The Writing Factory

Draft Three And Finally I Get It

2012-01-29T09:09:00.001+01:00

Writing is re-writing, or so say the experts. Until recently I never understood that, now I do. In my time I have completed two books, at least that's what I used to say. Now I will modify it to this, in my time I have completed two first drafts of books. And that's a very very different thing. As it turns out, writing is even more laborious that I'd thought. It's hard enough coming up with a story, characters and fleshing them out into a cohesive narrative that's more than 50,000 words. I've achieved that task twice in my 40 odd years on the planet, and each time thought 'Ha, I've written a book!'. What a fool I was.

I duly sent off those first drafts to publishers and agents and received a wall of indifference. At first I was irritated, actually at second and third I was irritated too. But recently I realised something fundamental, and that's that NO-ONE in their right mind submits a first draft. Why ? Because unless you are a genius it's likely to be bloody awful. I discovered this when I sat down to write a second draft of a book last year, and it was even more apparent on the third run through that I'm on now. Even though I've read these pages dozens of times and often been satisfied with them, I keep on finding glaring mistakes. How can this be ?

Well it seems that re-writing is actually where a book takes shape. On my re-writes I've improved plot, character, descriptions and virtually everything else. I've adjusted the time lines, which I hadn't realised until a friend pointed it out, were needlessly complex. I've sorted out multiple logical issues and various clunky bits of writing where I used too many commas or the word 'now' with gay abandon. I also started too many sentences with 'he' and very often certain sections were disjointed or didn't flow very well. And it's all been well worth it.

None of these changes alone has made any difference, and my plot and execution has remained largely intact. But the combination of all these little changes has transformed my book from a lot of words on pages to something resembling a story. I don't have the benefit of an editor to help me shape it further and this will probably be glaringly obvious in the finished article, but I'm much happier with the end result. I think it will be much more professional and readable than it was before and I'll be more comfortable about putting it out in front of the world. But what I have taken from all this is that writing is a long and sometimes painful slog. Luckily, even on draft four in somes places, I still enjoy it.

Are You Fucking Kidding Me ?

2012-01-25T21:52:00.001+01:00

It's official people, the Oscars are now totally worthless. For as long as I can remember the Academy Awards have been the benchmark for film. Whatever they may say, actors and directors are desperate to win one. Of course over the years The Academy have made some shocking mistakes. Alfred Hitchcock never won one. Right there the whole system is undermined, if Hitch can't get one, frankly why would you want one ? Orson Welles won only one, for the screenplay to Citizen Kane. Raging Bull lost to er...Ordinary People, and Goodfellas lost to Dances With Wolves. Oh yes, and Driving Miss. Daisy won Best Picture. DRIVING MISS. FUCKING DAISY !

However I'm here to tell you that this year they've surpassed themselves, shown themselves to be out of touch with reality and as old school cheesy as you always suspected they were. Clooney and Pitt get nominated for Best Actor. Why, because they've been around long enough and have earned it. But all I need to do now to prove my point is list the films and people that HAVEN'T been nominated. Strap yourselves in, because this gets messy.

Probably the best film of the whole year, Senna, doesn't get NOMINATED for Best Documentary Feature. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier Spy not nominated for Best Picture. Fassbender not nominated for Shame. Tintin not nominated for Best Animated Feature. Tilda Swinton not nominated for Best Actress. Albert Brooks not nominated for Best Supporting Actor. Is that enough for you, if not IT SHOULD BE. The Oscars have finally lost it and rendered themselves irrelevant. Don't be surprised if no bugger watches them this year, even if the god-like Billy Crystal is hosting. We all now know that they mean fuck all.

Death Of A Fattie

2012-01-25T07:33:00.002+01:00

My Playstation 3 Fat is dead, long live my Playstation 3 Slim.

Anybody else out there familiar with the Yellow Light Of Death ? It's what happens when a PS3 dies. I'm still not sure what it means except that the geek medical team I employed couldn't save my machine, they just gave it a few glorious extra months. And the consequence is I've been forced to buy a new slim version. Now this isn't a perfect situation, after all it means yet more expense for a piece of hardware that is reaching the end of its commercial life. Pretty soon, if not this year, Sony will announce its replacement, a Playstation 4. But I'm not waiting for that.

The whole concept of early adopting, i.e. buying new technology as soon as its released, has got a deservedly bad name. I made that mistake with PS2 & 3. On both occasions I found myself with a lump of expensive hardware that had dented my finances but for which there was little software. With the PS3 in particular it took a hell of a long time, maybe 2 years, for decent games to start appearing. In the meantime I was stuck with a blu-ray player, when there were very few blu-rays. In time the price went down, a slimmer and more energy efficient version appeared and a host of classic games. I felt a mug.

So PS4 can come out when it wants, but I will be holding off until a cheaper, 'slimmer' version turns up that is actually worth getting. Until then I will be enjoying the vast catalogue of games and films for the PS3, and be getting my value for money out of that. After all I'm now two machines in and about £700 down.

I Just Can't Get Excited About Higgs Boson

2012-01-19T19:27:00.000+01:00

We are told that it's a very big deal, that it will be the greatest scientific discovery of our age. And usually I'm very pro-science. I love these types of endeavours and follow them with unending support. But this time I'm having a very hard time getting interested. I envy people in the 60s, they had the space program to get involved with, surely the greatest thing that mankind has ever done. But the quest to find Higgs Boson appears to be the most boring thing we've ever conceived of. Certainly it isn't very cinematic, there will be no 'moon landing' moment for us all to watch on TV. Instead there will be a dry announcement by a geek in Switzerland telling us that they've found something that none of us understand.

I vaguely follow the theory, that the search is for a missing particle without which the 'standard model' of physics doesn't add up. The Higgs Boson is apparently what gives matter mass and allows the universe to exist and life to have begun. That's all very well and good, but it just isn't sexy. And it all seems so very abstract too. We don't have it now, will our lives be better when we do ? I don't want to sound like a luddite but the CERN Large Hadron Collider cost £6 billion to build and there's a staff there of hundreds of top scientists. I'm still mystified how they got that funding when so many other areas of society are starved of resources. It's a shitload of money, and let me remind you that billions of us still don't even have clean drinking water.

Also, whenever I see interviews with the scientists at work there, they don't come across as serious people, more geeky schoolboys who can't believe their luck. So is it that what they're doing will be worth it, or have we fallen for a lot of gobbledegook that we don't understand but think we look clever by paying for ? Will this discovery produce trickle down benefits that will advance our society hugely, or is it massive quest for multiple Nobel prizes ? Is this work going to help us all as a whole or is it filling in some gap in the textbooks but nothing more ?

That's what worries me. As much as I try to support these things, I can't shake the feeling that at a time when so many people are living in a squalor, this type of thing could have waited. Maybe if we were landing on Mars I would be more excited, but I don't know. I loved space stuff when I was 10, but then at that age I didn't understand much about the world. Now I do and I really think the jury is out on Higgs Boson. Let's see what they do with the knowledge when they get it. Perhaps it'll mean even better mobile phones or TVs. Or maybe not. Let's just hope it's all been worth it.

Immortality Is Overrated

2012-01-17T21:17:00.001+01:00

Since the dawn of time men have sought eternal life. Books, films and legends have documented this quest. But one thing that has never been asked is this, why would you want to live forever ? Have we really thought this through ? After all immortality would mean never retiring. We all know that the cost of everything goes up every ten minutes, so imagine if we never died ? You could have a mortgage that lasted until the end of time, a job you had to go to for eternity and that would be bad wouldn't it ? I don't want to die, but I accept that it will happen one day. This gives focus to my life, a little push because what I don't do today I may never do. If I were immortal I could think 'oh well I can learn the piano in a few thousand years time, for now I'll eat these crisps and watch TV'.

Technology as it currently stands cannot make me live forever. In my lifetime they won't perfect that, so I will die and so will you. Sorry but there it is. But our great grandchildren may well live to 200 years old, and their great grandchildren fives times as long. One day, if we keep progressing like this, immortality will not only be possible but rather mundane. As a result the earth's population will increase to insane levels, we'll be fighting hand to hand for food and water and Doctor Who will get made forever.

My generation don't have to worry, we'll all be safely dead by then, unless of course some bright spark invents a way to bring us back too so we can share in the misery. That could happen, but in the meantime I'm going to drink alcohol. I don't have many vices, actually I have an alarming lack of bad habits. I have never smoked as the very smell makes me want to vomit. Drugs are a mystery to me, and I think I'm going it if I have too many Strepsils within the specified period. So alcohol is my only vice and I can't even handle that very well. Two glasses of wine and I feel bad, so I can never be a romantic alcoholic.

But I still hear a little voice when I drink, it says 'think of your liver', as if that organ is cowering inside my abdomen, sobbing because it has to break down a glass of wine a night. What a wimp my liver is, and what a wimp I must be. I'll probably live to 127, when anybody that had fun is long dead with a big smile on their face. What was the point of all this then ? Oh yeah, it's this: have a drink if you like, because you're gonna die anyway. If you're lucky that is.

When Did Characterisation Become A Dirty Word ?

2012-01-15T08:33:00.001+01:00

I've seen a lot of U.S. films lately, and for that matter read a fair few mainstream novels. 'Contagion' above I saw yesterday, and although I liked it, I found a glaring hole in the middle of it that sucked a lot of enjoyment out. It is a movie with a large ensemble cast that deals with the scenario of a flu pandemic that kills millions. As a machine of a film it works well, the plot chugging along relentlessly as the story unfolds. It's true that director Steven Soderberg uses a documentary style to tell the story and as such it is quite low key and spare. I get that, but what I found unsatisfying was how poorly the characters were served. After all why recruit the likes of Matt Damon, Kate Winslett and Gwyneth Paltrow and then not give them a chance to do anything ? Their characters were cardboard cut outs, there to serve the plot and nothing else.

Now compare that with the brilliant Argentinian film 'The Secret In Their Eyes' which I also saw recently. The latter film is about a retired lawyer who just won't let go of an unsolved murder case. The film won the Oscar for foreign language film and features two fantastic central performances. Not only is this a thriller but it's also a love story and the characters are beautifully drawn, and hence you find yourself a lot more involved in the story. In the end, human beings respond to other human beings, and the more we see of ourselves and our own personalities in a piece, the better we engage with it.

Now you may say that both films are opposite ends of the thriller genre, one telling a story about the dangers of infection the other a saga about lost love and redemption. But the point is this, they are both thrillers. And due to the choices made about characters, and how well to draw them, one is a sterile and rather disappointing chore and the other is as good a film as you can ever hope to see. I've noticed this a lot in American mainstream media, plot is king and anything that gets in its way can be steamrollered over and forgotten. This might be why so many such entertainments are vacuous and ultimately disappointing. It's okay to have your CGI thrills and flashy crane shots but it's also alright to have some characters we can enjoy. Spielberg et al understood this in the 70s which is why films like 'Jaws' and 'Star Wars' are so much better than contemporary blockbusters.

Oh Dear...

2012-01-14T15:14:00.001+01:00

I'll admit it I'm a sucker. I first bought the Bond films on VHS, this took time and money. Then I bought them again on DVD. Each time I promised that would be it, and no further versions would tempt me. I was so very wrong. Now they've announced this boxset with all 22 films on Blu-Ray. I have to say I haven't bought many blu-rays, mainly due to the fact that everything I wanted I already had on DVD. But Bond is different. For others, Star Wars or Lord of the Rings must be repeatedly bought on all formats. For me it's Bond.

I showed my wife the trailer for the set today. She looked at me wearily and said 'Are you going to buy it then ?', I said 'Dunno, maybe'. What she doesn't know is that Amazon already have my pre-order, entered maybe 20 minutes after the set became available on the site. She will continue not to know this until October when the set will arrive one day via courier. At that point I may have some explaining to do. Or it might just be that after 15 years together, she realises I am a hopeless Bond geek. I console myself with the promise of 130 hours of extras, some of it new material. But I think we all know that even if the discs were all vanillas and they actually poked you with a sharp stick on delivery I'd still be buying them. I can resist many things these days, but Commander James Bond never.

This Is Not From My Book, But It Is A Clue

2012-01-13T08:58:00.000+01:00

A couple of days ago I posted an image of a pair of scary looking eyes. They are from the cover of a book that I shall be publishing on Kindle and maybe iBooks very soon. I haven't announced its title yet but here's another clue today as to the subject matter. I'm currently in the process of a final draft and finalising cover art. If all goes according to plan I will release it in early Spring. The story is part comedy, part horror and the image above will hopefully give you some clue as to one of the main protagonists. Anyway, as we get nearer the day I will provide further information.

Is Exercise After 40 Of Any Use ?

2012-01-12T09:47:00.000+01:00

In one of the offices I work at, earlier this week I had a conversation with one of the younger employees. I knew he was a keen runner so struck up a conversation about this, given that I now limp round the local streets on a regular basis. He told me that he had to get back to it after Christmas because he'd put on weight (at this point he tapped an iron flat stomach). He also mentioned that the last run he'd done was 42 km. I gulped at this point and said I'd like to do more but found my knees hurt. He looked back sympathetically and said 'after 40 you should really only do 20 minutes or so'.

He didn't mean anything by it, but I was stung for two reasons. First that he realised I was over 40 and second that he looked at me with the sympathy one does for an elderly family member. But he may have a point. I started running about 9 months ago and I shed some weight at first. But then I went on holidays, and since getting back have never been able to get the momentum going again. I've seen some changes due to the exercise, but nothing as dramatic as I'd hoped. This could be because I'm lazy, but in truth most of the time it's because my body won't allow me to do more.

Running at the moment is painful. My shins hurt, so do my feet and then my knees pinch away at me for the following few days. When I do weights it seems harder than it did last year, and I often get puffed out much more quickly than then. I try to be disciplined on food but I'm 42, and I NEED a glass of wine from time to time, it's what takes the edge off the futility of existence. Young people don't get that, they haven't seen the truth yet, they still think they're on the way to somewhere good.

The body also changes after 40. The metabolism slows down, the muscles diminish and exercise becomes harder. I know this because I've pushed myself as far as I dare for three years now, and I'm been injured, come down with colossal colds, and pulled more muscles than is strictly decent. I know that eventually I'll need to stop running and start walking. That moment will be a tough one as it will be the official start of old age. But in the meantime I will soldier on and try to achieve something with aerobic exercise. But I'm under no illusions that I'm fighting a losing battle.

Coming Soon...To A Kindle Near You

2012-01-11T16:30:00.001+01:00

Think Full HD Is The Cutting Edge ? Think Again

2012-01-10T21:46:00.000+01:00

If you have invested in a large plasma, and like to lounge in front of it watching a blu-ray, content that you have the very best home cinema experience possible, then you are wrong. What you have is already out of date, and out of date in a way that is simply embarrassing. Or maybe you have bought a 3D TV and like to sit there with the funny glasses on choosing between the 4-5 titles in existence, but happy that you are at the pinnacle of home tech. Yet again, humiliatingly incorrect.

People like me, who grew up with cathode ray tube TVs and Ceefax, view the current generation of TV equipment with awe. We still remember VHS, and so Sky plus is a bit like witchcraft in comparison. HD Telly is still a little miracle for me, even though I've had it 6 years and although I don't have 3D I've seen it in the shop and it's impressive. So the thought that all this stuff is about to be swept away seems odd, if not unnecessary. But it really isn't.

The first thing you can forget about is 1080p. Not long has it been the standard and for not much longer yet. Sony have developed a technology called 4K, which is four times the resolution of 1080p. Quite what this looks like I cannot imagine but it must be akin to having the actors sitting in your living room with you. Samsung has just today unveiled a TV that can have its hardware upgraded so you can put new bits in as they are developed. And this year will also see the arrival of 3D TVs that don't need glasses.

Add to that the fact that Apple are about to enter the fray and the TV scene suddenly looks very dynamic. Expect an Apple TV to have wi-fi, apps, gesture control, Siri voice control and easy access to iTunes and you have a damn fine package. Combine that with a 4K screen as they will in time and you have Star Trek. These products are starting to appear now, and will be expensive at first, but within 2-3 years they will be affordable to us ordinaries. And that's not counting Playstation 4 and XBox 3 that will almost certainly be compatible with all of this stuff.

So what does this mean ? Well, two things. One we can all look forward to viewing experiences within a few years that are currently unimaginable, even at the best cinema or IMAX screen. And two, we are going to have to buy Star Wars AGAIN !!

Did You Get One Of These For Christmas ?

2012-01-07T14:31:00.000+01:00

If you did, and you live in the U.K. you aren't alone. 1.3 million Britons got one of these this year and if you are one them I would like to know. How are you finding it, what type of things are you reading, and where do you get your books from ? We have one here at home, and we both like it a lot. The screen is very nice and easy to read, and the machine is light and very portable. I also have an iPad but I don't take it out of the house much as it's too heavy and cumbersome to read on the metro. The Kindle on the other hand is perfect for use out of doors, and isn't so expensive that you feel scared taking it out in public. As such I think it's one of the most important pieces of technology to come out in years. Apple get all the press about their products, but Amazon deserve a lot of praise for making something that is cheap, brilliant and a real 'game changer' as the vulgar phrase has it.

I'm particularly interested as I'm going to publish a book on the Kindle store in a few weeks time, and I would like as many people to read it as possible. It will be 2.99 I think in whatever currency you get it, and I will be giving more information out about it as I get closer to the day. At present I am refining the final draft and getting cover art done. When that is complete I will put it out there for the world to see. Of course it may go totally unread, but it will at least be available to whomsoever wants it. Here's hoping that whoever reads it enjoys the thing. It won't be for lack of effort on my part.

008 ?

2011-12-19T19:05:00.000+01:00

'Skyfall', the next Bond is currently filming. Daniel Craig is appearing as 007 for the third time, and a story has come out today that he will be offered 5 more films in the franchise !! This will mean a record 8 appearances as Bond, and that Craig would complete the last one in his mid-50s. As a major Bond fan am I pleased about this ? In a word, no.

I like Daniel Craig as Bond very much, but a good deal of his strength in the role comes from the fact that he's young, vital and fit. At 55, even with the pretty brutal training regime he obviously puts himself through I expect he'll be more than showing his age. The character of Bond is supposed to be about 40, and so right now Craig is ideal, but in 12 years time will that still be the case ? Roger Moore famously went on too long, carrying on until he was 58 ! Pierce Brosnan also stuck around for one film too many and gave it up at 48.

There's also the question of freshness. Craig has brought a gritty edge to the part that we haven't seen before and it's terrific. But eventually it will get stale, like everything else does. At some point we'll want a different interpretation of the part, by a new face with a new approach. Names like Michael Fassbender and Henry Cavill have been mentioned and they'd both be good choices. This renewal is part of the reason that Bond has endured so long, it's always fun to see a new guy in the role with all that intensity that they have the first time round.

Of course whether Craig wants to do so many is debatable. He's a clever actor, and has made a good career outside of the Bond franchise, one wonders whether he will feel carrying on so long is a good idea, I hope he doesn't. I always took the view that he'd do 2 maybe 3 more, but not 6. So I really hope he sees sense, and quits whilst he still looks plausible as James Bond. Anything else would be a mistake, and a case of diminishing returns.

It's Starting To Look A Lot Like Ipswich

2011-12-18T10:27:00.000+01:00

And so the festive season is here again, or at least it's not because it seems that by this time next year we'll all be living in caves. Thanks so much to the banks and financial institutions for that gift. Thanks must also go to the British Foreign Office for preparing plans to evacuate 1 million ex-pat Britons from Spain if the banking system collapses. A new Dunkirk perhaps, but this time with the use of P&O Ferries and involving lots of pensioners. Does this mean that all the 'Traditional English Pubs' would close down in Spain ? If so then the financial crisis has produced some positive results. Of course quite what Britain will do with these 1 million refugees once they are home remains to be seen, probably leave them standing at the white cliffs of Dover.

Europe is all a flutter about the Euro right now, and it seems that the brave experiment of a single currency is about to go up the pictures. I've been trying to explain this week why Britain has opted out of the Euro as well as the new treaty designed to save it. I talked about political reasons until I was blue in the mouth, when the answer was more 'cos the Brits don't really like the rest of Europe unless they are holidaying in it'. This does rather beg the question of whether the Euro would have been stronger if we had been in it all along, and whether our absence was enough to capsize the boat. More fool us if so because we're going to get stung as badly as the countries that did join.

But people are still preparing for Christmas over here, even those that have lost their jobs. What else is there to do ? One could attend a sit in, or occupation but these are not kindly looked upon by everyone else. It's easy to demonstrate about Vietnam, noble even, but have a go at banks, institutions and the whole fabric of society and certain people get real nervous. So the press report these things as a bunch of scruffs making the place look untidy rather than the rather important demonstration that it is. Our capitalist dream has exploded in our faces and certain people have noticed.

As for me I've decided to concentrate on recreating Jamie Oliver's Christmas meal from a year ago. This involves long shopping lists with items like 'Celery sticks x 2' and a lot of stress on the day itself. I know I'll be tempted to drink as I cook 'as it's Christmas' so by the time I take the turkey out I'll be unable to taste it for the alcohol fumes. And if the meal is okay I'll be relieved rather than pleased and slump on the sofa with the remote control and the beginnings of indigestion. In the week before I'll have idealist thoughts of how it might go, imagining myself in a TV version of my life where I have better clothes and my kitchen is more stainless steel-ish. But in reality when it's all over I'll be quietly glad to get back to real life, work, and a simple supper in front of the telly. If I have any work that is.

The Hitch

2011-12-16T11:19:00.000+01:00

In all honesty I have to say that until recently I didn't know who Christopher Hitchins was. But when I started to correct that and discover what he stood for I realised that here was someone I could agree with on many things. He was that rare being that wrote without the fear of disapproval. He never seemed to want fame, money or recognition, at least not at the expense of principle. Until the end he maintained his views on religion and politics, no matter who they offended. He never wanted a chat show, or a movie deal or any of the bullshit that far too many talented people get drawn into these days. He stuck to his guns, was articulate to a point that puts nearly all of us to shame and was a voice of reason in these increasingly hysterical times. Most mainstream people won't know who he was, after all it isn't like a movie star died, but more of us should take the chance to explore his work. It's all there in his books and many interviews. The power of culture over superstition, and the importance of thought over blind allegiance. What a pity that today, on the day he died, most will still have never heard of him.

Is Cinema Dying ?

2011-12-12T18:33:00.002+01:00

By 'cinema' I don't mean the art of film making, I mean the process of going out at night to see a film at a cinema. I'm sure that filmed entertainment will continue for as long as I'm around and much longer. But cinema box office takings are abysmal this year, far lower than they have been in years. So why is this and can it be fixed ?

Now I'm sure that 'piracy' will be the first argument raised by the industry, but it's pretty shallow. DVD sales and rentals yes, but when a film is still at the cinema the only copies you can get are those recorded on camcorders and for anyone who likes films, this is unacceptable. In fact the problem is much deeper than that. I shall outline what I feel to be the major reasons for the demise of cinema:

1. Cinemas. And by that I mean the soulless multiplexes that most of us see our movies at. I'm old enough to remember 20 years ago when they first started and in those days they were a welcome change from the rickety old flea pits of the past. They were well staffed, clean, comfortable and a pleasure to go to. But over the years they've been taken more and more for granted and are no longer nice places to go. Nowadays there is a skeleton staff at most places which means that bad behaviour goes not only unpunished but unnoticed. Also there are no longer projectionists, so films are often presented badly. And finally multiplexes tend to be grubby and a little smelly these days, rather like a depressed person that has given up washing. All in all, going to the cinema is not much fun anymore.

2. Movies. However, by far the main reason that we no longer go to the flicks like we used to is the terrible quality of 95% of films released. Sure if you look at the Oscars every year you'll still see lots of quality, but that represents maybe 20-30 films in total, but every month sees about 40 new films released. Of these we can break them down into the following categories;

a) Pixar rip-offs. Since Toy Story made lots of money most of the other studios have had a go. Their efforts rate from decent (Shrek) to bollocks (Happy Feet). What they all have in common is they aren't as good as Pixar, but then the latter only have one film out a year, what will our kids watch the rest of the time ?

b) Worthy but rather grim indie films. I like good drama, but too many small films are 'gritty', 'edgy' and virtually unwatchable. I'm old school, I like to be entertained a bit, and watching 2 hours or wife beating, child abuse or other atrocities, no matter how well acted, will not tempt me to the cinema. Perhaps a DVD rental if I'm feeling strong, but never a night out.

c) Documentaries. Despite there being some cracking theatrical docs in recent years I have seen none of them at the cinema, nor do I even consider going to do so. They are perfect for home viewing, but again I'm not going to head out to popcorn land to see 2 hours on Guantanamo.

d) Brainless blockbusters. Note the adjective, because there's nothing wrong with a blockbuster if aimed at people with an IQ in 3 digits. But what I cannot stand is the slew of formulaic special effects showcases, seemingly all written by the same dialogue people, and with no plot or characters. Lucas and Spielberg invented the genre, but have all but handed it over to much less talented people like Michael Bay, Gore Verbinski and Zach Snyder. As such we get constant drivel shot at us from behind the smokescreens of 3D, CGI and motion capture. Why does 3D exist ? Simply to distract you from how bad the films are.

e) Rom coms. Need I say more ?

So, that's the problem. But can it be fixed ? Well I think that the advent of super duper home entertainment systems and the short time between theatrical and DVD release dates means that cinema can never get back the lustre it once had. Gimmicks like 3D are soon shown up to be just that, and the spiralling cost of tickets delivers a further punch in the kidneys to the whole idea. It would certainly help if more grown up films were made. When I was 20 there were big hitters like Oliver Stone at their peak, Scorsese was making Goodfellas, Spielberg was prepping Jurassic Park AND Schindler's List and the likes of Pollack, Lumet, Coppola and Forman were all working. On the popcorn side we had James Cameron in full flow, John McTiernan, Paul Verhoven, and Jonathan Demme. Just compare that with now.

