Filed under: Meta — the english assassin @ 11:52 pm
A year or so ago when I was living in the Landan smog I met a witch from the frozen Northern Wastes (Canada) who did my astrology chart for me. I’ve just found it again among my emails, so for want of something better to do with it I’m posting it up here for the world to admire. Of course if you don’t know me then there’s almost no way for you to tell if it’s right or wrong, but as a less-than-impartial observer I have to say that it isn’t too far off the mark, although it must be said that said witch did know me, so I’m sure her more mundane powers of observation might have influenced her ‘reading’ or whatever it’s called? I’ll also declair my other bias re: astrology, as a born-again atheist I’m more than sceptical about this kind of guff, but it doesn’t stop me enjoying (on so many levels) reading the results.
§
Mid-Heaven in Capricorn: Career Status and Aspirations
Capricorn is the goat. The goat is sure-footed and stable. It’s an earth sign, reliable and practical, ruled by Saturn so scholarly, melancholic, and studious. You aspire to become highly intellectual, taking action based on practical need and successes. You want to approach new projects and studies with realistic goals. You want to know where you are going and to feel that your path is already set down for you. You are looking for stability.
Ascendant in Taurus: Who We Really Are
Taurus the bull is an earth sign which is practical, stable and consistent. Also, bulls are determined, patient and conservative. It is a Fixed sign concerned with maintaining the products of oneself – things you make or create that require maintenance. Venus rules Taurus and is concerned with pleasures, art, and love. You are strong and stable. You maintain a sense of self and create images/environments. Goals are to be comfortable, creative and loved.
Sun in Sagittarius: Your Ruler and Your Great Destiny
You are destined to find your freedom and to explore the world. Free to create as you so desire. You may be able to inspire others spiritually or morally. You will be loyal to those around you and you will make it part of your life’s work to uncover certain truths
Moon in Capricorn: Dreams and Mysticism
The goat is sure-footed and stable. You have a fascination with death. You are studious and tend to only take action based on practical needs and past success. You require proof and study the reasons why behind spiritual experiences. You apply rationale to these experiences. Often this is an unconscious process
Mars in Scorpio: Aggression/Drive/Sexuality (Unconscious)
Scorpio is a water sign ruled by Mars. You tend to experience the same emotional responses over and over again. Others may drag you down with their need for your empathy and understanding. Your psychic abilities and empathy may cause you take on too much of others emotions. You lash out at others when you are hurt or in pain. You are motivated by your gut and not by your head. Sexually you want intense experiences with a strong emotional connection. You may be interested in sexual sub cultures surrounding death.
Mercury in Scorpio: How You Learn and Communicate
You learn best by connecting with subjects emotionally and in comparison to your own experiences. You enjoy learning about the mysterious and counter culture. You tend to be shy about sharing how you are feeling and may talk about many other subjects without letting too much of yourself come out in conversation.
Venus in Scorpio: Pleasure
You take pleasure in intense experiences. You can be mysterious about what you actually enjoy. Sex and death are closely related for you. You have a thing for people who live life on the outskirts of society.
Jupiter in Capricorn: Abundance
Your wealth and abundance in life will come from being an intellectual with a strong sense of self. This assuredness of what you want as well as of who you are will keep you from straying from/falling from your course.
Saturn in Gemini: Your Greatest Misfortune and What Oppresses You
You can be of two minds about things. You have two personalities when it comes to the way that you approach life and how you study and work. Not making a decision as to which person you want to be may oppress you throughout your life as too much inner conversation may lead to inaction.
