Lemon Jelly, 64-95

The resurgence of what would once have been known as "indie" in the British charts in recent months has been striking. Guitar music now dominates both the singles and albums charts: it sometimes feels like it's impossible to move without being attacked by another tedious Coldplay clone. Don't get me wrong, it’s not the style of music I have a grievance against, more the bandwagoning, and the apparent lack of diversity this seems to be generating. After all, no musical genre can survive in a vacuum: it has to grow, to feed; to survive it has to move beyond pale imitation into innovation.

It's heartening, therefore, to see a recent clutch of bands setting out to challenge the guitar-boy rock hegemony. The Prodigy's album Always Outnumbered Never Outgunned couldn't quite live up to its title, its aggressive sonic adventuring failing to inspire wider public appeal. More successfully, however, The Chemical Brothers' recent Push The Button - rightly regarded by many as their best album for years – was more successful in infusing a dance template with more guitar-driven arrangements and sounds.

Which brings us to the turn of Lemon Jelly to take their place in the rock-orientated arena of contemporary releases. A less sonically dark proposition than either of the acts namechecked above, the duo of Nick Franglen and Fred Deakin have previously been most widely marked out for their offbeat sense of humour (demonstrated particularly in the nursery rhyme-sampling Nice Weather For Ducks). Set against the sunny, whimsical feel of such offerings, the opening track this time around, '88 (Come Down On Me) is an urgent, frenetic standout; all guitars and power chords from the very beginning. The band's cards would immediately seem to be on the table: adapt to survive.

However, whilst the slightly unwieldy title of the album, 64-95 (so named from the dates of the samples around which the songs are based) suggests some kind of unifying concept, the songs are just as diverse as ever. Indeed, it's possible to criticise the album for perhaps stepping too far in this direction, the guitar histronics of the opener being followed by the more typical rolling rhythms and lush samples of old. Single '75 (Stay With You), in particular, represents the opposite sonic extreme, full of classic sunny, lilting, summery pop. This is by no means a bad thing, however: Lemon Jelly albums this far have never been about a monolithic concept or sound, more the playful evocation of a disparate series of moods.

What they have always been about, however, is payoff. With songs usually clocking in at over seven minutes, and often taking a sizable portion of that running time to even get off the ground, it's the climax that can make or break your experience.'79 (Don't Stop Now) highlights a problem that remains with Lemon Jelly's work, whatever the sound: if you don't like the sample around which the track is based, or if (as in this case) it doesn't really seem to go anywhere, then you're left with six minutes of build-up and a less than satisfying climax.

Luckily, that's the case with only a couple of the tracks here, and their weakness is more than made up for by the sheer exuberance of the rest of the album. The rock sheen, whilst only intermittently applied, proves striking: the closing, William Shatner-sampling '64 (Go), in particular, is an indication of the extent to which the Lemon Jelly formula can stretch when applied to other genres of music.

And that's perhaps the most joyful thing about when the music here works, which it often does: the sense that at any point, on any track, things could go in an entirely new direction. After all, if I’m going to criticise musical trends for exhibiting little more than lemming-like recycling, then innovation and experimentation - however hesitantly they may be applied - need to be commended.

Songs of the Year: 2004

In no particular order, it's the top 20 songs of 2004!

1. Air, Universal Traveler [entry]
One of three standout tracks from Air's slightly disappointing third full-length album (disappointing not because it lacked any of their usual musical precision, but simply because many of the songs prove hard to recollect on their individual merits.) This, on the other hand, is as irresistible as anything the band have produced, and fits my wanderlust perfectly.

2. Scissor Sisters, Return To Oz [entry]
In a year when Scissor Sisters were huge in this country - the album's now spent its 50th week in the charts, incredibly - a series of selections in this list were inevitable. This is at once an atypical, and typically genius, track.

3. Gwen Stefani, What You Waiting For [entry]
If there's one thing, perversely, that intrigues me more than creativity, it's the creative process itself. Some critics missed the point entirely by accusing Stefani of lacking depth; I think revealing her thought processes undertaking a solo project incredibly interesting.

4. Darren Hayes, Pop!ular [entry]
The first entry here that loses me all musical credibility, but as this genius review points out, do you really want to remember your life by what you were supposed to like, because it was cool? Exactly.

5. Aimee Mann, You Do [entry]
An entry that proves the adage it's not what was released in 2004, it's what was memorable. Mann's songwriting is always excellent, but it's the pathos and regret in this song that inspires my melancholy. And I was diggin' the melancholy in 2004.

6. Kim Richey, A Place Called Home [entry]
Talking of which, this song is mournful with a capital "mournful", and may well be (whisper it) the representative song of 2004. It didn't exactly lose points by evocatively soundtracking one of the best TV moments of the year, either.

7. The Divine Comedy, Come Home Billy Bird [entry]
The Guardian criticised it for lacking subtlety, and, true, it's hardly the most delicate of tracks. But as a song to travel to, it's perfect.

8. Mylo, Drop The Pressure [entry]
Once upon a time, I was a pretty hardcore Indie Kid, as much of this list will attest. In recent years, though, there's been a upsurgence of my love of Dirty Electro. This is the track that got the word "motherfucker" on Radio 1, and if that's not enough reason to love a song I don't know what is.

9. Britney Spears, Toxic [entry]
"Neee norr nee nee norr."

10. Frou Frou, Let Go [entry]
How do you even say "Frou Frou" without sounding like a poof? Regardless, the intro alone is enough to set off shivers down my neck. And the voice. The voice.

11. Green Day, Boulevard of Broken Dreams [entry]
One review of this track commented on its extraordinary ability to sound like an anthem that's just been around forever. It wouldn't surprise me if, in ten years time, this track is justifiably regarded as a classic.

12. The Killers, Somebody Told Me [no entry]
I tell you what's better than meterosexuality: gender confusion. And scuzzy, wailing electro noises.

13. Ladytron, Playgirl [entry]
Another track that's hardly new, but another that appealed to me because of its dirty, dirty electronics. And sleaziness.

14. Phixx, Love Revolution [entry]
Er. Hardly going to be on many people's lists, this, as I doubt many people even /remember/ it. Still, one of the most repeated selections of 2004 - the song and the video.

15. Fountains of Wayne, Stacey's Mom [entry]
1999 Iteration Matt is right now sat in his indie club, sobbing into his Guiness. 2004 Matt was just pleased being so populist allowed him to embrace this song, with little or no trademark irony. Hurrah.

16. Scissor Sisters, Electrobix [entry]
Disingenous, yes, but 2004 was the year of Scissor Sisters, and as such two selections here merely reflect the fact. If Return To Oz was perhaps the band at their most songwriterly, Electrobix perfectly reflected their electronic, metrosexual side. I like the workout bit at the end.

17. Rufus Wainwright, Go Or Go Ahead [entry]
I never did get to see Rufus live, but I did have the honour of recommending him to several record store customers unaware of his existence. This is the song I'd most base that recommendation around.

18. Busted, Air Hostess [entry]
2004: R.I.P. The Busted. My good friend Danny was always predicting their demise and, sadly, it eventually came true. The three singles they released in 2004 weren't necessarily /classic/ Busted - and don't worry, part of me can't believe I'm writing this either - but this is the best of the lot.

19. Sigur Ros, () #4 [entry]
An album with no title, no inlay, and no track titles. Excellent, Matt'll have two of those, thankyerverymuch. The first "half"'s still probably the best, and this track is amazing.

20. Take That, Never Forget [no entry, shockingly]
And it's the song that made me cry most in public in 2004. I don't know who had the honour of choosing it - if it was Talia, and she's reading this, I both love you and hate you for it. "Someday soon this will all be someone else's dream". Couldn't have said it better.

Over Now

It's obviously not Take That splitting up or anything, but this article still gets more requests as to its whereabouts than any in recent memory. Read on to discover why Matty, Charlie and, er, Jamesy aren't in a band called Busted no more.

Busted Announcement

Following the departure of Charlie Simpson, Busted announced today (Friday 14th Jan 2005) that they have decided to split up.

[...]

Says Matt Willis: “It’s a really sad day for all of us but we’ve always said that if one member left then we’d call it a day. The last three years have been unbelievable and I’d like to say a massive thank you to all our fans- you’ve been amazing.”

Says Charlie Simpson: “I’m incredibly proud of everything that we’ve achieved in Busted. We’ve enjoyed some of the best times in our lives together. I wouldn’t change one single bit of it. This has been a really difficult decision and I hope the fans will understand”

Says James Bourne: “I’m devastated that Charlie has chosen to quit Busted, but I have to respect his decision and I fully support him and wish him all the best for the future. I would like to say a personal thank you to all the fans who have made the last three years the best years of my life. I’ll remember these years forever.”

