A 'Free' Scotland?

Sitting down to Burns Night dinner this week marked a sort of turning point for me; it seemed as if all the things swirling around at the moment about Scottish independence came to a head, as if the relevance finally hit. You could blame this on my languid attitude towards keeping current affairs current – I frequently bring up ‘breaking news’ in conversations with my friends three days after it actually ‘broke’ – or you could see it as a realistic representation of the way a lot of people my age view the importance of current affairs. As a general rule, unless it is forced in our faces, there’s a good chance a lot of us will have no clue whatsoever (but don’t condemn all young people – plenty do keep up to date, I’m just generalising a large portion of us). So it should make sense that it would come as such a surprise to me that the topic of Scottish independence would surface three times in one day, and at least twice more over the succeeding week. This is topical; relevant. And a lot of people seem to have opinions about it. Unfortunately, there’s a lot of confusion over what it’s all really about.

Putting it simply, the Scottish National Party (SNP) are aiming for a referendum to vote for independence in late 2014. They want Scotland to be a separate sovereign state, splitting from the United Kingdom. The SNP first rose to prominence in the late 1960s when the decolonisation of the British Empire gave cause to growing assent that imperialism, one of the key attributes to a ‘united kingdom’, was being undermined. Now the issue is at hand again, and since 2007 the SNP have made several attempts to submit a referendum but with resistance from many other parties. Now there are two sides looking at what to do – and I think it’s important that we devise some opinions pretty quickly.

In support of independence, SNP leader Alexander Salmond calls it the most important decision for Scotland in 300 years. He says, “Our nation is blessed with national resources, bright people and a strong society... I believe that if we connect the wealth of our land to the wellbeing of our people, we can create a better country... We shouldn’t have a constitution that restrains us, but one which frees us to build a better society.” Many people are supporting this idea, the basic ideology for the SNP, believing it will help the country to grow, benefiting all citizens.

On the other hand, there’s also a lot of opposition to the independence movement. Some people are writing it off as a brief flair of nationalism; but with the referendum now as a concrete idea, it is clearly no longer a trivial desire for a lot of people. The Calman Commission, established back in 2007 between the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties to ‘review the devolution’ is an example of previous political opposition. Presently however, opposition from the public seems to come predominantly in the form of worries about the effect independence would have on the economy and the amount of debt assumed in the split. Not to mention the referendum also costing £10 million. With the recent recessions causing the economy to be at the forefront of everyone’s minds, regardless of their level of knowledge for economics, people are worried about what the economy would be like after a split – for both Scotland and the rest of the UK.

There are also a lot of issues yet to resolve. For example, what would the decision about the EU be? Would the Euro be adopted? Would a separate military be established? There is a lot to decide. It probably doesn’t help that a lot of rumours and ill-informed guesses are also cropping up and causing much confusion. Just last week I heard someone earnestly declare that if Scotland did gain independence then I would, in fact, be deported and have to immigrate in order to continue studying here. Hmm. Thankfully, this was a sentiment based on nothing but ignorance and there are no plans for a closed border.

Either way, recent polls show that 70-75% of people are calling for a referendum, whether in support of independence or the union. Whilst this may cause worry on both sides about the outcome, at least we can agree that people are getting involved – something that modern politics has been calling for. With Salmon suggesting that 16 and 17 year olds should be allowed to vote on Scottish independence, it certainly seems like this is a topic that young people should be getting engrossed in. I am a firm believer in getting the younger generations interested – after all, we are the future – so I wholeheartedly believe that this is something worth getting fired up for. But I am still just one vote amongst many; we all ought to have an opinion, whether for change or for constancy. Whichever outcome we reach, we will all feel the impact. So why not get involved?

'Whack? Man, That's Lame...'

As an English Language student, I know more about the complexities of crafting words than I actually care to know. I know when a word is a post-modifying adjective or a complement, or an adverb is posing as an adverbial just for kicks, or when all of the above actually want to be defined as an adjectival phrase so as to make life that little bit harder. I spent a week studying the different types of pronoun (singular, possessive, 3^rd person, yadda yadda yadda) and the moods of different sentence types and really, there’s only one sensible conclusion to draw: it’s all irrelevant.