NOTE: it is interesting to note from these ‘results’ that I apear to be a habitual necrophiliac, which isn’t strictly true: I only practice necrophilia on alternate Tuesday nights and never more that for five or six hours at a time…
Perhaps the only surprise in Survivors returning to the small screen is the fact that it took over 30 years for it to do so. Despite it’s one off broadcast on terrestrial TV, the influence of Survivors can be seen in many later screen apocalypses, from 28 Days Later to The Last Train. Yes, that’s right: no repeats back in the good old days of British TV. Of course it had a video release and in its day the show was inexplicably successful in Italy for some reason. However the success of 28 Days Later lead to the much anticipated DVD release of the original show and a few years down the line we see a new look Survivors back on our screen. Now, it would be all too easy for me to do the grumpy old man thing and lay into it, saying ‘the original is better’ and how ‘television today is a load of crap,’ but I’m afraid the original is better and television today is a load of crap. Sorry kiddies but its true! Still, the new Survivorsisn’t terribly bad in the cold light of day. Just a little bland maybe. Possibly the original too was a little bland in its day. Certainly compared to post-apocalypses in literature the original Survivors wouldn’t score particularly well in man-to-man combat with Triffids or The Drowned World. But this is television not literature and to compare television dramas to novels, no matter how good the drama, is like comparing instant coffee with freshly ground coffee.
Still, the original Survivors would have seemed pretty fresh compared to other science fiction series on the goggle-box in its day. For a start, it really wasn’t for the kids. I’m sure kids liked it but it’s not Dr Who. True, its no Prisoner either, but neither is it as kitsch or inaccessible as The Prisoner.
Survivors was also highly topical in its day. While I suppose the current Swine Flu scare (and past Bird Flu scares) might make the new Survivors seem more probable than the old show, it hardly condenses so many of the issues of its age as the old one did. The Survivors 2008 basically stays fairly true to the premise of the old show (although judging by the number of characters there seems to be a higher survival rate), yet it doesn’t share the original show’s philosophy. It seems to pay only lip-service to Terry Nation’s old query ‘how would you make a candle from scratch?’ Although it does briefly pose the question in passing.
No, the new show is more interested in action and melodrama, two things sadly lacking at times from many of the original shows episodes. Now action and melodrama aren’t necessarily bad things per se, but action and drama are pretty common occurrences on the telly these days, while thoughtful speculation is sadly a comparative rarity in TV or indeed in any medium. Not that the new show is bad. It’s okay. More a post-apocalypse Eastenders than the post-apocalypse Archers.
Like all television programs today the dialogue lacks the naturalistic pacing and theatrical expansiveness of classic British television: the insidious influence of Hollywood I’m afraid. The directing and editing is also much more frenetic and cinematic, although for all its jump cuts and bombastic sound tracking (and I won’t pretend that it is in any way the worst offender on the screens in this regard) it fails to archive what the original show managed with its longer cuts and – almost unheard of today – no soundtrack.
I find it amazing how well the old show depicts the aftermath with almost no on screen physical evidence of the actual apocalypse. While the new Survivors regularly shows us empty motorways and looted shops, yet it totally fails to evoke a feeling of emptiness, loss and loneliness. A classic scene in the original Survivors shows Abby’s awakening into the post-plague world. We get a high lingering shot of her walking down her road, a few close ups on her face as she explores the dead village and an ever present silence as she realises that she is on her own, before the extreme high shot of her leaving the church when she softly asks the heavens “Dear God, don’t let me be the only one.” I stumbled across this scene and its 2008 equivalent on YouTube which perfectly illustrates the difference in style and quality. While both scenes don’t correlate exactly, they both cover Abby’s first steps outside the house.
Press ‘play’ below and see what you think…
Good isn’t it? We don’t need to be told what she is thinking and feeling through opvious cinematic sign-postings: the director has faith in the power of his material and he lets the scene play out slowly and naturally. Okay the final “Please God” bit is a little hackneyed (maybe), but still the scene does a lot, while not trying too hard to do too much.
Now play the following clip showing the same scene 2008 stylee…
Now if you think that is aesthetically better than the first clip you are a plebeian idiot!
It’s a pity the first clip doesn’t also show Caroline Seymour finding her husband’s body, as that is beautifully done in comparison to Julie Graham’s shouting and screaming in the 2008 version. Indeed shouting, screaming and hair-pulling seem to define the whole clip. Instead of the cold silence of the street, we get in-your-face rapid-fire jump-cuts, danger-music, screaming and spinning close-ups. By the time we get the final plea to God there is no power left in the scene because the idiot director has bled all the meaning out of the scene by throwing every trick at it in one go. Instead of capturing my attention I feel sick and bored and I want to die – much like travelling on the National Express coach!