I knew that fucking pretty-boy'd do for them when it came to it. Never trust someone from public school, that's what I tell you.

Related posts, like a big teenage girl:
Quite an apt name then...
Electrobix

iBox

Shoving aside the thronging masses of Christians here to reprimand me for participating in the downfall of Western civilisation, I just took delivery of Jake the blue mini iPod. He's arrived a little early for my birthday, but you just know he's going to wink at me from the box from then until now.

This isn't just an "ooh, I've got an iPod!" post, though: it's more a "help, I don't know a thing about iPods!" plea for help. (For someone who likes music and, er, prettiness as much as I do, I've kept weirdly ignorant about this whole thing.) Any of you brained techy-types out there, then:

Do I need to buy a separate charger?

How easy is it to connect Mr iPod to my computer?

And, er, that's it for the time being. Still, I'm bound to think of some more later.

(Scarily, it was a year ago today that I was in the process of writing an assessed essay and blogging vaguely amusingly about it. I liked that day. Essay didn't turn out bad, either.)

Do not adjust, etc.

Give or take the odd unexpected catastrophe, the redesigning should be finished with, over, by 6pm tonight.

I've long hated my addiction to redesigning this site, putting it down to not finding a way around of putting things I really like. I never seemed to be able to fit in everything on the same page, and wanted something more...'magaziney', somehow.

Stay tuned. Again.

Closer

This is almost certainly the first year of my life that I'll be universally glad to get over with.

For a lot of reasons, I'm more tired right now than I remember being at any point this far. Not so much even with the working or the weather or the whole commercialised Christmas blues: just with the weight of feeling some of this stuff that's here.

It's been a rough year. I still don't know why I felt the way I do through some of it; why I was so depressed, seemingly about nothing, for the first month or so. Why my parents aren't happier that my dad's okay, why moving home's been the hardest thing I've done in a long time. But I abhor people who scrounge for sympathy, so you better not think that that's what I'm doing here.

Instead, what makes it worse is that I've messed about, acted like a twat to, just generally let down nearly every person I care about at some point over the last 12 months. And, while I know I've probably (hopefully) said it to your face before, I'm really sorry. I'm really sorry if it was you that I didn't talk to, or forgot about, or over-relied on, or took ages returning mail to, or had petty arguments about nothing with. For the longest time I just didn't feel like me. I'm so sorry I've not been myself. It turns out to be something it takes a long time to come back from.

I think I'm nearly there now, of course. I hope I am. The last few months working at HMV have been disorienting but good; they've made me realise what I've lost and, as a result, what I value the most. And it's people: of course, I always knew this, but not as explicitly and cleanly as I do now.

So, to Tony (more than you know), to Kim, to Danny, to Dale, to "Evil Dan", to Dave and Dave, to Will, to Cath, to Seldo/Laurie, to James and Mary and Matt and Gemma and Kelly and Chris and...all the other countless friends I always should have been more grateful for having, I'm sorry. If you're still around, and still want me to bounce around the place in a refreshingly retro stylee, I think I'm nearly ready to do that again. And I know I've been terrible, worse than you have any right to put up with, at keeping in touch. But drop me a line, however. My #1 New Year's Resolution this year - and I never make resolutions - is to be better at keeping in touch. I really have no excuse.

And I love you. And -- Merry Christmas.

R.E.M., Around The Sun

hen stop-gap R.E.M. song Final Straw appeared on the internet last April, Trash anticipated good things. It all sounded so immediate: when Michael Stipe sang lines like "what silenced me is written into law", you knew exactly what he was talking about. Gone were the obtuse and heavily veiled allegories that had been the band's staples for years; in their place, a new-found immediacy and political voice. The new album was awaited with a renewed interest.

The album cover when it arrived in Trash's hands, however, didn't bode well. Featuring - and in this case that's a word that must be applied loosely - a photograph of the band apparently Xeroxed into nearly nothing, it's both an omen and a pretty accurate visual depiction of the music that it introduces. Yet it all starts so well: album opener, and first single, Leaving New York, is as chimingly pretty a ballad as any the band have produced in recent years. It's also pleasingly apparently about something: albeit elliptically, perhaps, but you still feel like Stipe's trying to tell us something. You also possibly feel like he succeeds.

The track that follows it, Electron Blue, may not be so narratively centred, but since one of R.E.M.'s strengths has always been the creation of a particular atmosphere, we're prepared to let that pass. True, it features the usual Stipean allusions: "you're out on your ear", "I look to her, she's found the cure, her future's already begun", to name but a couple. It's all nonetheless carried along well enough by a stand-out fuzzing bassline.

What then happens is surprising, however. There's just this huge great hole between tracks three and six; no words of note, no musical surprises. It's like R.E.M. set everything to default and just cruised along in four-four time. It honestly either feels like the band had nothing particular to say or recoiled back from saying it at the last moment: we're not sure which is worse. Where's the lyrical immediacy of Final Straw? Where's the promised "more political" stance? Guys, where are the tunes?

True enough, I Wanted To Be Wrong is the most overt among the new songs, making references to "the allies" and "destroying things I don't understand". In this it's alone, however: songs pass in a pleasant enough haze. There's nothing wrong with the stuff that's here, all of it's musically competent and there's a couple of hooks you'll catch yourself humming later. But for fuck's sake: if you're going to make an apparently "political" album, you're going to have to let your listeners know what your politics are. You come away from the thirteen songs here thinking perhaps Michael Stipe was a bit sulky with the world when he made it. As for why, you're never quite sure. [5]

Previously on...
Fiction

Bushwhacked

Two things I've learnt from the past couple of days. These people, my friends, are not the American political electorate. In common with much of the rest of the weblogging community, they are notable in their leftwing politics. It was perhaps, therefore, unrepresentative of us to expect this concentration of views to be reflected across the whole of another country.

Yet weirdly, it's because of this fact that I'm pretty pragmatic about the whole election result thing. (Only pretty pragmatic, mind. We're talking in the sense that "oh well, an inept and dangerous war criminal has just been re-elected as the most powerful man on earth" rather than "oh dear, that dog just stole my sausage" here.) Having a single, physically embodied representation of everything that's vile about right-wing politics, which liberal groups and individuals can rally around, has done much to prompt people who'd otherwise have nothing to do with the entire system into action. (I should know.) And it's not only people I respect because they're my friends that are with us on this - Joss Whedon, Susan Sarandon, Michael Stipe, Eminem. All people I admire hugely, and all people who'll - hopefully - continue to spearhead a liberal agenda even though it's not one endorsed through the people in power.

Maybe, just maybe, you were never going to persuade that whole swathe of redneck Amerikka that it should give up on its core values of family, church, and nation. That's something for the next four years. For now, all we can do is to continue to document the inequalities and injustices of the current, extended, regime. I know they're wrong. So do you. We just have to remember that.

So the fight's not over. I think it may only just have begun.

politik

Hold on to your hats, kids, because I'm actually gonna write about something political here. If there's one thing I've not talked about much on this weblog it's politics, of any kind - mainly either because the mechinations bore me to tears, or because I haven't felt it's the right forum to do so. But things are changing, I'm getting tired of not making my stance visible, and it's time for something a bit more direct.

In roughly two weeks time Americans have the duty of choosing the most powerful man in the world. That's not a little scary. It'll come as no surprise to people who know me that I'm pretty much in favour of Bush not being re-elected, and nobody with that name ever being put in a position of power ever again (despite the reduction in amusing "I've never liked Bush" jokes that'll entail). To be honest, most of my personal characteristics - left-wing, gay, liberal - inform my preference, but it's not just from a personal point of view that I'm so impassioned about Bush being put down like the abhorrent little rat-snake that he is.

Even if you ignore the Iraq war, which to be honest is kinda like ignoring the Great fucking Wall of China, Bush's record is nothing short of evil. He's refused to sign up to the Kyoto agreement, potentially the most important act of legislation for this and every future generation (and a key example of his administration's inability to look beyond even the middle distance).

His record on human rights is hardly much better: even if I might not regard gay marriage as necessary, I see absolutely no difference between rendering it impossible and, for instance, denying people of certain ethnic backgrounds similar rights. It's unjust and discriminatory and it sucks.

And it's true that, whilst Kerry is hardly the best representative of the kind of politik I'd like to see elected on the world stage - and, moreover, I had trouble remembering his name to type into that sentence - he also doesn't represent every single thing I find repulsive about right-wing politics. I don't trust politicians, but honestly, in this case a change of any kind may well prove for the best.

There's a whole other post I want to write about this in terms of someone I do admire hugely - Mr Joss Whedon - and the impact TV and weblogs can have on this whole process. But that'll have to be for another day. Just, please, don't vote for Bush. Have you seen his face?

echoes

Stolen off the Jason, and fitting in perfectly with my photo-sorting-scanning-archiving activities of so far today:

10 years ago today, I...

