Irresponsible TV.

Bullying does not make good TV.

This might seem like an obvious statement, but it was provoked by a programme I watched yesterday evening. I usually enjoy 8 out of 10 Cats; the panellists are witty and play off each other very well. There is sometimes a certain amount of good natured banter, but no real harm is meant. For last night's festive edition, the panellists were Sean Lock, Micky Flanagan, Jon Richardson, Greg Davies, Liza Tarbuck and Jedward. Very little of the show was funny. I was disappointed.

I don't like Jedward, for several reasons. I don't think they are particularly talented as singers, dancers or performers in general. (I also don't like that as twins they present themselves as one entity, even conflating their names, but that's a separate issue.). I also don't like the 'celebrity' culture they represent: they are, actually, famous for their lack of talent, promoted by the UK X factor show. They are young, and have been thrust into the spotlight with managers/agents who get their faces on anything and everything they can. X factor expoited them for viewing figures - not to listen in awe to their vocal brilliance, but to see what new crazy thing they would do - and they continue to develop their own particular 'brand' in this way. It might be good for their publicity, but I doubt it is good for the boys themselves. Last night's programme was a good example of this.

Most of the programme consisted of the other panellists (and the host, Jimmy Carr) joking amongst themselves about how terrible and how stupid Jedward are. There was a lot of name calling, and a lot of highlighting their 'faults'. And the boys just kept pushing through. They kept trying to join in in answering the questions, but each time they were made to look extremely foolish at best.

I don't think they did themselves any favours on this front. And I don't think that their managers / agents / parents are doing them any favours either in encouraging them to keep doing these things. There is a limit to how long they will be able to continue presenting themselves in the way that they do, and they will also struggle to create careers for themselves when the 'Jedward' bubble bursts - which it will, sooner or later.

But, the 'grown ups' on 8 out of 10 Cats (their term, not mine) did not come across any better in their dealings with the boys. The funniest moments were those of quick wit, mostly directed at other targets than Jedward. There is nothing quick witted about verbally bashing or humiliating an easy target. And the boys themselves, although they kept smiling through, looked at times like they were genuinely hurt by some of the comments. There was nothing funny about grown men (I'm excluding Liza Tarbuck, because she actually said very little, and would add that Jon Richardson behaved better than the others) bullying teenage boys.

Jedward were well out of their depth. They knew it. The host and other panellists knew it. And I knew it. And it made for very uncomfortable viewing. .

The TV programme that created 'Jedward' was irresponsible to do so. They are not well equipped for the world that either loves or loathes them, and whilst they are 'good sports', there is a limit to what they ought to be expected to take in the name of publicity.

Presenting this as a Christmas comedy programme gives out the wrong message. It suggests that bullying is witty, or funny. It isn't. If those sorts of comments were made in a different forum we would all agree it was bullying and wrong. But because it was a comedy show - and because Jedward are Jedward - such behaviour is allowed to pass by uncriticised. It shouldn't be.

Such blatant bullying on TV is not funny. It is cruel and it is irresponsible. And it should be far beneath the witty comedians who made two teenage boys their target as part of festive fun.

Hello Again!

Hello again!
It's been a long time since I've been here, and so much has happened. I won't write it all down here today but intend to post more regularly from now on, so maybe we could catch up as I go along... I've started writing many posts since the last one, but never quite finished them. Some are just on pieces of paper tucked into the books that inspired them, and some are now so far out of date that I might as well start again as try to adapt them.
I'll be back soon.

Clearing Out

OK. I admit it. I have been somewhat lax in 'putting things away' for some time now. I have frequently explained this by saying that the flat is small and is therefore untidy because I have no where to put things, but, in my recent attempts to make space I have discovered that much of my previously 'necessary' clutter is rubbish. Magazines I have failed to throw away. Smaller bits and pieces that I kept at the time 'just in case' and can't now remember what they relate to.