And this scene is fairly typical of the series as a whole.
Fans of the, once, excellent Peep Show will be pleased to see The Johnson, aka. Paterson Joseph, playing Greg in the new-look Survivors, until they realise that he is an even weaker replacement than Julie Graham is as Abby. At least most of the survivors are good-looking this time around if Robyn Addison is anything to go buy, although Greg seems less than impressed?
Unlike the original Survivors, the acting is fairly mediocre in general, despite having the amazing Zoe Tapper in it (who, alas, keeps her clothes on for a change) and I doubt if any of the actors will express the same enthusiasm and fondness for the show as the original cast do in 30 years time. Despite its difficulties the original being an obvious labour of love for all concerned, while this being little more than another gig and a labour to watch.
Not even the classy British actress Zoe Tapper (left) can save this show. Here she helps the new, soon to be dead, Jenny (Freema Agyeman) with here dying pal.
The new opening credits state that it is based on the novel (a strange claim seeing as the novel was a novelization of a TV show), but as the show progresses it’s interesting to note that the Abby story-arch again diverges from that of Terry Nation’s original idea. Although unlike the original series there are no signs that the producer intends to write this key character out of any future series. Instead they seem to be sowing the seeds for further, and increasingly unlikely, adventures regarding her child and a sinister government research lab… Ho, hum… Still, the new Survivors probably shouldn’t offend too many fans of the old show, it just won’t thrill them too much either.
The show probably owes more to ITV’s melodramatic adventure-focused asteroid-impact post-apocalyptic mini-series The Last Train than it does to the more thoughtful original Survivors and in fairness it’s probably of just about the same quality, i.e. watchable low-brow entertainment with little real depth and little to no aesthetic charm. It’s unlikely to score the same fanatical fan-base as the original show because, frankly, there’s much more ambitious stuff around on television these days, from Lost to The Wire…
It’s not terribly bad, I suppose, but it’s not good either – not even a little bit good. So, which is best? If you even have to ask such as question then there’s no hope for you…
NOTE: When I found the two same scenes on YouTube I thought ‘brilliant, this really shows the difference between the two shows,’ hence I structured this piece around them. Anyway that was a month or so ago, so when I was looking for a scan of the original book cover I found a web-review which does exactly the same thing and (to make matters worse) who I imagine must have been responsible for ripping the respective video clips to YouTube in the first place. Of course it should have been obvious to me that for these two clips to exist like that, someone else must have done the same comparison somewhere. D’oh! Well rather than re-write, I thought I’d just acknowledge my unconscious plagiarism and post a link to the original review here, which does a far better and more detailed job in deconstructing these scenes than I ever could. Anyway, if you want to know more about the first episode of Survivors 2008 and read a superb rant about how shit it is then check it out!
Here follows part 2 of my Survivors retrospective.
Part 1, covering the original series (75-77) can be found here and Part 3 which compares Survivors 1975-77 to 2008 can be found here.
The original cover to the novelization of Survivors
A year after the first series of Survivors Terry Nation published his novelization of the series, which tells the original Abby and Son story-arch and the long-term consequences of the aftermath. Out-of-print since the late 70s, the novel has recently been republished by Orion Books (UK £6.99) in conjunction with the new BBC television incarnation of the show broadcast in the Fall of 2008, which, much like the recent republication of John Christopher’s Death of Grass, allows post-apocalypse and Survivors fans to experience the novel without having to spend an arm and a leg on an overpriced second-hand copy. Unfortunately the new version of the novel comes with a terribly bland cover showing actors from the new Survivors posing like models in a Little Woods catalogue rather than the edgier graphic cover of the original print, although this – I suppose – is a small price to pay to save some cash in these credit crunch times we live in.
The first two-thirds of the novel stays pretty true to the first six episodes of the first series and is probably guilty of spending a little too long on setting the scene before the catastrophe rather than concentrating on what the post-apocalypse junky is really interested: i.e. getting on with the aftermath itself! Nation’s prose is functional and generally terse, but his TV heritage shows, as the novel lacks a literary edge of other better post-apocalypse novels and we get little inner-dialogue of the characters. Still Nation can tell a good story and his writing is no worse than much to be found in genre fiction: his plotting is tight and the action is punchy.
