Summertime and the Living is...

..happening elsewhere to here. :D

It's an absolutely glorious day and here I am in work. On a Saturday. Meh.

Hopefully it will be quiet today, it normally is when it's really nice weather. Or when it's really poor weather. It seems to be only when it's a middling day that we get busy. When the weather's good people want to be in the park or the pub beer garden; not messing about with coming to interfere with my hardcore Facebooking and Twittering. :D Equally, when it's dreekit out then no one wants to leave the house.

So here's to a blissfully sunny day where I'll be, hopefully, getting paid to sit in the sun with tunes blasting out of the office and an Ambrose Bierce collection in my hand. :)

So, have some music. It's on me so go on, knock yourselves out. :D

[embed]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbg7YoXiKn0[/embed]

[embed]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P1x7Yy9CXI[/embed]

[embed]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iol0B-clFFM[/embed]

[embed]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG8Ect3Xn7w[/embed]

[embed]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCmUhYSr-e4[/embed]

[embed]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DohRa9lsx0Q[/embed]

 

The Feminisms

I've never described myself as a feminist. There are a few reasons for this. Some a bit daft and others slightly less so. The main daft reason I would always give is "I'm not a feminist because I haven't read enough of the theory"(yeah, I know!). I do think that's the less daft one as there is a wealth of feminist theory out there and there are many distinct currents within the broad river labelled feminism and I only have an, at best, half baked understanding of most of them.

Second is the problems I have with some of those currents. Particularly the dogmatic separatist brand of feminism that emerged in the, correct me if I'm wrong, 1970s and that generally has the label Radical Feminism attached to it. I have problems with this current of feminism as I find it to be anti-woman in that it strips women of a lot of their agency and it also contains a lot of the most divisive rhetoric and theory that I've come across on matters of gender. The transphobia that is common in that current is also highly disturbing.

Thirdly, I considered the term feminist to be far too troublesome to use. I would rather put forward the ideas than have them instantly misunderstood due to most people's association of the term with the reactionary form of feminism we see in Radical Feminism. I always figured that a lot of people get tripped up by words so easily it was better to just forward the ideas, which the majority of people have little problem with, than to give a person a mental barrier to their engagement with the nitty-gritty of the feminist perspective.

Recent events have changed my perspective on this somewhat.

Recent events being the obvious, the dick in California shooting a bunch of people to show he was an alpha male(tip, dude, if you're an alpha male you probably shouldn't end up giving a gun a blow job), the amount of attention the misogynists of the Men's Rights Movement have received as they have come out of the woodwork to defend, or even praise, the actions of this reprehensible, entitled, rich twat, and, finally, some conversations of Facebook recently.

Now there have been some cracking posts discussing the tools in the MRM, here are two from a dude because I figure other guys telling these guys where to get off will likely have a better effect than a woman. (1, 2). SO I don't really feel the need to go into that dark, turgid, cesspool of human existence.

Now, the Facebook discussions.

Last weekend a really good friend shared a video exposing the difference in public reaction between a man attacking a woman and a woman attacking a man in public.  The video was made by a charity that aims to try and get men talking about domestic abuse. From what I can see the charity doesn't try and minimise the experience of women who suffer domestic violence it just honestly wants to get men talking about suffering it too. An admirable goal in my opinion.

[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3PgH86OyEM[/embed]

Unfortunately the timing of my friend sharing it couldn't have been worse as it was the day after the douchebag rampage in California. Obviously there was a rather heated discussion in the comments thread on my friends post. During this thread a number of people were talking about 'feminism' from the perspective that it was concerned with unbalancing equality between genders in favour of women. A view that is, no doubt, supported by a handful of the more reactionary sorts of the current I discussed earlier. This was rather frustrating as every time one of us pointed out that feminism is as much concerned with the rights of men as it is with women the standard response would be "But a feminist I know said X, Y and Z". It was like banging your head off a brick wall trying to get people to appreciate the difference between the reactionary bigots who claim the name feminism and, well, everyone else who does.

Later there was another discussion over a post that was shared which highlights the male experience of being raped by a woman. During this discussion my pal said:

 I've been in situations many women would consider "rape" and many others would consider the other person being pushy. I've been told by a Feminist that it is technically impossible for a woman to rape a man. I have checked and in several dictionaries, rape is not confined to man on woman forced sex at all.

Thankfully my partner, C, jumped in with this rather elongated and eloquent reply. Elongated and eloquent for Facebook that is. ;)

This is potentially a really interesting discussion point. Also, it's a big tangle of issues, so I apologise if people feel that I go on a bit, but I think it's worth working through. Also, terminology is potentially problematic in discussions like this, because so much of it has been developed by feminist discussion, that the words can feel alienating to some people, and that's something which needs to be addressed. So I'll be doing an Andy(that's me :D ) and trying to define stuff.

Firstly, my own position is that rape is (ideologically speaking) sexual contact in which one person does not consent. Consent to sex should be defined as *enthusiastic*: not coerced or manufactured by other means. So yes, women can *certainly* rape men and other women.

That said, the law doesn't see it that way:

The offence is created by section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:

“ 1-(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

So, for the law in England and Wales, rape is an act defined by penetration *with a penis*. It's worth noting that oral and anal penetration has only recently been added to the definition (2003), so for centuries, rape (in law) was only committed by men against women by penetration of the vagina with a penis and is still an offence (in law) which only men can commit, although it is recognised that they can commit it against men.

Is this wrong and unjust? Yes, of course it is. Should it be changed? Without a doubt. However, in order to understand how this has come about, we need to look to historical conceptions of rape. 

So, until well into the 20th century (I can't remember the date, but I will look) rape is always a crime against a man. It is a property crime against the woman's closest male relative and not the woman herself. This is because of a woman's value on the marriage market being connected to her virginity and because of a wife's value as sole property of the husband and her value for producing heirs which are indisputably the offspring of her husband. Hangovers persisted from this conception of rape as a property crime until *very* recently: this is why rape inside marriage isn't recognised in law until the mid nineties, and there are UKIP members (and others) who have openly stated that they would like to abolish it.

Buggery between men, of course, is illegal for all this time--and maybe longer, I'm unsure--whether consenting or not, so there is *some* recourse in law for male victims, though I doubt men often felt able to take it due to the associated stigma, a stigma which is caused by the notion that it is *only* acceptable to have sex inside a marriage, and consent isn't an issue, because marriage itself is consent to all future sex inside that marriage.

So, for centuries, the prosecution of rape has *nothing* to do with the harm caused to the victim of the rape. Indeed, the victim of the rape isn't even the victim in law and 'legitimate' sex and female consent aren't even connected ideas. The idea of women wanting or enjoying sex is utterly preposterous (a reason why there were never any laws against lesbianism) and the idea of them having any power to coerce or assault a man is just as preposterous.

Now, this is where language becomes an issue, so bear with me.

