A look back at 2014

Today is the last day of 2014, while tomorrow will be a 2015.  Nothing will change, of course, as we cross that imaginary line in the sand, as the calendar is simply an arbitrary construct, as are all ways of organising time.  Nevertheless, it customary at this time of year to look back over the past twelve months and reflect on the good times, and what one has achieved, with an air of smug self-satisfaction, and I would hate to be the only person on the internet not joining in with this self-congratulatory tradition.

• I left the radiators on all year 'round, because I wanted to see what it would be like to live in the Seychelles (where they worship radiators as demigods).
• I briefly spoke on the phone with the Pope but we got cut off when he lost signal.
• I won three rounds of 'Uno' in a row.
• I invented a new way of peeling vegetables which extracts the inner part of the vegetable through a tube rather than scraping off the outer layers in the old and inefficient method.
• My friends all chipped in to buy me shares in the World's Largest Cucumber.
• I rowed from Britain to Ireland across the Irish Sea in a boat made entirely from elastic bands.
• I ate over 19,000 chips.

Another successful year!  Thanks for being a part of it – and here's to 2015.

Regurgitated media

I was recently introduced to the phenomenon of GoggleBox - a television programme on Channel 4.  Billed as a window into the world of 'Britain's most opinionated viewers', GoggleBox features a variety of 'ordinary people' watching television and talking about it.

It was not long into my first viewing of GoggleBox before I realised that instead of watching television, I was watching other people watch television.  I was consuming second-hand television - instead of choosing to watch something myself, and form my own opinions about it, I had chosen to watch other people do that.

Quite apart from the fact that we are more obsessed that we have ever been about what 'ordinary people' think about anything (that is a topic for another day!), this must be a very easy programme for Channel 4 to make.  It doesn't need a set, or costumes, or scripts, or stuntmen - it doesn't even need any original or creative thinking to make it.  And this, I think, is the main issue I have with GoggleBox; there's nothing new in it - it is regurgitated media.

More and more media these days falls into this category.  On the internet, you'd probably expect that - the average Tumblr Blog probably has more content 'reblogged' from other users than original posts written by the Blog's owner (just one of the reasons why I don't like Tumblr).  But sites like BuzzFeed have taken collating and redistributing other people's material to a whole new level - and now even serious, reputable newspapers post 'articles' which are just a collection of Tweets or posts from other sources, apparently thinking that this constitutes journalism.

On television, though, that feels a little like cheating.  GoggleBox is on at nine o'clock on a Friday night - that's seriously mainstream primetime television - but it doesn't require the creation of any original material at all.  It is simply relaying people's reactions to other original programmes which have already been broadcast.  Channel 4 are passing this off as a television programme in its own right, but I think they're having a laugh.

A look back at 2013

As we approach the arbitrary line-in-the-sand which marks the end of 2013, the beginning of 2014, and the deafening placebo effect of hundreds of shallow individuals convincing themselves they're "turning over a new leaf", many people take time out to reflect on some of the key moments over the previous twelve months and wonder what on earth they are doing with their lives.

Hating to be the exception to any rule, here is a quick summary of my most significant moments from the past year...

• I have been to five different continents - mostly on fact-finding missions, but once just to see if I'd be able to get back.

• I broke the sound barrier using just the power of my mind.

• I've been married twice (but, curiously, divorced three times).

• I won the Turner Prize for my mixed-media piece 'Evaporated Weltschmerz', which is now on display in Latvia's biggest and most well-ventilated art gallery.

• I invented a new pizza topping, which goes on the bottom.

• I built a fully habitable igloo out of only what you can buy in the 'Reduced' aisle in Waitrose, and lived there for two months (during which time I paid no Council Tax, but my heating bills went through the roof).

• I discovered a new species of wasp and a new species of ant - and have since cross-bred them to form a new species of want.

• I bought a new shirt, but so far haven't worn it out anywhere.

Here's hoping that 2014 proves considerably less eventful...!

#Sherlock - a few thoughts

As something of a Sherlock Holmes aficionado, I am often wary of new television or film adaptations.  As such, I am only just getting around to watching the BBC television series Sherlock (created by Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss, and starring Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman) which has received so much attention in the media.

Having only seen the first two episodes of the first series, I don't feel I'm really qualified to write a review.  I am, however, going to write a few thoughts on the subject - which explains the title of this Blog post.

I will start with some positives…  The acting is superb.  I think Benedict Cumberbatch's portrayal of Holmes, in particular, is spot on; eccentric, arrogant, detached, and alternating between frenzied activity and all-consuming lethargy - just as Conan Doyle wrote the character.  Martin Freeman also makes an excellent Dr Watson, and works very well playing the part opposite Cumberbatch's Holmes.