Interestingly he chooses not to go into the minute details of the agrarian rebirth of society as the series does, instead he paints a picture with broader brush strokes. The story told in the first series of Survivors covers no more than six to eight months of th aftermath, whereas this novel finishes some five to six years after the ‘Death’ as the plague is called. Admittedly I think this kind of more expansive storytelling is probably much easier to handle in the context of a novel than an episodic TV drama, but still it is hard to understand why the series spends so much time micro-managing the apocalypse.
Parts of the novel are a little clunky. Perhaps it is also a little episodic in places and the emphasis on Abby’s sexual fantasies/frustration (an aspect which the series doesn’t delve into at all) is hackneyed to say the least. However the real reason to check out the novel if you are a fan of the original series is to find out what exactly happens to Abby’s search for her son, which the television series drops like a brick after series 1. And here the novel gets a big two thumbs up! The Survivors novelization delivers a sucker punch that puts many ‘real’ novels to shame. Of course there are other ways of finding out the plot if you just want to know without the hassle of reading the novel (the extras on the DVD lets it slip for a start and I’m sure you wouldn’t have to Google too long for our friend the good old internet to spill the beans), but if spoilers were good enough then no one would ever read a book or see a movie. No, we want to experience the ending through the story (or at least I do) and not just be told what happens. Needless to say that there is a sting in the tail for Abby, although I won’t spoil it for you here.
Although Survivors: the novel, is no classic, it is a decent enough read if your expectations are not too high and probably quite enjoyable for even for those who don’t know the series. For fans of the series, it is pretty much essential reading: for it shows a direscton in which the series could have gone in (surprisingly in the direction of the Mediterranean as it turns out) and – more importantly – it shows us dramatically what happens to Abby in the end, poor thing.
If you think this cover is better then you have the aesthetic tastes of a toad and should poke your own eyes out - you don't deserve them any more
Here follows my first part in my mini-Survivors retrospective.
Part 2, covering the novel, can be found here and part 3, commparing the new show to this the original, can be found here.
First broadcast in 1975 on BBC television Survivors tells the story of a small group of predominately middle class ’survivors,’ who by some natural immunity, have manage to pull through a mysterious man-made virus that has wiped out 99% of the world’s population. Pretty lucky for them! The brain child of Terry Nation, cult scriptwriter and inventor of the perennial Dr. Who baddies Daleks and Blake 7, Survivors was a brave attempt to show how helplessly dependent modern British had become upon pre-manufactured technology and how disconnected we had become from the natural world. Very much jumping on the self-sufficiency Zeitgeist of the times, Survivors in many ways echoes the lighter message of the British sit-com The Good Life, which was also first broadcast in the same year. Survivors’ philosophy is very much a spiritual predecessor to the modern Green-movement.
Its poignancy doesn’t end there: the classic opening title sequence (see below) shows an unnamed Chinese man collapsing in an airport and a succession of visa stamps in a passport, which seem to foreshadow the 2003 SARS outbreak and, coincidentally, the current Swine Flu pandemic scare! Honestly, this isn’t just a piece of shallow opportunism on my part, I had decided to cover Survivors on here over a month ago.
A message often repeated in the show is this: could you make something a simple as a candle from scratch? Or a table? Could you fell the tree, find the ore, smelt the ore, to forge the ore, to make the tools, to fell the tree, to make the table? With the modern worlds complex division of labour Terry Nation argues that no one person has the knowledge to do all these things and without that knowledge, if you remove us from our technology and society, we will become less capable than stone-age man.
Terry Nation’s concept for Survivors was to produce an adventure series that would deal with these issues as motivations for the action; however clashes with series producer Terence Dudley who was more interested in producing a more pastoral series of agrarian rebirth meant that ultimately the series failed to tackle its mission objective, instead it becomes guilty of meandering into terribly earnest pseudo-philosophical debates and too many scenes of rural domesticity.
