People with Dirty Labels

Reading and listening to every article and discussion on the horror of the migrant crisis has brought home how unarguable it is us that we are a country of arrogant, over privileged selfish arseholes.

That a large body of people would rather see mass pain and suffering than give away a tiny slice of cake to a stranger.

We are conditioned with fake outrage towards every act a person may make in getting to those shores. In one breath we are the world beating masters of everything inviting the richest world beating best to join us, in the next we are the poor and fragile creosote man of Month Python fame unable to take one more tiny morsel into our overgorged bellies in case we explode. 

Wilful ignorance abounds, selectively chosen to see us poor English as the victims and everyone else as the bad guy. We could never be to blame and whilst few of us would have the stomach to hold a drowning woman's head under the water, many are happy to turn their heads whilst others do. Farage and his gruesome entourage spend hours walking the beaches looking for horror, not to help or assist but to gloat over their special place in their world. Poverty and tragedy porn at it's worse, standing over a person who has made a journey more extraordinary, perilous and unbearable than anyone in this small minded country could imagine, yet the tiny bit of lifesaving dignity these people have left is far more than Farage could ever possess. 

The person who's idea of a bad day is waking up next door to a Romanian family cannot even offer a towel, a warm blanket and hot mug of tea to shivering souls on a beach. He mocks and ostracises those that do. Such a Christian spirit. As I recall in my reading of the bible, generosity of spirit didn't have a cap. The good Samaritan didn't say ''tough, I've saved enough people today, I'm off to the pub, the rest can die.'

Our Government has a policy not vastly less horrific. Pretending to mourn those poor people who drown but equally making it policy to turn back the boats to make it more likely they will drown.

For those that do survive, rather than a warm welcome and the hand of friendship we have a our artificially generated hostile environment. How far are we from lining the M20 with people spitting and abusing people as they are shipped to accommodation around the country. Our media positively encourages this response firing up the rhetoric with words like invasion and economic migrant. Even the word Asylum Seekers is seen as a dirty label for a person, when it literally is what it says, 'someone seeking help and sanctuary'.

What are we told to see? A person who isn't a person. But a robber, a thief, a terrorist. Humanity and cause stripped back to dirty labels. 

So what do we do? First strategy is to ask media to be nice and turn our more darker instincts to a fresher view of the world. I say it because that's what should happen but will never happen.

Oddly under the covers of the hostile environment the government knows they can no longer stop the migrant crossings and they also know they will grow in numbers as more displacement is inevitable. Reality is truly a bummer. Like with Covid and Brexit, migration problems don't go away with shouting at the TV and wishing them solved. Reality keeps coming back to bite and the news eventually will turn against those who continually blame others. Popularity goes in cycles and eventually it will turn on them. 

Even the most stupid government needs a strategy so eventually I believe the only way to stop the boats be to open up some legal routes. The government would like to do this quietly and hidden from view so they can claim credit for solving the boats problem in the channel without increasing the number of migrants on our shores. They could actually have got away with this once upon a time as 95% of people in the country never even see or meet an asylum seeker or can't tell them apart from others. They are an invisible problem which we only know exists because it makes good headlines.

Sadly the government can't work on the solutions in the background because they have created such a toxic atmosphere, everyone is watching and waiting for the next story to unfold. The opening of legal routes for these people will be treated as a betrayal and a defeat. Other parties will be subject to this accusation to a greater degree making it worse for politicians seeking to do the right thing.

So in order to spin it well and tell the right story the language will not change, the hate will continue and we will no doubt be drowning people routinely for some time yet. 

We lack the leadership to resist the rhetoric and treat the population as adults. Perhaps also we lack the population willing to listen to a leader attempt to explain this. Such is the world we live in. 

Ignorance has its champion

 

Free Speech, flag lovers and cancel culture have littered too many conversations in recent weeks in the same way that some days walking the streets there is more dog crap to avoid. Nonsense dressed up as victimisation for people who behave like over fed dogs pulling faces when they are denied a treat.

There are plenty of people who have a right to victimhood and I don’t have to reach too far to find an example among racial, disabled and women’s groups. No-one ever gave them a free speech mandate. They have never been cancelled either because they didn’t get a booking in the first place. Just as the recent decades decided to reach out an olive branch of a few token bookings and media slots the establishment has found a way to demand their own special treatment. It’s the same kind of victimhood where the richest make you believe they are more deserving of tax cuts than the poorest. The success of this tactic at the ballot box has given the principle more virtue and allowed right wing nut jobs to claim they have been injured whilst punching a liberal.

The right-wing media have long been masters of the creating the patriotic victim strawman by suggesting immigrants from remote parts of Africa have an in depth knowledge of the UK benefits system. The fact that none of them understand how little benefits migrants can claim is not just a reflection of the lack of education in those African states but the ignorance pumping through the veins of too many of this country.

With social media growing the TV media has been bent like a child under the weight of a bully. Outlets are either active in promoting victimhood or are forced to represent these arguments to avoid being accused as being part of cancel culture. This is combined with the pay per clicks culture encouraging the input of skinhead Barry whose father was a bad’un and started a Facebook group under a fake name he found in Clint Eastwood Dirty Harry film. Skinhead Barry is a social justice warrior fighting our freedom of speech campaigning that union jack tattoos should be mandatory.

Ignorance now has its champion.

I remember when ignorance was to be avoided not giving a grant and business plan. Talk about cancel culture, they get to claim they are being cancelled on prime time TV and every social media page in the country. That’s some platform for an opinion that once wouldn’t have got views beyond a cubicle in the pub toilet.

A car crash is due. With brains the size of peas and more contradictions than a Trump speech, I get the feeling they will turn in on themselves. But with the narrative of division written through any contentious event it will have be to something momentous. Even a global pandemic was like giving an arsonist fire safety training.

At some point truth will have marketable value again in the same way as flares are coming back in fashion. Most of us would even wear the flares if that’s the only thing that gives us hope.

The Right to be Scared: Why would we deny it?