The real reason cinema is dying is that the studios don't make enough good films anymore. It's all aimed at specific demographics whereas in the past the only demographic was 'intelligent people that like a good movie'. Would 'JFK' get made now, or 'Starship Troopers' or even 'Amadeus' ? I don't think so. So television has taken up the mantel of quality drama that takes its time. 'Boardwalk Empire' is a sumptuous production, with no expense spared and a movie quality cast and crew. And it's only one of many quality shows that are embarrassing cinema. I rarely get excited enough by any film to rush out to see it at the pictures, but as for TV it's a different story. I can't wait for the new seasons of 'Mad Men', 'Spartacus' and '30 Rock' to start, and they are all better than anything I've seen in the cinema for years. And I don't even need to go out of the house.

If cinema wants to survive it needs to make the experience special again. They need to combine really good product with a pleasant experience in the building you go to. At present they fail on both counts and unless they sort it out soon we will start to see what was previously unthinkable, the closure of multiplexes. It may well be too late and technology may have already killed cinema stone dead. How long before we can download a new film on its release date and watch it at home on the 3D 60 inch full HD plasma with the killer surround system? On that day the cinema will be truly dead.

London At Christmas

2011-12-11T13:58:00.002+01:00

I have just returned from a trip to England. Three days in London, and three in Norfolk where I grew up. But as nice as everything was there was one particular highlight of the whole holiday. On Tuesday last my wife and I went to Claridges in Mayfair, and had lunch at the Gordon Ramsay restaurant there.

I've long been a fan of cooking in general, and despite Ramsay's rough edges the man knows how to run a restaurant. His gaff at Claridges is stunning. The decor is tasteful and luxurious at the same time. The staff are trained so well that you wonder if they've actually been brainwashed by some sort of machine. And the food is also phenomenal. Best of all, the whole thing is contained within what is surely the most beautiful hotel in London, the art deco masterpiece that is Claridges.

I haven't eaten in enough posh restaurants but I think I could develop a taste for it. If you want to go too, always check out the lunch menus of these places, they are surprisingly affordable. We spent £30 per head for a gourmet meal with impeccable service. Everything from the moment we walked in until the end was perfect. The staff were attentive without being obsequious, the setting was gorgeous and the food was sophisticated and nicely thought out. I would recommend it to anyone. And now I have a taste for it, I have decided to visit a top restaurant every time I visit London from now on. Next time The Savoy I think.

Are We Really This Bored ?

2011-12-01T19:38:00.002+01:00

Jeremy Clarkson has made a joke about striking public sector workers being shot. And that, I'm very afraid, is it. The word 'joke' is important here. A joke is a humorous thing, and by its very nature not meant to be taken seriously. Otherwise it wouldn't be a joke would it? However I see there is a minor storm going on back in old England because some people are pretending to not know that it's a joke, and are pretending that it's a comment to be taken seriously. It's not, it's a joke.

Now we may debate whether it's a funny joke, but we can agree I think that it's a joke. Jeremy Clarkson isn't a fresh face broadcaster, nor is his style totally unknown to people. And yet there seems to be a collective willingness to forget all that and carry on as if we don't know this grey haired gentleman that says outrageous things on the telly. And to think that both the leader of the opposition and the PM have time to comment on it saddens me, surely they have much bigger fish to fry ? As for The Guardian, well, you disappoint me. I know you don't like Clarkson, but your blanket coverage of this non-event is pathetic. You are the only paper that uses the word 'fuck' without asterisks and you are often printing stuff by your own writers that's far worse, such as watching Tintin was like 'witnessing a rape'. So all this mock horror is embarrassingly transparent.

Just how bored are we as a people that this off hand comment becomes anything at all ? Who are these 5,000 people that complained, don't they have anything better to do ? We're in the worst financial crisis for 80 years, we are poisoning the planet we live on and billions of us don't even have clean drinking water. So let's get our fucking priorities straight shall we and drop the pompous bullshit that's fake anyway. Don't like Clarkson? Fine don't watch Top Gear then. Now shut the fuck up and read a book.

The Power Of The Blog

2011-11-25T20:47:00.002+01:00

I'm mystified. I've been writing this blog for 6 years, and I have a fair few readers I guess. But I've never been asked to see a film at a press event, or to interview a celebrity or to review a new restaurant. This may not be surprising given that I'm not a journalist, but it seems that that doesn't matter any more. I keep hearing about 'influential bloggers' on everything from politics to food. The Huffington Post is essentially a fancy blog, and yet it's been sold for zillions of dollars. But no-one has asked to buy this blog and it has never been described as 'influential'. In fact I can't say for sure that it's actually been described at all.

Am I doing something wrong ? Well I suppose I don't have any central theme, I just write about whatever I fancy that day. I also don't involve myself in the blogging community. This is because I suspect that most bloggers are people sat in a spare bedroom with a computer and little or no training. Real journalists have to study to be allowed to write for money, but to blog you just need an internet connection and some fingers. You don't need to be an expert on anything, just so long as your opinions chime with those of other people. I saw a review of a comedy show by Stewart Lee where he describes the internet as having a 'feral, Lord of The Flies' type of quality. And he's absolutely right.

People online are opinionated, ill-informed and pretty vicious. They aren't responsible to anyone, they have no editor and they can't lose a job that they don't have. Look on Twitter and you see this culture at its very ugliest, millions of people online making snap and often wrong judgements about the issues of the day. I am pretty indifferent to Twitter, and I use it as a news feed service rather than a way to communicate with anyone. But I can't really embrace something so shallow as to force you to express everything in only 140 characters. It encourages snap judgements and discourages any type of prolonged thought.

But getting back to blogging, I must say I'm alarmed that it is taken so seriously. Are there people who take their news and opinions from some dork sat in their spare bedroom ? How do you know that this person isn't a complete nutter, totally unqualified to write a shopping list let alone a political opinion ? You can say what you like about traditional press but at least they are accountable for what they say, subject to a set of rules. Bloggers on the other hand disappear into the murk of the internet, unseen, anonymous and unaccountable. So let's be real careful how seriously we take them shall we ?

Wow, Something On TV That Isn't Rubbish ?

2011-11-12T21:22:00.002+01:00

Oh the irony, especially following my last post, that I should write about a TV show. Don't get the wrong idea, this week I have been both out and about. I've been driving my new car, working the hardest I have in a long time and generally escaping the 42inch plasma in the lounge. But when you are pretty busy, that's when TV is a great comfort. It's always there at the end of the day to entertain you, unlike pretty much everything else. Just make sure you only watch the good stuff.

And so we turn to American Horror Story, a new show on FX, which if I'm right is an offshoot of Fox, but where they put their naughtier stuff. Nip/Tuck appeared there for years, and that was very naughty for telly. Well, look at my linking skills, because the person who ran that show also runs this one, a certain Ryan Murphy esq.. AHS is a haunted house show, and while it borrows liberally from every decent horror film of the last 40 years, it does so with enough style to make this a must see for fans of scary stuff. The borrowing is done in a way that isn't a blatant steal, more a tip of the hat. And anyway if you must steal then at least do so from the best. And given the number of 'Shining' nods here, they clearly chose well for their larceny.

The premise is simple, a haunted house exists in a neighbourhood, and has seen various nastiness over the years. We cut between a new family that has just moved in in the present day and the various goings on of the past. The new family comprises an unfaithful psychiatrist with impossible abs, a long suffering wife and an edgy teenager. A campy Jessica Lange lives next door with her disabled daughter, the latter enjoying informing the current tenants of said haunted house that 'you will die here'. And on current form she seems to be spot on.

I'm only two shows in and of course it could all turn out to be the janitor under a sheet, but in the meantime it's pretty spooky stuff for TV, and like all the best TV these days makes you wonder you'd bother to go to the cinema anymore for your thrills. On the evidence so far you don't need to.

When Did TV Become So Small ?

2011-11-05T10:04:00.004+01:00

I watch a lot of telly, too much if I'm honest. I grew up in the 80s and children of my generation mainlined TV like crack cocaine. And that's odd because TV in the 80s was often awful. I don't subscribe to that fake nostalgia on those clip shows you see endlessly on Channel 4. I don't need a comedian to tell me what I used to watch, why and what was the best thing about it. Pointless.

But in the modern age, TV has become a huge global business. Billions of dollars are generated, and more and more, each country is watching the same things, or versions of the same idea. Indeed so pervasive has TV become that people adopt their mannerisms from it, their language and their cultural references. 'Oh this is just like that episode of (insert show here)' is a common refrain. Some organise their lives around certain programmes and get emotionally involved with what happens on them. Most worryingly of all there are some people who talk about fictional characters as if they are not only real, but actual friends.

So TV has become a cultural, political and moral force. We take our opinions from it, and it reinforces our prejudices. And too many of us allow it to be the filter through which we view the rest of the world. But that filter is horribly distorted. On TV everyone is physically perfect, like a master race of entertainers. Advanced age is discouraged, as is ugliness, the overweight or the different. TV has a cast of homogenous young people who all look like each other but nothing like us. Also, due to the mass market nature of programming the creative choices made are often conservative, cliched and small-minded. And you can always throw HBO in my face here, and yes it is a breath of fresh air, but it only stands out so much in relief to the ultra-conservatism found in most of the rest of broadcasting.

News is now presented as entertainment, increasingly trivial stories blown out of proportion as 24 hour networks strive to fill their time. Non-entities are presented as 'celebrities' in order for the rest of the media to have enough to talk about. Advertising is shoved down our throats at every possible moment, in between shows that we consume like fast food only to feel slightly sick afterwards. And as it all gets bigger and shinier it also gets more removed from real life. TV reduces everything to a digestible package, that can be presented to you in 60 or 30 minutes and that seems devoid of all meaning as it blares out in your living room. In fact if I thought that life was just as it's presented on TV, I don't think I'd want to live there at all.

But I like TV. There are enough shows that you can cherry pick in order to be informed and entertained, the trouble is those shows are little islands in a sea of dross. And not just dross, some of this stuff is dangerous, some of the opinions pretty poisonous and the many stereotypes deeply damaging. Worst of all is to try and present the largely false world of TV as anything to aspire to or emulate. Would we like most of these people if we met them ? Probably not. Are they worthwhile individuals ? Mostly no. So should we try to be like them ? God no !

So perhaps the solution is just to use TV when you need it, to pick it up and put it down when you fancy it. But never take it seriously and never sacrifice real life in its favour. The former is infinitely more rewarding.

I'm Too Sexy For My Wheels

2011-10-28T21:52:00.002+02:00

Car lovers will know that this is an Alfa Romeo. A car for the romantic, the petrolhead and the enthusiast. Many cars these days are ruthlessly dull. Safe and reliable yes, but with as much soul as anything that Microsoft has ever made. Of course for years the joke was that anything Alfa made was likely to end up on the side of the road in a cloud of smoke. But not any more.

My first exposure to Alfas was due to a barrister who helped to train me. I remember that fateful day when, clad only in a Burtons suit, I climbed unwittingly into a bright red Alfa Romeo and was confronted by a sea of leather and ear shaking opera blasting out of the speakers. I hadn't been in a car like this before, wasn't even sure what an Alfa Romeo was. But as he threw it into every corner I realised that this driving of a kind I didn't know anything about. The car was beautiful, stylish and drove like a demon. So why hadn't I heard of them before?

I suppose, growing up in a tiny village in Norfolk, I led a sheltered life from such things. But up in London, in my new 70% polyester suit, I realised there were better things in life than I knew about. The pursuit of beauty over practicality, cost or good sense was something alien to me. Having said that my Dad had a succesion of cool vintage cars, but my budget never extended to anything so grand, and when it did I played it safe and bought a BMW. I now realise what a damn fool I was. The Beemer was solid, well-made and slightly sterile. Of course it never broke down, went wrong or did anything that it wasn't commanded to. And when I sold it I didn't miss it much.

Later I had an MR2 which was crazier. In fact I spun it on three occasions when only travelling at 5 miles an hour due to its rear wheel drive and some ice. But when the sun came out it was great if uncomfortable fun. The trouble with roadsters is that they look great but are sodding uncomfortable for long journeys. So I sold that too and blew a sigh of relief. And since that day I've not owned a car, and that was 6 years ago. In the meantime I've driven my wife's car of the moment and been happy enough with it. But now I find myself in a quandry. I need my own car for work and because it's nice to be able to actually go places without any help. Oh and I'm 40 odd, and bored with tatty old bangers. And so I feel I might buy a car similar to that in the photo. On the other hand I may not, but if I do I'll be safe in the knowledge that at least I did something interesting and didn't buy a bloody Mondeo. The Ford is arguably a better car, but can you imagine belting along a road in Tuscany in it whilst listening to Verdi on full whack ? No of course not, and for some reason that suddenly seems very important.

International Man Of Mystery

2011-10-23T14:09:00.002+02:00

For someone who hates flying, I'm doing a hell of a lot of it lately. To Italy and back at Easter, England in June, London and the States in late summer, England again last weekend and London in December. I think I can finally call myself an international man of mystery. It helps that I am self-employed and so can take as much leave as I damn well want. It also helps that I am earning enough to keep Ryanair in business. But this jetset business is addictive.

This year I travelled a lot, next year I want to do more. And this is all because I have realised how great it is to travel the world. Well, I always knew this, I went to spend 3 months in the U.S. when I was 19, but when I was doing a 'proper job' I was confined to my two weeks a year in the sun, and how boring is that ? But on the other hand I don't fancy trekking through the Andes or doing anything else that will be rather tiring. However, it turns out that you can travel around without being a back packer, you can stay in hotels, have your own shower and still not spend a fortune. I like to call this travelling with a modicum of style.

Next year I will hopefully go to Paris, Italy and the Greek Islands, as well as the inevitable England. And I am, as the Americans say, fairly stoked about it. And although I still dislike flying, I am able to stand it to get to the place I want to see. For a while I was so petrified that I discounted the chance to go to the more exotic places in the world. But then I got a job consulting for a film company in Ireland, and that meant I had to take a series of bone shaking flights over to Shannon. And let me tell you, that is a pretty good cure for a fear of flying. Going over the Irish sea in the middle of winter, with a pilot who flies like a Spanish driver, is a baptism of fire. I'm not religious but if I saw a priest on board (which, it being Ireland, I often did) I felt a little safer. I feel that if I can survive that journey, I can survive anything.

My fear of flying comes from a specific incident. In 1989 I took an Air India 747 to JFK aiport in New York. I was 19, alone, and in search of adventure. I very nearly got it, but not in the way I'd hoped. As we landed, we suddenly took off again, sending those food carts running down the aisles and smashing against the rear bulkhead. A few moments later the captain came on the radio and told us that we'd aborted the landing because another plane had been on our runway. I will never know how close I came to dying that day, to being a victim of a disaster that would be known as 'Air India Flight ?????'. But I think it was pretty close.

This could well mean, that statistically speaking, I get a free pass for the rest of my flying life. Or maybe I won't. But I know that air travel is safer than it was 22 years ago, and that the risk is worth it. After all, what else are you going to do, stay in the same place all the time ? That would be a waste.

Incest And Folk Dancing

2011-10-14T20:19:00.003+02:00

You know those lists of things you need to do before you die ? Be it places to go, books to read or movies to see ? Here's a newsflash for you, they are all bollocks. Do you know why ? Well because most of them are knocked up by bored journalists who need to hit a deadline. Those journalists have probably done few or none of the things themselves, and thus the list is meaningless.

Not only that but if you take these things seriously you are displaying a worrying lack of imagination, because you are after all just following someone else's dream. And the truth is that not everyone's dream is shared by the rest of us. For example, I would no sooner do a bungie jump than staple my scrotum to a car door and slam it. Nor would I go sky diving, or do a marathon, unless I suffered some sort of brain injury and suddenly found those things to be a logical way to spend one's time. There are however certain things I'd like to see, places I'd like to go, some things I'd like to experience. But I wouldn't dream of writing them down, publishing them nationally and then trying to pretend that they are a template that EVERYONE IN THE WORLD should aspire to. Because that is taking self-obsession to a new high/low.

In fact we are surrounded by little invented truisms like this, normally the work of bored journalists with a deadline to hit. 'If you only see one film this year, make it this one' is a familiar refrain. First off who restricts themselves to one film a year ? And if they did why would they value the opinion of a faceless dick like you ? 'Screamingly funny' is a quote you see on movie posters. Now think for a second, have you ever laughed so much that you've actually screamed ? And if you have was it because of a film ? Not likely, although certain film critics would have you believe it's a regular occurrence. 'Must see', 'Modern Classic', and 'the Feel good film of the year' are similar slices of linguistic offal that we get repeatedly force fed. And I'm bored off my tits with it.

Any piece of writing that essentially presents someone's opinion as fact, is an exercise in massive laziness at best and acute narcissism at worst. Because we've allowed the media to be the filter through which we view the world, it has taken the liberty of offering suggestions of how we might like to look. What's good, what's rubbish, who is important, who isn't. But when you look at the dodgy choices made for us by the cuddly media, it's obvious that no thought has gone into them at all. As I said before, it's normally some bored journalist with a deadline to hit. And that surely can't be a good basis on which to live one's life.

Arse Cheeks And A Side Order Of Balls !!

2011-10-09T19:14:00.002+02:00

I'm bloody, sodding, arseing, buggering, pissing...ill !

Many people get ill you might think. So do I, with unnerving regularity. Colds get me in packs, sometimes 4 at once, all waiting their turn patiently while the previous one finishes with me. This leads to months of misery. And it affects work too, because when I have a cold my brain ceases working. I can barely string two words together, and all forms of reasoning become like putting together a tough technical lego puzzle. Other people have colds, I've seen them, but they seem to soldier on like it's easy, going to work and being clever. And then they mention they have a cold. Really ? Not like I have colds meladdio !

On a bad winter I have literally gone from January to June with one long cold. Never ending coughing, perpetual running nostrils and the complexion of someone that has failed the audition for Frankenstein's monster. This is pure misery and the last time it happened I resolved to fight back. I invested in mega vitamin tablets, immune system boosters, I ate fruit and veg, I drank water and I ran every day. I looked better, my colour improved, I lost weight and felt very energetic indeed. I started counting the days that I'd been cold free. The smugness started, I began to tell others my health tips, gave unwanted advice to whoever didn't want it. And all that pride came with a large fall attached to it.

I am now at the tail end of a nasty cold. It has cocked up my healthy eating and exercise plans and made me go through the last week of work like a sweaty freak with bad hair and mad staring eyes. My skin is drawn over my skull like a bad face lift and my joints ache like I've been break dancing for a solid week. I've been disinclined to do any work, any writing or do anything other than sit like a moron in front of the telly. I loathe myself and that tickling cough that won't stop no matter how much more than the recommended dose of syrup I take. I yearn to run in the sunlit fields that lie agonisingly beyond my reach, and worst of all I can't drink anything !

So as I sit here, brooding away, I am resolving to turn into a fitness freak. Running at the crack of dawn every day, eating raw tofu for lunch, meditating before I leave the house, and achieving a zen state of control over all my affairs. I just yearn to be well again, and this time I know I won't mess it up !

2011-10-08T10:48:00.002+02:00

Los Angeles

2011-09-24T11:21:00.006+02:00

It's wise to treat other people's views with caution. Before I went to Venice this year people told me it wasn't all that. They were wrong, it is spectacular. Similarly I was told LA was tacky, ugly and not worth much of my time. This also turned out to be wrong. Having been a movie buff since I was little older than a foetus, LA is Mecca for me. Whatever it looks like, however it smells, it's where they make the magic happen. We stayed on Sunset Boulevard for 3 nights, and that in itself is something I'll never forget. In fact I slept in Hollywood three times, because that's where Sunset Boulevard is. Where we were, 5 minutes walk from the Walk of Fame, was not very posh. A small motel in what was a slightly dodgy area, but it was still Hollywood.

The Walk of Fame itself isn't that great, just a pavement with some names on it, and the area where all those awards take place is not the sort of place you'd walk alone at 3 a.m.. However outside Mann's Chinese Theater (above if you're not sure) was a treat. That's where all the stars, the proper stars do the whole concrete thing. Chaplin, Cagney, Bogart. Those were movie stars, and I stood in their footsteps. Forgive me if I don't get excited about Anne Hathaway or Ryan Gosling, but that golden era was special.

Next day it was a wander around and after a cocking great breakfast at Denny's (yes, bacon AND pancakes) we checked out Beverly Hills. Now, there isn't a lot to see there, or at least there is but it's hidden behind lots of big trees. But there is an overwhelming sense of money, and lots of it. The grass is somehow greener than that of other places, the streets nicer. But after a look at the Beverly Hills Hotel it was off to Rodeo Drive. That was pleasant too, if unexpectedly quiet and easy to park in. Lots of shops we couldn't afford, nice coffee shops and some hotel where Julia Roberts was once selling her 'ass' (in a film).

Then it was onto Santa Monica, and a first try at the LA freeway. Oh sure I've seen films, with the 6 lanes in each direction, and where Michael Douglas finally snaps and takes out a gun. And yes it was just like that, with lots of traffic. But maybe because I was on holiday I didn't mind, and we crawled along, finally making it to the beach after about an hour. And it was worth it. Santa Monica is very pretty, it's where Baywatch was set, and sure enough the lifeguards are all there, with those odd red floatation devices, that look like an anal probe. But the best thing was the pier, an old school boardwalk, with what looked like the original planking, and a generally relaxed atmosphere. We then lunched in Malibu after passing a procession of ever large beach houses, and finished the day poking around downtown which is impressive but not notable for much else.

Day two in LA was the one I was really looking forward to. Universal Studios Hollywood. I've been to the Florida version, and even 14 years ago it was better than this, but with one huge exception, no studio tour. That's the reason I went there, the reason I've wanted to go there all my life, the fabled Universal Studios Backlot Tour. The rest of the place is standard theme park fare, some of it even a little dated (Waterworld ? Really ?) but the backlot tour is superb. Universal Studios is a working film/TV studio and they drive you round the sound stages. There are some theme park bits, including a not very good Jaws thing and some okay dancing cars. But it was the other bits, the old sets and stuff that I loved.

You see Hitchcock's old office, the wild west sets where they filmed countless John Wayne films, and a green screen tank where they do ocean scenes. They also have the plane crash site from War of the Worlds (superb) and the Bates Motel. They are also currently filming Desperate Housewives there and we got to drive around Wisteria Lane, dressed for filming, with the characters' cars sat in their drives. But perhaps best of all was the Peter Jackson King Kong ride where you go into a tube shaped 3D cinema and a battle between King Kong and multiple T-Rexes takes place, often with the animals bouncing off the roof. No doubt, Universal Studios was a big day for me.

The very last thing we did in LA was go up to the Griffith Observatory, and it was great. We saw the sunset over LA, and took this photo just after it did so. Great views of the city, lovely observatory and a wonderful bookend to the first leg of the trip.

The Big Country

2011-09-24T11:06:00.002+02:00

Like most people of my age, my cultural education has been dominated by America. From the age of toddling I have been watching images of America. Cowboy films, Hollywood satires and bog standard cop shows have all drawn heavily on America's geography. As such I've always wanted to go and see these places for myself. Living in Europe hasn't helped because it's a long flight and lots of money away, but this year I had the chance to go, and I knew better than to let it pass.

Starting in Los Angeles, me and my wife drove to Las Vegas, then to several of the parks, over to San Francisco, then back past LA to San Diego. It took just under 21 days, involved about 4000 miles of driving, and was unquestionably the best holiday I've ever taken. So many contrasts, so many people and so many experiences. But the star of the show was easily the American landscape, from the urban sprawl of LA, to the barren desert of Nevada, to the lushness of Bryce Canyon and Yosemite, and then the fog and cold of San Francisco. We only visited 4 states but the scale of the country is awesome, the vast majority of which you realise is uninhabited. Certain places like Death Valley, are uninhabitable, due to 50 degree temperatures and no hint of life. Others like the wilds of Arizona are too remote for most modern people to imagine.

But it's the kind of place where your gob is permanently smacked. And I love every square inch of it. So, over the next few posts I shall put some of my favourite photos up and describe a little of what I saw. Hope this will be of interest to anyone else who might be curious.

Back !!

2011-09-15T12:05:00.002+02:00

Yesterday I crawled back into my home, after 3 weeks touring the west coast of the U.S.. It was a fantastic adventure, a brilliant holiday and I thoroughly enjoyed every moment of it. I'm still jet lagged to sodomy at the moment, but when I recover there will be posts about a variety of stuff coming up, plus some photos. Here's one to get you started, of the awesome Monument Vally.

It Was Only A Matter Of Time

2011-08-19T22:05:00.002+02:00

I knew I'd end up in Hollywood sooner or later. As it turns out it's somewhat later and I'm paying to go there. But let's not allow reality to spoil it all shall we ? Whichever way you slice it, in exactly 7 days from now I will be in Hollywood, CA, USA. On holiday.

Of course it would be a bit better if I was actually being flown out there on Spielberg's private jet to discuss the film rights for my latest book. And certainly cheaper. But still, I have been determined to visit Hollywood for most of my life, and since it doesn't now look like I'm going to be asked to play James Bond, it seems that paying for myself is the only way to go. At least I can see all the sights, pose in front of this very sign, and generally soak in the atmosphere of a city that has become very important to me over the years. Oh sure I know that L.A. isn't one of the prettiest places in the world, and certain parts are tacky, but I come from Great Yarmouth so against that background it's gonna look pretty good.