1. Had just started my second year in secondary school.
2. Was twelve.
3. Have no comprehension of what I was thinking or what I was like.

5 years ago today, I...

1. Was starting my final exam year at school before I moved to college. Had contacts and good hair for, I think, if not the first time then only recently.
2. Used to sit in the back of class and doodle in science books with my friends. I never learned a lot in subjects I didn't like.
3. Used to go out and get pissed and stoned and chased by police in the parks around town. Typical grunge upbringing, anybody?

3 years ago today, I...

1. Was starting my second year of university. Had come out; had fooled around with guys; was totally in love with my best friend.
2. Had moved off campus into a house where I didn't really have much in common with either of the two people I lived with. Luckily got friendly with an amazing house down the road, some of whom I later lived with, with much nicer results.
3. Lived here, looked like this (ie Malcolm in the Middle), and was doing this.

Nearest (i.e. not very) blog entry

1 year ago today, I...

1. was being happy, apparently, according to Mr Blog.
2. This would be the last time I'd be happy before a couple-month long intermittent period of depression.
3. Was just starting my final year-in-a-row at university.

So far this year, I...

1. ...have finished university, moved away temporarily, worn a dress, survived my dad's huge bout of depression (and so has he, more to the point), cried more in public than I think I ever have before, and met fledgling gayers who I remember feeling just like that, five years ago.

Yesterday, I...

1. went to Bath to meet Kim and Dale and a boy.
2. hugged Kim lots, realised how much I'd missed her.
3. resolved to one day live in Bath surrounded by fantastic people and lots of artiness. And drink.

Today, I...

1. sorted through my photos from the past four years
2. ate Sunday lunch
3. admired a big fuck-off rainbow that just appeared above my head.

Tomorrow, I...

1. start my first day at work. Eep, am tiny bit scared.
2. get to ride on buses a lot. Oh, joy.
3. resolve to start sending out mail a lot more.

if this weblog were a magazine part #2

Today, in the style of one of those men's lifestyle magazines:

Oh just click it, stop complaining. I'll update properly with something interesting at some point. You have no idea how boring the afternoons'd be here if I wasn't doing dumb stuff like this. (And, do you see? Everything on the front cover is stuff I'm obsessing about at the moment. It's really more like if-Matt-were-a-magazine, only less 2-D.)

top trumps are...reborn!

Yes! It's the return of those old Top Trumps that used to pollute my site on a weekly basis. This entry's dedicated to Carly, who inspired their renaissance. Mwah. Clicketty click to read on...

if this weblog were a magazine...

I've been cocking around with a trial version of Quark XPress the last couple days, getting to grips with how it works and what kinda things you can do with it. This is the first thing I've made I'm pleased with: it's a mock-up of a film magazine in the style of Empire. The text is pretty much just filler, and isn't actually representative of what I think are good films this year - Troy, for the record, was a bit shit. But I enjoyed the line about meths, and the way it's increasingly written in my natural style as the article progresses. Also, the purple was pretty.

me, in four pictures

Ever wondered how you might be represented, in four pictures? You have? You have more free time than even me. Nevertheless, here's how I'd apparently be pictured:

Marvellous. I'm glad a heart was there, else I'd be kinda fucked. (In case you're wondering, these little pictures represent spontenaeity, ideas, heart, and extroversion respectively. I'm so pleased.)

You too can do the test, here, and find out - as I did - that you "like to leave things to the last minute". Who knew? Actually, I'm being a bit unfair, as it was surprisingly accurate, and I am pleased with my pictures. Pretty.

Also: if anyone knows why this weird little "weblog" might be loading incredibly slo-o-o-o-o-wly today, do let me know. It can't just be that Flickr picture I added, because it was doing it before that. Blerry technology.

...but i'm perfectly well proportioned, thanks

Recently, it's come to my attention that I may have underestimated the shortness of my height. Allow me to demonstrate, using Science:

As you can see, I - indicated by an arrow, because with the current state of my Jewfro a real photo of me would never fit into a picture that small - am not very tall. At all (coming, as I do, in between Mr Wood and Mr Cruise). In fact, intensive scouring of the internet found only two (coincidentally rather attractive) famous people actually shorter than me: Jamie Cullum and Elijah Wood. This does not bode well, since one of them is called "Jazz Hobbit" and the other one actually is a hobbit. But I do like the way that, according to my hastily composed Science, Mr Cullum looks like he only measures about six inches. This pleased me.

However, what did not is the fact that, in addition, I'm smaller than Famous Smug Man. Actually smaller than Mr "please don't take a photo of me where I am stood next to my ex-wife, I am much too short" Smug Man! Aargh!

I'm doomed.

beard-growing for fun and profit

Look how impressed I look by having my picture taken! Ahem.

[serious voice of Science:] This week, I have been growing a Beard.

It has been a scientific experiment. To grow a Beard, you will need the following things:

One chin (usually male)
The absence of, and lack of willingness to use, any chin-trimming equipment (including but not limited to razors, shavers, duct tape, scissors)

And that's it really! It's been marvellous fun!

As you can see, the experiment began last Friday, and was due to run until tomorrow, which is another Friday. However, unfortunately, on Wednesday I got so appalled and bored with my face sticking to my own neck that I gave in and shaved it all off. Also, I got told I couldn't come out for pizza and wine on the Wednesday evening unless I got rid of it "because it made me look like a tramp".

Pizza and Wine beat Beards and Science in Trash Top Trumps any day, I'm afraid. Next week's science: falling.

On audio: Boards of Canada, Sunshine Recorder (5*)

the village

So then, The Village. It's a parlour trick; it's misdirection upon misdirection. It's also one of the most atmospheric films I've seen since, well, Signs. Even some stupidness can't ruin the fact that, if I made a film, it'd also feature lots of shots of trees and sky.

I gave it 7; Danny, 5; Gemma, 7; Corey, 8; James, 6; Dave, 5. I don't know what the average of those marks is. My brain is made of gravy.

[Not that you would, but please please don't leave spoilery things in the comments box. Somebody might read it and get very upset and cry, and I couldn't bear that on my conscience. I know how upset I got when some little internet geek told me that ("Sebastian" - Ed) was going to die at the end of Buffy.]

Final question for the weekend: is there actually /any/ way of asking for hair straighteners from my parents for Christmas without sounding like a big gayboy? Hmm. Back on Monday...

enough space

I think the thing that scares me the most about finding out whether I've got funding or not is the knowledge that, whichever way the outcome goes, it inevitably means my life will change significantly.

Living as students, as we all have done here for the past four years, you come to focus on how your life is different from those people around you - how instead of permanency, you have spontaneity; how, instead of stability, you have regular upheaval and mutation. But in fact, that's really only case within the bubble of studentdom: in actual fact, every year you know you'll be back again, within the same context, however different the actual reference points within it may have become.

This time's different. If I'm back - which I so hope I am, more than I think I would wish for anything else - then it'll obviously be more similar to previous years than having to leave will be (and this is a very good thing). But it will still require negotiation, from a student-recreational life into a more student-studying one. Obviously, if I do have to leave, it will mean - at least in the short-term - returning home to a future that's much more uncertain.

It all depends really. I don't even know when the announcement will be - sometime before the end of the month, really. I'm just putting these ideas out here now while I have the space to think them through.

wild over-ambition, part 2

So far I've had quite a large response to yesterday's 'wild over-ambition' post - by e-mail, text, and in person. The general feeling is that it'll be something that people are definitely up for doing: the only question now is the focus of the project, the ethos.

Basically, I'm interested in both the opportunity for internet-based journalism and maintaining an openness of contribution. In other words, it will be a space in which people can write about whatever they want to - as long as it's related to their experiences in some way. As I said to one of the people interested in contributing yesterday evening, it'll differ from the more individual-based blogs that a lot of us run in that it will be content- rather than person-driven - subjects we want to talk about, films we've seen, media we've consumed, and so on. And, in doing so, I hope it'll act as an online focal point for community interaction, discussion, and that kinda thing.

I know these are fairly lofty aims, and as such ones I don't mind too much if the end result ends up not quite reaching. On a simpler, less wordy level, it's gonna be a zine-style weblog about anything that fires you up creatively, makes you think about shit, that you want other people to know about.

And I still think it might be ace.

wild over-ambition

Oooh. Plans here are emerging and, whilst at a very early stage of nascent-yness, are exciting me. Inspired in equal parts by one magazine forum's diary of a redesign and my own preoccupation with co-authored weblogs, I think I might be launching something quite exciting (to me) in a couple of days.

