"...I always have a plan..."

I've now finished my big Lost rewatch in preparation for Season 6; I watched all of the first five seasons over the last three months or so. Or was it longer? May have been. Anyhow, I've been thinking of what to do when Season 6 ends, and to console myself that when it does I should plunge myself headlong either in to a rewatch of something else in its entirety, or something completely new that I've not seen before. The thoughts that are going through my head;

Babylon 5 - a good, big epic story. 111 episodes should last me just long enough until I'm ready to do a "complete Lost re-watch" when I'll watch all six seasons. B5 would be good in this respect as that's all one big (albeit "incomplete") story, with some truly wonderful moments in it.

Twin Peaks - I've not seen Twin Peaks all the way through in quite some time now. I don't even think I've watched most of Season 2 on DVD at all. It'll be good to revisit it.

The Wire - I started this a little while back, but only got three or four episodes in to season 1 before getting distracted by other things. Having heard so much about it, especially the praise heaped on it by Charlie Brooker, I really should get around to watching it.

There are of course other shows. Battlestar Galactica would probably frustrate me too much, as I'd have to skip some of the really bad episodes and concetrate on the great ones. Oz is a possibility too; Mr Eko's in it. Even The Sopranos; never seen a single episode of that. Some of the box sets of these can be picked up quite cheaply now...

...still, I guess I'll decide closer to the time... : )

"...I was there at the dawn of the third age of man..."

Reading a post over at one of the internet forums I frequent, I was reminded that today, December 31st 2009, it is exactly ten years since Channel 4 aired the last ever episode of probably the best pure science fiction show ever made; Babylon 5. It was one of those shows that really grabbed me by the throat and never let go.

The idea behind the show was a great one; it was to run for five years, and in those five years tell one, big, self contained story with a clear beginning, middle, and end; and by the time we got to that end that would be it. That's where the story ends, and there would be no loose ends...

(Of course, mice and men intervened; Season 5 was, for about 2/3 of it somewhat below par, there were loads of loose ends, some left deliberately to set up a spin off series which only managed half a season, and a movie that never happened... Anyway...)

At the point Babylon 5 started, TV sci-fi series were pretty much just a string of separate stories, with episodes that could (with odd exceptions) be watched in pretty much any order. They were designed so that you could turn on an episode and watch a complete story in 45 minutes. Babylon 5, initially, appeared to follow the same pattern, as many of the early episodes did tell complete stories. There were some obvious threads running through the episodes - such as the hole in Sinclair's mind, and why the Minbari surrendered when on the brink of victory in their war against Earth - but these were background. However, pretty soon this changed and B5 pretty much became a serial. I hesitate to use the phrase "sci-fi soap opera", as that will stir up negative connotations in people's minds, but that's more or less what it was.

There were turning points in the first season; the sixth episode, Mind War, introduces us to the Psi-Corps, and the wonderful Mr Bester, played with a chilling menace by Walter Koenig. You always knew you were in for a treat when he turned up... but the biggest shocker in this episode was the glimpse at the end of a creature not seen for thousands of years... just the briefest of appearances, but enough to make you think there is much more going on here than we know of.

This would be expanded further in the biggest turning point of all in the season, Signs and Portents, in which a mysterious man, Morden, arrives on the station and goes to the main ambassadors asking them one, simple, question; what do you want? (Of course; that question is at the core of all drama. Remind me to tell you about that one day.) It is their reaction to this question that shapes the entire future of the show. It is Londo Molarri of the Centauri Republic who Morden, and his associates, ends up allying with, doing Londo a favour with a promise that somewhere along the line, Londo will do one for him... Faust, anyone? When we see his associates at the end of the episode, and what they can do... we know there's only one way this will end; in fire.