As a ‘young person’, I seem to use more made-up words than I do Standard English anyway, and that makes more sense to me. It’s not a new idea so don’t credit me, but English is evolving - and at a pace that confounds all of us. It always has done; it’s the natural progression. If it didn’t then we wouldn’t have any language at all – how do you think it all ever started? Words simply don’t always mean the same thing anymore. To my age group, ‘whore’ or ‘ho’ is an acceptable term for a friend, male or female (although many older people see it as a kick in the teeth for feminism) and ‘gay’ hardly ever refers to homosexuality. Nine times out of ten the person saying it has no issue with homosexuality, although older generations think we’re being inexcusably offensive. We just don’t see these words in that way. A standard conversation with any one of my friends nowadays will inevitably involve the words ‘filth’, ‘beef’ and ‘gwanin’’, and none of these words will be used in its usual capacity. ‘Filth’ is a greeting, or a murmur of agreement. ‘Beef’ is a bad situation (often used in verb form, ‘to beef’, when you are getting angry with someone or starting some trouble) and ‘gwanin’’... Well, that’s a made-up term that I’m not even sure makes sense to us. The effect of this new language is surely pretty standard-textbook to anthropologists, psychologists and the like; it separates us from the ‘adults’ and the others in our peer group that we have no desire to communicate with. It creates a group identity, improving social cohesion (as they say). And it’s more than a little bit fun. It’s a bit like 40-year-olds looking back at the time they claimed everything was ‘to the max’ or the best put-down they could muster was ‘face!’, or even as I look back to when I was seven and tacked the word ‘not’ onto the end of every sentence to be cool. Not. It’s not a surprise to anyone, yet there are always people moaning - “Speak properly! Pronounce your T’s!” I just think it’s nice.

Slang, or colloquialism to be precise, is a natural convention of human interaction and also, in my opinion, quite a good indicator of societal progression. After all, not everything that I say to my friends is trivial, amassing to a general waste of oxygen. Young people talk about topical events, too. The conversations just sound a little different, key politicians being referred to as ‘this-or-that douchebag’ and the general state of the world being reduced to ‘just a bit shite, really’.  The level of slang that pertains to my group seems to increase when there are more issues present in our lives than when we are relatively stress-free. Exam season was an explosion of synonyms for ‘bad’ (filthy, grosty, grubby, rancidity) whilst the long summer was ‘tasty’ or ‘sick’ (resurgence thanks to The Hangover films) and spent with my ‘homies and sistas’. We’re hardly ‘street’ so I guess we use this language ironically, but it’s still amusing when relating stories to outsiders and having to clarify on the sentence, ‘he was beefin’ up deep, give me some correlation sista’.  For the inexperienced in cult-youth language, there’s always Urban Dictionary, a site that I often have to run to in order to suss out teenage rants (and I still don’t know what ‘ratting’ means these days) and that really is a blessing. It also shows how determined we are to maintain this part of our culture. There isn’t a name for our generation yet – there’s no more Teddy Boys or Mods – but maybe in twenty years or so anthropologists will be able to suss out a term to describe our incredibly diverse group. Even if it’s ‘that anomaly in our educated society’. That’ll be one for the Dictionary.

Spotlight: Great Expectations

The new BBC version of Great Expectations deserves to be blogged about, namely because I find it strangely mesmerising. Released over the Christmas period (Dec 2011), the three-part retelling is written by Sarah Phelps and stars Douglas Booth, Ray Winstone, Gillian Anderson and Vanessa Kirby.

My reading of the book two years ago was hardly the prophetic enlightenment it perhaps should have been. I had the best intentions – I thoroughly wanted to enjoy it and find in Dickens’ words the deep meaning that so many have over the past century-and-a-bit, although I must admit that my disjointed reading habits led to a rather mismatched understanding of the novel. As a result, I would never have expected for this version to appeal to me so much. The sumptuous styling of the locations (the BBC themselves aptly stating it as lavish) greatly align with the costumes, making it a picture-perfect period drama, and yet these do not detract from the performances of the actors themselves. Booth seems to have been created purely for the part of Pip and I find his performance captivating. He’s gotten a lot of stick for being ‘too pretty’ or ‘too pouty’ to play the rough orphan Pip, but I hardly see how this is relevant to his acting abilities. He doesn’t ride on his looks; it’s part and parcel. Vanessa Kirby as Stella, whilst not much like how I envisaged her, is frightfully cruel and stony, much as she should be. The only casting peeves I have are those of Miss Havisham and Joe Gargery (played by Gillian Anderson and Shaun Dooley). The Havisham of my imagination is far older and bitterer than Anderson’s, who, at 43 years old is the youngest Havisham yet, and portrays her with a strange other-worldly presence. It’s not bad, but it doesn’t quite click for me. Dooley as Joe is no real issue, except for the blankness he uses as the void for education; I’d always pictured Joe as inquisitive, and if not intelligent, then at least quick-minded, witty through Dickens’ sharp words. Ray Winstone’s Magwitch is an interesting interpretation to say the least, but I do feel a slight reserve. Winstone is known for his brute image, but I didn’t really feel that from him. But maybe that’s just a personal issue with big angry bald guys.

