Somewhere else

 Have you ever found a little bit of your small town that looked like somewhere else and, if you blocked out whatever was on either side of it, you could pretend you were somewhere else?

Hamilton has a few of those. One of them was a passage next to the central library. For apparently no reason this passage was done up in an Art Deco style. I think it even had a name, as if it was a tiny shopping mall. There was a barbers in it, and some other business. How either of them attracted customers with zero roadside visibility is a mystery. 

Anyway. If you walked down this passage you could almost convince yourself you were in New York City. Or Chicago. Or one of the sets of either of those cities in a muppets movie. Nearby, a pizza place parped out that olivey, peppery, tomatoey, bready smell, a bit like the nose onslaught of Subway today but I don't think it was on purpose. It was more likely just a shitty building with ventilation ducts that vented into other parts of it rather than just straight outside. 

Anyway. Pizza. Art Deco. Muppets. Essential ingredients to convince one's sad library-going brain that they were somewhere far more exciting and atmospheric than bloody Hamilton. 

Apparently actual adults felt the same way, and they soon built a Mediterranean inspired passage across town, called Casabella Lane. It had white, Greek island inspired walls, cafes with metal outdoor furniture, and boutiques that seemed to just sell shit with fake flowers stuck on it. Directly outside the passage was a massive car park for a paint shop and an instrument store, and at the other end was a mostly vacant street with a Salvation Army store and a discount electronics place. 

But if you blocked out whatever was on either side of it, you could pretend you were somewhere else. 

A news jolt -- hit me

 You ever get that feeling when you feel a lil on edge, but not quite enough, and think "I could really do with a solid jolt of News right now"? Just 100 volts of the good shit. What are the Tories up to now? Zzzt! They're privatising what? Zzzzt! Gerrymandering who? Zzzztt! 

Ah. It's great. Really gets the heart pumping. Gets you snapping at your friends and family. Gets you comfort eating. Comfort staring at yourself in the mirror. Comfort trying to formulate a barnstormer House of Commons speech that will singlehandedly bring about the collapse of the Tory machine and the class system with it, heralding in a new age of fairness and public service founded on the principles of the post-War consensus but going so much further, lifting all boats higher on a sea of justice and equality--zzzztttt

Tories to turn London Assembly into giant festival of farts. Robert Jenrick to specifically "call in" your bed and toss it into the street. 

It's weird thinking about these actions and feeing that they affect you and you alone. It certainly feels like it because somewhere, somehow, other people (who are apparently unaffected by these things despite participating in the same economy that is being ravaged by them) continue to vote for them. I read about the latest dent to our world-beating broadcast sector (we only care about world-beating when it's stuff we don't have, or no longer, or will never have. Stuff we currently have? Bullshit, for bullshit people) due to the comical mishandling of EU negotiations by active pensioner and whisky fan Lord Frost and I feel like I am the only person who works in it. 

But I'm not. All over the country, millions of other people all getting these jolts.

Zzztt  

An unfinished blog from October 2015.

my day

intersperse with tom ford day

- I slide awake with the disinterested grimace I went to sleep with. A dull day followed by dull dreams. Less lying down than slumping into the mattress. It's shut down. I don't sleep, I just turn off for 8 hours.

- embarrassing memories return in the shower. grunting and groaning to chase them away

- standing at the sink, staring at my hair in the mirror. will today be a good day for the hair? we'll see

- leave house. late. admire the blossoming trees in the common.

- step around slow arses on the way to tube. some fucker has stopped in the gate. impotently huff and puff behind them.

- tear down stairs to departing tube train. get cut-off by another commuter, wonder angrily what their fucking problem is there's another train coming, idiot.

- get on train. wonder why no one fucking moves to let you on.

- stand obliviously still at next stop as other passengers attempt to board.

- dash out of waterloo station. some fucker's trying to enter using the exit gate. beep through, blowing their mind as i stride through their group.

- put coat on chair. turn on computer. wander off for coffee.

- return with coffee. fuck about endlessly on the internet.

- lunch

- go home. repeat steps in reverse.

- track rougly 3 kilometres flouncing around sainsbury's. why is that fucker just stopped there?

- sit down on sofa. aimlessly twangle on guitar. zone out.

5 Nice Things

 1. Writing. It's still nice. Look. I can do it! Some people aren't very good. I am above average at writing. That's something. Don't tell me it's not. 