After L.A. it's Vegas, the Grand Canyon, San Francisco and Big Sur. And we're driving, which should be interesting. I will try to blog if I can, I'll have the iPad and keyboard with me, and I think most of the hotels have wifi. Of course I may be too tired or too busy to say much, but I'll try. If anybody has any suggestions about things to do in any of these places please tell me in the comments section. Equally if there is anything to definitely avoid I'd welcome that advice too. But in any event we'll be off on our travels very shortly. When I come back, assuming I don't get 'spotted' in the MacDonalds queue, I'll put a couple of photos up. In the meantime I bid you all a good summer and normal service should return around mid-September.

Game Over ?

2011-08-02T10:36:00.002+02:00

Oh dear. And we had such hopes. Of course I should have known better than to believe that anybody really could change things. Truth is that our system is so corrupt and full of vested interests, that it doesn't function anymore. Powerful people use their money to buy more power, and to make sure they never lose it. So inevitably, the rest of us lose instead.

The financial crisis, caused by a small group of greedy rich men, is a perfect example of how our society is completely screwed. Millions of hard working people all over the world have lost their jobs and homes, for nothing. Thousands of businesses have gone under, and millions of families are now struggling like hell to survive. And none of these people did a thing wrong.

Worst of all the people that caused the global meltdown are largely unscathed, are already back earning billions and they don't give a shit about the pain they've caused. Worst of all, there isn't a damn thing any of us can do about it. The wealthy and powerful have such a stranglehold over society that we're lost. Elect a Democrat president ? Doesn't matter, because they'll always win. I'm sure Obama is sitting in the oval office this morning wondering why he bothered getting elected, because he's been stopped doing everything he promised since day one. The Republicans have done all they can to ruin his presidency, their actions only just stopping short of civil disobedience. And now they've succeeded.

That's not to say he won't get re-elected, he probably will, but it doesn't matter. The Republican candidates to replace him are perhaps the most unimpressive group of politicians I have ever seen. The very fact that a joke candidate like Sarah Palin can even be considered shows how shallow the talent pool is. And Obama is a skilled campaigner, able to spin all his disappointments into triumphs. I expect he'll win at a canter, but it's irrelevant because the last three years have shown he won't get anything done.

The health care bill, the 9/11 responders law, the Dodd Frank act and now this new budget fiasco, all show that the Republicans may not have the white house, but they still get their way. They even deny the overwhelming evidence of global warming because to fix it would cost them too much money. And that's what it's all about, money. A group of the super rich that have bought a lot of power and use it to maintain their power and wealth. They say that the USA is a fading empire, and this is why it's fading. Too many greedy men who don't care about the rest of the country as long as they're ok. But don't worry boys, because China, India and Russia are all waiting in the wings. And before you realise what you've done, it'll be too late.

I Don't Care What The General Public Think

2011-08-02T08:01:00.003+02:00

You know that tendency the news has to include our voice ? I HATE IT !!!! Let me be clear what I mean. Since the invention of Twitter, texts and other forms of social networking, news organisations en masse have decided to include random quotes from us, somewhere in their broadcasts. At first it was subtle, an afterthought, a pat on the head to the public. But now it's getting silly. Take a look at any news story, sports coverage or cultural event and it will prominently feature a slew of half-arsed comments from people on Twitter, or some knob texting from his car on the M23. And this stuff gets on the telly !! Not only that but it's mentioned like it's important, as if this anonymous person knows what the steaming fuck they're talking about !

So when I'm following, let's say a football match online, rather than get the actual commentator, I constantly have to hear the opinions of dickheads that have tweeted a stream of nonsense to the BBC, and the latter have felt obliged to put it on their screen. I'm sure that the papers and TV stations hate all this as much as me, but as everyone else is doing it, they have to as well. You also see it on news bulletins, and this culminates in those godawful, and meaningless polls they have on everything. 'Today we're asking if you believe in capital punishment/raising taxes/duck sodomy". The results of these polls are nonsense, because how can we be sure of the credentials of the losers with enough time to ring in ?

Let's be clear here. If I tune into a professional media outlet, I do not want to hear a stream of bilge from the general public. I don't care what @tosspot thinks of the news, Arsenal's chances or even how to lace one's shoes. I don't know who these people are or what they know. If I want ill informed crap, I can go to a pub and listen to all the experts there. But if I read the paper or watch the news it's because I want the opinion of trained journalists, who have checked their sources, done their homework and reached a sensible conclusion. This is why I look at these things at all, for the views of people with more resources than me to find out what's going on. That is, after all, what we pay them for.

As for the general public ? Well they've repeatedly shown they can't be trusted. After all, they elected Bush twice, Reagan twice, Blair AFTER THE IRAQ WAR !! They watch toss like X-Factor, Big Brother, and I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here. They buy Dan Brown books, The Sun and Heat magazine. They think Simon Cowell is a genius, Cheryl Cole is Britain's sweetheart and that the Jeremy Kyle show should exist at all. They, clearly have very suspect judgement. And forgive me if I don't want every dingbat with a phone giving their opinion on the latest news story. So PLEASE let's have some serious journalism once more, news that isn't afraid to be serious, and that doesn't feel the need to include some bullshit celeb story just to reach a better demographic. The news is serious, there's no way of tarting it up with tinsel. And there are plenty of us out here who are serious enough to deal with that, without the need for everything to be sugar coated so we can swallow it better.

Oh Put It Away !

2011-07-25T11:54:00.002+02:00

Naturally, less than 50% of the people that see this photo would agree with my sentiment. I suspect that most women would chant 'keep it right there baby!'.

Now for those of you that don't watch True Blood -and if you don't what exactly is going on in your life ? - this gentleman plays a werewolf in the vampire show that is the most fun you can have in front of a TV set outside of Spartacus. Like most of the men in TB, and on TV and film in general, he has the kind of body that you used to only see on 'He Man' cartoons. And that was a drawing !

There seems to be an unwritten rule in Hollywood now that whatever type of actor you are, you'd better have a six pack under that shirt or beware. I am constantly watching legal and medical dramas where lawyers and doctors that work 80 hour weeks then get home, have a beer and take their shirts off to reveal a 4 hour a day gym habit. How is that possible, do they take a set of weights to the office or operating theatre ? Are all their meetings disrupted by them jogging on a treadmill in the corner ?

I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling a little inadequate when these beefcakes come on the screen. This seems to be the new porn, gone are the days of girls in bikinis running in loving slow motion on Baywatch, now it's a parade of men with more ripple than a raspberry ice cream. Is it just me that looks down at my own tummy when these creatures appear ? Or do we all think 'hmmm, must get down the gym a bit more', and then return to the tube of Pringles ? It's all pointless anyway, because you soon find out that looking like these guys is next to impossible without having a personal trainer, never drinking a beer again, and doing a working week on weight machines, EVERY WEEK. I exercise every day and I'm not sure I'm even the same species as these six pack boys.

But that shouldn't distract from the reason for this post, i.e. how good 'True Blood' is. It's a show made for grown ups, by HBO the best TV channel in the world. It has sex, blood, violence and lashings of nudity. There was a time when stuff like this was kept off TV, the age of the video nasty, Mary Whitehouse and all that nonsense. Now we just enjoy this stuff as we should as a rollicking good laugh. Along with Game of Thrones, Spartacus, Camelot and a host of other naughtiness. How great it is to both be an adult and also be treated as one. Now, I'm just off for some abdominal crunches.

The Moisture

2011-07-20T14:00:00.002+02:00

I am not a petrol head. I can't watch a car pass and then tell you the serial number on the brake pads. I could maybe out nerd you on movies or possibly even the history of comedy, but not on cars. Despite that I've spent a sodding great wad of money on them over the years. Of course that's easy to do, because as you will all know, running even a cheap car is more expensive than a crack habit.

In the modern world they tell us that we can do without a car completely. This is of course, utter toss. If you live in London, near a tube stop you may get away with it, but there will always be times when you need a car. And if you don't live in a world-class city, then you'd better get yourself a licence.

Cars equal freedom, and freedom is the only thing we have left these days. Life is so expensive that we yoke ourselves to a shitty job for our best years, just so we can eat. In the meantime we live for our weekends, our annual holidays and our friends and families, all the time watching that office clock count off the seconds of our lives. And then when we retire the state that we paid our taxes to won't be able to afford to keep us, so we'll go from struggling with money all our lives to hoping that a geriatric prostitution market opens up. So people, keep at that gym work in the meantime, one day you may need to make that booty pay the council tax.

I gave up trying to plan for the future many years ago. Every plan I have ever had has ended either in disaster, humiliation and disaster or financial pain humiliation and disaster. Five year plan ? Frankly I'm happy to get to lunchtime in one piece. We're surrounded by so many factors that can kill or maim us at any time that it's a wonder we've got this far. I know people younger, MUCH younger than me that have died. That's it, game over, no more Christmases or tax returns for them. Ever. If you are stupid enough to watch the news for more than 30 seconds these days you are likely to reach for the nearest whiskey bottle and crawl right into it. We get it news people, the world is really, really bad !

So what does one do in an uncertain world ? The only thing one can, enjoy it while it lasts. I have taken this view for a number of years now. I gave up a reasonably successful legal career, much to the bemusement of everyone around me. Why ? Well, because I hated every single solitary second of it. This isn't a bar to doing it of course, I gritted my teeth and walked through the fire for nearly 15 years, and some do it for a lifetime. But not me. One day as I lay on a couch at the local surgery, attached to a heart monitor and waiting for the ambulance, it occurred to me that hating your job is a little unhealthy. And yet there are still people that don't understand why I left.

Anyway this 'make it up as you go along' philosophy has got me to where I am today. And where's that I hear you ask ? Well, nowhere in most people's view. I have no career, other than self-employed teaching and translating jobs. I don't own any property outside a cocking great iMac and some other shit that plugs into the wall. I have no investment portfolio unless you count the meagre interest I get from my current account, you don't, oh. I'm not a good credit risk, when living in England I was actually asked to leave not one but TWO banks. And as for net worth, that's along the lines of fuck all divided by zilch. I'm not getting on the cover of Forbes magazine anytime soon.

And I am delighted to say that none of this means a flying dildo to me. I have found over the years that people that are fixated by such things are nearly always gigantic cock polishers. And I have news for those people that are now presumably scoffing, and it's this: when you die, no-one will give a shit about you. It doesn't matter how rich, famous, successful or well thought of you were when alive, because dead you're just a bag of bones. Legacy ? What's the point of legacy ? You'll be reduced to your component chemical constituents by then, and unlikely to be taking note of what people think of you. There is only the now.

So, this is the part where I tie my twin threads of cars and mortality together, watch closely because it's good. Ahem, here I go: I am going to buy an Alfa Romeo. Oh and if anybody still reading this thinks anything like 'Humph, you wanna buy German or Japanese, awful reliability on Alfas' I'd like you to take a long hard look in the mirror and ask yourself what you have become. Do you also recommend insurance policies at dinner parties ? In fact, do you go to dinner parties ? If so it's time to do a Reggie Perrin, leave your pants on a beach and pop up in a few years time as a manufacturer of wicker furniture in Devon.

I know Alfas have reliability issues, but that isn't the point. I know the build quality isn't as good as a Golf, but that isn't the point. I know they will be worth less than my trousers in about 18 months, but that isn't the point. The point is this, they are made by people who think 'let's make something beautiful, and what a bonus it'll be if it actually works'. There isn't enough of that sort of thinking left in the world. We're too careful, we live our lives in constant fear that the roof is about to fall in. Well it may well do, but worrying ain't going to hold it up. In the meantime let's at least have some fun ! And when life finally decides it's had enough of me, and needs the atoms that make me for something else, at least I can say that I once owned an Alfa.

* For those of you laughing up your sleeves I say two things to you;

1. Do you think nothing of beauty, simply for its own sake ?

2. Could you possibly give me a lift to the repair garage ?

The First Rule Of Comedy Is To Be Funny

2011-07-12T10:13:00.002+02:00

Oh you can almost taste the sour grapes. In the last two or three years Michael McIntyre has become the most successful comedian in the country. Coming almost from nowhere, he has had a meteoric rise to fame and is now one of the few comics that can sell out the O2. And it's making a lot of people very angry. In the main it's his fellow comedians that seem to be annoyed.

Stewart Lee and Richard Herring have both had a go, Reginald D. Hunter too, and now Alan Davies has had a sideswipe, at least at one of the shows he appears on. There are probably many others too, and their arguments are generally along the lines of he's too commercial, his material too safe and even that he's edited to look funnier than he really is. And what a load of bollocks it all is.

The painful truth is that in the U.K. there are a generation of comedians that have become complacent, even lazy in a way. Many of them follow the similar pattern, making their living off the endless comedy panel shows that infest British broadcasting, and lobbing out a pretty crap DVD for the Christmas market. And then repeat. Now nobody likes Have I Got News For You more than me, and Paul Merton is a hard working comedian the rest of the time. But stuff like Never Mind The Buzzcocks, Mock the Week and QI are lower in the comedy league and you tend to get the same faces with monotonous regularity. I can't watch most of those shows, because the performers tend to rely on cheap smug jokes, rather than proper material.

In the old days comedians had to wait 20-30 years to get on TV, doing the clubs and the seaside resorts for years. They honed their acts, and by the time they reached the telly they were already polished and very often superb. This system produced the likes of Morecambe & Wise, Tommy Cooper, Frankie Howerd, Mike Yarwood, The Two Ronnies and a host of others. Now does anyone knock M & W because they didn't do cutting edge or political material ? Of course not, they are untouchable and modern 'trendy' comedians like to identify themselves with them. Why ? Because they were funny, funny in a way that very very few people ever have been before or since. M & W realised that that was the principal job of a comedian, to be bloody funny.

I'm a bigger comedy snob than nearly anyone I know. I regard Bill Hicks, Richard Pryor, Jerry Seinfeld and Woody Allen as near deities. The first two were certainly about as bloody edgy as it gets, but with one important qualification, they were also extremely funny. The purpose of comedy is to make the audience laugh, not scratch their goatees sagely thinking 'yes, that is quite amusing'. If a comedian isn't very funny then he's just a really annoying bloke shouting through a microphone, not a million miles away from those nutters in the street who harangue you about God.

And here's the reality, Michael McIntyre is very, very funny. Despite my liking for Bill Hicks routines about him sucking himself off, McIntyre makes me laugh just as much with his stuff about a man drawer. In that regard McIntyre is the best comedian currently working in the UK. It doesn't matter that his stuff is 'safe' or 'middle-class', the truth is it's funny, and to try and undermine it in this way is pretty desperate. There must be a lot of bitterness from comedians that can't fill the O2, or even a small theatre, but their criticisms must be seen in that context. If they want to prove a point then they need to stop moaning like spoilt children and show on stage that they are as funny or funnier than Michael McIntyre. That's what really counts, and if they can't do it they should shut up and slink back to their tedious panel shows.

The Scandal Of The Double Dip

2011-07-04T09:33:00.002+02:00

No-one can doubt my status as a film nut. One look at my wall, straining under 500 DVDs, will confirm it. I started collecting films on VHS. And very pleased with my collection I was, until they started to re-release stuff with a better picture and some extras. Then came DVD and this two release strategy became entrenched. Here's what you do, first you release a long awaited film on DVD, but with cursory extras and maybe an average picture quality. Then, when all the fans have bought it about 18 months later, you release the film again. Perhaps now it will have really good extras, a better picture and a new box. And all the fans will buy the same film, yet again.

Now in the blu-ray age this practice has become even more cynical. You still have those two releases but then you get perhaps a third, a collector's edition with some extra footage, some postcards and a few more extras. So the fans, who are responsible for the success of the film in the first place, get to pay to watch the same film maybe 5 or 6 times. And the movie companies seem to be perfectly happy with this, after all, they keep on doing it. Lord of The Rings has now made it's 4th appearance on a buyable format since the films hit the cinema 10 years ago. Star Wars is coming up for its 6th or 7th bow in the autumn, and no doubt both of these series will be recycled again and again. Even if you've bought the previous incarnations there's no way you can trade those in for the new films, at least not officially.

Now I don't know about you but I personally don't have endless supplies of money to set fire to every time a Hollywood studio fancies wringing a bit more blood out of the stone. Perhaps it's because their current output is so bloody awful that they need to extract more money out of their back catalogue, but whatever it is I'm not playing this game. I can live without LOTR and Star Wars on HD. I have until now, and it hasn't ruined my life. And of course you know that in a few months these box sets will find themselves in sales at a fraction of their original prices. And you also know that further incarnations will appear, on every format from mobile phone to being laser etched onto your eyeball. I don't care anymore, I'm not buying them again.

Blog Off !!

2011-06-27T22:11:00.002+02:00

So here's the thing. I've done 901 posts on this blog in 6 years, and I'm running out of stuff to say. There's only so many times I can talk about exercise, the state of movies or some political spat. After a while I find myself churning it all out over and over again. I used to be able to do a post per day, but these days I find that too hard. Not only that but I'm working on other writing, stuff that I will try to actually publish.

So from here on in I'll try to post once a week. I'll try and make it the same day, and I'll try to make it something I haven't written about before. This is a smaller target and will allow me to get on with the other stuff. I will do the first one next Monday. In the meantime I shall be beavering away on a book, because after all, blogging is fun but eventually it'd be nice to do something a bit more substantial.

Have I Just Wasted A Huge Amount Of Time ?

2011-06-21T17:44:00.002+02:00

Most people that blog fancy themselves as writers. Some have actually got paid for scribbling, but I imagine that the majority haven't, otherwise they wouldn't give their stuff away free online. I am one such person, as I've alluded to perhaps rather darkly before. This blog has been going for 6 years, and this is the 901st post. And without a doubt more people have read this stuff than anything else I've ever done.

But it's not all I do. Today I finished a pretty solid draft of a book I've been working on for bloody years. This version is the second attempt at a story the idea for which I had when I was 18. The original version was, er, not very good. I tinkered with it for years before realising that the idea was good, and there was some okay stuff in there, but overall I hadn't done a very good job.

So, three years ago I took the idea, the best characters, and started again from scratch. I don't recall how long it took, but after maybe 6 months of pretty intensive work I had a first draft. Obviously it was as rough as a badger's arse, but it was a whole book nonetheless. Better still I felt I'd done more justice to the potential that I knew the idea had. It was a better piece of work than my earlier effort, although whether that made it any good is another thing. And do you know what I did ? I put it in a drawer and forgot about it.

Oh yes there were some very weak willed approaches to a couple of agents, but they got no further than, oh hang on, NEVER EVEN GETTING REJECTION LETTERS !! There's nothing that dampens the enthusiasm more than spending months writing something, getting totally wrapped up in it and really getting a kick out of the whole thing, and then not even getting the dignity of a response from the writing establishment. Of course this is my partly my fault. I hadn't obeyed the rules. My pitch was rubbish, the synopsis unintelligible, and I selected agents out of the book at random, because they all look the bloody same. It could also have been that my writing was rubbish, but you never get told. In fact a wall of indifference is pretty useless to try and decide if you should persevere, or just use the computer for porn from now on.

Anyway, after Christmas I decided that I hadn't really done my first draft justice and it wasn't a finished article. Had I undersold myself ? I've read that proper authors do loads of drafts, and yet I'd just done one. So I embarked on another, full on, high caffeine re-write. That process ended today, and I now have a document with 87,000 words sitting on my hard drive. It still isn't done, but it's a damn sight closer to being so than it was when I started. I have people who will read it, and for me it will go back in the drawer again while I wait for them to wade through it and come back with their thoughts.

But I'm left with the following niggle. What if it's total shit ? The man hours I've spent on it could've been used for so many things. Learning the piano, training for the marathon, re-training, perfecting Spanish and God knows what else. Luckily I'm old enough now so that my ego won't be destroyed if no-one likes it, I'll just assume that it was never good enough in the first place and move on. I suppose I'd better think about dragging some names out of the W&A yearbook to send another half hearted submission to, only to never hear from them again. This is a process I will go through just so I fail. Because after that, and maybe another one or two passes, it will go on Kindle, iBooks and maybe even Barnes & Noble. I'll probably only make it a quid or so, as that seems to be the going rate for unknowns, and who knows, people might actually read it. But I'm under no illusions, while I love the process of writing enough to waste years of my life on it, I know I won't get anywhere professionally.

At least these ebook stores give one an outlet for one's stuff. It's a bit like blogging in that sense, and at least you have the protection of Amazon or Apple if you need it. So, watch this space, as soon as my book goes online I'll let you know. What the Hell, it's better there than on my hard drive.

When's The Last Time You Vomited ?

2011-06-20T21:08:00.003+02:00

I ask this because in my case it's a VERY VERY LONG TIME. So long in fact that I don't know how long. I can remember an incident maybe 17 years ago, but nothing since. Has it really been that long ? When you're a child you seem to throw up with monotonous regularity, indeed one's childhood years are one long technicolour yawn. As a baby one is sick as naturally as one breathes, and throughout childhood this pattern continues.

Then the teenage years strike and vomiting becomes the result of self-inflicted harm, such as boozing too much. Luckily I've never been able to drink much before keeling over and pebble dashing the nearest floor, and I think this was a gift. I've also always had a bad tummy and so going in the backs of cars and all areas of ships of any type has always been a big no no. I recall, in about 1981, taking a trip to London with my parents. As always I was in the back of the car, feeling as sick as a dog, and I eventually was let out to be violently ill. The spot my father chose ? Outside the Libyan embassy.

Later on we went on cross channel ferries from Hell (well, from Dover) and even worse the HATED Hovercraft from Ramsgate which might as well have been called the Chundercraft, as it made me sicker than anything else I've ever been on. Since then it's been established that I can't go on violent fairground rides, things that go up and down very fast, and stick me in a waltzer and prepare to be drenched. So, I've made preparations.

After several dallies with gastro-enteritis in earlier years I now avoid certain food and drink, seek not to go in a vehicle that isn't on rails, driven by me or flying at 35,000 feet, and as for ANY form of pleasure cruise, no. Two holidays have been badly scarred due to me looking out at the crystal blue waters and thinking 'I must have grown out of the sea sickness thing by now!'.

So these days I avoid suspicious seafood, excess alcohol, greasy foods and I always keep a battery of liver salts near me at all times. And I've avoided (like in that Seinfeld episode, I know) the horror of being sick for more than a decade. Because if there's something unbearable in the lead up to the act, that stomach sensation that you want to cut out with a penknife, then the act itself never ceases to shock. Not only is it disgusting for obvious reasons, but that violent loss of control is traumatic and upsetting. Getting sick out of your fringe doesn't help either. Well anyway, everything in my sick free world was going just fine until last weekend.

Like I say I try to be careful, I know what makes me ill and I avoid it like the plague. But this time something got through the net, some virus tricked its way into my system, and at 2 a.m. on Saturday morning I knew I was in trouble. At first I just got up, had water, went back to sleep. But it was obvious this thing wasn't going that easily. I'd run out of medicine, so had nothing to fight with, and had one of those nights of Hell, when the whole rest of the world is asleep and you suffer alone, hour after hour, unable to do anything to feel better. Then morning came, and the nausea arrived, great waves that I had to battle off like a defending army. I held my breath, kept moving, standing, never laid down, never let it get me. Because I was determined not to be sick. I knew if I did I wouldn't be able to stop and my day would turn from bad to appalling.

I'll spare you more detail, but I can say I did not vomit, and that gives me far too much pride. Yes I spent 24 hours in bed in misery, even having a nasty fever after the nausea went. But I can say two things for sure, 1) Camomile tea saved me and 2) The record is still intact. But it made me wonder if others have the same experience, that greater age coincides with less spewing. Alternatively you could just tell me your best vomiting story. Mine is the Libyan embassy just after that siege.

Oh Dear God, I Watched This !

2011-06-09T16:37:00.004+02:00

What exactly has become of me ? I'm the man that has delighted in taking the piss, shit and other fluids out of every reality show/talent contest that's come along in the modern age. I grew up with the likes of 'Bob Says Opportunity Knocks' and it was harmless. Every act on there was appalling and you knew that when the series ended you'd never hear from them again. They'd get a dodgy trophy that was probably knocked off from the sports shop and gift vouchers totalling tens of pounds.

But since Popstars and then the rise of Cowell, the whole concept has been turned into a post modern mind fuck that creates actual celebrities, even from the flotsam of the early rounds. The ludicrous and brash presentation and that voiceover man that makes Jeremy Clarkson sound like he's not trying hard enough, all contrive to make you think you're watching something that's actually important. And I think that's the genius of it really. Cowell, despite coming from nowhere, and having a pretty unimpressive track record if you look at it closely, has nonetheless cast himself as a fame guru, the man with all the answers, who can spot a star at 100 paces. His previous successes include, er, Robson & Jerome and The Teletubbies.

Clearly the CV and public persona don't match, but that's because Cowell is one of those people that exudes a kind of passive aggressive gravitas, the sort of person who seems a bit spiky and who we wouldn't like to upset if we met him in real life. As such he speaks with seeming authority but in effect just points out what we can all see, i.e. who can sing and who can't. The fact that he's honest with those people that can't has made him a 'Mr. Nasty' but those of you who can't see that that's a bit of showbusiness haven't been doing their homework. Tony Hatch appeared in a similar role in the 70s show 'New Faces' often giving acts a score of zero. Millions tuned in just to watch him tear the performers to pieces, and he was way harsher than Cowell has ever been.

Then there are the celebrity judges, almost to a man (or woman) people who have had limited success at fame themselves and are now mentoring people with often much more talent than them. Note the irony of Cheryl Cole helping performers every week who had to sing live on TV, and then coming on to shamelessly mime her latest single. And then there's Danni Minogue, permanently in the shadow of sister Kylie and mostly famous for being in Home & Away and having big tits. And as for Piers Morgan, quite how a tabloid journalist can spot talent is a mystery to me, and millions of viewers. But despite all these reservations I found myself sitting down to Britain's Got Talent when I was in the U.K. last week.