 

The last week on social media has been as challenging and thought provoking as many in recent times. Considering the Brexit battles, BLM and Covid we haven’t been short of material but this week took us further down the toilet of our self-destructive and divisive culture. This week’s crowning judgement is remarkably similar to the All Lives matter slogan of last year, designed to undermine the legitimate protest that maybe black people through lived experienced may feel that their lives matter somewhat less. The slogan doing the rounds this week is ‘Notallmen’ in defiance of women suggesting that men need to pay attention to how they as women are feeling.

This is the crux of my concern. It has become so commonplace for strangers on the opposite side of the fence to inform you of your own opinions and how you should feel. To crown 2 issues together in a very neat opposite is a white man telling a black (I include Asian in the same group) woman of the following list of feelings:

·        That to say that white men can be racist makes you racist about white men

·        That to say all men late at night on your own in a public may create fear, is the same as accusing all men of rape

·        That a man explaining to you that you have no need to fear men despite the fact that you do fear men in these situations and therefore you must be paranoid, unnecessarily hysterical and probably hate men and are a lesbian.

·        That a man telling you what to do in vulnerable situations in no way includes telling a man perhaps they should restrain from such attacks or abuse of women.

Men are excused for being men, as if behaviour choices are tribal and involuntarily. Men for the most part are fearful of tackling other men because they are scared of a violent reaction. Interesting point that one, because if I as a man, am scared of a violent reaction to being challenged, how the hell is a woman supposed to feel.

Another factor in the excusing of men is that some of the more vocal libertarian women in the media seemed to want to join in. Certainly point 3 above was wafted around mainstream newspapers in female penned columns. But let’s not get too distracted by that. The women in these particular media outlets are in their jobs purely because they are willing to excuse men or certainly attack other women’s groups or ethnic minorities.

What to conclude from this, I do not know. I am loathe to call women victims because that is me imposing my feelings on a whole group of independent individuals, but the key point is that if a woman tells me she is scared, my job is to believe her and reflect on what I can do to adjust my behaviour. If a woman tells me she is uncomfortable it’s not for me to say, oh don’t worry, it’s just me being a dick. The right answer is stop being a dick. I might think I’m harmless but if one woman is scared then probably others are too. It’s the same late at night or in busy places. I don’t get close to women on their own. They may or may not be scared or aware of me, but if I am conscious of my presence it’s likely they are too. Step away, cross the road. If that’s not possible say something to reassure. Defuse any anxiety.

Admitting to myself that I can be as scary and intimidating as other men in these situations is not a reflection of my behaviour or my honour. In fact by acknowledging and creating space then the women around me know that I am not a threat. They feel better and so do I. The only way to be less threatening is to actively behave in a less threatening way. It works and from what I have heard and read this week it is all that women are asking. They are not saying all men are bad but please behave in a way that reassures strangers and doesn’t add to fear.

The final point is that about men challenging men. The problem is spotting it quick enough. Men I have known in the past, even the most laddish who from the outside might be perceived as at risk of predatory behaviour would also go to the extremes to ensure a woman was safe. They are remarkably respectful and honourable in public spaces and go out of their way to look after women around them. For example, in a taxi queue, they would let women jump the queue to get the first cab. Small things but probably a relief to any lone girls standing in a drunken queue. A friend was always the biggest lad around and he was quite happy to risk the wrath of the men waiting to ensure the girl was safe. Though he might turn around and joke about the size of her chest back to us, he would never let the girl feel unsafe. I guess it shows that being around men and groups of men there can be all sorts of behaviours, some less forgivable than others.  

In bars, where most of the time I observe poor behaviour, girls are mixing in the same groups. The dynamics are complex so sometimes I look away. As I’m not frequently out on my own late at night, I see less of the stalker type behaviours. Though for all my lack of seeing it, I have no doubt it exists. How do I know? Because women tell me. Reading all the social media stories last week tells me and should tell all of us. Pay more attention and see what’s happening. And if possible, intervene, do something.

Why deny someone their experience? So often in these pages I wonder why people, mainly men, believe that being considerate and empathic takes something away from them. We must do better. I must do better. We all have women in our lives, perhaps we should listen more and judge less.

International Women's Day, So let's hear from a man

 It’s International Women’s Day and that means it’s time for a man to share his opinion. You would think actually, this day, should be a day of respectful silence for men. A day for once where our opinion can stay purely a thought with no requirement for it to be shared verbally or in writing with a woman.

I can hear the voice of every woman in the country collectively chiming… I can live with that. So by rights that should be the end of this blog whilst I take my silence.

Nah, not going to happen.

In lieu of my silence I would like to use to this blog to wonder why men struggle with such silence around women.

First let’s deal with the male voice choir requesting an International Men’s Day. In fact, there is one. It’s in November but nobody cared. Not even men. And that’s kind of the point. Most men don’t feel the need to campaign for recognition because we can’t claim history bypassed us or denied us. Men were ahead of the queue before queues were invented. This front of queue phenomenon has been sold as either natural male supremacy and that women should appreciate being an important second or alternately as a heroic need for us to queue on behalf of women to provide and share resources.   

Men are crying foul as we are bumped from the queue and women are asking for a share of the front spot. Sadly men colleagues, we have to recognise we’ve had the front seat since the beginning of humanity so we can gracefully sit this one out a little longer. It’s terrible I know.

This victim sentiment is powerful and moving. Having had all the patronage through thousands of years it is quite tragic to realise that we might not be as important as we like to think. Tiny violins are being played by women as they try not to collapse in hysterics. Also men complaining about women playing victim card in their campaigns, now claiming to be victims ourselves, is acute level irony.

Men do better please.

Seriously nothing bad ever happened because a woman got a job. Whilst a woman having a valid point of view might feel like some act of castration, it really isn’t. Men, here’s an experiment.  Close our eyes and mouth for a few moments and listen to said point of view. It’s scary I know but when we open our eyes once more, the world will still be there. The house will not have fallen down and all our bits will still be intact. We might even like it. After all, men, our egos have to do a lot of work so giving them a day off might do wonders for our longevity.

