Accounting for Taste 

T.K. McNeil

Arguments about perception have been going on for centuries. As has the phenomenon of people claiming that they have solved the problem and are therefore always right. On the other side are the people who maintain that opinions are like noses in that, barring a freak accident, everybody has one. The truth is, of course, somewhere in the middle. Critics are human and can make mistakes. Such as when they heaped praise on The Phantom Menace and jilted the original, Mel Brooks version of The Producers when they first came out. Though, to be fair, the majority of professional critics have experience, education and other background factors that give them better insight when it comes to judging a work. This can include amateur and self-published critics, such as those often found on the Internet. Folks like Lindsay Ellis and Kyle Kallgren who have degrees in film production and film theory respectively.

While all opinions are essentially subjective, there are things one can do to account for this. One of the easiest ways is to try and figure out what it is you like or otherwise about a particular work. Just saying that something ‘sucks’ is not terribly helpful. Pointing out that the characters seem bland and disengaged and/or that the plot is weak or slow or derivative, or even all of these which is referred to as a ‘hat trick’, is a lot more useful and generally more considered. Something else that can be done is to try as hard as possible to account for taste. Despite what the old saying might claim, it is possible to account for taste and not automatically assume that just because you do no like something that it is therefore intrinsically bad. A prime example of this thinking is when an adult criticizes a children’s movie for being ‘patronizing’ or ‘simplistic’. A reverse of this effect occurred with Neil Gaiman’s illustrated novel Coraline. Loved equally by readers and critics, adults and kids, there later emerged a trend  in which children could read the famously creepy book and be largely unscathed, while adults tended to sleep with the lights on. Gaiman’s own theory is that children see the book an an adventure story, while adults see the book as a story about a child in danger. Difference of perspective which cannot help but influence one’s reaction to the work.

The same principle can apply to genre. There are a lot of people who do not like Horror movies and this is fine. When it becomes a problem is when someone with a pre-existing prejudice against the genre is tasked with or chooses to see one and then pans it. It is hardly an unbiased opinion is it? It can be the same with music, Heavy Metal being one of the most unilaterally and baselessly hated genres going. Ask people why they do not like it and the responses vary, though "too loud" and "out of tune" are among the most common. As well as the most perplexing. The thing about loudness is a point but also one that could be made about Classical music. As fans of Beethoven and Rossini can attest. Hating on a Heavy Metal song for being loud is like describing a flower show and dismissing the flora on display as "bright" and "smelly". It is also not true that Metal bands are loud all the time. The notion that Heavy Metal is out of tune is just wrong. The majority of Metal bands use what is called drop-D tuning, in which the standard E tuning on a guitar is lowered to the next note. Add to this some distortion and the result is different than the standard sound, though done by recognized and legitimate methods. Similar to when a Blues guitarist uses an open tuning with a slide. Also, Folk Metal bands like Turisas and Alestorm do not tend to change tuning and have been known to do acoustic versions of their songs.

These tend to be liked more by non-Metal Heads, which is interesting because the only thing that have really changed is the swapping of electric instruments with distortion with acoustic instruments without distortion. Which is not to say that drop-D tuning and distortion are always detriments. Particularly if the equipment is decent and the player is skilled. 'Canon Rock' being a case-in-point.

Another important factor is intent, particularly in the case of comedy. There are people who love Monty Python and those who hate them. None of them are wrong. Humor is so subjective and personal there is no way to know what someone will like. Also, Python’s work is so absurdist and intentionally offensive that there is no way that everyone will like it and they seem to know that. All they want to do is make people laugh and a long as they can do that there is a point to their work existing and persisting. It is also the case with both spoof and satire. Judged only on the surface level classic films, books and musical acts would be universally trashed as silly, pointless and even a little confusing. Fortunately, most sane people know not to try and assess such works at face value there being very different purposes involved. The point of them is not to create a great and original piece of culture, though this can occasionally happen, but to poke fun at an aspect of the existing culture. The only fair way to analyze such work is by factors such as how well the evoke the material that are targeting, how good the jokes are and how well the jokes carry off in context. Basically, how good they are at being bad.

(North) American Gothic

Amy Wright

While they can be useful in matters of organization and general understanding, genre classifications also have pitfalls. Near the top of the list is the question of scope. No matter how broadly they might apply or how specific they might get, see Heavy Metal for an example of how numerous sub-sets can be, there is always something that lays outside the recognized definition. One of the oldest genres of music, what is now called "Country" is also one of the least understood and most derided. This is largely due to genre confusion. What most people now think of when they hear the term "Country" is actually what is known as "New Country". 

Devised in the early-1990’s and propagated by the likes of Shania Twain and Garth Brooks, New Country is an unholy alliance of traditional Country and Rock & Roll, hence the pyrotechnics. While traditional Country, now called "Old Country", has its own conventions that may or may not be enjoyed by all, there is also more than one way of interpreting them. Bluegrass is technically under the Country banner and generally more well liked than its twangy, hurtin’, cheatin’ brethren. There have also been cases of the form being applied to Metal as in the case of Hank Williams III (who actually is Hank Sr.’s grandson) and even Anarcho-Punk in bands such as Blackbird Raum. 

