2 hours with Johnny Depp or a good book?

The incorrigible geek that I am, I’d already read the required reading for the Easter break, Tom Wolfe’s ‘The New Journalism’ and so set about working my way through the work of writers featured in Wolfe’s epilogue.
I started perhaps naively with the work of Hunter. S. Thompson.
This was a bit like a teetolleer downing a bottle of tequila and frankly I’m still hungover.
My prejudicial opinion of Thompson was inspired by the mumbling yank portrayed by Depp in the film of his epic novel/non-fiction ‘Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas’.
I presumed from the film that his journalistic writing would be a torrent of incoherent musings, only impressive by the scale of Thompson’s excess.

I decided to push aside my prudence however and delve into ‘Fear and Loathing’ myself.
I have to say I now understand why his writing was and still is so revered.
At a time when novelistic techniques were being used to such poignant effect, when Wolfe and Talease were breaking the seal of journalistic convention; Thompson stood out.
His writing doesn’t make you say ‘ohh this is different’ it simply take you by the scruff of the neck and nuts you in the head!

I’m currently half way through a biography entitled ‘Outlaw journalist: The life and Times of Hunter S Thompson in which his abusive persona and doubtless talent are laid next to one another.

Like someone playing a fantastic practical joke, his genius and his cruelty is exposed.

Rumour has it that our first lecture is a screening of ‘Fear and Loathing’.
My advice would be to bypass the eye candy and read the book which has pace and vigour. In fact the book is more exciting than 2 hours of Johnny Depp….

WOW big words. If Johnny would like to come round to my place and challenge that, he’s more than welcome.

When Wilhelm get's that feeling...

And so Brian stood at the front of the room and gaily announced in his Irish lilt
‘you cannot be truly happy until you are having proper orgasms’ to which we inevitably laughed and waited for him to attribute his statement, which he did.
They were the words of Wilhelm Reich an Austrian psychoanalyst who followed Freud’s path of psychiatric discovery even deeper into the woods.

Reich concurred with much of what Freud deduced about the mind, he particularly bought into the idea that we are mentally made up of our ID (our instinctive impulses), our Ego (Our civilised self), and our Super Ego (our prohibitive self which controls our ID).
Freud believed we could aid behavioural or mental problems through talking, he practiced a lot of free association; letting his patients speak in a stream of conciousness until at some point they spewed up something which had a deeper significance, something which could explain all their hang ups and complexes (Freudian word).
Reich on the other hand thought that focusing on the mind had it’s constraints, he believed we should focus on our bodies, that we should self medicate our depression or insecurity with a lot of sex, whenever we feel like it, with whomever we fancy. The simple act of fornication would free us of what he called ‘Orgone Energy’, essentially a sexual tension which we accumulated day to day.
He believed that we were constantly absorbing this ‘Orgone Energy’ like a gas, and a build up of this gas would result in tension and stress, the only means of releasing this gas was through having an orgasm.

Reich thought our sexual desires, which were subdued by our Super-Ego were legitimate and one should satisfy them. He then began to consider the ID and whether our instinctive impulses were destructive, if not why should they be concealed? Why does society fulminate against sexual promiscuity?
Why were we so repressed and who was repressing us?
These were all questions that could only be answered by history, tradition and anthropology.
The 1960’s saw a resurgence in Reich’s philosophy, the idea that ‘free love’ was not only acceptable but ‘good for your soul’ dominated young culture.
Much was born from Reichian ideas but it he still present today?
We certainly have popularised a one-night stand culture and though men are often admired for sexual prowess, women are still berated and condemned.
Will Reich’s ideals ever become social norm? Would we be happier and healthier if we were just a little more focused on our pursuit for an orgasm and a little less on the latest episode of Eastenders?

Was Marvin Gaye was right all along? And we are just all in need of some ‘sexual healing’?

‘As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams’

And so we were introduced to Existentialism, the interest in human existence.
Who we are and how we function. It brought me back to my A-level drama, which was a 2 year course in existentialism, explored through Samuel Backett and Franz Kafka. Having studied ‘The Trail’ and crawled around stage in ‘The Metamorphosis’ I was encouraged to think about it what it means to live, day-to-day.
‘The Metamorphosis’ follows the reaction of a young man, waking up to find he has taken the form of insect. On this discovery, his main concern is how he will attend work, how he will converse with his parents and sister, essentially how he will continue to function as he had done before.
Kafka suggests through his novella that all humans are drawn to a life of routine, of ritualistic behaviour which we hold as our reason d’etre.
We wake in the morning to complete the tasks we have set ourselves for that day.
Gregor Samsa, leads a banal life of habit and although he appears a loving son and someone of a good nature he is not missed by his family when an infection eventually leads to his physical demise.
This story presents the idea that we live to function which is emulated in ‘The outsider’ by Albert Camus.
This novel presents Merasult, an unconscious nihilist who sees life with little perspective and no purpose. He lives in a scary world of calm observation which alienates/dislocates him from his peers. His extreme indifference hinders his ability to feel any emotion other than the physical feelings of hunger or tiredness. When he murders an Arab with no malice or antipathy he fails to emotively conceive what he has done.
Condemned for his lack of remorse and apparent nonchalance he is sentenced to death, which he waits for with fear only for the physical anquish.
During his last days in prison he is visited by a priest, who implores him to repent his sin. Mersault consistently shows disdain for the priest and for the religion he preaches ‘I hadn’t the time to work up an interest for something that didn’t interest me’ and is not concerned with any ‘after-life’ that might exist ‘Do you really think that when you die, you die outright, and nothing remains?’ ‘I said: yes’.