So why do us men fail at this so abysmally? It’s simple. Everything politically and socially is sold as a zero sum game. If we give women one of our chips then we will have less chips. Also if we give her one chip then she’s want more of them until we will have none left. It’s so unfair until we realise that we had far too many chips and keeping them all for our self is what’s being making us fat and ill. So share. But the world has an infinite number of chips. Giving women more chips doesn’t mean we have less because if we’re clever we just make more chips. Most of our resources, jobs and even queues, have more than enough spaces for men and women. It is simply a convenient perception that by sharing something, we automatically have less.

Observe the way politicians always talk of financial constraints where it is suggested if we give a nurse a pay rise, we have to drown a migrant. Why can’t we give nurses a pay rise and stop migrants drowning at the same time. Answer is. We can. We can do both and do lots of other things. That is what life is about, picking how we prioritise. You can have 1000 things on a list and order them in priority but still do all of them. Repeatedly we are told it’s the opposite of that. Men are being given the wrong message and education about this sharing business. I wonder who it is that keeps telling men that they are being deprived of something.

Oh that’s right…. Men.

So for the women of the world, I apologise for men. We are macho, tough, heroes, your natural superiors at the same time as being victims and fearful that you might do something better than we do. It’s not your fault we are complicated, contradictory beings that barely understand ourselves.

Enjoy your day Women. You deserve it today and every day because men have got a heavy debt to pay before we get to even.

Meanwhile, perhaps we can have a new day in the calendar for men. A ‘Get Over Yourself’ day. Men can spend the day in a vacuum or in the middle of a forest and told to shout out 100 opinions an hour. At the end of the day we can ask ourselves if nobody heard us speak, did anyone give a shit.

Nothing is more boring than our own opinions. My characters have far more of value to say

 

Writing has taught me something that I might otherwise have failed to learn. It perhaps makes me who I am, still flawed in the usual ways but having worked out some of what matters to me.

The core challenge of writing is farming knowledge from people around me to develop stories and characters. If we only ever wrote from a single point of view, that is, our own, then all writing would be one dimensional, predictable and boring. Like some other writers, when I began, I wrote in order to express an opinion or tell the world what I think. Quickly I learnt that politically motivated rants offer little nuance without a character to support. Writing therefore is not about imposing my opinion on other people but listening and understanding other points of view. Giving life to them. Their opinions might actually be more important than mine. This is extraordinarily powerful when exploring the experience of women and other minority groups. The downtrodden or victims of abuse.

That is a lesson in life. Ask myself, why do people think or do what they do? The conclusion is rarely vastly different from our own motivations. So learning about ourselves helps us to understand others.

As an exercise this starts with self-exploration, gathering my own motivations, darker desires, framing my opinions and getting a sense of my own imperfections. This self-examination is by no means a perfect exercise. The results can be inconsistent and frequently affected by mood. Some people are self-critical, others struggle to admit failings so easily and will see history in rose tinted ways. It is hard to be honest with ourselves but the exercise remains useful. Others will attempt similar learning through spirituality and I have complete respect for the centuries old traditions of self-exploration through religion or meditation as long as it is not some kind of self-harm or sacrificial ritual. That kind of activity is the opposite of learning. The creation of pain or harm seems wholly unnecessary when so many other methods exist.

I am keen to understand spiritual rituals more. In my complete minimalist superficial exploration of these methods so far, they have been useful for clearing my mind, but have taught me little more about myself.

My self-learning has been through the creation of story characters. I started this piece by talking about listening and learning from others. This allows me to create the story characters and see life through their eyes. Using the first person in writing empowers those characters to be bolder and share with the reader elaborate versions of me. The reader can take a view that some of what is described is the writer’s personal point of view but clearly if my character is a woman or someone distinctly different e.g. age, ethnicity then the ability of the reader to attach meaning to the writer is challenged. For the writer in me, it allows me to braver with content. Things I don’t feel able to talk about or say myself are given voice and power. Without this self-expression I couldn’t be as brave. I guess actors would say something similar. By becoming a character they can give more of themselves.

In my characters, I know the bits that belong to me and those I stole from others. The extent to which I do that is unimportant to the reader as long as the story is worth it. But for me it is invaluable. It has given me the discipline to avoid judgement and understand more about why people are the way they are. As stated above it’s not a perfect process. I still slip into opinion and lazy judgement at times. I simply try to do it less.

The times I am more likely to slip into such lazy judgement is when faced with those who don’t have this self-examination. Those who deny others their experience and lack empathy. Those who tell rather than listen, impose rather than encourage, create difference rather than seek union.

Modern social exchanges lack much about what we learned from each other in the past. As convenience creates apathy and empathy collapses when we need it most.

Sharing has never taken anything away from me. I still have my preferences and choices, I still see myself as individual. The worry is that many still struggle with this and the more we challenge the harder the point of view becomes. I found my way but can’t see why others don’t do the same. Apathy and convenience might be the answer. The result is extremes grow stronger. As they encourage more hardening of views, we will all be less for it.

The Great Deflection: Gaslighting for Beginners

Gaslighting is an overused phrase in modern social media parlance largely because it is actually  the most successful form of getting away with it and has been for years.

The first of lesson in gaslighting is that it's never your fault. Especially if you are a man. Great examples of the ancient form, she's a witch who some how used her magic spells to make you want to have sex with her. Temptress, harlot, progressing neatly to the modern day golddigger or perhaps, if she hadn't worn that short skirt and flashed her eyes like that, you would never have noticed her. Her constant complaining made you want to have an affair. .

Second lesson of gaslighting is do not under any circumstances admit guilt. This is actually the hardest part. The whole point of gaslighting is exposing the weakness in other people. The worst think you can therefore do is let your own weakness come to the fore. Denial even in the face of absolute truth is very powerful. Because your accuser has to accuse you of lying or question her own evidence. The accusation of lying against a partner is almost the nuclear option. Partners are less likely to throw a bomb into a relationship because the consequence of such a truth is that the relationship has to end. By denying this truth, the accuser has to work backwards to explain away evidence. The self-doubt generated is extraordinary. Done once, a crack is opened in the door, it's easy to force the window wider and gaslighting is in full swing. Examples of this including, you being seen kissing a girl only to be explained as a quick peck on the cheek with a friend, persuading the accuser that they didn't see the kiss at all.