Part of it was due to the huge shared experience that these shows are for the British. Another aspect was that there was nothing else on, and it being past 7 p.m. everything was shut. And so there I was watching, God forgive me, David Hasselhoff, Michael Mcintyre (really Michael?), Amanda Holden and Simon Cowell preside over a collection of the awful, the deluded and the really quite good. The presentation and sets were as bombastic as ever, the production values very high and the acts very often shockingly bad. One man's sole trick was to make his eyes bulge in time to music, and he got to the semi-final ! I noticed by the way that 'The Hoff' and Amanda Holden both looked so plasticky that they somehow weren't real anymore. I suppose in Holden's case it's due to a foot of makeup that must have been held up by a series of invisible scaffolds. But 'The Hoff' may have had some work done. After all it looked like there was a colour photocopy of his Baywatch face melted onto his now 60 something head, and the effect was unnerving. But at least he was nice, despite it all seeming like sugary Hollywood bollocks.

So what have I learnt from this experience ? I suppose that this sort of TV is like a Big Mac, glossy, instantly gratifying and well marketed, but it ultimately gives you a stomach ache and makes you fat. But the revenue from this and X-Factor have single-handedly kept ITV afloat in the last few years, and if Simon Cowell is a genius at anything, it's at making successful TV talent shows and then creaming the best talent off them for his own label. As for the rest of us we get to watch the glittery parade pass by until the credits roll and we then get thrown to ITV 2 where a presenter we've never heard of interviews everyone possible including the toilet cleaners. And when it's all over none of us can remember anything about it other than the one genuinely good act on there that will pop up occasionally in the next few years before sinking back into obscurity. The trouble with the format is it's a fast track to fame, and these acts don't have the time to develop their own material, music or style like they would in the real world. That means that they are nearly always unprepared for the fame they win on those phone in lines that generate SO much money for ITV. Still, a lot of money is made, if not by the people who actually perform, and I get the feeling that that's the real point of it all.

I've Seen The Future And It Might Be

2011-06-09T08:32:00.003+02:00

Now, as much as I loved my trip to England, there was one glaring hole in the experience. I couldn't get online. My smartphone is set up to work in Spain, so as soon as I left its shores I was reduced to hunting around like a truffle pig for wi-fi hotspots. Gone are the days when you could get on the bus and leech off everyone's connection as you passed by, these days they all have a little padlock sign on them meaning you can't get in. And in our brave new world of carrying the internet around in your pocket it's rather disappointing to realise that you've actually left it at home.

When you travel abroad, unless you want to pay ludicrous roaming charges for putting 'In England, cool !' on your Facebook page, your net access goes down the bog. This is a silly situation and the sooner the mobile companies sort this out the better. The same company I subscribe to here exists in England, but while I was there I never had the option to use the UK network for a reasonable fee. BAD BAD BAD mistake lads. You've missed a trick there. It's all very well telling us about our online futures when you can only get it if you have a phone signal and you're in your country. Why bother showing us apps of the Paris Metro or the New York Museum of Art when we need to be online to use them ?

It's like 3D telly, that Sony have pushed on an uninterested public, there's barely any content so why bother ? Ditto for GPS navigation, oh sure I can plan my journey in England, from the McDonalds hotspot, and then when I get on the road I am soundly buggered because I can't get a net connection. Of course it's a matter of time before they rectify this, especially as we are all moving towards the cloud. Apple unveiled a mighty impressive cloud computing product this week, but in order for it and others like it to work, we have to be able to actually connect to it. It's a very good thing by the way, if you happen to own multiple Apple devices. If not then you are left pressing your nose against the glass once more. Even for those of us that do, give it 2 years and all our stuff will be out of date and unable to get the latest features on offer.

And talking of such stuff, this post marks another watershed. Thanks to those nice people at the Google cloud I can now optimise this blog to be read on mobile devices. So if you fancy reading some nonsense on your phone, bookmark the Writing Factory and you'll find some drivel there in an appealing format. That is, of course, if you can connect to the great cloud in the sky. I wonder if, when society inevitably breaks down due to an over reliance on Britain's Got Talent as a cultural touch stone, whether we'll end up worshipping the cloud like druids, expecting it to solve all our problems ? Of course we'll be looking in the wrong direction, the cloud isn't in the sky but in a warehouse on an industrial estate. But I guess a picture of that wouldn't look so nice on brushed aluminium.

This Is England

2011-06-08T08:30:00.002+02:00

I suppose if you show most people this photo, they will assume it's from the Caribbean or some other paradise location. But it isn't, this is a picture of Wells next the sea in Norfolk. I have just got back from a 12 day trip to England, which took in Norfolk (where I grew up) and London (where I lived and worked for 10 years). I saw family, friends and ate chips. I also battled with the ENDLESS speed cameras, roadworks and crap radio. Many of these places I hadn't been to in years, and it was a slightly odd experience. I remember once seeing an interview with Len Deighton, who now lives in California. He was asked if he missed England, and he said he did but that the England he missed no longer existed. I know what he means.

As I walked round familiar places, the school I went to, the house I grew up in and Temple in London where I studied, the same thought struck me in each place : it looks just like it used to, but it somehow isn't anymore. I suppose this is because I perceived those places very intensely due to important moments of my life, but with that all gone, it turns out these are just buildings with no mystical powers. I'll confess, not all of my memories of home are happy ones, there were some tough times at home and work that came flooding back to me rather uncomfortably. But most of all it was just surreal to actually stand in places that for so many years have only existed in my memory.

I can say that I have managed to put some ghosts to bed, and I also saw people that I needed to see. I was also lucky to have good weather and I still maintain that there are few places prettier than England in early summer. So I return to Spain with a pretty good feeling about my country of birth. It seems happier and more positive than you might think from reading the papers. People seem happy with their lot, and are busily enjoying life. And I thoroughly enjoyed being there, despite the fact that I got sucked into watching Britain's Got Talent. But then, I wasn't the only one.

Bored With Keeping Up To Date

2011-05-26T11:58:00.002+02:00

It's official, I don't care if I'm current anymore.

I like a computer, don't get me wrong. I also like a slice of the net, for certain purposes. GPS, smart phones, tablets and everything else are really useful if actually for something more than showing off. But there is a limit. Before long we'll be able to go nearly anywhere in the world and have access to broadband speed internet. As it is we're now never safe from phonecalls, email or Facebook updates. If we like we can also check the headlines, the stock prices, the football scores and pretty much anything else from our smart phones, no matter where we are. And it's becoming oppressive.

Do you ever do that thing where you CONSTANTLY check your phone to see if you have a missed call, or a message, or text, or Instant Message or email ? And how often are those messages any more important than 'John Random also commented on the post of.......'. It's ironic that in an age where we have so many ways of communicating with each other we also have so little to say. Do I really want to see photos of someone's night out, or find out what they had for dinner or whether they have a cold today ? We don't normally go out of our way to tell people these things because they are sodding irrelevant. But on Twitter or Facebook it's all most of us can think to say. You never see a Facebook update that goes 'Contemplating the meaning of existence. Is destiny an illusion and can we ever reconcile religion with technology ?'. No instead it's normally 'LOL it's Friday xxx LMAO, gonna get pissed !!!!!xxxxx'.

And then there's the news, hundeds of distressing stories pumped into your face every hour. And you also have to have an opinion on everything from Libya to AIDS. It isn't acceptable to just grunt 'dunno' when asked what you think, instead you need a Powerpoint presentation ready and to be prepared to vigorously defend your position. And it's the same with culture, if you actually went out and paid for every book/CD/film of the week as recommended by the seeming billion of reviewers you'd go bankrupt within the week and be reduced to dancing for pennies on a street corner. AND IT'S ALL TOO MUCH !!!

I don't care that Cheryl Cole got sacked from X Factor, I don't care that the finale of House was rubbish, I don't care what Ryan Giggs is up to, and I don't care if Barcelona have got too much strength in midfield for Manchester United to beat them. But these topics and thousands like them are debated endlessly, all day and most of the night on Twitter, forums, phone ins and God knows what else. Perhaps it's this endless trivia that keeps us away from thinking about harder questions such as 'am I really happy ?'. All I know is this, I don't need to be updated with news, sport, culture and anything else 24 hours a day, and neither do all of you. I'm suffering from information overload. I can only read one book at a time or watch one film. I don't feel compelled to see every 'greatest ever list...' that's compiled. I know that many great things will go by without me ever seeing them. It's actually quite nice seeing friends and family IN THE FLESH, and chatting to them about their lives. And if Gaga's new CD isn't selling as well as it should then I no longer want to receive an emergency text telling me so.

It's easy to spend hours online and then look round, blurry eyed at 2 in the morning and have no idea how to interact with real life. There's no instant gratification like you get online, no push notifications, no 'bing' as another message comes in and no way of tailoring all your preferences with the click of a button. Real life is slower, quieter and nicer than online life. You spend time with people you actually know and who know you. You eat real food, stand in real weather and see real things with your eyes. I like the net, but it's all getting too intrusive. I think it's time for some of us to put down that mouse for a few hours, and risk not knowing INSTANTLY who the next Chelsea manager is or who has been cast in your favourite show. But first I'm off to check Twitter just once more, you never know I might have got a reply from a minor celebrity !

Really ?

2011-05-23T16:00:00.002+02:00

I'm supposed to fly to England on Thursday. It's been a pain in the ruddy arse to organise the trip to be honest. I've had trouble galore with my driver's licence (half of which is lost) and also getting a credit card for them to swipe before giving me a rental car. I've had to cancel work and give away money to go, and it also means I have to fly on my own which I hate. But I've conquered all this just for a bloody volcano in Iceland to blow up.

This seems to be a regular event now. No doubt the crazies would see it as the beginning of the end, but I'm not a card carrying nutter, so I don't. But I was alarmed to see a lethal earthquake strike just 200 kms from where I live last week, and now it seems there's another lot of ash poncing around the airspace of Europe. If my flight gets cancelled it will be expensive for me, especially as I've paid for my hire car up front. It'll also be a massive disappointment as all the plans I had for England will be flushed down the toilet, and instead I'll be stuck here watching other people do my classes.

But due to the vague nature of this ash cloud I probably won't know until the day I fly whether I'm actually going to or not. This will be too late to cancel my car, too late to cancel my plans and too late to get back the work I've given up. In a word, bollocks.

Pay Attention 007...

2011-05-19T18:43:00.002+02:00

I am a British person. However I haven't lived there for three and a half years, visiting only once in that time. I fell out of love with my country some time ago. I don't know whether it was just me but I felt that the standard of living in the U.K. was getting lower and lower, and I wasn't enjoying my life there. I know some would disagree with me violently, and that's their privilege. I can only say how I felt.

I remember the day I emigrated. After a smooth flight we came in to land in the Mediterranean city of Valencia at night. The port twinkled with lights as we slowed down and then we crossed over the heart of the city as we descended towards the airport. It was very much a moment when my life changed. This strange new city was going to be my home, and from the air it looked glorious, exotic and exciting. In many ways I feel even more strongly about it now. These days I have a home, work and friends here. And when I return from holiday I'm always pleased to see the dinky little airport, which is ridiculously small for such a large city. The truth is I now regard Spain as my home, with an affection that I never held for Britain. But then it's pretty hard to hate the Med.

I go home to the U.K. next week for only the second time in three and a half years. And when I visit England it's as a foreigner. Some mental muscle memory reminds me of certain things, but many others feel strange to me. I've grown used to the warmth and 'can-do' attitude of Spain. I see so many things over here that we could copy for the better at home, and yet we don't. I'm more convinced than ever that being an island nation has held us back in many ways. But anyway, I've made my choice, there's no need to labour the point.

But I am excited about some things. I want to go to London and poke round, without the fear that the phone will ring and I'll have to rush to a court somewhere. I may go to the Temple and have lunch there, as is my right as a member. I will certainly drive up to north Norfolk and sit on some of the prettiest beaches in the world. I will eat fish and chips, and a good curry. I will watch the BBC, listen to 5 live on the car radio and go down to Yarmouth seafront. I will play snooker, see friends and family and luxuriate in being able to speak my own language wherever I go. I will have fun. And I will have my new camera with me at all times.

And I hope when I finish my trip that I will have made friends with my home country again. I know I'll be glad to get back to Spain, because the summer is starting and it's glorious out here then. But I also hope that I'll find it much harder to leave than I did three years ago. And that's how it should be.

When Is A Bond, Not A Bond ?

2011-05-16T11:43:00.004+02:00

Every time a new Bond product emerges, I take an interest. For me, the Fleming Bond books are the greatest popular literature ever created. While some frotter themselves over Tolkein, Rowling or King, to my mind it's Ian Lancaster Fleming that rules them all. I've read all his Bond books multiple times, and I rarely re-read anything under normal circumstances. This Bond fascination has led to a love of the movie series too, even though the character is quite different on film, as are his adventures. There's still been enough class over the years to justify continued watching. But there is one other type of Bond product that has continued unabated, but perhaps with less justification. I refer of course to the 'continuation' novels.

After Fleming died his estate was left with the rights to commission other writers to carry on writing Bond books. The first came quite quickly, in 1968 and written by Kingley Amis writing under a pseudonym. In 1973 John Pearson produced the excellent 'Authorised Biography of 007' which poses a fascinating 'what if' scenario i.e. what if James Bond was actually real ? It isn't really a proper continuation book but it comes closest to capturing the flavour of the character. Then in 1981 John Gardner took over the job and produced 16 novels in all. After him American author Raymond Benson had a go and duly turned out 12 more. Then another gap, followed by Sebastian Faulks 'writing as' Ian Fleming just once, and finally Jeffery Deaver, whose effort 'Carte Blanche' is out this month.

I have read nearly all of the continuation books, and I must say they vary wildly in quality. Some of the early Gardners and Bensons are pretty good, but their later stuff isn't so solid. The Kingsley Amis story was ok as I recall, but the Faulks effort was dull and failed to capture the spirit of the character at all. And now we have the new one. I haven't read the book yet but I have seen extracts printed in 'The Times'. From what I've seen I'm sure it will be a well polished thriller, Deaver is adept at producing those, which is presumably why he got the job in the first place. But having a thriller where the hero is called James Bond, does not a Bond novel make.

Ian Fleming poured his own experiences, opinions, prejudices and vices into James Bond. He also used his extensive knowledge of certain exotic parts of the world that most people had barely heard of let alone visited in the 1950s. Add to that the fact that Fleming was an exceptional thriller writer, and you reach the conclusion that the original Bond books are and will always remain the definitive depiction of James Bond 007. The films offer only a version of the original, as do the continuation novels. And where the latter usually fall down is by creating a thriller in the normal way and then just dropping Bond into it. For example:

The man walked into the bar and ordered a stiff drink. From the corner the woman could see him quite clearly. He was tall, perhaps 6 foot, with thick black hair that hung down in a comma over one eyebrow. His face was handsome in a cruel way, and the tanned skin was broken by a scar down the left cheek. He suddenly looked across and a wry smile formed at the corners of his mouth, his grey/green eyes glittering at her across the gloom of the bar. The man's name was James Bond.

Now this is just something I knocked up for the purposes of a blog, but I, like many writers after Fleming, just borrowed various careworn ways of describing the character, dropped them onto the page, and called my character James Bond. It's nothing more than a cheap parlour trick, an impersonation of a far better writer than I'll ever be. But I noted from the Times extract that Deaver has used the very same trick in the short piece of prose that I read. Sadly just talking about a comma of black hair doesn't bring Bond to life, if it did then we could all write his books.

Fleming managed to capture a sense of time and place that has gone forever. The late 50s and early 60s, where the real Bond comes from had to be lived in to understand it. In those days the road into St. Tropez was still glamorous and exciting, unlike now when it is filled with fast food restaurants and cheap apartments. When Fleming wrote about Bond skiing, climbing or scuba diving it had the ring of authenticity because he was accomplished at all those things. When he described Bond sitting in a casino at three in the morning, nauseous from the tension, stale cigarette smoke and champagne, you feel that Fleming had been there himself. The world that he wrote was the one he saw around him. And that cannot be replicated.

Fleming came to novel writing late in life, when already in his mid 40s. Before then he'd worked in the city, Naval intelligence and later as a journalist. He'd already lived three lives by the time he came to write fiction. He didn't need to do research, his life was his research. When he wrote (frequently) about Jamaica you know that he could see it out of his window at Goldeneye. So I'm afraid that this all means that Fleming and only Fleming can write Bond books. Other skilled writers can and will continue to try and replicate him, but they can't succeed. Sebastian Faulks admitted that he'd done all his research on the internet and hadn't visited Iran despite it playing a major role in his story. And it showed.

When Deaver's book comes out I will read it with optimism, but I suspect that it will ultimately just be a thriller with a man called James Bond in it. If you want to encounter the real 007, then go and buy one of the 11 books that form the definitive version of the man, and if you haven't read any Fleming as of yet, you're in for a treat.

Hooray, I'm The Loser !

2011-05-15T10:27:00.002+02:00

I've always been uncomfortable with competition. When I was a child I used to belong to the Great Yarmouth Athletics Club. I can no longer remember the sequence of events that led me to being a member, but I know that for several seasons I competed for Yarmouth in sprinting and the long jump. And I was terrible. Perhaps it was because my parents thought I should be doing sports, but it certainly wasn't due to any real aptitude. I still recall the cold dread of being on my marks, raising my head, and seeing 100 metres of track ahead of me. I nearly always came last.

At around the same time I went to Judo. Again I don't know why given that I'd never expressed the slightest interest in dressing up in pyjamas and wrestling other young boys to the ground on an extended mattress. But I do recall the smell of the locker room, a blokey vibe that I could never get into, and being bloody awful at that too. In Judo you don't have races, instead you periodically go to events called 'gradings' where you try and get a better rank, which is then denoted by your colour of belt. After several years labour I got an orange belt with three green stripes. Those of you in the know will realise that isn't very good.

Later I was in the school football team, but not the first eleven, the 'B' team. Us 'Bs' had a different colour kit, a feeling of inadequacy, and a propensity to be soundly thrashed by whatever team we faced. I played right back, but I don't know why because I never displayed any talent for it. I learned after a while that I should walk up to the halfway line when we attacked, and back again when we (frequently) defended. Suffice to say I wasn't picked up by any talent scouts, and all my sporting careers ended when school did.

So perhaps all this is the reason that I've never become one of those men that plays competitive sport in his spare time. I know many people that play football every weekend and take it really seriously. Or maybe cricket, and then get sad if they don't score many runs. Actually I was quite good at bowling, so got invited to play for a team in one of the offices I worked in when younger. I remember turning out for some mid-week game, getting out quickly, and then receiving a sarcastic 'well done' from my own captain as I walked back to the pavilion, my borrowed pads chafing as I walked. And it occurred to me right then how ridiculous it was that grown men with jobs took all this so seriously !

If it's your job to play sport then you have the right to take it seriously. But for everyone else you are a dick if you do. For the rest of us the only reason we play sport is to get fit, escape the telly, and have a laugh with our friends. If you play in a local league then good for you, just so long as you realise it's all meaningless. You won't get seen by a talent scout from Barcelona football club, or Middlesex cricket club. You won't find yourself drafted into the England team at short notice in a fairytale 'Roy of the Rovers' story. What you will do is play in a muddy field every Sunday, or on a nice pitch every Saturday, with your friends, having a giggle and keeping that heart attack at bay for a few more years. And that's perfectly good enough.

So these days when I play any game or sport, and I see my opponent REALLY wants to win, I often let them. I say a ball was in when it was out, I pretend not to notice a foul on the cue ball, and I readily accept a liberal and obviously incorrect interpretation of the rules. This is because I know why I'm playing the game in the first place, and winning isn't on my agenda. But for many of the rest of you, you still think it's vitally important. Bless.

Back In The Groove

2011-05-10T19:16:00.002+02:00

I'm writing again, and thank God.

The best joke in the world (no, it isn't) is this:

Person 1 : I'm writing a book

Person 2 : Really ? Neither am I.

I know various people who like to write. Some have gotten published, others languish away in the amateur world with a mixture of blind optimism and self-hatred (although that could just be me). But all have one thing in common, they are looking to the next thing.

In my case I am working on three books. One I have been sodding about with since I was 18 (that's a long time, for those of you tuning in late). The second I have been sodding about with since I was 30 (still a toss of a long time). The third I have been sodding about with since I was 23 (yeah, I think you get the 'comedy' parentheses now). All have several things in common:

1. They haven't been published

2. They haven't been finished

3. They have been marketed with all the energy of a dead stoat

However I now find myself to be 41. This means that I have a definite end date for my life, and it isn't as far away as I'd really like. So any unresolved ambitions have to be looked at bloody urgently. Now I must tell you that I'm long past the stage where I really care if people hate my work or not. I expect they will, that's only to be expected. I no longer watch people's faces anxiously as they read my manuscripts, trying to gauge which bit they've got to. This stuff has got more basic than that. It's now a question of finishing.

I can't think of anything more tragic than a hard drive full of unfinished rubbish. When I die I want people to go through my things and turn up little gems, not wonder how much they could get for the re-formatted hard drive. So, I have started writing again. Not because I expect to be the next J.K. Rowling, but because if I don't finish these bastards, I'm going to cut my own throat out of frustration. I don't even CARE if people like them any more, in fact I'm going to finish them out of spite if nothing else. These babies are getting done, like it or not.

Now you may feel that spite is a strange strange motivation to write, but if it works I'll embrace it. And to annoy you all even further I shall ensure that they're published, even if I have to put them on the Kindle and iTunes stores. And I'll make them temptingly cheap so you think, 'oh fuck it, what the Hell, it's either this or ANOTHER wank'. And even if you throw your iPad at the wall after the first paragraph it'll be too late, I will have the 99p. Woo ha ha !

Okay, need to lie down for a bit now.

God Bless Hookey Street

2011-05-05T11:28:00.002+02:00

Whilst I was away on hols, I saw the sad news that John Sullivan had died. For those of you who don't know, he was Britain's best sitcom writer for 20 years or more. In the U.K. we don't have teams of writers banging out TV shows, normally there is just one person and a typewriter/word processor. John Sullivan was old school, probably the last of the classic type of sitcom writers, but he was also one of the very best. I'd put him up there with Galton & Simpson on the Mount Olympus of British comedy, he really was that good.

He proved it over and over again. Starting off with 'Citizen Smith', he then turned his attentions to one of the greatest TV comedy shows of all time, 'Only Fools and Horses'. To say that I was a fan of that show would be an understatement. I used to record them off the telly and literally wear out the tapes with repeat viewing. I knew all the words to the opening and closing credits, and could recite most of the scripts, including intonation, by heart. And what scripts they were.

As the series wore on and got more popular the humour became a little broader, but then Sullivan was writing shows to be seen by 20 million people at Christmas. If Morecambe & Wise provided Christmas in the 70s, then Del and Rodders took over in the 80s. When the show finally finished in 2003 (admittedly having outstayed its welcome a little) it was enshrined as an all time classic, and for that Sullivan becomes one of the greats. But he wrote other things too, the very popular 'Just Good Friends' which became a national soap opera for a few years, and my favourite of the 'non-Fools' projects, 'Dear John' about a lonely divorcee played by the late Ralph Bates who attends a singles club.

I'm a connoisseur of classic British comedy, all the way from 'Hancock's Half Hour', via 'Steptoe' right through to 'Peep Show'. And 'Only Fools and Horses' is a legacy that most writers can only dream of. He really will be badly missed.

BANG ! - Now What ?

2011-05-04T22:14:00.003+02:00

I feel a little out of step with most of the Western World right now. There seems to be widespread jubilation at the killing of Osama Bin Laden, rather as if America had won a sporting event of some type. But they haven't, they've shot a human being through the head in front of his children. Now, don't get me wrong, if Bin Laden is responsible for the things attributed to him then he deserves the end he met and more. The trouble is that old nagging question, evidence.

Shortly after 9/11 we were informed by the Bush administration that Bin Laden was responsible for that atrocity. I've been to ground zero and the place has a horrible power, even though it's now just a building site. To think 3,000 people died there, in the middle of Manhattan, whilst the world watched on TV is horrendous. The weight of history hangs over the area like a permanent black cloud. So I can understand that we would like to see someone held accountable for it.

Of course the men that carried out the attack also died in it. So that leads you to wonder who else knew or was involved. And therein lies the problem, we'll probably never know for sure. Bin Laden will go down in history as the man responsible, like Lee Harvey Oswald did for JFK. But just how sure can we be, after all we're getting this intelligence from the sources that also told us there were WMDs in Iraq, and we know how that turned out. Those same organisations also took a full 10 years to find Bin Laden, and that doesn't fill one with confidence either.

And there are also lingering questions too. If, as Obama says, there was a 'capture or kill' directive in place (in that order) why was an unarmed Bin Laden shot dead ? Wouldn't it have been better if he were returned to New York in manacles and faced trial for his part in the 9/11 conspiracy ? After all if we have such good evidence of his strong involvement then a conviction should have been a formality surely ? But as things stand the man is dead, dumped in the sea and unable to ever formally answer those charges. A formal trial and conviction would have resulted in a death penalty in any event, so why not go that route ? Wouldn't that have given more closure to those families than a swift dispatch.

Of course we live in a world where a mission to help the rebels in Libya suddenly turned into an assassination attempt on Gadaffi. He escaped, but apparently several small children didn't. So where does all this leave us. Bin Laden is dead but as a result of that we'll never get to the bottom of his involvement in 9/11. Perhaps he was the mastermind behind it all, but I've yet to see concrete evidence of that despite it being accepted as fact by most of the western media. Bin Laden certainly appeared on tape 'approving' of the attacks but does that mean he was behind them ? Who knows.

