Useless

Posted in Books, Media with tags , , on 3 February, 2010 by Sarah Ditum

True art is purposeless, says Victoria Coren. Therefore, she continues (not totally logically, but we’ll get to that), no one gets to critique Martin Amis on his politics:

The young rapscallion (60) is in trouble again, after calling for euthanasia booths where pensioners can be dispatched “with a martini and a medal”. This extreme and evidently unserious solution to what he describes as a “silver tsunami” threatening to flood the domestic coast has been written up in high dudgeon by a disapproving press, studded with furious condemnations from all the obvious places.

They are missing the point entirely, just as they do when they slam Martin Amis for making “misogynistic” or “Islamophobic” statements. He isn’t a politician, a religious leader nor even a philosopher. He’s an artist. It doesn’t matter what he says, as long as he says it beautifully. Which he always does. Never mind the content, feel the form!

The Observer, “All hail Henry Dagg – he’s a true artist”

The Henry Dagg story doesn’t really get us anywhere near to Martin Amis. Dagg’s work – an impossible, impractical sculpture delivered four years after deadline – had no political content (assuming we discount the politics of aestheticism that make a useless, pretty object so desirable to Coren). Amis’ work absolutely does. He cleaves to the modish big issues as compulsively as a newspaper columnist, only his columns come several inches thick, five years late, and with even more made up stuff.

But let’s take a look at Amis the artist’s amazing doings with words. Here he is in an interview with Tom Chatfield of Prospect magazine:

We had a ten-year holiday from this feeling (of imminent apocalypse)  in the 1990s. The nuclear cold war, then a ten-year holiday, then Islam. Islam only up to a point, one mustn’t exaggerate: the number of people killed by terrorism in the west is the same as the number of Americans who drown in the bath. [...] But then again, the weather, climate change…

Prospect, “Martin Amis: the Prospect interview”

Here, “the master” before whom Coren thinks all writers should prostrate themselves deftly manages to draw an equivalence between 1. nuclear war, 3. climate change and 2. Islam. Not “Islamist terrorism”. Not even “radical Islam”. Just “Islam”, the world religion. (You could argue that he was provocatively suggesting the objects of sequential modern terrors without endorsing the fear of them – could, only you’ve almost certainly read his “The Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order” interview.)

If we were following Coren’s critical injunctions, we’d never be able to appreciate the delicate way Amis conveys his irrational fright of Islam by weighing it syntactically with potentially civilization-destroying horrors like climate change and nuclear war. You just can’t appreciate how linguistically gifted Amis is until you begin to see what gnarled little bigot he really is.

Text © Sarah Ditum, 2010

Why not Liddle?

Posted in Media with tags , on 24 January, 2010 by Sarah Ditum

If you’re currently an Indy reader it’s probably easy to agree on why the newspaper shouldn’t be entrusted to Rod Liddle’s editorial caresses. But why should his potential employer care about Liddle’s reputation? Maybe Lebedev thinks the Indy would be more profitable with Liddle’s paranoid rants deciding the front page. Maybe he’s blithely unconcerned about monkemfc’s preferences in violent sexual contact with female newsreaders. But even if the content of Liddle’s message board contributions doesn’t trouble Lebedev, the fact that everyone now knows about them should.

If Liddle is hired, he’s probably going to be overseeing the paper’s gradual move away from print and into predominantly online distribution, yet he’s already shown himself thoroughly incompetent in online communication. He treated published comments on a message board as though they were private statements, and although he’s claimed that the most outrageous of the monkemfc posts were made by a hacker, he didn’t have the nous to protect his online reputation in a forum where he was still an active member by getting the alleged hacker’s posts deleted.

Interviewed by Kate Silverton on 5 Live this morning, he said: “I didn’t have time to go back and check the URL on every post,” suggesting a breezy disconnect from the words published under his name – not exactly taking ownership of his output in the way that an editor really ought to. This could be the why the monkemfc comments are ultimately damaging to Liddle: not because they show that he’s prone to blurts of contrarian offensiveness (because we knew that already) but because they show that that he doesn’t understand the medium he’s going to be working in. He can’t manage an online reputation and he can’t control the words that appear under his own username on a forum, never mind across a whole newspaper.

Text © Sarah Ditum, 2010

The Paperhouse guide to free speech

Posted in Media with tags , , , , on 17 January, 2010 by Sarah Ditum

Freedom of speech is a solid old principle. Shame, then, that it gets rolled out so often by dullards trying to shield other dullards from criticism. Catherine Bennett is – I’m guessing – aware that no one is trying to ban Rod Liddle. The campaign to stop him from becoming editor of the Independent has a pretty clear aim: to let the potential proprietors know how utterly Liddle’s appointment would alienate the readership. I’d suggest that Lebedev should be grateful for the anti-Liddle Facebook group giving him a preliminary market research report for free, only the mismatch between Liddle and the Indy is obvious like a flasher’s knob (and even more so now we know about his message board comments).