2. London. Still here. Always here. Long after you fucks have tried to destroy it. Try to level it down. Saw off the bits you don't like. I'm not even talking about property developers or gentrifying or anything like that. London has always had that. London is that. London was built on the twin powers of geography and commerce (like any town, obviously) and London will continue to exist because of them. You can snap little bits of and put them elsewhere in a misguided attempt to grow a bit of London somewhere else but it'll just grow back, back down here, in London. Pour money into what already exists in those other places. They have the tools already. They don't need London's, which are only ever going to be temporary. It's not hard. 

3. This was mean to be about nice things but it's turned into a rant. Or a pep talk to myself. Weird. I guess a third nice thing is donuts. Yep. 

4. GarageBand. It's great! Where has this been all my life. I can't believe I'd been struggling about with random Windows programmes like Acoustica MixCraft -- as good as it is, or could be, it's just not the same. It's just not an entire studio in a phone, that runs with zero lag. I don't know how they do it and I don't care. MixCraft probably had more dynamic range (I can never quite recreate the miles-away-across-the-fields reverb in GarageBand) but everything took forever because I could never afford a powerful enough computer to run the fucker. Things that I would puzzle over for months are now worked out and discarded within days. 

5. My wife. 

Form 1, Form 2

In Form 1, my teacher seemed to regard me as a writing genius. If you think this blog doesn't match up to such high praise, well, consider the fact that I haven't actually improved or progressed linguistically since Form 1. Quite impressive then, less so now. 

I remember receiving praise for every story I wrote, having my work read to the class, and a note on my picture book project that said "please keep this for your grandchildren". My school speech was received rapturously and I consequently had the confidence to read it to the school. People laughed. None of it get like a bad idea. My teacher and I knew it was good and funny and fluent and so I read it without shame. Looking back, this was probably the first encouragement I received from school as a writer. Since I seem to recall it all so vividly I suspect it's had a lasting impression. I could even say that I'm still operating on the fumes generated from those compliments, two decades ago. 

The following year (Form 2, if you can believe it), I had a different teacher and my talents were appraised in a completely different direction. Sure, I had my work read to the class, but I also had the weird punishment of being made to read a hastily written poem in front of the entire school. This was nothing like the speech situation of the year before. We, my new teacher and I, both new it was garbage. I had left it until the last minute and was sighted writing it before school -- it was, obviously, awful. But despite that it was somehow considered as good as or better than the majority and I was told it had been selected for presentation at the school assembly. I had to read this fucking thing. In front of people. It was about a cat, hunting a mouse. One line was simply: "darkness". It blew ass. Three words into the recital I pretended that I forgot the words and sat down again. In hindsight that probably just made the event stick out in people's minds more - you can zone out during a performance but as soon as silence hits your ear you snap awake. The absence of student drone breaks the spell. Someone out there probably still remembers it. I know I remember it more than the successful speech of Form 1 -- in fact I only remembered the speech when I started thinking about the poem. The success of that speech is completely overshadowed by the enormous failure of the poem. 

Two teachers, two different approaches. But was it me? Had I changed significantly in between those years that the only way to deal with me was the approach the new teacher took? Or was what was an appealing trait in a 1st Former actually quite horrible in a 2nd former? Was it me? Or them? There had to have been some way of dealing with me that was more positive than the one I received. I guess we'll never know. 

Elizabeth Day's How To Fail with Elizabeth Day, presented by Elizabeth Day, with your host, Elizabeth Day

One of my favourite bits about How to Fail with Elizabeth Day, presented by Elizabeth Day, is that her name appears in the title. 

It's as if we're actively failing with her, alongside her. I'm sure it doesn't really mean that and it's actually just a kind of branding exercise so that the podcast name is linked with her name in your mind. But it did get me wondering why it's written like that, and why she introduces it as such: "welcome to How to Fail with Elizabeth Day, with your host, Elizabeth Day". 

You might wonder why I'm not curious about the titles of The Adam Buxton Show and Richard Herring's Leicester Square Theatre Podcast -- the difference, besides my obvious failure to examine my own gender biases, is that they have no format. The pitch is: a man, talking with (or at) another person. With How to Fail, with its rigid three-failures-per-guest format, the format is as important as the host, like a regular Radio 4 programme. Presumably, like those, you can swap out the host--but in this instance I don't think that's possible.