'Feminism' is now a largely insufficient word for defining an ideology: It doesn't define an ideology, it defines an analytical perspective, the perspective of analysing society from a position which takes gender as its critical lens. Lots of academics that would traditionally be defined as feminist theorists are now described as 'gender theorists', because academic feminism is not necessarily gynocentric, it increasingly looks at the issues affecting men, which is, of course, good. So when I say 'feminism', this is what I mean. A perspective with gender as a critical lens which teaches us about women *and* men and the way power operates on both.

There are also people who use the word to try and define an ideology and not only does this not work, it it used to try to describe ideologies which are fucked up, reactionary and bigoted. Some of these people say things like A----(my pal) has encountered, that it is impossible for a woman to commit rape. There is a famous reactionary bigot called Cathy Brennan who claims this, just as she claims that rape can only be committed with a penis: so assaults by men against women with objects other than penises are out and women on women assaults are out. Also, she likes the idea that all penis in vagina penetration is rape, so for her, rape is at once *all* heterosexual sex, but cannot really exist outside that. Yes, she calls herself a feminist, this is a real problem for feminists, since the ideology is actually anti-woman by implying women cannot actually consent to heterosexual sex and also minimising and outright denying that the very serious crime of rape cannot happen against a massive number of people. Feminism as a perspective--gender theory--obviously rejects this as bollocks, because it is. It is a serious problem for feminists--like me--that these ideas, the ideas of a TINY but very vocal minority, are seen as feminism and conflated with it in the public imagination, because they are very, very far from feminism. 

Phew! But hopefully now, when I use the word 'feminism', people will know that I mean feminism-the-critical-perspective and that I'm not trying to describe an ideology. Also, I would encourage anybody who might read this who feels alienated by the word 'feminism' to be critical of anybody claiming feminism as an ideology. For the vast majority of feminists, this is simply *not what it means*.

So the next word to work through is 'patriarchy'. *Takes deep breath*

Feminism-the-critical-perspective uses the word 'patriarchy' to describe the societal, cultural and institutional operation of power in relation to gender. To men and women alike. Reactionaries--the feminism as an ideology types--have been responsible for this word becoming associated with the idea that all men oppress women and that men are privileged by patriarchy in all circumstances. This, again, is not true.

What is true is that the people who have all the power are *usually* men and have been throughout history. Therefore, laws have developed to the end of them maintaining that power and as a consequence, historically speaking, laws have generally developed in men's favour. That is not to say that laws have developed in the favour of all men in all circumstances, but they have developed as a consequence of powerful men maintaining power and, as a consequence, they have privileged themselves with exclusion. Therefore, when laws have arisen which have gender implications, they have been written to place women *in general* at a disadvantage. Not because there is some 'all men in it together' conspiracy, but because the people preserving their own power were generally men and if you exclude people on the basis of gender, you only have to work out exclusionary laws for men of less power. Discriminating against women is just a way to exclude half the population of the world from becoming a threat to the dominant elite.

This does not mean that all men have equal power and that all men have greater power than all women. The queen of England, for example, has a great deal more power and privilege than most men in the world, because she is a woman 'in the club', so to speak. The club is, however, still overwhelmingly male and patriarchal laws and culture reflect that. It is reflected in the fact that women are still paid less, on average, than men for the same jobs, that women in professional jobs generally tend to have higher qualifications than their male counterparts, because they need to prove themselves as 'exceptional' in order to be considered, that women still do the vast majority of the world's unpaid labour, and that historically, when they are raped, it is a crime against their male relative.

There are many consequences of patriarchal culture, and they by no means always work out in the favour of men in every circumstance. Take for example the idea that women are naturally better suited to caring for children and the elderly, for example. Culturally, for women, this can have many negative implications. Working mothers are often still frowned upon. Women are seen as a risk to employers, since they may need time off for maternity, ill children, sick relatives, etc. These are some if the reasons they are paid less, on average, and need to prove themselves as 'exceptional' to get good jobs.

This facet of patriarchy has consequences for men, too. In a divorce situation, for example, men can often struggle to get decent access to their children. Then, since the woman usually ends up with custody and the children need (and deserve) the parental home, it is usually the man who has to move. Since the woman is usually the custodian, and less likely to earn highly, (obviously, plenty of women do earn good money, I'm talking statistical likelihood) maintenance payments for the children are usually made by the man, who is culturally expected to be a provider. So, as much as feminism allows us to see patriarchy, it shows us that patriarchy does not always works in a man's favour in every circumstance.

And this is where I was going. Nearly there 

Because of the *historical* patriarchal notion of women as property and as powerless without male custody, there are no laws protecting men from rape by women. Because of the cultural development of the idea of women as weak, there is massive stigma for male victims of domestic violence at the hands of women perpetrators and that's where the notion of a woman as physically unable to rape a man also comes from. Because it is not culturally desirable for a woman to be promiscuous, or sexually aggressive, the law has been slow in recognising that they may be sexually aggressive and abusive. Because of the cultural conception of heterosexual masculinity, it has become a normalised idea that all men want sex all the time and therefore it's impossible for them to be raped by women.

Patriarchy is corrosive to people. Not just women, but people. It hurts men, but it is patriarchy just the same. This is why female on male rape is definitely a feminist issue and why recognising patriarchal structures and working to abolish them is not just about liberating women, but men also.

Which sums it all up pretty well I think.

So yeah. I'm a feminist and fuck you if, after reading all that, you aren't a feminist too. :)

The Old Racist from Providence

Phenderson Djeli Clark has a cracking article over on Media Diversified looking at the racism of old HPL and the refusal of some amongst the Lovecraftian fandom to acknowledge his virulent racism.

Now, I've always known that HP Lovecraft was racist. Reading The Horror at Red Hook when I was a teenager made sure of that.  Horror at Red Hook aside I never really thought much about it as, in his other works, the racist commentary seemed to be little other than the sorts of thing that were, to my knowledge, common parlance in the 20s, 30s, 40s and beyond. I guess I simply attributed them to him being 'of his time'.

That argument is utter rubbish however when one considers that this was also a time when groups like the Industrial Workers of the World were actively campaigning against racism and against groups like the Klan. The workers of the I.W.W. were equally as 'of their time' as HPL and yet they did not express such vile opinions of people.

I was, until about ten minutes ago, completely unaware of quite how extreme HPL's racism was. To be honest I was shocked and I'm not one that's easily shocked by racism or other bigoted language.

Of course they can’t let niggers use the beach at a Southern resort – can you imagine sensitive persons bathing near a pack of greasy chimpanzees? The only thing that makes life endurable where blacks abound is the Jim Crow principle, & I wish they’’d apply it in N.Y. both to niggers & to the more Asiatic type of puffy, rat-faced Jew. Either stow ‘em out of sight or kill ‘em off – anything so that a white man may walk along the streets without shuddering nausea.–Letter from Lovecraft to A.E.P. Gamwell, February 1925.