The third lesson is deflection. If the rules of blame and denial are failing, it's now better to create a diversion. Classic in this genre is to declare illness. Your partner will immediately be obliged to show sympathy and if they area already semi-gaslighted they will be happy to accept the excuse not to face the truth. The gaslit partner is the most caring ever. The other form of deflection is that common in the legal form. Blame the process, make them question procedure because whilst all your accusers are discussing which is the correct process, the rules of the game, you're still getting away with it.

It's an artform and can be taken to any extreme. Practice is the key. Once you experience and see how powerful it is to reduce your accuser to doubting their own self-worth, the game is won. Once you see it, it can't be unseen. it's everywhere in life, in the workplace, in politics, especially in the government. 

Government are the masters of  gaslighting, persuading a nation that the countries problems they created are somehow the fault of foreigners, bureaucracy, looney left councils, single mothers or anyone who gives a shit. 

Practice makes perfect. The gaslighter has nothing to fear from the truth because the truth is whatever you say it is.

People who love the flag too much

 

I’ve never been a flag worshipper of any type. As someone growing up with the National Front and the British National Party hoarding the flag like a political accessory, I found it represented everything I wasn’t. Plus on the streets where I grew up I didn’t find the flag much of visible presence. The St George’s Cross I honestly would not have recognised until well into the eighties. Most flags I saw were football ones and even those I avoided because being openly partisan at school or in the street usually resulted in a punch on the nose.

That’s stuck with me despite being an England fan in sports and enjoying football. I never felt the need to wear the kit or the flag.

In 2003 when I went to work in The Hague national flags suddenly became of interest and I had to think about the flag that was supposed to represent me. The Dutch national flag which was visible quite often on people’s houses and they seemed far prouder of their flag than I was off my own. In a multinational office many people had their desk adorned with a neat national flag. Malaysia, Germany, France, Singapore, South Africa, USA. Flags abundant. But I was reluctant to get a Union Jack flag. Why was that? Here was all my colleagues quite proud of their country and here is me reticent of the same.

Eventually I brought out the flag as part of the frequent sports banter that adorns any office and became easier to showcase my colours. Plus it is fact that I cannot change. I am British and this flag is the most recognisable form to other people. England flag the same. I am as English, British as it comes and I cannot claim any other heritage of meaning. Such a claim would have been mighty hand come the Brexit years.

The striking thing I learnt in those years was not only people’s love of Britishness, Englishness and much of our traditions and habits, it was quite clear they often appreciated things I never did. The tourist sights, our habits, our ultra-long winded way of saying something simple. They seemed to delight in these quirks so I should too. It taught me to be own my heritage a little more. It wasn’t something to deny but actually celebrate.

It’s not easy to shake off those who feel patriotism only belongs to right wing politics. Especially in recent years as this theme has returned with a vengeance as identity politics grows. So I still have to fight the assumption that someone waving a British flag isn’t also a nationalist, a racist, someone full of hate for other nationalities. The thing I learnt more than anything in The Hague was, whilst we had some banter and fun poking about national traits it was never negative or competitive. No malice came with it. Loving your own country doesn’t mean hating another.

The union jack wavers I too often see at home and tattooed on arms frequently are not so altruistic. It’s a zero sum game.

I remember in the 80’s Norman Tebbit, one of Thatcher’s right wing ideologists talked about his cricket test. This meant if you didn’t support England at the cricket then you were not a patriot, directly and deliberately challenging those of South Asian or Caribbean origins for being proud of their heritage. This divisiveness is still prevalent today though the EU flag being the recent enemy of choice is all about saying you can’t be both British and European. You can’t be both Indian and British.

It works as well. It plays wonderfully to those who believe that immigration has taken something from them. Also a complete insult to those who found love for the complex and fascinating idea of wanting to be both things at once. And why can’t we? We are none of us one thing so why does our nationality have to enforce a rigid and xenophobic approach to those not born to that flag. The deeper I think about it the more farcical and ridiculous it becomes. The fact that we test people’s patriotism or love of a country by a flag just becomes silly.

It’s not to say other countries don’t have similar problems with flags and what they represent. I remember being caught up in very brutal argument about Dutch racism. It was about Zwarte Pete and the representation of slave labour. The white Dutch telling the black Dutch how he should feel about it. Always an interesting lesson in point of view when I watch someone being denied their own experience.

I don’t believe I will ever have a love for the union jack or any single flag because I don’t want the flag to define me. If I had all the flags that represent me now it would be about 10 different ones from India to the EU. All of them represent a part of me and that is something I am proud of.   

Priti Patel: Hero or Traitor to the liberal cause

 Clearly Priti Patel is no hero to liberalism so the question is easily answered. And in truth I don't want to waste this blog discussing her as an individual. I don't know her as a person and frankly care less about her. I am more interested in what she represents.

As a woman of South Asian ethnic origin in one of the three great positions of state she should be a role model, hero of women of similar origin. This is an Asian woman alongside other Asian male colleagues who are at senior levels of government. On all levels of achievement it is remarkable and refreshing to see in the seats of power. It should demonstrate the power of meritocracy in a multi-cultural society. All of us should be applauding and acknowledging the benefits of multi-culturism. 

And there lies the problem.

These people didn't land their jobs in government on the back of such values. They did not enter the government flying the flag of inclusive representation. In fact each one of them signed up to the opposite. 

Individually each of the progressions is remarkable in itself. That they have navigated the political environment and found a way to the top is some ways a lesson to us all .You can do it. But the point is, whatever route they took, it was opportune to them and probably fortuitous. One of the key eligibility criteria particularly for this government is to sign up to the message that the system works for them and therefore by default for everyone else.

Where other people falter, where statistics back up the absolute fundamental fact that women and Asians are so poorly represented at highest levels of organisations, it's obvious the system doesn't work. By denying that truth to their peers, they gaslight the nation into believing there is no problem.

This is the worst message for the country. It is the worse messages for the women and people of colour who are more than qualified for leadership but  they are denied opportunities. That their failure is their own fault for not working hard enough, not playing the game, not making the moral compromises they did. 