In any event, America has killed its greatest bogeyman. But what next ? Clearly such a talismanic death is good for the administration and good for public safety as a whole, but this movie isn't over yet. Bin Laden, unlike Lee Harvey Oswald (ahem) didn't act alone. There is a network behind him and god knows how many splinter groups. How will they react to this, was Bin Laden even still relevant in their movement, and what if anything was he up to at that house ? Too many questions, and no answers. Time will reveal more, but in the meantime what concerns me above all else is how much we're prepared to accept at face value these days, and given recent history we REALLY should know better by now. Well it's more a question of what the media is prepared to accept on our behalf. Frankly I would like to see a few more difficult questions asked.

Run You Bitch, RUN !!

2011-05-01T22:27:00.002+02:00

It doesn't say much for U.S. Republican politics that their current front runner is one of the most preposterous men to have ever lived. Donald Trump is a billionaire who appears to have all the judgement and class of a reality show where the contestants have been stripped naked and told to fight in jam (actually if that show was on TV, I'd watch it). Having said that he's managed to become a billionaire so he must have something about him. But whatever that something is it hasn't been much in evidence since he announced he was thinking of running for president.

His main issue so far has been questioning why Obama hadn't produced his full birth certificate. That was put to rest this week rather taking the wind out of his sails, but I think there's life in the old dog yet. He's already described the Chinese as 'motherfuckers' that have raped the U.S. economy and declared that if he were president he would invade Libya and simply take their oil. He's also onto his third marriage and God only knows what would be turned up if people started poking around in his private life. So, as a candidate he is ridiculous, but as entertainment he is the best thing to happen to politics in years.

Of course he can't win, that's a given, but the longer he stays in the race the more fun it will be. It's quite obvious that he doesn't think before he speaks, doesn't know what he's talking about and often lies. Just last week he claimed that a CNN poll had put him level with Obama. CNN said they never carried out such a poll. Trump responded by saying that they had done, and that they were wrong to say otherwise. Priceless ! It's like someone's drunk uncle has somehow gotten into the public eye and won't shut his gob.

So I'm hoping he'll run and go through the tepid political scene like a tornado. It's refreshing to see someone who says whatever the hell he wants to and is too rich to care about the consequences. Politics and the media in general have become so over cautious as to be nearly unwatchable on many occasions. But whenever this man - with the most outrageous comb over in history - appears on the screen I tend to drop whatever I'm doing and watch. Let's face it no-one is going to beat Obama, and the Republicans surely know that, whatever they say in public. I'm sure if they have any real candidates they're saving them for 2016. So in the time before Obama is re-elected by a landslide, let's have some fun. Bring on The Trump !

Not Bad

2011-04-30T21:00:00.002+02:00

People have been asking me about the Royal Wedding for weeks. And to be honest my response was always the same 'don't know, don't care'. My attitude is apparently shared by 80% of the British public, although be suspicious of that stat because it comes from a newspaper and therefore probably originates from a survey of about 200 people.

I didn't even know what day it was on until Thursday, and not living in England I wasn't aware that a public holiday had been declared. When it came to Friday morning I found myself at home without much to do and so I popped on BBC World to see if they were covering it. They were, and thankfully they had the proper BBC coverage. So I started to watch and slowly got drawn in. All of sudden there they were in the church, Kate looking startlingly pretty and William good humoured and rather self-deprecating. And after that, quite unexpectedly, I found myself watching the whole lot.

I remember watching Charles & Di and it seemed interminably long. But this one got on with it early, and was finished by about lunchtime. It was short, sweet and rather touching. I think what convinced me was that the two of them are not only rather likeable but actually seem to want to get married. So many occasions like this in the past have seemed stilted and rather artificial, hardly like weddings at all. But this time I actually felt as if they were two people worth a bit of my time. I liked the way they organised it, they seemed very at ease with one another, and most of all they didn't seem to take it all too seriously.

You can debate all day about whether it was worth the money but the truth is that this is the society we live in and there's little point in bleating about it. It's like that debate as to whether William should get the throne in preference to Charles. It isn't going to happen, so all talk about it is frankly a waste of time that could be put to better use by breathing and walking. And occasions like this will continue to be held for the foreseeable future and the taxpayer will continue to pay for them. We pay for a lot of things more expensive and more dubious than this, such as a number of wars that nobody really wants to be in.

So I say you should just take it for what it was, a pleasant day that made lots of people happy. Nothing so bad about that is there.

Pretty

2011-04-28T10:12:00.002+02:00

I have just got back from Venice. I'd heard negative things about the place, like it was dirty, smelly and overcrowded. I didn't find any of those things to be true. Venice is a truly beautiful place, magical in some ways, and I absolutely loved being there. This photo, hopefully, conveys some of what I'm talking about.

Is It Wrong To Hate The Banks ?

2011-04-20T10:40:00.002+02:00

I loathe banks with every fibre of my being. A few years ago I went through some pretty serious financial troubles. I take responsibility for much of it, I got myself into trouble when I was young and before I really understood how to manage money. I ended up creating problems for the future that caused me a lot of pain. Because make no mistake, financial suffering is one of the worst things you can go through in life. Our society is built on money, and on having enough to participate in life. Without a decent amount of the stuff, you are destined to spend your life with your nose pressed against the glass watching other people have nice lives. This is a simple fact, it doesn't speak of materialism or a capitalist philosophy, it just means you need money to eat, live and play.

Those of us who've had money issues know this all too well, and how our shiny consumer society can start to look very rusty indeed if you can't afford a seat at the table. But my one abiding memory of this period of life was not the shame or worry that it caused, but how the financial institutions made the thing 10 times worse. If you've ever been courted by a bank with free gifts, aspirational advertising and a pretty girl on the till, don't be fooled. All that window dressing is just to get you to sign on the dotted line. After that, you belong to them. None of us EVER read the small print in the contracts we agree to, after all they are designed so that you don't. Impossibly long, with tiny letters and looking as appealing a read as the phone book, they don't want you to read it. But when things go wrong you wish you had.

When your money runs out, the banks change from these cuddly, avuncular figures, with dancing and singing in the adverts, to brutal terminators. They chase you relentlessly, even for piddling amounts of money. They will take your house, your possessions and get you fired without a moments remorse. They will leave you in a cardboard box, life shattered and consider it a job well done. I know this, I've seen it happen, on both sides of the equation. And yet, despite this we've pretty much signed the whole world over to them.

The recent financial catastrophe was caused by banks. They were effectively gambling with our money, in an attempt to become even more stupendously rich than they already are. And when it all went wrong, millions lost their jobs and homes, and yet we had to use tax payers money to save those very same banks. No-one was investigated, no-one went to jail and nearly all of those banks are back in business and making as much money as ever, whilst the world economy is still dragging along the bottom. So how have we allowed this to happen ?

And let's not be silly here, we all turned a blind eye to what was going on. So pleased were we for our houses to be worth so much, that we all felt a little rich. Credit was so easy to get that we all had some, and bought luxuries that our parents couldn't have dreamed of. And we all carried on with this party, in league with the banks, for years. So when the roof fell in perhaps the reason we didn't make so much fuss is that we knew we were partly culpable, we'd played along for years, having the life of riley. Trouble is, the party is over for us. And yet the banks go on as ever, implacable, indestructible.

These days I have as little finance as I can manage. I despise and distrust banks because I've seen their real face, and I won't ever fall for that bullshit again. We've given them so much power that we'll never beat them until a politician comes along that has the guts to take them on, and I don't see that happening in my lifetime. So my advice to you is have as little to do with them as you can. Never give them too much power over you, no matter how many shiny things they can offer you. Don't put yourself in a position where they can crush you, because banks are now like casinos, the house always wins.

This Isn't Promising

2011-04-18T21:00:00.002+02:00

This is a photograph of Jesse Jackson Jnr, a member of the U.S. Congress. The other day he launched a stinging attack on the Apple iPad on the basis that it took away American jobs. His theory rested on two bases, 1. that the machine encouraged people to buy books online thus putting out of business the likes of Barnes & Noble and libraries and 2. that as the iPad is made in China it allows the citizens of that country to take advantage of the first amendment right to free speech, thus depriving American workers of those manufacturing jobs. The rant can be seen online, I'm sure via a quick search of Youtube and I certainly can't be bothered to embed it here.

Now it would be easy to take the piss out of Congressman Jackson for his views, but I'm sure that Jon Stewart will do a much better job than me, and I look forward to seeing it. What concerns me more is that this speech was given by an elected official in the U.S. Congress, which suggests that this is the level of debate in that chamber. I'm sure the founding fathers, whose original intentions are endlessly guessed at by American politicians, would be dismayed if they could seen what has become of their experiment in democracy.

To make the assertion that a burgeoning technology is to blame for people losing jobs is old news. He might as well have said that the railways were pissed off at the invention of the car, or that the folks at all the radio stations were mightily worried about this television business. And as for the second point, well many U.S. companies have their goods manufactured abroad, Coca-Cola and Nike are obvious examples, and they didn't get a namecheck in the outburst. They outsource those manufacturing jobs to foreign countries because it's much cheaper to do so and thus they make more profit. These companies are businesses, their only goal is profit, and they'll do what they need to do make some. To imply that they should do things for a moral purpose and to hell with making money is naive at best, stupid at worst.

Perhaps the Congressman should be proud that companies like Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook and eBay are the leading computer/tech companies in the world, and that they're all American. What about the people they employ, don't they count ? And of course like all rants, the discourse mentioned the perceived problem, but offered no answers. He didn't suggest that Apple stop making the iPad, and he didn't mention Amazon and the Kindle at all despite the latter actually selling many more e-books that Apple. Oh, and Amazon is American too. He also doesn't seem to appreciate that people pay for e-books, and in many cases the same money as the printed version despite the lack of manufacturing and delivery costs. So writers won't go bust nor will publishers. Libraries may eventually be redundant but not any time soon, I can't see my Mum going digital and she uses the library far more than I ever did.

But oddly when I watch an episode like this my main emotion isn't anger, like it perhaps would have been some years ago, now I just shake my head in quiet dismay. I don't need to rehearse the multiple things Jackson and his like are mistaken on, those things stick out like a sore thumb. It's just that I visited Washington D.C. and the Congress last summer, and I think I got an idea of what those pioneers 240 years ago were trying to do. There was a romantic, probably over-ambitious plan to rise above the petty European system and have a government by the people for the people. No doubt, men like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were visionaries, and their idea of America was grand and noble in scale. Perhaps if men like that were still around the United States would be in a better condition, and the level of debate would be above the level of the schoolyard. As it is they did America the enormous disservice of dying and leaving in the country in the hands of much lesser men.

Do Me A Lemon

2011-04-10T18:50:00.003+02:00

If procrastination was an Olympic sport I think I'd be the favourite for London 2012. Because I very much doubt that there is anyone else on this planet who is less focussed on what they want to achieve than me. Oh sure I can run every day, stick to a healthy eating plan, and spend hours organising my DVD collection. I can also devote the time to finishing a number of pretty tough PS3 games. But what I can't seem to do, is write.

This is strange because when anyone asks me what I'd like to do in the future it's 'be a writer'. I don't aim to be a very prolific one you understand, but if I could churn out half a dozen books in my career I'd be pretty pleased with that. Like many amateurs I have several hanging around in various states of undress. Some a half finished first draft, others a mere good polish away from being finished. But I just cannot get my arse in this chair long enough to complete anything.

The internet is of course a major factor. If Shakespeare had had broadband there's no fucking way that he would have got so much done. Maybe a couple of plays and a half-arsed sonnet, nothing else. Because that temptation to type any old fleeting toss into Google is too great, and then you find yourself on some aimless hour long excursion into tat. I really wish I could be more focussed when I surf, because I could actually learn something. But as it is I end up flitting from one thing to another, like a butterfly with issues. And I get nothing done.

As I've gotten older I've increasingly realised that the people who achieve are at least in part those who can get something finished. Just to produce a finished manuscript is a colossal undertaking, and it's something I've never managed. The thought of sitting down in front of a screen and thinking 'yes, I'm happy with that now' seems like an unobtainable dream. Right now every time I look at any draft of anything I see a myriad mistakes, grammatical or logical cock ups that are surely the work of an idiot. The thought that I could ever find myself in a situation where I can find no more errors seems ridiculous.

So I ask you all this, how do you do it ? How on earth do you get a frigging book finished ? I really need to know because this whole thing is getting on my tits. And I really want to finish the first of my half dozen books, just so I can stop boring myself when I say to people 'well I'm writing a book actually' and then realise that I was saying that 20 years ago. What I want to be able to say is 'I've just finished a book actually' and then casually run my fingers through my hair and try to move the conversation on to something else, knowing that a number of questions will bring me back to discussing my opus. Yes I'll be a giant tit for doing so, but it'll be a change.

Okay Let's Get A Few Things Straight

2011-04-07T09:29:00.002+02:00

I'm an avid Spurs fan and I suffered mightily as I watched them lose on Tuesday night, but we need to get things in perspective. I've been looking at the press over the last couple of days and the criticism of Spurs, Crouch and Lennon has been particularly harsh. And this is one big reason why I dislike mainstream journalism, and in particular the witch hunt that follows every perceived failure. In short there is no context to the reporting, it's all about selling a paper that day, and finding something dramatic or conflictive that isn't there.

Let's be fair, Spurs have done an amazing job this year. This is their first ever time in the Champions League. They had to qualify for it, and to come back from being 3-0 down in that match. Then they got drawn against holders Inter Milan in the first round. The first match against them they found themselves 4-0 down and then scored 3 to peg it back to 4-3. When they played Inter again, they not only beat them but also won their group. In the second round they drew AC Milan, 7 times European champions and current Italian league leaders. And they beat them too.

In the press there are a lot of people who earn a living from 'punditry' that strange profession where you tell fans what they already know, predict the blindingly obvious but do so from the authority of being a former player and thus what you say apparently has more weight. Not ONE of those people would have predicted the run Spurs have had this year. And yet they are on hand to pull Tottenham down when they have an admittedly bad night against Real Madrid, 9 times European champions with one of the strongest squads in history, the most successful manager of recent years and playing in their home stadium. Oh please !

Bigger, richer and better teams than us would have met the same fate at the Bernabeu. We had two pieces of bad luck that sealed our fate, it can happen to anyone. Inter Milan had a worse night, losing 5-2 at home to the relatively unknown Schalke 04. When I saw the draw I knew we wouldn't beat Madrid. They are too big, too strong and too experienced. But the very fact that we were there and that we got to play them was our greatest achievement in the last 50 years of club history. None of the players or the manager should be anything other than proud. Redknapp in the course of two years has taken us from being relegation certainties to a real force in European football. And as for Crouch, well who was it that scored the away goal that beat AC Milan. And as for Lennon, who was it that ran 50 yards and passed him the ball ?

Whatever happens now it's been one of the greatest seasons ever for Tottenham Hotspur FC. The experience they get from this will be invaluable, and I have no doubt that when we meet Real Madrid again at the Bernabeu, next time we'll give them a game.

Are Movies Now Rubbish ?

2011-04-04T11:48:00.002+02:00

I'm not a cineaste but I do love films. I'm one of those people that spent many of his formative years in a darkened room watching a flickering screen. As such I probably missed out on being tanned, wonderful and having cheerleader sex. Although coming from Great Yarmouth it's fair to say that there wasn't much real chance of any of those, but still.

In recent years I've assembled a pretty cool home cinema setup with plasma, HD, blu-ray and surround sound. I can watch a film in pretty amazing quality, the way it was meant to be seen, and in the case of old films, better than it looked when it was made. But herein lies the problem, there's very little to get excited about in cinema these days.

I know now I was spoilt to grow up in an era when the likes of Lucas, Coppola, Spielberg, Scorsese, Di Palma and Cameron were getting started. That was a true golden age of cinema, and people are only really appreciating it now when they look at the current Hollywood scene. Now I'm not one of those people that thinks cinema is dead and that there are no good films about, there are, most of the nominees for Best Picture this year are very good films. The trouble is there's so few good ones.

Many times recently I have sat down to films with good people in them, that I've read good things about, only to be totally disappointed. There seems to be a lack of style, class and good scripting going on that makes the vast majority of film pretty useless. Looking at this year's lineup there are some interesting things, but mainly we have sequels to films that weren't good to start with (Transformers, Pirates of the Caribbean) or endless comic adaptations based on lesser known works, but still rather desperately hoping for some of that Batman audience. And it's all rather sad.

More often than not the stuff I am interested to see these days is on TV. This last year has seen some movie people move over to TV and shows like 'Boardwalk Empire', and 'The Walking Dead' have resulted. 'Spartacus' has continued to be the best thing on TV in years, and there's stuff like 'The Kennedys', 'Game of Thrones', 'Mildred Pierce' and 'Terra Nova' all coming along shortly to entertain us. This line up is far better than anything at the local cinema, and I can well see why a lot of movie talent is now on TV. With modern production values the TV shows look as good as the movies, and the writing and acting has long been better than in the cinema. So all I can tell you is this, this summer while the blockbusters are printing money and producing vapid nonsense, I'll be getting stuck into 'True Blood', 'Doctor Who' and 'Breaking Bad'. And I'll be the winner.

April Fool's Day Can Fuck Off

2011-04-01T12:42:00.002+02:00

Sarcasm isn't the lowest form of humour, that honour falls to the 'practical joke'. Because the practical joke has two factors going for it that drag it to the bottom of the comedy sludge pool:

1. Any idiot can do it

2. It's about as funny as having your penis cut off

No real skill is needed to dream up a practical joke, you just need to target a good friend and then make sure they are publicly humiliated. And that's another problem, the humour comes from laughing at someone rather than with them. Many people thought it was hilarious when Greg Louganis dove off a board and cracked his head open. I looked on in horror wondering if he was dead, falling about with mirth didn't really occur to me.

It's this sadism coupled with a total lack of wit or sophistication that makes the practical joke the runt of the comedy litter. People who put cling film on toilet seats or set fire to your cat, or whatever other witless shite they get up to, are just saying to the world 'I CANNOT THINK UP A SINGLE FUNNY THING TO SAY !!'. So instead they resort to shaving their friend's eyebrows off while they sleep. If someone did that to me I'd hunt them down. And no-one would be laughing at that point.

April Fool's day, that inexplicable comedy vacuum, relies heavily on practical jokes. Oh sure there was a time when it was harmless and cute, such as that story about growing spaghetti on trees, or the day when Frank Bough appeared on Nationwide wearing just a rubber thong (actually I think I might have dreamt that last one). But over the years we've become more savvy, and if they say on the news that, for instance, they've found a way to make a car run on chocolate even our kids are likely to shout 'REALLY, IS THAT THE BEST YOU'VE GOT ?' at the television.

So if your workmates get you today, with some horribly naff variant on a theme such as putting salt in the sugar shaker, don't be too offended when they all fall over laughing. What they are really saying to you is 'HELP ME, I CAN'T GO ON ANYMORE, PLEASE HELP ME!!'. So just wait for the laughter to subside and then for their inevitable tears of bitterness and self-hate to flow. And offer them a sugary tea.

Oh Dear God !

2011-04-01T11:53:00.002+02:00

Oh how glad I am to be living abroad right now. It's been a long time since there was a royal wedding in England, but I remember them with a certain amount of horror. To my mind there has never been an event that's hyped so much and yet delivers so very little. In The Guardian today (yes, The Guardian !) they've started a countdown to the wedding of William and Kate. What I want to know is what exactly are they counting down ?

With a sports event you can see what the squad and then the team will be like. Perhaps there will be a scandal at the team hotel, or a last minute injury that will destroy your team's chances of lifting the cup. But with a royal wedding just what the green sodomy will they will be discussing for the next month ? Will there be rumours that William has picked up a groin strain in training and is now doubtful for the wedding night ? Will Kate be seen out boozing in a night club, and then falling into a taxi cab at 3 a.m. with an 'unknown male' ? Unlikely.

Perhaps we can look at endless speculation about the dress. Well you know what, it's going to be white, long and cost more money than most people's car. The rest is just details. Maybe we can pore over the guest list and see who has been snubbed, I'm hoping that Piers Morgan will appear at the airport and find his passport doesn't work anymore. But the trouble is that the whole thing is just going to be such an anti-climax. We know that they'll get married, it isn't as if they might fail on the vows and then be thrown out of the church. We also know that thousands will turn out to wave plastic union flags in a charming 'cor blimey guv'nor' type of way. Perhaps there'll be a 'walkabout' where the royals actually approach the sweating masses and try to pretend they have anything in common with them other than being from the same species.

If you want to know what it'll look like then watch the video of Charles and Di, and you get a pretty good idea. I know that many people are fascinated by the whole thing, but to me if there's no competitive element then there's no need for a build up, just get up a bit earlier on the day in question, put your best pants on and get hitched. What they really need to do is spice it up by giving three girls the chance to become Queen of England. Then the wedding day could consist of a series of gruelling tests to see who has what it takes. Or perhaps we could have live coverage of the wedding night with Graham Norton providing a saucy voice over, and the judges from X-Factor giving marks out of ten ? But no, it'll be just like the others that I've seen before. This is one of the interesting factors of getting older, you remark to yourself 'ah, this is where I came in'. I don't know what day it's on, but I do know that I'll be out.

Does Anyone Play The Piano ?

2011-03-29T19:43:00.002+02:00

The reason I ask is that learning the piano has been one of those lifelong ambitions that I have never got close to fulfilling. I want to learn, to start doing something at least, but I am baffled as to where to begin.

First off what sort of piano should I get ? Due to space reasons it must be an electronic one, but after that I'm lost. Will anything do or are there certain things that I should avoid ? Do I need 88 or 76 keys, do I need three pedals, should I get a stand ? How often will I need to practise to make progress, and are there some people who just can't do it ?

I need some input on some or all of these questions. I don't want to waste several hundred pounds on the wrong thing, I can't afford to do that. But I also feel that if I don't start soon I will never do so, and this will become one of the ambitions that remains just that. So, does anyone out there know this stuff ? If so, please advise !

Yes !!

2011-03-29T11:35:00.002+02:00

My favourite programme as a child was 'The Professionals'. Bodie and Doyle were about as cool as it was possible to be in 70s England, and the storylines were always rather sophisticated and serious. It felt like very important stuff. I watched it again recently and was surprised by how well it stands up.

The modern equivalent to the show is quite obviously the excellent 'Spooks', which covers much of the same ground as the older show, whilst putting a modern spin on things. So I was very pleased to hear that a movie version of 'The Professionals' is on the way. Now, one has to be realistic about such things, especially in the modern British film making climate. We aren't very good at getting things made, particularly action films. A period drama with Oscar potential ? Yes. But something cool where stuff blows up ? Strangely not.

I never understood this because we have the talent. British directors like Paul Greengrass have been making stuff like this in Hollywood for years. We also have plenty of acting and writing talent, both for the action roles and the meatier stuff. And these films produce lots of money when done right, something I would expect the country to be quite keen on. And yet we never seem to get it together. There has long been a version of 'The Sweeney' planned, with names such as Ray Winstone in the frame to play Regan. Imagine how cool that would be, but it still hasn't started filming.

Potential names for 'The Professionals' are Jason Statham for Bodie and Gerard Butler as Doyle. But there are several others you could substitute for them, although I fancy Statham to be in it. And I know that if it's done right it could actually work, and perhaps become a little franchise. So often these types of things are undone by budgetary constraints, or poor scripting. But if 'Spooks' can do it every week on a BBC budget, surely a film can. So I have my fingers crossed for this one, I hope it actually happens, and more importantly I hope it's done right. We have the talent, it's just a question of putting it together properly.

Still Going...

2011-03-28T18:55:00.002+02:00

I used to laugh at people that looked after their health. I would sneer at their muesli and their frigging jogging, and go and stuff my face with McDonalds burgers. I delighted in my lack of good health and giggled at the poe-faced 'fitness fanatic' with his nasty shorts and total lack of self-awareness. Maybe it's because this is an idea that first surfaced in the 80s, and was presented like a modern version of the Third Reich, only with better hair. I don't like being commanded to do anything, especially by an army of Hollywood idiots who owe their good looks to the scalpel as much as their macrobiotic bullshit.

In fact the whole promotion of healthy living has been done with so little style that it's had all the appeal of dipping your cock in a meat mincer and pushing 'on'. If you see Brendan Foster in his athletics kit, it's unlikely that you'll want to look like him. Or if you're a woman do you really want to put on leg warmers and dance around in the front room in front of a DVD of some other woman who is made of more plastic than a Barbie doll ? And what if someone walks in on you, oh the shame ! I think this appalling marketing is the reason that so many people are obese, unhealthy and nearing life ending illness.

And just look at the marketing for non-healthy stuff. Bacall smoking, Bond drinking, various glamorous people making drug taking look cool. And there's the food. Glossy aspirational advertising for a range of food THAT WILL KILL YOU. On one bored afternoon recently I had a look at the nutritional content of various things. It stunned me. Did you know the COLOSSAL amount of fat in hard cheese for instance ? Or how appalling for you chocolates and sweets are ? Or the amount of calories in fast food or takeaways ? No you don't, because they never put that in the advert. Did you also know the number one cause of serious illness ? It's not smoking, but obesity and/or bad diet. But Burger King don't mention that do they.

