Jargoneer's Guide to Small Plastic Objects & Other Interesting Miscellanea: A New Hope

A long time ago, in a galaxy really close, this one to be precise, I started a thread with hope of maintaining a thread on Club Read. That hope soon faded, lost in a miasma of issues. After last week, which was a such a succession of minor calamities that I began to toy with the idea that I was being tormented by some trickster God, I have decided to wipe the slate clean and start afresh.

Having snaffled the suffix from the original Star Wars film here's hoping this thread is more like the two first two films and not like episode 6, the Care Bear film, or the God awful prequel trilogy.

Unfortunately it has started with a duplicate post. The ghost of Jar Jar Binks is abroad.

I missed commenting on the last referendum debate between Alistair Darling, representing Better Together, and Alex Salmond, representing Yes. Salmond stomped over Darling, with post-debate polls stating a 71-29 divide on who won. While Salmond was certainly better prepared than the first one half of the Better Together problems stemmed from the fact they just wanted to continue with the currency policy rather than focusing elsewhere. It meant that Darling looked like a one trick pony who just looked lost at times on other issues. It can't be easy for Darling as he can be attacked on Tory policies, which he doesn't support but has to appear to as he can't be seen as attacking his own Better Together partners.

More importantly the latest YouGov poll have put the Yes campaign at 47%, this is up 8% in four weeks. (Referendum Race may just have got tighter). The momentum seems to be with Yes now but whether they can pick up enough votes in the next two weeks is probably still unlikely.

In other referendum news The Proclaimers have given £10k to the Yes campaign. This is naturally not a surprise, most of their albums have had at least one pro-Scotland song, but we have to ask whether this is an early bid for the new Scottish national anthem. With all the traditional candidates referencing war against England perhaps we will end up with "I'm Gonna Be", with some altered lyrics.

The Secret Life of Books
(BBC4, Tuesday 2 September 2014, 2030-2100)

The basis of the first episode of this new BBC programme about books was that Tony Jordan, a former Eastenders scriptwriter, loves Dickens' Great Expectations and is fascinated by why Dickens changed the ending from a bleak one to a more optimistic one. (The original ending had Pip and Estella meet, she has remarried leaving no future together so they part forever). Jordan is adamant that the revised ending is better and that Dickens didn't change it due to public pressure or on the advice of friends. Inevitably Jordan comes to the conclusion that Dickens changed the ending because he had fallen in love with Ellen Ternan.

What I kept wondering while watching this was why can't television do books anymore? In the good old days the BBC used to point cameras at writers and ask them questions. That's all you need to make a programme about books - intelligent people talking intelligently but TV always wants to reach out to the masses. Occasionally however you have to stuff the masses and pander to an elite.

The idea behind this show is fine - let's analyse a specific book. It worked for art in the excellent Private Life of a Masterpiece but that was aimed at a much higher level. Jordan may be a great fan of Dickens but he also just reflects the lazy cliche that if Dickens were alive now he would be writing for Eastenders. That may be true but then no-one would give a farthing about his work.
The conclusion that Dickens chose his ending based on events on his own life may be true but Jordan may just be seeing that because of the increasingly perfidious idea that the book and the writer are inseperable and in looking at the former we should be looking at biographical details. The fact that we know Dickens did react to public pressure from readers in other works is not explored, the idea that Dickens would change his ending on reader, and friend, feedback being somehow a complete anathema. My reading would be that Dickens did rethink the ending due to his friend and audience expectations, his readers didn't want a bleak resolution (one, I would argue that actually fits in with the rest of the novel better) but a more traditional one with the hope of love and happiness.

In the end however any programme about books is better than nothing so that was positive and I will watch the other episodes despite them being about the same old stuff - Shakespeare, Jane Eyre, Frankenstein*, etc.

* much of this is down to the OU being one of the producers with the books reflecting the content of one of their courses but that also suggests that there may not be a second series.

Both parties to the Yes/No debate seemed terriby cross. I hope people aren't going to be terribly cross with each other on the 19th (and for centuries after).

I caught the tail end of the Books programme by accident and was struck by its bizarre style. Lots of people standing at great distances from one another in empty spaces with lots of 'noddies' from Jordan. I thought the title would be great for a series about books per se - history, production, design, consumption, social impact, etc. - rather than a series of programmes about the individual works contained within them.