Take how she often says "thrilled", "so lovely", and "beautiful". It's that slightly posh (as in, person who went to university in the 1990s, not actually old-money-posh) way that sounds sincere and insincere all at once. I suppose the insincerity comes from my own perception -- no one could possibly be that thrilled. Or even thrilled at all. I spend my life either impotently enraged or aggressively disinterested. Hearing someone who is actively thrilled by anything is lovely to hear. Imagine tuning into my podcast, a series of half-finished mutterances about what's pissed me off in the news today but I've blocked out most of the really enraging details of the story in order to continue to function without constantly shitting with rage. 

It's a good podcast. There's no real snark. It's somehow one of those "celebs have thoughts!?" podcasts but without being one of those. It's part of the endless ring round of comedians going on each other's podcasts but at the same time it's different because of the structure and because Day doesn't really riff with the guest like Adam Buxton or Richard Herring. In fact maybe the key difference is that those two podcasts are as much about their hosts (which is why they are so good) as they are about the guest. I deliberately put on the Jack Whitehall episode of RHLSTP purely to hear Herring boil over with unrestrained resentment at his massively successful young guest (if you're wondering--he does not disappoint. It's fantastic).

All of this suggest Elizabeth Day is a mere sounding board for her guests. She's not. That genuine sense of being thrilled and of caring about her guests pathetic little failures (or their massive life changing ones) isn't really apparent in any one I can think of. The closest comparison to How to Fail is Desert Island Discs, and yet the hosts of that, or at least the best hosts, have been fairly arms length. My favourite was Sue Lawley, who seems deeply suspicious of everyone placed in front of her. It's now a bit different, a bit more of a therapy session, which is fine -- after so long on air the show has inevitably become This Is Your Life with music. And yet I don't think any of the post-Lawley DDD hosts could replace Day on How to Fail. Trying to imagine the podcast without her would render it a completely different podcast. You can't have How to Fail without Elizabeth Day. Format and host are inextricably bound together, and I hope they're stuck together for years to come.

A short and unfinished analysis of the personality types that create the humour maelstrom of How Did This Get Made?

 I could listen to any episode of How Did This Get Made. It used to be dependent on having seen the film, or heard about it a bit, or knew of the lead actor. But none of this is a requirement anymore. The strength of the three presenters -- Jason, June, Paul -- is such that they can riff on absolutely anything and it's entertaining. There's a dynamic there that is rock solid. The stereotype of each host is Jason = chaotic, Paul = straightman, June = confused. Or at least, that's how I first approached it. But what's become clear is that those initial personality traits are really just masks for a deeper one. 

Jason Mantzoukas often comes across as widely read, or widely watched, and has knowledge of things you wouldn't assume he has (women's clothing, women's health, women in general, perhaps). This might seem like a weird thing to point out, a pointless bit of info about him, but it so often plays up against Paul's fellow "secret" personality trait. 

Paul appears to have had one of the strangest childhoods imaginable, which has lead to some strange ideas (or at least a willingness to reveal the strange ideas he used to have) about relationships. Jason is often the one to pop in with "what?" when Paul gets going with a bizarre anecdote about trying to french someone he really should not have been trying to kiss. 

June comes off as confused but she's not confused. More often than not, she's angry. Not in a campaigning sort of way (although she obviously has done this also), but in a defiant, I-will-not-watch-multiple-Marvel-films-just-to-have-the-adequate-amount-of-back-story-required-to-watch-the-latest-one kind of way. "I will not pander to those people" she said recently, when asked if she had explored the backstory of Super Girl within the wider DC universe. Absolutely not.

What this ultimately gives us is a wildman who is actually very reserved and sane, a straightman who is deeply unhinged on a subterranean level, and a confused woman who is actually razor-sharp in her focus. Somehow these are not contradictory traits, it's as if they all choose to be the initial personality in order to function with the second. The second is perhaps their true personality. Maybe the pain of being intelligent and knowing the world is full of bonkers nonsense causes Mantzoukas to lash out and embrace the chaos. Maybe the pain of growing up utterly abnormal causes Scheer to act as Normal as possible. Maybe the righteous fury within Diane Raphael causes her to use confusion as a shield, a way to keep her simmering rage-brain under control, to shield it from yet more bullshit and nerds. You could argue that's a common trait for almost all women.