Mention of Londo brings me to, what in my mind, was the best thing about the show. The relationship between Londo and G'Kar. The changing relationship between these two characters over the course of the show was a joy to behold. Every time they had scenes together the screen was on fire. Episodes that were humdrum and run of the mill were elevated just because they had scenes together (the "mad bomber" episode, for example, is completely redeemed by the scene when the two of them are trapped in a lift. G'kar's reaction is priceless.). This is largely due to the fact that the actors portraying them were so great; Peter Jurasik and, the late, Andreas Katsulas were just perfect. They sparked off each other brilliantly, no matter what was asked of them. There is a scene, in a bar, in the season two episode The Coming of Shadows where this is exemplified; Jurasik has hardly any lines in the scene, almost everything about his performance is conveyed by the expression on his face, he doesn't need to say anything. It's all there.

Now, I could go on and write a couple of dozen more paragraphs about how great the show is, and wonderful scenes, and moments that will make you cry, and moments that will make you laugh... but if you've seen the show before, you'll know them. If you haven't I'll end up spoiling it for you.

And, if you've not seen it; get it. But, be warned; don't bother with the TV movies or Crusade. Just watch the 111 episodes from The Gathering to Sleeping in Light.

Thinking back to how eager I was to see each new episode, it's really like how I feel right now with Lost. I'm just so keen to see these last 18 episodes. And the anticipation and speculation as to what will happen next. And the spoiler avoidance... oh, it's going to be fun...

...but when it's all over; what then...?

"...what...?"

Okay. Now I've seen some bad list TV shows in my time, but Channel 4's The Greatest TV Shows of The Noughties easily tops the list of the worst of the lot. It was billed as;

It's the end of an era: the decade no-one can pronounce is coming to an end; and Channel 4 is celebrating by finding the greatest music and TV programmes of the past ten years. Channel 4 has conducted a survey with the leading TV critics and industry figures, and asked the public in a YouGov national poll, to tell us what they think was the greatest television of the last ten years. In a decade apparently dominated by box-sets, will the number one show be The Wire ? And where will Big Brother chart? The Greatest TV Shows of the Noughties counts down the 20 shows that represent the best of the decade.

With a description like that, it surely couldn't go wrong, could it...? Well... Let's just say it was the most bizarre list of "best shows of the Noughties" that could possibly be imagined, with shows that didn't belong there, shows that didn't deserve to be there, and great omissions... Here's the list, with comments;

First of all, before it started, I confidently predicted it would be The Wire that wins it; after all it gets plaudits everywhere, and even Charlie Brooker gushes over it like a 15 year old gushes over the Jonas Brothers... Anyhow;

20) Dragons Den

Alarm bells should have started ringing here. I mean. it's not a bad show, in fact it's quite entertaining. But 20th best, of the whole decade...?

19) I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here

And if the alarm bells hadn't yet started ringing they should have by the time we got here...

18) Strictly Come Dancing

And by now they should have been a cacophony of noise and pain.

17) Spooks

At last, something deserving of its place.

16) Coronation Street

Okay, alarm bells again. Now, whilst Corrie has indeed been on all through the Noughties, it's not really a programme that's really a "Noughties" show; it's the same it's always been. Constant. Confortable. Ever reliable.

15) Gavin and Stacey

Whilst I'm not really a fan of this, it does deserve its place here; it's been phenomenonly popular.

14) Grand Designs

Really. The will to live it lost.

13) Shameless

Glad to see this one there.

12) Harry Hill's TV Burp

Now, I was somewhat surprised to see Harry in the chart; pleasantly surprised, but surprised none the less.

11) Friends

No, sorry; this is very much a 90s show; everything about it is rooted in that decade. Yes, it ended in the 00s, and was repeated endlessly throughout the 00s, but that does not make it, to my mind, a 00s show.

10) Life On Mars

Hooray!

09) Planet Earth

I never actually saw this, but it certainly deserved its place from the clips shown. I think this is going to be one to track down on Blue Ray when I finally go HD...

08) The Office

Strewth! Three deserving shows on the trot... surely things are looking up...!