Producers seem to doubt our ability to look someone in the eye and hear them out. The camera's gaze wanders like that of a bored teenager, fixing on people's hands and shoes and on the listener rather than the speaker, all subtly implying that the subject is dull.

The camera's gaze wanders like that of a bored teenager, fixing on people's hands and shoes and on the listener rather than the speaker, all subtly implying that the subject is dull. That's why these programmes are so much better on radio. There are no visual distractions, no cues from the camera as to how we should think, only the listener deciding for him or herself on the validity of what's being presented.
I do like the idea of a programme like the one you describe on books per se, which would work well on television.

>3 Jargoneer: I was hoping you would comment on the latest debate, so was glad to see you doing so now. Interesting point about the conundrum facing Darling. In Canada, coverage has picked up in the last two weeks or so. The focus here isn't so much on the currency, rather it seems to be on the actual mechanics, constitutional and otherwise, of how the process of separation would work, and with some time devoted to North Sea resources.

re The Proclaimers: we have to ask whether this is an early bid for the new Scottish national anthem Too funny!

I met a couple last night who have just moved over to France from Edinburgh. Of course I asked them about the vote and they seemed rather surprised and said of course they have voted (by Proxy) to stay in the Union. Is there a city divide happening? With Glasgow voting for independence and Edinburgh to stay in the Union.

>6 SassyLassy: - oil is one the key areas of debate. The Yes campaign see it as an economic boon to the country whereas the Better Together campaign see it as a potential faultline. It all boils down to the amount of oil, the price per barrel and importance of it to an independent Scotland. The Yes camp obviously look at the most optimistic forecasts while the Better Together camp look at the worst. BT have made a bit of a mess of this though, twisting and turning, trying to make the Scottish oil industry look like a burden rather than accepting that it may have some positive attributes.

>7 baswood: - there has always been a belief in certain parts of Scotland that Edinburgh is barely Scottish. It is the most cosmopolitan city (but strangely not the friendliest) and always has had a significant number of residents from England (partly due to Edinburgh University). Perhaps more importantly it never had any industry to lose, being primarily a financial centre, which gives it a different outlook. Considering how RBS and HBOS collapsed I think there are a lot of people grateful to the UK government stepping in and saving them, and look at the mess elsewhere in Europe as an example of what could have happened.
I haven't seen any city based opinion polls but I wouldn't be surprised if Glasgow is more Yes than Edinburgh. On the other hand, much of the West Coast is very Labour who are campaigning for Better Together.

This is interesting because the Yes campaign have always maintained that the UK government would have a currency union because the consequences of not having one would be significant for the rest of the UK. Scottish Referendum drives down sterling exchange rates

Streets of Fire (1984)
Directed by Walter Hill
Written by Walter Hill & Larry Gross
Starring Michael Paré, Diane Lane, Rick Moranis, Amy Madigan & Willem Dafoe.

Walter Hill once stated in an interview that, "Every film I've done has been a Western". The only problem is that studios and market forces haven't let him set them in the West. The roots of Streets of Fire are obvious, with the lone hero coming back to town to liberate the girl and restore order. The fact that is mixed with a 1950's biker gang film and 1980's pop videos is not for the better.

A 19 year old Diane Lane plays Ellen Aim, a local girl done good, who has returned to home to play a concert. Home unfortunately is a rundown area in an unnamed city, which even more unfortunately is next to an even more rundown area, the Battery. While performing she is kidnapped by the Bombers, a biker gang from the Battery. They are helped in the task by the gig having no security or even locked doors. In one of those unforeseen cultural twists the Bombers, with their nice little caps, now look more a Tom of Finland tribute than a bunch of terrifying toughs. This isn't helped by a them being led by a camp looking Willem Dafoe, who, for some unknown reason, spends much of the film wearing nothing but black plastic looking fisherman's trousers.