Seriously HPL. WTF? O_o That's a whole lotta racism for so few words.

I've always been aware that I really wouldn't have liked HPL as a person. He was conservative, racist, and an admirer of Adolf Hitler. Me and such people tend to only have brief and rather confrontational relationships at the best of times. How then can I balance my love for the guy's literature against what I know of him as a person?

There is a particular SF writer from Utah who had a film starring Harrison Ford in the pictures recently. The film looked like it was a good bit of fun and the book is supposed to be a classic. I, however, can't bring myself to read it nor to watch the film. The reason for this is that the author in question is a virulent homophobe. More than just being an outspoken homophobe he actively promotes an agenda of discrimination by funding homophobic advocacy organisations. Because of this any money I give him through purchasing his book or the DVD of his film goes towards promoting his hatred of people who love the 'wrong' gender. Fuck that. I could just download the film or the ebook. But then I would, if I enjoyed them, feel the need to tell other people about them. I know what I'm like and I don't want to advertise for someone like this.

So what's the difference with HPL?

Well, to put it bluntly.

He's dead.

He is an ex-racist.

A former bigot.

He's passed on, deceased, his metabolic processes are now history(fill in the rest of the Dead Parrot Sketch til you get bored).

His non-corporeal nature means that he can't be actively engaged in promoting bigotry and hatred. It also means that he can be held up as a fine example of a person who creates great art also being an utter moron, as well as being an example of the barbarity of the conservative and racist mindset.

If HPL were alive today I doubt that I would read him. So I guess I'm glad that he's dead. :D I'm also glad that as Weird Fiction has developed this reactionary bigotry has been left by the wayside. As China Mieville said, the good thing about the New Weird is that we have a lot less fascists. I heartily agree.

 

 

Productivity

I'm beginning to see a pattern. I turned off Facecrack for a month or so and produced a dissertation. I turned it off for an afternoon and produced a 3,700 word short story in a few hours. Hmmmm, perhaps the blue website of distractivity is a bad thing for when one wants to actually, you know, do things.

So I've set up my web browser, Chrome, to block me from using Facebook from 12-6 every day(aside from when I'm at my paying job) so we'll see how that goes for the production of meaningful things. :)

In other productivity related news it seems that my bestie Paolo Greco has been a very busy bee of late. He's a board game designer and has a game out called Adventure Fantasy Game(to which I am proud to have contributed a combat manoeuvre called "The Welshman's Swift Kick to the Trousers") which is available from his website here.

He's in the process of producing all manner of supplements for the game, and updating the core rules on a regular basis, as well as using his mad skills to produce gorgeous boxed set editions with hand printed and stitched covers and all sorts of loveliness. If you like fantasy role playing you should totally go and buy the full set. If you don't like fantasy role playing you should totally go and buy the full set anyway. :P

He's also planning on producing a version of AFG for younger people which is a fantastic idea. Anyway, go and check out his blog and buy his stuff for all your role playing pals. AFG rocks. :)

Help Fund These Lovecraftian Shorts

I really should have posted about this ages ago but it completely slipped my mind what with the whole finishing university thing. Anyway; the ever eldritch Mike Davis over at the Lovecraft Ezine is trying to bring some of the fantastic stories he has published to the small screen. He's trying to raise $18,000 to film three stories, with more to be filmed as stretch goals, and has some cracking talent lined up including Doug Jones(who played Abe Sapien in Del Toro's Hellboy films) and Katie Parker who was in the creepy as all hell indie flick Absentia.

There are 10 days left, until June 2nd, of the campaign and they still need a smidge over $10k so if you can afford to I would really encourage you to head over to the project Kickstarter and pledge what you can afford.

Here's the video for the project.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/marxpyle/whispers-from-the-shadows-lovecraft-inspired-short

NIN Tonight

Nine Inch Nails are playing in Glasgow tonight.

I'm not excited.

Not at all.

Also; I'm lying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuoFiIFkdAA

Ex-Student

I finished my final exams this Friday past. Two on one day! If anyone reading this is ever in a position to be organising an exams time table. Don't do that. It's not very nice. It really isn't. :'( But still, I prevailed and I think I actually did rather well, though we'll see when the results come back in a couple of weeks.

It's strange this being an ex-student. I wonder if I'm allowed to go back to using the word 'student' as an insult or whether I am forever tainted for having had the temerity to go and hide in academic study for a few years whilst the economy performed a graceful swan dive into a black tar filled pit? According to Paul Calf, who I highly doubt anyone can remember any more, I'm probably forever marked. My soul is stained with the darkness of academic rigour and generally interesting things. :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6AmL8cNhNY

I'm glad to be finished but I am going to miss having access to online journals. I really am. :( And not even just the ones related to archaeology, I've really enjoyed being able to dip in and out of other disciplines. It's a crime that academic journals cost so much to subscribe to. Jstor is at the borderline of affordable but the knowledge contained in the academic world really should be accessible for all, for free. The vast majority of the research is funded, directly or otherwise, by taxes and so tax payer should have a right to access it. Grrrrr. >:(

 

Oooooh! Filmgasm!

The purpose of this post is basically to remind myself what films to keep an eye out for this year. :)

So, there's a new trailer for Christopher Nolan's Interstellar online and it looks very dark. Very dark indeed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSWdZVtXT7E

All in all it's looking like it's going to be a pretty good summer for fans of SF cinema. We also have coming out soon the mind bending action flick Edge of Tomorrow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX1c1gJsXsE

We also have Luc Besson's new film Lucy staring Scarlett Johanson.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVt32qoyhi0

What is it with Scarlett johanson at the moment? She seems to be in some amazingly geeky films. She's, most famously, been in the Marvel movies as Black Widow but she was also in Under the Skin; a low budget intellectual SF flick set in Glasgow(of all places!) which was also released earlier this year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoSWbyvdhHw

Then we have the second in the prequel series Dawn of the Planet of the Apes which, again, looks spectacular.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeR34YWdg6s

For those of a darker inclination, like myself - let's be honest here, we also have a couple of decent looking horror films. Coming very soon is Oculus starring Karen Gillan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYJrxezWLUk

And Deliver us from Evil later in the year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TgHldrvLrA

 

 

Five of my Favourite Lovecraftian Short Stories

Over at the Lovecraft Ezine Mike Davis has been getting well known figures in the world of weird literature to share their top five favourite Lovecraftian stories. Now, I'm not well known, in the world of weird literature or otherwise, :D but thought I would pop a wee list of five of my favourites here. Not that they are my 'top five' as I can't really rank stories(or music, or anything else for that matter) in that way. Such things change with the day and/or the wind. :)

Also, I suppose some of these fit into the broader 'weird fiction' category rather than being specifically Lovecraftian.