The original Survivors: (L-R) Greg, Jenny and Abby
But forgetting these ultimate failing for a moment, Survivors starts of amazingly strongly. The first couple of episodes sets the scene of a society rapidly collapsing under the grip of the plague and the immediate aftermath of the catastrophe as we follow separate stories of the series protagonists: Abby, Greg and Jenny, until they eventually met and join forces. The main ’story-arch’ of the first series is Abby’s search for her missing son; despite the statistical unlikelyness of him surviving as well (as no hereditary link with immunity is evident in the show at this stage). However the search is a great plot-device and helps give the show much needed direction. All three of the characters are well conceived and appealing, and the cast is strong. The three leads, played by Carolyn Seymour, Ian McCulloch and Lucy Fleming are all compelling and likeable – despite their toffyness! All helped by a strong supporting cast, including: Peter Bowles, George Baker and Talfryn Thomas – among others.
Of course Survivors is very much of its age and that’s part of its charm. The good guys are terribly middle-class, while the working-classes are, at best, lazy idiots and, at worst, murderous and/or power crazed scum-bags. Survivors is also hideously ‘cosy.’ If Brian Aldiss finds The Day of the Triffids too cosy* (see below) for his tastes then I can’t imagine what he would make of this. Of course elements of the show are dated – some badly. The script at times is far too wordy, over-written and preachy, but compared to today’s’ comic-book-like scripts, the dialogue feels incredibly naturalistic. Survivors is not alone in this regard, as one of the defining aspects of pre-90s TV is the naturalistic pace and relative wordiness of the scripts which gives so much of retro-TV a greater theatrical feel and made the TV experience back then distinct from the filmic one: being more like telly-plays than mini-movies.
The low budget also plays its part in the look of the show. Apart from a few bodies in Abby’s village and one or two in the outskirts of London, I don’t think we see any direct signs of the plague in the first series. Instead Survivors depicts the new post-plague world by a growing sense of stillness, loneliness and isolation. Jenny’s relief when she finally meets Greg near the end of the second episode is evident. The show neatly avoids having to deal with the scenes of bodies in the streets by setting the action entirely in a rural setting, which presumably was a decision partial driven by budget constraints, although this obviously detaches the characters and us, the viewers, from the true horror of the situation.
However, when watched today, the lack of attention to detail does hurt the show and is less forgiveable. Throughout the first two series the characters all have immaculate hair and clean new clothes. A situation only remedied by series 3 when it finally clicked with someone that these guys should be starting to hum at least a little bit by now. Still even then the hedgerow and gardens are mysteriously immaculate. There are no Hieronymus Boschesque landscapes from our primal Id here to haunt our dreams, I’m afraid.
The first six episodes of series 1 were recorded in the standard way of the time, i.e. a mix of video shot studio set work and 16 mm location work, which is eventually changed to 100% outdoor broadcast video location work. The change allowed faster filming, although sadly this also heralded an uglier aesthetic, probably due to the faster work rate. However despite the poorer video quality, I find myself liking the crunchier saturated pallet of early video. It’s a pity that they didn’t try to shoot the show in a more handy-cam mockumentary mode to accompany the outside broadcast unit technology that, at that time, was almost exclusively used for news and sports coverage on British TV.
Episode six and seven also heralds another disappointing milestone in the first series: a splitting off from Terry Nations initial eco-adventure premise to Terrance Dudley’s agrarian soap-opera vision of Survivors. Although the first six episodes aren’t all written by Terry Nation, they all stayed true to his vision and the characters remain constant. The remaining seven shows lack that consistency, with character motivations being thrown out for heavy-handed moralising storyline and the total abandonment of the Abby’s son storyline. The blame can’t be entirely lain at the door of the two supporting script writers, Jack Ronda and Clive Exton, who both had to contend with Terrance Dudley’s constant script amendments. The interference was so bad that Clive Exton changes his screen credit to M.K. Jeeves in order to distance himself from the series.
That is not to say that the second half of the series isn’t without its moments: episode 9: ‘Law & Order’ shows their embryonic community deliberating over the fate of a murder suspect and is a perennial favourite of fans of the show. However for me the crime and punishment issues raised in this episode is still handled far too heavily, and the behaviour of the characters is frankly bizarre and inconsistent. After contending with feuds, thieves and internal strife the series kind of peters out and the queen of Survivors, Abby, or more pertinently Caroline Seymour, got written out of the show by the time of series 2, which is also the point that Terry Nation left the series in Terrance Dudley’s agrarian hands: chnages from which the show never recovers.