In the words of the mass e-mail I sent out to some university peeps a couple of hours ago:

As you may have read on my mostly infrequently-updated-at-the-moment weblog (www.wabson.org/trash, pointless inclusion of URL fans) I've been thinking for a while of implementing another weblog, a parallel weblog, for my more creative, longer pieces of writing. If I'm going to get a job when I get out of here, I'd quite like it to be something creative and fluffy and, if at all possible, not involving fights over where the mops are kept (I get that a lot in the world of cleaning), so a place for creative journalism seems the best place to start.

But. I want to go further than that if at all possible. Because personally I think I've been to school here with some of the most creative clever types it's ever possible to meet - and yes, I mean you here, and I'm not even brown-nosing for a change - I'd quite like it if it could be a more collaborative project. An online magazine, if you will, about media and culture and reviews and that kind of thing. I've been toying with the idea of a co-authored weblog-style thing for a while now, and if it could combine the talents of a whole lot of people that'd be, well, ace.

Have a think about it. If it's something you think you'd be up for doing - however intermittently - give me a shout. It'll be housed somewhere at Wabson, once a good name pops into my head (any ideas for that, you know where I live). This is something I really wanna do, because, well, it'll be cool, not geeky or anything.

You may well hear nothing about this ever again. It may die a horrible death. Thing is, though, I'd quite like it if it didn't, and because I'm simultaneously both mad and completely over-ambitious (both attributes that make me pleased), I don't just want to restrict it to uni types. Weblog writers and readers are, universally, hugely intelligent and creative sorts (which explains why I look to them for a large amount of my creative inspiration). If I can get as many people on board with this as possible, I'll be rather pleased.

More later.

songs you should hear: aimee mann, invisible ink

Actually, this one was a hard choice, because I love Aimee Mann. It came down to a choice between "Wise Up" from the Magnolia soundtrack, "You Do" from Bachelor Number 2, and this track - all of which make it hard for me to believe, now, that a year ago I'd never heard of her. I first heard her, tragically, on an episode of "Buffy" she randomly guest starred on (playing at the Bronze) and, shortly afterwards, the aforementioned Magnolia. This track gets the vote, though, because kinda morbidly it has all the ingredients of a song I'd like, eventually, to be played at my funeral (yeah, I know): just get it and listen to the words. And besides, I have to admire any song that leaves its chorus until two-and-a-half minutes in.

Previously on Songs You Should Hear: R.E.M., Leave (alt. version)

songs you should hear: r.e.m., leave

For the record, this specifically isn't the version of "Leave" that appears on R.E.M.'s 1996 album, New Adventures in Hi-Fi. Whilst that's all wailing sirens and metal clashingness, this is the weirdly sinister alternative B-side (available on the second disc of 2003's Best Of). And it's a brilliant track.

Mainly because the wobbling backing of the verses, instead of conjuring a harsh urban landscape, manages to convey isolation and loss perfectly. And the floaty breaky pause (and we know how much I like them) two and a half minutes in is the aural equivalent of the eye of some kind of emotional hurricane. That's why the shift to the major key in the latter half of the song is so bizarrely reassuring. I remember the first time I heard this song, all autumn mists and smell, and this song gets me back there every single time.

the trash questionnaire: danny

1. What's the last new song you heard for the first time and thought, bloody hell, that's a /brilliant/ song?.
Without a doubt it's 'breathe me' by Sia. I only downloaded it coz it got a good review on the'Top of the Pops' website. I've been trying to convert everyone to it but think i've failed. A song which I'd forgotten how good it was (just as a random aside) is "Still haven't found what I'm looking for" by U2.

2. Friends ending: could you give a toss?
It's been on for 10 years, that's like the duration of secondary school and university. It may be shite sometimes, and I may hate Ross with a passion, but it's still like the end of an era. Boo hiss.

3. If you could only drink one drink for the rest of time, what would it be? Choose. Choose.
Without a doubt it's water. It wouldn't be anything alcoholic coz it's all ming (to varying degrees).

4. If you had option of erasing a memory from your childhood, what would it be? (Yeah, it's the Eternal Sunshine... crib question. Deal.)
Well, i had already erased the speech therapy one, until Stu reminded me. One thing that always makes me cringe is when I had to play 'happy birthday' in a primary school assembly for a teacher's birthday. I fucked it up halfway through, and just froze and couldn't play another note. I looked like a complete spaz.

5. If you had to take one member of the O.C. cast home for the night, which would it be? If you think they all ming, or have no clue what I'm on about, just list a person you think is attractive at the moment. That'll do.
Um, well, have no idea about the O.C, but coz we've talked about 'Friends', I'll take Joey if that's ok.

the trash questionnaire: matt

1. What's the last new song you heard for the first time and thought, bloody hell, that's a /brilliant/ song?.
God knows. I don't tend to keep up with the latest music, so it takes a while for things to filter through. By the time I realize that I like something I've usually heard it quite a lot of times.

Once in a blue moon something does grab me instantly -- I remember hearing "Caught Out There" by Kelis on the radio in the changing rooms at the gym and rushing straight to Virgin to try and buy it -- only to discover it wouldn't be released for another three weeks.

I loved "Hey Mama" by the Black Eyed Peas on first sight of the iPod advert, and the music from the video game Space Channel 5 is so totally irresistible I had to order the soundtrack on Amazon (on import from Japan via the USA) on the spot.

2. Friends ending: could you give a toss?

No.

3. If you could only drink one drink for the rest of time, what would it be? Choose. Choose.

What a cruel question. I'd love to be able to say Vintage Krug or something, but if you're only letting me have *one* then it has to be water. Alcoholic as I am, that's the only drink I *really* couldn't live without. Boring, but what can you do?

4. If you had option of erasing a memory from your childhood, what would it be? (Yeah, it's the Eternal Sunshine... crib question. Deal.)

I don't think I need to: I barely remember anything from then anyway. It was all such a long time ago!

5. If you had to take one member of the O.C. cast home for the night, which would it be? If you think they all ming, or have no clue what I'm on about, just list a person you think is attractive at the moment. That'll do.
Ack. Again you expose the inadequacy of my knowledge of contemporary popular culture. I've seen the odd trailer for the O.C. and thought some people in it looked vaguely cute, but have no idea who they are. To avoid being totally predictable and going for, eg, Orlando Bloom, I shall opt instead for Will from Alias (Bradley Cooper).

the trash questionnaire: jason

1. What's the last new song you heard for the first time and thought, bloody hell, that's a /brilliant/ song?
"Time Is Running Out" by Muse. You Brits and your awesome bands. We seem to be at polar opposites with entertainment: you guys get all of the good music before we do, and we get all of the movies and TV shows.

2. Friends ending: could you give a toss?
Here's the thing: I was never a hardcore Friends viewer, but I definitely enjoyed a couple of seasons of that show. I watched the finale, and the only real sentimental thing I took away from it was, "Damn-- I am going to miss Phoebe."

3. If you could only drink one drink for the rest of time, what would it be? Choose. Choose.
This is going to sound so horribly boring, but water. I am an H20-aholic. I always have a water bottle on the go, and I just love how it makes my body feel. So refreshing. So natural. So damn tasty.

4. If you had option of erasing a memory from your childhood, what would it be? (Yeah, it's the Eternal Sunshine... crib question. Deal.)
This is a loaded question. I had a rather... um... colourful childhood. There are entire chunks I'd love to eliminate (although I do believe they helped shape just as many of my strengths as my neuroses), but the one that stands out the most would have to be the couple year stretch from when I was 14 till around 16, and my mother was in serious "alcoholic-drug addict-blacking out-abusive-dating a scary Hell's Angel" mode. Those were dark times.

5. If you had to take one member of the O.C. cast home for the night, which would it be? (If you think they all ming, or have no clue what I'm on about, just list a person you think is attractive at the moment. That'll do.)
I don't watch the O.C., but I think that guy with the mop of dark brown hair is a cutie. As for other people I find attractive at the moment: Jude Law, the guy from the new pro-stretch Calvin Klein underwear ads, Amber (the winner of Survivor All-Stars), Marianne Moore, and Stephen Dorff a la the new Britney video.

gay trojan horse syndrome

My involvement and relationship with gay society groups (namely, Pride) has had a long and well-documented history - if not on this weblog then among those people I've managed to piss off because of it. My previous apathy towards them has been based around the fact that I genuinely believe they often prioritise organisation and gleeful exhibition - both of which have their place - above welfare. And, whilst I still have concerns that whether or not Motion 48B gets passed to some extent obscures the fact that there's countless students in rooms having nightmares about who they find sexually attractive, my attitude towards it all's been changing recently.