I remember Thatcher's attitude to other women in her party. She herself was totally dismissive of the female experience. She promoted a message  that not only were females generally flawed in leadership roles despite her position, she showed you had to be more ruthless and tough than men. What a poor legacy to leave behind?

All of this denial of the experience makes it much harder for anyone else. It gives power to the white establishment base to point to Priti or Rishi and say, they can do it, so anyone can. Therefore there is no problem. Discussion over.

There was a debate last year over racism experience in public life. Priti Patel spoke eloquently of her experience of racist abuse in her life.  Stark and horrific abuse. Empathy for that experience was all around except that she chose to weaponise that experience and deny the same voice to other black or Asian women. Her point was, I experienced it and survived, so it's alright then. Saying to every other dark skinned woman, get over it. As home Secretary this is astonishing. We almost expect it from an accused male to blame a raped woman for  his act because she was asking for it due to some clothing she wore. How often do we hear women as well as men, joining in the debate to side with the abuser and not the victim. Too often.  This just shows how those shielded from such experiences or having got over them, deny empathy to those who are suffering victims, making excuses for the abusers. 

Here we have a home secretary saying that women of colour, people of colour have to get over it rather than make the debate about the abusers. 

This is why she betrays her origins. With power comes responsibility and also opportunity. People such as the home secretary as a woman of colour could be a major cheer leader for her peers. But instead, to win favour with her government colleagues, she does the opposite. 

Fundamentally this is a double whammy of disappointment for her potential successors.  Not only to succeed do you have to make moral compromises to deny your own heritage, you have to deny the opportunity to others. It's sick, frightening and immensely frustrating. 

That those who should be role models are the worst advocates for their own peers could be a door closing hard on them.

Not only does that make her a traitor to her peers but the greatest ally of racists. The exception that proves the rule 

Anti-Woke: Ignorance in a better suit

Confession: I'm a man and also astonishingly white as a boy from Manchester gets. My apparent Red Wall upbringing of hard core anti-liberalism, a vital dose of sexism and an education steeped in religious puritanism (or lets' call it what it is.. Racism) should be all that I am. At the age of 50 something I should be angry at statues, angry at foreigners, the EU and especially women. They've all apparently stole something from me. 

Only I've no idea what. I find that meeting new people and learning about their experience is good for me and good for them. 

As a white man I've always been a bit careful of commenting on affairs of race and sex. The temptation to preach and patronise is waiting for an invitation.  So I've stuck to a more individual approach avoiding being the smart ass.

But a friend spoke to me about being a stronger voice for minority groups. When victims of injustices speak out the response is to treat them as victims, at arms length and allow their individual stories to deny that their experience is common place.  In recent decades this victim blaming reduced and inequality campaigns found not only people listening but actually being inclusive was quite good for business. I thought my advocation was unnecessary.

But racists and sexists are not done yet. Realising that being called a racist was a bit 1970's they've come up with a new word. Woke. This allowed them to deny any progressive discussion on inequality. The trick is for them to be able to insult the good guys. Like remainer made the protection of the status quo a radical position, woke uses the same tactic to undermine those who like to be polite and tell positive stories of culture. 

Being anti-woke is a reversal of polarity giving favour to racists and sexists and anyone who wants to deny other human elements. It works. The word has grown in power and regularly appears in newspapers and tv media. Woke equals bad, establishment, token culture. Anti-woke is somehow enlightened position of the real world experience where bad behaviour has a get out of jail free card... something about free speech or natural order or the real money spinner, that somehow they are being denied something. Woke is theft of experience or freedom. Giving something to minority groups is taking away from white men. Utter bollocks but paranoid positions attract anyone looking to blame someone else for their failures. 

So being an advocate for minority positions, being an active supporter of victims and challenging those who chose hate instead of fairness is a good thing. I will endeavour not to hide my light under a bushel and use my privilege to do better.

Returning to the fray

 I took a few years off from writing seriously and blogging.

Part of that was circumstances with a busy job but also lacking confidence in my own place as a writer, my level of skill and whether I was playing at it or not.

Plus following my last dig into politics in Death of a Kingdom, the political debate around these topic lines went toxic and difficult to navigate. I commented on much of the matters in the books I wrote with an anti-nationalist verve and anti-hate. But following Brexit...the consensus I felt existed around this anti-nationalist sentiment was blown apart. I couldn't understand how much hate there was around, particularly for foreigners unleashed in open conversation. I confess to not being able to answer that question and probably never will. People call it 'woke' like it is kind of insult to look for good in people and try to be honest around our historical/national flaws. Nothing is ever perfect but the chance to learn from mistakes is what makes us intelligent beings. Plus the assumption that our neighbours only exist to rob us or possess us... where does that kind of paranoia leave us? See I'm doing it again.

But I have learnt to moderate my thinking, to accept that a different view of the world is prevalent. 

In writing, I have always found my heroes at the back of queue for greatness and used my words to give them a status they would never have found. I've broadened the net now and will try to talk more about that in this blog and try to avoid the bonfire of debate in the toxic hell of divisive politics.

I've also travelled a fair bit in last five years and my outlook is broader and more inspired. If that doesn't get me writing, what would.

Lots more to come in new blogs but for the moment will reinstate myself on the landscape and say hello once more

Obama lights a fire

I’ve enjoyed the EU referendum debate for the most part because I’ve been wanting to argue the remain side as passionately as Exiters have dismissed our European neighbours in the superior, we know better tone, they love to use whilst wrapped in an Union Jack and a rack of military medals. I do find it odd that the instinctive military formed nationalism certain media love to portray is based around hatred of the continent many thought hard to defend. Our world war two heritage should give us moral authority in Europe but instead we wasted that with paranoia and a superiority complex. The world has moved on without caring for the opinions of the British.

That’s why it’s good to see Obama light a fire under the debate and tell us all, it’s not just about you little Britain. It’s about everyone and it’s about time you woke up to see that the civilised world does not stop at the white cliffs of Dover.