Another counter-intuitive combination, that none the less exists, is the blending of Country with elements of the spooky. While there have been elements of the macabre in roots music going back to the beginning,  the form has seen something of a renaissance in the 21st century. Starting out slow with songs such as the title track of  Neko Case’s breakout 2000 album Furnace Room Lullaby, the style has gotten more popular up as things have gotten worse.  

One of the most famous acts to use the style in recent years is The

Pierces. Comprised primarily of sisters Allison and Catherine

Pierce, with help from a rotating roster of back-up musicians, the

duo started performing in 2000. Loved but undefined, the sisters

have had all manner of terms applied to their sound including

Psychedelic Rock, Psychedelic Pop, Folk Rock and Indie Pop. While, to be fair, their has been a change in sound between their studio albums to date, their third, Thirteen Tales of Love and Revenge, really only has one term that encompasses it. It is an old, evocative term once used to apply to art. "American Gothic". 

While they vary, sometimes greatly, in terms of tempo and tone there is one factor that remains, which is the combination of Americana and the darker parts of American history and culture, particularly in the South. There is a reason that True Blood was set below the Mason-Dixon. It is also telling that the Pierce sisters hail from Birmingham Alabama. While some might refer to the track "Secret" as the best example of this, there is a stronger case to be made for "Sticks & Stones". 

"Secret" is creepy to be sure and has overtones of familial deceit and murder. "Sticks & Stones" on the other hand, evokes a deeper, more visceral fear of a power greater than one’s self. The first whispers "betray me and I will kill you". The second shouts "there is nowhere to run!" An overall sense of the otherwordly that that permeates the entire album. Including, arguably, the gentlest track "Three Wishes." Far more on the love side of things, the track has dreamlike quality and an overwhelming sense that everything will be okay. 

While little known outside their native soil, the Canadian band Hank & Lily, the genre does have a tendency for duos, are one of the best and original acts going. Comprised of Hank Pine and Lily Fawn, the band take a D.I.Y. approach, releasing all their material themselves. They also tour extensively though rarely get past the Rocky Mountains. Despite their geographical specificity, they really do something special. In addition to music Pine and Fawn also appear in a comic book series, often sold as a package with their albums, which are written and illustrated by Pine himself. 

The story is complex, sordid and funny, casting Fawn as a part human, part deer creature and Pine as a member of a cult known as the Acolytes of the Second Sun (A.S.S.) and potentially a serial killer. Fawn first meets him while he is hitchhiking on the highway with the corpse of his beloved, whom he may or may not have killed, after evading the authorities following a massacre at the trailer park where he lived, which he may or may not have committed. 

The later comics tell their continuing story as they go on tour and try to build a new life, constantly blurring the lines between fantasy reality and posing the question as to whether Pine and Fawn are supposed to be a band with a comic book tie-in or real-life versions of comic book characters who are in a band. Their music carries on this sense of dark surrealism, adding elements such as cello, singing saw and even choirs to the standard guitar and drums. Particularly on their album North America. Song titles include "Alligator Boy", "Humans" and "Lucifer". The last of which actually starts with the lines: "Everyone I know is going to burn, in Hell, oh well/But if Lucifer were here, he’d tell you why, oh why, he Fell". Which might explain why they do not tend to play gigs in the Bible Belt. 

That's Entertainment!

Amy Wright

It is truly fascinating what can be considered entertainment. Bear baiting was once all the rage as were public executions, the spectators getting involved in the proceedings, throwing vegetables at the condemned as they took the long walk to the gallows. It is encouraging to see how far we have come since those dark and ignorant days. There is absolutely no way such animal suffering and human misery would be acceptable today. Just look at the internet. Only the other day I was on YouTube when I came across a video of a interesting new sport. People at the height of their physical perfection, dressed in the minimum allowed by law engaging in a stunning display of sporting prowess. While technically a “combat” sport, with none of the brutalities of boxing. I could see that there where clear rules and etiquette that no one dare to violate, thereby ensuring the absolute safety of everyone involved, the risk of even minor injury being minimized.

Gobsmacked but very intrigued, I decided to investigate further. A perusal of Google revealed that what I had witness was, in fact, a clip of a match in the Ultimate Fighting Championships, the largest organization for what is elegantly referred to as called “mixed martial-arts”. There was also a good deal of information history of the organization, such as a full list of the rules. Along with clear bans on “rabbit-punching”, “fish-hooking” and, potentially fatal, blows to the kidneys, the rules go on at some length and for many pages, nearing Queensberry levels of specificity and seriousness.

As it turns out I am not the only one to have discovered this rarified phenomenon. The “UFC” as it is known to its fans, is a multi-billion dollar enterprise with millions of viewers in the U.S. alone. Not limiting himself merely to sports, UFC President Dana White is also a shrewd master of the art of business. White has built the brand into one including sports equipment, active wear and publishing as well as manking lots of licensing deals with associated companies. The fans are quite loyal too. There is hardly a sports bar or restaurant who does not have specialized events dedicated tho the viewing of a headline UFC match combined with the consumption of copious amounts of alcohol and red meat. A true recipe for success!

