Not So New Girl

I like Zooey Deschanel. I thought she was good in (500) Days of Summer. I was hopeful about her being interesting and talented. That is why I gave New Girl, 5 minutes of my time, despite obvious reservations... If I didn't know any better, I'd say that there's a conspiracy to pump a conservative agenda though mainstream T.V. with the appearance of being liberal. And I'll tell you why. I happened upon the episode where New Girl decides to have a one night stand but once she finds her male equivalent of the dumb blond, who in real-life, if he had this dialogue would be considered mentally impaired, she changes her mind, realising it's not for her. And I thought, imagine she went through with the one-night-stand, had great sex and went home thinking she'd found a new lifestyle. Now, THAT would be a new girl. Because while shows like this love to show us promiscuity (because they're so hip), it's usually the side-line character who has the easy morals and of course, low self-esteem. She's the comic relief, the hooker with a heart of gold, she's Joey from Friends, minus the admiration. Meanwhile, our girl-next-door protagonist seems to be shoehorned into a moral agenda where she never has sex without emotional involvement and her career decisions are always made with her heart. Admirable qualities, of course. But I'm predicting her career will never suffer - the tricky thing being, the downside to her choices is unlikely to be explored. So, why are we being served up such patronising, conservatism with our mindless entertainment? I mean, who's in charge of T.V. anyway? Bill Hicks claimed it's the corporate brandateers who sponsor the T.V. channels, demanding a certain audience. The question to me then is: are we getting what we want or are we being told what we want? I think we're being duped. We want something new, something that will surprise us. But most shows are only made to look progressive because they'll start with a modern premise. Then, despite her freedom, the newest girl will never really leave a safe "family values" perimeter and the over-contrived plot will never have her lose out because of it. So, really, no risk is being taken, nothing is being challenged and we're just being served up the same old after-school special. Don't even get me started on the male counterparts who always seem, in contrast, to be family-reluctant morons, happy being treated as children. It's as if, in representing women as being "able to do it all", the male stereotype has had to be reduced to an extra child in the house.

I think it's easier to put original programmes on T.V. in Britain, than in the U.S. There's less advertisement - sponsor influence and corporate control and the censorship rules are more relaxed and diverse across the terrestrial channels. Sharon Horgan's Pulling is an excellent example of original, uncompromising T.V. which was broadcast on BBC3. Even the insipid Coupling, the British answer to Friends didn't bother with a moral agenda. Also in The States, religion has had more ferver in recent years (to put it mildly) and there has been a revival of family-value/traditional idealism. Which makes me think: Bill Hicks had such faith in his audience; it's part of what has made him a cult hero - he believed the audience was just like him and wanted his edgy, subversive style of satire - if he could only get passed the censors... But, maybe he was wrong. Maybe there's no conspiracy. No mind control to keep viewers in the optimum state of watching and buying. Just people getting what they want.

In which case, fine by me. I can switch channels. Or, better still, I can buy The Wire on D.V.D. It's just... don't call the damn thing New Girl!

I realise that I have repeated myself, because here is my poem Sitcom Drops which has a similar theme.

And, here's Prime Time Guy, about the struggle of the T.V. satirist.

It's The Right Thing To Do

What is your connection with the Middle East? The editor of The Arab Review asks me when considering my poem for publication. I wrote It's The Right Thing To Do on the bus to work, down a long London street of local shops, looking out the window at women wearing the full burqa. I think a woman has a right to wear a burqa to express her faith, just as another woman has the right to wear a miniskirt to express herself. But what I find difficult to understand, is how it has come to be believed that the face, clearly designed for communication and interaction, should only be revealed in private. And why is it only a woman's face that is inappropriate for public viewing? Obviously, it is in the reaction of the beholder. But when does the beholder take responsibility for his actions? Can these questions really be down to cultural insensitivity? And in the situation where the burqa is an enforced rule rather than a choice, where is a woman's refuge when she does not want to comply? You only have to read your local newspaper to answer that question... No connection to the Middle East I reply. Just London living.


Today I was supposed to be working on some poems - competition deadlines loom and I'm also editing Orla's Code at the moment but that's a topic for another blog update. Instead I am taking the opportunity to read through the impressive, culturally rich Arab Review. I love this poem by Mahmoud Darwish: I Do Not Sleep To Dream. There are a lot of poems about sadness and loss but this one has something so visceral about it - maybe because it's so physical. Or maybe it's physicality is accentuated because it is written by a man from a woman's point of view. There's so much going on in this journal - fiction, interviews, photography, travel reports... I really like this article about the Egyptian grafftii that tells the story of the revolution: Street Art And The City. And I thought this was an interesting, sober report on the Syrian conflict, by way of book review: Taking the future into their own hands. And of course there's the poignant I Wore The Veil by Farah Chamma.