So now the debate has extra vim and gusto as the US tells us what’s right and Brexit screams in lame protest. It’s ok for the Daily Mail and it’s off shore media moguls to make up twaddle about the Europe and tell us what’s right but the US President… no way. His opinion doesn’t count at all.

American arrogance decorates his words which is often the thing that most winds us up across the Atlantic. But swap Obama for Trump or Clinton and do we really think the message would be any different. It’s only a few months ago we debated Trump's arrogance and blatant racism in Parliament so don’t expect him to be reaching hands across the water. I am confident American high opinions don't have any overt influence over us but it is worth remembering that if we are not in the EU we will need America more and more. To say differently is nonsense. Shun and hate it all you like, but switch on the TV, and flick through the channels. Tell me they don’t already dominate our language, our media, our lives. The price we pay for more trade will likely be on terms we won’t enjoy. The US may even demand equal employment terms for exporting companies. There goes the minimum wage. Take annual holidays. Many US corporations give employees two weeks leave a year. In the EU it’s a minimum of four weeks in most cases. I know what I’m voting for.  

Obama has waded into the debate with heavy boots but take heed not of the threat, but the reality of a world where we are on our own. Yes nations will want to sell us the same and more than they do today, but don’t pretend those nations will give a toss about our marvellous history. Think of Tesco’s doing a deal with a lowly farmer as they screw them into the ground and that’s pretty much how others will see the UK opportunity. Think of China licking their lips. Soon they will have influence over every major investment the UK has. No longer dominated by the EU but bought and paid for by China.

Like any bully, a threat says more about them then it does about us. But like most bully’s we can’t ignore them. We can reach a hand out to shake in friendship but the US is just as likely to pull a raspberry in our faces as reciprocate the handshake.

Vote remain, is about good sense not fear.

2nd May – The great GBSD day out!

The political landscape changed forever. The clowns can no longer be ignored. The British people have spoken and the politicians of the major parties must listen. The day where the politics of GBSD came to life.

UKIP stand’s for UK independence party but also equally works as GBSD, the Great British Self Delusion. When you read a manifesto from the UKIP, which if you have, good luck to you, because it’s more than most of the party, you get a real handle on the extent of the delusion. To be honest the manifesto is pretty much taken from the editorial highlights of the Daily Mail. Pick up this journal every day and you’ll get the picture.

The question of why the 2^nd May is such a big day comes back to the message of GBSD. This is a lot more than a protest vote, GBSD offers much more than that. It is the belief that somewhere on earth there is a place where we are better than anyone else. That because on our Island we are clearly better by breed, as long as we keep everyone else away from the shores, then we will do very well thank you very much and the rest of the world can drown in its own vial un-English hell.

Why do we believe this shit? It’s not like the established parties don’t peddle the same hogwash every day, but because we have a fresh nob saying it who doesn’t have to dress it up in pretty pictures we suddenly believe it. Why do we suddenly believe one pompous arse can do better than the pompous arses that are already decorating our TV screens? The only advantage Farage has is that he readily admits his own ridiculousness. For this 25% of the folk who could be bothered to step out of the comfort of their own sheds this is a message worth listening to.

The media essentially created GBSD as the alternative world of anti-everything. The place where everything you don’t like is taken away and you’re only left with whatever you like. GBSD is the party of perfection perception. The pretend world where reality is locked away in a Europe shaped box and the key thrown away.

GBSD works because reality is hard to manage. Dealing with the world as it is, recognising that decent people exist in all shades and languages, and that the bogeyman is far closer to home would break open the fallacy of GBSD.  But we don’t want to hear that. So GBSD sounds far better. Good luck to Farage for generating the GBSD debate. Perhaps only when reality breaks open the GBSD mould, we might start listening to politicians who deal with reality as reality and people as people.

We can hope that next time the 2^nd May big day out occurs, it’s something to truly write about. 

Sitting on the Fence

I wonder whether I’ve sat on the fence too long. I have tried to write books with reasoned arguments, with characters displaying passionate arguments for their point of view then fighting it out to the death to see who’s right. Yes it wouldn’t take long for the reader to work out where the author’s sympathies lay even though every character gets a chance to offer a reasoned defence.

That’s all well and good, I guess the book is called A Hierarchy of Reason and what’s that title worth if it is not exploring reasoned arguments for the things we do. My question is more specific than that. I look at some of the bloggers and political activists that litter the news and wonder whether I’m actually being soft. Like supporting your football team. Are you a shirt wearing, no-holds barred, fan who is convinced beyond doubt that your team is the absolute best and every other team is not worthy to be who they are. Or, as I’ve always been, liked my team but rather enjoyed watching certain others, retaining any denegration purely for current rivals. For instance I always hated Arsenal when I thought they could get the Title off Man Utd, but now I know they are unlikely to in the near future, I can appreciate watching them.

So it has become clear that I’m not a heart of my sleeve type of person. I like exploring viewpoints but won’t nail my colours to the mast. So what am I scared off? To return to the football analogy it’s because I was scared of getting a bloody nose, especially living on the wrong side of the Pennines these days for my football origins. I also think I’ve been scared of upsetting people. That goes to right to the depths of it. In writing terms it would suggest maximising your audience, something for everyone kind of thing, but am I failing myself by doing this.

The great writers were known for their ability to write with passion about a subject. They had a sense of their own righteousness and flogged it to the rest of the world whether they wanted to hear it or not. By reasoning your theoretical enemies perhaps you give them more credit than they deserve. If you think something is wrong, it’s wrong! You can listen to mitigation but you don’t have to be an independent judge. You’re a writer, the only opinion in your story that counts is your own. Of course this is high risk. A proportion of your audience will not appreciate it, but maybe you will be more respected in the literary world for your passion and defiance in your writing. The worst example for me of this was a strong catholic enjoying A Very English Revolution, my first book. The truth is, it was meant to be uncomfortable reading for a Catholic, not to be enjoyed but endured (maybe there was a little Christian kindness/politeness being offered in her response). By allowing my Catholic bad guy a forum for his individuality and separating him from his brethren I had let the enemy of the hook.

So it really is time to get off the fence.