07) The Simpsons

D'oh! No. Similar comments to Friends; yes, new episodes througout the 00s, yes, endless repeats throughout the 00s... but common consesnus is that the peak of Simpsons episodes was the mid-90s run, and it's been losing steam throughout the 00s... a point even made in the programme yesterday. Several times... Ho-hum...

06) The X Factor

Hmm... Certainly a phenomenon, but worthy of being so high...? Nope...

05) QI

Yeah... I can see this being worthy of being in the list, but not so high...

04) Britains Got Talent

Stone me, how anything with Piers "Morgan" Moron in it could get in this chart is beyond me...

03) Doctor Who

Hooray! Glad to see it here. Now, I know there will be some of you here that will cite the arguments I gave for # 7, 11 and 16 and say that for those arguments this should not be here... however, there is a difference. That difference is that the new, Russell T Davies, series of Dr Who is an entirely different production from that which went before; it's not a contiunation of the same processes, it's something entirely new and 00s. With 7, 11 & 16, you could interchange 00s and 90s episodes and there would be no real difference.

02) The Apprentice

This surprised me greatly; I can see an argument for it being in the top 20, but at #2...? I mean, I enjoy it, but would never have seen it placed so high.

It was, when watching, at this point I repeated my earlier prediction to The Mrs that The Wire would win. "We've gone the whole list, one left, and The Wire's not been on yet; it's #1." After all, why would you have Dominic West as a talking head if The Wire wasn't in the list.... So they announce the #1 and it's;

01) Top Gear

Hang on... Top Gear...? I can see it belonging in the top 20 list (see #3 argument, rather that 7, 11 & 16)), but at the very top...? Even Clarkson seemed surprised.

Frankly, at least half that list didn't belong there. How any such list could ignore Lost, which pisses on everything else the 00s had to offer from a great height is beyond me... (But that's my pure personal opinion).

Speaking more objectively, the omission of shows like The Wire, The Soparanos, The West Wing, or even Battlestar Galactica, from the list was quite shocking (and it should be noted that of those four shows, there's two I've never even seen an episode of; so it's not my own bias, just knowledge of shows with a high critical acclaim). I mean, Grand Designs better than The Wire...? Charlie Brooker is probably laying catatonic on that sofa of his, brain reduced to mush at the inanity of it.

It's unusual for me to agree with every position in such a list, but usually it's possible to understand the reasoning behind why shows are rated so high. Here... well, the mind is well and truly boggling...

"...don't ever tell anybody anything..."

The more I think about it, the more annoyed I get whenever I hear JD Salinger described as a "recluse". I just don't get it at all. A brief definition of a recluse, as filched from Wikipedia is;

"A recluse is someone in isolation who hides away from the attention of the public, a person who lives in solitude, i.e. seclusion from intercourse with the world."

Now, it strikes me that this is an entirely incorrect description of Mr Salinger. For one thing, all the while he's been living in New Hampshire, he's regularly seen in his home town doing all the things any ordinary person will do. If you can be bothered, you can search for all sorts of reports of sightings of him by people, be they fans or journalists, on the internet. Photos even. I don't like looking at the photos, so I never do. I remember when they did the top 100 books on the BBC a few years back, they did a segment on The Catcher in the Rye, and in that they showed some video footage of him going about his business. That really made me uncomfortable; it felt like an invasion of his privacy.

At least one of the books about him mentions trips made by him to London. Is that the action of a recluse?

I would suggest that there are plenty of people out there who go about their lives in a manner entirely similar to Mr Salinger; they live private lives, going about their business as they see fit.

The trouble is, that as Mr Salinger is seen as a public figure, by dint of his writing, that means the expectation is that he must, therefore, live his life in public as well. The celebrity culture we have insists that the minutiae of every celebrities life should be part of the whole parcel of that person; that we have a right to know. Know, there are certainly celebrities who cherish a lifestyle like that, going to the extent that they have cameras following them essentially filming their life story. Unfortunately, it does appear that the people who tend to want the most exposure are those who deserve it the least.