I'm making some progress clearing out. Slowly but surely surfaces are reappearing in my flat. I intend to keep it that way, but we'll see. Habits that have developed over the last couple of years living by myself might be difficult to break. But, I do have more motivation now the Physio has come to stay with me for the summer. I am more aware of the clutter now that someone else sees it every day than when I was living by myself. I really do think that when your mess affects only you, it is much harder to remember to be tidy than when your mess affects other people. Added to this, the Physio is a very tidy person, and I know that the state of my flat bugs him, even though he doesn't say anything. So, I intend to make the effort. I used to be a tidy person. I can do it again.

Besides, I actually like living in a clean and tidy space.

Making (some) progress

Well, the conference paper on 'new stuff' went reasonably well, although there was very little discussion of my paper after the panel. I suppose if the audience had felt strongly that my reading should be challenged they would have done so, either during questions or afterwards, so I'm taking this as positive. Perhaps the audience were all just tired though.

I ran out of time to write some more 'new stuff' for my second conference in May, but managed to find a section on my thesis to present instead, without looking too much like I'd shoe-horned it in. That conference was an extremely interesting day on one topic, with plenty of time for discussion, and I enjoyed very much being back in the Beautiful Scottish City that I Miss.

Now my plans are to turn the first paper into an article, reasonably quickly. I wanted to carry on with it immediately after the conference, but with exam papers to mark, a further paper to produce and then twelve 4000-word projects to mark, I've sort of lost the momentum. But, my co-organisers have managed to find an avenue for publication of the conference papers as a special edition of a journal, and I'm excited about producing something to publish. Hopefully my writing nerves won't impede me too much.

I might revisit the section taken from my thesis for the second paper to produce an article too, but I might just leave that one in order to develop it when I turn my thesis into a book (book proposal part 2 of summer plan). I also have an article I've been sitting on for nearly twelve months that needs some referencing amendments and that's article no.2 or 3.

So, I feel I'm making progress. Not a lot, but some. And that is better than no progress at all.

Getting back out there...

I am having a major crisis of confidence over a conference paper I am writing.

It's the first piece of new research writing I have done since I submitted my thesis a LONG time ago. My last conference paper was taken from my thesis, so I knew before I went to the conference that that reading of that play has already been 'approved' in a variety of ways. This is new. This is mine. And I haven't had a supervisor read it, or an examiner tell me it's good enough to pass.

I think my paper will be one of the last on the day, and I'm concerned that, after everyone else's, mine will look very thin. There are so many other things I would like to do to it / add to it, but there just isn't space in a 20 minute paper. I'm also worried that I have fallen into 'lecture writing' mode, since lectures are the only things I have researched and written in the last 2-3 years. I work hard on my lectures, to produce informative and critically engaged / engaging material for the students, but I also think that this is a different discipline from research related writing.

I made a deliberate decision to produce something new for this conference, to boost my research self-esteem (when you've produced nothing other than lectures for a few years, you start to wonder if you'll ever be able to get back into it). But at the moment I feel more academically (and professionally) vulnerable than I have felt in a very long time.

I suppose the only real way to overcome this is to expose my paper to the questions and criticisms of the conference delegates and see what happens.

But I admit, I'm a more than a little bit scared.

Election time

I know this is going to be the tightest run election in a long time, and the resulting government structure is somewhat uncertain, but in some ways, I have to say, I am bored with it.

I am bored of not being told exactly what each party's policies are, and I believe this is because being told exactly what they plan for us would make them less 'electable' / popular. This is not a high popularity contest; this is an election to government.

I am bored of getting SO many leaflets from Political Parties in the mail that all tell me why I should not vote for 'the other guy' but not telling me why specifically I ought to vote for the leaflet sender ('because the other guy would be really rubbish' is not an answer).

I am bored of answering my door buzzer to find that it is someone who wants me to give them access to the building so they can leave yet more unhelpful leaflets in my mailbox.