Passion requires a clarity of viewpoint… but then isn’t it good to listen and learn. Make your mind up….

Writing and the Real World

The question begs from my recent blogging absence, am I a writer or someone who plays at it whilst doing a proper job? A proper job in this case meaning something that whilst having its moments of interest, largely features in the means-to-an-end category. I do it because I have to.

So what does that do to writing? In the last few months, pretty much killed it stone-dead. I have written a few words but hardly anything of consequence. It saddens me a little, but probably not as much as you might think. Yes I have these big macho targets that I will write this and I will write that and in a year’s time, I can give up work and sell a million copies…. And yes I am still dreaming.

Writers, like every other dreamer, do live in the real world, at least for the moments when they are not exploring their odd fantasies on the page. Full time writers, except those living in the sales stratosphere or sitting on some other privileged pot of money still have a job of work to do. Everyone has to pimp and negotiate their way round the next pay cheque, much of it at the bidding of publisher with massive sales target expectations.

We all need to earn money to eat, including publishing sales directors. How much largely depends on how expensive your tastes are or how many dependents with expensive tastes you’ve created along the way.

It’s probable I have expensive tastes and possibly there are others around me drawing on that fund in some way. Therefore I have to earn money to cover that cost. The fact of life! The most effective way to do that is the day job and consequently the balance of writing time is lowered in proportion to it. Sad though might seem that way, it really isn’t. This isn’t a plea for sympathy but an acceptance of the choices you make. I could be the full time writer and make a business of flogging my wares round every shop in the country eeking out a living from random sales. No more day job, I could be the frugal artist. But I choose not to be because this is my getting away with it balance. Writing therefore is my indulgence, my passion but not my job. I do it when I can and I hopefully enjoy that indulgence and get to walkaway whenever it gets too hard or other things are more fun.

So yes I would like to write more and to achieve things in the literary world, but only when the time is right.

For the moment I will enjoy my job, smile at the hassle as it batters me with each day, and then indulge in the continuation of expensive tastes. I can finish the book tomorrow.

A Hierarchy of Reason - Launch Party

I will be launching A Hierarchy of Reason at a new PopUp Events store in Brick Lane area of London.

POPUPcollection

                                                     28 Cheshire Street, E2, London

                                                          18 August 2012 14:00 

If you are in London that day please join us

Store and other event Details http://popupevents.co.uk/signature-events/ 

Book Store Opportunity for UK Authors

I'm working with a friend anna@popupevents.co.uk  to put 15 independent British Authors in a new popup store in Brick Lane area of London. Anna is setting up the store for up and coming designers. 

The shop is on Cheshire Street, just off Brick Lane, opening on the 15th of August (although the launch party is likely to happen a week later, simply too many things to organise at once).

There will be a mix of design products, including fashion, accessories, jewellery, prints, photography, home ware and interior design. In terms of books I would like to create a shelf dedicated to new British writers and have between 3 and 5 titles there each month. The shop will stay open for 3 months so there will be an opportunity for max 15 writers to get involved.

 In order to create interest Anna is giving authors a special deal (only for writers though), £87 per calendar month (£20 per week) per title. She's not VAT registered yet so won’t add VAT on top of this. Please note there is a charge 10% commission from sales to cover the cost of card terminals and transactions. You are welcome to bring in as many copies as you’d like as I have a large basement for extra stock.

This is a great opportunity at not a lot of money to put your books in a store and get exposure to a captive market.

If you are interested and want to get involved please contact myself norristeve@gmail.com or anna@popupevents.co.uk 

Cheers

Steve

A Hierarchy of Reason – A Hierarchy of Learning

As the second novel makes it to print the question arises whether this is better or worse than the first.

It’s easy to believe that the first novel, A Very English Reason, packed with storylines, packed with agendas and long thought through characters cannot be repeated. All my ideas packed into one story.

The thing you learn about writing though, is that whilst themes can be common and reused, good characters and stories create their own histories. It is therefore the case the more you write, the more stories you have to tell. One book leads to another and the need to over cram story lines dissipates. You know you can write, all you need to do is write better.

A Hierarchy of Reason is the result of knowing the process of writing a book and getting to the end will happen as long as you keep writing. This gives me the confidence to think more about what I want to achieve and how the characters live, because the book will take care of itself.

Writing like any process works better with practice. Will the next book always be a better book? I don’t always think that is the case but I think every book will have something you learnt from the last one and should mean that you apply it to producing a better product.

Looking forward to seeing A Hierarchy of Reason in the hands of readers and hearing whether they think what I do, that whilst A Very English Revolution is a good read. This one is better.

Sequels – Do I have to read the first one?

This is a challenge for any author particularly for a new one penning their first set of stories. Think about it, you’ve done well, banged out a reasonably successful first tale. Got some credit, a fan base that will hopefully pick up your sequel but you need to grow. The second book in an ideal world will sell more than the first book. More people know who you are, you have some reviews and credibility in the market and an author with two books is not a one hit wonder.

But your book is a sequel or the second in a series or like me you want to portray it as a new story using the same characters. This makes your target readership somewhat split. You will have seen it many times with authors of substantial series. One part of them wants to play to the fan base, hinting back to in-jokes or mentioning a key element of a previous story in order to remind the reader of what fun they had in the last one, perhaps demonstrating how far a character had developed since the first story. The other part for the author, especially true of new authors, you want new readers to pick this book up and when they ask, do I have to read the first one?, you can quite categorically need to say…NO.

Think of it like a football match or rugby or any other repetitive game. The same players start the game but you don’t have to have been at the previous game to enjoy the match. You can watch it and enjoy the ninety minutes without knowing that the No 7 got sent off three weeks ago, or that the striker is top scorer this season. It helps to understand the characters and the back story, but the real essential is that you start with a fresh story and that story plays out within the time period of the game, hopefully leaving a little something that will bring the punter back through the turnstiles next time.

There are some clear contradictions in managing your fans move to the new game. Assuming people enjoyed your first outing, let’s look at the pleasing the repeat fans first

·         Characters – So we already know that Rachel is 35 and used to be in a folk band and had a boyfriend who betrayed her and she nearly died at the end. So the repeat fan might want you to jog their memory a little but will quickly realise that they know stuff and will start skimming through repeat detail. We would like our readers not to be skimming.