I have only recently changed my diet and exercise regime, so I don't want to be one of those late converts that becomes evangelical. I once ate complete crap, didn't exercise and had a horribly stressful job. I'm lucky I'm not dead. But now I'm in better shape than I was in my 20s, and best of all I feel so very well. No more hangovers or stomach acid attacks (no booze), I have the energy to get up in the morning, and I'm finally shifting a spare tyre that I bought with ten years of hamburgers. And the best thing was, it's pretty easy. I do between 30-60 minutes exercise a day and nothing on the weekends. I have cut out a lot of rubbish from my diet but I don't miss any of it. So all I'm saying is this, you don't have to be a dour, self-righteous cock-tube to be healthy. I'm a lazy toss bandit and I did it.

We Just Lost One Of The Greats

2011-03-23T21:22:00.004+01:00

Elizabeth Taylor died today. For every movie fan this should be a very sad day, because Liz Taylor was a true Hollywood legend. The sad thing is, she got old. To modern generations she might be remembered as a bloated old lady that got an inexplicable amount of attention. But there was a reason for all that fuss, because once upon a time Elizabeth Taylor was so big she made Angelina Jolie look like a second lead on a TV soap.

She first came to my attention as Richard Burton's girlfriend and then his wife. In Britain I think we took a special pride that one of our own could have pulled a real Hollywood star. But then I saw her in Cleopatra and realised what Richard had seen in her. Make no mistake about it, when she was younger, she was one of the most beautiful women you will ever see.

My favourite performance of hers will always be as Maggie the Cat in 'Cat on a Hot Tin Roof'. I don't know if there has ever been a sexier female presence on screen than her turn in that movie, but if there has I'd like to see it. Her banter with a young Paul Newman is excellent, and her appearance in a white silk slip is unforgettable. And she could act too, winning the Oscar for Best Actress on two occasions, in a career lasting into her 60s.

So make no mistake, we have lost a real Hollywood legend today, and that's sad because they're aren't very many of them left. If you haven't seen her work then take a look at 'Cat on a Hot Tin Roof', 'Butterfield 8' and 'Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf' and then you'll get an idea of why she was so special, and you will instantly forget all those photos of her in her 70s, looking rather sad.

Why This Can Make Me Thin

2011-03-16T11:46:00.002+01:00

Don't worry, this isn't going to be another post about fitness. I've realised that that boat has sailed for many people, at least that is until they get a massive shock like I did. But that's for another post. Since I moved to Spain I've been trying to get fitter and this has resulted in many experiments. Bottom line ? You need to do cardio. The end.

Now I have been swimming, been on a static bicycle, played tennis, and generally got hot and sweaty on a regular basis. But there has always been one activity that I've avoided like the plague. Running ! When I was a kid I was a member of the local athletics club. This meant I ran a lot. At school we also did the dreaded cross-country training, which meant a group of sweaty children trawling around the local neighbourhood, making the place look untidy. It was tough as I grew up on the east coast of England, and those winds coming off the sea in winter cut right through to the testicles.

But now that I'm older I find that whenever I run I get pain in my shins almost immediately. This is a bit sad really, and it's been the elephant in my exercise room for some time. I know people who love running and they are all in sensational shape. I also realised that when I ran for the ball in tennis it wasn't good for my legs to protest in the shape of a burning sensation and an invitation to vomit. So this week I put on my track suit, rather sheepishly slipped out of the building as casually as I could, and set off for a run. It didn't start well.

Twenty metres along and I had to stop, my legs screaming 'WHAT THE FUCK !' at me. I sauntered to a painful stop, hoping that no-one could see me pull up so quickly, and walked briskly instead. Even that hurt but I thought 'sod it' people of 70 do the marathon, there's no reason why a 40 year old can't run round the block. And so I did, and my body protested every painful step of the way. I think I managed to find the slowest possible running speed that isn't technically a fast walk, and edged painfully along my agreed course. But arse, biscuits and gravy it was hard.

Two days later, this morning, my legs were still sore. But I was prepared to be buggered from three directions with a balloon whisk rather than give in. So on went the track suit once more, and I went out again. At first my legs said 'yeah, this ISN'T happening'. But I carried on anyway, and thankfully it started to get a bit easier. 10 minutes in and I was more comfortable, and I realised this was not only doable but very very good exercise. Naturally I was wearing my lungs as earrings by the end, but I broke a psychological barrier today. And now I need to equip myself. Some proper trainers are required, and a means to blast loud music into my head. I have a standard iPod but it's a bit big to take running, plus I need new headphones and an arm strap. For the same money I can buy an iPod shuffle, which is designed specifically for runners. I know from experience that music can massively enhance your motivation for exercise, so now I know what I need to do.

E-Books, And My Forthcoming Novel

2011-03-15T16:43:00.002+01:00

I've moaned and droned on this page many times about the publishing business. I've been writing fiction in my spare time for years but have always found approaching publishers or agents to be a thankless task. I know that my technique is lacking, and I haven't studied the system nearly enough. According to some websites I should be perfecting my pitch, or writing a genius introductory letter. But I'd rather spend my time writing. Or picking my nose.

I'm a lawyer, and an intellectual property specialist as well as a criminal practitioner. This means that the legal aspects of the publishing world don't faze me, and neither does the business side. I know I'm not an agent, but I'm also not some unworldly wise beardy type, with no idea how to open a bank account. Or put his socks on. I can fight my corner.

But as this blog demonstrates, I'm also a firm believer in technology and the internet. I think it's opened up the world for many people in many fields, and it's now doing the same for authors. I've been writing on this blog since 2005, and in the meantime I've been working away on three fiction books. Two of those are in the late stages of writing, and so I have the inevitable task of deciding what to do with them. I pick up the Writers and Artists Yearbook with a heavy heart, mainly because I can see a lot of fruitless labour in front of me. Pouring through endless anonymous names and carefully trying to select who to be ignored by is not my idea of being productive. I need something new.

Luckily, the likes of Amazon, Apple and Barnes & Noble have provided an alternative. Self-publishing has long been a dirty word amongst writers, especially as it conjured up images of paying large fees to some morally dubious company who would produce a limited run of your work that would sell to no-one. But these days things have moved on. You can now publish an e-book for free. All you need to do is produce a text file, place it in the right format and upload it to Amazon's Kindle store, or Apple's iBooks store. You set your own price for the book, and sit back and watch what happens. Of course, that may be nothing, but it sure beats waiting months for agents to reply to you. Some of them actually say things like 'If you haven't heard from us in 3 months then assume the answer is no'. Really ? Bugger that.

So I am announcing today that I intend to publish one of the books I'm working on via the Kindle store by the end of the year. In the meantime it will need to be significantly tweaked, as I want to release something that is as professional as possible. Unlike an author with a publishing deal I won't have editors or agents to help me, just the eye of friends and family. It may be that I produce something that isn't really that good, but that never stopped Dan Brown did it ? And best of all I will have a book in the bookshops, albeit the virtual ones. So I encourage you all to invest in iPads, or Kindles in advance of the big day. I will post updates here as to my progress as and when necessary.

This Deserves Some Kudos

2011-03-10T15:13:00.003+01:00

This photo is of a man called Judge Douglas Marks Moore. He is a criminal judge at London's Old Bailey, and recently he was trying to sentence a defendant charged with rape. The defendant decided to try and escape from the court (this happens more often than you may think) and this judge ended up rugby tackling and helping to capture him !

I was a criminal barrister for 15 years, and the thought of an Old Bailey judge vaulting over his bench and taking out a defendant is nothing short of fabulous. This almost gives him superhero status and I strongly advise His Lordship to consider getting himself a costume, and adopting a catchy name, such as 'The Legal Avenger', or perhaps just 'The Judge'. He could then stalk the rooftop of the Old Bailey at night, silhouetted against the moon Batman style. And when taking down another villain he could say 'You've just been sentenced'.

Seriously though this stuff takes some balls. I've been in court when someone tries to do a runner, it's quite surprising and you don't know quite what to do. In my case it was my own client, who was 6 foot 6 inches and possibly under the influence of something, so it didn't seem either wise or good for business to try and stop him. But I take my hat off to Judge Moore for taking the initiative and doing something that could conceivably have got him seriously injured. I always took the view that Judges were rather well protected up there behind their bench, but on this occasion the judiciary took a hands on approach. Cool !

Why Does America Want To Be Victorian England ?

2011-03-05T10:42:00.002+01:00

I've noticed a worrying trend in the U.S. recently, a desire to regress. It's a bit like an adult getting to middle age and then deciding he wants to be a child again, for things to go back to the way he remembers them. It's understandable in what can be a confusing and frightening world, but it is in no way healthy.

Let's take sex for instance. This morning I saw a story about a college basketball player in Utah who has been suspended from his team for the heinous crime of having sex with his girlfriend. In his absence his team lost an important match. The coach proudly declared that they were 'chaste' and this was an important value. This was the sort of the thing the Victorians said, whilst banging the life out of the servants behind closed doors.

Ok, how about the environment then ? There is currently an anti-environment movement, spearheaded by the Tea Party movement. Their aim is to stop the federal government instituting measures aimed at combating climate change. Quite why I don't know, perhaps they don't believe the overwhelming evidence that we are killing our planet and by extension ourselves. They are backed by cynical big business who claim to share their values but really just want to increase their profits and avoid restrictions brought on by being greener. This was the sort of thing the Victorians did, and as a result London become so polluted that the air was unbreathable (the famous pea soupers) and the river was poisonous to drink and unable to support fish until very recently. Vast areas of the Highlands in Scotland were cleared of the people who lived there and the land was used for posh people to go hunting. Only now are these things being reversed.

Ok, what about religion ? The U.S. constitution guarantees freedom of religion (unless you are a Muslim it seems) and I have no complaint on that. But what is scary is the extremism that it seems to have produced, with preachers gaining huge influence and telling their congregations such things as homosexuality is evil. That's because it's in the Bible. But the Bible also speaks of killing one's own brother, or children, or incest. I don't seem them advocating those values, but you see you can't pick and choose. If the book is God's word then it's absolute, it's not God's word except for these bits here. The Victorians also had strong Christian values. They stood proudly in church every Sunday and badly sang hymns whilst millions starved in slums and work houses. They regarded themselves as superior to these people as God had chosen them to be the ones in good families. They also regarded women as unable to think or work, and that Doctors shouldn't either embarrass themselves or their female patients by examining women's genitals. This caused untold diseases and mortalities that were often avoidable.

You see, that's the problem about nostalgia, it's usually based on a false premise. Our heads are filled with fantasies by movies and books, that portray the past as a utopia, where everyone lived in a Constable painting, ate fresh hand-reared meat and never got ill or died before their threescore years and ten. But anybody with a passing knowledge of actual history will tell you that that is a fantasy. In comparison to now, the past is a dark and dangerous place. Disease was rife until very recently, medical science barbaric and operations carried out with no pain relief. Women died needlessly in childbirth, the infant mortality rate was huge and millions starved to death. And until very recently ordinary people didn't even have a vote, but were instead ordered about like property by the upper classes.

But what disturbs me most is how gullible people are. First off they so readily buy this 'we need to get back to traditional values' claptrap, what like cholera and open sewers ? But then they allow themselves to be manipulated by people who don't really believe the same thing. Take the Tea Party for example. They have been legitimised by several leading Republicans that have approved them. Do those senior politicians really back them ? Of course not, but they see the Tea Party as a useful agitant to be thrown at the incumbent government. This can create the illusion of a popular backlash and the movement can say things that mainstream politicians cannot. But when the right gets the white house back just see how they'll be forgotten, disposed of, their job done.

We can't go back to the past, or at least a fantasy version of it, and we shouldn't want to. Christianity has only been around for 2000 years but humans have been around in one form or another for maybe 1,000,000. Those early humans didn't worry about morality, just survival. And by the way, where did the souls of all the pre-Christians go ? Those earlier people realised that the natural world supported them so they never took too much, and then they developed farming about 6,000 years and started to live in large groups. And despite their lack of scientific knowledge they survived, had sex and had babies. Chastity didn't exist for these people, and thank God or you and I wouldn't be here with our Macs and designer coffees. So all I'm saying is this, if we want to really learn from the past then let's get the facts straight. As Churchill said, 'the further you look back, the further forward you can see'.

That Sound You Can Hear Is The Bottom Of The Barrel Being Scraped

2011-03-04T16:54:00.002+01:00

Just when you thought that George Lucas couldn't possibly wring any more money out of the Star Wars films, he comes up with another zinger. He's going to re-release them all in 3D, one per year, for the next 6 years. Oh and that's in addition to a blu-ray release (the fifth in all) of the films this September.

Where most film makers earn money by making new films, George Lucas has decided to not do that and instead live the rest of his life from 6 older films, only three of which are any good. As a business model this is quite clever and doesn't require much actual work. Of course if you're a consumer you might feel that being sold the same product 6 or 7 times in a slightly different format is taking 9 shades of piss. And the latest cash cow is 3D, a process which results in an image 30% darker than normal, gives you a splitting headache and costs a lot more to a buy a ticket for.

But what's particularly horrible about the Star Wars films, is that they have generated a very particular, super-loyal following. That following has made many fortunes, and in return those fans have had their pockets dipped into over and over again. What's worse is all these things are launched by the film companies with the attitude that they are doing you a favour when it's the other way round. What other fans would willingly pay full price for endless re-issues of 35 year old movies ? And what other film makers would shamelessly take it ? Of course you can argue that Star Wars will be great in 3D, that those star destroyers rumbling across the screens will be amazing, and that the films will be almost a new product. But am I the only one who would like to see George Lucas spend his time making something else, all those 'smaller' films that he's always talking about but never actually making ? No, all he's concentrating on is making money. Like he needs it, lumberjack shirts are not that costly.

So Then...

2011-03-02T20:40:00.002+01:00

As predicted on this very blog, and pretty much everywhere else, the new iPad 2 has been launched. I have been waiting for this moment since I decided to skip the first generation and wait for this model before deciding to buy. I've just seen the specs for the new model and they boil down to this: faster, slimmer, cameras. And that's it.

Now I won't pretend that I'm not a little disappointed that the screen hasn't been improved. Good though the screen is it isn't as good as the one on my iPhone 4 and that tech has been out 6 months. But having seen the launch it's obvious that Apple's priority has been to keep the price down, and they've done just that. The new model is stupidly thin, has HD video, lots of new power and lots of new apps. You can also connect it to a 1080p display if you like, even though it isn't 1080p itself. Also, the announcement that it's the model for 2011 suggests that iPad 3 will be out this time next year.

So here's my dilemma, do I buy it ? Well the upgrade is good, but not spectacular. There's no one 'wow' feature that makes it a must buy, and it's remarkably similar to it's forebear in many many ways. If I had an iPad 1 I wouldn't buy this. But I don't. I imagine the screen I fancy will still be 12 months off, so do I wait again or just plunge in ? That's the great problem with modern electronics, it all moves so fast that you wonder if you wait a bit longer will the holy grail suddenly appear at your local Dixons ? And of course anything you buy now will certainly be out of date in less than a year, no matter what it is. So my current thinking is this, as I don't have any iPad at all then this one will do me pretty well for at least a year, maybe two. I'm sure that I'll want to upgrade at some stage, but that's inevitable. But for now I think the super basic, bottom of the range model will do me just fine. Until next time.

I'm Rooting For The Swan

2011-02-27T14:59:00.002+01:00

First off I must apologise for my absence for the last week and a half. I've been suffering from what can only be described as bubonic plague, and so I haven't been in the mood to blog, or write or do much more than sit zombie-like in front of the TV. I'm not sure where this plague came from, given that I take an almost obsessive interest in healthy living and eating. I guess my body missed that meeting.

Anyway, film geek that I am I can't let the Oscars pass by without some comment. I've seen most of the films nominated this year and I have a few thoughts. Obviously all the Brits are rooting for 'The King's Speech'. It's an Oscar friendly film in that it features history, disability and the triumph of an underdog. Colin Firth is also very good in it and I think is favourite for Best Actor. I also liked 'True Grit' and especially enjoyed Matt Damon's oddball performance as the dandy bounty hunter. I tried to watch 'The Social Network' but got turned off by all that arrogance, and wasn't sure I wanted to spend 2 hours with such arseholes.

But by far my favourite nominated film is Darren Aronofsky's 'The Black Swan'. Firstly I really like this director. I've seen most of his stuff including the truly bizarre 'The Fountain'. He has something different to most other young talents, and his work is always worth watching. But I was enthralled by 'The Black Swan' from first frame to last. He creates an uneasy, horror-like atmosphere, always leaving you on edge and unsure of what will happen next. Portman is perfect in the lead (surely a cert for Best Actress) and supporting players like Mila Kunis and Vincent Cassel round out the cast nicely. But man of the match here is Aronofsky, playing a game of cat and mouse with his audience, daring you to second guess what he's going to do next. His film is daring, different and fantastic entertainment.

Sadly it's also quite dark, and these types of films rarely win Oscars. 'Goodfellas' was easily the best film of 1990, as was Raging Bull in 1980. But both dealt with the dark side of life and were beaten by 'feel-good' films that were perfectly competent but not in the same league as Scorsese's masterworks. Ironically when Scorsese finally won the Oscar it was for a film that at best was a watered down version of 'Goodfellas'. I suspect the same may happen with Aronofsky, and perhaps he'll get his consolation Oscar in 15 years time when he's past his peak period. Still, Oscar gets it wrong an awful lot, so if you haven't already done so, go and see Natalie Portman losing her marbles and Arononfsky producing the best film of the year. And then watch it lose at the ceremony.

It's Time For My Tablet

2011-02-16T11:35:00.002+01:00

Regular readers of this blog will understand the intricate, love/hate relationship I have with Apple. On one hand I love their products (except for Apple TV), but on the other I dislike their corporate greed and the need to control everything you do with their devices. But for now they still have me on side.

They are also responsible for the creation of the market for tablet computers. Their iPad is a terrific idea, brilliantly executed and miles ahead of the competition. But that competition is slowly catching up, and HTC have unveiled their own device that is the first real challenge to the iPad. But Apple won't be too fussed, for they have iPad 2 nearly ready to launch. The internet is tiresomely awash with rumours about what specs it'll have, and both extremes are mooted. Some say it'll be more iPad 1.5 with a slight increase in specs but nothing too exciting. Others argue it'll be the electronics equivalent of the second coming, with cutting edge features.

Personally I think it'll be pretty impressive. Apple don't disappoint when it comes to this stuff, and I expect that when they unleash what will be their model for the next 12 months, it'll be very very good indeed. And I'm all poised to get one. I like the e-reading feature best of all, and I'm now accustomed to reading books on the iPhone. I also fancy getting Empire magazine and The Times iPad editions instantly and pretty cheaply. I like the idea that I can store a library of books on a device the size of a pad of A4 paper, and also that along with these aspects it can be used pretty much as a fully featured laptop. I held back on the iPad 1, expecting to see a big improvement in the second generation. And now I'm ready for Steve Jobs or someone else from Apple to pull on a turtle neck sweater and laconically announce the iPad 2 at a press conference at Cupertino. Don't let me down lads !!

Just Indulge Me For A Moment

2011-02-16T10:51:00.002+01:00

I think I said below about how I loved Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. That thing with the Olympic stadium was unfortunate and is thankfully behind us, and last night they got back to doing what they should be focussing on, football. They are in the Champions League for the first time ever, and I actually subscribed to one of the football channels over here just so I could watch them play A.C. Milan last night.

Now as a long time Spurs fan I wasn't expecting or really hoping that they would win. I just wanted to see them play in the competition because who knows how long it'll be before it happens again. So imagine my delight when they not only played Milan off the pitch for large stretches of the match, but then nicked a goal at the end and actually won the game !

For us Spurs fans every match in the Champions League has been a joy and a shock. If you'd have told us we'd have even got into the competition this time last year we'd have been sceptical to say the least. But if you'd have told us we'd be beating Milan away in the knockout stages we'd have laughed if your face. And yet it happened last night. Only goes to show, you don't have to support Chelsea or Man Utd to enjoy your football. Of course there's still another game to play in London next month and Milan are a great team. So I will watch the second leg in the same way as the first, expecting nothing but just enjoying the ride. But what a ride it's been already !

Was Bill Hicks Right All Along ?

2011-02-14T15:33:00.002+01:00

For those of you who don't know, and shame on you by the way, Bill Hicks was the greatest stand up comedian that ever lived. He was brave, painfully honest and totally uncompromising. His material was at times extremely strong stuff, and there was often an underlying anger that didn't seem manufactured. But I have never heard anyone who managed to be so funny and so perceptive, and to me those two things go hand in hand. And one of his main contentions was that modern pop/rock music was pathetic compared to that of the past. That trying to compare Jimi Hendrix and Debbie Gibson was in itself laughable. So I can only wonder what he would have made of last night's Grammys.

I didn't see the show but I understand that Justin Bieber and Jaden Smith opened the evening. That on its own would have provided dear old Bill with at least 15 minutes of material. Then the evening dragged on for Lady Gaga to be rewarded and then the likes of Arcade Fire and Muse. Now, it's pretty easy to dimiss the likes of Bieber (Timberlake for the tweenies) and Gaga (so synthesised that she probably doesn't even recognise her own voice). Pop will always produce these creatures, and their huge inexplicable record sales keep the business going.

But here's the thing. As I write this I have on Arcade Fire's 'Suburbs' album that won big last night. And while it's harmless enough it is also totally unmemorable. To me it sounds just like any other guitar band, and not one tune suggests itself to me as one I could recall if pressed to do so. Perhaps the lyrics are what makes it good, but I can't understand a word of them so that doesn't help either. Now I know they are really, really cool, but past that I don't see how one would pick them out of a crowd of similar bands. And as Bill said, can you compare them to the likes of The Who, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd ? Or Hendrix for that matter ? To my mind no.

Obviously I'm harking back to another age, but if you can resist the easy temptation to declare me 'old' and move on, this may be worth considering. I was a toddler when most of those names where at their peak, and in the case of Hendrix he was already dead. But yet I've discovered all this music as I've got older and I find it much more satisfying than the heroes of today. I have no real bias either way, I just know what my ears prefer. And pretty much everything that appeared at the Grammys I wouldn't want to have for free. Which of course I could if I wanted to, but I just can't be bothered.

I Love Spurs But This Is The Right Decision

2011-02-11T17:32:00.002+01:00

Okay, allow me to lay my credentials out in front of you. I fell in love with Tottenham Hotspur Football Club in 1981, when Ricky Villa ran through Manchester City's defence and scored the winning goal in the F.A. Cup final. The style and elan of that team captivated me, and it's always been the Spurs way to try and play with style. As I found out in later years this often meant losing in style, but there it is. I'm an aesthete at heart and so Spurs appeal to me.

I love Apple computers because they look great despite the fan base being smug and tragic at the best of times. I love Italian cars because they are cooler than Samuel L. Jackson's fridge, even if they break down more often than Owen Hargreaves. I love design, style and prettiness much more than stuff that is functional and er, works. I always support Brazil at the World Cup because of the way they play, at least I did when they were still Brazil. I mean the days of Pele, Zico, Socrates and Ronaldo, NOT the times of Robinho, Alves and the cast of league journeymen that make up the current team.

I've followed Spurs through thick and thin (and it's been pretty sodding thin mostly) just for those moments when they score a nice goal. After all, unless you are employed by the team in question, what's the point of winning silverware ? Sure you can gloat at work for a few days, and you'll feel good for the rest of that day, but that's about it. In the end someone else gets the glory, you just happen to own the same replica shirt as them. So for me I don't really support winners, but people with a bit of style.

However the last year or two Spurs have seen their best period of success for 30 years. Finishing 4th in the league last year was a huge achievement, and against all the odds they've made it to the second round of the Champions League and face AC Milan next week. They currently have a really exciting squad, the best English manager in the Premiership and a confidence about them that they haven't had as long as I've been watching them. But this stadium business was a mistake.

My second team has always been West Ham (yes the family are all cockernees), and I'm pleased that they got hold of the Olympic Stadium. Firstly Stratford is proper East London, and West Ham are THE East End club. Spurs are from North London. Second, keeping the athletics track was a bind but if we hadn't then we'd have admitted to building a rubbish Olympic stadium, that was so crap it was destined to stand for two weeks and then be demolished. Third, Spurs would have pissed off a lot of people which would be unfair on the playing staff who are nothing to do with this. Fourth Spurs should stay in Tottenham rather than move to another part of London. If Arsenal can pull it off so can they.

So I'm pleased that West Ham will take over the stadium. They are a better fit for it, and it means that Spurs will be forced to build the new stadium next door that they already have planning permission for. And my two favourite teams will both get a shiny new ground. Result. Now, if they could both contrive to being a little less shit, that'd be the icing on the cake.

Bring It Fernando !!

2011-02-09T20:49:00.003+01:00

One of the oddities about being an Englishman living in Spain is that everyone wants to talk about F1. In particular they ask this question 'do you actually like Hamilton ?'. To which my answer is always 'Do you mean World Champion Lewis Hamilton ?'. That normally answers it.

Let's get one thing clear, the Spanish HATE our Lewis. This is because their hero, Fernando Alonso, threw his toys out of the pram when he was at McLaren and they didn't let him win. Boo fucking hoo. The fact that he should have manned up and beaten Hamilton on the track seems to be conveniently forgotten. Instead his girly whinging is what they take as evidence that he was hard done by.

So imagine my quiet pleasure when Fernando had the F1 drivers' title at his mercy last year and then buggered it up by driving like an old woman in the last race. It took a very great physical effort not to run down the street shouting 'Suck it Alonso !!'. Of course Spain has suddenly fallen in love with F1 because they have a champion. Before Alonso they didn't know what F1 even meant. When we were watching James Hunt in the 70s and Nigel Mansell in the 80s, the Spanish were probably standing outside on those Sundays and eating a variety of splendid rice dishes in total ignorance that something VERY IMPORTANT was happening on the race tracks of Europe.