But then I think that’s the danger with any literature adaptation, particularly with a beacon testament such as Great Expectations – everyone has a different picture in their mind that they feel is the right one. In my opinion, Phelps has done a good job, fixing a variety of ideas into a smooth adaptation that I want to watch again. But that is solely my opinion, and everyone else will feel differently. For example, in a review for the Guardian, Howard Jacobson said that the BBC had “eviscerated Dickens” and that it would have “made Dickens snort”. You or I may find this too severe, or you may take the same view; it’s just a further example of how something as sacred as this will always induce win-lose situations. Even so, 6.6 million viewers is not bad going. Interestingly, whilst Great Expectations is my father’s favourite novel in existence, this interpretation reportedly did nothing for him. He favours one of the older versions, one that I found difficult to remain interested in. This is odd, as usually our tastes are very much in synchronisation. Nevertheless, the oddity hasn’t dispelled my own appreciation for it and so I look forward to the DVD release with much eager anticipation.

Favourite line: "Do not think, Pip. It never leads to anywhere edifying."  - Mr Jaggers, to Pip.

Twi-Hards. Well, actually...

I’m having a crisis of faith.

I first watched Twilight when it came out in cinemas in December 2008 and experienced much of the now stereotypical teenage craze with the series, instantly buying and devouring the books. Since then, I’ve watched the subsequent films that make up the Twilight Saga (New Moon, Eclipse and Breaking Dawn: Part 1) and I am now just pages away from finishing my rereading of the series. I spent so much of the last two weeks reading these books that I’ve reached that curious stage where I feel like I know these characters so well - am so attuned to them, even - that it surprises me to realise they are just a work of fiction. I sit through conversations thinking ‘Bella said something like that’, before catching myself and cringing at my own stupidity. They are not real.

It is a result of this that I stuck in the Twilight Saga: Eclipse DVD hoping for a re-immersion into my Other Reality. You can therefore imagine my disappointment when I realise that my whole fascination wasn’t with an amazing, innovative, influential film-series after all. Because the movies aren’t great. If I focus on the films, I can be successfully sucked in enough to the drama and sappy stuff to appreciate it for simply being a teen-romance film. But having it on in the background, my sparse attention picking up disjointed moments only, I realise the disjointedness of the movie itself. It is just so awkward. It has a nice lyrical score and incorporates many contemporary artists that the audience already like. It uses picturesque locations and lots of pathetic fallacy. The actors are attractive. And it uses some of the lines from the books. But that’s kind of it for my positive feelings. After that, you’re just left with conversations that lack fluency and questionable facial expressions. The writing isn’t bad; the lines are dramatic enough to evoke some gasps, and the embedded acknowledgement of the whole Team Edward-Team Jacob fiasco (“Let’s face it, I am hotter than you.” Subtle...) is even sort of amusing. But the fact that every piece of dialogue is presented in the same register, with not a single voice deferring from a seemingly predetermined limited selection of notes (think B flat to C sharp on a piano) gets me cringing into my seat. I’m almost glad when Bella starts to scream, because it makes for a different sound.

The thing that makes it all so mind-boggling is that they aren’t bad actors. I’ve seen Robert Pattinson, Kristin Stewart and Taylor Lautner in other films separately, and it’s never been as bad as this. I get that the book – and films – have an underlying theme of sexual tension, one that is arguably the founding structure of the teen-romance genre, but this just takes the biscuit. You’re angry? Yell. Scream, even. Just quit the monotone.

Despite the battle for sense that those two hours left me in, I do remember why I bothered. I love the books. And I really do like these characters. I like the way their minds think and the ways that they speak.  I like how they’re just a little bit better than ‘regular people’ and the frequent references made to other texts that I’m partial to (Wuthering Heights and Romeo and Juliet, for example). So I think I might just persevere. I find it interesting to see how my perspective has changed. The first time I read the books, I loathed New Moon for Bella's constant whining and Edward's poor decision-making. Yet rereading them now, I'm much more drawn to it. I like how Stephanie Meyer has presented Bella, aches and all, and I feel more sympathy for her, if not empathy. Perhaps a sign of new emotional maturity, perhaps not. Either way, it's a complete 180'.

So I’ll reread the books –again and again and again – and ignore the instinct to close my eyes during the films because I do support the series. It has become a worldwide phenomenon for a reason, so it would be quite insensible to ignore it. Arrogant, even. Because I can tell you, I did walk out of the cinema after seeing Breaking Dawn and feel satisfied. It was fine, no real pain inflicted. Just a low-lying mushy feeling, which I suppose is the film’s aim after all. This feeling might not last, and might not ever resurface if I watch the film again with the absence of the giant cinema screen and dark, silent room, but you never know - I might just pull a 180' with this, too. Time will tell, and all the rest.

BOOKS: 5/5 – mind-blowing.
FILMS: 3/5 – mind feels slightly melted.