Dynargh dhe'n Blogofrob

Wednesday 18th June 2003

I'm late in posting this up, but that's because I've been away, busy being relaxed and happy. Anyway, its good to know her Maj has a browse around the weblogs every now and again. Congratulations Rog.

26 - posted at 10:11:37
permalink

Click here to add a comment


Monday 2nd June 2003

I read with amusement that JD Wetherspoon are planning to clamp down on swearing in their pubs, with a 'swear box' contribution demanded for a first offence, followed by a bar if you re-offend (presumably along with being tossed into the street by two gently-spoken bouncers). I've don't really like Wetherspoon's pubs, which are generally too cavernous to have any character and are only worth a visit because of the cheap beer (and even if this is an important factor Samuel Smith pubs are preferable, partly because they're almost vomiting with character). Wetherspoon's currently provide spacious no-smoking areas and have a strict no-games (i.e. snooker, darts) and no-music policy. And now they're looking to outlaw swearing. Perhaps they'll get rid of alcohol next.

Maybe I'm a (fucking) vulgar ruffian. But I like going to the pub and having a good swear. I find that since I gave up smoking swearing gives me something with which to fill my lungs while obscene gestures give me something to do with my hands. If they make me give it all up I might have to resort to smashing pint glasses and throwing chairs through windows, or I may take up smoking again as a substitute and sue Wetherspoon's when I'm dying of cancer.

How is this going to be monitored? How do you define a swearword? If I said "fuck" I'd be barred. But what about "shit"? Is that a swear word? I heard Ricky Gervais say it at 2.55pm on Xfm on Saturday - and under 18s are allowed to listen to the radio. Perhaps Wetherspoon's will decide to put up a list of forbidden words - they could hang them in a lacquered mock-antique frame next to the badly illustrated potted history of the local area that Wetherspoon's punters have to endure while forcing down a microwaved lasagne.

Can I get away with swearing in a different language? And if so, that's a bit unfair, isn't it? If someone can enjoy a pint while loudly telling his ami to retourne enculer les mouches while I have to smile graciously at my friend and tell him meekly to please leave my presence thankyou, surely this isn't right. Everyone should have the right in a pub to swear, in whatever language seems appropriate at the time.

Of course, it would be unreasonable of me to focus purely on the negative effects of this ban. I'm sure "townies" in any university town would enjoy the decline in loudly misquoted lines of Withnail & I interfering with their beer. This in turn would reduce their need to swear, as it has been statistically proven that occurances of the phrase "Fucking students" are most common following Withnail lines. Also, I believe the reasoning behind the pub chain's decision to curb swearing is that swearing is unpleasant for others around and anti-social. Reluctantly, therefore, I applaud the intention. Anti-social behaviour is the bane of many lives - especially Londoners'. For this reason I can vaguely understand why Wetherspoon's pubs have large non-smoking areas: but isn't the anti-social element here to do with health risk, rather than a subjective idea of discomfort, which banning swearing must be based on? And if this is true then there are many anti-social characteristics exhibited by pub-goers which should take precedence over the odd use of colourful language: people who smell, single pub goers or couples who take up a massive table or booth leaving others nowhere to sit, those hideously ingratiating plastic rose sellers, people who piss all over the floor in the gents. I could go on and on before I get to swearers.

I know a lot of people find swearing tedious. For those that don't, like me, this website is enjoyable.

25 - posted at 17:05:05
permalink

Click here to add a comment


Friday 30th May 2003

The Glastonbury line up has just been officially announced, happily timed to co-incide with today's sunshine - it looks alright too, even if in my opinion some of the bands lower down the bill will be worth seeing over the likes of REM and Morph. And I'm not sure why the Manics are playing second fiddle to the ad-friendly slaphead.

Moby
Moby yesterday

But good to see The Flaming Lips finally emerge from the New Bands tent (after a decade or so) and I'm curious to discover the reaction the Sugababes will get, as a "pop" act - Daphne and Celeste were a very different kind of pop band but I'll never forget watching them being forced off the stage at Reading 2000. The festival vibe was in full swing that day - true to the spirit of the occasion a random bloke kindly offered me a plastic coke bottle containing piss to lob at the poor girls on stage, if I so wished.

But hang on, what's this? - Saturday night headliners on the Pyramid Stage - Radiohead. And on the One World stage - Lamb. The horror: a merciless clash. Shit shit shit. BASTARDS! HOW DARE THEY?! FUCK THEM!

Ruined. I may as well not go. According to Matt's countdown clock I have 27 days within which to work this issue out. It's going to be a tough one.

Louise Rhodes

or

Thom Yorke

Hmm, maybe it's not all that tough after all.

24 - posted at 10:42:20
permalink

Click here to add a comment


Tuesday 20th May 2003

A poem by CP Cavafy, a Greek poet unknown to me until about a month ago, which is a shame.

Voices

Ideal and beloved voices
of those who are dead, or of those
who are lost to us like the dead.

Sometimes they speak to us in our dreams;
sometimes in thought the mind hears them.

And with their sound for a moment return
other sounds from the first poetry of our life --
like distant music that dies off in the night.

23 - posted at 10:22:35
permalink

Click here to add a comment


Wednesday 14th May 2003

Ali G in the USA is broadcast in the USA, and has been met with an unenthusiastic response. While the States produces some of the funniest comedy around - Seinfeld, The Simpsons, South Park, Futurama plus all those films - it doesn't surprise me that American don't 'get' Ali G. I'm quite glad they don't, to be honest. British comedy is very parochial and funny mainly to those in the parish - whether it's the more stylish and subtle programmes like Spaced or the brilliantly puerile such as Bottom, it is characterised by its Britishness. Americans wouldn't get it, not because of the often argued assumption that they have no sense of irony, but because they aren't British, they don't give a shit about the British and they're quite happy with their own products. The only reason that good American comedy is so popular in this country is because, having had to swallow over the past 40 years a interminable volume of American culture, the British are familiar with American humour, understand it and have grown to like it. The mistake that is often made is that the reverse might be true. Why should it be? It's no surprise to me that the only comedy that has managed to sucessfully travel to the States is either the very basic (Benny Hill) or those broad comedies made with a very decided objective of attracting an American audience - Four Weddings, Shakespeare in Love, Bean...there are of course exceptions, Monty Python being the most evident.

However two things relating to the States's rejection of Ali G do bother me. First, apparently some victims, like Ralph 'man of the people' Nader are considering suing. Grow up, you fucking humourless idiot.

Secondly, and this is the thing that really bugs me, tv reviewers in the States objected to Ali G referring to 11 September as "7/11". Apparently this trivialises the tragic event and is tasteless. Hang on just a bloody minute, this is hypocrisy of the most contemptible sort. It takes a very stupid or wilfully blind person to rush to condemn from an easy moral position, completely ignoring the United States's own trivialisation of the event in terming it "9/11" in the first place. It's a horribly 'trendy' media tag, a corporate brand (easy to fit on Baseball caps and T shirts) and an iconic logo, designed to promote gung-ho glamour and mock-Hollywood heroics. All of what "9/11" is, as opposed to "September 11" or "The Attacks on New York and Washington", gave George W Bush the power to manipulate his people into supporting a questionable war. Ali G is still sometimes about satire (as it used to be all the time) and referring to "9/11" as "7/11" (a corporation) along with the reaction that this has had (highlighting the all too frequent American political and media hypocrisy) demonstrates that it can still work.

22 - posted at 10:58:46
permalink

Comments (2)