In no particular order:

The Broadsword by Laird Barron: Horrible and unsettling story of an older man, disconnected from his family with few friends still living. A chance encounter brings him to the attention of an horrific cosmic force that... well, that would be spoilers. :D The Broadsword was published in S.T. Joshi's collection Black Wings of Cthulhu: Twenty-One Tales of Lovecraftian Horror.

Inhabitants of Wraithwood by W.H. Pugmire: Riffing off of H.P. Lovecraft's Pickman's Model Wilum Pugmire paints a grotesque picture(see what I did there?) of a man on the run encountering a strange family which would make most people long for the comfort of a jail cell. Inhabitants of Wraithwood is also in Black Wings of Cthulhu: Twenty-One Tales of Lovecraftian Horror.

The Area by Stefan Grabinski: Grabinski(1887-1936) was a Polish author sometimes referred to as being a Polish 'Poe' or 'Lovecraft'. Whilst I don't think either of these are especially adequate comparisons his story The Area has a very Lovecraftian feel to it. Following an author's obsession with an unoccupied cottage opposite his own residence and, eventually, the manifestation of his innermost imaginings. The Area has been translated into English by Miroslaw Lipinski in the collection The Dark Domain.

Technicolor by John Langan: In this short Langan investigates the use of colour by Edgar Allen Poe in The Masque of the Red Death. It takes the form of a university lecture outline the mysterious circumstances that influenced Poe to write his tale. I can't heap enough praise on John Langan. The collection that contains Technicolor, The Wide Carnivorous Sky and Other Monstrous Geographies, is a masterpiece of weird fiction. I would probably have included all the stories in this collection but thought I should go for a wee bit of variety. ;)

Our Temporary Supervisor by Thomas Ligotti: I've mentioned before that I am a massive Ligotti aficionado. His unrelenting negativity and extremely black humour has a very particular appeal to me. Of all the stories I have read by Ligotti however it is Our Temporary Supervisor that has had the most impact upon me. Part of his series of corporate horror stories involving the Quine Organisation this story, more than any of his others, for me perfectly encapsulates the pointlessness and  spirit crushing nature of most work in modern capitalism. The story of a worker who assembles metal pieces all day long, who has no idea what they do other than, he assumes, that they fit into a larger whole. The alienation and dehumanisation of abstract labour. Our Temporary Supervisor is available in the collection Teatro Grottesco.

So there you go. Five weird tales and collections to check out should you so wish. And you do. Wish to. Go on. Buy them. ;)

Free Pie Supper in the Sky

Ken Macleod, the Scottish author of amazing SF novels such as Learning the World and The Star Fraction,  is probably almost as well known for his left wing politics as he is for his literary work. Especially as his novels often quite explicitly deal with elements of various left wing ideologies, be they communist, socialist, or anarchist, which is something that sets him apart from the gamut of, even ostensibly left wing, SF writers. I follow his blog, The Early Days of a Better Nation, as he often has interesting things to say and an overt left wing perspective is refreshing amongst the generalised well meaning liberalism of many SFF authors and fan sites. I obviously do not follow it as closely as I should as I seem to have missed the fact that Ken has a rather odd stance on the question of Scottish independence. That stance being he is against it.

Well, I say it's an odd stance. It's an odd stance to me in the way that I always find it a bit odd when a person with whom I share a great many interests and perspectives has a considered position that differs so greatly form my own. This is, quite obviously, a good thing as it works towards preventing me from becoming intellectually lazy with regards important issues such as the upcoming vote for independence. It's very easy to simply dismiss the outpourings of right wing groups like the Labour or Conservative parties as a mish mash of odious lies and vindictive spite on account of that being almost exactly what they are. Anyone who has seen the pronouncements of the main Westminster parties and the No campaign will know what I mean with this. It isn't referred to as 'Project Fear' for nothing.

I hadn't realised that there was a particular left wing opposition to Scottish independence. The view from up here is that the left seem either united on this, via the broad left coalition of the Radical Independence Conference, or ambivalent, which seems to be the stance of most anarchist and ultra left groups and individuals.

In his piece this morning Ken refers to a number of sources, including Tom Morrison in the Morning Star and Greg Philo of the Glasgow Media Group at the University of Glasgow, which raise a variety of points with regards the independence question. He also references the Red Paper Collective who are "a group of activists: trade unionists, academics, politicians." but they seem to be quite heavily linked to the Labour Party and as I'm interested in left wing opposition to independence I'm going to ignore them for brevity's sake.

I would like to respond to some of the points raised by the Morning Star article and Greg Philo's piece on Open Democracy and then outline a wee bit about why I, a Welshman living in Scotland with many, many friends in the South, will be voting Yes this coming September.

The Morning Star article trots out the usual line about Westminster elections.

There is a serious danger that in a matter of weeks the unity of the British labour movement will be gravely damaged and England and Wales (and by proxy Scotland) condemned to long-term Tory rule.

First off I'm not sure what unity within the British labour movement there is to be damaged. Unions are organised by trade rather than industry leading to ridiculous situations where cleaners, for example, within the RMT go on strike but the drivers, signallers etc... do not go out with them meaning that the strike is neutered and the workers have none of the negotiating power that you would expect had the other members of their union gone out on strike with them. Similarly we have multiple unions in a single workplace meaning that union scabbing is a very real thing. So no, Scottish independence will not damage any labour movement unity as it simply is not there to be damaged.

Secondly, no. Scottish independence will not have any real effect on Westminster elections. In all the elections since the 1945 Attlee administration the Scottish vote would have had an effect a mere handful of times. In general we get the Tories or Labour based on the way that England votes.

This point also ignores the fact that the Labour party, let's be honest it's a two horse race in Westminster with the Lib Dems for comedy value, is a right wing party that has attacked workers, both in Britain and abroad, has attacked benefit claimants, introduced the hated ATOS sickness benefit assessments, invaded two countries killing millions, begun the privatisation of the NHS, set up the field for the privatisation of the education system, established an immigration policy that would make the BNP green with envy, and all manner of other badness. So even if Scotland's votes were needed to get the Labour Party back into power why would that be a good thing? Sure, the Labour Party may wring their hands and look apologetic, and they most certainly won't guffaw, whilst they're ripping apart the social infrastructure of the island but they will do it all the same.

Greg Philo raises the spectre of Anti-English racism which is, I have to admit, something of a fair point. Racism is a bad and terrible thing no matter who it is focussed upon. To back this up Philo quotes the Telegraph(2013) and the Scotsman(2006) -two very conservative and right wing papers- with articles on anti-English sentiment amongst Scottish school children and a 2% increase in complaints of racism from English people in Scotland.

Both articles are troubling, especially concerning racism amongst school children. I would like to live out my dotage in a place where I'm not surrounded by swivel eyed bigoted young people as I'm sure most people would. One point that Philo misses however is that a 2011 study, reported here in the Times Education Supplement, showed that 83% of teachers in English schools had

witnessed offensive behaviour among children, including name-calling, racist comments, jokes, stereotyping and "a tendency to use asylum seekers as scapegoats for a wide range of problems in society".