Now of course they're as addicted as the rest of us. And Spain actually has two Grands Prix, the official one in Barcelona and the European GP where I live in Valencia. In fact the first F1 test of the season took place just up the road at the motorcycle track about 10 miles from where I sit right now. And the new season is weeks away and thus the rivalry between England and Spain will resume. At football we are a sad disgrace, Spain are World AND European champions. In tennis, the god-like Rafael Nadal holds French, Wimbledon and U.S. Open titles, as well as the Olympic title and the number 1 world ranking. But when it comes to F1 we can actually win at something ! Most of the teams are based in England, and we have two world champions driving for a British team. The new McLaren appears above, so bring on the new season and bring on the fun. I'll be cheering on the Brits and with an actual hope that they might win !

Enough To Give You The Horn ?

2011-02-08T21:38:00.002+01:00

I was a teenager in Britain, during the years that Margaret Thatcher was prime minister. I saw first hand the division, pain and above all unemployment that her reign created. She was one of the most loathed politicians I can ever remember, and at her height she ruled over the U.K. more like an overlord than an elected official. But then she got old, and retired and now, 21 years after she left office they are finally making a Hollywood film about her. Meryl Streep is playing Mrs. T, and a cast of other British actors are making up the rest of the roles. And I have a problem with it.

First off, in this photo, old Meryl looks far more attractive than Margaret Thatcher ever has in her life. In the photo, we are almost moving into MILF territory, and that disturbs and confuses me. For my generation Thatcher was only a woman in the sense that her birth certificate said so. She has two children but the concept of her actually having sex seems about as remote as sexual intercourse between panes of glass.

Also, Meryl Streep has charisma, charm and presence. Now, here's where my former posh job gives me some insight. When I was training to be a barrister I had to undertake a number of formal dinners at the Inner Temple in London. Often there were famous people in attendance, and Princess Diana attended on one night and glittered away behind her jewels. But on another night Mrs. Thatch came along and gave a talk. I was no more than 20 feet from her for the whole evening and I watched intently. This was when she was maybe three years out of office, and her speech was self-congratulatory, smug and delivered with that famous hectoring tone. The absence of charisma, and god forbid sex appeal was noticeable.

So what can we expect from the movie ? Well I suppose the character will be sensitive, layered and many others things that she wasn't in real life. Hollywood has a history of remaking the past in its own image, and this isn't an Oliver Stone movie. But worst of all it'll have Streep in it, an actress impossible to dislike in any role, and who may just walk off with yet another Oscar for her pains. And there will be a powerful tendency to actually like Margaret Thatcher, perhaps even fancy her ! Still it could be worse, if Helen Mirren was playing the role men would be getting the poster and retreating to the toilet with it. And that would be deeply, deeply worrying.

Piss Taking Sans Frontiers

2011-02-07T11:43:00.002+01:00

My God the media must be bored in the U.K.. Have they really not got anything better to do than study Top Gear for potentially offensive comments and then blow them up into a rather pathetic storm ? Last week's row over comments about Mexicans can only have come about due to a slow news week. Even more bizarre, Steve Coogan wrote a long rather poe-faced article in The Observer about how awful the comments were. Really Steve ?

Jeremy Clarkson has a certain persona and sense of humour. It's always been the same and it's a Marmite type of thing, you either love it or hate it. If you fall into the latter camp then don't watch him, it's as simple as that. If you do then be prepared for a barrage of jokes, all skirting along the line of offensiveness. Some fall the wrong side of the line, others don't. Was the Mexico stuff funny ? No, not at all. It was the wrong side of the line and came across as offensive rather than amusing. But there was also a good deal of piss taking of Australians, Germans and the British in the same show. I don't remember anyone being up in arms about that.

Over the years Top Gear has become one of the BBC's most successful shows. At the heart of that success is Clarkson, a presenter that has built an entire career on an edgy type of humour. The BBC know this and continue to employ him year in, year out. And that's because the vast majority of people understand the difference between a joke and an insult. They are intelligent enough to see the difference and sufficiently mature so that they don't take offence over every little comment. Perhaps after claiming the scalps of two football commentators over things they said off air, the media now think TV is like politics, that a story can be created just from seeking the dismissal of someone from their job. Let's hope that doesn't happen because what little TV that's still worth watching will then be gone too.

And as for Steve Coogan I find his self-righteous take on the thing astonishing. His characters over the years have traded on a very similar type of humour, Alan Partridge in particular. He acknowledges this and points out that in his case the humour is derived from laughing at the person that makes the insult, rather than the target of the comment. That's all very well but is everyone in on the joke, does everyone watching the show chuckle away ironically or are many just laughing at the insult ? It's a problem that the also similar Ricky Gervais has in defending his material. As for the Top Gear presenters, they are mining the very same ground as these comedians. As a result they are going to cock it up from time to time, but there's no need for a pointless with hunt EVERY WEEK ! We the public are able to decide ourselves, without the press telling us when we should be outraged and when we should laugh. That's what the 'off' button on the TV is for.

Learning Something New

2011-02-06T16:54:00.002+01:00

Most young people hate being educated. I certainly did, school was something of a hell for me. I remember being terrorised by exams from an early age. After the age of about 12, every June up to the age of about 22 was characterised by the horror of the words 'turn over your papers and begin'. It must have gotten into my psyche, because I'm still prone to an exam anxiety dream and usually wake up under the impression that I have an impossible amount of revision to do. And the result of all this was a set of letters after my name, and qualifications on a CV that these days go largely unused.

But that was then. Forcing knowledge into the head of a child is like forcing food into their mouths, hard work and ultimately unrewarding. When you grow up, find your profession, and learn how to do it then you have a new possibility, to learn for fun. Some people do that law degree they were never able to the first time round, others learn to draw or paint. In my case I want to do something artistic even though I have no ability with a pencil or paint brush. So photography is what I've decided upon, along with the piano a little later this year. So far I've invested in some nice equipment (Canon dSLR check) and am starting to learn the basics of composition, and camera settings. It's early days but I feel I've already made progress. Just from knowing a few fundamentals it's surprising how quickly your photos improve.

The one I took here is into the sun, with a large depth of field and a low ISO setting. I'm quite pleased with it and it's from a set I took at the beach this morning. It's terribly nice at my age to be able to take up something new, and actually enjoy learning about it. It's a unique experience and one that I intend to replicate.

Hail Caesar !!

2011-02-03T21:02:00.002+01:00

Oh Silvio !

That's a phrase which, allegedly, many beautiful young women have moaned over the last few years. You may have noticed the media scrum that is descending on Italy's prime minister. The allegation is, that 72 year old Silvio, is a bit of a dirty old man. To wit, it's alleged that he's paid lots of models or dancers or 'showgirls' to have sex with him. And of course we're all horrified. Aren't we ?

2000 years ago this sort of behaviour was run of the mill in Imperial Rome. If the Emperor of the day fancied a bit of totty he either used a tasty slave or sent out for takeaway. Either way he got what he fancied and nobody gave much of a damn about it. In fact the doings of Signor Berlusconi look like Play School compared to the antics of Caligula, Nero and various other nut jobs that used to run the planet. I expect Italy's prime minister looks at the statues of ancient Rome and wishes he was back there, he'd have fitted in beautifully.

Of course this all goes back to the eternal debate of whether a politician's sexual exploits have any bearing on his ability to run a country. And it's nothing new. Prime Ministers and Presidents have been shagging away on the side since time began. And the grand champion of them all ? If certain accounts are to be believed, the sainted JFK had a strike rate that would put Motley Crue to shame. Of course in those days the press took a more reverential approach to leaders, and in any event Kennedy was assassinated only 1000 days into power.

But going back to dear old Silvio, one has to wonder what the motivation is for this witch hunt. Is it just a convenient way to get rid of a political rival or are there serious concerns about his competence for the job ? And of course this isn't a million miles away from the Clinton saga a few years back. And through all the poe-faced 'tut-tutting' of press and rivals alike, it seems to me that there's a certain amount of schadenfreude going on. After all, when one looks at the role call of stunning women he's supposed to have bedded, it would take a strong man to look at it and not think 'Shit, I never got this sort of action, let's get the bastard !!'. But I'm sure the motives behind all this are pure. Ahem.

The Age Of Pirating Is Ending

2011-02-02T11:33:00.003+01:00

They've finally done it. After years of trying to stop piracy, the powers that be have finally found a way of spoling all the fun. For years tens of millions of people all over the globe have been to download stuff for free, but it seems that the party is now ending.

First off they tried to sue individual downloaders. But it didn't work, they came off as arseholes, and from a practical point of view you can't sue ten million people. Then they tried disconnecting people but that doesn't work either. But now I think they've found the solution.

What they do now is go straight to the site where you download from and shut that down instead. This is easier, quicker and rather effective. Of course it'll take a while to get them all, but the process has started and it isn't going to stop. People will argue, battle and complain about freedom of the net, but it's a rather spurious argument if we're honest. In the end it's not really workable for people to never pay for a CD or film again. Of course it would help if the retail prices for stuff weren't so greedy, or if the product wasn't so variable in quality. These days it's simply impossible to watch every film, read every book and listen to every CD out there. Downloading gave people a way of trying stuff that they normally wouldn't risk.

Of course what really needs to happen is the creation of proper, cheap and legitimate download services. Spotify is a great example of what can be done. I use it more than the stuff I have on iTunes because it has a greater choice, and it's quicker. I don't need to own an album to listen to it, and this is the key. Imagine if you could do the same with TV shows and movies, you'd do it wouldn't you. You'd even pay a fee as long as it was reasonable. Look at Hulu and Netflix in the U.S.. Why does anyone download in the States with those services around ? We don't have that stuff in Europe, but perhaps the end of piracy will mean that it's worth investing in such an enterprise. I hope so. The BBC are launching an international iPlayer later this year. Great, just make sure you don't overcharge for it boys ok ?

I think in the end the piracy phenomenon has shown the huge appetite there is for media in all forms. But people want it to be cheap, delivered online and easily available. So I just hope that as the media corporations finally get their way, they learn what their consumers really want. If not they may feel the sting of a backlash.

Oh God Please Don't Tweet Me !!

2011-02-02T11:13:00.002+01:00

Now here's a swift turnaround. Just a few posts ago I told you about my new Twitter account, encouraged you to follow me and other stuff. Look below if you want, or in fact don't because that post looks a little too needy for my tastes.

Anyway I've decided to come clean. I HATE TWITTER. And more than that I hate the obsession the media has with it. Apparently, it's now legitimate to report that some celeb or other has posted something, or responded to something or closed their account. This is NEWS !! On the TELLY !! What kind of a world are we living in ?

I don't care what topics are 'trending', I don't care how many followers you have and I don't care what you had for your breakfast. I thought I could do it this I really did. I thought I could follow people, and maybe they'd follow me, and maybe I'd er, oh I don't know what. What was I thinking ? Did I want to promote myself, or this blog ? I honestly can't tell you because I don't know myself. And as soon as I went on there I felt an immediate dragging feeling, like my soul was starting to drain away. I only followed three people, and I just can't be bothered any more. It has to stop, and stop now. So, please don't follow me on Twitter, don't tweet me and don't expect me to be there. Here is where you'll find me on the net, and nowhere else.

Declaration Of Independence !

2011-02-02T09:55:00.005+01:00

I've just had my own 'Sputnik Moment'. This morning I was going to write a blog post about my troubles and trials in trying to get a book published. I was going to moan about how hard it is to get an agent, the obstacles you have to clear and all that toss. But I can't be bothered.

Here's the thing, I like writing but I have no interest in the publishing business. I don't want a damn agent, and I can't be bollocksed to grovel at the feet of one just so I might be allowed to possibly be put forward for publication. Fuck that.

I have been writing in my spare time for 23 years. I have never had anything published, accepted, favourably commented on or praised in any way at all. I've never belonged to a writers group, gone to a creative writing class or done any networking of any type. I hate networking, it is the creation of the Devil. Having bland conversations with someone you don't care about just on the remote off chance it might lead to a contact ? You can stick that right up your sweaty white arse thank you very much.

But despite all this I still spent most of last night working on a book. It'll never be read by anybody, never receive a 'deal', never be reviewed and never be released in paperback. It'll end its days sat on my hard drive, gathering virtual dust. And I really don't give flying, vibrating, dildo-sprouting toss. The pleasure it's given me over the years far outweighs any disappointment I ever had in failing to interest anyone in it. And clearly my almost complete lack of any success with it or any other project hasn't dampened my enthusiasm at all. I still love writing. I love writing this post, I love editing my chapters, and I'm going to love the ghost story I'm starting later this year.

There is, let's face it, a societal pressure to monetarise everything you do these days. It isn't enough to enjoy something, you need to earn out of it. Well, no, you don't. I don't need to make money out of writing, I'm a professional lawyer and teacher. That is my profession, writing is my hobby. I'm also learning how to take decent photographs, and very soon I shall take up the piano. I have no desire to earn any money from these things either. And as regards the writing this means that I will never have a deadline to work to, nor re-writes to do, nor an editor or publisher to please. And I shall carry on writing books until I can no longer do it. Why ? Because I love it, and it beats sitting dead eyed in front of the telly, watching some desperately rubbish reality TV.

So you will never buy my books, nor read some horribly contrived interview with me. And isn't that refreshing ? It means I don't need to become a shameless whore, using Twitter, Facebook and this blog to promote everything I do. It means I don't need to exaggerate every tiny success I have to give the illusion of progress. It means I don't have to start wearing a polo neck jumper and begin the process of disappearing up my own arse. And best of all it means I don't have to care that they don't want my writing any more. They can go back to the latest footballer biography, or cook book or whatever other shite they waste trees on. I on the other hand will carry on writing, and carry on loving it, in the knowledge that no-one can fuck it up for me.

Back For More ?

2011-02-01T18:59:00.002+01:00

Lots of people have gotten annoyed over Ricky Gervais's appearance on The Golden Globes. He hosted the show a couple of weeks back and insulted many of Hollywood's sacred cows, proving them not so sacred after all. They said it was career death, that he'd never work again and that he wouldn't host the show for a third time. Well, according to the man himself, they've just invited him to do it all again next year.

I must say I was fascinated at the media backlash against Gervais. It seemed that the press were mostly taking sides with the insulted celebrities, which is rich for a profession that regularly goes through famous people's trash looking for a story. And rather than praising Gervais for what was a funny and above all else gutsy decision to lay into the great and good, the general consensus was that he'd 'gone too far'. What a load of bollocks.

Since when were a bunch of actors considered to be beyond criticism ? Is this where the cult of celebrity had led us, to a disgust or even fear of lampooning the Hollywood elite ? Aren't these the very same people who lead lives of astonishing selfishness and egotism whilst carefully cultivating a public image that would shame Mother Theresa ? Don't they regularly land in prison, or drug rehab or on a nasty sex tape ? Aren't they renowned for going through sexual partners like horny rabbits, and then asking the world for sympathy because they are 'sex addicts' ?

The real problem here is that we've made the wrong people our role models. In choosing actors, singers and other artists as the people we'd most like to emulate, we've gone horribly wrong. In many cases these 'icons' are appalling hypocrites, leading one type of life whilst pretending to do the opposite. I briefly worked on the edges of the film industry once, and the one thing that everybody involved told me was that all actors are crazy. This may be an unfair generalisation, but in some cases we know it's true. They are often insecure, selfish, hugely ambitious and fairly ruthless. They are also spoilt beyond belief.

So when Ricky Gervais started attacking them he did so in a way that he knew was perilous for his own career. He's only just been accepted as one of the Hollywood faces, and there he is biting the hand that's feeding him. But I was glad to see it. At least he isn't so enamoured with his new friends and colleagues that he can't see their faults, and he's quite prepared to point them out in some detail. Moreover he's a comedian, and you can be sure the organisers knew what they were doing when they hired him. There's no way that he went out there not having told his employers what his script consisted of, and yet they let him go on. And as a result, The Golden Globes, which in recent years has become less and less relevant, got the best publicity it's had in years.

So of course they'll ask him back next year.

Are Apple About To Fuck It All Up ?

2011-01-28T22:49:00.002+01:00

It used to be easy to be Apple. They were like the official opposition to Microsoft's evil empire. They were the cool option, the renegade computer company battling gamely against the behemoth. As such they had cachet, and it didn't really matter if they sold that many units, because those they sold them to were fiercely loyal. Partly this was a protest vote against MS, and their world domination. But also Apple products were designed to please the eye which was a new concept in computer design. And all was going along just fine, until the iPod turned up.

Because that little box that most of now have, actually made Apple successful. Over the last ten years or so it has propelled them into a world domination of their own, a status only enhanced by the wildly popular iPhone and iPad. Now Apple is the largest electronics company in the world, they have immense cash reserves and every product they release is met with near mania. It's an enviable position isn't it ? So why is it, at their moment of greatest triumph, they look set to set fire to the whole lot ?

Now I'll admit I like their products. This post is being written on an iMac, and very pretty it looks on the screen too. But I've noticed a rather unattractive shift in their style of late. I first noticed it when the iPad came out. They designed the machine without a USB or SD card slot. This meant that if you wanted to take advantage of the iPad's much vaunted video capabilities you had to do it through iTunes, preferably buying content from Apple. Then there was the revelation that Apple devices, whilst all having wi-fi capabilities, could only sync with each other through MobileMe, an expensive Apple subscription service. Also, the famed app store has met with a lot of criticism for ruthlessly controlling the content available there, leading to an alternative 'jailbroken' scene where apps rejected by Apple can be bought for pirated devices.

And then there are the complaints about magazine subscriptions, namely that again they must be bought through Apple, with the latter taking a slice of the profits. So more and more, Apple are creating wonderful equipment to consume film, music and books and then trying to get a stranglehold on where you source that content from. It isn't entirely effective, and it's possible to put pirated stuff on their machines, or content you've got legitimately after converting it with a bit of software. But the point is you shouldn't have to work so hard, or potentially break the law just to have the choice that a normal consumer is entitled to. And by taking advantage of their strong market position Apple are doing exactly what Microsoft did in the bad old days. This isn't cool, it won't appeal to latte supping liberals and it doesn't appeal much to me. And as Microsoft can tell them only too well, an evil empire is easily lost.

This Is Happening

2011-01-28T10:53:00.002+01:00

Paper is dead. Amazon have announced that they now sell more e-books than they do paperbacks. This is a momentum that isn't going to change, ever.

Should we be sad ? Well, I suppose it's comparable to the day that people started buying more CDs than records or more DVDs than videos. Having said that the printed book has been with us for thousands of years, so it's a bigger deal. Early forms of Phoenician writing have been found scrawled into pots, and from the earliest times we've written on a paper like substance, even if at first it was made of animal skin.

But e-books give several advantages over printed ones. Perhaps best of all they're cheaper. Amazon knock out many Kindle editions for 3-4 pounds. This is as it should be as an electronic version has no manufacturing costs and can be delivered for nothing and instantaneously. Apple's iBooks don't seem to understand this and often charge more than the print version for their books.

But Amazon are ahead of the game here. Their Kindle is by far the best e-paper e-reader, and it's only 100 quid, as opposed to 500 for an iPad. The books are cheap and plentiful and the storage space is also no longer a problem. No need for heavy boxes or shelves full of books, nowadays your whole library is stored on a hard drive. You also have access to dictionaries and encyclopedias within the machine, and it's light, small and fits into an inside pocket with ease. I can see why people buy these things.

These days I try to have a paperless office. It isn't quite perfect but I'm closer to it than you might think. And as much as I love my printed books, they take up a sod load of space, and we only have a fairly small flat. So while there may be certain problems with going electronic, to my mind the pros outweigh the cons by far. Now, all we need is for the film and TV companies to get their acts together and introduce internationally available and affordable download services for their products and we will truly be in the information age. Can't happen soon enough for me.

If This Is What You Aspire To Then You May Have Some Issues

2011-01-28T09:27:00.003+01:00

I'm a great one for health and fitness. I've spoken before on this blog about how when I used to live in England I let my health go. I became dependent on hamburgers, and takeaways and beer. This is all a very English thing to do, given the fact that it's dark 9 months of the year and also damp. How do you stave off the misery of all that weather ? You find comfort in something else. Perhaps food or drink. It's really really hard to be fit and healthy in England, I know because I tried and failed.

So when I moved abroad, pretty much top of my 'to do' list was to get fit. And this proved hard because changing the habits of a life time is a bitch. I found out that I drank beer because I liked it. I ate McDonalds things because I loved them. I didn't exercise because it hurts. So just because it was sunny outside didn't mean I turned into a fitness guru.

But there are other aspects to it. Comfort food and drink has its drawbacks. Indigestion, in my case to the point of agony. Listlessness, always feeling tired, and 10 colds a winter. And worst of all a naked body that looked like cookie dough glued to a skeleton. Of course this last point isn't an issue when you live in England, mainly because it's so shittingly cold that the the only time anybody ever sees your abdomen is in your holiday snaps. But out of sight is definitely out of mind.

Three years later I can honestly say that I know how to be fit, healthy and thin. And it isn't easy. Perhaps the hardest part of it is the sacrifice. You know there are things in life that you don't want to live without ? It could be wine, or pizzas or even smoking. These are things that aren't just enjoyable but also necessary. They take the edge off, help you cope with the pressures of life. Well, all those things, they have to go. One of the scariest things you can do in life is take a look at a calorie/health website and find out what all those things actually do to you. Obviously the manufacturers keep it damn quiet, but some of these foods and drinks are killing us.

But if you build your world view around the fact that you 'need' three glasses of wine every night then you cannot be fit. You need to realise that you don't need these things, that they are just a habit. Of course when you first give them up it feels like a favourite toy has been taken away, but after a while it gets easier. And after a couple of weeks you stop missing them, that's when you realise that you never needed them at all. And when you wake up without a hangover, or without indigestion, or without a heavy cold you start to see the very large benefits of a healthier lifestyle. Over the last three years I can tell you that I've tried most things. And by a country mile the best thing you can do is change your diet. Cut out fats, sugar and add in fruit and veg. The difference is instant and amazing.

But then there's exercise. This is the second component of the thing, and even harder to do. First off there's the time needed. If you go to a gym it's time consuming and expensive. You also have the problem of the inevitable arseholes that you will inevitably encounter there. If you have a full time job or children it's hard to make this time. It's also hard to muster the energy at the weekends or evenings. But this is another thing that gets better with time. Once exercise becomes a part of your life you miss it when you don't go. You realise it's nice to lose flab and tone up. And you like the colour that cardio exercise brings to your face. You don't have to become a muscle-bound monster, or a tight buttocked princess. So long as you get out of breath a few times a week, then you are doing something useful for yourself.

And that brings me to the photo above. Because sometimes you can go too far. These days it seems that every actor or actress spends every free moment at the gym. All the men have preposterous abs, all the women ridiculously thin waists. Let me tell you now that in normal life this is impossible. The amount of time and effort that goes into these bodies is unavailable to most of us. And in any event as you get older it's much harder to get a six pack or a perfect bum. But this doesn't mean that we aren't bombarded by these images night and day. I was in a department store the other day and there was a large picture of a guy in his pants and nothing else. His body was so good that I felt like cutting my wrists, and I exercise a lot. But I knew that I could never get close to him no matter how I tried. This is because he's 20 years younger than me and has probably been working out since he was a foetus. It's also his job to look extraordinary.

Most of us can't look like that, and it's fine. Just being a perfect physical specimen isn't the be all and end all. One day the people in all those photos will grow old and bald, or fat and saggy. Things like intelligence, compassion and hard work far outweigh a 6-pack. And remember, to be clever is something with you a lifetime, whereas a hard body will be long gone by 45. So don't put too much pressure on yourself, just be glad that you take care of yourself and that the guy in the poster is probably a narcissistic dick. Having said all that, it doesn't hurt to eat an apple from time to time.

How Exactly Has This Happened ?

2011-01-24T22:40:00.002+01:00

Perhaps I've been away from England too long. It's nearly 3 years since I left and in that time much has apparently changed. In particular, an incubus whose human form is known as 'Piers Morgan' has apparently become hugely famous. From what I can tell this is on the basis of a show called 'Britain's Got Talent' (although this title is surely ironic?) and a series of celebrity interviews where he apparently gets people to cry. I imagine by turning up.

His colossal fame has now reached such heights that he has replaced Larry King as the inquisitor in chief of CNN. And so I ask the question again, how has this happened ? When I used to live in England Piers Morgan was pretty much reviled. I recall him being sacked as editor of the Daily Mirror and then torn a new one by Ian Hislop on Have I Got News For You. At this point I imagined he would abandon his human form, and slither away under a nearby rock. But this hasn't happened, instead it seems he's now popped up in America, with all the fanfare of someone who's actually good at something.

I watched a little excerpt from his new show the other day, as he was demonstrating an impressive inability to do any single American accent convincingly. I wonder what his new bosses thought about that ? Do you think they shrugged their shoulders and said 'that Piers !' before laughing heartily and slapping each other on the back ? Or do you think that a deathly silence fell over the gallery as they looked slowly at each other, horror dawning on their faces ? I certainly know which one it was for me.

Of course maybe it's just me that finds that the sound of Mr. Morgan's voice brings a little retch to their throat. Perhaps America will be so taken with him that they'll change their constitution and make him president. Perhaps all of Britain are at this very moment mourning the loss of a national icon, a hero to millions and a role model to a generation ? Or perhaps they are rubbing their hands with glee that they've finally gotten the fucker off their telly ? If so then I can imagine a scene where the executives at CNN are desperately searching the packing cases that Piers Morgan was delivered in, looking for the receipt.

See Hot Nudes Here !!