Impressive as this all is, I still think White and his ilk could go even further. He already has a proven business plan, as evidenced as the number of wildly successful UFC copycats out there. I think that the UFC should partner with the FIFA and arrange televised fights between the various hooligan gangs. It could use the current league standing system and could have the fringe benefit of reducing street crime. It would also tap into the lucrative international soccer audience. 

Morale Support

Amy Wright 

It has been a basic notion of performance going back to the beginning that everybody has a part to play. There is a reason that “there are no small parts, only small actors” is such an enduring mantra among the dramatic set. The same principle applies to general character types as well. Some being thought of as more prestigious and desirable the others. Heroes tend to be a popular choice, which only stands to reason. Villains are also near to top of the wish list for many a thespian. As the opposite number to the heroes they are equal in status in terms of the narrative while also having little to none of the usual moral restraints. The main difference between Batman and The Joker is that the Joker kills, often and gleefully, while Batman tends not to kill at all, unless being directed by Tim Burton, the trauma of seeing his parents murdered having made something of an impression.

A character-type, once perfectly respectable though having fallen out of favour in recent years is the Comic Relief. Dating back to the days of Shakespeare, the Comic Relief character was devised as psychological safety valve. Bringing release and relief to even the darkest of tragedies. As well as to give the Comedy specialists in the company something to do. It was not until the early-20^th century that the idea of Comic Relief being annoying came about. Something which has been seen to influence everything from Star Wars with C-3PO to Harry Potter with Ron Weasley. There were several factors that went into this shift but two of the main propagators were Michael Eisner of Walt Disney Studios and Rob Schnider who, despite his Such incarnations can easily give the impression that Comic Relief is a euphemism for "Annoying Side-Character". At their best, however, Comic Relief characters are more complex than they seem and can be among the the richest parts to play, going beyond even what Shakespeare was able to do with them. Interestingly and perhaps as a sort of atonement, none other than Disney Studios have been at the forefront of the effort to resuscitate the Comic Relief character into something more than a wise-cracking doofus or a singing, pun-slinging animal. Taking things in a somewhat different direction, the 2010 film Tangled featured some of the best Comic Relief characters in the studio's history in the forms of Pascal, the lizard friend of the the main character and Maximus, the horse who is on the trail of the roguish love-interest. In a coup for the company and animal characters in general, neither Maximus nor Pascal are actually able to speak. Which is not to say that they cannot communicate. The writers and animators having skills with physical comedy such that they are genuinely the funniest characters in the film, despite there being a good number of decent zingers coming from nearly everybody on the screen.

Live action is also branching out in terms of how Comic Relief characters are used, particularly on television. One of the key examples is the Canadian Detective series Murdoch Mysteries. While most of the characters are intentional or unintentional parodies of established character tropes such as the focused detective and his bungling superior officer, the program really shines because of the contributions of Constable George Crabtree. Portrayed by Stand-Up Comedian Jonny Harris, Crabtree comes across initially like the classic Comedy Sidekick. He is keen but inexperienced with a tendency to believe in the supernatural and say the wrong thing for the context of the scene. Such as saying a particular twist in an investigation would work well for the murder mystery he is writing. He is also dedicated, brave, a brilliant 
researcher and has more than once broken a seemingly impossible case often with an off-hand comment.

A creator known for crafting well-rounded characters in general, it is little surprise that someone know for his complex Comic Relief is Joss Whedon. No matter what project he is doing, an online series about a super-villain or an adaptation of The Bard, Whedon manages to keep his trademark sense of humor in every script he writes. One of the most obvious examples of this is Wash, the deceptively skilled pilot of the starship Serenity in the series Firefly and its spin-off/resurrection bid Serenity. Rather than the oafish, tries-too-hard, not-as-funny-as-he-thinks-he-is Comedy Sidekicks of yore, Wash’s humor is sharp, to the point and generally reactive. Some of his best lines coming in response to something said to him, such as when resident tough-guy Jayne Cobb threatens to beat him up.

Jayne: You wanna dance, little man?

Wash: Only if it’s somewhere with candlelight.

Generally, Wash’s purpose in the story, despite his wicked pilot

skills, is to maintain balance and keep the show from ever getting too serious or dark.