When the law completely inept, the local cafe owner asks her brother to come home. Enter Tom Cody, played by Michael Paré chanelling Sylvester Stallone (it was his heyday), a bad boy who is really a good boy. Naturally, Tom and Ellen were a 'hot' item at one point. Cody mopes about stating that he ain't rescuing nobody until Ellen's manager, Rick Moranis playing a no-nonsense tough talking businessman, offers him $10k. To help him, he has McCoy (Amy Madigan), an ex-marine looking for a job and somewhere to stay.

In the battery, Cody causes chaos by blowing up things (everything in the Battery explodes which is convenient) and knocking people off their bikes, while McCoy rescues Ellen. They now have to get out of the Battery and do so by hi-jacking a bus containing a black vocal group, The Sorels. In between Ellen and Cody try to work things out, which could be summarised as 'I love you but we were travelling different paths'.

Raven (Defoe) then challenges Cody to fight. The police try to stop it but nothing can stop a face-off like this. They fight with sledgehammers and then fists. Cody wins and everyone goes to another concert. The Sorels sing, Cody tells Ellen that he loves her but they are travelling different paths. Ellen sings, Cody rides into the distance with McCoy.

I expect in his dreams Walter Hill is John Ford and in many ways this is a John Ford film. In other ways it is not a John Ford film - primarily in important aspects like script, editing and acting. The script is probably aiming for 'spare', it hits 'perfunctory' and 'cliched'. As regards editing I can only assume that it was done by the work experience guy with a set of shears.
The cast were all at the beginning of their careers and in most cases it shows. Lane looks lost, Paré choose the wrong action star to mimic, while there are only hints of Dafoe's later screen presence. Moranis seems miscast but that could be due to the image we have of him now. Madigan is the pick of the bunch, her feisty character a role she would repeat a number of times over the subsequent years.
The responsibility for the faults of the film has to lie with Walter Hill. He has on a roll before this film - The Warriors, The Long Ryders, Southern Comfort, 48 hrs. - but this brought crashing to a halt. Despite the short length the film feels unfocused, almost like a rough cut, and like a lot of rock'n'roll films before it the tension between highlighting music and making a dramatic film is clear to see.
Subsequently, Hill and Paré have both spoken of problems on the set and with the production.



But what about the music? The incidental music is by Hill's regular collaborator, Ry Cooder. Personally I think Ry Cooder is one of the greats but this is not his best work. Still it is always nice to hear his guitar playing. There is a decent Motown pastiche, "I Can Dream About You", which was a hit for Dan Hartman.
The Ellen Aim character gets three songs - one a Tom Petty song, Never Be You sung the lovely Maria McKee, and two by Jim Steinman, performed by Fire Inc. As most people know Jim Steinman wrote Bat Out of Hell (contrary to belief he didn't produce it, that was Todd Rundgren who hated it) and tends toward the bombastic. Unlike some who need pencillin to get through a Steinman song I actually don't mind them once in a while but the pair in this film are second rate pieces.
The musical highlights are a couple of songs by The Blasters, just a wonderful back-to-basics rock'n'roll band. (I remember them appearing on Jools Holland Later and blowing all the young guns away).
The rumour is that the film should have ended with Bruce Springsteen's Streets of Fire but that they couldn't get permission to record it.

Despite all the flaws this is not an unwatchable film, in fact they may make it more watchable than it had been merely competent. It also has the benefit of being short, a mere 90 minutes. It already has a growing reputation as a cult film so if you watch it now you'll be able to roll your eyes when people describe it an overlooked masterpiece.

I don't know if non-UK residents can hear this but here is Will Self giving George Orwell a kicking - Why Orwell Is the Supreme Mediocrity.

I remember being disappointed with Streets of Fire way back when, because Walter Hill had directed some of the best action films of the late 70's, I am thinking of The Driver, Warriors and The Long Riders. Your review makes Streets of Fire sound awful.

Thanks for the link to Why Orwell is the supreme mediocrity, it played OK in France. And so Will Self invents another way of pronouncing ORR well.

I am seeing connections here Well, Will, Hill, - it must be a sign.

I'd never wanted to before, but now I do want to watch Streets of Fire. Maybe if next week holds a quiet evening.

And as for the potential national anthem, you know you'll be stuck with either bagpiping Scotland the Brave or that Skye Boat Song that is required to play in the background whenever Scotland is mentioned. Personally, I think Alan Cumming should choose.