I guess this is because I'm, ironically, getting near to the end of my definite four years here. I've got through them (relatively) unscathed, and I'm a damn sight more sure about myself and where I fit in than I was when I arrived at university three and a half years ago. I guess my position at the end of that progression has only made my desire to help people like me stronger.

A couple of years ago I spent about half a year being on the exec of the society, and after a while of self-imposed withdrawal from all things relating to it - mostly because of the self-serving political oligarchy I saw as in operation at the time - I'm starting to look back more nostalgically on that involvement. It's not that my opinion of the political aspect of it has changed much: the factions and the nepotism are apparently still very much in place. It's that, I guess, those are things that within such a small group of people are never going to go away, and that you're always going to have to use the system as it stands if you're ever going to do anything useful for those people it concerns.

Anyway, all this is something I'm seriously interested in pursuing further (possibly in terms of my eventual dissertation, I'm not sure). If you've got any thoughts on gay social organisations - and your relationship to them - you can always leave a comment in the box, or poke me an e-mail. I'll let you know, obviously, before I go any further with this in academic terms.

hoops of fire

Time for a filler, kids, because all I've been doing recently is getting drunk and falling down, and there aren't any photos.

If you've been reading this site for a while, you may remember the personality test that I did via Jason's site about a year ago (then I was more ESFP than ENFP, but I'm happy with either, so hey). This makes me extroverted, intuitive, feeling and perceiving. Which is fun.

These tests are via Seldo, and not only scare me with their ability to condense your personality into a series of numbers, but also how compelling they are. I'm better at visual stuff than being a perfectionist? Sounds about right.

Conscious self	Overall self

Take Free Enneagram Personality Test
personality tests by similarminds.com

I am not theatrical in my displays, darling. I have no idea what you are talking about. *flounce*

On audio: Ben Folds Five, The Battle of Who Could Care Less (5*)

(un)scary movie

Me and the homies (oh, okay, so a very stressed me, and Tony and Gemma and James) went to see Dawn of the Dead yesterday. And despite it being very good and funny - and with the cute one still living to the end, which must be some kind of first - it just wasn't that scary. And neither was Jeepers Creepers 2, which we watched in the evening (but then that one wasn't any good, either).

So where have all the scary films gone? Or have I just become really resilient to them? I used to be terrible (as anyone who saw my hiding-behind-a-popcorn-box performance at the first half an hour of the original Jeepers Creepers will confirm).

The last truly creepy film I saw was the American reworking of the Ring, and, before that, What Lies Beneath. But that was years ago. If anybody knows of a really frightening film, let me know...

A year ago today: as you were

this is not real life

three years late, why reality tv is rubbish

The problem I have, then, with "reality" TV shows is simply that I've already got a reality of my own to be going on with. True, my reality doesn't involve many close-to-the-edge evictions, or lying in a bed of slugs (well, maybe once), but it is reality. And whilst voyeurism - or people-watching, if you're not poncey - is a healthy and enjoyable human characteristic, participation is a lot better. It at least means you get to do stuff.

And besides, while people themselves are interesting, I'd argue that people's imaginations were a whole lot more so. While it's quite easy, and not particularly challenging, to imagine that Fred in that house on the telly might well be a butcher, it's a lot different imagining a vampire with a soul giving up his son that he'd only just got back from Hell. (For instance). Creativity is what humans do best. It's what makes us who we are.

And that's why it annoys me when quality TV like Angel (there we go) gets shunted off in favour of some low-cost easily-producable reality show: because it's too easy. It's not taking the creative way out. That network knows it's gonna get good ratings because of the healthy human desire to watch: but it's only watching people in a box.

(Incidentally, while it's amusing to think of the most random and bizarre reality TV show format you can, I still think the original Big Brother manages to be pretty funny: there's some people! They live in a house! The unpopular ones leave! Wow, high concept.)

sexuality 3: portrayals on "buffy"

My obsession last year with Buffy the Vampire Slayer was widely noted, mainly by small children who'd press their noses against the glass of my window and jeer at me, before running off laughing. But also by my friends, who I'm sure at one point or another thought I'd descended into complete geekdom. There was a reason for this, however: I wrote my undergrad dissertation on the show (together with Dawson's Creek) and its presentation of sexuality, in particular its portrayal of a lesbian relationship. What follows is the relevant chapter from that dissertation, in a close-to-final form. It's quite long, and not at all in weblog format, but I thought it was worth posting anyway.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer has been running in the United States since 1997, originally on the large WB network and then, in later years (2001-2003) on the smaller UPN. Generating an intense and intensely loyal fan base, the show has generated more commentary than its relatively modest audience figures suggest. Indeed, as one author puts it, “Buffy is currently riding the wave of contemporary girl power discourse that is part of an even larger US media fascination with popular feminism at the end of the twentieth century” (Ono, 2000, in Helford: 165). Whether the show’s creator, Joss Whedon, intended it to be a deliberately ‘feminist’ show is something open to debate among both fans and critics alike, but is something that must be considered during the course of this essay.

What is of specific interest to us here is the development of a lesbian relationship within the context of the show’s main group of characters, and the way in which the show handled this relationship and the eventual death of one of the pair. Detailed attention will be paid to the ways in which fans amongst lesbian groups responded to both this event and the representation by the show more generally, before finally analysing how useful the show’s portrayal was as well as an attempt to fit it back into the history of lesbianism on television.

Background: show, characters and plots

Firstly, however, some brief degree of background is required concerning the development of the show itself, together with the characters and plots contained within it. As the name suggests, the show centrally concerns the life of the eponymous Buffy, a young girl living in South California whose job it is to ‘slay’ vampires. Despite the apparently bizarre – and, some would argue, impossible to take seriously – nature of this central conceit, the show went on to portray and develop the lives of the titular character and those of her friends as they progressed through high school and into the world beyond. This disparity between the seemingly jocular title and the actual content of the show is perhaps best expressed when one commentator remarks, “Its central conceit – a bunch of high-school kids who fight supernatural evils that often map metaphorically over teenage preoccupations – was not automatically promising” (Kaveney, 2002: 2). Yet it was this very use of sophisticated narrative techniques – for television – such as metaphor and detailed character development that led to the show becoming so believable and engrossing, despite its fantastical backdrop. It is this sophistication that arguably led to it procuring such a strong and dedicated fanbase, and as such its cultural importance is something that proves worthy of study.
Aside from Buffy, the show originally centred around the lives of the characters of her friends, shy ‘geek’ ‘Willow’ and ‘class clown’ ‘Xander’, whom together with Buffy (due to her unconventional role of ‘vampire slayer’) held outcast status within the social setting of their school, ‘Sunnydale High’. As such the notion of these characters as ‘outsiders’ with the inherent degree ‘otherness’ accompanying this position, is a theme developed extensively by the show throughout its early seasons. Subsequent seasons added a range of characters, initially secondary but gradually acquiring a place within the central group, all of who for various reasons possessed similar levels of ‘otherness’. ‘Oz’, initially Willow’s boyfriend, was a werewolf, subject to the men-as-animalistic metaphor of reverting to wolf-like state every month; ‘Anya’, a ‘vengeance demon’, pursued men who had wronged women in various ways; and ‘Spike’ an amoral vampire who at various stages of the narrative helped or hindered Buffy’s progress. In the 1999-2000 series, the character of ‘Tara’ was added to this line-up: introduced as a ‘Wicca’, and part of a college group practising as such, she later became romantically involved with the character of Willow upon meeting there. As seasons went on, viewers witnessed the characters becoming closer and closer, with Willow rejecting Oz, her previous boyfriend, and Tara eventually becoming integral to the main group of characters.
The plot development of crucial interest to us here occurred in the season originally broadcast in the United States in 2001-2002, and currently being broadcast in the United Kingdom (April 2003). Increasingly addicted to the ‘magic’ that she has been practising for several years (and the original reason why the characters of Willow and Tara met in the first place), Willow allowed it to affect her character, in a drug-like metaphor of one of the season’s running plots. Tara, expressing concern for the harm that this was doing, was forced to follow up her threat to leave Willow if this continued, the two only reconciling very near to the season’s end. However, as part of that year’s ongoing story ‘arc’, the character of Tara was shot and killed by one of their adversaries, lying dead in Willow’s arms. The storyline escalated towards the season finale from there, with Willow lapsing completely into the power of the ‘dark magic’ she had been fighting throughout the season and vengefully seeking out and murdering the man who had shot her girlfriend (Marie, 07/04/03: http://www.buffyguide.com/episodes/episodes6.shtml).
The reason why this portrayal of a teenage lesbian relationship is so important, and why it provoked such a strong reaction from “Buffy The Vampire Slayer”’s audience, is the continuing under-representation of gay and lesbian characters on television. As “Watch Out, Listen Up!: The 2002 Feminist Primetime Report” (National Organisation for Women Foundation, 08/04/03: http://www.nowfoundation.org/watchout3/index.html) details, “last season [2001-2002], only 17 LGBT characters appeared in regular roles, representing 2.5% of the total prime-time characters” visible on US television. With the killing off of the character of Tara, and the additional removal of other lesbian characters from American drama, “only three of these characters are returning to TV this season and there are no signs of "out" characters among the new (sic) fall programs.” (National Organisation for Women Foundation, 08/04/03: http://www.nowfoundation.org/watchout3/index.html).
Therefore the way in which this specific show “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” portrayed the lesbian relationship within its storylines, and particularly the way it handled the death of one of the characters involved, carries special significance. It is first necessary to examine the tone of the programme concerning women in general before moving onto the specific way in which the nature of the lesbian relationship was handled.