We have no right to know the details of any other person's life, unless they choose to tell us. Another person has no compulsion to give interviews, appear at showbiz parties, or do anything they don't want to do; and we have no right to demand it of them. Yes, we'd all love to see more writing from him; but we have no right to demand it of him. It is his choice, and we should respect it. Everyone has the right to a private life, and all Mr Salinger is doing is exercising that right.

He is a private individual; he is not a recluse.

Run 1

Saturday September 19th 2009.

Today I ran for the first time in over twenty years. When I say run I really mean run. That is, proper running. Not the sort of running you do when you realise your train's leaving in 42 seconds and you sprint to the platform to get it. I mean, proper running. Running for the fun of it.

"Ah," said Arthur, "this must be some strange usage of the word fun I wasn't previously aware of..."

There is, of course, a reason behind me running. Last Monday I put in an entry for the 2010 Reading Half Marathon, to be held March 21st 2010. That's 13.1 miles. For someone who hasn't ran in over twenty years (the last time being during PE lessons in the 80s; but more on these another time) that's one heck of leap.

So why did I do it?

To answer this question, we have to go back to the 2009 Reading Half Marathon. There we were, me and my daughter Maddie, stood watching the race go by. Part of the course goes just round the corner from where we live, so we went to have a look and to cheer people on, and to see if we could see a few of my work colleagues who were running. They they were, all manner of people running by. We were cheering them on. Maddie was especially cheering on anyone in pink or yellow (or even better; both) as they're her favourite colours. It was great.

Then, she looks up at me. And in the way that only small four year old children can do, she asks;

"Why aren't you in the race, daddy...?"

And I was stumped. I just could not think of a good reason why I didn't enter. So, I promised her I would enter the race the next year. I was half thinking that she might forget about this, and the idea could be quickly dropped. For anyone else thinking along these lines, I offer this piece of advice;

Never underestimate a child's ability to remember things you want them to forget.

So. She mentioned it again. And again. And again. There was no way out of it.

Unless, of course, I couldn't actually get a place in the race when the entries came out. After all, the London Marathon apparently fills its places within about 108 picoseconds of the entry list opening.

But, no. I got the email, and submitted an entry. And got back an email that said "Your entry into the Reading Half Marathon has been successful."

There's no way out now.

So, today, I went for my first run.

I had a route planned out. It was quite a short one, really, two miles. Round the block, more or less. I should have been able to do it quite easily, I thought. But, no. I start off well, going at a decent pace. It's not too bad at all. I can do this, I think. But then I get to about half a mile and already the old lungs are starting to feel a bit tight. I slow down a bit, but it's not enough, so slow to a walk. I walk a bit, then run a bit more, but realise that I'm really not going to do the whole course, so I cut off the end of it. Just over a mile and I start to regroup a little. Get a bit of a second wind, and start to think that I could have done the whole course. By the time I'm home, I'm feeling tired, but essentially quite good. The whole run was about 1.5 miles, over 16 minutes.

For a first run, it's not that bad at all. Not really. I could have had an asthma attack and died, I guess. One thing I think I do have to gauge is the difference between when the ol' asthma is affecting me, and when I'm out of breath due to the exercise. That will come with time.

Also, no music today; apparently listening to music whilst running can help give you that extra oomph. Maybe next time.

Anyhow, I'll end with the stats;

Run 1

Distance; 1.47 miles

Time taken; 16:07 mins

Average speed; 5.5 mph

Average heart rate; 152 bpm

Culmulative distance ran; 1.47 miles.

Culmulative time running; 16:07 mins

"...I sometimes feel I'm sweeping the nation..."