To address the elephant that is no doubt in the room, yes, Xander Harris, of Buffy the Vampire Slayer fame, is a prime example of the Comic Relief character in the modern context. The stand-out character when it comes to humor on a show that is famous for being funny, Mr. Harris quickly established himself as the “Funny Guy” of the series. A title he maintained, against some stiff competition, until the end of the series. More than giggles however, Xander brings the show something else. A core of humanity. One of the very few main characters with no powers to speak of, even the stodgy former Librarian Rupert Giles having Watcher’s training and some low-level magical ability, Xander is the character with whom the audience can most readily identify. He is just a regular guy caught up in strange goings on due to his friendship with Buffy. He didn’t ask for any of it and likely would have stayed oblivious had he and Buffy never met. More than this, because he is the one who is closest to regular humans, he is also the one who is best at relating to them. People tend to like Xander and trust him, not despite but in a way especially because of the scary situations on the show. This is shown throughout the series, perhaps most strongly in a scene near the beginning of Season 5 after the arrival of Buffy’s teenaged sister Dawn. In the scene Buffy is told by her mother, Joyce, that she has to babysit Dawn so Joyce can go to an important work event, though Buffy, being the Slayer, needs to go patrolling, Dawn protesting all the time that she doesn’t need a baby-sitter. When Buffy brings up the idea of getting someone else to babysit Joyce is skeptical, wondering who she could possibly get on such short notice. The first person Buffy thinks of is Xander. A notion to which neither Joyce nor Dawn object.

Xander’s position as only being Comic Relief is tested at various points, beginning with the Season 3 episode “The Zeppo”. Though this comes out most strongly in the fifth and sixth series. First there is the notorious episode “The Body” in which Joyce dies suddenly of complications related to a brain tumor. It is an unusual episode in that it contains next to no supernatural elements. Just the emotions and reactions of the surviving characters. In Xander’s case, somewhat surprisingly, this comes out as a quiet, seething rage. Epitomized by a scene in which he suddenly punches a wall, putting his hand right through it. Despite his happy-go-lucky persona, this is the first real indication we get that there might be something else going on with Xander. That maybe all those years with Buffy, doing his best to help but in the end being next to powerless, are getting to him. Joyce’s unexpected death being the most recent example. This comes to a head in Season 6. Following various events that have resulted in their estrangement, Xander and his ex-fiancé Anya, a former Vengeance Demon, have a knock-down drag-out argument in which Anya utters a line that not only recognizes but criticizes Xander’s role as Comic Relief.
Xander: I hurt you and you get me back, real mature!

Anya: No, the mature solution is for you to spend your whole life telling stupid, pointless jokes so that no one will notice that you’re just a scared, insecure little boy.

While hard to take, this observation more or less sums up Xander’s character up to that point and goes a ways in explaining his recent turn towards depression and aggression. While this is not going to be the case with all Comic Relief characters, it is certainly a different twist on the trope.

Love & Marriage

T.K. McNeil

“The only really happy folk are married women and single men.” Or so said satirist and inveterate crank H.L. Mencken. For a long time, at least on the left, many people agreed, though without the gender caveat. Marriage just assumed to be the way of things. From at least the mid-1960s, however the only people consistently defending marriage and “family values” have been conservatives. Often taking things to an extreme degree. History seems to agree. Many of the arguments against traditional marriage coming across as fairly sound to most reasonable people. Some characterizing the institution of marriage, not entirely unfairly, as a sort of unholy alliance of draconian religious fascism and big state government control. Which was actually, more or less, true up until the 20^th century, when marriage had literally nothing to do with love. It was all about making military and business alliances people generally less likely to cheat or murder someone with whom they share relatives.

The further society moved away from this coldly utilitarian approach to matrimony, the more critical of it people became. The fight for improved rights gaining steam in the 1950s, coming to a head by the early-1970s. The general attitude shifting from dismissive to outright hostile. No-fault divorce came into law. The marriage rate plummeted, fewer people willing to take the risk.

And then it ended. Things shifted once again and young people, even those on the liberal left, started marrying again. And the marriages are lasting. The overall divorce rate plummeting to 40 year lows for first marriages. The last time it was at 2019 levels was 1975, before the anti-marriage sentiment really took hold. The average marriage now lasting for a minimum of 11 years. Many longer than that.

Did people just become more conservative? Possibly, though this is not what the numbers show. According to a report published in the March 1, 2018 edition of Intelligencer, there is a clear trend towards liberalism among Millennials. Keeping inline with traditional trends in terms of age and political alignment, younger people tending toward more liberal politics in general. So what has changed? The answer is actually fairly simple. A increase in terms of choice.

Not that long ago, there were very clear societal expectations as to what citizens, particularly women, were “meant” to do. To the point of sometimes making appeals to “natural law” in terms of staunch Social Darwinists. This has largely eroded over time, the general trend being towards further social progress. What used to be thought of as “just the way of things”, increasingly being identified, not unfairly, as traditionalism. A world-view like any other that can be accepted or rejected, depending on one's own political alignment, the trend over the past fifty years being to reject it. Leading to a state of affairs in which traditionally subjugated groups like racial minorities and women gain more social freedom to dictate their own lives. An increasing number of women opting to focus on their education and career when they are young. The overall age of both marriage an pregnancy steadily increasing. The median age of first marriage in the U.S. is now 28 for women and 29 for men. The average age of first pregnancy, a major motivation for marriage for many years, is now 26. Up a full five years from 1972 average of 21. Which has an overall positive effect in terms of divorce and abortion rates, the former down to 30 percet from an all-time height of 50 percent in the late-1980s and the latter now down to 45 in every 1,000 women between 15 and 44. The majority of marriages and births now occurring in the context of older, more educated, more emotionally and financially stable couples.