Feminism or female empowerment?

As remarked upon above it is debatable whether, despite popular media representation, its creator, Joss Whedon, set out to establish a deliberately ‘feminist’ show. What becomes clear through media interviews carried out with him, however, is his attitude to the portrayal of women in general. For instance, discussing the influence of comic books upon his work, he is quoted as remarking: “I went away from comics for a long time. Everything seemed to be soft-core and all of it was disguised as empowerment…‘I have the power to have my shirt ripped and now you can see my nipples! Ah-ha!’” (Whedon, in Havens, 2003: 9). Similarly, despite not obviously wanting to establish a simplistically ‘feminist’ heroine, Whedon’s desire to carry on from the “tough women [of] great prototypes: Ripley and Sarah Conner” (Havens, 2003: 6) point at a desire to show women as powerful in their own right, but also with the problems that this power entailed. As a result, with a show so strongly based around the vision of its creator, it is easier to be sympathetic to its portrayal of women in general.
However, some degree of cynicism concerning the prominent display of such powerful, youthful and attractive women in the media eye remained. Surely the show was at least partly cashing in by exploiting the feminine charms of the actress who played the main role of Buffy? To the contrary, many voices were raised in the show’s defence: “Buffy [has] received widespread popular praise for its positive representations of powerful females” (Ono, in Helford, 2000: 165), for instance, or “Buffy may be styled like Britney Spears on a warm day, but her…healthy self-irony and inescapably dark undertones suggests that her main function is not titillation” (Vernon, in Gauntlett, 2002: 61). One critic goes so far as to suggest a gender divide as extreme as “on ‘Buffy,’ women rule the world and men are largely watchers” (Millman, 20/04/03: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/20/arts/television/X20MILL.html). To whichever extent you wish to take it, it is clear that, in “Buffy”, women are the characters central to the narrative.
Moreover, fears, arising from the still-influential work of Laura Mulvey, of the so-called “male gaze” (Mulvey, 1989) – the near-voyeuristic and overridingly powerful position of the male as the “looker” and the resulting objectification of women on screen as merely the “to-be-looked-at” – are similar quashed. As Daugherty remarks, “From the outset, it is clear that “Buffy” is a ‘post-gaze’ product. Women are obviously in control” (Daugherty, in Kaveney, 2002: 149) – something backed up by the continued poking fun, and objectification, of male characters throughout the seasons (including, for instance, the equal ‘pin-up’ status of both of the characters of ‘Buffy’ and ‘Angel’ by the show’s merchandise throughout their three-season relationship).

Willow and Tara, and the portrayal of lesbian relationships on youth TV

Having considered the show’s portrayal of “powerful” female characters in general, it is now necessary to turn our attention to the specific representation of the doomed lesbian relationship between the characters of Tara and Willow. Having started their relationship in the season of 1999-2000 (in the episode “New Moon Rising”, WB: 02/05/2000), the crucial episodes for analysis here are 2002’s “Seeing Red” and “Villains” (WB: 07/05/2002 and 14/05/2002 respectively). Despite the proliferation of so-called ‘spoiler’ sites on the internet – pages devoted to the sharing of as yet unaired plot revelations and twists – the long-term nature of Willow and Tara’s relationship, together with the un-predictable nature of the circumstances of Tara’s death, led to a reaction of shock and surprise for many viewers. It is therefore firstly necessary to examine the way in which the show handled this relationship over the two years, and the ways in which fans reacted to its portrayal. Exactly quantifiable levels of the positive and negative feedback generated by shows portraying the relationship between the two characters are at this point impossible to come by, something making it hard to see beyond the highly vocal nature of commentary from some groups. However, the general reaction can still be gauged in the responses of fans and writers alike, still available in archives across the Internet and reproduced in part here.
Despite criticism from some quarters that the actors involved in the relationship “never established a comfortable rapport in their portrayal of a romantic couple…their on-screen exchanges had the self-conscious awkwardness of unworldly adolescents playing "let's pretend we're gay” (Week, 15/03/03: http://www.scifidimensions.com/Aug02/deathoflove.htm), in general the reaction to the relationship appears to have been widely positive. As one critic notes, the sensitive way in which the series handled the pair falling in love is significant in that “Willow’s love affair with Tara is quite specifically not seen as any sort of break with the natural order” (Kaveney, 2002: 23). However, just as the show’s creator appeared unwilling to become involved in specific notions of ‘feminism’, he also appeared unwilling to engage with the idea of somehow aiming to promote or invoke the politics of ‘lesbianism’. To quote Whedon himself: “I'm not trying to make a political statement. I nod off during political statements. My show is about emotion” (Whedon, in Marie, 07/04/03: http://www.buffyguide.com/extras/josswt.shtml). This denial of the political in favour of the small-scale and personal is also emphasised by the focus on the love affair being between two people. In the words of one of the show’s other writers: “Willow didn't turn gay. She fell in love with someone who happened to be the same sex” (Fury, 05/05/00, in Marie, 07/04/03: http://www.buffyguide.com/extras/josswt.shtml).
This, in turn, inevitably led to criticism from some sections of the lesbian and gay audience that, to all intents and purposes, these characters were not ‘gay’ at all, merely offering a portrayal of ‘lesbianism’ deemed palatable for a heterosexual audience: “Their lives had no larger gay context…no involvement in gay politics or a gay community. They had no gay friends. They conformed to heterosexual norms in every way“ (Week, 15/03/03: http://www.scifidimensions.com/Aug02/deathoflove.htm). However, criticisms from such groups of the relationship at the time of its portrayal appear to have been relatively in the minority, with most commentators, whilst noting that “it is apparent that the show’s producers are nervous audiences will not accept lesbian sexuality” (Daugherty, in Kaveney, 2002: 149), praising the show for its making visible of a display of sexuality singularly absent from the rest of American television (something to have continued, as evidenced in the statistics cited earlier).
Of course, from outside of the gay and lesbian audienceship, criticism appears to have been rather more widespread. Despite chastising the American public for the negative responses – indicating that its impact must indeed been worthy of commentary, Whedon refers to his awareness that the “rabidly homophobic posting contingent represents a smaller percentage of Americans” before going on to remark that “one post from a gay or questioning teen saying the show helped them is worth six hundred hate letters.” (Whedon, in Marie, 07/04/03: http://www.buffyguide.com/extras/josswt.shtml). Such comments point at an apparently genuine desire for a fair and helpful representation of a lesbian relationship on mainstream youth television, despite the opposition it might provoke from some quarters.
However, this opposition grew significantly from within the lesbian and gay section of the audience upon the airing of the episodes “Seeing Red” and “Villains” remarked upon above. Upon the death of Tara, Willow embarks on the murderous rampage referred to earlier, killing one man and threatening to murder two more. In addition to the shock of many fans, caused by the unexpected nature of the death, many lesbian audience members also expressed feelings of anger and dismay. The reasons for these emotional responses need, therefore, to be considered in detail.