Just looking at this blog, I realise I've not updated in almost two months. I managed to go the whole of July without typing a word. I mean, it's not like the time since June 10th has been uneventful; it's been packed. New baby. New job. New Dr Who costume. Teasers for the last Season of Lost. It's not like I've had nothing to write about. Odd.

Other things I've not written include any kind of fiction. I keep on trying to start, but end up failing. I seem to be as productive as Douglas Adams (early 80s on) only I don't have a publisher to lock me in a hotel room and refuse to let me out until I've written something. I'm not even sure that would work. It's not like I don't have ideas. I do. But it's the whole process of taking those ideas, those vague character notions, the stories (I hesitate to use the word "plot"), and weaving it all together in to at something at least bearing a slight passing resemblance to a coherent whole.

Now, reading back through this blog post; it's not that bad. I'm churning it out at a fair old pace, it's largely (typos, and the odd change of word) unaltered. It's not like I've been moving around sentences, changing paragraph structure, or indeed really doing much more than just typing the first thing to come in to my head. But it's working. Well, in as much as this is just meant to be a throwaway blog post that'll be the electronic equivalent of chip-paper tomorrow. Heck, with the speed the web moves it'll probably achieve that status in an hour or so.

So, why, when I have a screen in front of me in which to type fiction, do I freeze? Unable to commit to putting a word down in front of me. Even though, pinned to the top of the monitor is a quote from Paul Cornell reading;

"Don't agonise about what you're going to write. Have an idea. Write it. It will be bad. Then you re-write until it's good."

It's brilliant advice. Concise. Clear. To the point. Yet, I cannot get around to writing anything. From memory, my total finished fiction output since starting to attempt to write things properly amounts to four short stories, and really only one of them is any good. 25%. Not a bad hit rate, really. Oh, there's loads of fragments, starts of things, things that go nowhere. Some of these fragments are even quite good. But, rightly, no-one cares for fragments; they care for the whole. 

I really, really, must get on with at least one of the ideas. So, I've been listing them in my notebook (that's olde worlde pen and paper notebook; not a 'puter), in the hope that something will spark off. Other ideas, and notions. I'll get there in the end. Sooner, or later. 

Probably later...

"...I have in my hand a piece of paper..."

It's not very often I talk about important topics on this blog; by important, I mean those things that can have a profound effect on people's lives. The Salinger post was rather important, but this one even more so.

Recently, the MP expenses scandal has been the main political story, overshadowing everything else. But, really, this pales in to insignificance when compared with what happened with the European elections last week. 

The BNP won two of the 72 seats in the UK. 

Their leader, Nick Griffin is now in a proper position of power and inlfuence. 

Frankly, given the choice between an expenses fiddling, home-flipping, duck house owning, mortgage free (yet claiming mortgage payments) chancer of an MP or Nick Griffin I'd take the former any day of the week. 

It is truly a sad day for this country that he, and his colleague, were elected to this  proper position of power and inlfuence. But, at the end of the day, as much as we may loathe and hate this, he was elected fairly and squarely and therefore must take up his position in Brussells. 

There are a number of issues at heart here. How on earth did he obtain enough votes to get in to office? The expenses scandal will have played the main part in this, with the Labour party especially suffering. I've heard people they expected the Tories to fiddle their expenses, but expected better from Labour. This rejection of the Labour party (the only party to lose seats) saw UKIP take joint second place with them (13 seats a piece). 

But, as I said before, Griffin has his seat fairly and squarely as a properly elected MEP. The question is what to do about it. I say this is what we do about it;

nothing

We just ignore him. 

Take his press conference in London yesterday. He turned up with his heavies, started making his speech, and in no time at all the protesters arrived and interupted him. He scuttled away, making a hasty exit. Then he was on BBC news decrying that his democratic right to free speech was curtailed by this mob (which, if you believe him - I don't - was organised by the Labour Party). The whole exercise appears to be a big piece of PR puff engineered to allow Griffin to appear as a poor suppressed individual, silenced by the mob. I swear, if you look at the footage on the BBC site of the incident, as the protesters arrive that he smiles a little smile, knowing that things will go as he always intended them to.