Over the weekend an opinion came out stating the Yes campaign had a 2% lead, the first time this has happened and the impact has been dramatic - Ten Days to Save the UK.

It should be noted that in another opinion on the same day the No campaign had a 4% lead. Which is a decent lead but still a drop on the 8% they had a month ago. I suppose the question is whether people are changing their mind or the Don't Knows are joining the Yes campaign or the 8% figure was incorrect. It was always going to be close but seemed that No would win, now it seems like Yes could win. If the vote is Yes then the Better Together campaign probably have done as much to lose the debate as the Yes campaign have to win it.

>13 RidgewayGirl: - our sporting national anthem is Flower of Scotland. It is about fighting the English and being a nation again which if we are an independent nation again doesn't make sense. Sounds good when sung en mass though.
At the recent Commonwealth Games the English team used Jerusalem which may not be the most rousing national anthem but is probably the most beautiful.
What everyone wants is something like the La Marsellaise - now that is a national anthem. (The lyrics are sublimely over-the-top).

I've been writing this for a few days now so will just post something about the Referendum.

Over the last week the referendum has gone into overdrive. All the Westminister leaders have travelled to Scotland promising more powers and crying crocodile tears about the thought of separation. Yesterday Labour sent up 100 MPs to talk to voters (Labour are really worried as Scotland votes in 50+ of them every election - it is generally reckoned that they can't currently win an election without Scottish seats).
Also all the big banks have announced they will move their registered headquarters to England following a Yes vote but no jobs will move. The reason for this is if they go belly-up again they want the Bank of England to bail them out but no-one seems to mentioning this as English voters may be less keen on this idea. At the same Asda and John Lewis suggested that prices may go up in Scotland, although it turned out that David Cameron had asked them to become involved.
The friendly debate is getting less friendly. Westminister may be offering Scotland more powers but I'm sceptical about this - why would any English MP vote to give Scotland any additional powers? (The Welsh and Irish may vote Yes to get more themselves). One of the suggestions is that in return Scottish MPs would be barred for voting on English issues, which could lead to a very odd scenario where Labour have a majority of 40 seats but effectively can't govern because their 50 Scottish MPs can't vote on issues like Health, Policing, and Education.

The oddest moment of the campaign so far came during a televised debate for 16 and 17 year olds, who are able to vote for the first time - Scottish Labour refused to send anyone so, in a moment of madness, the BBC asked George Galloway. Wearing a hat at a jaunty angle to prove he was still down with the kids we were treated to Gorgeous George supporting Conservative policies, rambling on his path and then when asked to for a short statement on why young voters should vote No gave a speech about Britain's Finest Hour and the Battle of Britain.

How carried away are people getting? On R4's Today programme Denise Mina did a spiel on behalf of Better Together where she likened the loose Yes coalition consisting primarily of the SNP, the Greens and disaffected Labour to the Arab Spring and look what happened there.
I'm already preparing for the rise of PS (Presbyterian State) with their motto of "No fun, no smiling, no nothing".

Billy Bragg supports Scottish independence as means to re-energise democracy throughout the UK - Scottish nationalism and British nationalism aren’t the same

Since I mentioned Billy Bragg I would like to recommend his music - a good place to start is Don't Try This At Home, a little less political, a little more personal than before but very very good.

I have been following the referendum via the BBC and have been amazed how biased the coverage has been on the web site. Most of the stories and articles are about the Better-together campaign and it would seem that the only person in the whole of Scotland who wants independence is that crazy man Alex Salmond .

Mind you I think you are pretty fortunate that Ian Paisley is no longer active.

>19 baswood: - here is a video of Scottish comedian Kevin Bridges on the referendum - including Alex Salmond motivated by being dumped at 16. Kevin Bridges on Scottish Independence.

Re Paisley and his ilk - there was an Orange Walk in Edinburgh on Saturday in support of the Union. That's one of the oddities of a referendum, regardless of side you end up side-by-side with people you would normally walk 500 miles to get away from.

The party has really impressed through the referendum are the Greens, not because they are supporting Yes but simply because they talk about real issues - fairness, justice, the future - there is no name-calling, no silly threats, etc. It also helps they cheer me up every day as I get back from the office and there they are outside of their police box dancing away in rain or shine.