Rather than young people getting more conservative, the current trend toward marriage is more readily explained by the slow shift toward liberal ideals. Which has given women more personal autonomy. Exactly what those who were initially critial of marriage on the basis of women's liberation were arguing for. 

Strange Days 

Amy Wright 

It is often said that great art come out adversity. While good times are better for society as a whole, in terms of art and culture creation it is the dark and uncertain times that inspire the most fierce and original work. Rarely was this truer than in the 1980’s. It can be difficult now to really appreciate how bad the ‘80’s really were. Especially compared to what is happening now. Except, Donald Trump still has yet to tell the poor that ketchup qualifies as a vegetable as Ronald Reagan was famous for doing and there is no record of Prime Minister Theresa May saying that homosexuals should be put into concentration camps. Which is more than can be said for Maggie “Iron Lady” Thatcher. The AIDS crisis was just starting, hundreds of people dying a year and the tensions between nuclear powers went somewhat beyond some school-yard name- calling. Such conditions could not help but have an impact on the art of the day, particularly in the music industry.

While it existed before then, the 1980’s saw the first real push in what has come to be known as the “indie” music scene, especially pushed along by the latter day American Punk scene, independent and creator owned record labels being the order of the day, carrying acts considered too strange or shocking for the mainstream. Which, considering that the mainstream at the time included Alice Cooper and early-Metallica, is really saying something. Though visual shocks and tonal intensity are one thing, still sitting into the realm of accessibility. Executives and promoters at the time had no idea what to do with the strange or avant-garde, the ‘80’s Weirdo Renaissance giving rise to bands such as The Germs, They Might Be Giants and The Pixies in the States. Though truly ground-breaking, things were arguably weirder North of the Border. Canada has always been known for its music scene and this is no exception. The ‘80’s gave rise to seminal punk bands such as D.O.A. and the Canadian version of The SubHumans, which were as obscure if not more so than their American counter-parts, even Dead Kennedys frontman Jello Biafra getting on Oprah on occasion. The Canadian scene was a bit more insular and local, few of the bands touring outside their own Province, partly due to practical reasons given the size of the landmass, records being mostly sold at shows and through local shops. Such was the case for brilliant but little known West Coast band NoMeansNo.

Formed in Victoria, British Columbia by brothers Rob and John Wright in 1979, NoMeansNo redefined what a band could be, not only in Punk but popular music in general. Not only were they a duo without any sort of support staff, they were also basically a rhythm section with Rob on bass, John on drums and both of them singing. Yet, so talented were each of the Brothers Wright at their respective instruments, one barely notices the absences of guitars. Or, indeed the presence of them when it occurs, first with Andy Kerr  from 1983-1989 and then with Tom Holliston from 1993-2016. There is no use for egos here, every element being as 

important as another. An egalitarian spirit give physical manifestation by the fact that John’s drums are set up in line with Rob’s mic-stand at the front of the stage. Something not even Don Henley managed to get in The Eagles. They also more or less invented Math Rock, all of their songs being notoriously difficult to play. They are also notable for their versatility and variance both in terms of lyrical content, literally having a song about math called “0+2=1” but also the tempos and styles of their songs. Most commonly referred to as a Punk band, there are several songs that defy this label such as “Victory”.

A slow, precise track with a title cleverly belies the content (“And what do I see?/Standing like a wall, in front of me/Defeat, not victory), with a bass-line more befitting a Jazz band. It also clocks in at over five minutes, demolishing the “two-minute punk song” stereotype. Sometimes they even change styles within a single song. Such is the case with the track “I Need You”.

Starting out as a slow, deliberate semi-love song, somewhere around the forth minute, following a build up, the song goes to a bridge that sounds like a different song entirely for nearly a minute before returning to the previous theme for over two minutes until the end. Ironically, unlike The Pixies who had to go the Britain, at least initially, to get a record deal but still found success in the States, NoMeansNo were never famous in North America outside the West Coast of Canada but have a massive following in Western Europe, particularly the Netherlands.

Things were even stranger in Britain, however, the combination of Thatcherism, austerity, the aftermath of the Punk movement known as New Wave and a general national history and reputation for eccentricity (how else does one explain the popularity of blood pudding?) created the prefect storm of elements. Even some of the most popular mainstream bands such as Adam and the Ants, Magazine and Ultravox had some touches of storage. Though the Bampot Award in terms of mainstream bands has to go to Killing Joke. Named after a blissfully surreal Monty Python sketch about a lethally funny joke, the band also has a morbid sense of jocularity. While their most famous songs have titles such as “Eighties”, there are also songs such as “Hosannas From the Basement in Hell”, which needs to be seen to be believed.

There is no shortage of oddities these days but the impact has become somewhat less as the paradigm has shifted toward the Internet. Experimental electronic bands and surreal comedy duos existing along side official video releases by Top 40 artist signed to major labels on streaming sites. Whether or not this this is, ultimately, a positive development remains to be seen.