2011-01-24T17:36:00.006+01:00

Has it come to this ? Do I really need to ramp up my internet traffic by including such brazen words and images ? This blog has been going for nearly 6 years, and has been viewed by people as far afield as Beijing, Buenos Aires and Cheltenham. I've had abusive comments, people trying to sell me Viagra by the box load and people who - most shockingly of all - actually seem to have carefully read my posts. Some have even included thoughtful comments. And yet still, still I find myself in this unseemly quest for internet traffic.

Of course it doesn't help that I've threatened to close this blog down with alarming regularity. My toys have been thrown out of the pram so many times that these days I just leave them on the floor. I've over reacted, under reacted and generally stressed about things that have happened on this blog. Some people have come, and gone again. Others have stayed around and been jolly nice to me. And in return I've confidently predicted that blogging is dead, it's a load of old rubbish and that all who practise it should be poked with sticks.

But I've realised something. I like writing. I may not be good at it in the conventional sense (and by good I obviously mean competent, able or talented) but despite that, and thanks to the internet, I get published every day. People from all over the world read me (although I accept that many of these have stumbled across me whilst looking for photos of nude women in melted butter) and only a small proportion tell me that I'm a tosser. If I were a conventional writer I'd have to have an agent, which would entail going through checklists a mile long, licking more arse than is good for the tongue and ultimately having to have daily phone calls with a man called Simon. In fact when I look at lists of 'How To Get Published' it looks so complicated that the process I once undertook of qualifying as a barrister looks like a breeze by comparison.

And I know as we all do, that conventional publishing on paper and shit, is dead. Apple applied one of the first nails to that particular coffin last year and will continue to nail it shut in the next few months with the iPad 2. Some agents and publishers actually ask you to send in a manuscript on paper, with stamps !! Sorry what is this, 1986 ? Now, I like the feel of (amongst other things) a book in my hand as much as the next person. But those days are ending forever, and my iPhone has dozens of books on it, is with me everywhere and you can press a word on the screen and find out what it means. Try that with a normal book and see what you get. Oh, and my phone also has a light built in so I can read in the dark. Cool !

I've written a novel, two actually. Find me a blogger who hasn't, but when I've sent them off I've either been totally ignored or received a rejection letter addressed to someone with a name that's spelt very similarly to mine. This very off handedness, that many friends have also experienced by the way, made me annoyed at the time. What other industry could afford to treat potential clients that way ? Of course if you are a footballer having a ghost writer do your life story, a page three model having a ghost writer do a novel for you or a comedian doing a not very funny comic novel you're quids in. For the rest of us there's the internet.

Before much longer the internet will be pumped straight into our eyeballs, but for now we'll have to content ourselves with it being present on every electrical device we own. I'll confess I don't go to book shops that often but I look at the internet a worrying number of times per day. And what better way to get your work in front of an audience than blogging ? It's free, and people have lots of choice. If they keep coming back to see your work it means you're doing something right. And it doesn't matter if you're not technically perfect. One of the best read writers in the world is Harry Knowles of 'Aint It Cool News'. His grasp of grammar is uncertain at best and he has no editor. But millions read him anyway. Why, because he writes stuff they like.

And yes, blogging may be diminishing but logically that should be where I thrive. I was never a 'cool kid' at school (and consequently I worked hard and went to University but that's another thing). I rather like to mix with the nerds and outsiders, because if I'm honest, these are my people. Of course there are some blog trends that I HATE. First is contrived quirkiness. Putting up an off beat profile picture of yourself, calling your blog something obscure in the hope that it sounds clever and constantly encouraging the view that you're a loveable eccentric. Fuck Off ! You probably work in Barclays.

Also I can't stand those blogs where people write as if their life is a poem, and they just wash through it like they live in an Eva Cassidy song. All their thoughts are profound and each post must be tied up with a life lesson. You too can fuck off. Are you trying to suggest that your farts smell of lavender, that your underwear is designed by Laura Ashley or that you wear nothing that isn't made of linen ? Do you hang out in Habitat and Starbucks and try desperately to look arty at all times ? You know you're a fraud. We know it too, with every word of your pointless, self-indulgent, cringe-worthy blog.

I like bloggers who tell the truth, who tell it straight and who have something interesting to say. People of that ilk can be found in my links bit and I'm happy to add others when I get round to it. I've always tried to do the same here. No, you don't have my real name but what would you do with that information anyway ? But I am here for you to read whenever you want. I'm free, I shan't put adverts on here, nor followers nor any of those other shitty gadgets that ruin so many blogs. I shall be honest, idiotic and often borderline offensive. All for your reading pleasure. So join me in the unfashionable part of the playground. Bring your naff lunch box, your NHS specs with pink sticking plaster on them and relax. You're among friends here.

When We Were Fab

2011-01-23T07:13:00.004+01:00

What exactly is the purpose of the Chilcot Enquiry ? Is it to expose the truth, because if that's the case they might as well pack up and go home. As anybody who has ever studied the British political system will tell you, half of it is shrouded in secrecy. Presumably this is why Tony Blair's note to George Bush about support for any future action has not been disclosed. God forbid the enquiry can have important documents to enable them to do their job.

So instead good old Tony gave us a paraphrase of what was said. Well if he can do that, why not give us the original document ? Could it be that it's rather more damaging than he's making out ? Even so, the promise he made to the Americans, along the lines of 'whatever you do we'll be there' is surely enough to bury Blair's reputation for good. Want a little more ? Okay then how about his further comment that to then not fulfil this promise would have been 'profoundly wrong'. Or a tacit admission that his plans for war were not discussed with the cabinet, at least not for some time ? You see, who needs secret documents, you just need to allow his mouth to open.

I don't suppose I need to point out that committing an entire country to war on your own is wrong ? Or that then following through on those plans out of politeness is even wronger ? Our system means that any such decision to go to war should be discussed by the cabinet and then parliament, and so to give a promise like this demonstrates an alarming lack of judgement. But it does highlight this question, namely exactly why was he so keen to please the Americans. Was it due to the 'Special Relationship' ? No, because the only people that talk about that are us. It isn't 1941 any more, and sadly the era of British leaders like Churchill is gone forever. As for the Americans the only reason they would have wanted us to go to Iraq was because the war wasn't legal but if they could point to a 'coalition' it would make it look legitimate.

Other European countries didn't go. They were strong enough to say no, they consulted their people and they had the guts to resist. What the hell happened to us ? Well now we are finding out. It seems that Blair was under the mistaken impression that he spoke for all of us, and that we were all so desperate for the approval of the United States that we would commit to a war that was illegal, unjustified and morally wrong in so many ways. In the process we got used, and the reputation of our country was severely damaged. So let's get this straight shall we, and please let's all agree on the following.

The United Kingdom used to be the most important country in the world. We had an empire bigger than that of the Romans, and we had more wealth than almost any other country in human history. But not any more. We lost all of that in two crippling world wars that wiped out a generation of men and bankrupted the country. We gave back our empire, lost our prestige and had to return to being 'just another country'. I know this is traumatic, and when we all watch period dramas it brings a lump to the throat of what we used to have. We still wistfully refer to the U.S.A. as our colony, but in truth our offspring has grown to eclipse us many times over. It is now they that have the wealth, influence and power. And we can't get it all back just by piggy backing on a hare-brained scheme from a deeply unpopular administration that is itself largely discredited just two years out of office. It's over.

We have to accept that we are a European country, not a world power. We still have a seat on the U.N. security council but this is for historical reasons. After all, so does France. Otherwise we've shown that we can't really afford a large military setup any more, as evidenced by the decision to retire two aircraft carriers as soon as they are built. Our transport system is antiquated and broken. The National Health Service has been in a state of permanent crisis for as long as I can remember. Our school system has divided into a two tier affair where normal working people have to send their kids to schools that are often dangerous and drug-ridden, and then can't afford to send them to University. And those are just the obvious things.

Compared to many other countries we are behind. This fact needs to be faced. If there were a league table of countries we would not be challenging for silverware, more likely battling relegation from the first division. And the Chilcot enquiry is a stark reminder of this. If it won't get to any real truth then it's a waste of money. If it won't bring anyone to justice then it's a waste of time. So what is the point of it ? To give the illusion that we are living in a free and open democracy without the inconvenience of actually doing so ? And when we all see Tony Blair bullshitting for all he's worth surely it should be clear to all that we are no longer fab. Perhaps if we can accept that truth then we can start doing something about it ?

Twitter Me Baby

2011-01-22T11:53:00.002+01:00

I have previously used Twitter. That was under another name, and I actually got really bored with the so-called followers I had on there. So I have deleted my old account and started a new one, it is called @WritingFactory. If any of you want to follow me please feel free.

From now on I will be dealing with more literary subjects, writing projects and any information I can give you about my output. I'll also be talking about whatever I fancy at a given moment and time. Twitter is a snapshot of the profound and moronic, I accept this in advance but hope to veer towards the former.

We shall see.

Should We Be Frightened Of This Woman ?

2011-01-20T12:04:00.002+01:00

Isn't it odd how quickly one can rise to international fame these days ? Three years ago almost no-one had heard of Sarah Palin, but now she is one of the most well known political figures in the world. Not only that but she has, according to some, a realistic prospect of becoming the first female president of the United States. However, as much as some love her, there are seemingly just as many who not only loathe what she stands for but genuinely seem to fear her. Or perhaps it's not just fear of her, but more what the world would look like if she was president. But are they correct to be afraid ?

I don't think so.

I'll be honest right here, I dislike what Sarah Palin stands for. Her rhetoric is by its very nature exclusive. She singles out 'the left' as a very obvious enemy, and lays the blame for much of what is wrong with America at their feet. She also seems to be remarkably ignorant for such a famous politician. Her grasp of world affairs is pretty hopeless, she hasn't travelled much and seems to be almost proud of her lack of knowledge. For her this makes her 'just like us'. I personally take that as an insult. And the contention that it makes her fit for high office is a shaky one. Don't we want talented, clever and learned people running the world ?

To portray oneself as just a 'hometown gal' is fine if you want to run the local Walmart, but surely it excludes you from running the most powerful country in the world. You wouldn't choose a Doctor like this 'well he doesn't know much medicine but I can have a beer with him'. And in any event, would you want a beer with Sarah Palin ? And if by some quirk of fate she ever became president you can guarantee that her administration would make that of George W. Bush look like Camelot. It's hard to tell just how much real damage she could do, given that politicians are always visionaries whilst running and pragmatists in office. But she'd make America a laughing stock, that's for sure.

But I'm not frightened of her, and neither should you be. Why ? Because she cannot ever become president.

To win a general election you need to appeal to the majority. You need to persuade people from both sides of the fence to vote for you, and she cannot do that. Her performance over the last few years has demonstrated that her philosophy is that of 'them against us'. She has berated the left over and over, and taken a position on the hard right. This means that come an election there will be vociferous support for her by the tea party movement, but by few others. Moderate Republicans will be turned off by her polarising tactics and Democrats wouldn't vote for her if Hell froze over. This means she could never get close to the white house.

Perhaps she knows this, and I'm certain the Republican party do. You also need to factor in that whatever they say in public, the RNC know that Obama is going to be VERY hard to beat next year. They may have even privately accepted that they can't get the white house back until 2016. And let's face it, they don't have any credible candidates, at present their roster is looking like a choice between Mitt Romney, Mike Huckerbee and Sarah Palin. Three people who all got badly beaten last time around. None of these can realistically beat Obama.

So perhaps 2012 will be a damp squib after all. Obama will deploy his exceptional campaigning powers and increasing popularity and romp home to a landslide, and the RNC will offer a sacrificial lamb and keep their best people locked away until 2016. This may mean that Palin will run, that she might even get the Republican nomination. But don't worry, she can't win.

A Shadowy Figure Returns

2011-01-20T11:05:00.002+01:00

If you look below, you will see a 'final' post on this blog. And in a way, it was. Last December I was a bit fed up with my writing life in general. I felt that blogging was perhaps a waste of time, and that in any event I'd run out of things to say. You can read all the gory justifications below. Well, in the meantime I've replaced my office with a groovy new desk and iMac, got myself writing books again and generally recharged the old batteries. You'll see a new look to this page, and hopefully a new approach. So, stand by, further articles will appear here soon, and I hope to see you back here then.

So Long And Thanks For All The Comments

2010-12-01T14:56:00.003+01:00

This is the 840th and final post on The Writing Factory.

I started this blog in July 2005 and have kept it up fairly regularly since. My initial intention was to practice writing and to perhaps gain some exposure on the web that could lead to something else. Five and a half years later I have blogged about everything I can possibly think of, repeating myself on many occasions. In that time some bloggers have actually become famous, especially those writing about political issues, but I have always found that rather laughable. The mere idea that bloggers are consulted for their opinions on anything is ridiculous, we´re just people sat in a spare room writing about things that we may or may not be informed about. We don´t have the resources of a news organisation nor in most cases the training to write balanced articles about a given topic.

Also, blogging in general has come and gone as a phenomenon. There was a time when it was a vibrant community, but now it´s pretty much dead as many have moved away from it to do other things. Most of the hits I get are for people after the photos that I myself got from a Google search. I´ve also run out of anything meaningful to say here. I can tell you what food I like, or what I think of Obama or whether I exercise regularly. But I could say those things on Twitter too, and it would have no greater importance there than it does here. I´ve also started to repeat myself and in some cases have repeated an article almost verbatim, purely through accident. But what I have taken from this experience is the kind of writing I don´t want to do.

I don´t want to be a critic. It´s much harder to make a CD, film or book than it is to criticise one. There seems to be a plague of people out there whose careers are based on pulling other people´s work to pieces whilst creating nothing meaningful of their own. And while there is a lot of dross around I´d much rather be someone that tries to make something than someone that just takes the piss out of someone else. And how many of us base our decisions of what to consume based on reviews anyway ?

I don´t want to be a columnist. Writing opinion pieces is hazardous. First off you need to be sure of what your opinion actually is, and you often find out that it´s pretty flimsy when you start writing about it. Then you need some confidence that your opinion is valid or justifiable, and how can you ever know that for sure ? And worst of all you risk coming over as someone that just wants to spout their ill informed views at everyone else, like a pub bore. This isn´t attractive or useful.

I do still love writing though and I am not going to stop. I´ve learnt a huge amount from this blog, and from others that have been kind enough to contribute to it. But I´ve also learnt that there are better ways to express yourself than this. What I always wanted was to write properly, hopefully fiction and for a living. That hasn´t happened but I´ve not really put the elbow grease into it. So from now on the time I spend writing will be used to try and create something legitimate. Whether that´s a book, a screenplay or something else I don´t know. Whether these things will ever see the light of day is questionable, but that´s not really the point for me. We live in the age of blogs, Twitter and Facebook, where every idle thought can be published to thousands, and in most cases it would have been better to keep those thoughts to oneself. I shall do that, and will delete my accounts from those places as well as removing my work from Authonomy, where the only way to get anywhere is to strategically back others on the promise that they will back you in return. That isn´t about writing, it´s about politics.

Thanks for all of your input over the years, good and bad. It has undoubtedly made me a better writer. Now it´s time to take that experience and do something else with it.

Take A Tablet, And Call Me In The Morning

2010-11-24T14:38:00.002+01:00

I suppose we have Apple to blame for this. A year ago tablet computers were just a silly idea that had never really taken off. Then along came Apple with their irritating ´making the whole thing viable´nonsense and it seems we´re inundated with the things. Blackberry, HTC and Samsung are all producing one. And the Apple iPad mark 2 is due shortly after the New Year.

Of course they´ve been carefully positioned so that they fit into the existing market without dislodging any other type of machine. So this means you need this AND a smartphone AND a laptop. Perhaps the next invention will be a trolley to wheel them all around on, or perhaps you could work for Apple directly and get paid in gadgets ?

This morning I had two encounters with tablets. First I saw the Samsung version for the first time. First impressions were poor, it being smaller than the iPad and with a screen and software that clearly isn´t as good. On the plus side it had cameras and will do flash, multi tasking and some other stuff that the iPad can´t. Trouble is it feels cheap and plasticky and most bizarrely it is 300 Euros more expensive that the entry level iPad. This is crazy. If it only cost 250 Euros in total I could see people getting it as a cheap alternative to Apple´s leviathan, but given that it costs nearly twice as much and is nowhere near as good, only a fool, or an Apple hater would waste their money on one.

Secondly I had to demonstrate to a friend how to work her new iPad. This gave me a good hour of hands on time with the thing. And I can confirm that it is very good. The screen is nice, the response time excellent, the user interface simple and the functionality as good as the iPhone that it is clearly based on. On the minus side it is quite heavy, looks like it would break if you dropped it from not a great height and that screen although good could be better. On iBooks the individual letters look rather jagged, and when you zoom photos there isn´t much detail. To get technical this is because there are only 150 dots per inch that make up the image, on the new iPhone there are about 350 dots per inch and the image is smooth to the point of madness.

So, my conclusion is that whilst tablets seem to be here to stay, I´m not quite ready for one. When I am the iPad is certainly the best, and compared to the competition, surprisingly cheap. But until they improve the screen I won´t bother. I don´t care about cameras or extra speed because neither of those things is central to what you´ll use a tablet for. But an ultra sharp screen is essential for comfortable book reading, magazine and newspaper perusal and displaying your photos perfectly. Until Apple add that to the package I shall keep my money.

Oh The Horror !!

2010-11-22T14:58:00.002+01:00

One of the more disturbing things about getting older, is that realisation that you will never do certain things again. For instance there are many films that I´ve seen for the final time, several places that I will never go again and a number of people whose faces are now just a memory. Some of these things are beyond our control, but others are a conscious choice.

Yesterday, as with gnawing despair I realised that I´d need to do a third coat of the ´one coat´ paint that I was using, I made a decision. This would be the last time I ever painted in my life. I´ll be honest, it was a relief. I´m absolutely shocking at doing anything with my hands. I can´t do DIY, paint, or pretty much anything else. This makes me a ´disgrace to my sex´ as Woody Allen once put it, and I´ve always felt quite inadequate in the company of someone who can handle a screwdriver properly.

I remember my Dad trying to teach me to do certain things, and my mind just wandered away. Later when I had my own home I tried again, but due to a lack of interest and a catastrophic lack of aptitude these efforts ended in disaster. So I had to end up paying people to do these things, and yet I still felt silly as some burly man came into my house and emasculated me by being good at banging a nail in the wall. I´m surprised that none of them ever offered to service my girlfriend or wife on the way out seeing as how inadequate I was. Clearly I´ve developed something of a complex about this.

Trouble is, DIY is immensely dull. And it hurts, gets you messy and is terribly noisy. I´m now happy enough in my life to state that I don´t care that I can´t do it, and I no longer feel that a man that can is better than me. Everyone must do what he is suited best to, and we all have our own role to play. And without trying to sound like an arsehole, I went to law school so I could afford to pay someone else to do that stuff. Not that I feel superior to those men either, it´s just that we have different strengths. They can repaint my home, and I, if required, can save them from a lengthy prison sentence. You see, it´s all about roles. So from now on I shall be happy to get a man in to do proper jobs in the house, and in the time it takes him to do it, I can earn enough money to pay for the job, materials and have some left over. Everyone wins.

Drowning In Cardboard

2010-11-17T21:43:00.003+01:00

A few weeks ago I decided to give my study a major overhaul. Most of the stuff in it is at least 10 years old, in some cases 20, and wasn't very good quality when it was new. The desk came from Argos and has all the quality of an Asda Farm Shops sausage. My chair came from there too and creaks like an opening tomb door every time I sit on it.

My computer is 7 years old, runs Windows XP, and wouldn't know a webcam if you rubbed its mouse against it. My hi fi however is the most elderly of all my things, weighing in at 20 years old, it has a broken CD player, and likes to distort music when it involves any bass at all. Oh, and my desk light is broken too. And I've dragged this collection of crap from house to house for a number of years, carefully reassembling it all more times than I care to remember. But enough is enough. It's all going to the bin, with the exception of the PC which will be re-incarnated as a no. 2 computer, or 'bitch' PC. And in its place I have a fancy new hi fi that comes in a box so small that I could fit it down my trousers and yet sounds like you've smuggled the Albert Hall into the house. I have a shiny new computer which has a screen that is larger than my first car. And I've replaced my lighting with cool new aluminium low energy things that make me look like I live in the Ikea catalogue. Trouble is, it's all in cardboard boxes.

The centrepiece of this symphony in modernism, is a new desk. Out goes the Argos special, in comes something that as we speak a man is sanding in a workshop. All sounds very good doesn't it. Trouble is, class is apparently time consuming. This has been a shock to me as nearly every piece of furniture that I've ever owned has come in a flat brown box, has resulted in at least one nasty blister and has looked like cheap crap from the moment it was finished. But at least it was bought, assembled and swaying uneasily the same day. However it seems that if you want something posh you have to wait. And wait. And wait. This is something of an issue as I also intend to repaint my room, but I can't do so until I dismantle the old desk, and when I do that I can't work at home anymore until the new one comes. Catch 22, or arse juice as it's otherwise known.

So as we speak I am surrounded by some of the most expensive cardboard boxes that I've ever encountered, in a room that looks like a bomb has hit it, and then invited its mates round for a raucous party afterwards. My precious books and DVDs are packed away in the garage to avoid having paint dripped on them, and my walls are stripped bare ready to feel the full force of my fluffy roller. It all feels like my life can't continue until I get the fateful call from the furniture shop to tell me that I can roll my tanks over the border. But to Hell with it, I'm throwing caution to the winds and painting this weekend. Yes it may mean that I spend weeks typing on the floor but the nettle must be grasped, the sabre rattled and I need to put masking tape around that frigging light switch before I die ! It's death or glory, and yes, I do need to get out a great deal more.

Attack Of The Nerds

2010-11-08T21:18:00.002+01:00

I think I'm about to turn on my own kind, to a point. I've blogged about techie stuff more times than I care to remember, and perhaps I've turned off a lot of readers like that. Truth is I like technology, but only if it does something useful to me. I cannot stand geekiness for the sake of it, there must be a reason for these things to exist. When I grew up the games consoles of the day were Commodore 64s and Sinclair Spectrums. The thought that systems like these would one day rule the world was patently ridiculous.

Today a game called 'Call Of Duty' is released and it's international news. Whatever happened to your coverage of 'Horace Goes Skiing' Mr. media all lumped into one amorphous blob ? And worst of all the Call of Duty games are repetitive, violent and very short. The reason people buy them though is for the multiplayer, so they can get headsets and play online with friends, and presumably trade bon mots that they saw someone say on the telly. But you see dear friends online gaming is rubbish. When you venture on there everyone is so good that you get repeatedly killed right up until the moment you throw the console out of the window and take up bee keeping. You need to be a nerd and play 12 hours a day to get anything out of this. Normal, worthwhile people don't do that.

Of course because the media are so desperate for something to put on the news, a mere video game becomes a story, and we ignore reality a bit more. Important and catastrophic things are going on in the world, and yet the next generation will have no skills beyond struggling through an office job, drinking themselves to death and getting to level 415 of a video game. Now I like a bit of gaming, but even I don't care about a new game coming out, unless it's Gran Turismo 5. This is the driving simulation so real you can get a steering wheel and pedals and lose yourself for weeks. Sadly it's also so difficult that you'll need to be Jenson Button to get to level 2. And so the thing revolves again. You need to be a nerd to enjoy video games now. And I don't think I am anymore. I am AWFUL at video games, can't stand comics or their film adaptations and if I ever catch myself calling someone 'dude' I think I'll have to kill myself immediately.

Or is it just that I'm old ?

Suit Up, James Bond Will Return

2010-11-06T14:07:00.002+01:00

Am I a nerd ? Don't we all wonder about that at some time, whether it be during a 12 hour Star Trek session, or when we can list the key grips on Star Wars ? Well, I haven't actually been guilty of either of those crimes against cool, but if I'm a nerd about anything it's James Bond. I grew up thinking that 007 was just about the ultimate person you could want to be. He's handsome, brilliant, great at fighting, and most intoxicating of all, he always wins. Not only that but impossibly beautiful women throw themselves at his feet wherever he goes. As male fantasies go it doesn't get any better.

As I've grown older I've realised just how impossible he is. In fact he's so implausible that he's no more real than Superman or The Incredible Hulk. But because he's set in the real world it all seems as if it could happen. This perhaps explains the sheer longevity of the idea. But what I saw as a career option when I was 7, is now no more than delicious self-indulgence. You sit down to a Bond film or book, and it's like slipping into the soapy waters of fantasy nirvana.

But old JB has been away for a bit, due to the fact that MGM have been on the verge of bankruptcy for some time. This issue also delayed production on The Hobbit, but that has been resolved and those films are ramping up to be shot. Now it seems that the Bond franchise is back in play too, with a November 2012 release date being touted for the next film. Hopefully Daniel Craig will continue for at least 2 more movies, and it seems that Sam Mendes will direct. Finally Peter Morgan (The Queen) is helping on script duties, and he's one of the hottest writers around at the moment. So hopefully the franchise will get back into the swing of things without further delay. I hope so because although I'm a grown man, I still need 007 to give life that final little polish.

Given That It's Halloween...

2010-11-01T11:04:00.003+01:00

Here's a rare behind the scenes shot taken from my favourite horror film 'The Shining'. Not only does the movie feature a signature Nicholson performance, but it's also based on Stephen King's best book (albeit loosely) and is directed by one of the geniuses of cinema, Stanley Kubrick. But more than all of that, it's really scary !

It's 30 years old this year and I have a lovely blu-ray copy of it. I shall be watching it again soon. And what is it that makes it so scary ? Well Jack does a nice line in nutty, but for me it's the images that disturb. The two twin girls that keep appearing in the corridor, the blood sloshing from the lifts and the scary naked woman in the room. It's a classic and hasn't aged a day, so if you like to be scared and haven't seen it then remedy that immediately, and you'll be saying 'Here's Johnny !!' under your breath for weeks.