So, there’s no organised effort to get Rod Liddle imprisoned, tortured, fined or even made to sit on the naughty step for what he’s published. Just a strong and widespread feeling that he’d be a disaster in the job. And despite what Bennett suggests, freedom of speech means, exactly, freedom of speech. Not “freedom to edit national newspapers”. And definitely not “freedom from being criticised by anyone who doesn’t have a newspaper column”. Because when Bennett worries that “Public figures will become ever blander in their views” if they continue to be exposed to opposition, what she’s arguing is that public figures should be protected from opposition.

There’s a depressing implication here: Bennett is positing free speech as an end in itself, not as the necessary preliminary to debate. If Bennett was the Lord Chamberlain of the internet, presumably we could all say exactly what we liked about anyone or anything, so long as we weren’t rude enough to offer anything as ghastly as a direct response. It’s the same measly logic used by Nick Cohen: freedom of speech, if it means anything, means journalists never having to be told they’re wrong. It’s astonishing that people with such an infantile idea of civil liberties can offer themselves seriously as defenders of democracy, but there you are.

Because if you’re making lofty civic claims for journalism, I don’t think – and hug yourselves now, because I’m about to be shocking – that being bland is the biggest thing you have to worry about. I’d be busier stressing the importance of getting stuff right, which is hard to do when you’ve ruled all criticism illegitimate. And if Bennett thinks that Lebedev is going to bring devastating redundancies to the Indy, maybe she should take a moment to imagine the sort of restructuring it’s going to need once Liddle has managed to repulse every loyal reader.

See also: Next Left, “Do Rod Liddle’s human rights trump yours?”

Text © Sarah Ditum, 2010

Do Rod Liddle’s human rights trump yours?

[The Guardian] Do It Yourself And Save

Posted in Crafts, Published with tags , , , on 13 January, 2010 by Sarah Ditum

Look at that! A couple of spiffy little guides to household self-sufficiency that will save you a tidy few pennies. And I’m a contributor, offering some indispensable guidance on the contents of your repairs kit. Go on, treat yourself to a nice crisp Guardian/Observer double at the weekend. They’ll have probably paid for themselves within seven days if you follow all their frugal advice.

Text © Sarah Ditum, 2010; image © The Guardian.

Liddle hope

Posted in Media, Politics with tags , , , on 9 January, 2010 by Sarah Ditum

There can’t be many people with any affection for the Independent who are happy about the idea of Rod Liddle becoming editor. But there probably aren’t very many people left with much affection for the Indy at all, because the brand seems to have specialised in weird and reputation-squandering reversals. Its Sunday version campaigns for the legalisation of cannabis, but then decides that skunk is actually a deadly menace. It doesn’t support the Iraq war, but then recruits the Observer editor who put the made-up case for war on his front page.

Appropriately, Liddle was indirectly behind one of the other great journalistic screw-ups of the Iraq war – as editor of Today, he recruited Andrew Gilligan, who both found an internal source to blow the whistle on the exaggerations and bad intelligence in the “45 minutes” dossier, and then ruined the story’s credibility by mishandling his quotes and revealing his source.

But Liddle had left the Today programme the year before “sexed up” became a slogan, in 2002 – after a column he wrote for the Guardian was deemed to have shown unacceptable bias. (Richard Sambrook, the BBC’s director of news from 2001-4, hinted at the challenges of  employing Liddle in a tweet, above.)

Since leaving Today, Liddle has concentrated on obnoxious opinionising for the Times and the Spectator. And, in the same way his Guardian fox-hunting column relentlessly tracked the grossest prejudices of his presumed readers (toffs are loathsome because, well, they’re toffs), his later ones have offered racial determinism and climate-change denial to right-wing readers. He has a talent for presenting exactly what he thinks his readers want to hear as though it’s a consensus-shaking blast of radicalism, and no facility for (or interest in)  figures or facts.

If Alexander Lebedev gets the Independent, and if Liddle gets the job, it might be that Liddle’s crowd-pleasing reflexes will give Indy readers something to grab onto and stop them drifting away. Or he may retain that reactionary edge, and the Indy could become a new middle-market tab – an aspirational answer to the Express. Both of which feel like things that journalism could do without.

Update 9 January 2010: Sunder Katwala thinks all the speculation is a bit premature.

© Sarah Ditum, 2010

A shrug of complaint

Posted in Politics with tags , , , , , , on 7 January, 2010 by Sarah Ditum

In 2002, I joined a Stop The War march in Sheffield. I didn’t enjoy my time as a protestor very much: I was a pushing a buggy, my baby started crying, there was some chanting, we shuffled around the city centre perimeter, and then I peeled off glumly to finish my shopping, feeling slightly embarrassed.

It wasn’t a moving moment of communal resistance. It was a tired shrug of complaint directed at some ministers who weren’t even looking. It rained a bit, and later on there was a war because there was always going to be a war anyway. So that was a good use of an afternoon.

It’s the Iraq war that feels like the biggest disgrace and disappointment of the Labour government. I hate the PFIs, and the patronising and ignorant populism, and the student fees, and the ruinous way that business and banking interests were whored to. Those things have all been depressing and awful and deceitfully introduced, obviously, but they mostly haven’t involved actually killing people on purpose. It doesn’t matter when the Labour party shunts out Brown, or who ultimately replaces him: I don’t want to vote for them until they’ve purged every person who ushered that bloody war through parliament.