Should I stay or should I go now? Sorry Abbey, you'll be going, I'll be staying...
Series 2 must be held up as some of the most boring 12 hours of television ever broadcast in Britain. Highlights include copious arguments on who will do the washing up for fuck’s sake! In fairness the double ‘Lights of London’ episodes are pretty good, which for the first time gives us a glimpse at the urban aftermath and the dystopia that has filled the gap left by the pre-plague society. Also the Ian McCulloch’s scripted episode ‘The Last Laugh’ is also okay. But little can compensate for the lose of the character Abby and series creator Terry Nation, although the return of actor Charles Lill from a one-off early episode from the first series to one of the main characters in series two works well.
Jenny looking surprisingly clean considering the situation, wearing her famous blue coat
Series 3 is a partial return to form of the first series and a much needed return of more adventurous storylines. Still the series seems to meander too much and ultimately Survivors failed to deliver all it promised too. Still there are few post-apocalypses that cover the aftermath in such detail and despite its inconstancies, it compares favourably to much to be found in genre TV over the years. Despite its faults (of which there are many) Survivors is a fine example of the potential of television to discuss ambitious and topical issues in a populist and accessible way. A potential that, alas, TV rarely achieves nor even aspires to do, and remains a fascinating example of how creative differences in a production team can ruin what would have been one of the finest pieces of British television.
Fashions change: by Series 3 Jenny finally gets tough
If you want to buy Survivors on DVD today then you’ve got a problem. Originally Survivors was released in three DVD box-sets: one for each series, which sensibly were available separately. Meaning that you could just buy the first series and forget the rest unless your are a fanatic or have no critical faculties. However since last year those individual box-sets are no longer available and all three series have been made into one huge box-set: not the most convenient of ways to attract new fans and obviously quite expensive. Of course there is still the second-hand market, but – as always happens – greedy sellers used the ‘deleted’ status of the individual box-sets to crank up the prices. I’m glad to say that the prices seem to be setling again to more realistic levels and careful browsing of eBay and amazon MarketPlace should yeild reasonable results for the Series 1 box-set. Series 2 is still expensive, which isn’t a problem because its rubbish, and Series 3 is comming down in rice. Alternatively you could just suck-it-up and buy the Series 1-3 box-set and be done with it.
Some useful links:
Survivors website with lots of information, interviews and discussion
The episode from the third series ‘Mad Dog’ has its own site, which is quite good too
*: By ‘cosy’ I’m basically quoting Brian Aldiss’ ‘cosy-catastrophe’ a term/insult he uses to describe those pre-new wave classic British post-apocalypses, especially Day of the Triffids, where almost all of the population is effectively wiped out (by dying of plague in Survivors or through mass blindness in Triffids) leaving the protagonists largely untouched in an increasingly empty world. By wiping out 99% of the population the survivors lot is relatively idyllic, compared to those in the Death of Grass, where the whole pre-catastrophe population is fighting for its piece of pie. Also the psychology of the protagonists in these so-called ‘cosy-catastrophes’ remains largely untouched and the new society that replaces the old is basically a reproduction of the pre-catastrophe society, complete with bourgeois norms and values.
However the cosy-catastrophe shouldn’t be mistaken for the ‘last-man’ sub-genre, which I think its fair to say explores slightly different themes.
Now there are many who disagree with B. Aldiss’ view on Triffids, saying that there is too much , death, violence and social disruption in it for it to be fairly labelled ‘cosy.’ Personally I do think B. Aldiss is being a little harsh (or should I say that I think he’s being deliberately provocative in order to create a debate), but at the same time I know what he’s getting at. While I found the old 1980s BBC production of Day of the Triffids excellent, the novel failed to excite me as much as I hoped. I’m not saying that it isn’t very good or that I didn’t enjoy it, but I did feel slightly frustrated by the conservatism of its aftermath. Still a massively important and enjoyable book, if a little underwhelming at times IMO.