Good Fences

Amy Wright

There are several words, in our grand old language of English that evoke quite a deep and negative reaction. Most of the time this is understandable. In other cases this reaction is based on a gross misunderstanding of the word's meaning and intent. The word “prejudice”, for example, is entirely neutral, simply meaning to pre-judge which can be done positively just as easily as negatively. The word “segregation”, likewise, simply means to keep things separate. When the separation in question is between peoples, particularly by government diktat, this is problematic. It is not only people who are segregated and there are instances in which segregation is actually a preferable condition to a limitless free-for-all.

One of the cases in which segregation was preferable to its alternative was the early days of the internet. It might be difficult to fathom now that the development of the internet was a fairly slow and gradual process. There were websites in the late 1990s but not nearly as many as there are today and they were for the most part, independent entities that needed to be sought out individually. There was all the wondrous, wacky, weird, pointless and awful things than that there are now but the self-selecting nature of the web-surfing audience of the day kept the less positive aspects of the net small and localized.

Then came net democratization. A move criticized by Tech. Industry pioneers from Silicon Valley inside Jaron Lanier to Tim Berners-Lee who literally created the architecture of the modern-day, Linux-based world-wide web, as misguided and potentially dangerous. One need only look at the critical mass being cultivated on Social Media to see they have a point. What platforms like YouTube and Twitter have done, as unintentional side effect of their push for and open internet, is breakdown the arguably necessary walls between various internet communities. There were certainly white supremacists online before 2005 but they were restricted to ghettoized fringe sites like StormFront. What YouTube has done is give them a place to meet, socialize and plan, for the most part unnoticed, while also giving their ideas a modicum of mainstream visibility and respectability. If you suspect I am exaggerating go to YouTube and type the words “Ian Stuart” into the search bar. This is but one example of the Neo-Nazi propaganda openly available.

This is not to lay the blame for things such as the rise of the Alt-Right or what happened in Charlottesville squarely on the door-step of the Social Media. Those on the extreme fringes have used the media of the day to their own devices, going back to the self-publishing and pamphleteering boom of late 17^th century Europe, during which anyone with a room and a printing-press was considered a legitimate source of information. A system which gave the good things like Thomas Paine's The Rights of Man and most of the work of Jonathan Swift as well as the rebirth of 'Flat-Earth Theory' and the sort of racial blood myths that would later inspire the Third Reich. There is no way to completely control what people do with the information technology given to them, but that does not mean the situation is hopeless. We need simply to recognize the potential risks of what is going on and do what we can to limit and counter its impact.

Laughing At The System 

Amy Wright

The relationship between artists and the rest of society has never been a simple one. Touted as geniuses in one breath and damned as layabouts and supplicants in the next, sometimes by the same person, a general lack of understanding about the purpose of creative cultures lies at the heart of the notion, often true though not always, that artist can be a harrowing profession, often ending in misery and death. Making things more complex is the fact that, despite the tendency to dismiss it as frivolous, there are generally agreed on standards about what one should and should not to in terms of the creative life. A situation made even more ironic and effable by the fact that those who follow the “rules” can be dismissed as “sell-outs” and what the rules are change over time and place. As with all rules, there are exceptions. Creators who not only overcame the odds and become professionals in their chosen fields but do so by fragrantly breaking the rules, and often laws, of the creative set as well as society. Doing things no one was supposed to do and doing things that, according conventional wisdoms, should not be possible to do.

On of the greatest examples of this in terms of genre is the Science Fiction Comedy. The foundations of Science, Fiction, particularly “hard” Science-Fiction, have long thought to be fundamentally serious. Particularly in literature. The stories there of being largely based on protections to the future grounded in the concrete principles of the present day. Given this pedigree, it is understandable that one could be skeptical about the idea of combining such an august literary form with the frivolity of humor. And yet it is not only possible but quite unique and effective, as evidenced by The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy novels in terms of literature and Red Dwarf and Doctor Who in terms of television, as well as literature, both series having tie-in novels. While Doctor Who is not overtly a Comedy, often involving moments of pure terror, anyone who denies the strong element of humor, particularly in the new series, either has not seen it or are kidding themselves.

As impressive as it is to completely defy conventional genre wisdom to create something that simply not exist, there are those who risked a good deal more than mockery with what they did. Brave, some might argue foolish, souls who cut against the very heart of their societies and not only were not shunned or even incarcerated for their willful rebellion but loved by the very society that they lampooned. Two of the strongest examples of this are in Theater. Specifically English Playwright Joe Orton and the Irish Playwright Brendan Behan. Largely forgotten today, except for those familiar with Theatrical History and/or a keen interest in the Dark Comedy form, Orton and Behan were at the very vanguard not only of their time but of where the world was going generally.