I am bored of being treated like I am stupid; like I don't know that I'm not being told true facts. My least favourite tactic assumes that I will be swayed to vote a particular way by a leaflet full of photos of famous people who think I should. I may be a fan of many of these celebrities, but as I said before, this is not a popularity contest; the support of famous people does not necessarily make your policies the best ones.

I will go to vote tomorrow, and I hope I make a sensible choice. But I suspect, if I do, this will be inspite of, not because of, the information I have been given.


Edited to add: since the result gave us a hung parliament, I'm finding it a little more interesting!

Seeing differently 2: confidence and criticism

I know I said in my previous ‘seeing differently’ post that we shouldn’t judge by each other’s standards, but in this post I’m going to suggest that we take into account what others think we are capable of (only if it’s positive!). We are often so much more ‘down’ on ourselves than we should be.

We all have insecurities about our abilities. I’m just going to take one, teaching related example from this academic year. For the first term, I taught two theory classes. One group is very friendly, interested, relaxed and open to new ideas. In the other, I had two or three students who spent the whole class looking sullen, responding to my questions with a certain amount of diffidence, and in general looking at me like I didn’t know what I was doing, either as a tutor or in relation to the theoretical concepts I was teaching. I admit, I am not at my most confident teaching some theories (Lacanian psychoanalysis on the mirror stage is one of them) but I know I am a good tutor. I have student feedback forms that say this. I have peer reviews that say this. I have several years of experience, and have learned some useful techniques for running seminars, and also, for teaching theory. But three sulky students managed to bring out the underlying theory-related securities that I have. Half way through the year, a colleague whose specialism is in philosophy and literary theory returned from sabbatical and took over teaching the group with the sullen students. (I have since learned that these students behave the same way in his classes as mine, suggesting it was not my teaching that was their problem).

Since I was teaching them at the time they handed in their essays, I had to mark them. These essays allow students the freedom to do a theoretically-informed analysis of any text they wish, and this makes the assignments difficult to mark. I also am not involved in setting the questions for this team taught course, and I think most people would agree it is easier to mark questions that you have set. However, I marked the essays and then passed them over to Theory Confident Colleague. I worried that he would look at them and think my marking was terrible, and my knowledge and application of theory was poor. I found myself avoiding him, in case he challenged me on this. He has never given me any reason to think that he thinks I am not competent, but because I know this is his specialism, and because I am not 100% convinced of my abilities in this area, I project my insecurities onto him, and turn it into his potential judgement of me.

I have marked theory essays and projects before and my marks matched up with the moderator’s mark. Other colleagues think I am a good tutor; I have been peer reviewed in theory classes with positive comments. I don’t say this to blow my own trumpet. I say this to emphasise that I, and I think we, are more inclined to listen to - or indeed invent - negative criticism that is in tune with our own insecurities than we are to take on board the positive things people say.

But we need to start taking on board positive criticism too. The reason colleagues say nice things about my teaching / lectures / marking /research (cross out until you get the one that applies to you) is because I have done something else – or this before – that gives them the impression that I can do it. Why don’t I believe them enough to be confident? I need to start seeing myself, my work, my abilities differently.

I was going to write this post some time ago, but one of my Shakespeare students questioned her grade and complained not to me, but to a senior colleague, who, as course convenor, then asked to moderate my marking. Because I had come out from under a mountain of 130 essays, and several of my students had got lower grades than I would have expected of them based on seminar performance, I assumed that it was my marking rather than the student’s complaint that was in the wrong, and lost the confidence I had found to write this.

My senior colleague agreed my grades, and the student will have to work harder in her exam revision to raise her final grade. But the fact I so nearly didn’t write this is testament to the fact that I needed to write it. I’m not saying we ought not to take on board comments that may be critical of our practices; everyone has things to learn. But we shouldn’t focus exclusively on the negative, or project our insecurities onto colleagues’ possible opinions. If your colleagues tell you that you are good at something, believe them!