Anyway, while there are many who might rush to defend Triffids from this ‘cosy’ charge, I doubt many but the most hardcore of Survivors fans would ever consider it worthwhile doing so with Survivors, which is about as hard-hitting as The Waltons!
I’m just tidying up some gibberish I’ve written on Surviors, the post-apocalypse TV show that I’m going to post here over this week. Because it’s far too much for one post, and no one reads long posts, I’m splitting it up into three sub-sections that I’ll post up as separate posts.
Anyway, here are the sections, just follow the hyperlinks:
Filed under: Meta, Plug, RPGs — the english assassin @ 11:43 am
…well only if you haven’t got anything better to do. It’s called d4, d6, d8, d10, d12 and d20s Behind the Skeleton in the Closet, as you might have guessed by the title (the length of which I’m already regretting) it’s about role-playing games or RPGs. Not the computer game stuff but the good old buckets of dice table-top variety. I don’t, I’m afraid to say, follow the ways of the d20 any more, so why start such a project, I hear you ask? Well, I’ve been rooting about some old boxes for things to sell on eBay and I’ve found some old RPGs stuff that I wish to sell, but I’ve found lots more that I wish to keep and this has got me thinking about those good old days. Simpler and I have to say much happier times. Anyway, after a conversation with a friend (a fellow ex-gamer) I thought it might be fun (or if not fun it might just be something to do before I die) to blog about those games and those days. Anyway, follow the linky above if you like or don’t if you don’t, it’s up to you.
Filed under: Audiobook, Reviews — the english assassin @ 12:23 pm
The first audio short story collection by Tim Jeffreys for sometime this, as he’s been busy with longer and non-audio forms of fiction just lately, and in The Other Door we see a slight departure from his past work. There’s less (well none in fact) traditional ghost stories, nor any summer spooky strangeness (for want of a better way to describe them) that marks much of his earlier collections. Instead TJ is developing the more secular fable/parable side of his fiction in quirky and surreal stories: exploring themes such as morality, mortality, alienation, psychoanalysm and dreams, which in fairness has always been there – just not as prominently as this. While this collection is less immediate than his last two they show an extra depth and conceptual development in his writing, which has to be commended. And upon a second listening I’ve warmed to the collection immensely. In fact I think I’d best describe The Other Door as a slow burn. TJ’s prose is literary, rich and evocative, his tales are rewarding, meaningful and intelligent: it’s good stuff. It’s a pity that there doesn’t appear to be an outlet for it in the wider fiction-land, but that’s their loss… and anyway I’m liking the DIY ethos. Proof that there might be legs in the self-publishing phenomenon yet…
§
The best stories are: the title story ‘The Other Door,’ a Kafkaesque thing that brings to mind Nietzsche’s eternal recurrence, ‘We are Three,’ a Freudian dreamland fable, and ‘Soft Clocks,’ a Daliesque nightmare, which has been aired before (somewhere in another collection) but seems to find its home here. Another interesting tale is ‘The Toymaker’s Ruin:’ a slightly confusing parable about… well several things (I think) but you can find out for yourself by buying yourself a copy As usual the narration is excellent and the recording is highly professional. TJ’s regular storytellers Mia Jaye and Josh Cass are both there and new boy Klemens Koehering adds an appropriate Teutonic tone to this collection.
§
This CD can be found and bought at Tim Jeffreys’ lovely new website here, where every month he’s posting some examples of his fiction to read too.
§
Reviews of his other CDs can be found by clicking on the audiobook tab on this blog.
Filed under: Plug — the english assassin @ 5:10 pm
Your result for Which fantasy writer are you?…
Mary Gentle (b. 1956)
13 High-Brow, 27 Violent, 33 Experimental and 25 Cynical!
Congratulations! You are High-Brow, Violent, Experimental and Cynical! These concepts are defined below.