·         Continuing story lines – so at the end of the previous book we left a cliff hanger, we blew up the Town Hall and we need to know who survived. So yes we need to mention the old story line and connect the two books up, but we must avoid at all costs retelling the old story. The old reader has read it already and again will start skimming.

·         In jokes and character development – We want our repeat customers to feel loved, feel like they are part of the character journey. These are the things that long term successful series writers do brilliantly. Their fans want to read the whole series because the players become the story more than the game they are playing. They want the soap-opera and to feel like they were there from the beginning, so that means giving them something to chew on. If Joe and Sarah got it together in book one, we want to know how it went, we want to refer back to their first night of passion and the strains they went through.

How does this conflict with the new fan.

·         Characters – The new fan doesn’t know on page 1 that Rachel is 35 and used to be in folk band and had a boyfriend who betrayed her and nearly died at the end. As some of this information may be key to your character portrayal you will need to find a way to inform your new reader without boring the old one. The key to this is remembering how dull back story can be to read. So golden rule here is tell as little as you can get away with doing. For example in this case we can easily slip in an age note and hint at the music credibility, but summarise the boyfriend story with a brief note on her bad history with men. Job done.

·         Continuing story line – Very tricky to manage. This is the real element of, Do I have to have read the first one? We would like even our new readers to know there is an on-going story and to a certain extent it might be an opportunity to hint at what a great story it was and perhaps the reader should go back and read it, but not at the expense of the book they have in their hand. My suggestion is to bring it back in stages. Write the old story into the new with snippets of detail. So with the Town Hall blowing up, we don’t really need to know why but we could mention that Sarah is anxious about loud noises or that Lucy got out of prison early given she was banged to rights at the end of the last one. Back story again is boring, so only tell what you have to make the story work in the now.

·         In-jokes and character development – This will probably go over the head of a new reader because they won’t be able to distinguish between something that was in the first story or just a friendly bit of detail you are adding in. That’s a good thing, but you don’t want too much going over the head of a new reader. They want to quickly feel part of your new world not feel like they are missing out on something. My advice on this is that your first instinct is to not do it. The fact that Joe and Sarah had a fun first night together is kind of good in the moment of the first story, or that Rachel hasn’t got over Alex’s death. Like sometimes with a joke…you had to be there. There are occasions, with a bit of skill, we can reference old occurrences/characters but be careful of the back story rule. Mostly put yourself in the shoes of the new reader and think Do they really need to know this? If the answer is no, then perhaps its best left in book one.

In summary, the common element for both fan bases is, back story is dull, but then you can’t deny the previous story exists. So whenever you come across a need to reference the old story, keep asking yourself the question, Do I need to have read the first book? and this will hopefully encourage you to deal with it in the best way.

© S.G.Norris

A Year On

This time last year I was celebrating seeing my first book in print. It was an amazing and scary moment. A time for realising a dream but scared that it will fall in a mass of disappointment.

It’s fair to say that being an independent author is not going to make you rich. But we know that already, but it is worth exploring what I did get out of it.

Well definitely a sense of pride that you have something of value and record out in the market place. That a stranger picks up your piece of art and takes a gamble on it.

That’s the exciting part on a simple one to one relationship with the reader.

The more disappointing angle is that for 99% of the book buying people either will never see your work or will trundle on by on the basis that you’re unproven and untried. Attracting attention is costly and time consuming and often with minimal reward. Certainly easy to be disheartened and to think it’s not worth the hassle. No matter how much faith you have in your work it’s impossible to convey that sometimes even with a bubbling enthusiasm and a ferocious sales patter.

I find it particularly uncomfortable attempting to force people to buy especially as you know if you were on the opposite side of the table, you would be pulling a face as well. People are curious about new authors, want to believe they are the next undiscovered treasure but loath to risk a purchase for fear of mediocrity. But then your creeping cynicism is undermined when someone listens, likes and buys. It doesn’t happen every day but it does happen if you keep at it.

There is little point denying it is tough so may as well just get one with accepting it. Selling books is hard work and especially paper copies when the e-book market is flooded with giveaways. At £1 a go risk is minimal at £8.99 it’s something akin to cutting off an arm.

Once you accept your position in the pecking order, it’s easier then to get on with enjoying the process rather than pressuring yourself into being a super sales man. So talk to people, talk to fellow authors. Other authors are not the enemy as they are struggling just as much as you. Share ideas, copy success and think radically. One thing I found was bigging up a fellow author results in them feeling obliged to big you up. Like a you scratch my back sort of arrangement.

A year on, I get to start the process with second book now in edit. I feel so much wiser now, confident but realistic, knowledgeable and most of all with a ready-made audience to exploit.

It’s exciting to get your first book out and I have to say realising you have done the second is even more astonishing. I feel at the next level. The pressure though still lives like a devil in the head. You have to do better than the first time. And if you are serious about the process then you are probably right. You have to do better otherwise you will fast see your career as going the way of an x-factor winner, here today, gone tomorrow.

Details of the new book to follow in the coming weeks.

The End - Finally

I can't quite believe it. One year in the writing of this story and I was finally able today to type the words THE END. It shouldn't have taken a year to write but if you work for a living then writing has to play second fiddle to life's priorities. But still a year is ok.
It's a remarkable feeling to finally grasp the end of the story. To know that the story has a beginning, middle and an end. That the idea you started out with, might have wobbled along the way, gone round a few odd corners and climbed a few unnecessary mountains, but it holds together.
Whilst weeks of editing and rewriting are ahead, the story and the characters remain sound, and because of that it will become a book, one way or another.
And what a story this will be.
Five Days of apocalyptic drama on the streets of England. The country held to ransom, characters forced to question who they really are as not only do they hold the answer to what's happening, if they don't face their fears then the consequences for the country are beyond comprehension. Those who read the first outing in A Very English Revolution will recognise some of the characters. That was just the beginning as Five Days pushes their passion, friendships and obsessions into an unprecedented nightmare.