Performance Poetry Night 3

It's a dirty word but this time I went mainstream. To the Southbank Centre to see Saul Williams and Kate Tempest who are definitely not mainstream. This was in the lead up to the Shake The Dust series - the biggest ever youth poetry slam in the UK. Out of all the events going on around it, these two artists caught my eye and I booked myself a ticket for last Thursday night. Yes, one. I still can't get my beer-swilling friends along to a poetry evening. They don't know what they're missing.

Another overwhelming display of talent but I have to say Performance Poetry Night 1 is still top of my list. First of all, I could have done without the kids-entertainment style hosts who asked us, at the beginning of the evening, to think of people who had annoyed us during the week and shake our hands to get the annoyance out. During acts, they also helped us to practice things like clapping and cheering. What is that all about? There were no children in the audience and everyone there was already a fan of poetry. I don't need to be fluffed, thank you.

Before the main acts, we had an array of young poets reading personal poems. I was impressed with all of them. Loved one actually but I can't find a link to it - the link to this event seems to be gone from the Southbank website. It was interesting to see the mix of styles during this half - ranging from confident and adept to nervous and shy. One woman appologised for the silence at the end of her poem, which showed how new and inexperienced she was. But it was the Queen Elizabeth Hall in the Southbank Centre, so really fair play to her for getting up there.  


Kate Tempest is pretty awesome. She seems to transcend to another plane in front of our eyes as she is carried away by her words. And it is contagious. Imagine your soul-felt longings pinged around a pin-ball machine - that's her. Saul Williams is more understated. His poems are long and exploratory and delivered with a scoop of self-righteous authority. But I thought both poets delivered originality and perception and like any good poet, brought us a new way of looking at things. At one point Saul Williams compared close-mindedness to a police state, only allowing to roam free, the thoughts that align with government. He paused to say 'Let me ask you this? What is your immigration policy?' - and the crowed went wild.


BUT, they both spoke so fast that a lot of the time it was hard to catch what they were saying. Every now and then they would slow down to drive home a point - and the crowd would go wild. I wonder if you're not supposed to catch all of it - you sort of catch snippits, get an impression - like impressionist art, a stroke here, a smudge there, add detail to the important points to hold it all together. Jim Morrison used to whip himself up into a frenzy on stage. But before he'd lose it, you could actually understand him and take the ride with him. For me, the ratio of coherent impassioned verse to garbled delirium was just a bit on the self-indulgent side. I'm struggling here because I do think both artists are really talented. From what I could hear, their words were thoughtful and had substance and I really wanted to hear more! I've tried finding lyrics online but can only find links to performances. Check out Kate Tempest's Icarus though. She really is awesome!

Orla's Code Update

Imagine my excitement on hearing from a publisher who liked my synopsis and was interested in reading my manuscript! Well, you'd be wrong. I was not excited at all. I had a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach, telling me all was not as it seemed. This is because I had heard back from them the day after my submission, congratulating me on "taking initiative" and promising to help with whatever my goal. You can see the stance they're taking here. And I only have one problem with it. If you're offering support to people who want to self-publish, then just say that. If you want to charge them $1000, as I subsequently learned, in order to "share the financial risk" then allude to it on your website, if you think it's such a great idea. A week after submitting my MS I received another email of congratulations and I knew the nature of the publishing contracts "tailored for me" before reading them. But there was one sentence I found more alarming than the email pick-pocketing that was going on. It was this: "In your case, we believe that what you have submitted to us shows promise specifically but only in terms of commercial sales potential. We do not critique submissions for any other opinion or determination." What in the world does that mean? In grappling to understand I interpret it to mean: "We do not stand over quality". And this alarms me because I then make the leap to shit-peddlers. Is this why self-publishing has a bad name? Because some companies will take your money and publish your work no matter what the standard? This gets me all riled up because it reminds me of the Dark Lords who bring us marketed pop music. Don't even get me started... Part of this deal was that if I made 1000 book sales I would get my money back. But where is the incentive for them to help with book sales? The answer is, there isn't any. They win either way. But self-publishing doesn't have to be like that. There do appear to be self-publishing houses that will work with you to improve the quality of your MS before publishing it. And there's always print-on-demand which gives you greater control and doesn't cost all your savings up front. Well, maybe, as an international company, their marketing clout would have provided essential support but it's the shady way they went about revealing their intentions, hidden beneath this motivational marketing speak that meant, no matter what they had to offer they were never going to be my type.