So I listened to a discussion on the Scotland issue and by the end of it I'd moved from kind of thinking that the UK should remain together to being solidly for Scottish Independence. That Alasdair Darling is a valuable spokesman for independence!

On Mock the Week the NO campaign was compared to a bad boyfriend who, when the relationship hits a rocky place and the girlfriend thinks of leaving, reacts by yelling that she's nothing without him. The whole "better together" idea has certainly been discarded.

And Billy Bragg is, indeed, fantastic. I am the Milkman of Human Kindness is sublime.

Been waiting for your latest thoughts on the Referendum, so happy to see you posting.
Time to boycott Denise Mina?!--- Also J K Rowling, although I've never read anything by her, so not too difficult.

Is it true that the extra powers Westminster is offering as a bribe to induce a No vote, and should the vote be No, then those powers would only be voted on after the next UK election in 2015, in which case the whole thing is moot, as no one knows who would be the government after that election?

>19 baswood: I suspect the ghost of Ian Paisley will haunt for awhile. That whole Orange Walk was quite shocking (and frightening). I did see a sign saying Biassed Broadcasting Corporation at one of the rallies on television.

>20 Jargoneer: Enjoyed the Kevin Bridges riffs on Alex Salmond and Claudia, and on the potential terrors of Sauchiehall Street.

>21 RidgewayGirl: To continue the bad boyfriend analogy, where was he with all those goodies before you threatened to walk out?!

>22 SassyLassy: - when the referendum was being negotiated David Cameron veto-ed the ideal of Devo-Max on the ballot. It's all or nothing and now he is running around promising extra powers to everyone. If they had put Devo-Max on the ballot in the first place none of this anxiety would have occurred - everyone would have voted for Devo-Max and everyone would have been happy.

Unforeseen circumstances of the campaign - our cat is now worried about the possibility of substantial price increases in gourmet cat food resulting in a return to Whiskas. She is demanding we vote No.

>23 Jargoneer: Got that about Devo Max, I was thinking of the promises extended last week.
I just heard an interview with Thomas Devine this morning and he said much the same thing about everyone probably voting for Devo Max and Cameron being misled by polls at the time the question was formulated.

Terrible about the gourmet cat food-- I hadn't considered that!

To wind down from a night following the referendum I thought I would look at the New York Review of Books and ended up reading an article/review (with the NYB it's hard to tell the difference) on Jeff Koons - The Cult of Jeff Koons. It starts thus -

Imagine the Jeff Koons retrospective at the Whitney Museum of American Art as the perfect storm. And at the center of the perfect storm there is a perfect vacuum. The storm is everything going on around Jeff Koons: the multimillion-dollar auction prices, the blue chip dealers, the hyperbolic claims of the critics, the adulation and the controversy and the public that quite naturally wants to know what all the fuss is about. The vacuum is the work itself,...

Koons is the most expensive artist in the world: the orange version of Balloon Dog (above) sold for $58m, which raises one question - why? Possibly because the whole art market has invested so much in Koons work that it is now impossible to admit they may have been wrong, that Koons is a great salesmen, not a great artist. Or the other hand, perhaps Koons is the great artist of our time - childishly big and vulgar, where the price-tag is more important that the art.

My feeling about Koons is that the emperor has no clothes. But people I know who've seen the exhibit at the Whitney enjoyed it, I think somewhat to their surprise. However, I have no interest in going.

Thinking of you today! It's a big day and we'll be watching.

Thinking of you today. I really wish I was there. There are no words for how big this is.