Mary Gentle is a UK author whose work has received some acclaim. Her great break-through came with 1984 fantasy novel Golden Witchbreed, which depicts the travels of a UK envoy on a planet, Orthe, where the inhabitants have, by choice, abandoned a high-tech society for a seemingly less advanced way of life. Though nominally science fiction, the novel is generally called fantasy, partly because Orthe has the feel of a fantasy world. Nothing is what it first seems to be on Orthe, however, and the envoy’s journey across the planet gradually reveals a vividly imagined alternate society, where nothing is ever over-simplified or, for that matter, easy. Gentle revisited Orthe in 1987, when the sequel Ancient Light was published.
Since then Gentle has written the White Crow sequence, starting with Rats and Gargoyles (1990), which has received some acclaim, not least from other writers; China Miéville, for example, put it on his list of “50 science fiction and fantasy novels socialists should read”. She has also written Grunts! (1992), a novel set in a Tolkien-like fantasy world, but told from the point of view of the orcs, as well as several other books.
Gentle is not one to shun away from difficult issues in her works and is equally unafraid of discussing and depicting violence. Neither has she settled to writing the same kind of story over and over, and, while being at her best a great entertainer, she has the ability of twisting and bending fantasy environments and themes at her will, making unafraid a key-word of her career as a writer.
You are also a lot like Gene Wolfe.
If you want something more gentle (no pun intended), try Philip Pullman.
If you’d like a challenge, try your exact opposite, J K Rowling.
Your score
This is how to interpret your score: Your attitudes have been measured on four different scales, called 1) High-Brow vs. Low-Brow, 2) Violent vs. Peaceful, 3) Experimental vs. Traditional and 4) Cynical vs. Romantic. Imagine that when you were born, you were in a state of innocence, a tabula rasa who would have scored zero on each scale. Since then, a number of circumstances (including genetical, cultural and environmental factors) have pushed you towards either end of these scales. If you’re at 45 or -45 you would be almost entirely cynical, low-brow or whatever. The closer to zero you are, the less extreme your attitude. However, you should always be more of either (eg more romantic than cynical). Please note that even though High-Brow, Violent, Experimental and Cynical have positive numbers (1 through 45) and their opposites negative numbers (-1 through -45), this doesn’t mean that either quality is better. All attitudes have their positive and negative sides, as explained below.
High-Brow vs. Low-Brow
You received 13 points, making you more High-Brow than Low-Brow. Being high-browed in this context refers to being more fascinated with the sort of art that critics and scholars tend to favour, rather than the best-selling kind. At their best, high-brows are cultured, able to appreciate the finer nuances of literature and not content with simplifications. At their worst they are, well, snobs.
Violent vs. Peaceful
You received 27 points, making you more Violent than Peaceful. Please note that violent in this context does not mean that you, personally, are prone to violence. This scale is a measurement of a) if you are tolerant to violence in fiction and b) whether you see violence as a means that can be used to achieve a good end. If you are, and you do, then you are violent as defined here. At their best, violent people are the heroes who don’t hesitate to stop the villain threatening innocents by means of a good kick. At their worst, they are the villains themselves.
Experimental vs Traditional
You received 33 points, making you more Experimental than Traditional. Your position on this scale indicates if you’re more likely to seek out the new and unexpected or if you are more comfortable with the familiar, especially in regards to culture. Note that traditional as defined here does not equal conservative, in the political sense. At their best, experimental people are the ones who show humanity the way forward. At their worst, they provoke for the sake of provocation only.
Cynical vs Romantic
You received 25 points, making you more Cynical than Romantic. Your position on this scale indicates if you are more likely to be wary, suspicious and skeptical to people around you and the world at large, or if you are more likely to believe in grand schemes, happy endings and the basic goodness of humankind. It is by far the most vaguely defined scale, which is why you’ll find the sentence “you are also a lot like x” above. If you feel that your position on this scale is wrong, then you are probably more like author x. At their best, cynical people are able to see through lies and spot crucial flaws in plans and schemes. At their worst, they are overly negative, bringing everybody else down.
I love this picture – it’s fucked up! Seems to evoke something of the SF art of the new wave and New Worlds. I have no idea what the story that inspired it is like just yet, but will be listening to it tonight…
As usual the narration is excellent and the recording is highly professional. TJ’s regular storytellers Mia Jaye and Josh Cass are both there and new boy Klemens Koehering adds an appropriate Teutonic tone to this collection.