Merauslt’s disregard for morality contrasts to ‘The Fall’s’ protagonist Jean-Baptiste Clamence who is unequivocally quixotic in his pursuit of moral sanctity.
His endless yearning to succeed in everything in hidden by an apparent moral crusade which he eventually finds hollow. Clamence tells his story of realisation to a passing acquaintance, to whom he admits ‘I lived consequently without any other continuity than, from day to day, I, I, I.’

Existentialism is said to have been instigated by an incursion of atheism.
The increasingly popular idea that ‘God is Dead’ lead to a crisis of purpose.
No longer did people convince themselves they were born to ‘serve god’ or to fulfil some higher moral purpose. This gave way to the question ‘why are we here?’.

There's no such thing as good or bad; just thinking makes it so

And so HCJ started again and we encircled Horrie to hear about Nietzsche, about the paradign shifts that have pulled along our cultural history like a horse drawn carriage. We learnt about the reluctant union of science and art and how scientific discoveries altered the worlds of our forefathers.
Amidst all this learning came a concurrent thread which I remember considering when reading Rousseau, is our behaviour predetermined when we are born or are we taught it?
In Emile, Rousseau explores this nature vs. nurture question.
The same question arises when studying Freud, who acknowledges we have an innate desire to behave in animalistic way, our ID and it’s our ego which prohibits, our ego is developed by our upbringing, so is our ID suppressed by society? Nietzsche believed so.
I think this is the basis of Kant and Nietzsche’s disagreement.
Are we naturally good or bad? Or is it thinking that makes it so?
Do we really have an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other from the day we’re born?
Nietzsche believed that morality was not something innate; humans have not anthropologically developed a sense of right and wrong. We are taught a societal perception of right and wrong and behaving in accordance with the social conventions, epitomises our enslaved mentality. We have confined and curtailed our behaviour to adhere to a dogmatic religious code which is Apollonian.
This contradicted Kant’s theory that we all have an instinctive knowledge of when we committing a moral sin.

Nietzsche thought moral and legal law infringed the pursuit of the individual, that it discouraged a life of Dionysian indulgence. Dionysus is the Ancient Greek god of wine, the inspirer of ritual madness and ecstacy and Nietzsche was a big fan, he criticized religon for it’s supression of innate hedonism, something which was encouraged by a Dionysian lifestyle.

Nietzsche believed our ideas of right and wrong or good and evil have evolved over time originating from religious doctrine, this was a form of control, which Nietzsche did not see as a bad thing necesserily, he believed religion should happily control the ‘common people’, the ‘bungled and the botched’ as long as the ‘hero’, the great man could suceed.
So does religion really breed control and restraint, or rather does it sustain a consensus for the masses, does soicety run more efficiently on the idea that we all share a common moral code? If an individual broke the law because he genuinely saw no wrong doing in taking drugs, he would have no defence. Law (generally) is not subjective and cannot be if it is to maintain order so is the same not true of moral law?
Obviously people have different spectrums of good and bad, some people do things which others would find abhorent, but Kant believed that even the people who do ‘bad’ things, have a conscience and a knowledge that what they’ve done is wrong, from telling a lie to murder. Neitzsche denounced this and in his book ‘Beyond Good and Evil’ stated ‘it was a mistake to regard it as a duty to aim at the victory of good and the anhiliation of evil’.