Last night on the way home from work I was listening to Brian Wilson's Pet Sounds Live but only heard the first half of it. On the way to the polling station this morning I wasn't going to put any music on but changed my mind with the (unplanned) result that as I approached the polling station I had 'I Know There's An Answer' playing. The answer me turned out to be Yes but even as I standing in the booth I was thinking about my decision. Why did I vote Yes? Partly because while the Yes campaign seemed more positive (although it could be argued that that Yes always seems more positive) the Better Together was all about fear and bullying until right at the last minute when they started talking about extra powers. (If Devo-Max had been on the ballot papers as originally muted, but veto-ed by David Cameron, this would have been the most straight-forward vote ever as most people in Scotland support DM but now have to choose Yay or Nay). I was also influenced by the demographics of Britain, Scotland only has a population of 5m and so it means that our influence in Westminister politics is limited (England has a population of 55m) - independence would make democratic decisions closer to the source. And there is also the problem of London, at the Edinburgh Book Festival this year Charlie Fletcher, an Englishman, made the astute remark that it now seems like London is a city state with a nation attached rather than the capital of a nation, and it is difficult to see how this will change.
I still think No will win the vote - all the opinion polls and, perhaps more importantly, bookies say so - and by a bigger margin than expected, possibly 54-46. Regardless of the outcome I think there are challenging times ahead for Scotland - if Yes there is so much to sort out that it will be years before the country stands completely on its own and it is quite likely there will be negative impact on the economy initially; if No I can't see English MPs heeding their leaders and rewarding Scotland, it is possible that the Scottish government will get some extra (minor) powers, it is almost certain Scotland will get less money from Westminister and forced into making cuts.

Re the vote - 97% of the electorate have registered to vote and they believe that the likely turnout will be around 90%, which are incredible figures. This is the one reason why pollsters are hedging their bets - no-one knows which side all these 'new' voters are going to vote for. (Most opinion polls canvas a known set of voters)

I've seen some notes on Twitter today that some voting precincts have seen 100% turnouts - all possible votes have been cast. Amazing.

Even at the time I couldn't understand why Cameron refused to allow the devo-max option on the voting paper. Such a stupid decision. He must be kicking himself now.

Will you be staying up through the night tonight or are you just going to go to bed and see what the world is like in the morning?

I heard that some pubs were going to be open all night. Understandable but dangerous.

Picking up on the city state comment, I read in this evening's papers that Margaret Hodge, described as "Labour MP and potential mayoral candidate" is joining the campaign for devo-max to apply to London. She says that by 2030 London's population will be twice that of Scotland. Worryingly for all except Londoners - and possibly the Scots - she and others are arguing for London to keep and control all property taxes raised from the city. According to Hodge New York keeps 50% of tax revenue raised, whereas London's mayor and the boroughs only get 7%. I don't know how much money this represents, but it will be a shame if the spread of enthusiasm for devolution means that the municipal conurbations cut themselves off and hold on to their money leaving the rest of the UK to break up into culturally cohesive but impoverished hinterlands. Clearly it's going to get messy from now on.

So many parts of the UK were arbitrarily carved up, reshuffled and rechristened for administrative reasons without regard to anything else, while at the same time creating these potential city states. If we're going to do this the whole place needs a rethink. I am looking forward to the return of Northumbria and Mercia.

Anyway, good luck Jagoneer, and may the sun shine on you tomorrow.

Thanks for your thoughts, Turner. And it does help to understand better what some of the problems are. We stayed up for a while watching a live BBC feed on one of our channels. Very exciting, and interesting to hear from some of the people they had in the studio as to how they voted and why. I do hope there will be change from this (and yes, that voter turnout is the envy of all!)

Having finally gotten over the referendum result I will start posting again. The night of the referendum turned out to be a damp squib as it soon became obvious that the result was going to be a No. I listened to the first couple of hours before falling asleep only to awake at 0400 when all the results were coming in. I had to switch it off as area after area voted in the negative. I wasn't surprised that Better Together won but hoped that the Yes vote would be closer - a 10% difference, and winning 28 out of 32 areas was much larger than expected.
What was completely expected is that the main three parties now struggling to deliver their promises of more powers for the Scottish Parliament. All the obvious problems are going to stop this happening - what powers for England, Wales and NI; who votes on what? - and in a few months the referendum will have been forgotten with a general election looming, followed by the in/out Euro referendum. In three years little will have changed except Westminister will have reduced the Scottish budget forcing the government to introduce cuts.
It sounds negative but I can't really see it going any other way.

What can I say? Devastating, (but unfortunately not unexpected)

I agree with your feeling summed up with It sounds negative but I can't really see it going any other way.

Re London, Thomas Devine on the radio the other day suggested the capital should be Carlisle.