Now I'm honestly not saying that English kids are more inherently racist than Scottish kids. Kids are kids and respond to the climate in which they live, just like adults. What I am saying however is that racism is a very real problem and one that is not confined to Scotland. That there should be an element of anti-English racism in Scottish schools is unsurprising given the Londoncentric bias of the mainstream media. Something that has been a bugbear for many people in Scotland for a long time. That and, you know, the whole history of the English government enacting policies that are hated throughout Scotland.

Not that this excuses it but I don't think that using this as an example is all that great. Racism appears to be on the rise throughout the island. Something that should be of no surprise to anyone on the left given that the mainstream media have been fostering and promoting rabid British Loyalism, anti-Islamic, and anti-immigrant bigotry almost non-stop since late 2001.

There has, in fact, been a rise in the number of racist incidences recorded in Scottish school. Nearly 1300 over the last two years. However, English school recorded 87,915 racist incidences between 2007 and 2011(apologies for the Daily Mail link). That's around 21,000 a year. Something like 30 times the amount of racist incidences reported in Scotland. England has 10 times(ish) the population of Scotland. Not 30 times so the disparity here is quite astounding. A disparity not mentioned by Greg Philo.

On a more personal note, I have lived in Scotland for most of the last 13 years and in that time I have directly experienced 3 incidences of anti-English racism. I may be Welsh but my accent is mostly English, and sounds entirely English to most Scots, due to the amount of time I spent living in England as a young(er) man. Three incidences in 13 years. In England however I experienced many, many incidences of anti-Welsh sentiment including being attacked on the streets of Brighton by a drunken Londoner who called me, if memory serves, a "cunt from the provinces".

Now this, again, doesn't imply that English people are inherently more racist than the Scots. It just shows that there are wankers everywhere and the existence of these wankers should not be a deciding factor when making big decisions.

Philo then moves on to the factors that are often touted as evidence of Scots being more progressive than the people south of the border. Factors such as the asylum seeker support initiatives and long standing socialist traditions. He rightfully points out that there are equivalents south of the border too.

The truth is we are like a lot of other places, and we would do well to remember that when people speak of Scotland or the Scots as having a “will to socialism” or write that “social democracy is hard- wired into Scotland’s soul”.

The myth of the naturally socialistic Scots is, obviously, bunkum. Working class people are, in general, quite far to the left of the Labour or Conservative parties, this is quite clear from this piece in the International Business Times, whether they are in Scotland, England, Wales, or Northern Ireland. The assumption of the Scots tendency to socialism is, however, a great failing on the part of the 'radical left for independence' and is a fantasy that they would do well to sideline. An independent Scotland will not be a socialist paradise. It will have the same, more or less, class structure as in the UK, it will have workers being exploited by employers and tenants being exploited by landlords. Anyone, aside from the pie supper in the sky nationalists, will realise this.

Strangely though Philo then goes on to say

The radical left, as we understand it, is not represented in the Scottish Parliament, even with proportional representation.

Which I find extremely odd. Where are the radical left in Westminster? Has there ever been a radical left in Westminster? Why should it be expected that there be one in Scotland? This is ignoring the presence recently(2003-2007) of members of the Scottish Socialist Party in Holyrood. Not that I consider the SSP to be especially radical but compared to the Labour Party they are rabble rousing firebrands.

There is a lot more in Philo's post that I disagree with but I've passed 1700 words already, and I still need my morning coffee, so I'll just get to why I will be voting Yes in September.

For many years I thought that the chances of there being an independent Scotland were slim, to say the least. I said, back before the referendum was announced, that if there ever was a vote I would vote Yes just "to watch the Daily Mail combust in a fit of apoplectic rage." The thought of which still gives me warm fuzzies. Obviously I didn't consider that there ever would be a referendum.

However as the referendum was announced and the austerity attacks upon society began to bite I was forced to reconsider my stance.

I have a family. I want what's best for my family both in the present and in the future. What is best for my family, a rational and egalitarian society, is unlikely to happen any time soon therefore I want what's better for them and to mitigate the impact of negative things upon us.

Independence will not bring about what's best but it will act to stymie the more immediate and rampant affects of the austerity attacks upon us.

There are certain things that have been won from the ruling class over the last century or so. These things, the DWP, the NHS, free education, and so on, make up the social safety net that mean that whilst our society is extremely unfair and slanted in favour of the wealthy there are these things that mitigate this unfairness. Even if you are unemployed you are, supposedly, unlikely to starve. You should be able to get a roof over your head at night. If you become sick you will be nursed back to health.

All of these things are vital for us to even make a pretence of being a civilised society. As flawed as the education system, NHS, DWP and so on are they still make life more bearable for working class people. They keep us alive and feed our minds. I look south towards England and I literally shudder.

I do not, for a minute, think that whichever government is elected to Holyrood post-independence will be ideologically any different to the government in Westminster. It will be a neo-liberal government just the same. I do, however, feel that whichever government is in Holyrood will have a greater pressure upon them to maintain the social safety net of the welfare state and to put in place some progressive policies that will maintain, if not improve, the quality of life for those of us north of the border.

When X leaves school in a few years time I want her to have the option of going to university should she wish. For free. When we get ill I want us to be able to access medication. For free. If C or I lose our jobs I don't want us to be made homeless. I want these things for all people but I especially want them for us. For these reasons I will be voting Yes in September. I'm not voting against England or English people. I'm not voting so that they can't have these things. I'm voting because if I don't I feel that we will, almost certainly, lose these things.

I also have little doubt that should the referendum return a No vote then Scotland will be shat upon intensely by a triumphalist Westminster. If the Tories are still in power after the next Westminster election, and I see no reason to doubt that they will be, then they will want to punish Scotland for its temerity to think that it could challenge the hegemony of GBPLC. Remember, these are the same vile human beings who cheered the £81billion cuts to public spending which have driven millions into gut wrenching poverty. Do you not think that they will miss the opportunity to twist the knife once more?

A Yes vote is self defence.

Following are a few issues I've heard raised by various friends either in England or in Scotland with regards independence.

But, what about solidarity? Aren't we saying "I'm all right Jack" and leaving our friends and families to the south to suffer the degradations of the Tory Party? If you are lying on the floor being kicked then is it solidarity to lie down next to you and allow myself to be kicked too? Of course it isn't! Insanity is what it would be.

But aren't borders bad things? Why would we want more? Yes, borders are bad things. They are used to control the movement of people for the benefit of the ruling class. They are arbitrary lines on a map and in the case of the Scottish/English border that is exactly what the border will remain. There are no plans, outside of the delusional imaginings of the Project Fear campaign, to establish border controls north of Carlisle. The movement of people will not be inhibited by the 'new' border so it makes no real difference.