The “Dead/Evil Lesbian” Cliché

Of course, firstly the removal of not only a lesbian character, largely significantly absent in any case on mainstream TV, but also one involved in an apparently happy, loving relationship was greeted with dismay. This criticism is not one generated by the dynamics of the plot itself, but rather the consequences of this plot – a reduction in an already underrepresented sexuality within the media. Analysis by the “2002 Feminist Primetime Report” suggests a figure of “2.5% of the total primetime characters—a paltry number compared with the estimated 10% in real life“ (National Organisation for Women Foundation, 08/04/03: http://www.nowfoundation.org/watchout3/index.html), although it is important to stress that this 10% figure is subject to some debate.
However, the second criticism – and one fiercely expressed – concerns the dynamic of the plot itself, and the way in which the script-writers chose to ‘kill off’ Tara (and here the action of ‘choice’ is crucial to remember, as television plots, whilst representations of certain situations and characters, remain in this instance purely in the realm of fiction). Whilst those criticising such a plot development are quick to state that they wish to “tell them [the writers] how much this storyline [the love affair between the characters of Tara and Willow] means to the gay community and how much we appreciate their efforts” and to praise a representation of a lesbian relationship “historic in its longevity, sensitivity and sensuality” (Booth, 17/04/03: http://www.abooth.demon.co.uk/lesbiancliche.htm), they raise important and troubling questions as to the nature of Tara’s death and its impact upon the representation of lesbians within the media.
Outlining what they term “the dead/evil lesbian cliché”, such critics list an array of other instances of media representations featuring lesbians who are either portrayed as evil or tragic. In film, examples include “Mulholland Drive” (2001) and, most infamously, “Basic Instinct” (1992); in television, examples cited include those of American series’ “ER” – in an episode broadcast in 2002 – and “24”. The phenomenon is one writers have charted as far back as films and television shows from the 1950s and 1960s (Russo, 1981).
Therefore, for episodes of a contemporary television drama – and moreover, one aimed at potentially ‘gay or questioning teens’ – to fall however unwittingly into this cliché is arguably concerning. The specifics of Tara’s death, it is also argued, fall so far into this cliché that the comparisons are hard to avoid. Notable examples put forward by such lesbian critics include that fact that Willow’s resulting “descent into evil is extreme and over-the-top, to say the least”, and the fact that this raises the question of whether “Willow’s love for Tara [was] so extreme, unhealthy and twisted as to cause her to try to destroy everything and everyone” (Booth, 17/04/03: http://www.abooth.demon.co.uk/lesbiancliche.htm). The fact that one of the most physical expressions of this love between the characters portrayed within the show’s history comes immediately prior to the killing is used as further evidence of the storyline’s implication that such emotions and actions led directly to the death and resulting evil (“Seeing Red”, WB: 07/05/2002).
Criticisms of this one show as completely reversing all the positive promotion of a healthy lesbian relationship are perhaps rather extreme, however. The fact that the representation of ‘alternative’ sexualities makes up such a small degree of portrayal within mainstream television invariably means that the ways in which such storylines are handled will inevitably come under closer scrutiny than they would otherwise be subjected to. However, when set within the internal dynamic of a show where, apparently, “women are obviously in control” (Daugherty, in Kaveney, 2002: 149), the fact that a woman losing control, in one of the most obviously and powerfully symbolic ways possible, proves problematic when set within the otherwise empowering nature of the show’s representation of its female characters. Indeed, quoted on an online posting board, another of the show’s chief writers is quoted as saying, “we’ve all seen shows where if you have any kind of gay tendencies, you must be killed or made to suffer to no other reason than you’re gay. We’re hyper aware of that” (Petrie, 21/02/00, in Booth, 17/04/03: http://www.abooth.demon.co.uk/lesbiancliche.htm). Therefore the show’s internal plot development of the season, whatever its motives, appears questionable when subjected to such critical analysis from such an understandably emotionally aroused sector of its audience.

Conclusion

However, aside from the specific criticism of the show’s individual treatment of its lesbian characters, it is necessary to put the programme back into the framework of the portrayal of lesbianism within the popular media, and the degree to which this instance of such representation proves helpful or unhelpful. Those critics already outraged by the apparently unwitting fact that the show falls into this ‘dead/evil lesbian’ cliché are obviously quick to point out its potentially damaging effects: “gay and lesbian teenagers who are already the most likely to be at risk as a result of dealing with bigotry…are also the ones most likely to have to draw their images of gay life from the media” (Booth, 17/04/03: http://www.abooth.demon.co.uk/lesbiancliche.htm). Whilst this sentiment is one discussed earlier, and as such one easily identifiable with, it is, in conclusion, also important to add two key caveats. Firstly, it is only through increased representation in general of gay and lesbian characters that a more representative, and therefore less fragile, portrayal of their lives and associated problems can begin to be constructed. Secondly, moreover, for two years the positive and, at times, moving display of love between two female characters on a prime-time show such as “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” is something of which the importance cannot be ignored. Whatever the mistakes made in the handling of the death of one of the characters involved, the benefits generated by the previous years’ strengths serve, in my opinion, as an important benchmark in the representation of such groups within the media as a whole.

This article (c) Matt Elton 2003. This article remains the intellectual property of the author. Please don't reproduce without my permission, else I'll cry and possibly stamp one of my surprisingly disproportionate feet.

sexuality 2: how am i different?

The second of four articles this week on sexuality that I'm writing because I'm bored. The first one is here.

The argument that homosexuality is in some way socially constructed is, as far as I can see, at the very least unhelpful if not, as I would argue, actually fundamentally incorrect. You and I both know that who we're sexually attracted to has very little to do with what society tells us and more to do with what we feel, strongly and innately. However, whilst homosexuality is not socially constructed, I'd argue that gayness very much is.

Look at it like this. You wanna sleep with girls, you wanna sleep with boys. Either way, that's your choice and it's /you/, it's not up to society (otherwise why would so many people suffer the homophobia and abuse directed at them? Not for shits and giggles, that's for sure). But gayness? Biologically or genetically, you're fucking boys. Whatever, liking Barbara Streisand sure isn't in your genetic code.

Sorry, that's a cliched example, but it holds true. Gay men have historically tended towards liking certain things. The stereotypes of Celine Dion and Big Business may not ring true in today's society, but they must've come from somewhere. And these group preferences are markers of a social collective identity, of a social sexual identity generated through consumption and community solidarity.

Of course, this is hardly surprising. Repeatedly and strikingly, gay men have been persecuted by wider society and its associated culture. So it's natural for them to have established a concurrent subculture, prizing and rewarding "belonging" that the wider society refused to allow. You knew who other gay men were by the way they dressed, by the way they walked. The music they liked and the books they read.

And whilst I'm hardly suggesting it's as monolithic as all that in our contemporary society (indeed, I'm not even suggesting that it was ever as black and white as that at all), it still remains true in a number of ways. Gayness still has its markers, its boundaries, its acceptabilities. And this is where we get to the problems.

I'm not gay. I mean, well, obviously I am, but I'm more Matt. I am lefthanded and like Aimee Mann, I'm rubbish at mornings and I like the way things look when they're well designed. In other words, there's a huge amount more to me than the fact I want to boff boys, and that's the way I want it to stay.

I strongly believe, then, that gayness should be worked back into your whole identity, not allowed to sublimate and marginalise other markers of it. And therefore becoming little more than the nexus point of the gay markers around you is self-defeating: hell, you're revelling in your gayness, but I've always found that a bit wearing. You can't talk about boys you wanna get into bed with all day. Trust me, I've given it a good try.

This problem goes back to what I discussed in politics of difference: the extent to which you lose yourself in the group around you. But, particularly in a group such as gay men whose very point of existence is supposedly to celebrate diversity, to fly in the face of "normality", the simple creation of another set of norms and values seems ultimately self-defeating.

sexuality 1: coming out

The first of four articles this week on sexuality that I'm writing because I'm bored. There'll be another one (of them) on Wednesday.

Let's start at the beginning. I first realised I liked boys when I was about ten. The gap between realisation and acceptance, however, was longer: I first came out to my friends, here at uni, when I was nineteen. That's now three years ago, and almost exactly around this time of year. Hence these articles.

The fact that I spent over a third of my life in different stages of self-denial is, of course, in itself interesting. I remember lying in bed on more than one occassion thinking maybe I'd be able to repress the feelings I had, that maybe I'd grow out of them, or whatever (I must've been around fourteen at this point). Of course, underlying all of these thought processes is the unspoken knowledge I had that the feelings I was having were somehow wrong, and at the very least distasteful.

There were no other gay people I knew of when I was younger. I grew up in a smallish countryside town where it was more about tolerance than acceptance. My role models in this period were my close female friends, who embraced what would come to be known as "metrosexuality" and were refreshing in their liberalness. But I had no template for homosexuality, no-one I knew who was open about their liking boys. So I kept quiet, and waited until I left for university.

The year I was nineteen was an exciting one. By this stage I'd come to accept that not only did I like boys (y'know, sexually), but also that I probably self-defined myself as gay. The year was also one marked by three or four people to whom I'm hugely indebted in making me who I am now. One was - still is, thankfully - Danny, one of my closest friends in the sociology department, who I met pretty much at random. One was Kim, who reminded me of those girl friends from back home, who looked after me in a way which I've never really been able to thank her fully enough for. And the other, through Kim, was Seldo, who pretty much helped me through what would otherwise've been quite a difficult period.