That doesn’t matter very much where I live, because it’s a solidly Lib Dem area with an MP I won’t hate myself for electing. But you can’t build hopes and dreams on the Lib Dems. They’re political stodge: acceptable and wholesome enough, but a bit depressing when you’re looking at a whole plateful. Better, though, than the Tories – whose prospective government promises to continue everything grim about the current one while unapologetically rewarding the rich for being, um, rich. So I want the Tories to lose, Labour don’t deserve to win, and the Lib Dems fill me with limb-deadening ennui. Election 2010 will be an early night for me, I guess.

© Sarah Ditum, 2010

[Comment is Free] The trouble with Tory Twitter

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , on 6 January, 2010 by Sarah Ditum

My piece on the ill-conceived, crassly-executed #Kerryout campaign went up yesterday on Comment is Free:

Labour MP Kerry McCarthy has had an unobtrusive career since she entered parliament in 2005, voting along party lines with relentless loyalty. Her parliamentary expenses are a bit more interesting, if you’re keen on interior design – McCarthy furnished her London home from Habitat – but even then, she’s a fairly middling figure. TheyWorkForYou gives her claims for 2007/2008 a ranking of 215th out of 645 MPs. That leaves plenty of more spectacular receipt-flashers ahead of her.

The Guardian, “The trouble with Tory Twitter”

Follow the link to read the full piece – although with today’s news, I’d guess the PLP is more worried about internal enemies that the little blue gnats behind #Kerryout.

© Sarah Ditum, 2010

A reliable source

Posted in Books with tags , , , , on 3 January, 2010 by Sarah Ditum

I’ve discovered the high point of my stunted academic career: I have become a Wikipedia footnote. And, until I get to be as famous as one of Paperhouse’s guest posters, that will have to do. The best part is that, if you look at the discussion page, it seems as though my article on Bret Easton Ellis and his not-very-good horror novel has been included as a result of an etiquette-smashing argument between contributors about whether satire can co-exist with unreliable narrators:

let’s just stop this squabble while we still have some dignity.

I’ll add a reference for American Psycho and we’ll leave it at that.

Helping to maintain the dignity of Wikipedia. It’s very nearly as exalted as getting a doctorate.

© Sarah Ditum, 2010

Inside out

Posted in Media with tags , , on 2 January, 2010 by Sarah Ditum

I am captivated by Liz Jones. In the same way that I’m captivated by Jeff Goldblum as the Brundlefly: the exposure of intimate anatomy to the outside gaze, the impossibility of hiding what’s essentially repellent. She’s fascinating. Only the Brundlefly is flashing his guts because of a tragic teleport accident, and Jones is doing it out of some obscure combination of financial reward and compulsion.

One of the most painful things about Jones is that she seems fairly self-aware that excavating herself professionally has been bad for her personally: she’s lost friendships over her confessional journalism, and it was probably the cause of one of her neighbours deciding to shoot out her letterbox. After that happened, the Mail ran a column by Janet Street-Porter advising Jones to “get a grip, love”. That’s Jones’ own employer, having benefited from Jones’ indiscreet columns antagonising her acquaintances, deciding to push the pellets in a bit further and point out all her failings.

Because – despite the apparently matey premise of Jones’ ongoing features, like the diary column in the glossy Sunday supplement and the Jones Moans item in the detestable Femail – I don’t think that Jones is valued especially as a journalist with a connection to her readers. The kindest letters and comments about her offer pity,  but mostly it’s a sort of tabloid charivari, with Jones encouraged to play up the spendthrift spinster aspects of her personality to everyone’s sniggering disdain. She’s the rouged up maiden aunt in an eighteenth-century novel who has to be dragged through the mud by her wig to make everything right.

The centre-spread feature of the Femail supplement is often duplicitous with its subjects, fitting up a first-person account of an experience with a headline and pullquotes that might imply guilt, shame or moral failing. But Jones doesn’t go through this humiliation as a one-off: it’s her trade, and she sucks up scorn twice a week with journalism that offers a weird combination of existential discomfort and epic triviality.

It isn’t just the Mail that hires columnists for the stocks. The Guardian has Tanya Gold. Tanya also writes about the grotesquely personal: the first piece I noticed by her involved tracking down all her ex-boyfriends and telling the excruciating stories of how she vomited on them/cheated on them/drove them out of her life (or they did the same to her). If you had an ex-alcoholic employee who decided to hunt down everyone they’d ever slept with, you’d probably tell them to stop it as soon as you found out. Tanya’s editor paid her to keep going for as long as it took.

And Tanya has been a defender of Liz Jones, inevitably. The way Gold writes it, you’d imagine that Jones has been turning out Ariel bi-weekly, exposing the “agonies of women”. Generalising from “this woman journalist” to “women” is exactly the solipsistic movement that makes confessional writing so horrific. What Jones and her sisters write about is actually a very rarefied, self-sustaining sort of unhappiness that most of their audience will never have the opportunity to inflict on themselves – the unhappiness caused by writing, publicly and persistently, about unhappiness.

© Sarah Ditum, 2010