Now, imagine the following scenario;

Griffin arrives at the conference and is allowed to make his speech. But there are no protesters. Just one single TV camera, waiting for that moment when the mask slips and the real Griffin shines through. Other than that it's just him and his cronies. He's just stood there preaching to the converted, the handful of his supporters there and his heavies. It doesn't get reported as no-one cares. It passes without a thought.

But... that one camera. Sooner or later he'll slip up and the mask will slip off. Allowed to talk freely, sooner or later he'll give himself enough rope to hang himself. It'll happen. 

Every time he is spoken about gives him publicity. Even this blog post is giving him publicity. And I hate the thought of that. The fact that this individual is even in my thoughts saddens me. The thought that he will be one of this country's representatives in the European Parliament is saddening. But the worst thought of all is that people voted for him in large enough numbers to get him, fairly and squarely, elected to office. 

This is the fist post I have made about him. Wit luck, it will be the last.

"...if you really want to hear about it..."

Okay. Some people have crazy ideas. It happens. But there can be fewer crazier ideas than that of a certain "JD California" (not his real name!). His bright idea was to write a sequel to The Catcher in the Rye...

Now, call me Picky McPicky, the Pickiest Person in Pickyland, winner of the Gold Medal in the Olympics for Pickiness, but if I were ever to be interested in reading a Catcher in the Rye sequel, really, there's only one person I'd want to have written it, and that's JD Salinger. The characters contained within the book are his to do as he pleases. No-one else. 

So, this "JD California's" sequel, entitled "60 Years Later; Coming Through the Rye" again sees Holden Caulfield on the run, only this time it's not from his school. It's from his retirement home, where the setpugenarian Caulfield lives. And there also appears to me some element of meta-fiction in the book, as Salinger appears as a character within it, deciding whether or not to revive Holden's story. Hmm.

The question you have to ask about this book is a very simple, brief one; why? I mean, what is the point of it? Just because he got a publisher for it, what's really the difference between this book and any number of fan fiction Caulfield stories? None at all. As mentioned previously, there's only one person I'd be interested in seeing a Catcher sequel from...

It would appear that I'm in good company in not liking the idea of this book. A certain JD Salinger dislikes the idea also, and has taken legal steps to prevent its publication. I hope he wins. This chancer is standing on the shoulder of a giant; he knows there will be a certain number of people who will buy the book out of sheer curiousity as to what happened to Holden next. But whatever suggestions he posits on the book are irrelevant, and are no more important than my ideas, or your ideas, or anyone else but Salinger's. 

There is talk that Salinger may not be able to block the publication of the book, citing the case of the unauthorised sequel to Gone With the Wind which had a similar lawsuit taken out to prevent its publication by Margaret Mitchell's estate. This lawsuit failed, and the book was published (though, the estate got a cut of royalties). It strikes me that the main difference here is that Salinger is still alive, and therefore could argue that the publication of an unauthorised sequel could harm the market for any sequel he might desire to write. Though, of course, chances of such a sequel are slim.

However, surely the most salient point is that Holden Caulfield is Salinger's character; he owns the copyright in him (and indeed on all of the characters within the book). For someone to be allowed to take characters which belong to someone else, and exploit them in a way that their creator does not intend is clearly wrong. Now, as mentioned earlier fan fiction does exist; but this is small potatoes in comparison. Fan fiction is shared freely between fan communities, and no attempt is made to gain financially. It's a very niche section of any fandom, as there will always be plenty of fans who do not care for it at all. Indeed, I count myself among their number. The release, however, of a published book takes things to a different, higher, level. 

There are some very real issues at stake at the heart of this lawsuit; that of the right of the creator of a work to be able to control how it is exploited. If Salinger loses this case, this is a fundamental blow to the rights of creators of works of art.