Isn't it all about nationalism? No. Nationalism is, along with racism, sexism, homophobia and so on, on my list of things that are both absurd and contemptible. There are, of course, many, many people who will be voting Yes for reasons of nationalism and I think that they are wrong to do so. Not that I think they should vote No, just that they should be voting Yes in self defence rather than in celebration of some imagined heritage that is separate from the heritage of the rest of the island.

So, there you have it. That's why I'll be voting Yes. I want to ensure that my family are, however temporarily, shielded from the excesses of the austerity attacks and I have seen absolutely no reason, from left or right, that has convinced me a No vote can do this. Post-independence will not be all 'free heavy ale and pie suppers in the sky' but it, for a while at least, won't be dragged screaming back into the Victorian era by the viciousness of the Westminster establishment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmpPa4Gozmo

It's Hell Out There... la

When I heard that NBC were making a series based on Hellblazer I was somewhat dubious, to say the least, given the last attempt by an American company to translate the comic to the screen. Well the trailer has been released and, well, see for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPE2oBnzROY

See? It looks absolutely bloody fantastic! I had assumed that we would see an American cast in the eponymous role but no. We have Matt Ryan; who may be  Taffy like me but he does at least place John Constantine in at least the right geographical region of England. Unlike the god awful, but pretty, film version. This show looks dark, messed up, and funny as hell. Everything a Hellblazer adaptation should be. Whilst I am a little disappointed that it's set in the States rather than the UK hell, you can't have everything can you? ;) Wonder how long it will be before someone tries to claim that the show is ripping off Supernatural... Right, I'm off to the comic shop to acquire the first two runs of Hellblazer. See ya later! :)

VII - H.P. Lovecraft Théorie

French Eldritch Hip-Hop :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3plKZ9IrgE

Not got a clue what he's saying so any offer of translation would be greatly appreciated. :)

"Those who can should do for those who can't"

Here's an impassioned statement from Denis Curran of Loaves and Fishes in East Kilbride on the horror that is facing many, many families in Scotland and throughout the UK as a result of austerity measures and benefit cuts brought in over the last 5 years. That we live in the twenty first century in a supposedly developed country and have people going days without food so that they can feed their children and walking miles in the hope of getting a food parcel is an utter disgrace. That these people are then targeted by the media and government as scroungers and thieves is, to put it bluntly, sickening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-ZMwp1elXw

I've said it before but it is worth repeating: this present government in Whitehall seems intent on dragging us back to the age of debtors prisons and work houses.

Batman - Telling it like it is

Beckett - Not I

C, my partner, loves Beckett(1906-1989). Myself I have always been ambivalent towards the theatre but was aware of Samuel Beckett and, of course, Waiting for Godot. Last summer however C convinced me to watch a couple of pieces by Beckett and I was, to put it mildly, ever so slightly blown away. I was especially blown away by Play as performed by Alan Rickman, Kristin Scott-Thomas, and Juliet Stevenson and directed by Anthony Minghella. Play features three heads sticking out of decaying ancient clay jars. The heads look as ancient and decaying as the jars and they in rapid monotone recite their past relationships, affair and recrimination, into the ether around them. It is a stunning piece of theatre. Unfortunately the version that was on Youtube has been removed.

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="200"] Billie Whitelaw[/caption]

What is on Youtube still is the seminal performance of Beckett's Not I performed by Billie Whitelaw. In the original, stage, performances of the play the actress playing 'Mouth' would be elevated above the stage and faintly lit. In the version below almost the entirety of the screen is dominated by Whitelaw's mouth and the character referred to in the stage directions as 'The Auditor' is entirely omitted, something that is in keeping with performances of the play in which Beckett himself was involved.

Not I, like Play, is quite a difficult piece to keep up with due to the rapid fire delivery of the monologue. A person really has to concentrate and, I feel, to fully appreciate the piece having a copy of the play to hand helps a great deal also. For that reason I've reproduced it, complete with stage directions, below the video.

What I love about this piece, and I really do love it, is the intensity with which the words are delivered as Mouth, Whitelaw, moves from memory to memory. Each memory building upon the other, crashing over Mouth like storm waves hitting a shore. The focus entirely on Whitelaw's mouth and the effort required to follow the play draws you deeper and deeper into the psyche of Mouth. It's really powerful.

The video below is book ended by Whitelaw discussing the recording of the piece and afterwards she recalls watching it through with Beckett. His response was merely one word: "Marvellous". I have to agree.

Hope you enjoy. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhzssmWVbr4

Note:
Movement: this consists in simple sideways raising of arms from sides and their falling back, in a gesture of helpless compassion. It lessens with each recurrence till scarcely perceptible at third. There is just enough pause to contain it as MOUTH recovers from vehement refusal to relinquish third person.

Stage in darkness but for MOUTH, upstage audience right, about 8 feet above stage level, faintly lit from close-up and below, rest of face in shadow. Invisible microphone.
AUDITOR, downstage audience left, tall standing figure, sex undeterminable, enveloped from head to foot in loose black djellaba, with hood, fully faintly lit, standing on invisible podium about 4 feet high shown by attitude alone to be facing diagonally across stage intent on MOUTH, dead still throughout but for four brief movements where indicated. See Note.
As house lights down MOUTH`S voice unintelligible behind curtain. House lights out. Voice continues unintelligible behind curtain, l0 seconds. With rise of curtain ad-libbing from text as required leading when curtain fully up and attention sufficient into:

MOUTH: . . . . out . . . into this world . . . this world . . . tiny little thing . . . before its time . . . in a godfor– . . . what? . . girl? . . yes . . . tiny little girl . . . into this . . . out into this . . . before her time . . . godforsaken hole called . . . called . . . no matter . . . parents unknown . . . unheard of . . . he having vanished . . . thin air . . . no sooner buttoned up his breeches . . . she similarly . . . eight months later . . . almost to the tick . . . so no love . . . spared that . . . no love such as normally vented on the . . . speechless infant . . . in the home . . . no . . . nor indeed for that matter any of any kind . . . no love of any kind . . . at any subsequent stage . . . so typical affair . . . nothing of any note till coming up to sixty when– . . . what? . . seventy?. . good God! . . coming up to seventy . . . wandering in a field . . . looking aimlessly for cowslips . . . to make a ball . . . a few steps then stop . . . stare into space . . . then on . . . a few more . . . stop and stare again . . . so on . . . drifting around . . . when suddenly . . . gradually . . . all went out . . . all that early April morning light . . . and she found herself in the--– . . . what? . . who? . . no! . . she! . . [Pause and movement 1.] . . . found herself in the dark . . . and if not exactly . . . insentient . . . insentient . . . for she could still hear the buzzing . . . so-called . . . in the ears . . . and a ray of light came and went . . . came and went . . . such as the moon might cast . . . drifting . . . in and out of cloud . . . but so dulled . . . feeling . . . feeling so dulled . . . she did not know . . . what position she was in . . . imagine! . . what position she was in! . . whether standing . . . or sitting . . . but the brain– . . . what?. . kneeling? . . yes . . . whether standing . . . or sitting . . . or kneeling . . . but the brain– . . . what? . . lying? . . yes . . whether standing . . . or sitting . . . or kneeling . . . or lying . . . but the brain still . . . still . . . in a way . . . for her first thought was . . . oh long after . . . sudden flash . . . brought up as she had been to believe . . . with the other waifs . . . in a merciful . . . [Brief laugh.] . . . God . . . [Good laugh.] . . . first thought was . . . oh long after . . . sudden flash . . . she was being punished . . . for her sins . . . a number of which then . . . further proof if proof were needed . . . flashed through her mind . . . one after another . . . then dismissed as foolish . . . oh long after . . . this thought dismissed . . . as she suddenly realized . . . gradually realized . . . she was not suffering . . . imagine! . . not suffering! . . indeed could not remember . . . off-hand . . . when she had suffered less . . . unless of course she was . . . meant to be suffering . . . ha! . . thought to be suffering . . . just as the odd time . . . in her life . . . when clearly intended to be having pleasure . . . she was in fact . . . having none . . . not the slightest . . . in which case of course . . . that notion of punishment . . . for some sin or other . . . or for the lot . . . or no particular reason . . . for its own sake . . . thing she understood perfectly . . . that notion of punishment . . . which had first occurred to her . . . brought up as she had been to believe . . . with the other waifs . . . in a merciful . . . [Brief laugh.] . . . God . . . [Good laugh.] . . . first occurred to her . . . then dismissed . . . as foolish . . . was perhaps not so foolish . . . after all . . . so on . . . all that . . . vain reasonings . . . till another thought . . . oh long after . . . sudden flash . . . . . very foolish really but– . . . what? . . the buzzing? . . yes . . . all the time buzzing . . . so-called . . . in the ears . . . though of course actually . . . not in the ears at all . . . in the skull . . . dull roar in the skull . . . and all the time this ray or beam . . . like moonbeam . . . but probably not . . . certainly not . . . always the same spot . . . now bright . . . now shrouded . . . but always the same spot . . . as no moon could . . . no . . . no moon . . . just all part of the same wish to . . . torment . . . though actually in point of fact . . . not in the least . . . not a twinge . . . so far . . . ha! . . so far . . . this other thought then . . . oh long after . . . sudden flash . . . very foolish really but so like her . . . in a way . . . that she might do well to . . . groan . . . on and off . . . writhe she could not . . . as if in actual agony . . . but could not . . . could not bring herself . . . some flaw in her make-up . . . incapable of deceit . . . or the machine . . . more likely the machine . . . so disconnected . . . never got the message . . . or powerless to respond . . . like numbed . . . couldn't make the sound . . . not any sound . . . no sound of any kind . . . no screaming for help for example . . . should she feel so inclined . . . scream . . . [Screams.] . . . then listen . . . [Silence.] . . . scream again . . . [Screams again.] . . . then listen again . . . [Silence.] . . . no . . . spared that . . . all silent as the grave . . . no part–. . . what? . . the buzzing? . . yes . . . all silent but for the buzzing . . . so-called . . . no part of her moving . . . that she could feel . . . just the eyelids . . . presumably . . . on and off . . . shut out the light . . . reflex they call it . . . no feeling of any kind . . . but the lids . . . even best of times . . . who feels them? . . opening . . . shutting . . . all that moisture . . .but the brain still . . . still sufficiently . . . oh very much so! . . at this stage . . . in control . . . under control . . . to question even this . . . for on that April morning . . . so it reasoned . . . that April morning . . . she fixing with her eye . . . a distant bell . . . as she hastened towards it . . . fixing it with her eye . . . lest it elude her . . . had not all gone out . . . all that light . . . of itself . . . without any . . . any. . . on her part . . . so on . . . so on it reasoned . . . vain questionings . . . and all dead still . . . sweet silent as the grave . . . when suddenly . . . gradually . . . she realiz–. . . what? . . the buzzing? . . yes . . . all dead still but for the buzzing . . . when suddenly she realized . . . words were– . . . what? . . who?. . no! . . she! . . [Pause and movement 2.] . . . realized . . . words were coming . . . imagine! . . . words were coming . . . a voice she did not recognize at first so long since it had sounded . . . then finally had to admit . . . could be none other . . . than her own . . . certain vowel sounds . . . she had never heard . . . elsewhere . . . so that people would stare . . . the rare occasions . . . once or twice a year . . . always winter some strange reason . . . stare at her uncom-prehending . . . and now this stream . . . steady stream . . . she who had never . . . on the contrary . . . practically speechless . . . all her days . . . how she survived! . . even shopping . . . out shopping . . . busy shopping centre . . . supermart . . . just hand in the list . . . with the bag . . . old black shopping bag . . . then stand there waiting . . . any length of time . . . middle of the throng . . . motionless . . . staring into space . . . mouth half open as usual . . . till it
was back in her hand . . . the bag back in her hand . . . then pay and go . . . not as much as good-bye . . . how she survived! . . and now this stream . . . not catching the half of it . . . not the quarter . . . no idea . . . what she was saying . . . imagine! . . no idea what she was saying! . . till she began trying to . . . delude herself . . . it was not hers at all . . . not her voice at all . . . and no doubt would have . . . vital she should . . . was on the point . . . after long efforts . . . when suddenly she felt . . . gradually she felt . . . her lips moving . . . imagine! . . her lips moving! . . as of course till then she had not . . . and not alone the lips . . . the cheeks . . . the jaws . . . the whole face . . . all those– . . what?. . the tongue? . . yes . . . the tongue in the mouth . . . all those contortions without which . . . no speech possible . . . and yet in the ordinary way . . . not felt at all . . . so intent one is . . . on what one is saying . . . the whole being . . . hanging on its words . . . so that not only she had . . . had she . . . not only had she . . . to give up . . . admit hers alone . . . her voice alone . . . but this other awful thought . . . oh long after . . . sudden flash . . . even more awful if possible . . . that feeling was coming back . . . imagine! . . feeling