Born of low-means, Orton already had a strike against him in the context of Ultra-Conservative 1960’s Britain simply by being Working Class. A fact which if he felt any shame about he effectively repressed it, being the first to joke about the irony of it all. For instance, upon being presented with a once beautiful thrift shop fur coat by his agent, Orton commented that he always looked best in cheap cloths because: “I am from the gutter.” Added to this social and economic handicap is the fact that Orton was openly gay, at a time in Britain’s history when this could still get one sentenced to two years hard labor. While Orton managed to escape this fate, he did serve six months in an “open” prison, the equivalent of what is called “minimum security” in North America, not for being gay but for being a delinquent with a surreal sense of humor. Specifically, he had “altered” the covers and even inside cover descriptions of a number of library books into funny, often lewd forms. One of the tamer examples involved pasting the images of a monkey’s face into the middle of a large image of a flower on the cover of a book about flowers. If the authorizes were intending to quell Orton’s rebellion, turning him into an upstanding citizen, it backfired spectacularly. If anything, prison was the thing that contributed most to Orton’s later success. Being the thing that Orton credited with giving him the “distance” to be able to really write the work that he needed to in order to get noticed. At least in a positive way, his various attempts at literature having suffered rejection several times before. 

No less abrasive than his earlier work, Orton’s work for the stage, radio and television, managed to balance the mood and conceal the outrage behind a veneer of Middle-Class respectability. The darkness of the gutter that bore him lurking just below the surface. This is epitomized by his debut radio play The Ruffian On The Stair. Ruffian is at first difficult to distinguish from any other radio drama of the day. Until the slow reveal of darkness, perversion and death laying beneath the up until that point benign if strained interactions between a middle-aged, middle-class couple and the rough looking young man who has unexpectedly visited them. It was not sheer frivolity and desire to mock pretension that drove Orton’s creative endeavour. He also had a genuine fear and loathing for the system as a whole. Not only what it stood for but the depths to which it would stoop to maintain its power. Orton’s ultimate statement on the subject came in 1965 with his most famous stage-play, Loot. An exercise in relative morality, none of the characters in the play can be described as innocent. They all have their own agendas based on selfish goals. Yet even the two main characters, who are clearly shown to be thieves with little regard for others, become at least broadly sympathetic when suffering the brutal force of the State. Which is represented by a police inspector investigating their robbery who gains entrance to the home of one of thieves during perpetrations for his mother’s funeral. The inspector gets into the house by claiming to be from the Water Board. A front he maintains even while beating one of the suspects senseless trying to get him to confess and disclose the location of the stolen money.

Far from being shunned on account of his humble beginnings, sexuality and obvious issues with authority, Orton was the darling of the London upper-class, who pride themselves on being patron’s of the arts. Most of his shows had sold-out runs and Orton was honored with several awards. Recognition which he accepted with a characteristic amiable smirk. More than likely appreciating the successes but knowing full well the source of it. In one notorious acceptance speech, he laid it all out, stating that his plays were about “people who get away with it.”

Brendan Behan was similar to Orton in terms of class, social context and willingness to veer towards the dark. Though, if anything, had an even better sense of humor about it all. Born in Ireland before the liberation of the south into the Republic of Ireland in 1949, Behan’s relationship to the British Authorities as somewhat different than Orton’s, Behan being a prominent member of the Irish Republican Army during the Anglo-Irish War. A position which ended up with him serving time in prison. Yet, despite this history Behan’s approach to satirizing the powers that be is not one of rage or even mockery but self-deprecating humor, presenting situations in which no one is in the right and institutions are neither good nor bad. They are just what they are and will never fundamentally change. This is an essentially Absurdist world-view, basically positing that the best we can really do as people is find amusing ways to pass the time before we die. This point is driven home with Behan’s pitch black prison comedy The Quare Fellow. Which was a major hit, particularly in England. The play takes place in a Dublin prison on the eve of an execution. Rather than a damning criticism of the prison system it presents the instruction as it really is. A flawed collection of human beings. Some good, some bad, some cunning others incompetent. This is made most clear with the characterization of the main group of prisoners and the main Warders or guards. Prisoner A. is described as a “Hard Case” (career criminal), who as already done two “laggings” (a sentence of five years or more). Prisoner B. on the other hand is described in the stage directions as “a gentle-looking man and easy going.” It is interesting to note that only three if the prisoners are ever referred to by their name, either in the dialogue text, stage directions or even the cast list. An example of the dehumanization of an institutional context such as a prison. One that is also applied to the prison staff, only four of them ever being refereed to by name, all the other characters on this side of things being described either by their function (“The Prison Governor”) or a nickname (“Holy Healey”). Despite the somewhat negative reputation prison guard have built up over the years, none of Behan are particularly bad. A couple of them actually being really nice. This is particularly true of Regan, one of the senior Warders, who finds the whole idea of the forthcoming execution quite distasteful and sneaks the prisoners cigarettes as a sort of bizarro world act of compassion. The majority of the humor from the prisoners is ironic and situational. Literal gallows humor, used as a way to cope with the desperation of their situation. This starts right at the beginning with the first interchange between Prisoners A. and B.

Prisoner A.: Nice day for the races.

Prisoner B.: Don’t think I can make it today. Too much to do in the office. Did you hear the commotion last night round D. wing? A reprieve must have come through.