In general, I feel the production works well (although I am yet to make up my mind quite how I feel about the letters-on-the-screen effects, where Holmes' thoughts appear as graphics, seemingly floating in mid-air) and the "modernisation" of the stories isn't grating on me anywhere near as much as I thought it would.  The action is fast-paced and intense, keeping the viewer interested, but without distracting him from the cleverness of the plot lines.

Overall, I have so far found them enjoyable to watch, interesting and exciting.

However, there are also some negatives…  It has been difficult to get used to the use of first names in dialogue between Holmes and Watson.  This may seem like a small point, but being so used to the more formal style of address, in the books, it is proving something of a sticking point, for me.  I hope I will be able to get used to it as the series go on, but for the time being it is still a surprise for me to hear these characters address each other in this fashion.

My main gripe with this adaptation, though, is the increased involvement of certain minor characters.  I didn't like the introduction of Holmes' brother Mycroft so early on in the series, for example, nor the way he was portrayed.  Conan Doyle's Mycroft is a recluse - a founding member of the eccentric Diogenes Club, with even greater powers of observation and deduction than his brother, but with none of the passion or energy for turning those talents to the purpose of solving crime.  He is first introduced in The Adventure of the Greek Interpreter, and he appears again in The Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans and The Adventure of the Empty House, as well as playing a minor role driving a cab in The Adventure of the Final Problem.  His increased involvement in this adaptation seems wrong, to me, and I didn't agree with the way he was played.

The worst example of this, however, is in the case of Moriarty.  I suppose it is an easy mistake to make, but Moriarty is not a major character in the Conan Doyle stories.  Criminal mastermind and Holmes' arch-enemy he may be, but he is only ever involved in a few of the many cases tacked by Sherlock Holmes, and chronicled by Dr Watson.  To try and link him in with every case and every crime, as the writers of Sherlock are trying to do, seems irrelevant and facile - the links are tenuous, and it feels as though he is just being shoehorned into an already perfectly good storyline, just for the sake of it.

As I said, I have enjoyed watching the first couple of episodes, and I am looking forward to seeing the rest.  I find them exciting and engaging adaptations, and much of the spirit of the original stories has been captured by the makers.  I hope that I can get used to the minor issue of the use of first names, and cease to be irked by them - however, I cannot foresee that I will be able to stop being infuriated by the unnecessary inclusion of Moriarty, and I can only hope that, as the series goes on, this flaw doesn't ruin the otherwise pleasurable viewing experience for me.

Rationalising the iPad

So, Apple's famous tablet computer, the iPad, is now available here in sunny Blighty, and the adverts are already all over our televisual devices...  It's not a medicinal gadget, to be taken twice daily with meals (oh c'mon, did you really think I'd be able to resist the obvious pun?!) it's essentially an enormous iPhone...  No, better, an enormous iPod Touch - since the iPad doesn't seem to have any telecommunicative functions...

I'm not going to review the iPad...  Partly because I've never actually seen one in real life, let alone used one, but also partly because other people have already done it, far better than I could ever hope to...

What I am going to do, is try and decide whether I actually want one or not, right here, live on air...  Well, live on this Blog...  How exciting?  No, not really, I know - but don't grumble!  You suggest a better topic!

OK - here we go!  So, why would I want, or not want, an iPad?  I'm going to start with the "cons" - reasons not to get an iPad...  I shall express this, in the form of a diagram, thus -

As you can see, I'm not really sure what the need for iPad is...  It seems to overlap parts of what you can do with a laptop, and parts of what you can do with a mobile phone...  What I'm wondering is - is there anything an iPad does, which can't be done with either a computer or a smartphone?  (I don't actually know the answer to that, and I can't be bothered to do my research, so I shall simply presume that there isn't...)

So, what reasons are there for wanting an iPad?  I clearly don't *need* one - but, every time I see the rational, logical, clear-thinking arguments of the diagram, a little voice in my head wheedles "yeah, but - it's shiny!  It's cool!  It's made by Apple!"

And that's the thing - on a purely emotional level, the iPad really appeals!  So, it's head vs. heart - iPad vs. no iPad...  And, although I claim to be a "rational and intellectual individual" (I love words that end in "al") I know, deep down, that the base desire to have the latest in status-symbol-based gadgetry, to own it, to caress it, to been seen owning and caressing it by others, will win me over every time...

All of which is merely academic - I couldn't possible afford one anyway...!