coming back! . . starting at the top . . . then working down . . . the whole machine . . . but no . . . spared that . . . the mouth alone . . . so far . . . ha! . . so far . . . then thinking . . . oh long after . . . sudden flash . . . it can't go on . . . all this . . . all that . . . steady stream . . . straining to hear . . . make some-thing of it . . . and her own thoughts . . . make something of them . . . all– . . . what? . . the buzzing? . . yes . . . all the time the buzzing . . . so-called . . . all that together . . . imagine! . . whole body like gone . . . just the mouth . . . lips . . . cheeks . . . jaws . . . never– . . . what?. . tongue? . . yes . . . lips. . . cheeks . . . jaws . . . tongue . . . never still a second . . . mouth on fire . . . stream of words . . . in her ear . . . practically in her ear . . . not catching the half . . . not the quarter . . . no idea what she's saying . . . imagine! . . no idea what she's saying! . . and can't stop . . . no stopping it . . . she who but a moment before . . . but a moment! . . could not make a sound . . . no sound of any kind . . . now can't stop . . . imagine! . . can't stop the stream . . . and the whole brain begging . . . something begging in the brain . . . begging the mouth to stop . . . pause a moment . . . if only for a moment . . . and no response . . . as if it hadn’t heard . . . or couldn’t . . . couldn't pause a second . . . like maddened . . . all that together . . . straining to hear . . . piece it together . . . and the brain . . . raving away on its own . . . trying to make sense of it . . . or make it stop . . . or in the past . . . dragging up the past . . . flashes from all over . . . walks mostly . . . walking all her days . . . day after day . . . a few steps then stop . . . stare into space . . . then on . . . a few more . . . stop and stare again . . . so on . . . drifting around . . . day after day . . . or that time she cried . . . the one time she could remember . . . since she was a baby . . . must have cried as a baby . . . perhaps not . . . not essential to life . . . just the birth cry to get her going . . . breathing . . . then no more till this . . . old hag already . . . sitting staring at her hand . . . where was it? . . Croker's Acres . . . one evening on the way home . . . home! . . a little mound in Croker's Acres . . . dusk . . . sitting staring at her hand . . . there in her lap . . . palm upward . . . suddenly saw it wet . . . the palm . . . tears presumably . . . hers presumably . . . no one else for miles . . . no sound . . . just the tears . . . sat and watched them dry . . . all over in a second . . . or grabbing at straw . . . the brain . . . flickering away on its own . . . quick grab and on. . . nothing there . . . on to the next . . . bad as the voice . . . worse . . . as little sense . . . all that together . . . can't– . . . what? . . the buzzing? . . yes . . . all the time the buzzing . . . dull roar like falls . . . and the beam . . . flickering on and off . . . starting to move around . . . like moonbeam but not . . . all part of the same . . . keep an eye on that too . . . corner of the eye . . . all that together . . . can't go on . . . God is love . . . she'll be purged . . . back in the field . . . morning sun . . . April . . . sink face down in the grass . . . nothing but the larks . . . so on . . . grabbing at the straw . . . straining to hear . . . the odd word . . . make some sense of it . . . whole body like gone . . . just the mouth . . . like maddened . . . and can't stop . . . no stopping it . . . something she– . . . something she had to– . . . what? . . who? . . no! . . she! . . [Pause and movement 3.] . . . something she had to–. . . what? . . the buzzing? . . yes . . . all the time the buzzing . . . dull roar . . . in the skull . . . and the beam . . . ferreting around . . . painless . . . so far . . . ha! . . so far . . . then thinking . . . oh long after . . . sudden flash . . . perhaps something she had to . . . had to . . . tell . . . could that be it? . . something she had to . . . tell . . . tiny little thing . . . before its time . . . godforsaken hole . . . no love . . . spared that . . . speechless all her days . . . practically speechless . . . how she survived! . . that time in court . . . what had she to say for herself . . . guilty or not guilty . . . stand up woman . . . speak up woman . . . stood there staring into space . . . mouth half open as usual . . . waiting to be led away . . . glad of the hand on her arm . . . now this . . . some-thing she had to tell . . . could that be it? . . something that would tell . . . how it was . . . how she– . . . what? . . had been? . . yes . . . something that would tell how it had been . . . how she had lived . . . lived on and on . . . guilty or not . . . on and on . . . to be sixty . . . something she– . . . what? . . seventy? . . good God! . . on and on to be seventy . . . something she didn't know herself . . . wouldn't know if she heard . . . then forgiven . . . God is love . . . tender mercies . . . new every morning . . . back in the field . . . April morning . . . face in the grass . . . nothing but the larks . . . pick it up there . . . get on with it from there . . . another few– . . . what? . . not that? . . nothing to do with that? . . nothing she could tell? . . all right . . . nothing she could tell . . . try something else . . . think of something else . . . oh long after . . . sudden flash . . . not that either . . . all right . . . something else again . . . so on . . . hit on it in the end . . . think everything keep on long enough . . . then forgiven . . . back in the– . . . what? . . not that either? . . nothing to do with that either? . . nothing she could think? . . all right . . . nothing she could tell . . . nothing she could think . . . nothing she– . . what? . . who? . . no! . . she! . . [Pause and movement 4.] . . . tiny little thing . . . out before its time . . . godforsaken hole . . . no love . . . spared that . . . speechless all her days . . . practically speechless . . . even to herself . . . never out loud . . . but not completely . . . sometimes sudden urge . . . once or twice a year . . . always winter some strange reason . . . the long evenings . . . hours of darkness . . . sudden urge to . . . tell . . . then rush out stop the first she saw . . . nearest lavatory . . . start pouring it out . . . steady stream . . . mad stuff . . . half the vowels wrong . . . no one could follow . . . till she saw the stare she was getting . . . then die of shame . . . crawl back in . . . once or twice a year . . . always winter some strange reason . . . long hours of darkness . . . now this . . . this . . . quicker and quicker . . . the words . . . the brain . . . flickering away like mad . . . quick grab and on . . . nothing there . . . on somewhere else . . . try somewhere else . . . all the time something begging . . . something in her begging . . . begging it all to stop . . . unanswered . . . prayer unanswered . . . or unheard . . . too faint . . . so on . . . keep on . . . trying . . . not knowing what . . . what she was trying . . . what to try . . . whole body like gone . . . just the mouth . . . like maddened . . . so on . . . keep– . . . what? . . the buzzing? . . yes . . . all the time the buzzing . . . dull roar like falls . . . in the skull . . . and the beam . . . poking around . . . painless . . . so far . . . ha! . . so far . . . all that . . . keep on . . . not knowing what . . . what she was– . . . what? . . who? . . no! . . she! . . SHE! . . [Pause.] . . . what she was trying . . . what to try . . . no matter . . . keep on . . . [Curtain starts down.] . . . hit on it in the end . . . then back . . . God is love . . . tender mercies . . . new every morning . . . back in the field . . . April morning . . . face in the grass . . . nothing but the larks . . . pick it up–

[Curtain fully down. House dark. Voice continues behind curtain, unintelligible, 10 seconds, ceases as house lights up.]

 

Watch The Colour Our of Space(Die Farbe)

Die Farbe, the German language interpretation of H.P. Lovecraft's The Colour Our of Space is available free to watch this weekend.

The makers are currently running a crowd funding project to raise 140,000 Euros and still have a month to go. If you can spare a bob or two I really do think you should go and throw it at Huan Vu and co so that we can finally get some more decent quality cosmic horror on our screens. :) Click here to go give them funding,

Here's Die Farbe, which you can watch until Sunday 03/04/2014(That's May 3 for any American readers. :) )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RhwyPrUWx8