Other than that, in my quest to find an audience for Orla's Code, I fill out agency submission forms trying to figure out if I've written a novel or a novella. Depending on what website you visit, a novel can start at 40,000 words, 50,000 words or 70,000 words. If we take content rather than length as a measure, I would say a novel reveals itself completely; telling all the stories that contribute to the main story. A novella tells a self-contained story. So, in a way they are opposite things and I have written a novella. And then there's the genre. It's funny that in a lot of industries, thinking "outside the box" is a good thing. In writing - one of the most creative professions - we're encouraged to fit inside the box. Well, I'm a cirangle. Yes, I just made it up. There isn't a box for me. My story is through the eyes of a woman but most of the characters are men. It's about the emotional landslide that takes someone when they feel persecuted but it's set in a highly technical world. It's fiction but the roots of most things are real. Incidentally, doesn't this sound like the perfect pocket-read for your commute? It's understandable though that outside the box falls through the cracks. No publisher is looking to publish random work. They have a relationship with their readership. They build a name through consistency. Like Starbucks, you know what you're getting. This is how any business works. It's how sales work. Hell, even if you look up tips on blogging, you'll be told that's how blogging works - consistency. This is also why we have independent movies, alternative music, the word indie and Mr. Frothy. Which begs a question:

Why is it that indie-music/movies are cool but self-publishing has a bad name? It's like the former is considered a noble act and the latter is dismissed as vanity! My initial thought is it's because self-publishing is just so easy. But, it wasn't always as easy as it is now. And anyway, it's never easy to write a book! So, here are some multiple choice suggestions: (fun, right?)

A) Indie music/movies are usually a collaboration so it means a few people have to think it's great before it goes anywhere.

B) Indie music/movies actually cost quite a lot of money. Kevin Smith's Clerks cost $27,575. I think we'd all think twice about publishing our memoir for that.

C) Self-publishing is relatively new and we need a few more talented authors to make it through before it really starts to establish itself.

D) The aforementioned companies that are willing to publish anything.

E) None of the above. Suggestions please?

I'm also taking suggestions on genre...

Performance Poetry Night 2

If I have strange dreams over the next few days involving dark figures shouting 'Terrorism' or a Goth trying to cleanse me with an industrial vacuum cleaner or a man trying to unlock the secrets of a Cornish pasty, telepathically, possibly using the vibration of sound, I'll have to blame RichMix's avant-garde evening Maintenant Camarade Poetry.

Maybe I'm not equipped to comment on last night's performances. But I do have a question. Does avant-garde mean by definition these days, introspective art? Not art for the sake of art but art for the sake of the artist? And is what used to be avant-garde now considered alternative - in a more liberal age? I think experiment in sound/art is interesting if it is part of something, a progression that leads to a new form of expression. My personal preference is art that wants to say something rather than art that just wants to shock. But I enjoyed last night. It's fun not knowing what's going to happen next.

Before the performances there was an exhibition of visual poetry. I thought this one was cool. It's by Stephen Nelson. I've just found his website Afterlights with more of his work.

The March issue of Tuck Magazine has come but not gone

Nice to be a part of an arts magazine. Today I spent my lunch break looking at the latest work from artists, photographers and film makers among my poems Prime Time Guy and Sifting For Gold. A break from the 0's and 1's chit-chat we programmers usually engage in.

Loved Simon Crofts' photography. The unusual angles and composition are really arresting. And thought Gerard Stricher's art had something in common as they both create striking shapes.

I really liked the poems by Liam Bond. Loved the rhythm of The Music of Spheres by A.J. Huffman and The Eve Factor in a Bee's eye by Michael Kwaku Kesse Somuah made me smile.

Hope you're all enjoying Tuck March Issue too.

It was you who fell first

WordJar asked for a dedication to accompany the poems in their anthology My Love 2. I suppose this would normally be to the object of affection in the poem, but my poem is about a young woman who is letting go of an unobtainable man and the object of affection, in the end, is herself. So, instead, I dedicate the poem to my friend Gill. When I asked Gill what she thought of the emotional state of the woman in the poem (because I like to annoy my friends with such questions), Gill shrugged and said, She's just being a woman. We both nodded wisely.

Click here for My Love 2, including The Procrastinator