you quick and comprehensive answers in a way that I cannot always do.  While I am flattered that you feel you can come to me on these matters, the sheer volume of support calls that you are putting in to me is having a detrimental impact on my personal and my working life.  Yesterday you contacted me fifty-two times, by telephone and e-mail.  Your queries included how to rotate an image in Powerpoint, how to add up consecutive columns in Excel and how to change the colour of the font in Word.  These are fairly basic operations and I was able to answer you.  However, the bulk of my day did seem to be taken up with answering your questions and I cannot continue to offer this level of support.

I am unsure as to why you have become convinced that I am such an expert.  Moreover, I have no idea how you heard of me in the first place.  I am a fairly obscure member of the global population and it seems curious that I entered your radar at all – let alone as a technical advisor.  My poor grasp of technology is legendary in the humble circles of my own social sphere and I can think of many people that would be more sensibly approached for technical and practical software consultation.  Given the fairly basic nature of some of your queries, also, it might be worth you spending a few hours familiarising yourself with the basic MS Office environment.  Regular use of the applications is the best way to get to know them and you will be surprised how quickly you develop your own expertise!  Who knows – in a few months time, it could me who is coming to you to ask for advice on how to use the software!

Please do not be offended by this letter.  It really has been a pleasure helping you – and I have found it to be a rewarding experience, hearing the penny drop and knowing that you have grasped the lesson of my teaching, time after time.  Unfortunately there are only so many hours in a day – and I cannot be a husband, a salesman and a technical consultant to Bill Gates.  It just isn’t physically possible.  I do hope you understand.

Technical questions aside, do keep in touch!  Let me know how you are getting on with your explorations through the twisting, turning jungle of MS Office applications.  And do give my love to Melinda.

Best wishes,

Stefan

Ps.  With regards to your latest question…To finish a page in Word, and begin a new one, go to “Insert” and select “Page Break”.  This will insert a page break and take you to the head of the next page.