I told Danny and another friend that I thought I was gay late on in February, 2001. I was just nineteen. It was a Sunday: I'd been home to see my parents for half term, and had spent the week thinking about where I wanted to go in the future, what I wanted from my life, and who I wanted to please. Being almost fully apart from your parents for the first time puts these kind of things into perspective, and whereas in the past I felt guilty to them, that I was letting them down, I now felt that if I didn't acknowledge the truth - and do something about it - I'd only be letting me down. Also, liking boys for that long and doing nothing about it tends to get a bit annoying.

It's a weird sound your mouth makes when you tell other people, after eight years, that you're gay.

I remember Danny thinking it was really cool. And it was. And since then I've never directly lied about it. My parents still don't know. I have a clear rationale for this, which other people don't get and I secretly know isn't, can't be, a long term one. But I can't upset them, and I know it will. They mean too much to me for me to upset them at the moment. And living here, at university, you can separate the two parts of your life with huge degrees of success.

Three years of being gay has led to me being completely happy in my own sexuality and my own gender identity. What leads me to study this subject, however, at degree level, and to discuss it like this, is the way in which being gay means more than having sex with boys - it means a lot more. Tomorrow, then, I'm gonna talk about the problems I have with "being gay", at least in a social sense.

angel 5x16, 'shells'

I kept my geekboy Angel-loving mouth shut after last week's Joss Whedon-penned episode (and if you don't understand my total awestruckness of this man yet, then I think it might well be too late for you). And I know now why: I wasn't - as Kyle rightly puts it - as blown away by it as I perhaps should've been. Unlike last night's episode, which left me with a little lump in my throat and the knowledge that, when this show goes to the great Heaven of Cancelled Shows in the Sky, I'll be a lot less likely to be so emotionally involved in TV again.

"Is there anything in this life but grief?"

"There's love. There's hope, for some. There's hope that you'll find something worthy. That your life will lead you to some joy. That after everything, you can still be surprised."

songs of the week #1

So! Many! Songs! So! Little! Time!

Also, too few exclamation marks left in the world now. Anyway. Moving fast up the "top 25 most played" list in Mr iTunes recently are:

Destiny's Child, Bootylicious (5*)

Forgotten how ace this song is. I can remember reviewers going "Ooh, we weren't sure about the whole repeated-motorbike-guitar-riff thing to start with, but it really grew on us." And they were right. And it did. Loved that summer.

Fountains of Wayne, Stacy's Mom (6*)

Favourite bits so far: any time it goes "Stacy's Mom/has got it going on" (which, I'll admit, is a lot). "scho-hoo-hool". "And the way she said/You missed a spot over there". All the "aah-aah"-ing. Genius.

The Offspring, Hit That (4*)

Yeah, so what every Offspring sounds the same. When that song is as catchy as this, who cares?

Bryan Adams, Run To You (5*)

You know what? I love gayboy pop just as much as the next disembodied representation of a person. But sometimes, sometimes, you need a good ol' power ballad to get you going. And, courtesy of the card shop on campus, I ponced around, all the way back, with Bryan Adams in my head and the wind in my hair, or /something/.

spurious left-right brain testing

Because it's quite nice to play in a so-called "meme" (how very 1999) that I didn't start, here's my exciting left-right brain profile from the link I copied off someone else's site. I have little idea what it means for me as a person, but I have put the words I liked in bold.

"Matt, you possess an interesting balance of hemispheric and sensory characteristics, with a slight right-brain dominance and a slight preference for visual processing.

Since neither of these is completely centered, you lack the indecision and second-guessing associated with other patterns. You have a distinct preference for creativity and intuition with seemingly sufficient verbal skills to be able to translate in any meaningful way to yourself and others.

You tend to see things in "wholes" without surrendering the ability to attend to details. You can give them sufficient notice to be able to utitlize and incorporate them as part of an overall pattern.

In the same way, while you are active and process information simultaneously, you demonstrate a capacity for sequencing as well as reflection which allows for some "inner dialogue." (That's what the voices in my head are then).

All in all, you are likely to be quite content with yourself and your style although at times it will not necessarily be appreciated by others.(blackshirtandwhitetieblackshirtandwhitetieetc.) You have sufficient confidence to not second-guess yourself, but rather to use your critical faculties in a way that enhances, rather than limits, your creativity.

You can learn in either mode although far more efficiently within the visual mode. It is likely that in listening to conversations or lecture materials you simultaneously translate into pictures which enhance and elaborate on the meaning. (See, I /knew/ those little doodles I spend all my lectures doing meant something! Hah, I am vindicated! Possibly.)

It is most likely that you will gravitate towards those endeavors which are predominantly visual but include some logic or structuring. You may either work particularly hard at cultivating your auditory skills or risk "missing out" on being able to efficiently process what you learn. Your own intuitive skills will at times interfere with your capacity to listen to others (no, i think you will definitely find that is my fingers in my ears), which is something else you may need to take into account."

Hmm, eh?

Tonight I went to the theatre. There were umbrellas which were ducks. Full report tomorrow I expect, loves.

On visual: umbrellas what are ducks
No really: they were ducks. Honk

'amusing' south park generators

No prizes for guessing who these lovely cartoon types are meant to be.

Four of the large-scale cartoons - Cath, Andy, Matt and Will - are now up on the photoblog if you want to save them for use. Click on the picture above to get to them.

stitch, who looks like savva

This is a picture of Stitch for no particular reason, apart from the fact that I promised Dale I'd post it. And also, I love Stitch. Me and Danny've been practising the noises for weeks. And because I think Stuart is right, and his comment cracked me up, I've added a photo of Savva next to him to prove how similar the two actually are. (Apologies and thanks to Evil Dan for stealing the picture off him).

I'll let you know what's been going on as soon as I know, I promise. Hugs for all your support, you lovely people.

politics of difference

Bit of a curveball here, but it is late at night and I've severely messed up my bodyclock by sleeping at random points during today (possibly the longest on record). I've just been thinking a bit, following a series of random conversations we've had this week, about why I'm feeling so much better generally this term and how that fits into more general sociological ideas that we've been throwing around (I promise I won't do this kinda thing a lot).

Basically, I'm pretty convinced that, for most people, how they feel about themselves can be defined in terms of a politic of difference - in other words how far or how much they feel different or similar to the people around them. Groups of people are by their nature inherently normalising - you develop a set of characteristics and values, expressions and modes of performance, because of the time you spend together and the pre-existing similarities that led you to become close in the first place. This is unquestionably a good thing, since you spend your life trying to establish these deep connections with people who "click" with you in a way different to others. But what can become a problem, or at least as far as I'm concerned, is the way in which you as an individual fit into the wider social network which operates around you.

Last term a friend of mine (hello Kimmy!) told me that maybe the problem I was having was that I'd lost myself in the group of friends I operate within. I think, with the benefit of hindsight, that in this she was almost certainly right - that I'd become so worried that I was different from other people I was around that I kept shifting myself to keep up with them. This term is different in that I don't really seem to care about this - and, even more than that, that I seem to like the difference I have between me and other people.

To a certain extent. I know that it bothers other people variously that I've become closer to others, or that I don't seem so interested in doing certain things that I would have used to. But in a way I kinda like that - I still love completely the similarities I have with my friends, obviously, because of the reason I mentioned above - but I also like the fact that I do have different priorities. I'm closer to other people than other people are (er, but you see what I mean) and those relationships are different because I'm different. I have different strengths and qualities and that thing that's difficult to quantify that makes you who you are.

And in way, that's enormously enpowering. And I really don't mind if people don't get that; it's up to them to try to see where I'm coming from at that point in time.

That's enough sociological shit for now. Back to drunken bibbling tomorrow, I promise.

photobloggingness!

[click to link, natch]

The weblog's all redesigned and pretty and, y'know, actually functional! For once. Apart from that, being moaned at by union council, seeing the lovely Rich, and making toast, that's all I've done today. If I ever actually got me some motivation I'm so sure I'd really frightening.

On audio: Air, Biological (4*)
On video: Angel, "Conviction" (4*)

custard says hello

friday five - state of play

At this moment, what is your favorite...

1. ...song?

Hmm. I'm not gonna apologise, just shuffle my feet and look at them for a bit: the Lilo and Stitch OST. Yay!

2. ...food?

Birthday cakes. Everybody's left from last week and this. Mmm.

3. ...tv show?

Watched last week's Angel yesterday - the one with all the freaky dream sequences - and for some reason it's stayed with me longer than I would've thought. I really dug the direction, so points to Davey Bananas for that.

4. ...scent?

Oranges. Gotta love big bags of clementines being all over the flat.

5. ...quote?

"And I know now which is which
And want angle I oughta look at it from
I suppose I should be happy to be this
some of the other things I have become

But nobody wants to hear this tale
The plot is cliche - the jokes are stale
And maybe we've all heard it all before"

- Aimee Mann, Invisible Ink ("Lost in Space")