Latest WINOL story on Potholes in Winchester

Crosswords and Crufts

So we return from our Christmas break, a break of over-indulgence and likely lethargy. What have we learned? Not to buy so many Christmas presents? That turkey dinner is fattening? Has in turn the arrival of the new year initiated new resolutions and new habits? I’ve certainly made a big effort to read as many newspapers as I can get my mitts on and not only do I watch BBC but I watch Sky, Al Jazeera, Fox, CNN and Euronews. I listen to vast array of radio stations (except radio 1, no newsjunkie in the world should have to subject themselves to Moyles)
I have developed a penchant for Private Eye and have forced myself to once in a while by The Daily Mail ( I actually like the crossword) (only because I can complete it, unlike The Times). Despite all this dedication, I think what I have learned above all is HOW I absorb my news. I pay stringent attention to words used, my latest gripe is the use of the word ‘quiz’ particularly in The Sun. It is usually used in reference to a murder enquiry, ‘So and So was quizzed on the murder of her two children’….I’m sorry was Anne Robinson conducting the investigation? ‘Quizzed’ to me seems like a light inquiry, such as where the nearest post office is, not what possessed someone to commit a murder! Argh!

Anyway I digress….(horrie trademark) The point is that every word printed and every phrase spoken has been chosen by a producer or editor or journalist for a specific effect, when you analyse each word it becomes easier to fathom the effect the author wishes to create.
I now see myself walking through a park full of dog walkers as a crufts official, intently assessing factors which would otherwise go over my head.


This attention to detail has spawned from our latest project, to find and research an example of something Orwellian. Namely something that relates to the totalitarian state depicted in Nineteen Eighty Four.
Horrie as an example showed us an advert for Dasdani, a bottled water produced by the coca-cola company, which was laced with bromate, essentially a carcinogenic poison.
Although this had at the time of the water’s release become public knowledge, when asked about the brand of water, most of the class, including myself inaccurately recalled the bottled water was proven to just be tap water.
This scary untruth was published after the scandal had leaked that the water contained poison, basically Coca-Cola had published ‘Mis-information’ which successfully altered the memory of the public, making the company look like silly con-men as opposed to murderers who could have poisoned millions.

My point of interest was going to be on NESTLE a company which has long suffered contention due to it’s aggressive marketing of it’s baby milk formula in the third world. I researched the subject concentrating on the language Nestle used to defend claims and the language used by the accusatory force 'Boycott Nestle'. A short video will follow this blog displaying my findings.

Clear Language: Practical or Prosiac?

Having just finished reading ‘Down and out in Paris and London’ by George Orwell I went on to read his essay ‘Politics and the English Language’ which was suggested reading for our History and Context of Journalism lecture. In reading the latter I noted Orwell’s rules of English language; examples of which were

• Don’t use metaphors
• Use plain/simple everyday language
• Never use a long word, where a short one will do
• If it is possible to cut a line, cut it
• Never use the passive voice if you can use the active voice

Having read the essay it was easy to recognise the author of that and the novel were one in the same.

I have to say that the novel was rather dull, it offered a factual account of Orwell’s time on the brink of poverty in Paris and London. I turned the pages will little anticipation or emotion.

It turns out; there is something to be said of ornate language.

Metaphors, similes and such provide perspective, insight. Writers often talk about their voice and what simplifying the English language does is take away that voice.

Elaborate language and detailed descriptions set the scene, set the tone, the mood.

Without these things people and places become lifeless.

Obviously dependant on vocation, reading an account of someone’s daily routine, event by event can become immensely tedious, it’s their reaction, their perspective that we value.

I recently read a novel ‘Buddha Da’ by Anne Donavon, the novel follows a Glaswegian family as their father/husband discovers and turns to Buddhism. The novel is split into chapters each written in first person narrative from the perspective of each family member, each angle is refreshing, each character tells their story in a different way. Were this novel to follow Orwell’s rules the tale would become an agenda of a family. Little more.

Don’t get me wrong there is certainly place for Orwell’s rules, administration is shrouded in jargon and vague, unclear lexis. And like most it takes me hours to dissect. Terms and conditions are usually pages of scrawl, so unclear the reader has little knowledge at all of what he/she is reading. Orwell’s named this language ‘Contagion’, essentially ‘pollution’ of language. Orwell believed contagion was used to hide the truth, which in the case of T’s and C’s is obviously the intention.

There exists an independent body that aims to work with government administrations to clarify their language, they are called the ‘Campaign for Plain English’. I think this is brilliant, political and governmental language should reveal itself, rather than hide behind the metaphorical bush of buzz words and vague phrases.

Horrie, who seems a strong advocate of Orwell’s rules recently patented his ‘bullshit generator’ aiming to decipher elaborate laguage.

Nevertheless (or ‘but’ as Horrie would prefer) plain language has it’s place, it might be in admin, even news journalism. But it is not in literature, music or poetry.

Let us enjoy the beauty of an incomprehensible piece of prose that finds a new way to describe the sway of tree’s branches in the wind.

Take Keats for example….

Tis not through envy of thy happy lot,

But being too happy in thine happiness,—

That thou, light-winged Dryad of the trees,

In some melodious plot

Of beechen green, and shadows numberless,

Singest of summer in full-throated ease.

 

Go on Horrie, I dare you to put that through your ‘Bullshit Generator’