Even the political jokes, what few there are, come from a case of comforting disinterest. This is best shown in a line about how things changed, or rather didn’t, when the South of Ireland went from a colony to a Free State in 1922. One of the older prisoners mentions how there was some worry that the new domestic government would cause undue changes to the status quo in the prisons. Thankfully, the only thing that really changed “we’re the badges on the Warder’s caps.”

The more things change the more they stay the same. Thank goodness for that.

Common Cause 

T.K. McNeil 

Reality is subjective. Not only when it is convenient for an argument but in the more concrete terms as well. Such as those related, in some fashion or another, to neuroscience. One of the complex things about being a member of the human race, is that everything that can be known and thought is done through perception. If something is so-called 'imperceptible', it is the same as that thing not existing at all. Because of this flaw in understanding concrete reality, the notion of 'truth' can get a bit dicey, the process of verification being tenuous at its very best.

The state of social structure and the human condition is no great exception, as the limited an flawed processes used to investigate natural science are the same by which we measure and judge values and states of existence. The phrase 'my truth', particularly to those who favour persuasion, is closer to the truth than many are willing to admit. The nature of truth as well as its substance is greatly depending upon personal experience and interpretation.

A phenomena gaining in recognition in the last few years is the so-called 'Red Pill.' A reference to the science-fiction film The Matrix, said term refers to a particular contention that almost everything, if not everything, that people assume to be true about society is false. Not that it is all a computer generated hologram such as in the film but a sort of mass delusion based on a combination of state propaganda and public credulity. Believe it or not, this the above contingency is not as daft as it may first appear. There are numerous examples from history of powerful government apparatus convincing large swaths of the population of things that had no basis in fact. Not in the sense of conspiracy theory cover-ups and 'official accounts' but state propaganda such as that seen in the former Soviet states. In this alternate universe, racial minorities are coddled and out to exact terrible revenge on those who oppressed them, it is men rather than women who are oppressed and the world is run by corporations rather than the government.

While there is little talk of the 'Blue Pill' side of the equation, there is always at least one other side, this is assumed to be the rest of society who have bought into the alleged deception entirely. These are the folk most likely to make up what has been termed the 'regressive left.' A not terribly flattering restatement of the original idea of the 'progressive left.' Generally leftist, these are the groups who have a, sometimes unfortunate, tendency toward direct action political activities to try and fix the wrongs they see as happening around them. Sometimes not even fully understanding what it is that they are angry about and may or may not be happening. Just as the 'Red Pill' faction perceived injustices which may or may not be correct. Passion for justice, as they see it, being one of the main attributes uniting the two.

One option could be to combine the approaches of shrewd skepticism and recognition of the obvious. Keep as open a mind as possible and try to get information from as many reliable, if disagreeing, sources as can be found before drawing conclusions about what might be going on.

Capital!

T.K. McNeil 

English is truly a fascinating language. Technically a combination of three different languages, Latin, German and French, modern English has a wider active vocabulary than an other living language on earth. Almost double that of French. Despite this, it can also be one of the worst languages in terms of creating misunderstandings. Such as Darwin's use of the word “fittest” to refer to general adaptability. Many, including several brutal dictators, assuming he meant survival of the strongest. Indirectly leading to the principle of Social Darwinism, which has lead to the misery and death of untold millions over the last century or so. There is also the unfortunate situation following the viral status of #MeToo, many men, somewhat hurt but the implication of making mass statements about “predatory men” pointing out “not all” of them do that. In fact it is not most. What was really going on was mostly a limitation of language. Most #MeToo activists not actually meaning to literally include the entire male population in statements about a select few powerful men who had been exposed as sex offenders. Just as those making the “not all” statement were in no way trying to imply that there really wasn't a problem, just that they were not a part of it. Or tried not to be. Definitions and nuances it is difficult to express in a concise manner.

Another term grossly misunderstood by modern English speakers is that of “Capitalism”. Conversely praised as the thing that makes Democracy work and damed as something to be rightfully “smashed”, all it really refers to is a cash-based economy. That is all. There is is nothing inherent to the idea that makes it pro or anti-Democratic or leads directly to income inequality or social oppression. It is also not all one thing. What the majority of people are talking about, both positively and negatively, when they refer to Capitalism is laissez-faire Capitalism. The system devised by Adam Smith in 1776. Literally translating form the French to “allow to do”, this system emphasizes free markets and deregulation. Apparently overlooking the fact that the most free and least regulated market is the Black Market, operating outside of any sort of government oversight.

There are, of course, other schools of thought. One of the most famous being that of Keynesian economics. Devised by John Maynard Keynes in 1936, some 160 years after Smith published The Wealth of Nations, this approach advocates a system of accumulation and investment. Businesses making large amounts of money in order to pay the workers, support the business and help it grow. Based in Calvinist principles, such an approach allows business to prosper and expand with no major, inherent detriment to either the workers or the public at large. The workers benefit from gainful employment and raising wages. The public benefit from having available businesses to serve their needs. How the admittedly sketchy laissez-faire system came to be the world's preferred form capitalism, in lieu of this much more modernized and compassionate approach is one of the great mysteries of history. Along with Stone Henge and the wild popularity of the Pet Rock.